Pilot risk assessment initiatives provide a scientific, systematic, and interdisciplinary approach to food safety management, meeting international standards.

On February 6, the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development, in coordination with the Safe Food for Growth (SAFEGRO) Project, organized a Consultation Workshop to share the results of pilot food safety risk assessments. The event marked an important step forward in shifting food safety management from a model focused solely on pre- and post-inspection toward an approach grounded in scientific evidence and structured risk assessment.

Speaking at the workshop, Mr. Nguyen Van Thuan, representative of the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development (NAFIQPM) and a member of SAFEGRO’s Coordination Board, emphasized that risk assessment plays a core role and is an indispensable foundation of modern food safety management.

However, when benchmarked against international standards, Viet Nam still faces certain “gaps” in data availability and analytical capacity. Recognizing this challenge, SAFEGRO has identified risk assessment as a key area for intervention and support to Viet Nam.

“This is not a short-term campaign but a multi-year roadmap focusing on building a solid theoretical and practical foundation for technical staff. Many trainees have shared that this is the first time they have accessed such in-depth professional training. The activities go beyond qualitative risk assessment and move toward quantitative risk analysis, providing concrete and accurate figures on the level of impact on consumer health,” Mr. Thuan noted.

Expert Brian Bedard stressed that risk assessment cannot be sustainable without the clear involvement of “risk managers.” While SAFEGRO has provided initial financial support, maintaining and scaling up these activities requires formal recognition by the Government of Viet Nam and a clear designation of who the risk managers are.

“I believe that risk ranking should be prioritized before conducting new assessments, ensuring that resources are optimized and focused on the risks posing the greatest threats to consumers. I also expect continued technical support from the Government of Canada along this roadmap,” he emphasized.

In the context of food safety management in Viet Nam involving the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, SAFEGRO has successfully established a network of dedicated officers from relevant agencies.

According to Mr. Do Thanh Lam, Director of SAFEGRO, this network has helped the food safety sector gain a clearer, more practical understanding of how to organize structured risk assessments from sampling and laboratory analysis to data processing.

At the conclusion of the workshop, the organizers gathered many valuable comments and recommendations from delegates and experts to further refine food safety risk assessment procedures that are suited to domestic conditions while aligned with international practices. Once the final version is completed, SAFEGRO will hand over the results to NAFIQPM for submission to relevant regulatory agencies, providing a scientific basis for the development and improvement of food safety management mechanisms, policies, and regulations in the coming period.

Within the program framework, representatives from the Center for Testing, Inspection and Quality Services and the National Institute for Food Safety Hygiene Testing presented typical risk assessment results conducted recently.

Specifically, the reports focused on: risk assessment of histamine in fish sauce products consumed in Ha Noi; risks of heavy metal residues in certain types of mushrooms commonly consumed in Ha Noi; risks of Salmonella contamination in chicken meat from farm to table in Ha Noi; and risks of histamine exposure from consumption of Scombridae fish in Nghe An Province.

Phương Linh

With support from SAFEGRO, the Safe Food for Growth project, business households in Đường Lâm have not only strengthened their production capacity but are also moving toward building Vietnamese brands for the international market.

On February 4, the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development, in coordination with the SAFEGRO Project and the Son Tay Ward People’s Committee, organized the handover ceremony for the results of the model “Food Safety Linked with Tourism, Culture, and Cuisine in Đường Lâm Ancient Village”.

Mr. Đỗ Thành Lâm, Director of SAFEGRO, stated that after more than 20 months of implementation, the project has directly supported a number of exemplary establishments in Đường Lâm Ancient Village, including Mía Market, Bếp Làng Restaurant, traditional confectionery producers, roasted pork producers, and 15 traditional soy sauce producers across five hamlets. Through in depth training activities, the project has not only delivered tangible benefits to participating entities but has also generated positive spillover effects for many other production and business establishments in the Sơn Tây area.
In addition, the project has invested in equipment for the Đường Lâm model. As of November 2025, the total value of support reached approximately VND 712.7 million, accounting for nearly 85 percent of the model’s total budget. This investment focused on key items aimed at improving production and business conditions and minimizing food safety risks.

According to Mr. Phạm Văn Duy, Deputy Director General of the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development, the model has brought about not only material improvements but also a shift in awareness, mindset, and approaches to ensuring food safety. Step by step, it has helped establish a close linkage between food safety, traditional products, tourism development, and the preservation of local cultural values.
Drawing from practical implementation, Mr. Duy called on food production and business establishments to continue strictly maintaining food safety practices, while improving product quality and building credibility and brands aligned with the tourism market. At the same time, the Son Tay Ward People’s Committee should develop annual plans to sustain and expand the model, integrate it with OCOP programs, tourism initiatives, and ancient village conservation efforts, and strengthen supervision and support for producers.

“I propose that the Hanoi Department of Agriculture and Environment conduct a review and evaluation of the Đường Lâm model to explore the possibility of scaling it up. Communication, promotion, and market development will be the pillars in the post project phase to ensure sustainability,” emphasized a leader of the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development. “As the standing agency of SAFEGRO, the Department will continue to closely coordinate with relevant units to advise the Ministry on improving mechanisms, policies, technical guidelines, and mobilizing resources. We will accompany localities in enhancing food safety effectiveness and developing OCOP products linked to markets.”.

Ms. Stephanie Cyr, First Secretary of the Development Cooperation Section at the Embassy of Canada in Vietnam, affirmed that food safety is always a top priority for Canada, not only domestically but also in international cooperation. To achieve the current results, Canadian specialized agencies such as the Ministry of Health and universities have made very important technical contributions.
Guided by these orientations, Canada prioritizes support for strengthening food safety systems, improving compliance with international standards, and promoting risk based management approaches. This contributes to enhancing Viet Nam’s integration into international markets while reinforcing the credibility of products through safer and more transparent practices.

“We are very pleased that more than 70 percent of the business households participating in the project are women led. With a proactive spirit of learning, women have increasingly asserted their role in production and food safety assurance. I hope the Đường Lâm model will become a good example for replication in other production and business models,” Ms. Stephanie shared.

Mr. Tạ Văn Tường, Deputy Director of the Hanoi Department of Agriculture and Environment, assessed the Đường Lâm model as a well structured approach, well suited to local conditions and effectively linking production with ancient village culture and tourism development. “The model not only raises awareness and changes practices in food production and business among local people, but also creates an important foundation for building safe and sustainable traditional product brands,” he said.

Phuong Linh

Canada has worked closely with Viet Nam to strengthen the country’s food safety management capacity for 15 years. In particular, since 2020, the Safe Food for Growth (SAFEGRO) project has made substantial contributions through a series of in-depth analytical reports on food safety legislation, while also providing technical assistance and training to enhance food safety practices, regulatory oversight, and competency among government authorities and relevant stakeholders.

Canada’s participation, through SAFEGRO, in the two policy consultation workshops on the revision of the Food Safety Law held on January 9^th and 15^th, 2026 marked an important milestone in this effort. This engagement reflects the culmination of a long-standing cooperation process between Canada and its Vietnamese Government partners, including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, and the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

The Ministry of Health presented five major policy pillars, which form the backbone of the revised Food Safety Law, for broad consultation with stakeholders at the workshops including participants from legislative and executive bodies, key ministries, law enforcement and crime prevention agencies, domestic and international business associations, experts, legal professionals, and civil society organizations with long-standing engagement in the food safety sector.

The five proposed policy groups include: strengthening management of high-risk food production and business establishments (Policy 1); decentralizing state management of food safety between central and local levels (Policy 2); risk-based control of processed and pre-packaged foods (Policy 3); risk- and compliance history–based control of imported foods (Policy 4); and tighter control of substances used in food production and processing that pose risks of misuse or abuse (Policy 5).

The two workshops attracted more than 200 in-person participants and 300 online connections. Many comments assessed the proposed policies as being on the right track, aligned with international practices and responsive to current food safety management reform needs. However, many participants emphasized that, if these policies remain at the level of general principles, without clear institutional assignments, enforcement tools, and coordination mechanisms, the transformation of the management model would be difficult to achieve in practice.

Prior to the meeting, SAFEGRO had undertaken a comprehensive review of the proposed new food safety law in the context of a comparative analysis with international best practice, with ten key recommendations. The SAFEGRO team then presented these ten specific solutions to operationalize the five policy groups, which received strong endorsement through the discussion for relevance and coherence. To realize Policy 2, for example, SAFEGRO proposed that the first priority should be the establishment of a unified, autonomous, independent food safety authority from central to local levels. This authority would be responsible for food safety, animal health, and plant health, and would operate a risk-based inspection and surveillance system for both domestically produced and imported foods.

Risk-based food safety management was the solution that received the highest level of consensus at the workshops. Its specific components would support Policies 1, 3, 4, and 5. Dr. Brian Bedard introduced the FIRE system, a new platform developed in Canada enabling data-driven risk analysis and management for imported foods. Representatives from the Transparent Food Association, Ho Chi Minh City Food and Beverage Association, and EuroCham all agreed that a risk-based approach is essential to address the current situation of widespread, costly, yet inefficient inspections. The discussions demonstrated that the concept of “risk-based management” is no longer merely theoretical. Practical examples from export activities, international experience, and Viet Nam’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic were cited as evidence of the model’s feasibility. The key challenge now lies in fully institutionalizing risk-based thinking in the revised Food Safety Law and then implementing it.

Another important issue that attracted significant attention was the requirement for food production and business establishments to develop and submit Preventive Control Plans as a pre-requisite for licensing and registration, a common international practice. This is a mandatory requirement under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Canada’s Safe Food for Canadians Act. Under this approach, businesses are permitted to operate only after their preventive control plans have been approved by the competent authority, rather than relying solely on self-declaration as is currently the case in Viet Nam. This proposal also received strong support from representatives of crime prevention agencies.

Another proposal to restructure the food safety laboratory system was seen as a critical solution to address fragmentation, lack of coherence, and risks of fraud. These concerns were underscored when representatives of crime prevention authorities reported the detection of more than 10,000 falsified test certificates. Standardization, strengthening oversight, and reorganizing the laboratory system were therefore considered essential conditions to ensure the objectivity and reliability of test results.

At the same time, many participants supported the SAFEGRO proposal that inspection and enforcement activities should be based on risk analysis, with a focus on standard enterprise risk profiles in order to avoid overlapping inspections of compliant businesses while overlooking genuine high-risk hotspots.

Proposals to establish a National Food Safety Information System, were endorsed by the representatives of crime prevention agencies, while emphasizing the urgent need for digitalization and data system interoperability. Accordingly, the current voluntary and fragmented traceability systems should be replaced by mandatory legal requirements, under which all actors in the food supply chain are required to store digital data and connect to a national data center, with this data system being regarded as a national asset.

Beyond these core recommendations, SAFEGRO also proposed several additional measures, including aligning the Food Safety Law more closely with international treaties and practices; designing appropriate support policies for small and medium-sized enterprises and small-scale producers and traders; integrating social equity and gender considerations into food safety policies; and a set of subsidies, grants, credits and support programs to facilitate adoption of food safety certification, preventive control plans and traceability among producers and food business operators.

Discussions at the two workshops demonstrated that policy awareness and consensus on food safety management reform solutions have reached a high level. The greatest challenge today is no longer whether reform is necessary, but rather how to transform the current organizational structure, system and drivers to achieve tangible and sustainable results.

In this context, the revised Food Safety Law is expected to serve as a catalyst for a comprehensive modernization of Viet Nam’s food safety management system, meeting the imperative of protecting public health, promoting economic development, and supporting the country’s international trade integration.

When the Law on Food Safety was enacted in 2010, Vietnam’s food supply chains were relatively simple. More than a decade later, urbanization, the expansion of the domestic market, the rise of e-commerce, and the rapid growth of food imports and exports have significantly increased both the scale and complexity of the food system. Meanwhile, the current management model, involving three ministries, has increasingly revealed limitations in the allocation of responsibilities, coordination of resources, and capacity to address food safety risks that extend beyond the boundaries of a single locality.

According to Mr. Chu Quoc Thinh, Acting Director General of the Vietnam Food Safety Authority under the Ministry of Health, this situation needs to be viewed in a broader comparative context. He noted that globally, unsafe food causes an estimated 600 million cases of illness and more than 420,000 deaths each year. In Vietnam, the food market has reached an estimated value of around USD 95 billion, with food exports exceeding USD 62 billion in 2024 alone. These figures, he emphasized, illustrate how the demands placed on food safety management today are fundamentally different from those at the time the Law was adopted more than 15 years ago.

One issue on which many participants reached consensus during the workshop was the need to shift from a broad, uniform approach to food safety management toward a risk-based approach. While this principle is already mentioned in the current Law, it has not yet been fully implemented in practice. Widespread inspections and heavy reliance on end-product testing not only consume significant resources but also limit the system’s ability to prevent food safety risks at an early stage.

Against this backdrop, the proposals presented by the Safe Food for Growth project (SAFEGRO) were framed as systematic policy options. Rather than advocating for abrupt structural change, SAFEGRO focuses on designing a model that can be implemented gradually, in line with Vietnam’s institutional context and current enforcement capacity.

A key feature of SAFEGRO’s proposals is the reorganization of the food safety management system toward greater coherence, alongside strengthened coordination across different levels of governance. The model emphasized includes an additional regional coordination layer, complementing the central and provincial levels. Under this model, a unified, independent, and semi-autonomous Vietnam Food Safety Authority (VFSA) would operate at the central level. The VFSA, managed under the Ministry of Health while maintaining a certain degree of autonomy, would oversee all sanitary and phytosanitary functions, including food safety, through an administrative structure extending from the central level to provinces and down to communes.

Operating as a specialized agency with autonomy over its operations and budget, the VFSA would be responsible for policy implementation, public services, standard setting, and overall supervision. The regional level would coordinate inter-provincial issues, manage food safety incidents, oversee risks beyond the capacity of individual provinces, and control import and export activities. Provincial authorities would continue to manage food safety directly within their jurisdictions.

This approach reflects the operational reality of modern food supply chains. Food safety risks rarely originate and end within a single administrative boundary. Production, slaughtering, processing, and distribution activities often span multiple localities, while management capacity varies significantly among provinces. The introduction of a regional coordination layer is expected to enable more timely responses and reduce fragmentation in policy implementation.

Speaking at the workshop, Dr. To Lien Thu, a policy and institutional expert from SAFEGRO, succinctly highlighted the rationale behind this approach. She noted that effective management does not lie in conducting more inspections, but in ensuring that the system has sufficient capacity to control risks more effectively across the country through a science-based, risk-oriented approach.

Beyond institutional arrangements, SAFEGRO also emphasized risk-based food safety management as a core pillar throughout the system. Under this approach, inspection and surveillance resources should be prioritized for products, facilities, and operations that present higher risks, rather than applying the same level of control to all. Many participants agreed that this approach aligns well with international practice and with the realities of Vietnam’s limited regulatory resources.

In his concluding remarks, Deputy Minister of Health Do Xuan Tuyen underscored the urgency of revising the Law on Food Safety in the current context, describing it as essential for protecting public health. He cited guidance from General Secretary To Lam, who stressed the fundamental role of food safety for the health system and society as a whole: “If food safety is not ensured, no matter how many hospitals are built or how many doctors are trained, the problem cannot be solved.”

According to Deputy Minister Do Xuan Tuyen, the revision of the Law should aim to change management thinking, shifting from pre-market control to post-market control based on risk assessment, while strengthening decentralization and delegation of authority with clearly defined accountability. He also highlighted the importance of data and information technology in building a transparent, effective management system capable of continuous oversight.

Regarding the legislative roadmap, the Deputy Minister noted that the Ministry of Health is finalizing the policy dossier for submission to the Government, as a basis for proposing the revised Law to be included in the National Assembly’s legislative agenda for 2026. The objective of this revision is not merely to amend specific provisions, but to establish a legal foundation for a food safety management model that is better aligned with Vietnam’s development trajectory and international integration.

The workshop in Hanoi marked the beginning of a broader policy consultation process for the revised Law on Food Safety. According to the plan, a follow-up consultation will be held in Ho Chi Minh City to gather further input from southern provinces, the business community, and other stakeholders across the food supply chain.

In a field so closely linked to public health, building a management system that is feasible, risk-based, and capable of gradual implementation is widely seen as a critical condition for ensuring that the revised Law on Food Safety can be applied effectively and sustainably in practice.

In his opening remarks, the leadership of Hanoi emphasized the city’s role as a major consumption market and underlined that sustained coordination with producing provinces is essential to ensure a stable supply of safe and high-quality food for urban consumers. The city reaffirmed its orientation toward organic and multi-objective agricultural development, linking production with sustainable consumption.

The review report presented at the conference showed that after more than four years of implementation, the program has supported the establishment of over 1,700 food safety value chains, involving more than 5,500 enterprises and cooperatives across 29 provinces and cities. More than 40 percent of raw material areas participating in these chains meet Good Agricultural Practice standards such as VietGAP, GlobalGAP and other international standards, while approximately 96 percent of products are covered by traceability systems. At the same time, trade promotion and supply-demand linkage activities have been carried out regularly, helping ensure that food safety chains are closely connected to actual market access.

Reports and presentations from participating localities highlighted practical experiences from implementation. Hanoi focused on the application of technology, digital transformation and capacity building for value chain actors. Can Tho emphasized its agricultural supply potential and expressed a desire to further strengthen trade linkages with major cities. Representatives from several provinces noted that the program has facilitated more stable market access for regional specialty products. Enterprises, cooperatives and retail representatives underscored the importance of chain-based approaches in brand development, sustainable consumption and responding to growing consumer demand for transparency.

In his concluding address, Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Environment Trần Thanh Nam reaffirmed that the coordination program was designed from the outset based on market demand and the basic principles of agricultural supply and demand. Large cities, he noted, serve not only as consumption hubs but also as the starting point for defining food safety requirements from the production stage.

“We must affirm that this food safety coordination program was built on the principles of supply and demand for agricultural products. We identify major cities such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and later Can Tho as major consumption centers where urban consumers have very high demand for food safety and product quality. These demands are what drive us to establish food safety control requirements from the input stage,” Deputy Minister Trần Thanh Nam said.

According to the Deputy Minister, the key achievement of the 2021–2025 period lies not only in the number of food safety chains established, but also in the way food safety has become closely linked with trade promotion, market connectivity, traceability and planting area codes. Based on feedback from ministries, local authorities, enterprises and associations, he confirmed the consensus to continue the coordination program into the 2026–2030 period, with more clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

“I fully agree and support continuing the coordination program for 2026–2030. The content of the next phase must build on the experience of the previous period and be more specific and more closely aligned with practical realities,” he emphasized.

According to the orientation presented at the conference, the Department of Quality, Processing and Market Development will take the lead in developing a dedicated project on food safety value chains linking major cities with producing provinces. The project will clearly define the roles of state management agencies, local authorities, enterprises and cooperatives in organizing and operating these chains.

Deputy Minister Trần Thanh Nam further clarified the division of responsibilities among different territorial groups. Major cities are expected to focus on ensuring distribution channels and market outlets for raw material areas, while leveraging their strengths in research, seed development and high-quality agricultural inputs to support producing regions. Producing provinces, in turn, are responsible for identifying raw material areas, establishing a concrete list of participating enterprises and cooperatives, and proposing infrastructure and technical support linked to traceability and planting area codes.

One of the key priorities for the next phase, the Deputy Minister stressed, is strengthening capacity for food safety testing and certification. He noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment will direct its affiliated testing units while also encouraging the participation of private laboratories in verifying and certifying products within the chains.

“We will direct the Ministry’s testing and certification units and call on private testing centers to participate in verifying and certifying products within these chains,” he said.

Alongside testing and certification, traceability remains a core technical pillar of food safety chain management. This area has also been a significant contribution of the Safe Food for Growth project SAFEGRO, funded by the Government of Canada. During the 2021–2025 period, SAFEGRO supported food safety chains in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to design and operate electronic traceability systems aligned with GS1 standards, integrating food safety events and enabling data-driven management.

In parallel, SAFEGRO assisted in upgrading pork, seafood and vegetable value chains in line with international standards such as HACCP Codex, VietGAP and GlobalGAP. These interventions supported a shift from experience-based management toward risk-based management grounded in documentation, monitoring and scientific evidence. Such models were recognized as consistent with the Deputy Minister’s orientation for the next phase, in which food safety is no longer viewed solely as a technical requirement but as a foundation for regional linkage, trade facilitation and sustainable development.

Regarding international cooperation, Deputy Minister Trần Thanh Nam noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment will propose to the Government of Canada the possibility of expanding SAFEGRO support to additional provinces, with the aim of scaling up proven food safety chain models.

In closing, the Deputy Minister affirmed that the coordination program for the 2021–2025 period represents a significant achievement. He expressed confidence that the 2026–2030 phase will move toward deeper, more substantive implementation, anchored in traceability, testing and strong linkages between production areas and consumption markets, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of food safety management and supporting sustainable agricultural development.

So what is missing?

The answer lies in a factor that is invisible to the naked eye but decisive in impact. Food Safety Culture (FSC).

During a food safety culture training course organized by SAFEGRO at Nha Trang University, trainer Lan Nhi offered a simple yet powerful analogy.
“FSMS is like hardware, the machines, procedures, and documents. Food safety culture is the software, the way people think and behave. You may own a very good car, fully equipped with safety features, and be well trained as a driver, but just one moment of carelessness can still cause an accident.”

That comparison goes straight to the heart of the issue. FSMS answers the question “What should be done.” Food safety culture determines “Whether we actually do it,” especially in moments when no one is watching.

An employee who washes their hands because a camera is on, that is compliance.
An employee who washes their hands because they are thinking about the consumer’s health, that is culture.

“Food safety is not only about knowledge,” Lan Nhi emphasized, “it is about behavior.”

For this reason, over the past five years, food safety culture has shifted from being a recommendation to a requirement. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has formally integrated food safety culture as a mandatory element in international standards. Globally, there is growing recognition that under pressure from production targets, costs, and deadlines, people are easily tempted to compromise procedures. Only a strong culture can ensure food safety is upheld consistently, even in the most stressful situations.

Perhaps the most thought provoking part of the lecture was what Lan Nhi called “the 99.99% trap.”

In many industries, a 0.01% error rate might be considered an impressive achievement. In food, however, it tells a very different story. “If you sell three million loaves of bread,” she asked, “99.99% safe still means 300 people get food poisoning. And who are those 0.01%? Just faceless numbers in a report, or parents, children, and loved ones like our own?”

When we look at numbers, we see control. When we look at victims, we see responsibility. The mindset of “acceptable small risk” thus becomes the most dangerous silent enemy of food safety.

But how do you manage something as invisible as culture?

The answer is not slogans, but measurement. Companies must turn culture into data, by tracking employee suggestions, monitoring near miss incidents and implemented improvements, observing real behaviors on the shop floor, conducting staff perception surveys, and holding in depth interviews to hear honest voices. One simple but revealing question might be “Would you be willing to buy your company’s product for yourself, or serve it to your parents and children?”

Only when leadership clearly and honestly identifies the gap between what is declared, what is written in procedures, and what is actually happening on the factory floor do improvement plans become meaningful. This may involve changing communication approaches, adjusting reward systems, or, most simply yet most difficult of all, leading by example.

Ultimately, food safety culture is not a short term project, but a long journey, moving from “having to do” to “wanting to do.” As Lan Nhi concluded in the class,
“We do not need culture just to obtain certification. We need culture so we can sleep well at night, knowing that the products we make are truly safe for consumers, including our own beloved families.”

Speaking at the conference, Project Director Do Thanh Lam highlighted that leadership at all levels plays a crucial role in shaping safe practices. He compared leadership to “a breeze that drives change,” noting that good examples already exist in Vietnam but need to be shared more widely so they can become common standards. This is also the goal of the Food Safety Culture manual that SAFEGRO is finalizing.

Another key message was the central role of women in the food system. Women make decisions at every step, from choosing ingredients to producing and preparing food. When women receive the right information, skills, and support to make informed decisions, food safety in the community improves. SAFEGRO has integrated gender equality into all its activities and has seen positive results across many project sites.

In recent years, the project has supported Hanoi in implementing food safety models in Duong Lam, Hoang Long, and Van Duc; improving practices in traditional markets and preschools; developing a gender e-learning course; and promoting the use of traceability in production and supply. These experiences show that food safety culture only develops when strong leadership, empowered women, community participation, and supportive policies come together.

The conference highlighted the importance of continued cooperation among government agencies, mass organizations, businesses, and communities. When everyone works toward the same goal, food safety can gradually become a natural part of daily life for all.

Through interactive learning, case studies, and simulation-based exercises, participants enhanced their capacity to develop and apply QMA models across priority food chains. The training also served as a forum for experts and trainees to exchange practical insights, share challenges, and discuss appropriate approaches for advancing risk assessment in the Vietnamese context.

A key highlight of the course was its emphasis on the strategic role of QRA in policy-making. Integrating risk assessment results into regulatory decision-making enables competent authorities to set intervention priorities, allocate resources more effectively, and implement targeted, science-based control measures.

With this initiative, SAFEGRO is contributing to building a strong foundation for Viet Nam’s transition toward a modern, transparent, and science-driven food safety management system, one that safeguards public health and supports a more sustainable food system.

On November 27 and 28, 2025, SAFEGRO and the Food Industries Research Institute under the Ministry of Industry and Trade held a course on Leadership in Food Safety. It is one of ten internationally aligned modules developed by Canadian and Vietnamese experts, aimed at building a food-safety workforce grounded in science and risk management.

During the session, instructor Lan Nhi brought in a case that once drew considerable attention in the press: allegations published in 2025 about diseased pigs at a contract slaughterhouse, even though the photos and documents dated back to 2022. The purpose was not to judge a company, but to help participants observe how a system can fall “out of sync” when a crisis surfaces late, comes with missing data, and is clouded by suspicion.

The central question was: If an incident comes to light three years after it happened, where might the system have jammed? What in the warning pathway, whether individual behavior or organizational structure, kept critical information from reaching the right place at the right time?

Lan Nhi told the class: “In crisis management, the most important thing isn’t fixing what already happened; it’s stopping the domino effect.” A simple line, but it highlighted what many in the field often overlook: crises rarely overwhelm an organization with the first incident. It is the ripple effects that follow.

System bottlenecks rarely belong to one party

Participants were asked to approach the case from a leadership lens, not a technical one. After 20 minutes of discussion, a broader picture emerged.

Many pointed to the first bottleneck: internal warnings never reached someone with high enough authority. Important information can be stuck at middle layers, or at touchpoints where staff feel unsure or lack the authority to pass it upward.

Another group noted that the data trail had broken. Three years on, well past the product’s shelf life, conventional responses like recalls or verification testing were no longer feasible. It showed that even the strongest systems depend on the quality of records kept at a specific moment in time.

Some mentioned internal communication. Defensive responses, weak explanations, or unclear messages do not resolve a crisis; they erode trust.

And one point kept resurfacing: the role of frontline leaders. If on-site supervisors, veterinarians, or inspectors lack a voice or the empowerment to speak up, the system above them simply cannot hear early warnings.

These observations were not about finding fault with a specific company. They underscored a truth that every food-safety organization faces: even the best-designed system can slip out of rhythm without effective leadership in a crisis.

When leadership theory becomes something everyone can see

From this real-world case, the class circled back to the theoretical foundations introduced on day one. Everything suddenly felt clearer.

Leadership, they were reminded, does not depend on a title. It depends on the ability to mobilize others and, more importantly, to steer a group toward doing what is right. This idea came to life through the case: had one frontline individual held enough influence, the story might have unfolded differently.

Trait and Behavioral theories showed that leaders are shaped not only by innate qualities but also through experience and training. Situational Leadership emphasized adapting style to context: command when crisis hits; coach or collaborate when things are stable.

Transformational and Ethical Leadership stressed vision, transparency, and standards, precisely the elements participants felt were missing in the organization’s response when the unexpected occurred.

The instructor underscored: “Management ensures compliance. But if you only comply, the system will look the same ten years from now. Leadership is what drives change.”

A food-safety system through the lens of leadership

In linking theory to food-safety management systems, participants saw that every component requires leadership: policy-setting, measurable goals, presence on the ground, risk handling, traceability, and internal communication.

One participant wrote: “A system can be perfect on paper, but still fail because of people. If no one speaks up, the system can’t hear.” The line echoed the instructor’s point: leadership is built into the system, not something captured in formal documents.

Change and culture: the doorway to root-cause improvement

The module on change and food-safety culture brought the discussion back to fundamentals.

Lewin’s model helped explain that organizations can only improve when they unfreeze old habits, step into change, and reshape new routines.

But many barriers stand in the way, some surprisingly ordinary. On the class Padlet board, participants listed inertia, a weak sense of urgency, low confidence in change, and internal communication systems that could not carry enough weight.

The instructor shared a metaphor: “Food safety is like taking pictures with a film camera. By the time you see the results, it’s too late to redo anything. That’s why food-safety culture is about doing it right from the start.” A simple image that captured the essence of the food system: almost everything happens before the consumer ever encounters the product and before health risks appear.

A shift in understanding: from the baseline survey to the final reflections

The pre-course survey revealed hesitation. Many participants were unsure of the difference between management and leadership, unclear about ADKAR or Lewin, and saw food-safety systems mostly as technical procedures.

But their final reflections told a different story. Many set SMART goals, listed barriers in detail, and used Kotter’s eight steps to build urgency, form coalitions, communicate a vision, and reinforce new behaviors. Some proposed reporting mechanisms to keep early warnings from dying halfway.

One participant wrote: “I understand now that a leader is not the person at the top. A leader is the one who speaks up at the moment it matters.”

One step in a much larger journey

The course at FIRI is part of a national training sequence that SAFEGRO is delivering with institutes and universities across Vietnam. The shared goal is to shape people who can drive change based on science and risk management, an essential ingredient of a sustainable food-safety system.

The course returned again and again to one point: leadership does not wait for a title. In food safety, leadership may be the line supervisor, the lab technician, the equipment operator, or anyone who raises an early flag when something is out of place.

This is how a stronger system is built: one early warning, one small decision, one right action at a time.