Pork safety across Vietnam's traditional markets: Microbial contamination and vendor knowledge, attitudes, and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foodborne diseases are a major cause of illness in low- and middle-income countries, and most are due to fresh foods sold in traditional markets. Contamination with foodborne pathogens, especially Salmonella spp ., continues to be common in these markets. To better understand why this is the case, this study assessed total bacteria count (TBC) and Salmonella in pork across Vietnamese traditional markets and evaluated vendors’ food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices, examining their associations with contamination. Data was collected in 68 markets across five provinces, with up to 10 pork vendors per market randomly selected. Microbiological data were collected through cut pork samples and cutting boards swabs (n=396), along with structured questionnaires and observations with vendors (n=486). Cutting board swabs were analyzed for TBC only, while cut pork was tested for both TBC and Salmonella . Linear and generalized linear mixed-effects models were constructed to identify risk factors for TBC and Salmonella prevalence. The overall Salmonella prevalence in cut pork was 64.4% (255/396) and was significantly higher in southern provinces (86.8%) compared to the north (47.5%, p < 0.01). TBC was high in pork and cutting boards (6.4 log 10 CFU/g and 6.9 log 10 CFU/cm 2 , respectively), and only 30% of the pork samples met the Vietnamese standard for TBC in fresh meat. Selling of organs was associated with a higher TBC (coefficient = 0.13, CI: 0.01–0.26, p = 0.03) and greater Salmonella risk (OR = 2.04, p = 0.009). Temperature significantly increased both outcomes ( p < 0.001), while using easy-to-clean surfaces reduced TBC levels (coefficient = -0.16, CI: -0.30 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Vendors demonstrated limited food safety knowledge and mixed attitudes. Observations revealed poor hygienic practices, such as displaying pork on cardboard or cloth or lack of washing with soap and disinfectants, which was influenced by limited access to facilities and equipment. Regional differences suggested contamination levels were influenced by both environmental and market-related factors. These findings highlight the need for holistic interventions targeting an enabling environment, appropriate equipment, and behavioral incentives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".