You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 27, 2021

New Regulations on Penalties in Animal Husbandry in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On March 1, 2021, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 14/2021/ND-CP on Penalties for Administrative Violations Involving Animal Husbandry (Decree 14). The new decree took effect on April 20 and, among other contents, repeals the regulations on animal feed found in Decree No. 64/2018/ND-CP dated May 7, 2018.

In the field of animal feed, notable penalties of Decree 14 include the following:

Penalty forms and levels

For each administrative violation, the violator will be imposed a monetary penalty, which is the main penalty form. For the same violation, the monetary penalty level applied to an organization is double the amount applied to an individual.

In addition, based on the nature and extent of the violation, additional penalties may be imposed on the violators, including confiscation of violating items, and confiscating Certificates of Eligibility to manufacture animal feeds.

Violations of regulations on declaring product information

A fine of up to VND 3 million (USD 130) will be imposed for the act of changing information on product labels that has been published on the Portal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) without conducting the notification procedure to inform the MARD of such change.

A fine of up to VND 7 million (USD 300) will be imposed for the act of deliberately falsifying or erasing contents of documents or making false declarations in the applications for animal feed products on the Portal of the MARD.

Violation of regulations on quality in importing animal feed

A fine of up to VND 25 million (USD 1,080) will be imposed for the act of importing each animal feed having (i) a quantitative content of each quality criterion lower than the minimum level or higher than the maximum level compared with the standards announced or written on the goods label; or (ii) each safety criterion/each harmful microbiological criterion exceeding the allowable threshold under technical regulations or applied standards, depending on the specific criterion and percentage difference.

Violation of regulations on purchasing, selling, and importing expired animal feed

A fine of up to VND 40 million (USD 1,730) depending on the value of the violating goods will be imposed for the act of purchasing, selling, or importing animal feed products whose labels or enclosed documents state that the product has expired.

A fine of up to VND 10 million (USD 430) will be imposed for the act of not presenting or incorrectly presenting the manufacturing date on the product label or documents accompanying the product.

Violations of regulations on purchasing, selling, and importing animal feeds containing antibiotics

A fine of up to VND 15 million (USD 650) will be imposed for each acts of purchasing, selling, or importing an animal feed product having antibiotic content different from the content presented on the product label or in the documents accompanying the product, depending on the difference.

A fine of up to VND 15 million (USD 650) will be imposed for each act of (i) purchasing or importing an animal feed product containing antibiotics in which the information about the name and content of antibiotics, instruction for use, or time to ease using is not presented on the product labels or accompanying documents; or (ii) importing an animal feed product containing antibiotics without a prescription or not according to the prescription of a person having a practice certificate of prevention and treatment of animal diseases.

A fine of up to VND 20 million (USD 860) will be imposed for the each act of (i) importing an animal feed product containing antibiotics that is not a complete mixed feed for livestock or poultry, or pure feed for grass-fed cattle; (ii) purchasing, selling, or importing an animal feed product containing antibiotics to prevent disease for pets that are not in the immature stage; and (iii) purchasing, selling, or importing an animal feed product containing antibiotics for the purpose of growth stimulation.

A fine of up to VND 30 million (USD 1,300) will be imposed for the acts of purchasing, selling, or importing each animal feed product containing antibiotics that is not a veterinary drug approved for circulation in Vietnam or has not been approved by the relevant authority.

Violations of regulations on using animal feed material

A fine of up to VND 20 million (USD 860) will be imposed for each act of using an animal feed material which is not listed in the list of materials permitted to use in animal feed, depending on the value of the violating batch or the amount of illicit profits.

Remedial measures

In addition to the fines above, some remedial measures below are applied, depending on the case:

  • Being forced to repeal the published animal feed product information, or correct the false information published on the Portal of the MARD;
  • Being forced to recall, recycle, transform the use purpose, re-export or destroy the violating products; and
  • Being forced to re-submit the illicit profits gained from the violations.

Transitional provisions

For administrative violations that occurred before the effective date of Decree 14 (April 20, 2021) but were detected later, or are being considered and resolved, regulations that are beneficial to the violators will be applied.

For decisions on sanctioning of administrative violations that were issued or completely implemented before the effective date of Decree 14, but for which the violators can still appeal the decision, the previous legal document (Decree No. 64/2018/ND-CP) is applied.

For violations detected after the effective date of Decree 14 that are effective in transitional provisions in the Law on Animal Husbandry and documents detailing the implementation of the Law on Animal Husbandry, Decree No. 64/2018/ND-CP is still applied until the transition period expires.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More