This article does not offer a closed list — and that is safer for the reader
A farm that receives a list of banned substances from an online article can easily draw a dangerous conclusion: avoid the names on the list and everything else is fine. That conclusion fails at exactly the point that matters. A banned list is an annex issued by a state authority, and it can be amended; no article, however careful, can replace that annex, and no copied table can guarantee that it is still correct on the day the reader checks it. This article therefore does something different, and the only thing an article can honestly do: explain how the law defines a banned substance, how the penalty framework is calculated, and where and in what order a farmer must check before deciding to use any active substance.
The general penalty framework for livestock is covered in a companion article: Administrative Penalties in Livestock Farming under Decree 211/2026/ND-CP. This article deals only with banned substances in livestock farming and animal feed, checked against the law in force on 25 October 2026.
What does the law call a banned substance?
Article 12(2) of the Law on Animal Husbandry 2018 lists the use of banned substances in animal husbandry among the prohibited acts, and Article 12(7) prohibits importing livestock products produced with banned substances. Decree 211/2026/ND-CP, issued on 16 June 2026 and effective from 5 August 2026, enforces that prohibition through the phrase “chemicals, biological products and microorganisms banned from use in animal feed”. The decisive point is how the decree works: its penalty articles do not print a closed catalogue of their own. They point to the list system managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment — a banned list on one side, and a permitted-ingredient list for animal feed on the other.
Every active substance therefore falls into one of three states, and only one of them permits use. First, the substance appears on the banned list: use is prohibited and punished under the heavy bands set out below. Second, the substance appears on the permitted-ingredient list for animal feed and meets the conditions of use: it may be used within the permitted scope. Third, the substance appears on neither list: it is not yet permitted, and permission cannot simply be inferred. On a farm, using an ingredient that is outside the permitted list is itself fined from VND 3 million to VND 15 million depending on farm size, under Article 27(4) of Decree 211/2026/ND-CP. That third state carries a lighter fine than a banned substance, but it is still a violation — not a safe grey zone for experimentation.
Two illustrative examples — and how to read an example correctly
This section gives illustrative examples only; it is not a complete list. The two names below were chosen because they recur in inspections and in public summaries of the banned list, and because they expose a common misunderstanding. No further substance name is asserted in this article, and the reader must never infer in reverse that a substance not named here is permitted — every other active substance must go through the checking steps set out later.
Salbutamol and Clenbuterol both belong to the beta-agonist group: substances misused as lean-meat promoters that raise the lean ratio and reduce fat in pig farming. Salbutamol is also a human asthma medicine, and Clenbuterol likewise has a pharmaceutical origin. That origin creates the most persistent misunderstanding in this field: a drug lawfully bought at a pharmacy for human use must also be lawful in animal feed. Legally, that reasoning fails. The lawfulness of an active substance always attaches to its purpose of use and to the list that governs that purpose. A substance permitted as a human medicine does not automatically become a permitted feed ingredient, and once it sits on the banned list for livestock use, mixing it into feed is a violation regardless of where it was bought.
Penalties under Decree 211/2026: how to read the table
The reading rule comes before any figure: fines in Chapter II of Decree 211/2026/ND-CP are individual rates, and an organisation committing the same violation pays twice the individual rate. The maximum fine for each administrative livestock violation is VND 100 million for an individual and VND 200 million for an organisation. Every figure in the table below is an individual rate unless an organisation rate is stated.
| Violation | Legal basis | Individual fine | Organisation fine (doubled) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of each banned substance in animal feed, not reaching criminal liability | Article 27(5)(a) | VND 50-60 million | VND 100-120 million |
| Use of each banned substance, reaching the criminal threshold but with a prosecutorial decision not to prosecute, to cancel prosecution, to suspend investigation or proceedings, or to exempt criminal liability by judgment | Article 27(5)(b) | VND 70-80 million | VND 140-160 million |
| Production, trading or import of each feed product containing a banned substance, total infringing value under VND 100 million or illicit profit under VND 50 million | Article 21(6)(a) | VND 60-80 million | VND 120-160 million |
| Production, trading or import of each feed product containing a banned substance, total value VND 100 million or more or illicit profit VND 50 million or more, in a case where the criminal authorities have issued one of the non-prosecution decisions above | Article 21(6)(b) | VND 80-100 million | VND 160-200 million |
Three points in the table are often misread. First, fines are calculated per banned substance and per infringing feed product: two banned substances in the same batch of feed are not a single violation. Second, the higher band in point (b) of both articles does not switch on automatically when the value crosses a threshold; the text ties it to a case in which the criminal process has already ended with a non-prosecution, cancellation, suspension or exemption decision. If a case is actually prosecuted, it leaves the administrative fine track altogether. Third, the fine is not the whole loss: the remedial measures below can wipe out the animals or the consignment entirely.
On limitation periods, the general period is one year, while the group of violations covering the business, production, import and export of breeds, animal feed and livestock waste-treatment products carries a two-year period. A feed business should therefore keep its records longer than a farm, and a farm should not read “after one year it is over” mechanically, because when the period starts to run still depends on whether the violation has ended or is still ongoing under the general administrative-sanction rules.
The remedial measures are: destruction of the banned chemicals, biological products and microorganisms under Article 27(6)(b); compulsory holding of animals that consumed banned substances until testing shows no residue, after which they may be sold or slaughtered, and compulsory destruction of the animals if holding until residue-free is impossible or if the violation is repeated, under Article 27(6)(c); destruction of infringing feed products in domestic production and trading, and removal from Vietnamese territory or re-export of infringing imported products, with destruction if removal or re-export is impossible, under Article 21(8)(dd) and (e); and disgorgement of illicit profits under Article 21(8)(g).
Where to check the official list, and in what order
The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment manages the list system, and the Department of Livestock Production and Animal Health is the specialised authority for livestock and veterinary matters. The instruments and their annexes are published in the Official Gazette and on the portals of the Ministry and the Department. When checking, the annex attached to the original instrument always outranks any summary: a table in the press, on social media or in a sales document is a reference aid, never a substitute for the annex, however complete it looks.
Step 1 — Identify the exact active substance. Check the name on the label, the packaging and the import file, and distinguish a trade name from an active-substance name. A product with an unfamiliar trade name may still contain a banned active substance, and two similar-looking names are not necessarily the same substance.
Step 2 — Check the banned annex. The central instrument to check is Circular 18/2024/TT-BNNPTNT of 29 November 2024 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (now the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment), effective 13 January 2025, which issues the list of veterinary drugs permitted for circulation and the list of veterinary drugs banned from use in Vietnam. Read the annex within its own scope and for the correct category of animals, and check whether the annex has been amended since it was issued.
Step 3 — Check the permitted-ingredient list as well. A substance may be used only if it appears on the permitted-ingredient list for animal feed and meets the conditions of use. Finding no name on the permitted list, even when the name is also absent from the banned list, is not enough to use it — that is the third state described above.
Step 4 — If the result is unclear, stop and ask before using. A business that cannot establish the status of an active substance should not test it in feed, but should ask the local veterinary authority or the Department of Livestock Production and Animal Health first. Keep the checking evidence — the date of the check, the instrument and the annex consulted — together with the traceability file for feed, veterinary drugs and vaccines, so that it can be shown on inspection.
Step 5 — Recheck regularly and before every new consignment. Lists change. A substance permitted last year is not necessarily permitted this year, and the reverse can also happen. Checking must be repeated before each new import consignment; an old check result does not cover a new batch.
One boundary must be kept separate: a livestock operation that falls within the environmental permit regime and operates without an environmental permit is dealt with under environmental protection law. This article attaches no environmental-permit fine to Decree 211/2026/ND-CP, and it does not use Decree 211/2026 to infer a fine for an environmental-permit violation. The two frameworks stand side by side; neither replaces the other.
In practice, a farm is responsible from the moment it chooses its feed: buy only from identifiable sources and keep records of feed, veterinary drug and vaccine use. On discovering that animals consumed a banned substance, the first duty is not to rush them to market, but to hold them until testing shows no residue, exactly as the remedial measure requires. A feed producer, trader or importer is responsible at the input stage and for product information: use only permitted ingredients, publish product information and label correctly.
Frequently asked questions
If a substance is not on the banned list, may it be used? Not on that fact alone. It must also appear on the permitted-ingredient list for animal feed and meet the conditions of use. Absence from both lists means not yet permitted; on a farm, using an ingredient outside the permitted list is already fined from VND 3 million to VND 15 million depending on farm size.
Can a banned-substance list from the press or social media be used as a compliance basis? No. Press and social-media summaries are reference aids only. The compliance basis is the annex to the original instrument — first of all the annex to Circular 18/2024/TT-BNNPTNT — checked through the Official Gazette and the portals of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment and the Department of Livestock Production and Animal Health.
May a lawfully bought human asthma medicine containing Salbutamol be mixed into pig feed? No. The Salbutamol example shows that lawfulness always attaches to the purpose of use and to the list governing that purpose. A medicine lawful for humans does not automatically become a permitted feed ingredient; once the substance is on the banned list for livestock use, using it in feed is a violation, calculated per banned substance.
What happens to animals that have already consumed a banned substance — must they be destroyed at once? Not necessarily at once. The first measure is holding until testing shows no residue, after which the animals may be sold or slaughtered. Destruction applies only when holding until residue-free is impossible or the violation is repeated, under Article 27(6)(c).
Is a feed company fined differently from a household farm? Yes. Chapter II fines are individual rates; an organisation committing the same act pays double, within a ceiling of VND 100 million for an individual and VND 200 million for an organisation per violation. Beyond the fine, a producer, trader or importer must also bear remedial measures such as destruction of the product, removal from the territory or re-export, and disgorgement of illicit profits.
