| Date post: | 27-Mar-2018 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | nguyendung |
| View: | 213 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
1
IYADI, ROLLINS CHIYEM
PG/Ph.D/08/47450
CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION OF SAFETY OF FOOD IN SOUTH – SOUTH AND SOUTH – EAST OF NIGERIA
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING
Paul Okeke
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
2
CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION OF SAFETY OF FOOD IN SOUTH – SOUTH AND SOUTH – EAST OF NIGERIA
BY
IYADI, ROLLINS CHIYEM
PG/Ph.D/08/47450
BEING A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES, FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF DOCTORATE DEGREE IN MARKETING
SUPERVISOR: PROF.(MRS) J.O. NNABUKO
JANUARY, 2015
3
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my independent research and has not been
presented wholly or partly for the award of any other degree or diploma. I also declare that the
books, journals, newspapers, websites and reports consulted in the course of writing this thesis
were duly acknowledged accordingly.
_____________________ ________________ Iyadi, Rollins Chiyem Date (PG/Ph.D/08/47450)
4
APPROVAL PAGE
This is to certify that this research work carried out by IYADI, ROLLINS CHIYEM, with
registration number PG/Ph.D/08/47450 of the department of marketing, is adequate in scope and
in context and is hereby approved.
……..…………………….. …………………
Prof. (Mrs) J. O Nnabuko Date
(Supervisor)
………………………… ……………………
Prof.(Mrs). G. E. Ugwuonah Date
(Head of Department)
5
DEDICATION
This research work is dedicated to my family and also God Almighty for giving me the privilege
to benefit from university education.
6
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
The writing and the eventual completion of this thesis was as a result of the input made by
people too numerous to mention. I wish to appreciate with immense thanks, the contribution of
my supervisor, Prof. (Mrs.) J. O Nnabuko, who through her guidance and meticulous supervision
has made this research a complete success. My profound gratitude goes to Dr. A. E. Ehikwe, Dr.
S.C Moguluwa, Prof. G. E. Ugwuonah, (HOD), Dr. J. Uduji, Prof.(Mrs.) D.A Nnolim, Prof. J. O
Onah, Dr. C.I Nwaizugbo and other lecturers who have impacted knowledge on me.
I express my indebtedness to my wife, Mrs. P.N Iyadi for her morale support throughout the
period of my study. I thank members of my family who have encouraged me greatly, they
include Mrs. M. Iyadi (my mother), Mr. Augustine Aghaulor, Mr. Mike Iyadi, Mrs. Justina
Nwokoro, Mrs. Veronica Austin, Mrs. Helen Ogu, and Chuks Iyadi.
Worthy of thanks are my friends: Dr. Elijah Ogbadu, Jerry Ibe, D.I.G Osejiokwu, Luis Obabu,
Olufemi Tayo, Mr Ofili Peter, Mr. Franklin Agetue, Mrs. Omodafe Philomena, Mr. Oseafiana
Joseph, Mr. Martins Emesom, miss Henrietta Nzemeke, Miss Mabel Ify IkeGod and others too
numerous to mention.
Above all, I remain grateful to God for the gift of writing ability.
Iyadi, Rollins
(PG/Ph.D/08/47450)
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Declaration i
Dedication
Approval page ii
Acknowledgments i
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3. Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Research Questions 5
1.5 Research Hypotheses 5
1.6 The Scope of the Study 5
1.7 The Significance of the Study 5
1.8 The Limitations of the Study 6
1.9 Operational Definition of Terms 6
References 8
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Food Safety 9
2.2.1. Food Regulation Agencies of Selected Countries 12
2.3 Food Regulation in Nigeria 18
2.3.1 Nigerian Policy on Food Hygiene and Safety 18
2.3.2 Institutional Arrangement 19
2.4 Famers Views on safety of Food 27
8
2.5 Manufacturers View Point on safety of Food 28
2.6 Food Poisoning in Nigeria 30
2.6.1 What is Food Poisoning? 31
2.6.2 Cases of Food Poisoning in Nigeria 31
2.6.3 Causes of Food Poisoning 37
2.6.3.1 Common Pathogens Causing Food Poising 37
2.6.3.2 How to Prevent Food Poising 37
2.7 Conceptual Framework 38
2.7.1 Consumers’ Perception 40
2.7.2 The consumers’ Perception Process 41
2.8 Theoretical Framework 47
2.8.1 Consumer Perception of Quality, Price, and Value 48
2.8.1.1 The Concept of perceived Quality 48
2.8.1.2 Perceived Quality Component 52
2.8.1.3 The Concept of Perceived Price 55
2.8.1.4 The Concept of Perceived value 56
2.8.2 Consumer Perception in Nigeria 58
2.9 Consumer’s Education on safety of Food 60
2.9.1 Why is Education on Food safety Important? 61
2.9.2 Parameters of Food Safety 61
2.9.3 Changing Demand Pattern: More Safe and Healthy Food 61
2.10 Health Implication of Various Foods 62
2.11 Environmental Variable Impacting on Food 63
2.12 Summary 66
References 68
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 77
3.2 Area of the Study 77
3.3 Research Design 77
3.4 Sources of Data 77
9
3.5 Population of the Study 77
3.6 Sample Size Determination 78
3.7 Sampling Techniques 79
3.8 Method of Data Collection 80
3.9 Validity of Research Instrument 80
3.10 Reliability of Research Instrument 80
3.11 Methods of Data Presentation and Analysis 81
References 82
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction 83
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 83
4.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing 86
4.4 Discussion of Findings 95
Reference 99
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction 100
5.2 Summary of Findings 100
5.3 Conclusion 101
5.4 Recommendations 101
5.5 Contribution to Knowledge 102
5.6 Area for Further Studies 103
Bibliography 104
Appendix i Research Questionnaire 113
ii. Calculation of Reliability of instrument. 117
iii. Data Analyses Tables 118
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population of Study by States Based on Preliminary 2006
Census Figures 78
Table 4.1 Return of Questionnaire Distributed to Respondents 83
Table 4.2 Gender by Occupational Distribution of Respondents 84
Table 4.3 Age by Educational Qualification of Respondents 85
Table 4.4 Distribution of Respondents by Income and Location 86
Table 4.5 Basic Evaluative Criteria for Determining Food Safety 87
Table 4.6 Mean Response to Hypothesis One 88
Table 4.7 ANOVA Results for Hypotheses One 88
Table 4.8 Mean Ranking on Whether Respondents Differ in Perception on
Stages of Food Chain that are Most Unsafe 89
Table 4.9 Result for Hypotheses Two 91
Table 4.10 Responses on Whether Income have any Effect on Consumers’
Perception of Safety 92
Table 4.11 Mean Responses to Hypotheses Three 93
Table 4.12 ANOVA Table for Hypotheses Three 93
Table 4.13 Perception of Consumers of Safety of Foods Prepared within and
outside their Immediate Environment 94
Table 4.14 Result for Hypotheses Four 95
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 21: The Consumers’ Perception Process Model 42
Figure 2.2: A Means-End Relating Price, Quality, and Value 49
Figure 2.3: The Perceived Quality Component Model 52
12
Abstract Analysis of the perception and the consumer decision making processes are extremely important to assist the marketer to understand consumer behaviour, draft better positioning strategies and develop more effective advertising campaign based on product attributes. In most parts of the world, eating habits have long been dependent on a mixture of local production and imported conserved foods. More recently, manufactured foods have become an important part of many people’s diet and many of the world staple foods are now traded internationally as commodities. Despite the efforts by governments and both multilateral and bilateral agencies, weaknesses remain in national food safety control systems. There seem to be the absence of enforceable policies, regulatory mechanisms, resources and coordination in addressing the challenge. This research sought to:(1)ascertain whether education background has any effect on consumers perception on safety of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria; (2) ascertain whether gender has effect on consumer perceptions on safety nature of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria; (3) determine whether income has any effect on consumers perception of choice and preference for foreign food on safety reason; (4) determine whether consumers are aware of the environmental impact on safety of food supply in south – south and south- east of Nigeria.. The researcher made use of survey design. A sample size of four hundred (400) consumers was determined using the Taro Yamane statistical formula from a population of 37,396,384 that make up south-south and south-east geo-political zones. Data was collected using questionnaire structured in five point Likert scale and open ended questions. The data generated were analyzed with version 20 of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The test of hypotheses was performed using ANOVA for hypotheses 1 and 3, Mann-whitney z for testing hypothesis 2, while t-test statistics was used for hypotheses 4. Result showed that the stage of food supply chain that consumers perceived most unsafe is the processing stage and also preferred foods produced within their immediate environment for safety reasons. It was recommended amongst others that Consumers should not restrict themselves to the consumption of foods prepared within their immediate environment. Instead they should be proactive in determining how safe foods from other regions are before purchase and consumption as the widely proposed food security by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and individual countries can only be realized through interdependent and consumption of foods produced within and outside a region or continent
13
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Analysis of the perception and the consumer decision making processes are extremely important
to assist the marketer to understand consumer behavior, draft better positioning strategies and
develop more effective advertising campaign base on product attributes (Aaker and Gary,2008).
According to them, the perception process has long been recognized as the most significant
barrier to effective communication. It is at this point that the sender does or does not get through
to the receiver, since correct decoding of marketing information hinges on the consumer’s
perception of the communication content. Perception refers to the senses that any organism uses
to collect information about its environment (Alban and Wesley, 2009).In consumer behaviour,
however, perception refers to much more than just the biological use of our sense organs.
Therefore, Brunwick (2009), define consumer perception as the entire process by which an
individual becomes aware of the environment and interprets it so that it will fit into his or her
frame of reference for making decision on a product or service.
Consumers acts and reacts on the basis of their perceptions, not on the basis of objectives reality.
With this, Dickson and Alan (2009), says it is important that marketers understand the whole
notion of perception and its related concepts so that they can determine more readily what
influences consumers to buy.
The problem with perception studies, according to Aaker and Gary (2008), is that two
individuals may be subjected to the same stimuli under apparently the same conditions, but how
they recognize, select and interpret them is a highly individual process base on each person’s
needs, values, expectations, and the like. Add to this difficulties in understanding perception, is
that perception is largely a study of what we subconsciously add to or subtract from raw sensory
inputs to produce a private picture of the world.
In most parts of the world, eating habits have long been dependent on a mixture of local
production and imported conserved foods. More recently, manufactured foods have become an
important part of many people’s diet and many of the world staple foods are now traded
internationally as commodities. Although goods, money, knowledge and influence flow along all
14
chains, the number and complexity of transactions along an individual chain, and therefore, the
capacity for any actor to exert a strong influence on others varies enormously with the type of
chain or network involved. Basic experiences show that food supply is not necessarily congruent
with consumption. Globally, nationally and locally, food may be available but not accessible or
affordable. Studies of extreme dislocation such as famines and normal conditions both illustrate
how social factors shape markets and how markets do not necessarily respond to need (Rich and
Andy,2007).
Food safety is an integral part of food security and is defined as protecting the food from
microbial, chemical and physical hazards that may occur during all stages of food production,
including growing, harvesting, processing, transporting, retailing, distribution preparing, storing
and consumption, in order to prevent food borne illness. Because of insufficient food to meet
demand on the African continent, the majority of people are only concerned with satisfying
hunger and do not give necessary attention to food safety. While many regulatory agencies such
as National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) and the Standard
Organization of Nigeria (SON) have recorded remarkable impact in this area, some scholars
think much is still left undone (Ladele and Ayoola,1997). According to Pretty (2006), concerns
have increased about the environmental impacts and safety of food in the past several years. This
public uneasiness had spurred multiple investigations of where and how food is produced and the
corresponding impacts on our environment and climate.
According to NRI(2005), it is believed that the assembling of baseline data on the presence of
micro organisms and toxin in food origin by improving the practice and reliability of on site
rapid tests for microbial and toxicological hazards in food and animals is a sure way of
improving the health standard of food. Another way is identification of baseline safe levels for
chemicals and microorganisms in food reduction of toxin and pesticide residue and reliability of
on site rapid test for microbial and toxicological hazards in food and animals. Others are the
reduction of veterinary drug residue level in meat and meat products, diary products and poultry
as well as adequate livestock and poultry waste management. It is further stated that unless there
is a standard procedure for ensuring wholesome food, the next global problem will not only be
the absence of food but will include the availability of unsafe consumable items. The increased
damaging activity to which the environment continues to be exposed is a sure way of arriving at
15
this unpleasant destination for mankind. The time to look at the evolving trends in food safety
and environmental hygiene and the public health challenges arising from them is now. Sound
knowledge of the challenges will position us to make the best efforts to reduce the negative
impact of infectious diseases related to environmental problems.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Despite the efforts by governments and both multilateral and bilateral agencies, weaknesses
remain in national food safety control systems. There seem to be the absence of enforceable
policies, regulatory mechanisms, resources and coordination in addressing the challenge. The
burden of food borne diseases in the African Region is difficult to summarize, but available data
for diarrhea alone due to contaminated food and water could have estimated mortality rate
around 700,000 persons per year across age groups (FAO, 2010).The organization state further
that in 2010, an outbreak of acute aflatoxicosis from consumption of contaminated maize in
Kenya resulted in 317 cases and 125 deaths. Leads and other chemical contaminants have been
detected in some foods in several countries.
The case of the death of 10 out of 650 secondary school teachers who where reportedly killed by
food poisoning and several others hospitalized after taking their lunch at a workshop organized
by Katsina State ministry of education at Kofur Yan’daka, Katsina State is worrisome (Compass
Newspaper, 2011). The incident of the death of 7 persons (grandmother, mother, and 5 children)
at Odo Oba community close to Ogbomoso, who where suspected to have died of food poisoning
after a meal of fish and amala as reported by Tribune Newspaper of 15th December, 2011, is
devastating. Equally worthy of note is the report of FAO (2010), in Bekwara Local Government
Area of Cross River State, where 2 children died and 122 people hospitalized as a result of food
poisoning due to indigestion of moi-moi and beans that were said to have contained a large dose
of highly toxic pesticides. The recent case of food poisoning tragedy at Owerri, Imo State as
reported by The Vanguard Newspaper of Monday 8th July, 2013, where the joy of a family
turned sour as no fewer than thirty (30) of their invited guests for child dedication ended up in
hospitals after consuming a suspected poisoned Igbo delicacy ( Ugba), is another threatening
story.
16
FAO (2008), puts it succinctly that “bacteria, parasites and virus are the major causative agents
of food borne diseases in the African Region”. Outbreaks of cholera, which occurs due to
contaminated water, are common in the region and available data show an upward trend.. There
are multiple sources of contamination from the environment, and contaminants could enter the
food during production, harvest, storage, retailing and preparation for consumption. It is
imperative that food safety remains a concern in all situations in order to derive maximum
benefits from even the little available food. Unsafe food not only results in ill-health but also has
economic consequences in the area of hospital fees and international trade losses.
In Nigeria, NAFDAC has destroyed aflatoxin and many imported contaminated foods worth
more than US200,000 or N30,200,000 (FAO,2010). Available data according to FAO, show, that
a cholera outbreak in Tanzania in 1998, and a ban on Ugandan fish exports to EU markets
resulted in a similar loss. Food safety is a shared responsibility that requires the common vision
of all stakeholders. The problem is based on the perceived nature of unsafe food, with it’s
attendant risks. Are consumers aware of these problems? Literature revealed that there was a
limited understanding of safety of food in Nigeria despite the fact that the issue of food safety
was given due attention over the years. It was also revealed that there was a certain level of
resistance to change of unhealthy pattern of consumption of food because of belief or tradition.
The health implication of unsafe food also constitute a problem to the consumers.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this study is to determine the perception of consumers on the safety of
food in Nigeria.
Specific objectives for this research are to:
1. Ascertain the effect of educational background on consumers’ perceptions of food safety.
2. Ascertain the effect of gender on consumers’ perceptions of safety of food.
3. Determine the effect of income on consumers’ preference for foreign food based on
safety reasons.
4. Determine the level of consumers awareness of the environmental impact on safety of
food in south – south and south- east of Nigeria.
17
1.4 Research Questions
The following research questions were formulated to guide this research work.
1. Does educational background prevent consumers from determining the basic evaluative
criteria for determining food safety?
2. Does gender differ in perception of the stages of food chain that are most unsafe?
3 Does income have any effect on consumer perception of food safety?
4. What are the environmental impact on safety of food in south – south and south- east of
Nigeria?
1.5 Research Hypotheses
The following research hypotheses were formulated:
1. Educational background has no significant effect on the perception of consumers of the
safety of food in south – south and south- east of Nigeria.
2. Gender has no effect on consumers’ perception of safety of food in south – south and
south- east of Nigeria’s
3. Income does not significantly affect the perception of consumers’ preference for foreign
food based on safety reasons.
4. There is no significant difference on consumers’ perception of environmental impact on
safety of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria.
1 .6 The Scope of the Study
The scope of this research was on food items produced locally and imported into the country.
The study also covered educated consumers segment.
1.7 The Significance of the Study
A Thus study of this nature will bring to light the need for consumers to ascertain how safe the
foods they consume are. Health they say is wealth. A healthy nation is a wealthy nation. From
the introduction, it is obvious that some foods we consume are unhealthy. If consumers are not
aware of the health status of the food they consume, it poses a great risk to the nation as it can
lead to an outbreak of epidemics which will bring about great economic loss to the country and
even death of citizens. This work would bring to light the views of consumers on the safety
18
aspects of food consume. It would help consumers to observe and maintain personal hygiene
especially in the areas of washing and cleaning of hands, decent way of preparing and serving
food, storage of food after preparation, and maintaining adequate sanitation in and around were
foods are prepared and stored.
It is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizenry from the consumption of
contaminated food. This work would guide the government in formulating enabling laws to
guide food safety in Nigeria, most especially in monitoring public or street food providers and to
guide farmers on the application of pesticides and veterinary drugs residues whose excesses
could cause food borne diseases and chemical contamination of foods. The policy makers will
also benefit immensely as this study outlined the areas to focus their policies on. Generally, it
will awaken the general public to create more awareness and consciousness on consumers food
safety.
The Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study are associated with diverse nature, attitude and perceptions of
respondents. Some of them, though few, did not consider it worthwhile offering their assistance
in providing the required information. The researcher equally experienced some difficulties in
engaging research assistants who helped in distributing and retrieving questionnaire from
respondents at different locations. Considering the relevance of the subject matter especially in
the area of human health, these parties (respondents and research assistants) developed a strong
interest on the study.
1.8 Operational Definition of some Key Terms
Food: Any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body. It is usually of plant
and animal origin. There are six basic nutrients that can be derived from food which include:
carbohydrate, water, fats, protein, vitamins, and materials. Examples are: convenience food, fast
food, health food, junk food, seafood, etc. Food in this study means consumable substance
produced locally and imported.
Raw foods: They are foods that have not been heated above 48 degrees centigrade (117 degrees
fahrenheit). They are usually uncooked foods or more specifically foods in their natural state.
19
Processed foods: They are foods packaged in boxes, cans, or bags. They are processed
extensively to be edible and not found as is in nature. They contain additives, artificial
flavourings and other chemical ingredients.
Consumer perception: It pertains to how individuals form opinions about companies and the
merchandise they offer through the purchase they make. Consumer perception in this study
means the believe of people about foods in Nigeria i.e whether safe or unsafe for consumption.
Educational background: This is related to any pririor school one has successfully completed.
For example high school diploma, college degree, credit from online courses and vocational
programme are all educational background.
Income: The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for
labour or service or the sale of goods or property or as a profit from financial investment.
Gender: This is the range of characteristics pertaining to and differentiating between masculinity
and feminity. For example, the state of being a male or female.
Environmental impact: possible adverse effect cause by a development, industrial or
infrastructural project or by the by the release of a substance in the environment.
Food safety: It is the act of protecting food from microbial, chemical and physical hazards that
may occur during the stages of production including growing ,harvesting, processing,
transporting, retailing, distribution preparing, storing, and consumption in order to prevent food
borne illness. This term in this study, means the concern people show on pesticides residues,
foreign bodies/objects, and bacteria presence in foods.
Consumers: They are ultimate buyers of goods and services who buy for their personal or
households use. The efforts of many producers and marketers are focused on these potential
buyers. Consumers in this study constitute those who purchase locally produced and imported
foods.
20
References
Aaker, D.A and Gary, T.F (2008), Unit Pricing Ten years later: A Replication; Journal of
Marketing, Vol 47 (Winter), 118-122.
Alba, J.W and Wesley, J.H (2009), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 12, No.7 17-24.
Brunswick, E (2009), Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments,
Berkeley CA: University press of Califonia. Dickson, P and Alan, S. (2008), “Point of
Purchase Behaviour and Price Perceptions, Marketing Science Institute, Vol. 7, No2, 22-
29.
Dickson, P and Alan, S. (2009), “Point of Purchase Behaviour and Price Perceptions, Marketing
Science Institute, Vol. 7, No2, 22- 29.
FAO (2008), “The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating World Hunger” Technical
Report on Food Crisis,New York.
FAO (2010), Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food
Control System, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 76, FAO/WHO, Rome.
Ladele, A. A. and Ayoola, G. B. (1997), Food Marketing and its Roles in Food Security in
Nigeria: in Shaib, B.; Adeipe N O.; Aliyu, A and Jir,M. M. (ed); Integrated Agricultural
Production in Nigeria: Strategies and Mechanisms for Food Security. Proceedings of the
National Workshop on Nigeria Position at the World Food Summit, Abuja, Nigeria, 88-94.
Nigeria Compass Newspaper, Ten Teachers Died and several others Hospitalized as a Result of
Food Poisoning, 1st ,Wednesday June, 2011, p. 23.
Nigeria Research Institute (2005), “Benue State Baseline Information and Renewable Natural
Resources; Briefing Study”. Unpublished Report Prepared by Nigeria Research institute
(NRI), Vol.3,No.2, 42-50.
PM Newspaper, lndomie Instant Noodles is Back to the Market,17th July, 2012,p. 5.
Pretty, B. (2006), Food Supply and the Environment; London: Greatman Publishers.
The Vanguard Newspaper, Thirty Hospitalized after Eating Delicacy, 8th Monday July, 2013,
p.6.
Tribune Newspaper, Seven Died of Food Poisoning in Ogbomoso, Thursday, December 2011, p
46.
21
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
This chapter focused on the review of relevant related literature that provided a conceptual base
and theoretical framework for this study. A detailed overview of consumers’ perception of safety
of food in Nigeria was carried out. Relevant literature were cited on the subject matter and
contemporary discussions were reviewed which include the following: food safety; food
poisoning in Nigeria; ,consumers’ perception; consumers’ perception of quality, price and value;
consumers’ perception in Nigeria; consumers education; health implication of various foods;
environmental variables impacting on food; and climate change, agriculture and food
management in Nigeria.
2.2 Food Safety
The recent food crises and its great diffusion through the media had as consequence a reduction
of the consumer’s confidence in the products that they buy and consume. These events also
served to disclose some of the existing problems in the current marketing chain, in which many
sectors result to have low, or no transparency or unknown ones to the consumers. For moreover,
these crises had demonstrated that science and technology, in set with the governmental
regulation do not offer guarantees that the risks associated with food have acceptable levels
(Alvensleben,2007).
The field of consumer behaviour has been explored extensively, with a view to understanding
how, when and why consumers make purchase decisions. Common research themes have
included studies that explored what factors influenced the purchase making decision process and
the attitudes towards a product, which depend heavily on his perception of the product (Padberg
et al, 2007).
According Becker (2009), the world food market, in general, and the Portuguese market, in
particular, has suffered from several food scares. Consumers are therefore, more and more
concerned about food safety and quality, more discredit about food supply, desiring more
transparency in production and distribution channel and for some products, losing their trust in
the production process. According to Henson and Northern (2008), food scandals drives the
22
individual consumers to react in different ways, depending on their perceptions of the risks
associated with the product.
Consumer behaviour is very complex and determined by emotions, motives and attitudes
(Alvensleben, 2007). The attitudes play a fundamental role in consumer behavour field, because
it determines his disposition to respond positively or negatively to an institution, person, event,
object or product (Azjen and Fishbein, 2006). However, the relations between motives/attitudes
and consumer behaviour are not unilateral. Consumption leads to experience with the product,
and vice versa this affects attitudes. When a consumer evaluate a product alternatives that may
satisfy the same need, desire or want, he integrate the perceptions of the alternatives into an
overall judgment, or attitude, about the attractiveness of each product alternative (Steenkamp and
Trijp, 2008). In their alternative evaluation, the perception of sanitary risk due to the
consumption of certain products could drive consumers attitudes away from those products.
Government regulation of this sector is a response to market failure and the necessity of the
social regulator to interfere in order to assure consumers that the products are healthy(Caswell
and Mojduszka, 2009),.
The existence of concerned consumers has been well documented over the past the years.
Throughout this period reports, surveys and academic research have consistently highlighted the
existence of consumers who are concerned about a broad spectrum of issues ranging from the
environment and animal welfare, through to social concerns. Recently, a report by the New
Economic Foundation (Doane, 2010), suggests that despite the rapid growth of ethical
consumerism to date, this is only the beginning of a market which has immense future potential.
The impact of crises including food and mouth disease, nitrofurances, salmonellas and dioxin
scare has focused attention on food production, quality, and food safety. For example, since the
food and mouth disease outbreak, the number of vegetarians, meat reducers and vegans in the
Europe, and specially the UK, has risen significantly. In UK, the value of the vegetarian foods
market has increased by 56% between the year 2005 and 2010, (Mintel, 2010). In Portugal,
consumption of beef declined sharply by 21% in 2009 (Henson and Northen, 2008), as well in all
European Union countries where beef meat reducers rounds 30% in 2009 (Lusk and Fox, 2007).
23
Studies of consumer at an individual level may help to understand the concept and perception of
food safety, that is, the trade-off between quality and safety. However, there is a certain
resistance to change unhealthy food habits because of tradition. Many consumers agree on eating
healthier diet as long as there are not significant changes in their consumption’s pattern (Ben,
Angulo, and Gill, 2007). Despite the attention to the subject of food safety and the rising concern
for quality issues, developing a deep understanding of the safety food in African and Nigeria in
particular is limited (Omotayo and Denloye, 2009
Globalization, growing incomes, fluctuating relative prices, urbanization and migration are
leading consumption behaviour to high value agricultural products in many developed and
developing countries. These factors require changes both in food technology and food
distribution systems (Cowan, 2008).
There is an increasing consumer’s concern for food safety and quality and, at the same time,
there has been a significant market increment in differentiated or high value products
consumption, including organic products. The goal of food consumption is not only body
nourishment but also health improvement over lifetime. If the food available is not safe or its
consumption does not enhance health, it does not contribute to food security. In this sense
Ogundugbe (2011) concludes: “food safety does not jeopardize food security; both act together
to enhance human health”.
According to FAO (2010), the fields of food safety and quality are complicated and multi-
dimensional. The food safety and quality have economic, social, cultural, environmental and
political consequences and they are related not only to the first step of agricultural production but
also to production site, animal health, storage conditions, marketing, hygiene conditions and
regulations, consumer awareness, food habits and new technologies such as genetically modified
products. At the same time the relationship between social actors and the policies, social and
cultural differences are quite closely related to the concepts of food safety and quality. The
determination of the gender perception necessitates the analyses of the responsibilities and roles
of women and men in the production system, storage conditions, marketing, hygiene conditions,
food habits and new technologies such as genetically modified products. Women and men play
different roles based on the socio-economic characteristics of the nation and agricultural
24
structure. These roles may differ even between the regions, but the safety perceptions of women
and men are the same in terms of food hygiene and safety for consumption.
Quality uncertainty has played a key role in literature about safety and products liability. From
all the articles dealing with health and food safety, the most relevant is that by Ott (2010), which
demonstrates that, although suppliers can determine quality, by incurring greater costs,
consumers cannot test safety before purchase, and then bad goods tend to drive out good ones.
Consumers will purchase products depending on their perceived quality expectations. Cowan
(2008), suggest that the attributes of quality-nutritional content, i.e; safety attributes of food;
convenience; place and manner of product production, including environmental production
processes are all valued according to the consumers’ subjective perception. Some consumers
look for good safety and are willing to pay higher prices for “healthy or nutritive products”, since
they increase their utility level reducing health risks. However, consumers are unable to ascertain
food safety before purchase, being this the most important constraint to economic efficiency in
the production and marketing of food safety. ‘The information problem faced by consumers
undercuts economic incentives for producers to produce a safer product. Less safe food drives
out safer food, and government intervenes in the market to guarantee an acceptable level of food
safety (Weiss, 2006).
2.2.1 Food Regulatory Agencies of Selected Countries
A. Nigeria-National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control
The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) is a Nigerian
government agency under the Federal Ministry of Health that is responsible for regulating and
controlling the manufacture, importation, exportation, advertisement, distribution, sale and use of
foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, chemicals and packaged water
(www.nafdacnigeria.org)
] NAFDAC has various basic functions. According to the requirements of its enabling decree, the
agency was authorized to carry out the following functions (www.nafdacnigeria.org)
* Regulate and control the importation, exportation, manufacture, advertisement,
distribution, sale and use of foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, bottled water and
chemicals.
25
* Conduct appropriate tests and ensure compliance with standard specifications designated
and approved by the council for the effective control of quality of food, drugs, cosmetics,
medical devices, bottled water, and chemicals.
* Undertake appropriate investigation into the production premises and raw materials for
food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, bottled water and chemicals and establish a
relevant quality assurance system, including certification of the production sites and of
the regulated products.
* Compile standard specifications, regulations, and guidelines for the production,
importation, exportation, sale and distribution of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices,
bottled water, and chemicals.
* Undertake the registration of food, drugs, medical devices, bottled water and chemicals.
* Control the exportation and issue quality certification of food, drugs, medical devices,
bottled water and chemicals intended for export
* Establish and maintain relevant laboratories or other institutions in strategic areas of
Nigeria as my be necessary for the performance of its functions.
NAFDAC envisions that by making these functions known, that its actions will be apparent “in
all sectors that deal with food, cosmetics, medical devices, bottled water, and chemicals to the
extent of instilling extra need for caution and compulsion to respect and obey existing
regulations both for healthy, living and knowledge of certain sanctions or default. Despite the
establishment of NAFDAC, the sale and use of fake drugs did not end.
B Australia
Seshamani (2008), state that, Australian Food Authority is working towards ensuring that all
food businesses implement food safety systems to ensure food is safe to consume in a bid to halt
the increasing incidence of food poisoning, this includes basic food safety training for at least
one person in each business. Smart business operators knows that basic food safety training
improves the bottom line, staff take more pride in their work; there is less waste; and customers
can have more confidence in the food they consume. Food Safety training in units of competence
from a relevant training package, must be delivered by a Registered Training Organization
(RTO) to enable staff to be issued with a nationally-recognized unit of competency code on their
certificate. Generally, this training can be completed in less than one day. Training options are
26
available to suit the needs of everyone. Training may be carried out in-house for a group, in a
public class, via correspondence of online. Basic food safety training in Australia according to
Seshemani includes:
* Understanding the hazards association with the main types of food and the conditions to
prevent the growth of bacteria which can cause food poisoning.
* The problems associated with product packaging such as leaks in vacuum packs, damage
to packaging or pest infestation, as well as problems and diseases spread by pests.
* Safe food handling. This includes safe procedures for each process such as receiving, re-
packing, food storage, preparation and cooking, cooling and re-heating, displaying
products, handling products when serving customers, packaging, cleaning and sanitizing,
pest control, transport and delivery. Also the causes of cross contamination.
* Catering for customers who are particularly at risk of food-borne illness, including
allergies and intolerance.
* Correct cleaning and sanitizing procedures, cleaning products and their correct use, and
the storage of cleaning items such as brushes, mops and cloths.
* Personal hygiene, hand washing, and protective clothing.
People responsible for serving unsafe food can be liable for heavy fines. Under this new
legislation, consumers are pleased that industry will be forced to take food safety seriously.
C. China
According to Pinder (2009), food safety is a growing concern in Chinese agriculture. The
Chinese government oversees agricultural production as well as the manufacture of food
packaging, containers, chemical additives, drug production, and business regulation. In recent
years, the Chinese government attempted to consolidate food regulation with the creation of the
State Food and Drug Administration in 2003, and officials have also been under increasing
public and international pressure to solve food safety problems. However, it appears that
regulations are not well known by the trade. Labels used for “green” food, “organic” food and
“pollution free” food are not well recognized by traders and many are unclear about their
meaning. A survey by the World Bank found that supermarket managers had difficulty in
obtaining produce that met safety recruitments and found that a high percentage of produce did
not comply with established standards.
27
Traditional marketing systems, whether in China or the rest of Asia, presently provide little
motivation or incentive for individual farmers to make improvements to either quality or safety
as their produce tends to get grouped together with standard products as it progresses through the
marketing channels. Direct linkages between farmer groups and traders or ultimate buyers, such
as supermarkets, can help avoid this problem. Governments need to improve the condition of
many markets through upgrading management and reinvesting market fees in physical
infrastructure. Wholesale markets need to investigate the feasibility of developing separate
sections to handle fruits and vegetables that meet defined safety and quality standards. (Wu
Huang, 2008).
D. European Union
The parliament of the European Union (EU) makes legislation in the form of directives and
regulations, many of which are mandatory for member states and which therefore must be
incorporated into individual countries’ national legislation. As a very large organization that
exists to remove barriers to trade between member states, and into which individual member
states have only a proportional influence, the outcome is often seen as an excessively
bureaucratic ‘one size fits all’ approach. However, in relation to food safety the tendency to err
on the side of maximum protection for the consumer may be seen as a positive benefit. The EU
parliament is informed on food safety matters by the European Food Safety Authority (Prichard
and Burch 2008). They stated further that, individual member states may also have other
legislation and controls in respect of food safety, provided that they do not prevent trade with
other states, and can differ considerably in their internal structures and approaches to the
regulatory control of food safety.
E. Pakistan
Smith (2007), in his study on Pakistan food safety and the regulating laws states that, Pakistan
does not have an integrated legal framework but has a set of laws, which deals with various
aspects of food safety. These laws, despite the fact that they were enacted long time ago, have
tremendous capacity to achieve at least minimum level of food safety. However, like many other
laws, these laws remain very poorly enforced. There are four laws that specifically deals with
food safety. Three of these laws directly focus issues related to food safety, while the fourth, the
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, is indirectly relevant to food safety.
28
The Pure Food Ordinance of 1960, consolidates and amends the law in relation to the preparation
and the sale of foods. All provinces and some northern areas have adopted this law with certain
amendments. Its aim is to ensure purity of food being supplied to people in the market and,
therefore, provides for preventing adulteration. The Pure Food Ordinance 1960 does not apply to
cantonment areas. There is a separate law for cantonments called “The Cantonment Pure Food
Act, 1966”. There is no substantial difference between the Pure Food Ordinance 1960 and the
Cantonment Pure Food Act. even the rules of operation are very much similar.
Pakistan Hotels and Restaurant Act, 1976, applies to all hotels and restaurants in Pakistan and
seeks to control and regulate the rates and standard of service(s) by hotels and restaurants. In
addition to other provisions, under section 22(2), the sale of food or beverages that are
contaminated, not prepared hygienically or served in utensils that are not hygienic or clean is an
offense. There are no express provisions for consumer complaints in the Pakistan Restaurants
Acts, 1976, Pakistan Penal Code, 1960 and Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority
Act, 1996. The laws do not prevent citizens from lodging complaints with the concerned
government officials; however, the consideration and handling of complaints is a matter of
discretion of the officials. (Smith, 2007).
F. United States
The US food system is regulated by numerous federal, state and local officials. Although the US
food safety system is one of the best in the world, yet it lacks “organization, regulatory tools,
and resources to address food borne illness. (WHO, 2009).
United States Federal Level Regulation.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publishes the Food Code, a model set of guidelines
and procedures that assists food control jurisdictions by providing a scientifically sound technical
and legal basis for regulating the retail and food service industries, including restaurants, grocery
stores and institutional foods service providers such as nursing homes. Regulatory agencies at all
levels of government in the United States use the FDA food code to develop or update food
safety rules in their jurisdictions that are consistent with national food regulatory policy.
According to the FDA, 48 of 56 states and territories, representing 79% of U.S population, have
29
adopted food codes patterned after one of the five versions of the Food Code, beginning with the
1993 edition. (WHO, 2009).
In the United States, federal regulations governing food safety are fragmented and complicated,
according to a February 2007, report from the Government Accountability Office. There are 15
agencies sharing oversight responsibilities in the food safety system, although the two primary
agencies are the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods.
According to WHO (2010), the Food Safety and Inspection Service has approximately 7,800
inspection program personnel working in nearly 6,200 federally inspected meat, poultry and
processed egg establishments. FSIS is charged with administering and enforcing the Federal
Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act,
portions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, and the regulations that
implement these laws. FSIS inspection program personnel inspect every animal before slaughter,
and each carcass after slaughter to ensure public health requirements are met. In fiscal year (FY)
2008, this included about 50 billion pounds of livestock carcasses, about 59 billion pounds of
poultry carcasses, and about 4.3 billion pounds of processed egg products. At U.S borders, they
also inspected 3.3 pounds of imported meat and poultry products.
State and Local Regulation
The report states further that, a number of U.S states have their own meat inspection programs
that substitute for USDA inspection for meats that are sold only in-states. Certain state programs
have been criticized for undue leniency to bad practice.
However, other states food safety programs supplement, rather than replace, federal inspections,
generally with the goal of increasing consumer confidence in the state’s produce. For example,
state health departments have a role in investigation outbreaks of food-borne disease bacteria.
30
In addition to US Food and Drug Administration, several states that are major producers of fresh
fruits and vegetables (including California, Arizona and Florida) have their own state programs
to test produce for pesticide residues.
Restaurants and other retail food establishments fall under state law and are regulated by state or
local health departments. Typically these regulations require official inspections of specific
design features, best food-handling practices, and certification of food handlers. In some places a
letter grade or numerical score must be prominently posted following each inspection. In some
localities, inspection deficiencies and remedial action are posted on the internet. (WHO, 2010).
2.3 Food Regulation in Nigeria
Like many other developing countries, Nigeria faces the challenge of providing adequate food
supply for its teeming population. Towards’ this end, policies and programmes aimed at boosting
agricultural and food production are being actively promoted. However, the issue of food safety
posses a more daunting challenge. Like several other countries, Nigeria has to contend with the
problem of food borne diseases with their attendant social, economic and health costs. (Omotayo
and Denloye, 2009).
They stated that realizing the central focus that the issue of food safety is attracting globally,
Nigeria needs to take appropriate and pragmatic steps to ensure food safety and quality for
domestic consumption and export. This is because food has been identified globally as not only a
biological need but also as an economic and political weapon. It is constantly a potential source
of socio-political problems in communities and nations. An effective national food safety policy
should therefore provide the assurance that food supplied to the consumers is adequate,
nutritious, of good quality and wholesome.
The following are the regulatory and legislative framework on food safety in Nigeria:
2.3.1 Nigerian Policy on Food Hygiene and Safety
According to Olofin (2009), recognizing the importance of food safety as an important factor for
achieving high level of health for all Nigerians prompted the government of Nigeria to launch
the National Policy on Food Hygiene and Safety in 2000, as an integral part of the Nigerian
National Health Policy. The over all goal of this policy is the attainment of high level of food
31
hygiene and safety practices which will promote health, control food-borne diseases, minimize
and finally eliminate the risk of diseases related to poor food hygiene and at affordable price.
Implementation of the policy is aimed at addressing the unsatisfactory level of food hygiene and
safety practices which to a large extent is responsible for the prevalence of food-borne diseases
in Nigeria.
2.3.2 Institutional Arrangement
Omotayo and Denloye (2009), state that the responsibilities for regulating and monitoring food
safety standards and practices revolve on the following government organizations and agencies:
1. Federal Ministry of Health
2. National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)
3. Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON)
1. The Federal Ministry of Health
Federal Ministry of Health has the responsibility for formulating national policies, guidelines and
regulations on food hygiene and safety as well as the monitory of their implementation. It is also
responsible for establishing guidelines for the requirements for the nutritive value of food, and
monitoring of food environments and handlers, control of food borne disease, the quality of
public water supply as well as national and international matters relating to food (www.fao.org).
Other responsibilities of the ministry includes:
• To protect the public against injury to health through the consumption of unwholesome
foods.
• To restrain the sale of foods which are unhygienically prepared, adulterated, spoilt,
contaminated, and improperly labeled food products.
• To ensure inter – ministerial and multi – sectional collaborative activities.
• To conduct public health surveillance of food premises, food handlers and equipment
used for processing.
• Ensure proper inspection and registration of all food premises.
• Collaborate with non-governmental organizations and ensure community participation.
• Educate the populace on sound hygiene and safety practices (www.fao.org).
2. National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)
32
NAFDAC is the parastatal under the Federal Ministry of Health, charged with the responsibility
for the regulation and control of imported and locally processed foods and bottled water, at the
Federal and State levels of the government.
NAFDAC Achievements
NAFDAC has made several achievements over the years, including:
• The creation of 6 Zonal and 36 state offices for easy accessibility, which are being
equipped to function effectively,
• Organization of workshops to enlighten various stakeholders, such as (a) pure water
producers (b) the Patent and Proprietary Medicine Dealers Association (PPMDA), and (c)
the National Union of Road Transport Workers and National Association of Road
Transport Owners (NURTW & NARTO),
• Raising awareness not just in Nigeria, also in other countries like India, China, Pakistan,
Indonesia, and Egypt,
• Holding meetings, in concert with the Chairman, House Committee on Health and his
members, with Ambassadors of countries identified with exporting fake drugs into
Nigeria and solicited their support to stop the trend,
• Achieving excellent results in the fight against counterfeit drugs, as evidenced by the
public destruction of about 2 billion Naira worth of drugs from four sources, namely
those handed over by repentant traders those found in secret warehouses on tip off by the
drug sellers and the public, and those seized by the drug sellers' internal task forces and
NAFDAC task forces,
• Launch of anti-counterfeiting technologies by the Nigerian presidency, see note below:
Although the project has been launched, there are serious concerns of complicity, compromise
and lack of professionalism in the delivery of the project; it does not however appear that the
Presidency is aware of this. The above is buttressed by the following:
a. The fact that there are many unanswered questions about the intrigues behind the final
emergence of SPROXIL as the technology provider amidst multiple claims and duly
communicated evidences of technology theft. It is believed that the DG may have
inadvertently (or otherwise) provided the platform that facilitated the theft.
33
• What was most surprising to observers is how the DG ignored and blocked all efforts to
bring this to his knowledge. Ordinarily, it is expected that the NAFDAC DG at his level
of education and exposure should have shown respect for intellectual property rights.
Observers are still studying to understand the real cause of this leadership failure: if it is
purely a factor of ignorance, or overzealousness in his attempt to record 'some kind of
achievements' as a match for the lofty standards set by his predecessor’s (Prof. Dora
Akunyili), or if it is to do with any personal interest.
b. The fact that there are also unanswered questions of management irresponsibility, lack of
prudency and respect for institutional contractual obligations by Dr. Paul Orhi in his
administration of the Project. Dr. Paul Orhi officially awarded multiple contracts on the
same project to different organizations; he encouraged each party to invest their resource
and refused honoring his contractually obligations or providing the parties with official
termination of the contract or explanations. People have questioned the rationale behind
this act given his backgrounds in Law; could it be that he is just careless, intoxicated by
the power that his position is accorded with, or is he taking undue advantage of the
weakness of the law in his host environment. All these are subjects of research by keen
followers of events and developments in African leaders.
• Observers’ concerns are based on the fact that this act has raised litigations against
NAFDAC which will usually end up in the organization paying out huge sum of money
in legal fees and penalties for breach of contracts by the time the cases are disposed of. In
many scenarios such cases are usually not finished during the tenor of the officer in
question and the defaulting officers are often not brought back to account for their
leadership failure.
• Ensuring the formation of a wholesale Drug Mart as the bedrock of the sanitization
exercise,
• Making NAFDAC activities more efficient to reduce delays in, for example, registration
and inspection,
• Holding consultations with national and international stakeholders leading to various
areas of assistance, including, in the areas of staff training, equipment donations and
information sharing from United States Food and Drug Agency (USFDA),
34
Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute (EOHSI), South African
Medicines and Medical Devices regulatory Agency (SAMMDRA),
• Sending proposals for reviewing obsolete laws to the National Assembly, and
• Putting new guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOP) in place for all
regulatory processes (www.nafdacnigeria.org).
3. Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON)
The Standards Organization of Nigeria is responsible for the formulation of standards on the
composition of imported and locally manufactured foods. Many standards of food and food
products as well as a good number of codes of hygienic practices for food and products have
been established. These standards and codes are reviewed periodically to reflect current trends in
technological and industrial development (www.son.org.ng). They include the following:
A. Environmental Hygiene
Potential sources of contamination from the environment should be considered. In particular,
primary food production should not be carried on in areas where the presence of potentially
harmful substances would lead to an unacceptable level of such substances in food.
B. Hygienic Production of Food Sources
The potential effects of primary production activities on the safety and suitability of food should
be considered at all times. In particular, this includes identifying any specific points in such
activities where a high probability of contamination may exist and taking specific measures to
minimize that probability. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) -based
approach may assist in the taking of such measures.
Producers should as far as practicable implement measures to:
• control contamination from air, soil, water, feedstuffs, fertilizers (including natural
fertilizers), pesticides, veterinary drugs or any other agent used in primary production;
• control plant and animal health so that it does not pose a threat to human health through
food consumption, or adversely affect the suitability of the product; and
• protect food sources from faecal (human waste) and other contamination.
35
In particular, care should be taken to manage wastes, and store harmful substances appropriately.
On-farm programmes which achieve specific food safety goals are becoming an important part
of primary production and should be encouraged.
C. Handling, Storage and Transport
Procedures should be in place to:
• sort food and food ingredients to segregate material which is evidently unfit for human
consumption;
• dispose of any rejected material in a hygienic manner; and
• Protect food and food ingredients from contamination by pests, or by chemical, physical
or microbiological contaminants or other objectionable substances during handling,
storage and transport.
Care should be taken to prevent, so far as reasonably practicable, deterioration and spoilage
through appropriate measures which may include controlling temperature, humidity, and/or other
controls.
D. Cleaning, Maintenance and Personnel Hygiene at Primary Production
Appropriate facilities and procedures should be in place to ensure that:
• any necessary cleaning and maintenance is carried out effectively; and
• an appropriate degree of personal hygiene is maintained.
E. Food Control and Monitoring Equipment
In addition to the general requirements in (d), equipment used to cook, heat treat, cool, store or
freeze food should be designed to achieve the required food temperatures as rapidly as necessary
in the interests of food safety and suitability, and maintain them effectively. Such equipment
should also be designed to allow temperatures to be monitored and controlled. Where necessary,
such equipment should have effective means of controlling and monitoring humidity, air-flow
and any other characteristic likely to have a detrimental effect on the safety or suitability of food.
These requirements are intended to ensure that:
36
• harmful or undesirable micro-organisms or their toxins are eliminated or reduced to safe
levels or their survival and growth are effectively controlled;
• where appropriate, critical limits established in HACCP-based plans can be monitored;
and
• temperatures and other conditions necessary to food safety and suitability can be rapidly
achieved and maintained.
F. Containers for Waste and Inedible Substances
Containers for waste, by-products and inedible or dangerous substances, should be specifically
identifiable, suitably constructed and, where appropriate, made of impervious material.
Containers used to hold dangerous substances should be identified and, where appropriate, be
lockable to prevent malicious or accidental contamination of food.
G. Water Supply
An adequate supply of potable water with appropriate facilities for its storage, distribution and
temperature control, should be available whenever necessary to ensure the safety and suitability
of food. Potable water should be as specified in the latest edition of WHO Guidelines for
Drinking Water Quality, or water of a higher standard. Non-potable water (for use in, for
example, fire control, steam production, refrigeration and other similar purposes where it would
not contaminate food), shall have a separate system. Non-potable water systems shall be
identified and shall not connect with, or allow reflux into, potable water systems.
H. Drainage and Waste Disposal
They should be designed and constructed so that the risk of contaminating food or the potable
water supply is avoided.
I. Cleaning
Adequate facilities, suitably designated, should be provided for cleaning food, utensils and
equipment. Such facilities should have an adequate supply of hot and cold potable water where
appropriate.
ould be suitably located and designated.
37
J. Storage
Where appropriate, food storage facilities should be designed and constructed to:
• permit adequate maintenance and cleaning;
• avoid pest access and harbourage;
• enable food to be effectively protected from contamination during storage; and
• where necessary, provide an environment which minimizes the deterioration of food
(e.g. by temperature and humidity control).
The type of storage facilities required will depend on the nature of the food. Where necessary,
separate, secure storage facilities for cleaning materials and hazardous substances should be
provided.
K. Packaging
Packaging design and materials should provide adequate protection for products to minimize
contamination, prevent damage, and accommodate proper labeling. Packaging materials or gases
where used must be non-toxic and not pose a threat to the safety and suitability of food under the
specified conditions of storage and use. Where appropriate, reusable packaging should be
suitably durable, easy to clean and, where necessary, disinfect.
L. Water
Only potable water, should be used in food handling and processing, with the following
exceptions:
• for steam production, fire control and other similar purposes not connected with food;
and
• in certain food processes, e.g. chilling, and in food handling areas, provided this does not
constitute a hazard to the safety and suitability of food (e.g. the use of clean sea water).
Water re-circulated for reuse should be treated and maintained in such a condition that no risk to
the safety and suitability of food results from its use. The treatment process should be effectively
monitored. Re-circulated water which has received no further treatment and water recovered
from processing of food by evaporation or drying may be used, provided its use does not
constitute a risk to the safety and suitability of food.
38
M. Water as an Ingredient
Potable water should be used wherever necessary to avoid food contamination.
N. Ice and Steam
Ice and steam should be produced, handled and stored to protect them from contamination.
Steam used in direct contact with food or food contact surfaces should not constitute a threat to
the safety and suitability of food.
O. Cleaning Programme
Cleaning and disinfection programmes should ensure that all parts of the establishment are
appropriately clean, and should include the cleaning of cleaning equipment.
Cleaning and disinfection programmes should be continually and effectively monitored for their
suitability and effectiveness and where necessary, documented.
Where written cleaning programmes are used, they should specify:
• areas, items of equipment and utensils to be cleaned;
• responsibility for particular tasks;
• method and frequency of cleaning; and
• monitoring arrangements.
Where appropriate, programmes should be drawn up in consultation with relevant specialist
expert advisors.
P. Waste Management
Suitable provision must be made for the removal and storage of waste. Waste must not be
allowed to accumulate in food handling, food storage, and other working areas and the adjoining
environment except so far as is unavoidable for the proper functioning of the business.
Waste stores must be kept appropriately clean.
Q. Monitoring Effectiveness
Sanitation systems should be monitored for effectiveness, periodically verified by means such as
audit pre-operational inspections or, where appropriate, microbiological sampling of
environment and food contact surfaces and regularly reviewed and adapted to reflect changed
circumstances
39
R. Lot Identification
Lot identification is essential in product recall and also helps effective stock rotation. Each
container of food should be permanently marked to identify the producer and the lot. Codex
General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985) applies.
S. Product Information
All food products should be accompanied by or bear adequate information to enable the next
person in the food chain to handle, display, store and prepare and use the product safely and
correctly.
T. Labeling
Prepackaged foods should be labeled with clear instructions to enable the next person in the food
chain to handle, display, store and use the product safely. Codex General Standard for the
Labeling of Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985) applies.
U. Consumer Education
Health education programmes should cover general food hygiene. Such programmes should
enable consumers to understand the importance of any product information and to follow any
instructions accompanying products, and make informed choices. In particular consumers should
be informed of the relationship between time/temperature control and food-borne illness.
2.4 Farmers Views on Safety of Food
The views of farmers were taken from studies conducted at different time and areas, but strictly
on farm produce in Nigeria. In a survey conducted by Ojo (2010), on “food processing,
transportation, storage and safety of farm produce in south-east zone”, result shows that food
processing was still at crude stage as a result of lack of modern processing equipment, high cost
of transportation and damage on foods due to bad roads. Farmers according to the study
complain that the popular Abakaliki rice was perceived to be unsafe for consumption because it
contains stones, of low nutrition and dirty. The study further reveal that plantain and banana that
are rich in iron and vitamin was not completely safe for consumption because it was believed
that retailers of these produce used harmful chemicals to induce them to ripe quickly.
40
A study carried out by Okoh (2010), on “preservation and safety of foods produced in the South-
South zone” shows that although the farmers believed that their produce are cheap, available and
safe for consumption, yet the presence of impurities like stones, pieces of wood, rats dropping,
etc, in garri, rice and palm oil have arose the interest of consumers ( both literates and
illiterates) to exercise careful observation during purchase. Okoh, says that pork was seen to be
unsafe for consumption by some consumers because it was believed that it contains worm, while
others forbids it on religions belief. Produce like banana, sugar cane, vegetables and pineapple
are harvested and sold out immediately to avoid decay because the farmers lack storage facilities.
The investigation further reported that farmers do observe some levels of storage by tying yam
on erected bans covered with palm front to avoid exposure to direct sun light. The study
concluded that produce like maize, cotton seed, groundnut, cocoa and plantain are dried and kept
in bags and tins for sales in future.
A research conducted by Olofin (2009), in the northern region to determine the “impact of
environmental factors on agricultural produce and their safety”, shows that produce such as
tomatoes, orange, mango, pawpaw, guava, etc discovered by farmers to have ripped before the
normal time as a result of weather, attack by rodents, or even diseases are harvested and sold
without delay. The farmers further disclosed that sometimes weevils eat up the most nutritive
parts of cereals such as beans, maize, millets, and rice thereby rendering these produce
economically useless. As a result, some farmers have resorted to preserving their produce with
chemicals. The cases of infections and deaths according to the study that resulted from
consumption of foods preserved with harmful chemicals especially the cases of the popular
“killer beans” of 1996, 2004, 2009, and 2012 were traced to such preservations. The study
concluded that some times diseases are detected in meats and chickens that infected livestock
and poultry from the environment where they are processed in the form of rearing,
transportation, preparation, sales or storage. Such infections instill fear on consumers and brings
doubt on the safety of these produce.
2.5 Manufacturers View Point on Safety of Food
Reports on deceptive information on processed foods manufactured by some companies in
Nigeria including imported products have increased recently. Some cases of processed food
41
poisoning in Nigeria, were traced to false information on products label especially on
manufacturing and expiring dates, nutritional contents and storage.
In line with the above, the views of brand managers of two manufacturing companies (Cadbury
Nigeria Plc and Nestle Nigeria Plc) on products safety were sought in a research carried by
Ogundugbe in 2011, which centered on manufacturing and expiring dates, nutritional contents of
processed foods, weight, and storage instruction. The results of the study were presented under:
manufacturing date, food additives, nutrition, and storage.
i. Manufacturing Date: The researcher (Ogundugbe) sought the views of the respondents
on the difference between “use-by” and “best before” date. Result shows that foods with
a shelf life of less than two years must have a “best before or use-by” date. These terms
means different things. The “best before” date refers to the quality of the food-food
stored in the recommended way (including temperature) will remain of good quality until
that date. It may still be safe to eat certain foods after the “best before” date, but they may
have lost quality and some nutritional values. By contrast, foods that should not be
consumed after a certain date for health and safety reasons must have a “use-by” date and
cannot be sold after that date. Consumers can find “use-by” dates on perishables such as
meat, fish and dairy products. Some foods carry the date they were manufactured or
packed, rather than a “use-by” date, so you can tell how fresh the food is. For example
bread and meat can be labeled with a “baked on” or packed on” date. You should
according to the study: (1) check the “use-by or best before” dates when you buy food (2)
keep an eye on the “best before or use-by” dates on the food in your cupboard or
refrigerator (3) do not eat any food that is past its “use-by” date even if it looks and
smells good.
ii. Food Additives: The researcher asked to find out the application of additives. Responses
shows that all food additives must have a specific use and they must be assessed and
approved by National Agency for Foods Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
They must be used in the lowest possible quantity that will achieve their purpose. Food
additives are given in the ingredients list according to their class, which is followed by a
chemical name or number. For example: colour (tartrazine), colour (102), preservative
(200), and emulsifier (lecithin).
42
The same food additive numbering system is used throughout the world.
iii. Nutrition: The researcher further asked to know the quantity of various nutrients a food
contains per serve. Result shows that the nutrition information panel (NIP) tells you the
quantity of various nutrients a food contains per serve, as well as per 100g or 100ml. It is
best to use the per 100g or 100ml to compare similar products, because the size of one
“serve” may differ between manufacturers. For example per serve of big and small plastic
container of bournvital is kcal 72 and their weights are 900g and 450g,while that of milo
(big and small) container is kcal 80 and their weights are 900g and 500g respectively.
The NIP provides information on seven nutrients. Energy (kilojoules), protein, total fat,
saturated fat, total carbohydrates, sugar and sodium. Cholestrol contents does not have to
be listed unless a claim is made. Other nutrients such as fibre, potassium, calcium and
iron may be listed if a claim is made on the label. The nutrients are displayed in standard
format eg 31g of sugar, 1.9g of fat, 0.2 of fibre, 0.18 of sodium etc.
• Storage Instruction: The respondents were of the opinion that storage instruction
should always appear on the label and not on the accompanying leaflet. The label
should include all information on the appropriate temperature for storage of the
product. For example, instructions comes in the form of “store at room temperature
below 300C in the original pack or store in the original package in the refrigerator
(280C) or once opened keep tightly covered”.
2.6 Food Poisoning in Nigeria
There is an increase in food poisoning in the country with many Nigerians being ignorant of this
silent killer, and when it strikes they become restless. For people to be well nourished and
healthy therefore, the food they eat must be safe and of good quality. Over the years, Nigerians
had recorded frightening figures and cases of food poisoning. Some times people eat a particular
food and develop abdominal discomfort which has taken victims to the emergency rooms of
hospitals and even death in some cases (Ewepu, 2011).
Unfortunately, it has been a reoccurring incidence, with thousands of lives lost and yet
there are no conscious efforts to stem the tide. To prevent this ugly menace posed by food
poisoning, it is imperative we understand the bacteria that causes food poisoning, its symptoms
in our body as well as knowing various precautions to adopt in order to combat this epidemic.
43
2.6.1 What is Food Poisoning?
Food poisoning is the term used to describe a wide variety of food borne illnesses; these are
illnesses caused by eating food contaminated by toxic chemicals and toxins produced by
microorganisms.
Food poisoning can also be seen as health problems arising from eating contaminated foods. The
foods may be contaminated by bacteria, viruses, environmental toxins or toxins present within
the food itself (FAO, 2010).
According to Husle (2009), food poisoning can also be seen as a common, usually mild but
sometimes deadly illness which occurs after consuming a contaminated food or drink.
Depending on the contaminant, fever chills, bloody stools, dehydration and sometimes damage
to the nervous system may follow. The symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping, and diarrhea that suddenly occur. These symptoms may affect one person or a group
of people who ate the same food or drink.
2.6.2 Cases of Food Poisoning In Nigeria
There have been series of cases on food poisoning in Nigeria that have not only taking people to
the hospital but also led to death of many souls. The following are few among many cases of
food poisoning recorded in Nigeria.
Case one: Food Poisoning in Katsina State
Fifty four (54) victims of food poisoning in Gatakwa village in Kankara local Government Area
of Kastina State as reported by News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in June 2012, have survived
food poisoning.
The chief nursing officer of the Kankara General Hospital, Mr. Joshua Danjuma, told the News
Agency that the victims were brought to the hospital same day they ate the poisoned food. He
said the victims reportedly consumed a local cake prepared with treated beans meant for
planting. ‘The beans had been mixed with chemicals and prepared to be used as seeds but was
bought by a woman who prepare beans cake for sale’ he explained.
44
Danjuma said all the victims had survived what could have been a tragedy after a series of
medications, stressing that they were admitted at the stage of convulsion. He said the victims
including school children and adults, were brought to the clinic unconscious, with most of them
vomiting and excreting some substances.
Danjuma said that samples of the flesh of animals, which died after drinking the water used in
washing the beans had been taken for further medical tests. He said that a medical team from the
state government also assisted in treating the victims.
The primary health coordinator of Kankara Local government Area, Aihaji Sani Kusada,
confirmed the incident. According to him (Sani) the victims were supported with drugs and
other items needed to contain the situation.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalled a similar incident which occurred on June 4, 2012,
in Kafur Local Government, where 26 persons consumed locally made food (tuwo) prepared
with treated guinea corn. The victims also survived the poison after medications. Expert said that
the killer beans was traceable to the chemical preservatives used in preserving the beans, which
contaminated the beans in the process.
In 2008, the former director general of National Agency for Food and Drugs Administration and
Control (NAFDAC), Prof. Dora Akunyili, said that there were many cases of acute poisoning
and over 20,000 deaths occur annually due to exposure of foods to pesticides. She said these
pesticides are wrongly applied and abused in preventing pests. Akunyili further stated that “the
hazardous nature of pesticides and their inherent toxicity and ability to cause poisoning makes it
mandatory that we ensure the safety of the users, our populace and the environment”.
In another report presented by Compass News Paper in June 2012, ten secondary school teachers
were killed by food poisoning, while several were hospitalized in Katsina, the Kastina State
Capital. The incident occurred at a work shop organized by the state ministry of education for
650 teachers at the Government Day Secondary School (GDSS),Kufur Yan’daka, Katsina.
It was gathered that soon after taking their lunch, supplied by a popular corporate caterer, some
of the teachers started vomiting and stooling, as a result they were rushed to the Federal Medical
45
Center, Katsina and the Police Clinic for medication. Ten of the affected teachers reportedly died
as a result of the poisoning.
The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Alhaji Khalil Musa who was contacted as a
result of the incidence said “I cannot comment on the issue now, because it is yet to be reported
to the State Government. I don’t want to pre-empt the government on the issue.”
However, the state police spokesman, Abubakar lbrahim, an assistant superintendent of police
(ASP), who confirmed the incident, said that while only one teacher died, 19 others were
hospitalized. He said that 12 of the affected teachers had already been discharged from the
hospital. He said that the police had already collected samples of the food they allegedly ate for
clinical analysis.
Case two: Food Poisoning in Oyo State.
The people of Odo Oba, a community close to Ogbomoso in Oyo State, as reported by Tribune
Newspaper of December 2011,woke up on Wednesday morning to the news of the death of
seven persons suspected to have died of food poisoning after a meal of fish and amala.
Information gathered from sources indicated that the women, which, included the grandmother,
mother and five children, were discovered dead when their door was forced open when
neigbours discovered none of them showed up in the morning.
According to the witness, the neighbors who discovered the seven corpses reported the incidence
to the police station at Odo Oba, before their corpses were later transferred to the mortuary at
Ogbomoso. The information said there was no external injury on the seven corpses now awaiting
post mortem examination at the state hospital to help further unravel the conditions surrounding
their death.
Case three: Food Poisoning Incidence in Cross River and Gombe State
According to FAO, (2010), some people in Bekwara Local Government area of Cross River
State suffered from food poisoning due to indigestion of moi-moi and beans. As a result, about
122 people were hospitalized, while deaths of two children were recorded. The moi-moi and
beans were said to have contained a large dose of highly toxic pesticides.
46
It was also reported that over 120 students of Government Secondary School, Doma, Gombe
State, were rushed to Gombe Specialist Hospital after consuming a meal of beans suspected to
have been preserved with poisonous chemicals. The people who sold the beans are yet to be
identified and dealt with.
Case Four :Groom Dies from Food Poisoning on Eve of His Wedding in Lagos.
Family members, friends and colleagues of a 32 year old groom named Yusuf Babalola as
reported by PM News, are currently trying to unravel the sudden death of the young man who
was alleged to have been poisoned on the eve of his wedding. Investigations revealed that the
late Babalola woke up at about 6:30am on Thursday, 12 July,2012, the day he was to be at the
Marriage Registry, complaining of stomach upset to his bride kudirat. She raised an alarm by
calling on his friends when the ailment became unbearable. Though he was taken to the hospital,
but he was clinically confirmed dead two hours later. A close friend of the deceased who did not
want his name mentioned told PM News that on getting to his apartment on Wright Street,
Ebutte-Metta, Lagos, Babalola who was unconscious was later taken to Mt. Sinai hospital, Yaba
but the doctor on duty referred them to Lagos Medical Centre inside the Nigerian railway
compound were the deceased was confirmed dead.
A source told PM News that one of the doctors told the family that a bad substance was found in
his mouth which shows that he might have died of food poisoning. Another friend told PM
News that before late Babalola, was buried on the same day at Atan Cemetery according to
Islamic Right, his friends and family members separately called four doctors and a herbalist to
further certify that Babalola was actually dead because of the mystery surrounding the way he
died.
The question on the lips of sympathizers, family members and friends is who killed Yusuf?.
Case Five: Food Poisoning in Edo State
FAO (2010), report that eight triplicates of samples of meat pies were randomly sampled from
Standard Eatery and local kiosk in Benin City and analyzed micro biologically for the rate of
staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. The food produced some enzymes which are
implicated with staphylococcal invasiveness and many extracellular substances. The samples of
the fresh meat pie were purchased from the Standard Eatery and transferred immediately to the
laboratory for further analysis on May,2010.
47
The presence of those organisms in ready to eat food (meat pie) depicts a deplorable state of poor
hygienic and sanitary practices employed in the processing and packaging of these food
products.
Case Six: Indomie Brand Crisis
lndomie Instant Noodles is a products of De-United Food Industries Limited with Factories
lndomie Instant Noodles located in Ota, Ogun state and Port Harcourt, with an installed capacity
of 500,000 packs and 468,000 packs per day respectively is back on the market as reported by
PM News.
The Ota factory we are told currently runs at 100% installed capacity while Port Harcourt factory
runs 50%. Solid, one would say. It is also no longer news that the Indomie Instant Noodles which
was first registered in 1997 and so far with seven (7) flavors duly registered by NAFDAC has
been cleared by the much respected regulatory body of integrity, National Agency for Food
Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) though with some lapses identified.
In May 11, 2004, it was alleged that some people got sick after consuming Indomie Instant
Noodles, after which NAFDAC issued an alert and embarked on investigations.
NAFDAC also said it received a report from the Honorable Commissioner of Health for Lagos
State, Dr. Leke Pitan on the same complaints. The Commissioner immediately swung into action
and instructed all state hospitals to report any such cases of food poisoning.
From the records too, a total of six hospitals were visited in the course of the investigations; 4 in
Lagos, one in Abuja and one in Nsukka. Two families were visited by NAFDAC team to
investigate and collect samples. One of the families visited was that of the deceased, Mr.
Oluyemi Moritiwon, who was alleged to have started stooling and vomiting after a meal of
Indomie instant Noodles Chicken Flavor. The family confirmed the incident but informed
NAFDAC team that the deceased was reported to have died from enlarged heart condition one
week later.
Consequently, the microbial assessment of the samples were analyzed within acceptable limits
after which De-united Foods Ltd, producers of Indomie Instant Noodles, was directed to recall
48
all fIavour of Indomie Noodles, which were produced between March 30th, 2004 and April 4th
2004, from their warehouses, distributors and retailers for destruction by NAFDAC.
The batches detected were seen to have contained Carbofuran, a Carbamate Pesticide used in
Agriculture. Carbofuran has acute toxicity causing the following health effects which includes;
diarrhea, vomiting, chest pain, blurred vision, anxiety and general muscular weakness, when
people are exposed to levels above the maximum contaminant level. “Therefore the level of
Carbofuran Pesticide obtained in the lndomie Noodles meal may be responsible in the reported
cases of diarrhea and vomiting” says NAFDAC.
The entire process first and foremost deserves the commendation of our beloved NAFDAC. It
was as usual, very transparent and excellent. Kudos must also go to the Indomie Brand Managers
led by Mr. Roger Yu for calm and transparent disposition during the week long crisis.
One may call the entire situation lapses, oversight, lethargy or marketing complacency. The truth
is that the brand manager deserves to be more vigilant and consumer focused from what was
revealed during the crisis. Other eateries and restaurants are not exempted too. There are abound
records of brands, eateries and restaurants all over the world that were overtly doing very well
and all of a sudden went under as a result of carelessness or what have you. Vigilance is the
watch word for all. It’s a food for thought.
Case Seven: Food Poisoning in Owerri, Imo State
The Vanguard Newspaper of 8th July, 2013, reported thus: “The joy of a family residing in
Graceland Estate, Egbeada, Owerri, almost turned sour as no fewer than 30 of their guests ended
up in hospital after eating suspected poisoned Igbo delicacy, Ugba. The family ( name withheld),
invited their friends and relations to the christening ceremony of their child and they all retired to
their Graceland Estate residence after service. A reliable source close to the family informed
Vanguard that the delicacy was purchased from Owerri main market. The local delicacy was
served to all the guests, numbering over 30. All of them enjoyed it but oblivious of the danger
lurking around the corner, the man recounted. According to him feelers started tricking in that
some of their guests had ended in several hospitals, including Federal Medical Centre, Owerri. A
man whose wife consumed the delicacy and who preferred anonymity, said his wife started
stooling and vomiting later that evening and was rushed to the Federal Medical Centre, Owerri.
The man said that he was shocked to find that another woman, who was equally a guest at the
49
child dedication ceremony was already admitted in the hospital suffering the same symptoms .It
was further gathered at the time of going to press that the medical doctors were still battling to
save the lives of the new baby`s mother and her father in-law. Vanguards recalls that only
recently, eight persons in Ngor Okpalaeke Local Council Area of Imo State, lost their lives after
consuming the local delicacy”.
2.6.3 Causes of Food Poisoning.
Food poisoning is on the rise in Nigeria. There have been countless cases of deaths caused by
this menace. According WHO (2010), there are many factors which contribute to food
poisoning:
1. Poor hygiene which is a major cause of food poisoning as people do not observe personal
hygiene principles. Many people fail to wash their hands with soap after using the toilet
and they use it to eat and prepare food for themselves and others.
2. Unhygienic environment where some restaurants are located contributes to food
poisoning even from the point of purchase of food items to the place it is being prepared
particularly the handling and preservation methods, at the end of it all, the consumers
receives the trouble.
3. Infectious agents which include viruses, bacteria and parasites.
4. Toxic agents which include poisonous mushrooms and improperly prepared exotic foods.
2.6.3.1 Common Pathogens Causing Food Poisoning
1. Listeria : found in a variety of raw foods, such as uncooked meats and vegetables and in
processed foods that become contaminated after processing.
2. Salmonella: it can be seen in eggs, meat and milk.
3. Shigella: the bacteria is transmitted through direct contact with an infected person or
from food or water contaminated by infected persons.
4. Vibrio : can be seen in contaminated sea foods such as shell fish from polluted water.
5. Clostridium Perfringens: which grows in warm food like beef, stew, etc, that produces
toxins.
2.6.3.2 How to Prevent Food Poisoning
The following steps according to WHO (2010), wil1 help in preserving food poisoning if strictly
adhered to:
50
• Avoid buying expired food.
• Do not eat stale foods.
• Wash hands with soap after using the toilet.
• Keep the kitchen clean always.
• Endeavor to properly cover every cooked food and adequately preserve foodstuff.
• Avoid any torn or leaking packages of food.
• Refrigerate perishable foods, place raw meat or fish in the coldest section of the
refrigerator.
• Wash fruits, vegetable, fish and meat with salt.
• Keep the environment clean.
• Sanitize cutting board often.
2.7 Conceptual Framework
Food safety can be defined in a broad or in a more narrow way. In the narrow sense, food safety
can be defined as the opposite of food risk, i.e. as the probability of not contracting a disease as a
consequence of consuming a certain food. In the broad sense, food safety can be viewed as also
encompassing nutritional qualities of foods, such as many European consumers’ uneasiness
about genetically modified food (Ritson and Mai, 2008).
As with food quality, we can distinguish objective from subjective food safety. Objective food
safety is a concept based on the assessment of the risk in consuming a certain food by scientists
and food experts. Subjective food safety is in the mind of the consumer. It is widely
acknowledged that objective and subjective safety (or risk) deviate in many cases. Until recently,
such deviations were mostly regarded as a nuisance that has to be tackled by better consumer
information and education. More recently – and in the light of the failure of attempts to educate
consumers to become amateur food scientists – this attitude has given way to a recognition of the
necessity to deal with consumers’ perceptions of risk and safety as they are (Frewer et al., 2005).
Is safety just another dimension of quality? A broad definition of food quality as everything a
consumer would find desirable in a food product would suggest yes, as safety certainly is a
desirable quality of food. However, qualitative studies of food quality perception suggest that
safety is not uppermost in consumer’s minds when they are asked to describe their own view of
food quality. This may suggest that perceptions of food safety affect consumer food choice in
51
ways that are different from perceptions of the other dimensions of quality we have distinguished
above (Brunso et al., 2002). According to Herrmann (1997), it seems that safety perceptions play
a role predominantly in two ways. First, in situations where major safety problems are perceived
– the so called food scares, such as BSE in Britain , the dioxin problem in Belgium, or Alar
controversy in the USA – risk perceptions can come to dominate all other considerations in food
choice and lead consumers to avoid certain categories or brands for some time, until the
situation has returned to normal. Safety perceptions in this sense act as a “sleeping giant” that
does not enter quality perceptions under normal circumstances, but can have sweeping effects at
times of crisis. Second, consumers apply safety consideration to certain production technologies.
Major examples are food irradiation and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In this case
the consumers perceive the use of certain production techniques as unsafe, and they develop
negative attitudes towards the use of these technologies. Such attitudes can be powerful forces in
the market place, which both industry and regulators take seriously, and they have resulted in
non-use of irradiation and considerable delay of the adoption of GMOs on European markets.
Consumer risk perception in more general terms has been widely studied and a number of
regularities have been observed ( Frewer et al., 2005). Two phenomena that seems to be rather
robust will be mentioned here. First, consumers seem to perceive that ready-made meals as more
dangerous than meals they have cooked themselves, and the perceived risk is amplified when
new and unknown technologies are used. Second, the importance of the dimensions of dread and
familiarity in risk perception has been amply demonstrated, implying that familiar risks are
perceived as less severe than unfamiliar ones- a phenomenon relevant to the perception of GMOs
and other forms of novel foods.
Food safety is a major topic for public policy. Regulatory responses have been, roughly
speaking, in two categories. The first refers to the enforcement of common standards for food
safety, which has no immediate impact on consumer food choice, but is debatable in terms of
economic efficiency when consumer preferences for safety are assumed to be heterogeneous.
The second refers to attempt to provide transparency and encourage consumers to form their
own judgments on the food safety, supported by mechanisms of public participation, consumer
education, and consumer information instruments such as labelling.
52
2.7.1 Consumers’ Perception
In biology, perception refers to the senses that any organism uses to collect information
about its environment. The senses corresponding to the human sense organs have been
categorized at least since Aristotles time as: vision (our eyes), hearing (our ears), taste (our
tongues), touch (our skin) and smell (our noses). Our sense of smell and taste are our olfactory
senses due to the fact that our senses of smell and taste are so closely entwined and that humans
also perceive in a kin-aesthetic mode ,(using muscles and joints) and in a vestibular mode
(through our internal organs) (Alba and Wesleys, 2009).
In consumer behaviour, however, perception refers to much more than just the biological use of
our sense organs. It includes the way stimuli are interacted and integrated by the consumer.
Although there are numerous definitions in literature explaining perception from a consumer
behaviour perspective, the one used by Brunswick (2009), provides particular clarity on the
topic:
“The entire process by which an individual becomes aware of the
environment and interprets it so that it will fit into his or her frame of
reference”
Brunswick (2009), expanded on the definition by stating that every perception involves a person
who interprets through the senses some thing, event, or relation which may be designated as the
percept. Alba and Wesley (2009), add that perception occurs when sensory receptors receive
stimuli via the brain, code and categorize them and assign certain meanings to them, depending
on the person’s frame of reference. A person’s frame of reference consists of all his previous
held experiences, beliefs, likes, dislikes, prejudices, feelings and other psychological reactions of
unknown origin.
From the discussion, it is eminent that the perception process has long been recognized as the
most significant barrier to effective communication. It is at this point that the sender does or does
not get through to the receiver, since correct decoding of marketing information hinges on the
consumer’s perception of the communication content (Aaker and Gary, 2008).
A problem though with perception and related studies is that two individuals may be subjected to
the same stimuli under apparently the same conditions, but how they recognize, select, organize
and interpret them is a highly individual process based on each person’s own needs, values,
53
expectations and the like. Individuals furthermore act and react on the basis of their perceptions,
not on the basis of objective reality. With this in mind it is important that marketers understand
the whole notion of perception and its related concepts so that they can more readily determine
what influences consumers to buy (Dickson and Alan, 2009).
According to Brunswick (2009), the perception process is also complicated due to the possibility
that individuals may be stimulated below their level of conscious awareness (known as
subliminal perception), ie they can perceive stimuli without being consciously aware of the
stimuli in question. Individuals also experience a certain amount of risk when making a
purchasing decision and have a limited capacity to process all the different stimuli directed at
them. This leads to a selective perception process where individuals will expose themselves
selectively to marketing stimuli, pay selective attention to these stimuli and then interpret it to
conform with previous held beliefs and attitudes. Only messages conforming to held beliefs will
be retained.
2.7.2 The Consumers’ Perception Process
The perception process as displayed in the figure below consists of five distinct activities. The
first activity is that of exposure to stimuli. The second states that attention to stimuli has to occur.
During the third activity, organization, people organize stimuli so that it can be comprehended
and retained. The fourth activity is that of interpretation of the message. Information is retained
during the last activity. As seen in figure 2.6, a successful perception process leads to a
purchasing and consumption decision (Hawkins, 2007).
54
Figure 2.1 : The Consumers’ Perception Process Model
Source: Adapted from Hawkins (2007), “The Measurement of Information Value: A Study
in Consumer Decision Making”, American Marketing Association, Vol. 12, No 3, 413-421.
Exposure
Attention
Organization
Interpretation
Retention
Purchase and
consumption
decisions
55
1. Exposure
Exposure, the first step of the perception process, occurs when a stimulus comes within the range
of our sensory receptor nerves, ie when stimuli come within the range of one of our senses.
Exposure is therefore simply the minimum requirement of perception. No matter how great a
message is, it will not be perceived unless a person is exposed to the stimulus (Hawkins, 2007).
Dickson and Alan (2009), explain that exposure to stimuli is of either an intentional or an
accidental nature. Intentional exposure occurs when an individual is exposed to market- related
information because of his own intentional, goal-directed behaviour, ie it reflects a person’s
interests, reading habits, information needs and life style.
Accidental exposure to stimuli occurs when the individual is exposed to intensive marketing
campaigns, such as the messages portrayed by the broadcasting media, billboards, point-of-sale
displays in the retail store and the vast number of magazine and newspaper advertisements.
Furthermore, the individual is also accidentally exposed to information such as testimonies from
friends or relatives concerning a specific product. Such testimonies first leads to interest, and
then to intentional exposure. There can be no communication (or a perception process for that
matter) without exposure (Hawkins, 2007).
2. Attention
According to Brunswick (2009), an individual is exposed, whether intentionally or accidentally,
to thousands of different marketing stimuli during a normal living day ranging from thousands of
different products in a retail store, all differing in packaging, colour and design to as many as 1,
500 advertisements. From a marketing perspective, attention is of crucial importance, since no
matter how often a consumer is exposed to marketing stimuli, if no attention took place, the
message is of no use. Attention to a given stimulus has taken place only if a consumer notices or
attends to the stimulus. If a consumer does not focus on a stimulus, eg an advertisement,
although he has been exposed to it, attention did not take place.
The attention process can therefore be viewed as an information filter - a screening mechanism
that controls the quantity and nature of information any individual receives (Aaker and Gary,
2008). They state further that, before attending to the factors determining attention, it is
important to note that the so- called attention filter operates at three different levels of effort and
consciousness that vary from active search to passive attention.
56
Levels of Effort and Consciousness in the Attention Process
Hawkins (2007), point out the importance of there being three different levels in the attention
process. The same person may devote different levels of attention to the same stimulus in
differenvt situations. The three levels involved are active search, passive search and passive
attention.
According to Aaker and Gary (2008), a receiver actually seeks information at the first level of
the attention filter, active search. Information might be gathered from magazines not normally
read, or by soliciting the opinions of friends.
At the second level, passive search, a receiver searches for information only from sources to
which he is exposed during the normal course of events. No effort is made to obtain information
from sources not usually exposed to.
At the final level, passive attention, a receiver has little immediate need for information.
Although no conscious effort is made to obtain information, some may nevertheless enter the
system.
3. Perceptual Organization
Assael (2009), define perceptual organization as:
“The organization of disparate information so that it can be
comprehended and retained.”
He explain that people do not experience the numerous stimuli they select from the environment
as separate and discrete sensations. They rather tend to organize them into groups and perceive
them as unified wholes. The perceived characteristics of even the simplest stimulus are therefore
viewed as a function of the whole to which the stimulus appears to belong. Dickson and Alan
(2009), support this viewpoint by adding that during the perceptual organization process,
consumers group information from various sources into a meaningful whole to better
comprehend such information and act on it.
Aaker and Gary (2008), explain perceptual organization by stating that because stimuli are
perceived not as a set of elements but as a whole, it can be concluded that this total has a
meaning of its own that is not necessarily deductible from its individual components. This
phenomenon is termed the gestalt psychology.
57
Assael (2009), define the gestalt psychology as:
“A German school of psychology that focuses on total configurations or whole
patterns. Stimuli, such as advertising messages are seen as an integrated
whole.
Assael claim that the basic hypothesis of the gestalt psychologists is that people organize
perceptions to form a complete picture of an object. Mowen (2003), supports this view by stating
that the gestalt psychologists attempted to identify the rules that govern how people take disjoint
stimuli and make sense out of the shapes and forms to which they are exposed. Aaker and Gary
(2008), suggest that even when stimuli are incomplete, people strive to form a complete
impression of a person or object. The reason for this statement is that an individual has a
cognitive drive towards an orderly cognitive configuration or psychological field. An individual
desires to make the field as good as possible.
Dickson and Alan (2009), conclude by stressing the fact that an important tenet of the gestalt
psychology is that there is a cognitive drive to obtain what they term a “good gestalt, ie people
desire to have perceptions that are simple, familiar, regular, complete, meaningful and consistent.
4. Perceptual Interpretation
Mowen (2003), define interpretation as:
“a process whereby people draw upon their experience, memory, and
expectations to interpret and attach meaning to a stimulus”.
Brunswick (2009), explain that the interpretation phase is uniquely individual, since it is based
upon what individuals expect to see in the light of their previous experience, on the number of
plausible explanations they can envision, and on their interests and motives at the time
perception occurs. Mowen (2003), add to this by stating that during this phase, people will
retrieve from long-term memory information pertinent to the stimulus. Expectancies regarding
what the stimulus “should be like” are also retrieved from memory and used to interpret the
stimulus.
Mowen (2003), note a problem with interpretation, namely that individuals may interpret the
same stimulus differently. He add that personal inclinations, bias, and most important of all,
expectations of the individual, will influence his interpretation of a stimulus. Assael (2009),
58
continues by explaining that perceptual interpretation consists of two basic principles, namely
categorization and inference. Categorization assists the individual to process known information
quickly and efficiently and classify new information. Inference involves the development of an
association between two stimuli.
a. Perceptual Categorization
Perceptual categorization was defined by Assael (2009) as:
“Tendency of consumers to place marketing information into logical
categories in order to process information quickly and efficiently, and to
classify new information”
Wilkie (2006), explains that the categorization process is extremely important since it underpins
all our interactions with our external world. He expands his explanation by stating that the way
an individual initially categorizes a stimulus, will affect how interested that individual will be in
the stimulus, what to expect from it, and whether it will be evaluated positively or negatively.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the categorization process works at an extremely rapid
speed, and usually at the unconscious level.
When an individual has previously encountered a specific external stimulus and has a strong
category for it in long-term memory (Wilkie, 2006), the process is similar to “recognizing the
stimulus pattern and calling forth the right node from long-term memory. If an individual has not
encountered a particular stimulus before, the categorization process must rely on matching
“cues’ from the stimulus to possible categories in long-term memory, therefore arriving at what
possible identity seems right for it.
2. Perceptual inferences
According to Assael (2009) inference:
“Involves the development of an association between
two stimuli ”.
Wilkie (2006), expand on the definition by stating that “an inference is a belief that we
developed based on other information’. If a persons name is Sue for example, that person is
likely to be a woman. If a product has a high price, it is likely to be of higher quality. Wilkie
explain further, that not all inferences will be correct, although we would like them to be so.
59
Again, most of these inferences will be made at an unconscious level due to the high speed
involved in the processing of stimuli. Perceptual inferences that are made at a conscious level
will be termed conscious inferences.
Assael (2009), concludes that there are three types of inferences: evaluation-based, similarity-
based, and correlation-based inferences. Evaluation-based inferences are judgments leading to a
consistently positive or negative evaluation of a brand. Similarity-based inferences are beliefs
about an object based on its similarity to other objects. Because of similarity, individuals develop
inferences about unfamiliar products by linking them to products they are familiar with.
Correlation-based inferences are those based on associations from the general to the specific.
• Retention
Van (1991), explain that even if the total perception process was successful it serves no purpose
if the individual is unable to recall the information when he is required to act on it. The message
has failed if a person cannot remember its content.
Retention is therefore the actual storage of processed information in the memory of the
individual. Hawkins (2007), expand the explanation by stating that memory plays a critical role
in guiding the perception process. Memory has a long-term storage component and a short-term
active component. Brunswick (2009), add to the discussion by explaining that, since short-term
memory is the active component, it deals with problem-solving by using newly acquired
information. This, however, can only be true if no knowledge about a certain subject exists, and
that is rarely the case. Long-term memory is activated to help solve the problem by supplying
relevant past stored information. Long-term memory is once again activated to retain the
information once the processing has been completed, and this will remain dormant for future
reference purposes.
2.8 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study reviewed few models of different scholars which include
means-end model relating price, quality, and value; the perceived quality component model;
current market driving forces model.
60
2.8.1 Consumer Perception of Quality, Price, and Value
Though consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value are considered pivotal determinants of
shopping behaviour and product choice, research on these concepts and their linkages has
provided few conclusive findings. Research efforts have been criticized for inadequate definition
and conceptualization, inconsistent measurement procedures and methodological problems. One
fundamental problem limiting work in the area involves the meaning of the concepts: quality and
value are indistinct and elusive constructs that often are mistaken for imprecise adjectives like
“goodness, or luxury, or shininess, or weight”. Quality and value are not well differentiated from
each other and from similar constructs such as perceived worth and utility (Zeithaml, 2010).
2.8.1.1 The Concept of Perceived Quality
Quality can be defined broadly as superiority or excellence. By extension, perceived quality can
be defined as the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority.
Perceived quality is (1) different from objective or actual quality, (2) a higher level abstraction
rather than a specific attribute of a product, (3) a global assessment that in some cases resembles
attitude, and (4) a judgment usually made within a consumer’s evoked set (Zeithaml, 2010).
61
Figure 2.2: A Means-End Model Relating Price, Quality, and Value
Source: Zeitharml, V.A (2010),“Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.52, No. 4, 2-22.
1. Objective quality versus perceived quality. Several researchers have emphasized the
difference between objective and perceived quality. Zeithaml, (2010) for example, distinguish
between mechanistic and humanistic quality: “mechanistic [quality] involves an objective aspect
or feature of a thing or event; humanistic [quality ] involves the subjective response of people to
objects and is therefore a highly relativistic phenomenon that differs between judges”.
As it has been used in the literature, the term “objective quality” refers to measurable and
verifiable superiority on some predetermined ideal standard or standards. Published quality
ratings from sources such as Consumer Reports are used to operationalize the construct of
objective quality in research studies (Bonner and Nelson, 2010).
Brand Name Level of
Advertising
Reputation
Perceived Quality
Perceived
Monetary
price Lower-Level Attributes
Perceptions of lower- level
attributes
Higher-level abstractions
Perceived Value Perceived Quality
Reputation
Objective
price
Intrinsic
Attributes Purchase
62
The term “objective quality” is related closely to- but not the same as-other concepts used to
describe technical superiority of a product. For example, Garvin (2003),discuss product-based
quality and manufacturing-based quality. Product-based quality refers to amount of specific
attributes or ingredients of a product. Manufacturing-based quality involves conformance to
manufacturing specifications or service standards. In the prevailing Japanese philosophy,
according to him, quality means zero defects-doing it right the first time. Conformance to
requirements and incidence of internal and external failures are other definitions that illustrate
manufacturing-oriented notions of quality.
According to Zeithaml (2010), these concepts are not identical to objective quality because they,
too, are based on perceptions. Though measures of specifications may be actual (rather than
perceptual), the specifications themselves are set on the basis of what managers perceive to be
important. Managers’ views may differ considerably from consumers’ or users’ views.
Consumer reports ratings may not agree with managers’ assessments in terms of either salient
attributes or weights assigned to the attributes.
In a research study on products of Cardbury Nigeria Plc, Ogundugbe (2011), point out striking
differences between consumer, dealers and managers’ perception of products quality. When
asked how consumers perceive quality, managers listed product design, performance, and forms
as critical components. Consumers actually keyed in on different components: package, taste,
and richness in nutrients.
To reiterate, perceived quality is defined in the model as the consumer’s judgment about the
superiority or excellence of a product. This perspectives similar to the user-based approach of
Garvin (2003) and differs from product-based and manufacturing- based approaches. Perceived
quality is also different from objective quality, which arguably may not exist because all quality
is perceived by someone, be it consumers or managers or researchers.
2. Higher level abstraction rather than an attribute. The means-end chain approach to
understanding the cognitive structure of consumers holds that product information is retained in
memory at several levels of abstraction. The simplest level is a product attribute; the most
complex level is the value or payoff of the product to the consumer (Zeithaml, 2010). Young and
63
Feigen (2005), depict this view in the “Grey benefit chain,” which illustrates how a product is
linked through a chain of benefits to concept called the “emotional payoff.”
Product Functional Practical Emotional Benefit Benefit Payoff
Figure 2.3: Benefit Chain
Related conceptualizations (Table above) pose the same essential idea: consumers organize
information at various levels of abstraction ranging from simple product attributes (e.g., physical
characteristics) to complex personal values. Quality has been included in multi-attribute model
as though it were a lower level attribute (criticisms of this practice have been leveled by Altola,
2004), but perceived quality is instead a second-order phenomenon.
3 Global assessment similar to attitude. Garvin (2005), views quality as a form of overall
evaluation of a product, similar in some ways to attitude. Young and Feigen (2005), concur,
suggesting that quality is a relatively global value judgment. Lutz (2006), propose two forms of
quality: “affective quality” and “cognitive quality.” Affective quality parallels Garvin’s views
of perceived quality as overall attitude. Cognitive quality is the case of a super- ordinate
inferential assessment of quality intervening between lower order cues and an eventual overall
product evaluation (Lutz 2006). In Lutz’s view, the higher the proportion of attributes that can be
assessed before purchase (search attributes) to those that can be assessed only during
consumption (experience attributes), the more likely it is that quality is a higher level cognitive
judgment. Conversely, as the proportion of experience attributes increases, quality tends to be an
affective judgment. Lutz extends this line of reasoning to propose that affective quality is
relatively more likely for services and consumer non-durable goods (where experience attributes
dominate), whereas cognitive quality is more likely for industrial products and consumer durable
goods (where search attributes dominate).
4. Judgment made within consumer’s evoked set: Evaluations of quality takes place in a
comparison context. Zeithaml (2010), claim that quality evaluations are made within “the set of
goods which would in the consumer’s judgment serve the same general purpose for some
maximum outlay”. On the basis of the qualitative study, and consistent with Zeithmal’s
contention, the set of products used in comparing quality appears to be the consumer’s evoked
set. A product’s quality is evaluated as high or low depending on its relative excellence or
superiority among products or services that are viewed as substitutes by the consumer. It is
64
critical to note that the specific set of products used for comparison depends on the consumer’s,
not the firm’s, assessment of competing products. For example, in beverage, consumers can
compare the quality of different brands of orange juice (which would be the comparison context
of the firm), the quality of different forms (refrigerated vs. canned), and the quality of purchased
versus homemade orange juice. Also in products like bournvita, milo and hollandia milk, the
quality and value attributes would include flavour, colour, nutrients, texture, and degree of
sweetness. In raw food like yam, the quality and value could be perceived on the basis of sources
eg Benue yam, Anam yam (Anambra State) or Abavo yam (Delta State) (Okoh, 2010).
Figure 2.3 depicts the perceived quality component of the conceptual model in Figure 2.2 above.
2.8.1.2 Perceived Quality Component
Figure 2.4: The Perceived Quality Component Model
Source: Zeithaml, V.A (2010),“Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol 52, No. 4, 2-22
Generalizing about quality across products has been difficult for managers and researchers.
Specific or concrete intrinsic attributes differ widely across products, as do the attributes
Objective
Price
Intrinsic
Attributes Perceived Quality
Perceived
Monetary
price
Extrinsic Attributes
Intrinsic Attributes
Perceptions of lower- level
attributes
Higher-level abstractions
Brand Name Level of
Advertising
Reputation
Perceived
attributes
65
consumers use to infer quality. Obviously, attributes that signal quality in fruit juice are not the
same as those indicating quality in washing machines or automobiles. Even within a product
category, specific attributes may provide different signals about quality. For example, thickness
is related to high quality in tomato-based juices but not in fruit-flavoured children’s drinks. The
presence of pulp suggests high quality in orange juice but low quality in apple juice (Bruks and
Zeithaml, 2010).
Though the concrete attributes that signal quality differ across products, higher level abstract
dimensions of quality can be generalized to categories of products. As attributes become more
abstract (i.e, are higher in the means-end chains), they become common to more alternatives.
Garvin (2003), for example, proposes that product quality can be captured in eight dimensions:
performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and
perceived quality (i.e., image).. Similarly, Bonner and Nelson (2010), proposes that the
multitude of specific variables affecting a firm in the environment can be captured in abstract
dimensions. Rather than itemizing specific variables that affect particular firms in different
industries under varying circumstances, they proposed conceptualizing the environment in terms
of its abstract qualities or dimensions (e.g., homogeneity-heterogeneity, stability-instability,
concentration-dispersion, and turbulence).
Bonner and Nelson (2010), found that sensory signals such as rich/full flavour, natural taste,
fresh taste, good aroma, and appetizing looks-all higher level abstract dimensions of perceived
quality-were relevant across 33 food product categories. Brucks and Zeithaml(2010), contend on
the basis of exploratory work that six abstract dimensions (ease of use, functionality,
performance, durability, serviceability, and prestige) can be generalized across categories of
durable goods. Though empirical research has not verified the generalization of dimensions for
categories of packaged goods other than food products, for durable goods, or for industrial
goods, abstract dimensions spanning these categories could be conceptualized, verified, and then
used to develop general measures of quality in product categories.
According to Schmalensee (2008), extrinsic attributes (e.g price, brand name) are not product-
specific and can serve as general indicators of quality across all types of products. Price, brand
name, and leve1 of advertising are three extrinsic cues frequently associated with quality in
research, yet many other extrinsic cues are useful to consumers. Of special note are extrinsic
66
cues such as product warranties and seals of approval (e.g Good Housekeeping). Price, the
extrinsic cue receiving the most research attention, appears to function as a surrogate for quality
when the consumer has inadequate information about intrinsic attributes. Similarly, brand name
serves as a “shorthand” for quality by providing consumers with a bundle of information about
the product. Level of advertising has been related to product quality. The basic argument holds
that for goods whose attributes are determined largely during use (experience goods), higher
levels of advertising signal higher quality. Schmalensee argues that level of advertising, rather
than actual claims made, informs consumers that the company believes the goods are worth
advertising (i.e of high quality). Supporting this argument is the finding that many subjects in the
exploratory study perceived heavily advertised brands to be generally higher in quality than
brands with less advertising.
The exploratory investigation of beverages according to Zeithaml (2010), provide evidence that
form of the product (e.g., frozen vs. canned vs. refrigerated) is an additional important extrinsic
cue in beverages. Consumers held consistent perceptions of the relative quality of different forms
of fruit juice: quality perceptions were highest for fresh products, next highest for refrigerated
products, then bottled, frozen, canned, and lowest for dry product forms.
Consumers depend on intrinsic attributes more than extrinsic attributes. Which type of cue-
intrinsic or extrinsic-is more important in signaling quality to the consumer? An answer to this
question would help firms decide whether to invest resources in product improvements (intrinsic
cues) or in marketing (extrinsic cues) to improve perceptions of quality. Finding a simple and
definitive answer to this question is unlikely, but an exploratory study suggests the type of
attribute that dominates depends on several key contingencies (Schmalensee, 2008).
The first contingency relates to the point in the purchase decision and consumption process at
which quality evaluation occurs. Consumers may evaluate quality at the point of purchase
(buying a beverage) or at the point of consumption (drinking a beverage). The salience of
intrinsic attributes at the point of purchase depends on whether they can be sensed and evaluated
at that time, that is whether they contain search attributes (Nelson, 2010). Where search
attributes are present (e.g., sugar content of a fruit juice or colour or cloudiness of a drink in a
glass jar), they may be important quality indicators. In their absence, consumers depend on
67
extrinsic cues. Nelson state further that, at the point of consumption, most intrinsic attributes
can be evaluated and therefore become accessible as quality indicators. Many consumers in the
exploratory study on beverages used taste as the signal of quality at consumption. If a beverage
did not taste fresh or tasted “tinny” or too thin, the evaluation is that quality is low.
Consumers depend on intrinsic attributes when the cues have high predictive value. Many
respondents in the exploratory study, especially those expressing concern for their children’s
health and teeth, unequivocally stated that purity (100% juice, no sugar) was the criterion they
used to judge quality across the broad fruit juice category. The link between quality and this
intrinsic attribute was clear and strong: all fruit beverages with 100% juice were high quality
beverages and all others were not (Zeithaml, 2010).
2.8.1.3 The Concept of Perceived Price
From the consumer’s perspective, price is what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a product. This
definition is congruent with Altola’s (2004), argument against including monetary price as a
lower level attribute in multi-attribute models because price is a “give” component of the model,
rather than a “get” component.
Figure 2.3 delineates the components of price: objective price, perceived nonmonetary price, and
sacrifice. Schmalensee (2008), distinguished between objective price (the actual price of a
product) and perceived price (the price as encoded by the consumer). Figure 2.3 emphasizes this
distinction: objective monetary price is frequently not the price encoded by consumers. Some
consumers may notice that the exact price of Hi-C fruit juice is $1.69 for a 6-pack, but others
may encode and remember the price only as “expensive” or “cheap.” Still others may not encode
price at all.
In lzugbara (2008), a study carried out in Southern part of Nigeria reveals that consumers do not
always know or remember actual prices of products, rather they encode prices in ways that are
meaningful to them. Levels of consumer attention, awareness, and knowledge of prices appear to
be considerably lower than necessary for consumers to have accurate internal reference prices for
many products. The study further reported that the proportions of consumers checking prices of
four types of products (margarine, cereals, seasoning, and coffee) at point of purchase ranged
from 54.2 to 60.6%. Among the groups of consumers not checking prices in these studies, a large
68
proportion (from 58.5 to 76,7% in the four product categories) stated that price was just not
important. Another recent study indicates that price awareness differs among demographic
groups. The greatest levels of awareness being in consumers who are female, married, older, and
do not work outside the home (Zeithaml and Berry, 2010). Attention to prices is likely to be
greater for higher priced packaged goods, durable goods, and services than for low priced
products like salt, okra, onions, corn or beverages, but other factors in these categories
(complexity, lack of price information, and processing time required) may interfere with accurate
knowledge of prices. An additional factor contributing to the gap between actual and perceived
price, is price dispersion, the tendency for the same brands to be priced differently across stores
or for products of the same type and quality to have wide price variance (Johnson, 2009).
2.8.1.4 The Concept of Perceived Value
When respondents in the exploratory study carried out by Zeithaml (2010), discussed value, they
used the term in many different ways, describing a wide variety of attributes and higher level
abstractions that provided value to them. What constitutes value-even in a single product
category- appears to be highly personal and idiosyncratic. Though many respondents in the
exploratory study agreed on cues that signaled quality, they differed considerably in expressions
of value. Patterns of responses from the exploratory study can be grouped into four consumer
definitions of value; (1) value is low price, (2) value is whatever 1 want in a product, (3) value is
the quality get for the price I pay, and (4) value is what I get for what I give. Each definition
involves a different set of linkages among the elements in the model and each consumer
definition has its counterpart in the academic or trade literature on the subject. The diversity in
meanings of value is illustrated in the following four definitions and provides a partial
explanation for the difficulty in conceptualizing and measuring the value construct in research.
The following are the outcomes of exploratory study of Zeithaml.
1. Value is low price. Some respondents equated value with low price, indicating that what
they had to give up was most salient in their perceptions of value. In their own words:
• Value is price-which one is on sale.
• When I can use coupons, I feel that the juice is a value.
• Value means low price.
• Value is whatever is on special this week.
69
2. Value is whatever I want in a product. Other respondents emphasized the benefits they
received from the product as the most important components of value:
• Value is what is good for you.
• Value is what my kids will drink.
• Little containers because then there is no waste.
• Value to me is what is convenient. When I can take it out of the refrigerator and not have
to mix it up, then it has value.
3. Value is the quality I get for the price I pay. Other respondents conceptualized value as a
tradeoff between one “give” component, price, and one “get” component, quality:
• Value is price first and quality second.
• Value is the lowest price for a quality brand.
• Value is the same as quality. No-value is affordable quality.
4. Value is what I get for what I give. Finally, some respondents considered all relevant
“get” components as well as all relevant “give” components when describing value:
• Value is how many drinks you can get out of a certain package. Frozen juices have more
because you can water them down and get more out of them.
• How many gallons you get out of it for what the price is.
• Whatever makes the most for the least money.
• Which juice is more economical.
• Value is what you are paying for what you are getting.
• Value is price and having single portions so that there is no waste.
These four consumer expressions of value can be captured in one overall definition: perceived
value is the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of
what is received and what is given. Though what is received varies across consumers (i.e., some
may want volume, others high quality, still others convenience) and what is given varies (i.e.,
some are concerned only with money expended, others with time and effort), value represents a
tradeoff of the salient give and get components.
Perceived value in protein giving foods like beans, meat and vegetable according to lzugbara
(2008), could be signaled by the attributes “100% protein”, and sensory attributes such as taste
and texture (how fresh they are).
70
2.8.2 Consumer Perception in Nigeria
The preference among Nigerians for foreign made goods is both alarming and disturbing
especially when considered in the light of its effect on local industries. The general notion among
some Nigerians is that locally made goods are inferior to imported and foreign made goods in
terms of quality and performance to the extent that some local manufacturers have resorted, in a
bid to remain relevant, to claiming a foreign origin for their products. As our society undergoes
rapid changes and becomes more affluent, newer social forces make consumers spend a greater
part of their income in ways remarkably different from what took place in the past. Consumers
want the advantage of the - affluent and latest services that technology and business can offer
(Achumba, 2006).
Also marketing failures have been caused by ignorance and underestimation of consumer
motivation, perception and behaviour in the market place. In the past manufacturers have had a
wrong view that consumers accept or buy anything they are being offered in the market
particularly in this part of the world. This assumption has led to gross marketing failure of many
manufacturing organizations. The consumer is a personality whose behaviour is governed by
different and varied influences such as: his society beliefs, attitude, his past leaning, experience,
perception and his expectations. These form his taste choice and product preference (Agbonifo,
1985).
Therefore, there is need to examine those factors that influence and affect consumer buying
decision with a view to uncovering reasons behind Nigerian consumers seeming preference for
foreign products over locally manufactured goods as stated by Agbonifo (1985). They are:
1. Economic Factors
The economic factors which tend to favour consumer preference for foreign products center
around product quality, price, and product availability. There is a popular belief that the qualities
of local products are lower than those of their imported counterparts. There is evidence in the
literature to substantiate this view. In a survey of 200 consumers in Lagos metropolis, Agbonifo,
found that 90 percent of the respondents considered locally-produced rice inferior to the
imported ones.
71
Next to quality as an economic determinant of consumer choice is price. In spite of the
widespread belief that locally manufactured products are inferior in quality compare to the
foreign ones, complaints of the high prices of locally-made items are rampant.
2. Psychological Forces
A number of psychological forces operate in the consumer to influence his perception towards
local and foreign products.
Firstly, there are individuals who, in the search for distinctiveness, exclusiveness and egotism,
seek out those products which can confer these qualities. For example, the urge to stand in the
crowd can lead one to purchase a rare product, a product which can be described in popular
parlance as “one-in-town”. For many Nigerians, foreign products probably have images that
bestow these qualities on the buyer or owner. Secondly, for many people, oversea countries are
places they would cherish to visit either for sightseeing or for image-boosting purposes, as a
result they buy their products as a way of identifying themselves with those countries.
3. Historical Factors
Habit and previous experiences have considerable influences on consumer perception and choice
(Aire, 1974). He state further that prior to independence most manufactured products consumed
in Nigeria were imported as there were very few manufacturing enterprises in the country. The
qualities of the products of the few local industries in the country at that time could,
understandably, not match those of many imported substitutes. That era marked the origin of the
notion that foreign products are generally superior to locally-made ones, an ingrained belief that
still lingers on in the heads of many Nigerians, perhaps particularly among those of the older
generations.
In addition to the above, Aire, argue that another historical ‘actor that helps to explain consumer
preference for foreign products is the perception of the former colonial masters and early
missionaries most of whom tended not to see anything good in Africans.
4. Poor Government Attitude
In two major ways, one through commission and the other through omission, the government has
contributed immensely to the present perception of many consumers to local products. The
government has contributed to the unfavourable attitude of Nigerians to local products either by
72
allowing all kinds of products to be imported (or dumped) into the country at low rates of import
duties or through its feeble attempts at checking smuggling. The resultant ease with which
foreign products can be obtained has had negative effects on local products. Some of the most
affected local industries are beverage and textile.
5. Poor Marketing
Another factor that encourage consumers to patronize foreign goods is poor marketing. This
factor has many facets, the major ones being concerned with the status of marketing in the firm,
management attitude to consumer orientation, poor product planning, pricing and promotion.
Alego (2007), point out that effective marketing management is essential in the process of
building up a favourable image for any product. The absence of consumer orientation on the part
of producers appears to have contributed to the alienation of the Nigerian consumer and the
resulting consumer preference for imports.
According to Izugbara (2008), many consumers of rice perceived the popular Abakaliki rice to
be unclean, low nutrition, local, and full of stones. Even cassava that is processed into tapioca
(abbacha), and fufu (akpu), through fermentation and widely consumed especially in the
southern part of Nigeria is perceived by some consumers as a product that smells. As a result ,
some consumers would like to touch and some times take it closer to their nose to ascertain
whether the product (akpu) has unpleasant odour.
2.9 Consumers’ Education on Safety of Food
Food safety education is a scientific discipline describing handling, preparation and storage of
food in ways that prevent food-borne illness. This includes a number of routines that should be
followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards. Food can transmit disease from person to
person as well as serve as a growth medium for bacteria that can cause food poisoning. Genetic
food safety includes such issues as impact of genetically-modified food on health of further
generations and genetic pollution of environment, which can destroy natural biological diversity
(Owusu, 2013).
73
2.9.1 Why is Education on Food Safety Important?
By way of comparison, in one of the largest food-producing countries in the world, the United
States, approximately one out of six people are “food insecure”, including 17 million children,
according to the USDA. The index for determining food insecurity includes, among others, the
household knowledge to buy enough wholesome food, with acceptable quality and appropriate
nutritional value required by adults and children. All countries and in deed individuals need
adequate food education programmes to ensure that national food supplies are safe, of good
quality and available in adequate amounts of affordable prices to ensure an acceptable nutritional
and health status for all population groups. The hazards associated with wholesome food are
varied and many. An example, World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on the application
of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) have become the specifically identified baseline for
consumer protection in all countries. Food safety specification of requirement is now becoming a
TBT across the globe. The mandatory requirement to use Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HACCP) systems by European buyers and any subsequent barriers or other constraints to
trade, particularly for developing countries, need to be considered and identified by our food
control agencies (WHO, 2010).
2.9.2 Parameters of Food Safety
The five key principles of food hygiene, according to World Health Organisation (2010) are:
• Prevent contaminating food with pathogens spreading from people, pets and pests.
• Separate raw and cooked foods to prevent contaminating the cooked foods.
• Cook foods for the appropriate length of time and at the appropriate temperature to kill
pathogens.
• Store food at the proper temperature
• Use safe water and raw materials.
2.9.3 Changing Demands Patterns: More Safe and
Healthy Foods
All countries need adequate education on food control programmes to ensure that national food
supplies are safe, of good quality and available in adequate amounts at affordable prices to
74
ensure an acceptable nutritional and health status for all population groups. Food control includes
all activities carried out to ensure the quality, safety and honest presentation of the food at all
stages from primary production, through processing and storage, to marketing and consumption.
Food control is linked to improvement in the health of the population, potential for a country’s
economic development and reduction of spoilage and food losses (Owusu, 2013).
WHO (2010), report concluded that about 40 per cent of reported food poisoning outbreaks
occur in private homes. According to the WHO and Centre for Disease Control (CDC), in the
U.S. alone, annually, there are 76 million cases of food-borne illness leading to 325,000
hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. What are the figures for least developed countries? Obviously
they will look worrisome.
2.10 Health Implication of Various Foods
Preparation, protection, sale and consumption of street foods in inappropriate places are on the
increase. Street foods are sources of nourishment and income for the urban poor. Some street
foods are microbiologically safe and provide alternatives sources of safe foods (Brewer and
Speh, 2002). They stated further that, individual food business, in competition, may not be able
to create or support supply chains that generate consumer value from more sustainable
production, especially in niche markets.
According to Chukwu and Atanda (2010), sustainable food security and environmental health
policy makers and enforcement agencies should continue to support the funding of food security
and safety research programs as designed to accurately access and communicate public health
risks in food supply. The authors urged stakeholders to “assemble a baseline data on the presence
of micro-organisms and toxin in food origin by improving the practice and reliability of on site
rapid tests for microbial and toxicological hazards in food and animal”. “Identification of
baseline safe levels for chemicals and microorganisms in food reduction of toxin and pesticide
residue and reliability of on site rapid test for microbial and toxicological hazards in food and
animals will be of immense benefit. Others are the reduction of veterinary drug residue level in
meat and meat products, diary products and poultry as well as adequate livestock and poultry
waste management. They also stated that “unless there is a standard procedure for ensuring
wholesome food, the next global problem will not only be the absence of food but will include
75
the availability of unsafe consumable items. The increasing damaging activity to which the
environment continues to be exposed is a sure way of arriving at this unpleasant destination for
mankind. The time to look at the evolving trends in food safety and environmental hygiene and
the public health challenges arising from them is now. Sound knowledge of the challenges will
position us to make the best efforts to reduce the negative impact of infectious diseases related to
environmental problems.
2.11 Environmental Variables Impacting on Food.
The impacts that the food supply chain has on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is a
relatively unexplored field of research in the United States. In Europe, however, there is a higher
level of interest (MacGregor and Bill, 2011).
According to a study carried out by (MacGregor and Bill, 2011), only 1.5 percent of fresh fruits
and vegetable imports are transported by air in Great Britain, but that portion produces 50
percent of all emissions from fruit and vegetable transportation. As part of its carbon labelling
program in Europe, supermarket chain retailer Tesco is placing a small “airplane” symbol sticker
on food items that used airplanes for part of their travel to the store or warehouse. The
assumption is that Tesco understands that with the amount of information available to the public
about environmental impacts of the food system, their customers realize that air transport uses
more fuel and releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (on a per unit weight basis)
than other forms of transportation such as trucks. However, in an internet survey of American
consumers carried out by MacGregor and Bill, more respondents perceived truck transport to
emit higher levels of greenhouse gas than airplanes. These findings point to a need for more
consumer education on this subject in the United States.
In the United States, some food companies are starting to take action after watching the
developing documentation of greenhouse gas emissions from various food supply chains in Great
Britain and the rest of Europe. For example, the food service management company Bon Apetit`
has recently unveiled a “low-carbon diet” that includes plans to reduce the carbon emissions of
their food procurement system (Jan, 2010)
Respondents to this internet survey were concerned about the safety of the global food system,
and put more confidence in the safety of a U.S. based, regional, or local food system. These
76
respondents perceived that local food supply chains (for produce) were likely to emit fewer
greenhouse gases than a comparable distant supply chain, and nearly half were willing to pay
more for produce from a system that emitted half as much greenhouse gas. A large number of the
survey respondents perceived that locally grown foods were healthier than foods grown at distant
locations, and that science has proven these health benefits (MacGregor and Bill, 2011).
2.11.1 Climate Change, Agricultural and Food Management in Nigeria
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC, 2007), climate change
may be defined as statistically significant variations that persist for an extended period, typically
decades or longer. It includes shifts in the frequency and magnitude of sporadic weather events
as well as the slow continuous rise in global mean surface temperature. The earth’s climate
system has been demonstrated to change on global and regional scales since the pre-industrial
era, with some of these changes attributed to human activities. Emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are
expected to affect the climate. Crop and livestock responses to changing climate are initial
consequences that may lead to changes in agricultural production and food security in Nigeria
(Gwary, 2008).
2.11.2 Impact of Climate Change on Nigerian Agriculture
Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global
scale. On a global scale, changes are expected in temperature (4.43°C) and precipitation
(0.07mm/d) on farm area weights by 2080s. Climate plays an important role in agriculture by
setting up limits for crop production. The main climatic elements in agriculture are temperature,
moisture, sunlight, wind and evaporation. Most crops are sensitive to episodes of high
temperature. Air temperatures between 45 and 55°C that occur for at least 30 minutes directly
damage crop leaves in most environments (Fitter and Hay, 2007). It is as a result of variations in
climate that certain crops perform well in some regions than the others. For instance in Nigeria,
onion does not do well in the southern part of the country as in the northern part. Agriculture is
the main source of food, industrial raw materials in Nigeria employing about 60 percent of the
population. It is predominantly a rain-fed system and hence vulnerable to climate change
(Ibrahim, et al, 2010). Similarly, livestock production mainly raised in the dry lands of Nigeria is
heavily dependent on rainfall and therefore equally vulnerable. This agricultural vulnerability has
77
been defined by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC, 2007) as the risk of
negative consequences of climate change that are difficult to ameliorate through adaptive
measures.
Types of vulnerability include risk of large yield reductions that may result from small changes
in climate, risk of profitability loss, risk of economic decline and risk of hunger for people with
limited access to food or means to acquire it. The effects of extreme weather events on crops will
be either direct or indirect or both. Higher temperatures increase moisture stress on crops directly
by increasing evaporation as well as the atmospheric holding capacity for water vapour.
Indirectly, higher temperatures has caused the breakdown of organic matter in soils, leading to
lower levels of soil organic matter culminating in less soil moisture retention and additional crop
moisture stress, which have direct and indirect effects on crop yields (Squires and Sidahmed,
2008).
Increased rainfall variability would lead to frequent floods and drought resulting in variability in
crop yields in different ecological zones. Higher rainfall in the southern part of the country
coupled with sea-level rise would lead to crop losses due to water logging, loss of arabic land
and increased pest infestation. This would lead to numerous social problems such as forced
migration, unemployment and poverty (Ibrahim et al, 2010).They state further that drought
conditions, brought about by lower amount of precipitation will have several consequences on
both crop and livestock production. Crop yields would suffer if dry period occur during critical
developmental stages such as reproduction.
Livestock production, an important agricultural sector is valuable to climate change. A decrease
in rainfall in the Sudan Savanna and the Sahel would reduce available pasture land, surface water
resources and increase salinity at watering points because of increasing temperature and
evaporation. Drought diminishes rangeland productivity; it also adversely affects feed quality
and species diversity. If drought continues to the extent of rangeland classification, pastoralists
abandon the area (Squires and Sidahmed, 2008). They state further that in the arid and semi arid
zones, livestock density is above the potential carrying capacity most of the year and these are
the area where desertification takes place. The excessive heat due to warming in dry lands of
78
Nigeria resulting from changing weather and climate will also reduce the feed intake, feed
conversion efficiency and weight gain of the livestock. The consequences of this are changes in
milk and meat production and reduced reproduction. This will have a negative feedback in the
economy when supplies of protein and hides and skin are reduced.
2.11.3 Climate Change and Food Management Strategies in Nigeria
Nigeria, being more than 90% dependent on rain-fed agriculture is highly at risk especially in the
areas of food sufficiency and nutrition security, poverty and hunger reduction, economic
development and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. In response to the
overwhelming issues of climate change, global warming and in order to halt the threats of rising
food prices and to ensure increased production of staple food commodities in Nigeria in the short
term, the country has released assorted grains for sale at subsidized prices from the National
Strategic Reserve. Nigeria has temporarily removed tariff on rice importation, initiated the
accelerated completion of storage facilities, distributed increased quantity of fertilizers and seeds
at subsidized rate, and syndicated special funds at very low interest rate, long term moratorium
and repayment period for rice processing and marketing (Yar’Adua, 2008).
In addition to increased budgetary allocation, the federal government of Nigeria allocated 1.68%
of its funds in the federation account as a special intervention fund for agricultural development
in the next four years with a takeoff fund of about $700m. The special intervention programme
has taken an agricultural value chain approach, covering production, processing, and storage and
market development in an integrated fashion with the strengthening of Research & Development
capabilities (Gwary, 2008). Nigeria is also set to mitigate global warming effects through
aforestation and reforestation, integrated water management and the promotion of biofuels using
Jatropha and cassava as feedstock. The country is currently the World’s largest producer of
cassava and concerted efforts is also made in promotion of Jatropha plantations (BNRCC,
2010).
2.12 Summary
Consumer behaviour is very complex and determined by emotions, motives and attitudes
(Alvensleben, 2007). The attitudes play a fundamental role in consumer behavour field, because
79
it determines his disposition to respond positively or negatively to an institution, person, event,
object or product (Azjen and Fishbein, 2006).
However, the relations between motives/attitudes and consumer behaviour are not unilateral.
When a consumer evaluates a product alternatives that may satisfy the same need, desire or want,
he integrates the perceptions of the alternatives into an overall judgment, or attitude, about the
attractiveness of each product alternative. In their alternative evaluation, the perception of
sanitary risk due to the consumption of certain products could drive consumers attitudes away
from those products. Government regulation of this sector is a response to market failure and the
necessity of the social regulator to interfere in order to assure consumers that the products are
healthy.
Studies of consumer at an individual level may help to understand the concept and perception of
food safety, that is, the trade-off between quality and safety. However, there is a certain
resistance to change unhealthy food habits because of tradition. Many consumers agree on eating
healthier diet as long as there are not significant changes in their consumption’s pattern. Despite
the attention to the subject of food safety and the rising concern for quality issues, developing a
deep understanding of the safety food in African and Nigeria in particular is limited.
Having found out the views and contributions of various interest groups such as authors, farmers,
and manufacturers on the subject matter, literature revealed that there was a limited
understanding of safety of food in Nigeria despite the fact that the issues of food safety was
giving due attention over the years. Furthermore, it was revealed that there was also a certain
level of resistance to change of unhealthy pattern of consumption of foods because of belief or
tradition.
80
References
Aaker, D.A and Gary, T.F (2008), Unit Pricing Ten Years Later: A Replication; Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 (Winter), 118-122.
Achumba C.I (2006), The Dynamics of Consumer Behaviour, Lagos: Mac Williams Publishers
Ltd.
Adubi, A (2009), “Food Marketing Systems in Lagos, FAO Programme”, Food Supply and
Distribution to Cities; Food Collection Review, Lagos.
Agbonifo, B. (1985), Consumer’s Preference for Foreign Products.
Ahtola, O.T. (2004), “Price as a Give Component in an Exchange: Theoretical Multi-component
Model”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.11, No.2, 623-626.
Aire, J.U.(1974), “Consumer Attitudes to ‘Made-In-Nigeria’ Goods and the Implications for
Marketing”, Management in Nigeria, Vol. 9, No. 2,102- 108.
Alba, J.W and Wesley, J.H (2009), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, vol 12, No.7 17-24.
Alego, S. B.(2009), “Exploring the Problem-Prone Consumers: Hypothesis and Empirical
Findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.11, No.12,45-50.
Ali-Akpajiak, S.C.A and Pyke, T. (2009), Measuring Food Supply in Nigeria, Lagos: Oxford
Publications.
Alvensleben, R. Von (2007), Consumer Behaviour, New York: Prentice-Hall International
Albisu, L. M. (editors), Agro-Food Marketing, CAB International and CIHEAM,
Wallingford: Wesley Publications.
Asseal, C.(2009), Psychological Pricing in the Food Industry; Philadephia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Ayodele, A; Voh, J.P and Ahmed, B (2007), “Long-Term Food Provisioning and Marketing in
Kano Region”, Drylands Research Paper, Journal of Food Research and Marketing, Vol 3,
No.5,80-91.
Azjen, I. and Fishbein, M., (2006), Understanding Attitudes and Predicating Social Behaviour.
New Jerssey: Prentice-Hall International
Becker, T. (2009), Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour in the European Union,
Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG, Germany: Evankie Publications.
81
Ben K M.; Angulo, A.; Gill, J. M. (2007), “Health Information and the Demand for Meat in
Spain”, 71st EAAE Seminar – The Food Consumer in the Early 21st Century, Zaragoza:
Spain.
Bonner, P.G and Nelson, R. (2010), Product Attributes and Perceived Quality Foods, Lexington
MA: Lexington Books.
Braun, M.A; Fricke, W. and Malchau, G. (2007), “Functional Change of Periodic Markets in
Densely Populated Areas in South-East Nigeria”, Journal of Applied Geography and
Development,Vol.5 No. 2, 27-39.
Brewer, S. and Speh, J. (2002), Supply Chain Management, New Jerssey: Prentice Hall
Brucks, M and Zeithaml, V.A (2010), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information
Search Behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12, No.1, 1-16.
Brunso, K., Fjord, T.A and Grunert, K.G (2002), “Consumers’ Food Choice and Quality
Perception”, MAPP Working Paper 77, Aarthus: Aarthus School of Business.
Brunswick, E (2009), Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments,
Berkeley CA: University Press of Califonia.
Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change (BNRCC) (2010), “Climate Change Information
on Nigeria Agriculture, Food Security, Land Degradation, Forestry and Bio-Diversity:
Vulnerability, Impact and Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria”, Retrieved on 19th
September, 2008 from http://www nigeriaclimatehange.org/ page4.php.
Caswell, J. and Mojduszka, E. M. (2009), “Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market
for Quality in Food Products”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol.7,No.12,48-59.
Chukwu,C and Atanda, O. (2010), “Ensuring Food security and Environmental Hygiene”,
Journal of Food Sciences, Published by the Collage of Veterinary and Medical Laboratory
Sciences, Vom, Plateau state.
Cowan, E. (2008), ‘Irish and European Consumer Views on Food Safety’, Journal of Food
Safety, Vol.18, No.4, 275-295.
Dickson, P and Alan, S. (2009), “Point of Purchase Behaviour and Price Perceptions, Marketing
Science Institute, Vol. 7, No2, 22- 29.
Doane, D. (2010), “Taking Flight: the Rapid Growth of Ethical Consumerism”, Journal of
Marketing,Vol.4, No.6, 23-31.
82
Ewepu, G. “Public Health Challenges in Nigeria: The Case of Food Poisoning”, The Guardian
Newspaper, 10th, Feb., 2011, p.46.
FAO (2007), “Technical Background Document for World Food Summit”, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2010), “Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food
Control System”, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 76, FAO/WHO, Rome.
FAO (2011), ‘National Food Safety Systems in Africa – A Situation Analysis’, A Paper
Prepared for Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa, October. CAF 05/2
Farina, E.M.M.Q (2009), “Agri-Food Grades and Standard”, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol.82,No.5,1170-1176.
Financial Times, Special Report: Nigeria, 10th, June, 2003
Fitter, A. H and Hay, R. K. M. (2007), Environmental Physiology of Plants, London: Academic
Press Limited.
Frewer, L., Fisher, A. , Scholderer, J. and Verbeke, W. (2005), Food Safety and Consumer
Behaviour. In W.M.F. Jogen and M.T.G. Meulenerg (eds), Innovation of Food Production
Systems: Product Quality and Consumer, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Gabre-Madhi, E.Z (2009), “Market Institutions, Transaction Costs, and Social Capital in the
Ethiopian Grain Market”, Research Report 124, International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington D.C, Vol 4,No.7,53-61.
Gaisford, J.D and Kerr, W.A (2009), “Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations”,
The WTO and Agricultural Trade, Northamptom: Edward Elgar, Vol, 2, No.8, 7-13.
Garvin, D.A. (2003), “Quality on the Time”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, 65-73.
Goodman, D. and Watts, K. (2007), Globalizing Food: Agrarian Questions and
Global Restructuring, London: Rout Ledge Publications.
Gwary, D, (2008), “Climate Change, Food Security and Nigeria Agriculture. Department of
Crop Protection, University of Maiduguri”, Retrieved on 12th September, 2008 from
www.tribune.com.ng/ 03062008/management /html.
Hamprecht, A. (2005), Developing a Sustainable Food Policy, London: Wesley Publications.
Hawkins, S.(2007), “The Measurement of Information Value: A Study in Consumer Decision
Making,” American Marketing Association, Vol.12, No.3, 413-421.
83
Henson, S. and Northern, J., (2008) “Consumer Assessment of the Safety of Beef at the Point of
Purchase: A Pan-European Study.” Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol.7,No.9,13-
23.
Herrmann, R., Warland, R.H., and Sterngold, A. (1997), Who Reacts to Food Safety Sccares?
Examining the Alar Crisis, Agribusiness, vol.13, 511-520.
Husle, B. (2009), “Food Conservation and Human Safety: A Tool for Curbing Infection through
Food Consumption,” Journal of Food Supply and Safety Management, Vol.2, No.10,82-
91.
Ibrahim, M.K; David, A.M and Okpanachi, G.U (2010), “Climate Change and Agriculture in
Nigeria”, Journal of Environmental Issue and Agriculture, Vol 2, No 2 & 3, 37 - 42
IPCC (2007), Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge:
University Press.
Izugbara, N. (2008), “Gender Resources for Urban Agriculture Research: Methodology,
Directory and Annotated Bibliography”, International Development Research Centre,
Vol.3,No.5, 27-35.
Jan, V.R (2010), “Agri- Supply Chain Management”, A World Bank Paper Presented at
Australia, Vol.5,No.21,1-28.
Johnson, D.M (2009), “Decision Processing and Product Comparability: A Theory of Strategic
Selection”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No.2, 82-94.
Nkwor, C.O. (2012), ‘‘Food Safety Policies and Legislation’’, Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
vol. 5. No.2, 23-29.
Ladele A.A and Ayoola, G.B (2009), “Food Marketing and its Role in Food Security in Nigeria’:
In Shaid, B.; Adeeipe, N.O.; Aliyu, A and Jir, M. M (ed), “Integrated Agricultural
production in Nigeria: Strategy and Mechanisms for Food Security”, Proceeding of
National Workshop on Nigeria Position of the World Food Security in Abuja, Nigeria;88-
95.
Lazzarini, S. G.; Chaddad, F.R and Cook, M.L. (2008), “Integrating Supply Chain
Network Analyses, The Study of Netchains”, Journal of Chain and Network
Science;Vol.1,No.1,7-22.
Leon G.O. and Kanuk, L.L, (2009), Consumer Behavior, New York: Prentice Hall.
84
Lust, J and Fox, J. (2007), “Consumer Valuation of Beef Ribeye Steak Attributes”.
American Agricultural Economics Association’s Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Lutz, R. (2006), “Quality is as Quality Does: An Attitudinal Perspective on Consumer Quality
Judgments”, Presentation to the Marketing Institute Trustees, Meeting, Cambridge, MA.
Lyon, F.C (2008), “Vegetable Market Systems on Jos, Plateau, Nigeria; Rural Access and
Supply of Urban Food Marketing”, Report for DFID.
MacGregor, J. and Bill, V. (2011), Fair Miles: The Concept of “Food Miles”, Through a
Sustainable Development Lens, International Institute for Environment Development,
Vol 4,No.5, 88-96.
Meagher, K (2008), “If the Druming Changes, the Dance also Changes: De-agrarianization and
Rural Non-Farm Employment in Nigeria Savannah”, Working Paper No. 40; Kaduna
State Ministry of Agriculture.
Mojduszka, E. M. Caswell, J. A. (2001), “Consumer Choice of Food Products and
Nutrition Information”, 71st EAAE Seminar- The Food Consumer in the Early 21st
Century, Zaragoza, Spain.
Mowen, K. (2003), Perceived Quality, Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
Nelson, P (2009), “Information and Consumer Behaviour”, Journal of Political Economy, New
Economics Foundation; Nertherlands: Vol.78, No.20, 311-329.
Nigeria Compass Newspaper, Ten Teachers Died and several others Hospitalized as a Result of
Food Poisoning in Kastina, 1st ,Wednesday June, 2011, p. 23.
Nigeria Research Institute (2008), “Benue State Baseline Information and Renewable Natural
Resources; Briefing Study”, Unpublished Report Prepared by Nigeria Research Institute
(NRI).
Ogundugbe, S. (2011), “Ensuring Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene”, Journal of Food
Safety and Hygiene;Vol.4,No.3, 89-107.
Ojo, A. B (2011), “Consumers Attitude Towards Made in Nigeria and Foreign Made Foods”,
Journal of Food Science Technology, vol. 2, No.4, 14 – 21.
85
Okali, D; Okpara, E and Olawoye, A. (2008), “The Case of Aba and its Region, South-Eastern
Nigeria”, A Paper on Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies, Working
paper 4, October.
Okechukwu, C. V. (2009), “Nigerian Consumer Attitudes Toward Foreign and Domestic
Products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3.
Okoh, N. (2010), “ Food Qualities and Supply Management”. Journal of Food Science
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 14-21.
Olaleke, O. (2010), “Nigeria’s Perception of Locally Made products”, Economic Science Series,
Vol.30, No.12, 30-36.
Olofin, E (2009), “Assessment of Agriculture System used by Resource-Poor Groups in Urban
and Semi-Urban Environments in Kano”, Journal of Agricultural Development in
Nigeria, Vol. 4, No.1, 22-28
Omoruyi, S.A. (1998), Prescribed Agricultural Science, Benin City: Idodo Umeh Publisher.
Omotayo, R. K and Denloye, S. A. (2009), “The Nigeria Experience of Food Safety
Regulations”, A Paper Presented at FAO/WHO Forum of Food Safety Regulations,
Morocco, 28th – 30th Jan.
Omotayo, O. (2011), Analysis of Consumer’s Perception of Foreign Products, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 2, No 3, 22-29.
Onokerhoraye, A.G (2007), “Occupational Specialization by Ethic Groups in the Informal
Sector or Urban Economies of Traditional Nigeria Cities: The case of Benin”, Africa
Studies Review,Vol.20, No.4, 53-69.
Ott, S. L. (2010), “Supermarket Shoppers, Pesticide Concerns and Willingness to Purchase
Certified Pesticide Residue-Free Produce”, Journal of Agribusiness, USA,
Vol.6.,No.2, 593-602 .
Owusu, F. (2013), Nigeria: Food Safety, Security as Real Transformation Tools, A lecture
delivered at the 8th Dr. J.K. Ladipo Biennial Memorial Lecture, Abuja, Supported by
NIFST.
Padberg, D. I.; Ritson, C.; and Albisu, L.M. (2007), Agro-Food Marketing, CAB International
and CIHEAM, Wallingford: Wesley Publications.
86
Parasurman, A.J. Zeithaml, V.A, and Berry L. (2010), “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and its Implication for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 49, No 8, 41-50.
Pinder, C. and Wood, D. (2009), The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture
on Rural Poor and other Vulnerable Groups: A Working Document, DFID China.
PM Newspaper, lndomie Instant Noodles is Back to the Market, 17th July , 2012, p 5.
Porter, G. (2008), “Final Technical Report: Rural Access, Issues and the Supply of Urban
Food Markets in Nigeria: Focus on Access for Small holder Vegetable Producers on the
Jos, Plateau”, Report to the U.K Department for International Development, May edition.
Porter, G (2009), “Road Impacts and the Rural Poor in West Africa: Evidence from Nigeria and
Ghana”, A Paper Presented at the International Seminar, “The Impact of New Roads on
Urban and Regional Development”, International Institutes for Asian Studies; University
of Leiden, 21-29.
Pritchard, B. and Burch, D (2008), Agri-Food Globalization in Perspective; Report from UK
Development of International Development (DFID).
Rich P, and Andy L (2007), “Consumer Perception of the Safety, Health and Environmental
lmpact of the Various Scales and Geographic Origin of Food Supply Chain”, Journal of
Agric Food Supply Management; Vol.6,No.5, 104-114.
Ritson, C. and Mai, L. W.(2008), The Economic of Food Safety, Nutrition and Food Science,
Vol. 98, 253-259.
Schemalesee, R. (2008), “A Model of Advertising and Product Quality”, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 86, No. 3, 455-503.
Seshamani, V. (2008), “The Impact of Market Liberalization on Food Security in Australia
Food Policy”, Report on World Food Crisis,Vol.2,No.6, 539-551.
Smith, B,G (2008), Developing a Sustainable Food Supply ,London: Royal Society Publications.
Smith, D. W (2007),“Urban Food Systems and the Poor in Developed and Developing
Countries”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 23, 207-219.
Sobowale D., (1997), “The Future of Manufacturing in Nigeria”, Management in Nigeria. Vol.
26, No.3, 27-34.
Squires, V R. and Sidahmed A. E. (2008), “Sustainable use of Rangelands into the Twenty First
Century”, Retrieved on 14th October, 2008 from http://www.hoffmansbookshop.com/ap.
87
Steenkamp, J.B and Van-Trijp, C.M (2008), “A Methodology for Estimating the Maximum
Price Consumers are willing to Pay in Relation to Perceived Quality and Consumer
Characteristics” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness
Marketing,Vol.1,No.2,7-24.
The Vanguard Newspaper, Census: Kano Beats Lagos, 10th Wednesday January, 2007, p.24.
The Vanguard Newspaper, Thirty Hospitalized after Eating Delicacy, 8th Monday July, 2013,
p.6.
Tribune Newspaper, Seven Died of Food Poisoning in Ogbomoso, Thursday, December, 2011, p
46.
Umeh, J.O (2011), “Statistical Data on Food Production”, A Paper Presented on World Food
Day, Abuja.
Von, B.J; Bouis, H.; kumar, S. and Pandya, L.R. (2007), “Improving Food Security of the Poor:
Concept, Policy, and Programs”, International Food Policy ,and Research Institute,
Washington, Vol.58, No.1,9-14 .
Wan, M.Y (2006), Secrets of Success: Uncertain Profits, and Prosperity in the Garri
Economy of Ibadan, African Journal of Agriculture,Vol.71,No.2, 255-259.
WHO (2009), “Report on Food Safety and Health; A Strategy for the WHO Africa Region,
Report from WHO.
WHO (2010), “Food Supply and its Regulations: FDA Code” Food and Drug
Administration, Report from WHO.
Wilkie, R. (2006), Marketing Management, New York: Anderson Publications.
World Bank (2004), “Poverty and Huger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing
Countries”, A World Bank Policy Study, Washington D.C, USA; 9- 17.
World Bank (2006), Poverty Reduction and the World Bank, Washington, USA, 53-61.
Nigeria Compass Newspaper, Wednesday, 1st June, 2011
Wu Huang, C. (2008), Strategy for Food Supply and Control Management, Belgin: Wong
Publications.
www.fao.org/../ab538e.htm.accessed, 7th fed,2011
www.dangote-group.com).accessed 23rd August, 2012
everywherenigeria.com/.../pictures-groom-dies-from-food-po... - Cached
www.nafdacnigeria.com, accessed 11th feb, 2011
88
www.newsagencynigeria.com, accessed 28th, June 2012 .
www.population.gov.ng/files/nationafinal.pdf. accessed 6th may,2011
www.son.org.ng. accessed 27th , 2011
Yar’adua, M. U. (2008), “Presidential Address Presented to High-Level Conference on World
Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bio-energy”, 3rd-5th June, Rome,
Italy. Retrieved on 15th October, 2008 from http://www./iio. org:/fileadmin/user_
upload/foodclimate/ statement.
Young, S. and Feigen, B (2005), “Using the Benefit Chain for Improved Strategy
Formulation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No 6, 72-74.
Zeithaml, V.A, and Berry, L. (2010), “The Time Consciousness of Products Prices”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 12, 64-75.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2010), “Consumer Perception”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 52, No 4, 2-22.
89
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter dealt with the research methodology. This include the area of study, research
design, research methods, source of data, sampling techniques, population of study, sample size
determination, method of data collection, distribution of questionnaire, validation and reliability
of questionnaire instruments, and method of data analysis.
3.2 Area of the Study
The study was carried out in the south-south and south-eastern states of Nigeria which include
Rivers, Anambra, Delta, Imo, Akwa Ibom, Enugu, Edo, Cross River, Abia, Ebonyi and Bayelsa
States. These states were selected due to the fact that foods (beef, tomatoes, fruits, cereals, etc)
come in from other parts of the country to these areas for consumption and moreover, these
states were easily accessible to the researcher. Though food still leaves these areas to other parts
of Nigeria, but for cost effect, these other parts were not considered.
3.3 Research Design
The type of research design that was adopted for this study was the survey design. In this survey
design, the respondents were categorized according to their ranks and locations. The respondents
opinions were sought in the subject matter. Also this study is descriptive in nature. This method
was chosen because it is the method that best interprets consumer perception of food safety,
without loss of facts.
3.4 Source of Data
The study relied on primary source of data. The primary data was sought through questionnaire
that was administered on the respondents.
3.5 Population of the Study
The population of the study was based on the 2006 preliminary census figures from eleven (11)
States that make up south- south and south- east geo-political zones of the country as shown in
table 3.1 below.
90
Table 3.1 : Population of Study by States Based on Preliminary 2006 Census Figures.
Region State Population
South-South Rivers 5,185,400
South –East Anambra 4,182,032
South-South Delta 4,098,391
South – East Imo 3,934,899
South-South Akwa Ibom 3,920,208
South-East Enugu 3,257,298
South-South Edo 3,218,332
South-South Cross River 2,888,966
South – East Abia State 2,833,999
South – East Ebonyi 2,173,501
South-South Bayelsa 1,703,358
Total 37,396,384
Source: Federal Office of Statistics (FOS), Abuja, 2006 Census Figure.
Since the study is on consumers perception, the population of the study included all the
consumers of locally produced and imported foods in the south-east and south-south part of
Nigeria, which as seen in the Table 3.1 above summed up to 37,396,384.
Table 3.1 therefore served as a frame work from which the chosen states, local government
areas, and towns studied were selected as can be seen in sample size determination and sampling
technique respectively.
3.6 Sample Size Determination
In every research study, a researcher is expected to choose a sample size. This however, becomes
absolutely necessary when the study population is relatively large like in this study. In view of
this, the researcher chose a sample size by using Yamani (1964) formula.
According to Yamani (1964), to determine a sample from a population:
n =
where n = Sample size
N = Population size
91
e = error limit
Using the population of the region as given above with
n = representing the sample size
N = Representing the population
e = representing the margin of error
Thus
N = 37396384
e = 0.05
n =
n = 399.9996≈ 400
3.7 Sampling Techniques
Sampling technique is a systematic way of selecting a portion of the entire population or
universe as representatives of the population or universe. The selection was done on equal
proportion as stated.
Multi-stage sampling technique was used in selecting the groups, which fall into the sampling
categories. First was the selection of the location of the study, second, the four states (Rivers,
Anambra, Delta and Imo) were selected using the number of population as a factor. Table 3.1
shows that Rivers State has a population of 5,185,100, Anambra State has 4,182,032, Delta State
has 4,098,391, and Imo state has 3,934,899 and thirdly, the local government areas, and towns
and villages were not chosen on population consideration but on their commercial significance to
the selected States. The respondents were selected using Simple Random Sampling (SRS). This
was done by visiting the major markets in the selected towns and villages and all food items
(both locally produced and foreign) were studied.. A total of four hundred (400) respondents
were randomly chosen, comprising twenty five (25) respondents from each town/village and
every state had one hundred (100) questionnaire. In each state, the chosen local government
areas and towns were urban and semi-urban areas where more buying, selling and consumption
activities of locally produced and imported foods items takes place. Apart from the fact that the
four states were convenient and cost effective for the researcher to cover, the respondents in
these states provided useful information needed to evaluate this work.
92
3.8 Method of Data Collection
Questionnaire were administered on the respondents by hand in their various locations and those
that were ready were retrieved immediately while others were retrieved on repeated visit to the
locations with the help of research assistants. The questions covered the essential issues on the
topic. The questionnaire instrument consists of three sections:
Section A: sought for personal data of the respondents.
Section B: safety of food supply.
Section C: environmental impact on food supply.
3.9 Validation of Questionnaire Instrument
The face validation of the research instrument was presented to the supervisor, Prof. (Mrs) J. O
Nnabuko, Dr. Moguluwa S.C and Dr, Etaga H., who critically examined the questionnaire items
in relation to the stated objectives and hypotheses and considered them suitable enough for this
research.
3.10 Reliability of Research Instrument
The test re-test technique was used for reliability test.Twenty (20) respondents were sampled and
questionnaire administered on them. Their mean responses were computed and tagged as X.
After two weeks, the same questionnaire was re-administered on the same set of people, and
their mean responses were again computed and tagged as Y. The mean responses are as shown in
appendix2
93
3. 11 Method of Data Presentation and Analyses
The data for this work were presented in tables. The tables were structured to capture the
essential areas of the questionnaire as well as other relevant information.
The data were analyzed and presented in tables with version 2.0 of Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS), using the mean and standard deviation to answer the research questions.
Hypotheses were tested with analysis of variance( ANOVA), Mann-whitney Z test and t-test
statistical tools. Hypotheses 1 and 3 were tested with ANOVA, Mann-whitney Z test was used
for hypothesis 2, while hypothesis 4, was tested with student t-test statistical tools.
94
Reference
Federal Office of Statistics (FOS), Abuja, 2006 Census Figure.
Yamani, T. (1964), ‘‘Social Evaluation: The Impact of Corporate Programmes’’, New York:
Presage Publishers.
95
CHAPER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of data generated from respondents during the
field work. The first section addressed the demographic characteristics of the respondents that
dealt with respondents background, the second section highlighted the responses to the research
questions, while the third section showed the testing of the stated research hypotheses. The entire
analyses in this research were done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version
2.0. The detailed computer printouts are attached as appendix to this work.
Table 4.1 Return of Questionnaire Distributed to Respondents
Questionnaire Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Returned 387 97
Not returned 13 3
Total 400 100
Source: Field Survey, 2012
Table 4.1 shows that three hundred and eighty seven 387 (97%) of the sampled respondents
returned their questionnaire while thirteen 13(3%) did not. The high response rate was achieved
due to repeated visit to respondents locations and their interest on the subject matter.
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
The demographic characteristic of the respondents were presented in this section with the aid of
tables. The first table is on gender by occupational distribution of the respondents. The results is
as present in table 4.2 below.
96
Table 4.2: Gender by Occupational Distribution of Respondents
Occupation
Gender Civil
Servants
Farmers Business Unemployed Private Total
Male 46(11.9%) 23(5.9%) 45(11.6%) 4(1.0%) 5(1.3%) 123(31.8%)
Female 77(19.9%) 34(8.8%) 88(22.7%) 37(9.6%) 28(7.8%) 264(68.2%)
Total 123
(31.8%)
57
(14.7%)
133
(34.4%)
41
(10.6%)
33
(8.5%)
387
(100%)
Source: Field survey, 2012
From Table 4.2, it can be observed that out of the 387 (three hundred and eighty seven)
respondents, one hundred and twenty three (123) were male representing 31.8%, while the rest
two hundred and sixty four (264) were women, representing 68.2% of total respondents. There
were 46 male that were in civil service representing 11.9% of total respondents, while 77
(19.9%) were female civil servants. From the 57(14.7%) respondents that constituted the
farmers, 23(5.9%) were male while 34(8.8) were female. Those in business were 133 (34.4%) in
number out of which 45(11.6%) were male, while 88(22.7%) were female. There were 41
respondents that were unemployed and out of which 4(1%) were male and 37(9.6%) female. The
number of respondents that were in private practice were 33(8.5%)) which comprises 5(1.3%)
male and 28(7.8%) female.
97
Table 4.3: Age by Educational Qualification of Respondents
Age
Below
20
21-29 30-39 40-49 50and
above
Total
Educational
Qualification
Fslc 6(1.6%) 6(1.6%) 11(2.8%) 3(.08%) 4(1.0%) 30(7.8%)
Ssce/
Gce/
Ond
5(1.3%)
33(8.5%)
66(17.1%)
18(4.7%)
20(5.2%)
142(36.7%)
Hnd/B.S
c/B.Ed
0(0%) 65(16.8% ) 68(17.6%) 27(7.0%) 20(5.2%) 180(46.5%)
M.Sc
and
above
0(0%)
3(0.8%)
27(5.9%)
4(1.0%)
5(1.5%)
35(9%)
Total 11
(2.8%)
107
(27.6%)
168
(43.4%)
52
(13.4%)
49
(12.7%)
387
(100%)
Source: Field survey, 2012
On the educational qualification of the respondents, 30(7.8%) were first school leaving
certificates holders, while 142(36.7%) have SSCE/GCE/OND. One hundred and eighty
respondents were holders of HND/B.Sc/B.ED representing 46.5%. Those respondents that holds
M.Sc and above were 35 in number representing 9% of the total respondents. On their age
grouping, 11(2.8%) were below 20 years, while 107 (27.6%) were between 21-29 years. The age
of 168(43.4%) respondents fell between 30-39 years, while 52(13.4%) were between 40-49
years, 49 (12.7%) of the respondents were 50 years and above.
98
Table 4.4: Distribution of Respondents by Income and Location
Location
Urban Rural Total
Inco
me
0 -20,000 30(7.8%) 68(176%) 98(25.3%)
20,001-40,000 146(37.7%) 40(10.3%) 186(48.1%)
40,001-60,000 23(5.9%) 2(0.5%) 25(6.5%)
60,001-80,000 45(11.6%) 4(1%) 49(12.7%)
Above 80,000 26(6.7%) 3(0.8%) 29(7.5%)
TOTAL 270
(69.8%)
117
(30.2%)
387
(100%)
Source: Field survey, 2012
It can be observed that out of the 387 respondents, 98(25.5%) had on the average monthly
income of N20,000, while 186(48.1%) had monthly income of between N20,001 to N40,000.
Also 25(6.5%) of the respondents had income of N40,001 to N60,000 and those whose income
were between N60,001 and 80,000 were 49 in number representing 12.7%. The rest 29(7.5%)
had high income of above N80,000. The table also shows that majority of the respondents were
resident in the urban areas representing 69.8% (270) of the respondents. Only 117(30.3%) of the
respondents were resident in the rural areas.
4.3: Research Questions and Testing of Hypotheses
In this section, the research questions formulated were answered using mean and standard
deviations and hypotheses were tested accordingly as stated in chapter three.
Basic Evaluative Criteria for Determining Food Safety
Does educational background prevent consumers from determining the basic evaluative criteria
for determining food safety?
99
Table 4.5: Basic Evaluative Criteria for Determining Food Safety
Items FS
LC
SSC
E/G
CE/
OND
HND/
BSC/
B.Ed
M/Sc
and
abov
e
T
ot
al
Percn
tages
of
total
a. NAFDAC number 30
(7.8%)
142
(36.7%)
180
(46.5%)
35
(9.0%)
387 100%
b. Freshness 10
(9.6%)
37
(34.9%)
50
(47.2%)
9
(8.5%)
106 27.4%
c. Place of production 11
(9.1%)
39
(32.2%)
62
(51.2%)
9
(7.4%)
121 31.3%
d. Food appearance 8
(6.4%)
44
(35.2%)
67
(53.6%)
6
(4.8%)
125 32.3%
e. Expiring date if
available
30
(7.8%)
142
(36.7%)
180
(46.5%)
35
(9%)
387 100%
f. Sales environment 9
(7.6%)
42
(35.3%)
58
(48.7%)
10
(8.4%)
119 30.7%
g. Distribution network 10
(8.4%)
40
(33.6%)
62
(52.1%)
7
(5.9%)
119 30.7%
Source: Field survey, 2012
The consumers (respondents) usually check for the NAFDAC number as well as expiring date if
available on all food items before purchasing. These options received 100% responses this is so
because total number of respondents is 387.
Another factor considered important is the food appearance with 32.3% response. This was
closely followed by place of production (food origin) with 31.3%, while both sales environment
and distribution network had 30.7% responses respectively. Then the freshness of food item was
also considered with 27.4%. The above responses shows that the consumers irrespective of their
education background perceive highly the issue of food safety. This is due to uniformity of the
responses across the various educational qualifications.
100
Hypothesis One
H0: Education has no significant effect on the perception of consumers on safety of food in
south – south and south – east of Nigeria
Ha: Education has a significant effect on the perception of consumers on safety of food in
south – south and south – east of Nigeria.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in testing this hypothesis. The results are presented below.
Table 4.6: Mean Responses to Hypothesis One Fslc Ssce/Gce/Ond HND/B.Sc
/B.ED
M.Sc and above
30 142 180 35
Pesticide residues are a major food safety concern
3.2000 (1.2703)
3.5282 (1.5097)
3.4111 (1.5052)
3.6286 (1.4160)
Bacteria are a major food safety concern
3.0333 (1.098)
3.5775 (1.3438)
3.5000 (1.3883)
3.3429 (1.4939)
Foreign bodies/objects are major food safety concern.
3.400 (1.4762)
3.5141 (1.4476)
3.3111 (1.4809)
3.6857 (1.4301)
(Standard deviation in parenthesis) Source: Field survey, 2012
Table 4.7: ANOVA Results for Hypothesis One
SV df SS MS F-
ratio
P-
Value
Remark
Pesticide residues are major
food safety concern
Trt
Error
Total
3
383
386
4.11
841.937
846.067
1.370
2.198
0.623
0.600
Not
Significant
Bacteria are major food safety
concern.
Trt
Error
Total
3
383
386
8.063
710.500
718.563
2.688
1.855
1.449
0.228
Not
Significant
Foreign bodies/object are major
food safety concern.
Trt
Error
Total
3
383
386
5.859
820.792
826.651
1.953
2.143
0.911
0.436
Not
Significant
Source: Field survey, 2012
101
From the above results, the p-values are all greater than 0.05 which is our significant level.
Therefore we do not have enough evidence to reject the Null hypothesis at 5% level of
significance. We now conclude that educational background has no significant effect on the
perception of consumers on safety of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria.
Stages of Food Supply Chain that are Most Unsafe
Does gender differ in perception of the stages of food chain that are most unsafe?
This research question was answered using responses to question nine in the research instrument.
The responses are as tabulated below:
Table 4.8: Mean Ranking on Whether Respondents Differ in Perception on the Stages of
Food Chain that are Most Unsafe
Items Mean rank Position
1 Processing 2.3488 1st
2 Packaging 2.7494 2nd
3 Storage of food after cooking
(refrigeration, warming, etc)
2.8708 3rd
4 Distribution (including storage) 3.1938 4th
5 In-home food preparation 3.2067 5th
6 Production 3.4419 6th
7 Wholesale/retail marketing 3.5685 7th
8 Consumer travel to and from the place
of purchase
3.7881 8th
Source: Field survey, 2012
From Table 4.8 above, the stage of foods chain that both gender perceived most unsafe is the
processing stage which have the highest mean rank of 2.3488. This was followed by the stage of
food packaging with a mean rank of 2.7494 and the storage of food after cooking (refrigeration,
warming, etc.) with a mean rank of 2.8708. The fourth rank stage of food chain that the
consumers perceived most unsafe is the distribution stage (including storage) with mean rank
3.1938. In-home food preparation had a mean rank of 3.2067 to rank fifth. The stage of
102
production of food is also considered as unsafe as it was ranked 6th with mean rank of 3.4419.
Wholesale/ retail marketing ranked 7th with 3.5685 as the mean rank and consumers travel to and
fro the place of purchase was ranked the least with mean rank of 3.7881.
Hypothesis Two
H0: Gender has no significant effect on the consumers’ perception of safety of food in south –
south and south – east of Nigeria.
Ha: Gender has a significant effect on the consumers’ perception of safety of food in south –
south and south – east of Nigeria.
This hypothesis was viewed from the perception of safety concern of respondents.
103
Table 4.9: Result for Hypothesis Two
Stages of food chain
considered most unsafe
Sex n Mean
Rank
Sum of
Rank
Mann
Whitney
Z
P-
Vale
Remark
Production
Male 123 195.76 24076
-0.213
0.831
Not
Significant Female 264 193.19 51002
Processing
Male 123 180.26 22171.5
-1.723
0.884
Not
Significant Female 264 200.4 52906.5
Packaging
Male 123 188.33 23164.5
-0.703
0.482
Not
Significant Female 264 196.64 51913.5
Distribution (including
storage)
Male 123 189.41 23297.5
-0.561
0.575
Not
Significant Female 264 196.14 51780.5
Wholesale/retail marketing
Male 123 179.35 22060
-1.781
0.075
Not
Significant Female 264 200.83 53010
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
Male 123 184.4 22681.5
-1.165
0.244
Not
Significant Female 264 198.47 52395.5
In-home preparation
Male 123 197.8 24330
-0.465
0.642
Not
Significant Female 264 192.23 50748
Storage of food after cooking
(refrigerating, warming, etc.)
Male 123 188.15 23142
-0.719
0.472
Not
Significant Female 264 196.73 51936
Source: Field survey, 2012
The second hypothesis was tested using Mann Whitney z test since the observation used were
non-parametric (ranking) in nature. The p-value (p > 0.05) shows that the Null hypothesis would
not be rejected in all cases thereby concluding that gender has no significant effect on the
consumers’ perception of safety of food in Nigeria.
104
Effect on Consumers’ Perception of Safety
Does income have any effect on consumers’ perception of safety?
The responses of the consumers as tabulated by income and safety concern are presented in the
Table below.
Table 4.10: Responses on Whether Income has any Effect on Consumers’ Perception of
Safety of Food
Monthly Income Level
Mean Responses
Pesticide residue are major food safety concern(MFSC)
Bacteria are major food safety concern (MFSC)
Foreign bodies/ objects are MFSC
Remark
0 - 20,000 3.2755 3.2245 3.4082 All accepted
20,001 - 40,000 3.6505 3.5645 3.3979 All accepted
40,001 - 60,000 3.2800 4.000 3.7200 All accepted
60,001 - 80,000 3.3469 3.3469 3.1633 All accepted
Above 80,000 3.1724 3.5517 3.8621 All accepted
Source: Field survey, 2012
From Table 4.10, all the responses were greater than 3.00, which shows that on the five point
Likert scale, with an average of (5+4+3+2+1)/5 = 3, the consumers based on various income
level do agree that food safety is a major concern to all. Thus one cannot at this stage conclude
that the perception differ significantly or not. But literally income has no effect on their
perceptions as food safety is a major concern to all respondents, irrespective of their income
level.
Hypothesis Three
H0: Income does not significantly affect the perception of consumers’ preference for foreign
food based on safety reasons.
Ha: Income has a significant effect on the perception of consumers’ preference for foreign
food based on safety reasons.
105
Table 4.11: Mean Responses to Hypothesis Three
I prefer foreign products to locally made products for health reasons
Income level 0-20,000
(98)
20001-40,000
(186)
40001-60,000
(25)
60001-80,000
(49)
Above 80,000
(29)
Mean 2.8061 3.6667 3.5200 3.1224 2.9655
Standard deviation 1.2407 1.4282 1.3267 1.3328 1.4011
Source: Field survey, 2012
Table 4.12: ANOVA Table for Hypothesis Three
SV Df SS MS F-ratio P-Value
Treatment
Error
4
382
54.786
709.12
13.697
1.856
7.378
0.000
Total 386 763.907
Source: Field survey, 2012
The third hypothesis was answered using responses from questions 33 which states “I prefer
foreign products to locally made products for health reasons. An ANOVA test was performed
using income as a factor. The mean and standard deviation are shown in Table 4.11, whereas the
results of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 4.12. From the results, we obtained a p-value of
0.000 which is less than our chosen significant value of 0.05. We therefore reject the Null
hypothesis and conclude that “Income has a significant effect on the perception of consumers on
choice and preference for foreign food based on safety reasons”.
Environmental Impact on Food Safety in Nigeria
What are the environmental impact on food safety in Nigeria?
This question sought to know the perception of consumers of safety of foods prepared within and
outside their immediate environment.
106
This research question was answered using responses to questions 12 to 18 on the research
instrument. Where VUS= Very Unsafe, SHUS= Somehow Unsafe, U=undecided, SHS=
Somehow Safe, and VS= Very Safe. Their opinion are as tabulated in Table 4.13 below:
Table 4.13: Perception of Consumers of Safety of Foods Prepared within and outside their
Immediate Environment
Question item (1)
VUS
(2)
SHUS
(3)
U
(4)
SHS
(5)
VS
Sum Mean SD
The food system in Nigeria 30 165 160 11 21 989 2.556 0.887
The food system in your state
and the neighbouring states
48 188 143 8 0 885 2.287 0.704
The food system in your state 48 192 136 11 0 884 2.284 0.714
Food system in a neighouring
state
56 203 120 8 0 854 2.207 0.704
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
49 212 126 0 0 851 2.199 0.643
A National supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
57 205 125 0 0 842 2.1757 0.664
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
60 214 113 0 0 827 2.137 0.655
Source: Field survey, 2012.
From Table 4.13, respondents considered food within their immediate environment as most safe
as compared with those from outside their immediate environment. Thus, one can say that the
environment somehow affect the perception of the consumer on food safety.
Hypothesis Four
H0: There is no significant difference on consumers’ perception of environmental impact on
safety of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria.
Ha: There is a significant difference on consumers’ perception of environmental impact on
safety of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria.
107
This hypothesis was tested using one sample student t-test. Seven items were considered
and their results are as shown below.
Table 4.14: Results for Hypothesis Four
Item
N Mean
Rank
SD t-value P-
Vale
Remark
Food system in Nigeria
387 2.5556 0.8868 -9.859
0.000
significant
The food system in your state
387 2.2842 0.7139
-19.723
0.000
Significant
Food system in a neighbouring State
387 2.2067 0.7043
-22.158
0.000
Significant
The food in Nigeria and its neighbouring countries)
387 2.1990 0.6432
-24.501
0.000
Significant
The food is your state and its neighbouring States
387 2.2868 0.7037
-19.936
0.000
Significant
The national supply chain that occurs centrally within Africa.
387 2.1757 0,6637
-24.431
0.000
Significant
A global supply chain that occurs in multiple countries outside Africa.
387 2.1370 0.6553
-25.910
0.000
Significant
A cut off point of 3.00 was used for the computation at 5% significant level .
Source: Field survey, 2012
The Null hypothesis was rejected in all seven items indicating that there is a significant
difference on consumers perception on environmental impacts on safety of food in south – south
and south – east of Nigeria. Although the awareness is poor as shown on the mean table above,
yet result shows that from the research questions consumers prefer food produced within Nigeria
for safety reasons as most consumers are not convinced that the processing of foods produced
outside their environment are well handled.
4.4 Discussion of Findings
This work titled “consumers’ perception of safety of food in south – south and south – east of
Nigeria” was conceived from the fact that there are perceived problems associated with food
108
safety in Nigeria, judging from the activities of NAFDAC and other related agencies. The
outbreaks of cholera and other food borne diseases in the African countries called for an
investigation into the issue of food safety and consumers perception of it. From the analysis of
the research questions the following findings were observed.
1. All the consumers are aware and are conscious of food safety in their domain irrespective
of their educational background. This is in line with Ogundugbe (2011),opinion that there
is an increasing consumers’ concern for food safety and quality and, at the same time,
there has been a significant market increment in differentiated or high value products
consumption. The goal of food consumption is not only body nourishment but also health
improvement over lifetime. If the food available is not safe or its consumption does not
enhance health, it does not contribute to food security.
2. They usually check for NAFDAC number, and expiring and manufacturing date of
products before purchasing. One of the reasons for this level of awareness is the fact that
NAFDAC has made its core mandate a house hold name in Nigeria. Some of these
mandate include: to protect the public against injury to health through the consumption of
unwholesome foods; to restrain the sale of foods which are unhygienically prepared,
adulterated, spoilt, contaminated, and improperly labeled food products; and
enlightenment of consumers on manufacturing and expiring dates of products before
purchasing, amongst others.
3. Food appearance is of importance to the respondents. According to Izugbara (2008),
many consumers of rice perceived the popular Abakaliki rice to be unclean, low nutrition,
local, and full of stones. Even cassava that is processed into tapioca (abbacha), and fufu
(akpu), through fermentation and widely consumed especially in the southern part of
Nigeria is perceived by some consumers as a product that smells. As a result , some
consumers would like to touch and some times take it closer to their nose to ascertain
whether the product (akpu) has unpleasant odour.
4. Food processing and packaging were ranked as the most highly unsafe stages of the food
supply chain. This is supported by a report presented by Compass News Paper in June
2012, that ten secondary school teachers were killed by food poisoning, while several
109
were hospitalized in Katsina, the Kastina State Capital. The incident occurred at a work
shop organized by the state ministry of education for 650 teachers at the Government Day
Secondary School (GDSS),Kufur Yan’daka, Katsina. It was gathered that soon after
taking their lunch, supplied by a popular corporate caterer, some of the teachers started
vomiting and stooling, as a result they were rushed to the Federal Medical Center,
Katsina and the Police Clinic for medication. Ten of the affected teachers reportedly died
as a result of the poisoning. This unfortunate incident is no doubt a product of indecent
way of processing, packaging and serving the food supplied to the teachers.
5. Also of importance to consumers on food safety is the storage of food after cooking
(refrigerator, warming, etc). Consumers preserve their food in refrigerators or warm to
avoid decay, sour, and contaminations. People have being diagnosed of different
infections as a result of consuming poisoned foods. This is supported by FAO’s (2010),
report that, some people in Bekwara Local Government area of Cross River State
suffered from food poisoning due to indigestion of moi-moi and beans. As a result, about
122 people were hospitalized, while deaths of two children were recorded. The moi-moi
and beans were said to have contained a large dose of highly toxic pesticides.
6. Distribution and also in-home preparation were also rank 4th and 5th respectively in the
stage of food chain that consumers perceived most unsafe. According to FAO (2008),
there are multiple sources of contamination from the environment, and contaminants
could enter the food during production, harvest, transportation, storage, retailing and
preparation for consumption. It is imperative that food safety remains a concern in all
situations in order to derive maximum benefits from even the little available food. Unsafe
food not only results in ill-health but also has economic consequences in the area of
hospital fees and international trade losses.
The formulated hypotheses were tested with various statistical tools and result shows that two
Null hypotheses were accepted: hypotheses one, and two , while hypotheses three, and four were
rejected. From the test of hypotheses, we can observe that:
i. Education has no significant effects on the perception of consumers on the safety of food in
south – south and south – east of Nigeria. This is supported by the study carried out by Okoh
110
(2010), on “preservation and safety of foods produced in the South-South zone” which shows
that although the farmers believed that their produce were cheap, available and safe for
consumption, yet the presence of impurities like stones, pieces of wood, rats dropping, etc, in
garri, rice and palm oil have arose the interest of consumers ( both literates and illiterates)
to exercise careful observation during purchase.
ii. Gender has no significant effect on consumers’ perception of safety of food in south – south
and south – east of Nigeria. This is in line with the statement of FAO (2010), that the fields
of food safety and quality are complicated and multi-dimensional. The food safety and
quality have economic, social, cultural, environmental and political consequences. The
determination of the gender perception necessitates the analyses of the responsibilities and
roles of women and men in the production system, storage conditions, marketing, hygiene
conditions, eating habits and new technologies such as genetically modified products.
Women and men play different roles based on the socio-economic characteristics of the
nation and agricultural structure. These roles may differ even between the regions, but the
safety of food perceptions of women and men are the same in terms of food hygiene and
safety for consumption.
iii. Income has significant effect on the perception of consumers on preference for foreign food
based on safety reasons. This is supported by the views of some authors. Afonifoh (1985),
state that, the economic factors which tend to favour consumers preference for foreign
products centre around product quality, price, and product availability. There is a popular
belief that the qualities of local products are lower than those of their imported counterparts.
There is evidence in the literature to substantiate this view. In a survey of 195 consumers in
Lagos metropolis, Agbonifo, found that 90 percent of the respondents considered locally-
produced rice inferior to the imported ones.
iv. There is a significant difference on consumers’ perception of environmental impact on safety
of food in south – south and south – east of Nigeria. Although the awareness is poor, yet
result shows that from the research questions consumers prefer food produced within Nigeria
with a mean of 2.556. This is in line with MacGregor and Bill (2011), opinion that a large
number of survey respondents perceived in USA, that locally grown foods were healthier
than foods grown at distant locations, and that science has proven these health benefits.
111
These respondents perceived that local food chains (for produce) were likely to emit fewer
greenhouse gases than a comparable distant chain, and nearly half of the respondents were
willing to pay more for produce produced within their immediate environment.
112
References
FAO (2008), “The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating World Hunger” Technical
Report on Food Crisis, New York.
FAO (2010), Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food
Control System, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 76, FAO/WHO, Rome.
IBM, Statistical Package for Science Students (SPSS), Students Gradpack version 20, USA.
Izugbara, N. (2008), “Gender Resources for Urban Agriculture Research: Method Directory and
Annotated Bibliography”, International Development Research Centre, Vol.3, No.5, 27-
35.
MacGregor, J. and Bill, V. (2011), Fair Miles: The Concept of “Food Miles”, Through a
Sustainable Development Lens, International Institute for Environment Development,
Vol 4,No.5, 88-96.
Agbonifo, B. (1985), Consumer’s Preference for Foreign Products.
Nigeria Compass Newspaper, Ten Teachers Died and Several others Hospitalized as a Result of
Food Poisoning in Kastina, 1st ,Wednesday June, 2011, 23.
Ogundugbe, S. (2011), “Ensuring Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene”, Journal of Food
Safety and Hygiene;Vol.4,No.3, 89-107.
Okoh, N. (2010), “ Food Qualities and Supply Management”. Journal of Food Science
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 14-21.
113
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarize the major findings generated from data analysis. It also include the
concluding remarks, and recommendations.
5.2 Summary of Findings
The following are the summary of major findings from the data analysis.
• From Table 4.2, result shows that 34.4% representing one hundred and thirty three
respondents were in the business of buying and selling thereby giving them an insight as
people who are not just consumers but also as those who are experienced in buying of
food items.
• Majority of the respondents (considering the number in each age group) were between 30
– 39 years. The implication of this is that, the respondents were matured enough to give
relevant information on safety of food items considering their age and educational
qualifications as shown in Table 4.3.
• Majority (270 respondents representing 69.8%) were resident in urban areas where more
buying, selling and consumption of food items takes place. It therefore implies that these
respondents were more enlightened and exposed enough to give meaningful judgment on
whether a particular food item is safe for consumption or not as depicted in Table 4.4.
• Result also shows that consumers usually check for NAFDAC number as well as expiring
date if available on items before purchasing. One of the reasons for this level of
awareness is the fact that NAFDAC has made its core mandate a house hold name in
Nigeria.
• From the analysis in Table 4.8, result shows that the stage of food chain that consumers
perceived most unsafe is the processing stage. Safe food handling which include
receiving, cleaning, preparation and cooking, cooling and re-heating, packaging and
storage, etc, should be taking serious to avoid food born disease.
• From Table 4.10, result shows that food safety is a major concern to all irrespective of
their income level. That is even the poor considers safety as an important factor in buying
and consumption of food items.
114
• Result further shows that respondents consider food within their immediate environment
as most safe as compared to those from outside their immediate environment. This
implies that environment somehow affect the perception of consumers on food safety.
5.3 Conclusion
In this study, the researcher has carefully examined the consumers perception of safety of food
in south- south and south - east geo-political zones of Nigeria, with special interest in both
locally produced foods and imported ones. The sampled respondents interest on the subject
matter was high, hence their co-operation. All the respondents are educated and majority of them
are resident in the urban areas, indicating that they are well exposed to the issues of food safety.
Base on the responses of the respondents, the researcher concluded that consumers are aware
and conscious of food safety in their domain and does not treat it with levity. That is why most
times they take pain to check for products manufacturing ingredients, and manufacturing and
expiring dates.
Consumers perceived foods produced within and around their immediate environment to be most
safe for consumption compared with the foods that comes from other areas. Consumers are also
conscious of food storage after cooking or processing to avoid contamination. This is as a result
of the fact that people have been diagnosed of different ailment contacted from consuming
poisoned foods.
Finally, it is important to note that consumers are showing concern on food safety in all
situations in order to derive maximum satisfaction from even a little available food. Unsafe food
do not only result to ill-health and death, but also has tremendous economic consequences in the
area of hospital fees, and both local and international trade losses.
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study the researcher recommended the following:
1. Food poisoning in Nigeria has been a serious issue as revealed by the study, that the stage
of food chain that consumers perceived most unsafe is the processing stage. Therefore,
there should be adequate sensitization both at individual family level and those involved
115
in providing food for the public on the need for safe handling of food especially in
preparation, packaging and storage.
2. Consumers should not restrict themselves to the consumption of foods prepared within
their immediate environment. Instead they should be proactive in determining how safe
foods from other regions are before purchase and consumption as the widely proposed
food security by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and individual countries can
only be realized through interdependent and consumption of foods produced within and
outside a region or continent.
3. Food producers including farmers should adhere strictly to the code and conduct guiding
preparation and provision of safe food to the public as respect for health and sanctity of
human life is paramount in service delivery of this nature. That is food business operators
should control food hazards through the use of systems such as Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP). They should: identify any steps in their operations
which are critical to the safety of food; implement effective control procedures at those
steps; monitor and control procedures to ensure their continuing effectiveness; and
review control procedures periodically, and whenever the operations change.
4. In the case of imported foods, Nigeria government should collaborate with other
countries and regulatory institutions in the area of capacity building in terms of
manpower, infrastructure and logistics for effective risk analysis of food safety and food
security, information management, and biotechnology.
5. More research work should be carried out on the topic with wider coverage and focus on
food security and its sustainability strategies in Nigeria or Africa.
5.5 Contribution to Knowledge
Consumer behaviour is very complex and determined by emotions, motives and attitudes. The
attitudes play a fundamental role in consumer behavour field, because it determines his
disposition to respond positively or negatively to an institution, person, event, object or product.
The perception of sanitary risk due to the consumption of certain products could drive consumers
attitudes away from those products. Government regulation of this sector is a response to market
failure and the necessity of the social regulator to interfere in order to assure consumers that the
products are healthy.
116
This study therefore, discovered that the stage of food supply chain that consumers perceived to
be most unsafe is the processing stage. Safe food handling which include receiving, cleaning,
preparation and cooking, cooling and re-heating, packaging and storage should be taking serious
to avoid food borne disease. Personal hygiene which ensures that an appropriate degree of
hygiene is maintained in order to avoid contaminated food were not adequately observed.
Appropriate facilities which include: adequate means of hygienically washing and drying of
utensils and equipment, including washing basins and supply of hot and cold (or suitably
temperature controlled) water; lavatories of appropriate hygienic design; adequate facilities for
the storage of food, ingredients and non- food chemicals (cleaning materials, lubricants, fuel,
etc); adequate drainage and waste disposal systems and facilities, were not available or where
available, they were not properly used.
Food preparation, protection, sale and consumption of street foods in an inappropriate places are
on the increase. Some street foods are microbiologically safe and provide alternative sources of
food. However, the hygiene of most street foods is substandard due to indecent ways of handling
as well as lack of sanitation, running water, refrigeration and disinfection. Washing of hands
always is rare, and foods are often exposed to flies and other insects. The preparation and
keeping of foods in advance for consumption is an additional risk factor. Certain cold foods,
such as salad, meats, sauces, when served at ambient temperature, have greatest potential for
diseases transmission.
5.6 Area for Further Study
This study critically examined consumers’ perception of safety of food in Nigeria
and observed that the stage of chain that consumers perceived to be unsafe is the processing
stage and also preferred foods produced within their immediate environment for safety reason
amongst others.
Therefore, further research is recommended in the area of food security and its sustainability
strategies in Nigeria or Africa.
117
Bibliography
Aaker, D.A and Gary, T.F (2008), “Unit Pricing Ten years later: A Replication”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol 47 (Winter), 118-122.
Achumba C.I (2006), The Dynamics of Consumer Behaviour, Lagos: Mac Williams Publishers
Ltd.
Adubi, A. (2009), “Food Marketing Systems in Lagos, FAO Programme”, Food Supply and
Distribution to Cities; Food Collection Review, Lagos.
Ahtola, O.T. (2004), “Price as a Give Component in an Exchange: Theoretical Multi-component
Model”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.11, No.2, 623-626.
Aire, J.U.(1974), “Consumer Attitudes to ‘Made-In-Nigeria’ Goods and the Implications for
Marketing”, Management in Nigeria, Vol. 9, No. 2,102- 108
Alba, J.W and Wesley, J.H (2009), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, vol 12, No.7 17-24.
Alego, S. B.(2009), “Exploring the Problem-Prone Consumers: Hypothesis and Empirical
Findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.11, No.12,45-50
Ali-Akpajiak, S.C.A and Pyke, T. (2009), Measuring Food Supply in Nigeria, Lagos: Oxford
Publications.
Alvensleben, R. Von (2007), Consumer Behaviour in Padberg, D. I.; Ritson, C.; Albisu, L.
M. (editors), Agro-Food Marketing, CAB International and CIHEAM, Wallingford:Wesley
Publications.
Asseal, C.(2009), Psychological Pricing in the Food Industry; Philadephia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
____ (2006), Poverty Reduction and the World Bank, Washington, USA, 53-61.
Ayodele, A; Voh, J.P and Ahmed, B (2007), “Long-Term Food Provisioning and Marketing in
Kano Region”, Drylands Research Paper, Journal of Food Research and Marketing, Vol.3,
No.5,80-91.
Azjen, I. and Fishbein, M., (2006), Understanding Attitudes and Predicating Social
Behaviour. New Jerssey: Prentice-Hall International
Becker, T. (2009), Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour in the European Union,
Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG, Germany: Evankie Publications.
118
Bello, J.N.A (2010), Food and Nutrition in Practice, London: Macmillian Education Limited.
Ben K M.; Angulo, A.; Gill, J. M. (2007), “Health Information and the Demand for Meat in
Spain”, 71st EAAE Seminar – The Food Consumer in the Early 21st Century,
Zaragoza: Spain.
Bonner, P.G and Nelson, R. (2010), Product Attributes and Perceived Quality Foods, Lexington
MA: Lexington Books.
Braun, M.A; Fricke, W. and Malchau, G. (2007), “Functional Change of Periodic Markets in
Densely Populated Areas in South-East Nigeria”, Journal of Applied Geography and
Development,Vol.5 No. 2, 27-39.
Brewer, S. and Speh, J. (2002), Supply Chain Management, New Jerssey: Prentice Hall
Brucks, M and Zeithaml, V.A (2010), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information
Search Behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12, No.1, 1-16.
Brunswick, E (2009), Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments,
Berkeley CA: University press of Califonia.
Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change (BNRCC) (2010), “Climate Change Information
on Nigeria Agriculture, Food Security, Land Degradation, Forestry and Bio-Diversity:
Vulnerability, Impact and Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria”, Retrieved on 19th
September, 2008 from http://www nigeriaclimatehange.org/ page4.php.
Caswell, J. and Mojduszka, E. M. (2009), “Using Informational Labeling to Influence the
Market for Quality in Food Products”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol.7, No.12, 48-59.
Chukwu,C. and Atanda, O. (2010), “Ensuring Food Security and Environmental Hygiene”,
Journal of Food Sciences, Published by the Collage of Veterinary and Medical
Laboratory Sciences, Vom, Plateau state.
Cowan, E. (2008), ‘Irish and European Consumer Views on Food Safety’, Journal of Food
Safety, Vol.18, No.4, 275-295
Dickson, P and Alan, S. (2008), “Point of Purchase Behaviour and Price Perz\ceptions,
Marketing Science Institute, Vol. 7, No2, 22- 29.
everywherenigeria.com/.../pictures-groom-dies-from-food-po... - Cached
Ewepu, G. “Public Health Challenges in Nigeria: The Case of Food Poisoning”, The Guardian
News Paper, 10th, Feb., 2011, p.46.
119
FAO (2007), “Technical Background Document for World Food Summit”, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2008), “The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating World Hunger” Technical
Report on Food Crisis, New York.
FAO (2010), Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food
Control System, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 76, FAO/WHO, Rome.
_____ (2010), “Food Supply and its Regulations: FDA Code” Food and Drug
Administration, Report from WHO.
Farina, E.M.M.Q (2009), “Agri-Food Grades and Standard”, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol.82,No.5,1170-1176.
Financial Times, Special Report: Nigeria, 10th, June, 2003.
Fitter, A. H and Hay, R. K. M. (2007), Environmental Physiology of Plants, London: Academic
Press Limited.
Gaisford, J.D and Kerr, W.A (2009), “Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations”,
The WTO and Agricultural Trade, Northamptom: Edward Elgar, Vol, 2, No.8, 7-13.
Garvin, D.A. (2003), “Quality on the Time”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, 65-73.
Goodman, D. and Watts, K. (2007), Globalizing Food: Agrarian Questions and
Global Restructuring, London: Rout ledge Publications.
Gwary, D, (2008), “Climate Change, Food Security and Nigeria Agriculture. Department of
Crop Protection, University of Maiduguri”, Retrieved on 12th September, 2008 from
www.tribune.com.ng/ 03062008/management /html.
Hamprecht, A (2005), Developing a Sustainable Food Policy, London: Wesley Publications
Hawkins, S.(2007), “The Measurement of Information Value: A Study in Consumer Decision
Making,” American Marketing Association, Vol.12, No.3, 413-421.
Henson, S. and Northern, J., (2008) “Consumer Assessment of the Safety of Beef at the Point of
Purchase: A Pan-European Study.” Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol.7,No.9,13-
23.
Husle B. (2009), “Food Conservation and Human Safety: A Tool for Curbing Infections
Through Food Consumption”, Journal of Food Supply and Safety Management, vol 5,
No. 2,82.
120
IPCC (2007), Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge:
University Press.
Izugbara, N. (2008), “Gender Resources for Urban Agriculture Research: Methodology,
Directory and Annotated Bibliography”, International Development Research Centre,
Vol.3, No.5, 27-35.
Jan, V.R (2010), “Agri- Supply Chain Management”, A World Bank Paper Presented at
Australia, Vol.5,No.21,1-28.
Johnson, D.M (2009), “Decision Processing and Product Comparability: A Theory of Strategic
Selection”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No.2, 82-94.
Kunnican, F. (2011), ‘‘Food Safety and its Implication’’, Journal of Food Science, vol.4, No.3,
6-11.
Ladele, A. A. and Ayoola, G. B. (1997), Food Marketing and its Roles in Food Security in
Nigeria: in Shaib, B.; Adeipe N 0.; Aliyu, A and Jir,M. M. (ed); Integrated Agricultural
Production in Nigeria: Strategies and Mechanisms for Food Security. Proceedings of the
National Workshop on Nigeria Position at the World Food Summit, Abuja, Nigeria, 88-
94.
Lazzarini, S. G.; Chaddad, F.R and Cook, M.L. (2008), “Integrating Supply Chain
Network Analyses, The Study of Netchains”, Journal of Chain and Network
Science;Vol.1,No.1,7-22.
Leon G.O. and Kanuk, L.L, (2009), Consumer Behavior, New York: Prentice Hall.
Lust, J and Fox, J. (2007), “Consumer Valuation of Beef Ribeye Steak Attributes”.
American Agricultural Economics Association’s Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Lutz, R. (2006), “Quality is as Quality Does: An Attitudinal Perspective on Consumer Quality
Judgments”, Presentation to the Marketing Institute Trustees, Meeting, Cambridge, MA.
Lyon, F.C (2008), “Vegetable Market Systems on Jos, Plateau, Nigeria; Rural Access and
Supply of Urban Food Marketing”, Report for DFID.
MacGregor, J. and Bill, V. (2011), Fair Miles: The Concept of “Food Miles”, Through a
Sustainable Development Lens, International Institute for Environment Development,
Vol 4,No.5, 88-96.
121
Meagher, K (2008), “If the Druming Changes, the Dance also Changes: De- agrarianization
and Rural Non-Farm Employment in Nigeria Savannah”, Working Paper No. 40;
Kaduna State Ministry of Agriculture.
Michael, J.E; Bruce, J.W and William, J.S (2009), Marketing, Ohio: McGraw Hill
Companies Inc.
Mojduszka, E. M. and Caswell, J. A. (2001), “Consumer Choice of Food Products and
Nutrition Information”, 71st EAAE Seminar- The Food Consumer in the Early 21st
Century, Zaragoza, Spain.
Mowen, K. (2003), Perceived Quality, Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
Nelson, P (2009), Information and Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Political Economy, New
Economics Foundation; Nertherlands: Vol.78, No.20, 311-329.
Nigeria Compass Newspaper, Ten Teachers Died and several others Hospitalized as a Result of
Food Poisoning in Kastina, 1st ,Wednesday June, 2011, p. 23.
Nigeria Research Institute (2005), “Benue State Baseline Information and Renewable Natural
Resources; Briefing Study”. Unpublished Report Prepared by Nigeria Research institute
(NRI), Vol.3,No.2, 42-50.
Nigeria Research Institute (2008),”Benue State Baseline Information and Renewable Natural
Resources; Briefing Study”, Unpublished Report Prepared by Nigeria Research Institute
(NRI)
Nkwor, C.O. (2012), ‘‘Food Safety Policies and Legislation’’, Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
vol. 5. No.2, 23-29.
Ogundugbe, S. (2011), “Ensuring Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene”, Journal of Food
Safety and Hygiene;Vol.4,No.3, 89-107.
Okali, D; Okpara, E and Olawoye, A. (2008), “The Case of Aba and its Region in South-Eastern
Nigeria”, A Paper on Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies, Working
paper 4, October.
Okechukwu, C. V. (2009), “Nigerian Consumer Attitudes Toward Foreign and Domestic
Products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3.
Okoh, N. (2010), “ Food Qualities and Supply Management”. Journal of Food Science
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 14-21.
122
Olaleke, O. (2010), “Nigeria’s Perception of Locally Made products”, Economic Science Series,
Vol.30, No.12, 30-36.
Olayemi, J.K (2008), “Improving Marketing as a Strategy Generating Increase Food Production:
The Nigeria Experience” West Africa Journal of Agricultural Economics;Vol.1,No. 4,
21-26.
Olofin, E (2009), “Assessment of Agriculture System used by Resource-Poor Groups in Urban
and Semi-Urban Environments in Kano”, Journal of Agricultural Development in
Nigeria, Vol. 4, No.1, 22-28.
Omoruyi, S.A. (1998), Prescribed Agricultural Science, Benin City: Idodo Umeh Publisher.
Omotayo, O. (2011), Analysis of Consumer’s Perception of Foreign Products, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 2, No 3, 22-29.
Omotayo, R. K and Denloye, S. A. (2009), “The Nigeria Experience of Food Safety
Regulations”, A Paper Presented at FAO/WHO Forum of Food Safety Regulations,
Morocco, 28th – 30th Jan.
Onokerhoraye, A.G (2007), ‘Occupational Specialization by Ethic Groups in the Informal
Sector or Urban Economies of Traditional Nigeria Cities: The case of Benin’, Africa
Studies Review,Vol.20, No.4, 53-69.
Ott, S. L. (2010), “Supermarket Shoppers, Pesticide Concerns and Willingness to Purchase
Certified Pesticide Residue-Free Produce”, Journal of Agribusiness, USA,
Vol.6.,No.2, 593-602 .
Owusu, F. (2013), Nigeria: Food Safety, Security as Real Transformation Tools, A lecture
delivered at the 8th Dr. J.K. Ladipo Biennial Memorial Lecture,Abuja, Supported by
NIFST.
Padberg, D. I.; Ritson, C.; and Albisu, L.M. (2007), Agro-Food Marketing, CAB International
and CIHEAM, Wallingford: Wesley Publications.
Parasurman, A.J.; Zeithaml, V.A, and Berry L. (2010), “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and its Implication for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 49, No 8, 41-50.
Pinder, C. and Wood, D. (2009), “The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture
on Rural Poor and other Vulnerable Groups”, A Working Document, DFID China.
PM Newspaper, lndomie Instant Noodles is Back to the Market,17th July, 2012,p. 5
123
Porter, G (2009), ‘Road Impacts and the Rural Poor in West Africa: Evidence from Nigeria
and Ghana”, Paper Presented at the International Seminar, “The Impact of New Roads
on Urban and Regional Development”, International Institutes for Asian Studies;
University of Leiden, 21-29.
---- (2008), “Final Technical Report: Rural Access, Issues and the Supply of Urban Food
Markets in Nigeria: Focus on Access for Small holder Vegetable Producers on the Jos,
Plateau”, Report to the U.K Department for International Development, May edition.
Pretty B. (2006), Food Supply and the Environment; London: Greatman Publishers.
Pritchard, B. and Burch, D (2008), Agri-Food Globalization in Perspective; Report from UK
Development of International Development (DFID).
Remison, S.U (2004), Agriculture as the Way, Benin city: Ambik Press.
Rich P, and Andy L (2007), “Consumer Perception of the Safety, Health and Environmental
lmpact of the Various Scales and Geographic Origin of Food Supply Chain”, Journal of
Agric Food Supply Management; Vol.6,No.5, 104-114
Sarojini, T.R (2009), Modern Biology, Enugu: Africana-Feb Publishers Limited
Schemalesee, R. (2008), “A Model of Advertising and Product Quality”, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 86, No. 3, 455-503.
Seshamani, V. (2008), “The Impact of Market Liberalization on Food Security in Australia
Food Policy”, Report on World Food Crisis,Vol.2, No.6, 539-551.
Smith, B,G (2008), Developing a Sustainable Food Supply,London: Royal Society Publications.
Smith, D. W (2007),“Urban Food Systems and the Poor in Developed and Developing
Countries”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 23, 207-219.
Sobowale D., (1997), “The Future of Manufacturing in Nigeria”, Management in Nigeria. Vol.
26, No.3, 27-34.
Squires, V R. and Sidahmed A. E. (2008), “Sustainable use of Rangelands into the Twenty First
Century”, Retrieved on 14th October, 2008 from http://www.hoffmansbookshop.com/ap.
Steenkamp, J.B and Van-Trijp, C.M (2008), ‘A Methodology for Estimating the Maximum
Price Consumers are willing to Pay in Relation to Perceived Quality and Consumer
Characteristics” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness
Marketing,Vol.1,No.2,7-24.
124
Sylvander, K. (2009), Food Supply Chain Management, Wallingford: Lawson Publications
The Vanguard Newspaper, Thirty Hospitalized after Eating Delicacy, 8th Monday July, 2013,
p.6.
Tribune Newspaper, Seven Died of Food Poisoning in Ogbomoso, Thursday, December, 2011, p
46.
Ubanagu, O. and Ndubisi, E.C (2010), Marketing Management, Theory and Practice, Enugu:
Optimal Publishers.
Umeh, J.O (2011), “Statistical Data on Food Production”, A Paper Presented on World Food
Day, Abuja.
Van, 1. (2004), Food Supply Chain, London: Wesley Publications.
Von, B.J; Bouis, H.; kumar, S. and Pandya, L.R. (2007), “Improving Food Security of the Poor:
Concept, Policy, and Programs”, International Food Policy,and Research Institute,
Washington Vol 6,No.1,9-14 .
Von, B.J; Bouis, H; Kumar S. and Pandya L. R. (2002), “Improving Food Security of the Poor:
Concept, Policy and Programs”, International Food Policy Research Institute;
Washington, USA.
Wan, M.Y (2006), Secrets of Success: Uncertain Profits, and Prosperity in the Garri Economy of
Ibadan, African Journal of Agriculture,Vol.71,No.2, 255-259.
WHO (2009), “Report on Food Safety and Health; A Strategy for the WHO Africa Region,
Report from WHO.
Wilkie, R. (2006), Marketing Management, New York: Anderson Publications.
World Bank (2004),“Poverty and Huger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing
Countries”, A World Bank Policy Study, Washington D.C,USA;9 17.
Wu Huang C. (2008), Strategic Food Supply and Control Management, Belgin: Wong
Publishers.
Wu Huang, C. (2008), Strategy for Food Supply and Control Management, Belgin: Wong
Publications.
www.fao.org/../ab538e.htm.accessed, 7th fed,2011
www.dangote-group.com).accessed 23rd August, 2012
everywherenigeria.com/.../pictures-groom-dies-from-food-po... - Cached
www.nafdacnigeria.com, accessed 11th feb, 2011
125
www.newsagencynigeria.com, accessed 28th, June 2012 .
www.population.gov.ng/files/nationafinal.pdf. accessed 6th may,2011
www.son.org.ng. accessed 27th , 2011
Yar’Adua, M. U. (2008), “Presidential Address Presented to High-Level Conference on World
Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bio-energy”, 3rd-5th June, Rome,
Italy. Retrieved on 15th October, 2008 from http://www./iio.org:/fileadmin/user_
upload/foodclimate/ statement.
Young, S. and Feigen, B (2005), “Using the Benefit Chain for Improved Strategy Formulation”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No 6, 72-74.
Zeithaml, V.A, and Berry, L. (2010), “The Time Consciousness of Products Prices”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 12, 64-75.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2010), “Consumer Perception”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 52, No 4, 2-22.
126
Appendix 1
Research Questionnaire
Department of marketing
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Nigeria
Enugu Campus
5/07/2011
Dear Respondents,
I am a postgraduate student of the above mentioned department undergoing a study on “
Consumers Perception of Safety of Food Supply in South- South and South- East of Nigeria”.
Your responses are highly solicited and will be appreciated.
All responses are for academic purposes alone and will not be used for something else. I
promise to keep your confidentiality.
Yours faithfully
Iyadi, Rollins
127
Section A
Please indicate clearly in the spaces provided the information that best suit your opinion
to the item provided.
1. Age: below 20 ( ) 21 – 29 ( ) 31 – 39 ( ) 40 – 49 ( ) 50 and above ( )
2. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )
3. Educational Qualification: FSLC ( ) SSCE/GCE/OND ( ) HND/BSC/B.ED ( )
M.Sc and above ( )
4. Occupation: ( )Civil Servant ( ) Farmer ( ) Business ( ) Unemployed ( )Private ( )
5. Monthly Income level:0 – 20,000 ( ) 20,001 – 40,000 ( ) 40,001 – 60, 000 ( )
60,001 – 80,000 ( ) above 80,000 ( )
6. Location: Urban ( ) Rural ( )
Section B
7. Have you ever considered the issue of food safety before purchasing or consuming any
food item Yes ( ) No ( )
8. If yes, what are the basic evaluative criteria for determining food safety.
NAFDAC number ( )
Freshness ( )
Place of production (origin of food) ( )
Food appearance ( )
Expiring date if available ( )
Sales environment ( )
Distribution network ( )
9.What stage of the food chain do you consider as most UNSAFE ( rank the items below in order
of unsafe)
Production ( )
Processing ( )
Packaging ( )
Distribution (including storage) ( )
Wholesale/retail marketing ( )
Consumer travel to and from the place of purchase ( )
128
In-home food preparation ( )
Storage of food after cooking (refrigerating, warming, etc) ( )
10 Have you ever personally experience an issue with food safety? Yes( ) No ( )
11. If yes, please briefly describe……………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………..
Please tick as appropriate the level of agreement to the following items, where
VUS = very unsafe, SHUS =Somehow unsafe, U= undecided, SHS = Somehow safe and VS =
Very safe.
Assume that a food supply chain includes the production,
processing and transportation of an agricultural product
from farm to consumers. How safe would you consider
VUS SHUS U SHS VS
12 the food system in Nigeria
13 the food system in your state
14 food system in a neighbouring state
15 The food in Nigeria and it’s neighbouring countries
16 The food in your state and it’s neighbouring states
17 A national supply chain that occurs entirely within Africa
18 A global supply chain that occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
How much of the food you purchase and consume do you
think was grown
0 –
25%
25 –
50%
50-
75%
75-
100%
19 In your Nigeria
20 In your State
21 In Africa
22 Outside Africa
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the
following statements, SA=Strongly agree, A = agree U
SA A U D SD
129
=Undecided, D = disagree and SD = strongly disagree
23 Pesticide residues are a major food safety concern
24 Bacteria are a major food safety concern
25 Foreign bodies/objects are major food safety concern
26 I think local food is better for my health than food
transported across country
27 I think that local food grown with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food (grown with compost manure etc)
28 Science has proven that organic food is better than
conventional food
29 The contact information on food label are very important
to me
30 Access to the food item is a factor I always consider
before purchasing
31 The health status of food items is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
32 Price of item is a factor I always consider before
purchasing
33 I prefer foreign products to locally made products for
health reasons
34 I buy products from only well known outlets or markets
130
Appendix 2
Calculation of Reliability
X
2 Y
2
131
Appendix 4
Frequency Table
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid below 20 11 2.8 2.8 2.8
21 – 29 107 27.6 27.6 30.5
31 – 39 168 43.4 43.4 73.9
40 – 49 52 13.4 13.4 87.3
50 and above 49 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Sex
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 123 31.8 31.8 31.8
Female 264 68.2 68.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Educational Qualification
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid FSLC 30 7.8 7.8 7.8
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 36.7 36.7 44.4
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 46.5 46.5 91.0
M.Sc and above 35 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
132
Occupation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Civil Servant 123 31.8 31.8 31.8
Farmer 57 14.7 14.7 46.5
Business 133 34.4 34.4 80.9
Unemployed 41 10.6 10.6 91.5
Private 33 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 20,000 98 25.3 25.3 25.3
20,001 - 40, 000 186 48.1 48.1 73.4
40,001 - 60,000 25 6.5 6.5 79.8
60,001 - 80,000 49 12.7 12.7 92.5
above 80,000 29 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Location
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Urban 270 69.8 69.8 69.8
Rural 117 30.2 30.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
133
Have you ever Considered Basic Evaluative Criteria for Determining Food
Safety?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 387 100.0 100.0 100.0
If yes, What do you look for in the Food Item before Purchasing for
Consumption (a) NAFDAC Number
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 387 100.0 100.0 100.0
(b) Freshness
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 106 27.4 100.0 100.0
Missing System 281 72.6
Total 387 100.0
(c) Place of Production (Origin of Food)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 121 31.3 100.0 100.0
Missing System 266 68.7
Total 387 100.0
134
(d) Food Appearance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 125 32.3 100.0 100.0
Missing System 262 67.7
Total 387 100.0
(e) Expiring Date if Available
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 387 100.0 100.0 100.0
(f) Sales Environment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 119 30.7 100.0 100.0
Missing System 268 69.3
Total 387 100.0
(g) Distribution Network
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 119 30.7 100.0 100.0
Missing System 268 69.3
Total 387 100.0
135
What Stage of the Food Supply Chain do you Consider as most Unsafe
(Rank the Item below in order of Unsafe) (a) Production
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
72 18.6 18.6 18.6
57 14.7 14.7 33.3
60 15.5 15.5 48.8
118 30.5 30.5 79.3
32 8.3 8.3 87.6
12 3.1 3.1 90.7
26 6.7 6.7 97.4
10 2.6 2.6 100.0
387 100.0 100.0
• Processing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 155 40.1 40.1 40.1
2.00 107 27.6 27.6 67.7
3.00 47 12.1 12.1 79.8
4.00 32 8.3 8.3 88.1
5.00 22 5.7 5.7 93.8
6.00 12 3.1 3.1 96.9
7.00 7 1.8 1.8 98.7
8.00 5 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
136
• Packaging
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 133 34.4 34.4 34.4
2.00 100 25.8 25.8 60.2
3.00 55 14.2 14.2 74.4
4.00 21 5.4 5.4 79.8
5.00 24 6.2 6.2 86.0
6.00 27 7.0 7.0 93.0
7.00 16 4.1 4.1 97.2
8.00 11 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
• Distribution (including storage)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 105 27.1 27.1 27.1
2.00 65 16.8 16.8 43.9
3.00 65 16.8 16.8 60.7
4.00 55 14.2 14.2 74.9
5.00 41 10.6 10.6 85.5
6.00 22 5.7 5.7 91.2
7.00 23 5.9 5.9 97.2
8.00 11 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
137
• Wholesale/Retail Marketing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 89 23.0 23.0 23.0
2.00 55 14.2 14.2 37.2
3.00 66 17.1 17.1 54.3
4.00 55 14.2 14.2 68.5
5.00 39 10.1 10.1 78.6
6.00 29 7.5 7.5 86.0
7.00 37 9.6 9.6 95.6
8.00 17 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
• Consumer Travel to and from the Place of Purchase
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 83 21.4 21.4 21.4
2.00 53 13.7 13.7 35.1
3.00 50 12.9 12.9 48.1
4.00 56 14.5 14.5 62.5
5.00 48 12.4 12.4 74.9
6.00 36 9.3 9.3 84.2
7.00 41 10.6 10.6 94.8
8.00 20 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
138
• In-home Food Preparation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 111 28.7 28.7 28.7
2.00 68 17.6 17.6 46.3
3.00 66 17.1 17.1 63.3
4.00 44 11.4 11.4 74.7
5.00 28 7.2 7.2 81.9
6.00 24 6.2 6.2 88.1
7.00 32 8.3 8.3 96.4
8.00 14 3.6 3.6 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
• Storage of Food after Cooking (refrigerating, warming, etc)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1.00 120 31.0 31.0 31.0
2.00 73 18.9 18.9 49.9
3.00 71 18.3 18.3 68.2
4.00 44 11.4 11.4 79.6
5.00 42 10.9 10.9 90.4
6.00 19 4.9 4.9 95.3
7.00 12 3.1 3.1 98.4
8.00 6 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
139
Have you ever Personally Experience an Issue with Food Safety?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 53 13.7 13.7 13.7
No 334 86.3 86.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q11
Frequency Percent
Missing System 387 100.0
The Food System in Nigeria
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 30 7.8 7.8 7.8
Somewhat unsafe 165 42.6 42.6 50.4
Undecided 160 41.3 41.3 91.7
Somewhat safe 11 2.8 2.8 94.6
Very safe 21 5.4 5.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
140
The Food System in your State
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 48 12.4 12.4 12.4
Somewhat unsafe 192 49.6 49.6 62.0
Undecided 136 35.1 35.1 97.2
Somewhat safe 11 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Food System in a Neighbouring State
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 56 14.5 14.5 14.5
Somewhat unsafe 203 52.5 52.5 66.9
Undecided 120 31.0 31.0 97.9
Somewhat safe 8 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
The Food in Nigeria and its Neighbouring Countries
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 49 12.7 12.7 12.7
Somewhat unsafe 212 54.8 54.8 67.4
Undecided 126 32.6 32.6 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
141
The Food in your State and its Neighbouring States
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 48 12.4 12.4 12.4
Somewhat unsafe 188 48.6 48.6 61.0
Undecided 143 37.0 37.0 97.9
Somewhat safe 8 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
A National Supply Chain that occurs Entirely within Africa
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 57 14.7 14.7 14.7
Somewhat unsafe 205 53.0 53.0 67.7
Undecided 125 32.3 32.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
A Global Supply Chain that occurs in Multiple Countries outside Africa
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Unsafe 60 15.5 15.5 15.5
Somewhat unsafe 214 55.3 55.3 70.8
Undecided 113 29.2 29.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
142
In your Country
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 25% 19 4.9 4.9 4.9
25 - 50 % 31 8.0 8.0 12.9
50 - 75% 19 4.9 4.9 17.8
75 - 100% 318 82.2 82.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
In your State
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 25% 238 61.5 61.5 61.5
25 - 50 % 102 26.4 26.4 87.9
50 - 75% 46 11.9 11.9 99.7
75 - 100% 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
In Africa
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 25% 240 62.0 62.0 62.0
25 - 50 % 104 26.9 26.9 88.9
50 - 75% 41 10.6 10.6 99.5
75 - 100% 2 .5 .5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
143
Outside Africa
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 25% 240 62.0 62.0 62.0
25 - 50 % 88 22.7 22.7 84.8
50 - 75% 52 13.4 13.4 98.2
75 - 100% 7 1.8 1.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Pesticide Residues are a Major Food Safety Concern
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 58 15.0 15.0 15.0
Disagree 58 15.0 15.0 30.0
Undecided 63 16.3 16.3 46.3
Agree 65 16.8 16.8 63.0
Strongly Agree 143 37.0 37.0 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Bacteria are a Major Food Safety Concern
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 42 10.9 10.9 10.9
Disagree 63 16.3 16.3 27.1
Undecided 72 18.6 18.6 45.7
Agree 88 22.7 22.7 68.5
Strongly Agree 122 31.5 31.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
144
Foreign Bodies/Objects are Major Food Safety Concern
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 56 14.5 14.5 14.5
Disagree 67 17.3 17.3 31.8
Undecided 51 13.2 13.2 45.0
Agree 82 21.2 21.2 66.1
Strongly Agree 131 33.9 33.9 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
I think Local Food is Better for my Health than Food Transported Across Country
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 152 39.3 39.3 39.3
Disagree 55 14.2 14.2 53.5
Undecided 64 16.5 16.5 70.0
Agree 76 19.6 19.6 89.7
Strongly Agree 40 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
145
I think that Local Food Grown with Inorganic Fertil izer (i.e Food Grown with
Chemical Fertilizers) is better for my Health than Organic Food (Grown with Compost
Manure etc)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 157 40.6 40.6 40.6
Disagree 72 18.6 18.6 59.2
Undecided 66 17.1 17.1 76.2
Agree 79 20.4 20.4 96.6
Strongly Agree 13 3.4 3.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Science has Proven that Organic Food is Better than Conventional Food
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 123 31.8 31.8 31.8
Disagree 78 20.2 20.2 51.9
Undecided 73 18.9 18.9 70.8
Agree 83 21.4 21.4 92.2
Strongly Agree 30 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
146
The Contact Information on Food Label are very Important to me
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 48 12.4 12.4 12.4
Disagree 81 20.9 20.9 33.3
Undecided 64 16.5 16.5 49.9
Agree 77 19.9 19.9 69.8
Strongly Agree 117 30.2 30.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Access to the Food Item is a Factor I always Consider before Purchasing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 126 32.6 32.6 32.6
Disagree 79 20.4 20.4 53.0
Undecided 66 17.1 17.1 70.0
Agree 78 20.2 20.2 90.2
Strongly Agree 38 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
The Health Status of Food Items is a factor I always Consider before Purchasing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 55 14.2 14.2 14.2
Disagree 64 16.5 16.5 30.7
Undecided 55 14.2 14.2 45.0
Agree 87 22.5 22.5 67.4
Strongly Agree 126 32.6 32.6 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
147
Price of Item is a Factor I always Consider before Purchasing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 115 29.7 29.7 29.7
Disagree 80 20.7 20.7 50.4
Undecided 58 15.0 15.0 65.4
Agree 93 24.0 24.0 89.4
Strongly Agree 41 10.6 10.6 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
I prefer Foreign Products to Locally made Products for Health Reasons
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 42 10.9 10.9 10.9
Disagree 95 24.5 24.5 35.4
Undecided 67 17.3 17.3 52.7
Agree 64 16.5 16.5 69.3
Strongly Agree 119 30.7 30.7 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
I Buy Products from only well known Outlets or Markets.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 121 31.3 31.3 31.3
Disagree 82 21.2 21.2 52.5
Undecided 63 16.3 16.3 68.7
Agree 87 22.5 22.5 91.2
Strongly Agree 34 8.8 8.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
148
Descriptive
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation Variance
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
387 1.00 8.00 1466.00 3.7881 2.20258 4.851
Wholesale/retail marketing 387 1.00 8.00 1381.00 3.5685 2.14436 4.598
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
387 1.00 8.00 1332.00 3.4419 1.82771 3.341
In-home food preparation 387 1.00 8.00 1241.00 3.2067 2.11671 4.480
Distribution (including
storage)
387 1.00 8.00 1236.00 3.1938 1.99121 3.965
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
387 1.00 8.00 1111.00 2.8708 1.81498 3.294
Packaging 387 1.00 8.00 1064.00 2.7494 1.97043 3.883
Processing 387 1.00 8.00 909.00 2.3488 1.63186 2.663
Valid N (listwise) 387
149
NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
387 3.4419 1.82771 1.00 8.00
Processing 387 2.3488 1.63186 1.00 8.00
Packaging 387 2.7494 1.97043 1.00 8.00
Distribution (including
storage)
387 3.1938 1.99121 1.00 8.00
Wholesale/retail marketing 387 3.5685 2.14436 1.00 8.00
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
387 3.7881 2.20258 1.00 8.00
In-home food preparation 387 3.2067 2.11671 1.00 8.00
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
387 2.8708 1.81498 1.00 8.00
150
Friedman Test
Ranks
Mean Rank
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
5.00
Processing 3.63
Packaging 3.97
DIstribution (including
storage)
4.53
Wholesale/retail marketing 4.92
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
5.14
In-home food preparation 4.55
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
4.26
Test Statisticsa
N 387
Chi-Square 136.711
Df 7
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. Friedman Test
151
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
The food system in Nigeria. 387 1.00 5.00 989.00 2.5556 .88680 .786
The food in your state and
its neighbouring states.
387 1.00 4.00 885.00 2.2868 .70373 .495
The food system in your
state.
387 1.00 4.00 884.00 2.2842 .71391 .510
Food system in a
neighbouring state.
387 1.00 4.00 854.00 2.2067 .70428 .496
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries.
387 1.00 3.00 851.00 2.1990 .64318 .414
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within
Africa.
387 1.00 3.00 842.00 2.1757 .66374 .441
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
387 1.00 3.00 827.00 2.1370 .65527 .429
Valid N (listwise) 387
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
The food system in Nigeria 387 2.5556 .88680 .04508
The food system in your
state
387 2.2842 .71391 .03629
Food system in a 387 2.2067 .70428 .03580
152
neighbouring state
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
387 2.1990 .64318 .03269
The food in your state and
its neighbouring states
387 2.2868 .70373 .03577
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
387 2.1757 .66374 .03374
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
387 2.1370 .65527 .03331
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
T df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference Lower Upper
The food system in Nigeria -9.859 386 .000 -.44444 -.5331 -.3558
The food system in your
state
-19.723 386 .000 -.71576 -.7871 -.6444
Food system in a
neighbouring state
-22.158 386 .000 -.79328 -.8637 -.7229
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
-24.501 386 .000 -.80103 -.8653 -.7368
The food in your state and
its neighbouring states
-19.936 386 .000 -.71318 -.7835 -.6428
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
-24.431 386 .000 -.82429 -.8906 -.7580
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
-25.910 386 .000 -.86305 -.9285 -.7976
153
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation Variance
In your Country 387 1.00 4.00 1410.00 3.6434 .82824 .686
Outside Africa 387 1.00 4.00 600.00 1.5504 .79142 .626
In your state 387 1.00 4.00 584.00 1.5090 .71025 .504
In Africa 387 1.00 4.00 579.00 1.4961 .70296 .494
Valid N (listwise) 387
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum
Maxim
um Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation Variance
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
387 1.00 5.00 1346.00 3.4780 1.36439 1.862
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern
387 1.00 5.00 1338.00 3.4574 1.48048 2.192
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
387 1.00 5.00 1326.00 3.4264 1.46341 2.142
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
387 1.00 5.00 1326.00 3.4264 1.44381 2.085
the contact information on
food label are very important
to me
387 1.00 5.00 1295.00 3.3463 1.41385 1.999
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
387 1.00 5.00 1284.00 3.3178 1.40678 1.979
154
health reasons
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
387 1.00 5.00 1026.00 2.6512 1.39383 1.943
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
387 1.00 5.00 992.00 2.5633 1.36119 1.853
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
387 1.00 5.00 984.00 2.5426 1.37713 1.896
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
387 1.00 5.00 980.00 2.5323 1.33540 1.783
I think local food is better
for my health than food
transported across country
387 1.00 5.00 958.00 2.4755 1.43288 2.053
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost
manure etc)
387 1.00 5.00 880.00 2.2739 1.27447 1.624
Valid N (listwise) 387
155
t-test
Group Statistics
Age N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
The food system in Nigeria below 20 11 3.0000 1.26491 .38139
21 – 29 107 2.6916 .91539 .08849
The food system in your state below 20 11 2.3636 .80904 .24393
21 – 29 107 2.2523 .79019 .07639
Food system in a neighbouring
state
below 20 11 2.1818 .60302 .18182
21 - 29 107 2.2150 .70078 .06775
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
below 20 11 2.0000 .77460 .23355
21 - 29 107 2.2897 .64441 .06230
The food in your state and its
neighbouring states
below 20 11 2.3636 .80904 .24393
21 - 29 107 2.3178 .73457 .07101
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
below 20 11 2.0000 .63246 .19069
21 - 29 107 2.2804 .62638 .06055
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
below 20 11 2.0909 .70065 .21125
21 - 29 107 2.1589 .66090 .06389
In your Country below 20 11 3.3636 1.12006 .33771
21 - 29 107 3.7009 .79164 .07653
In your state below 20 11 1.6364 .92442 .27872
21 - 29 107 1.4860 .73156 .07072
In Africa below 20 11 1.7273 .78625 .23706
21 - 29 107 1.4579 .67685 .06543
outside Africa below 20 11 1.4545 .93420 .28167
21 - 29 107 1.5701 .81394 .07869
Pesticide residues are a major
food safety concern
below 20 11 3.4545 1.36848 .41261
21 - 29 107 3.3271 1.52820 .14774
Bacteria are a major food safety
concern
below 20 11 3.1818 1.16775 .35209
21 - 29 107 3.3364 1.33136 .12871
156
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
below 20 11 3.6364 1.20605 .36364
21 - 29 107 3.6075 1.42589 .13785
I think local food is better for
my health than food transported
across country
below 20 11 2.2727 1.55505 .46887
21 - 29 107 2.3178 1.34303 .12984
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food (grown
with compost manure etc)
below 20 11 2.0909 1.37510 .41461
21 - 29 107 2.3925 1.30136 .12581
Science has proven that organic
food is better than conventional
food
below 20 11 2.7273 1.61808 .48787
21 - 29 107 2.3738 1.34251 .12979
the contact information on food
label are very important to me
below 20 11 2.9091 1.57826 .47586
21 - 29 107 3.3364 1.51685 .14664
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider before
purchasing
below 20 11 2.1818 1.25045 .37703
21 - 29 107 2.5981 1.41994 .13727
The health status of food items
is a factor I always consider
before purchasing
below 20 11 4.3636 .80904 .24393
21 - 29 107 3.3458 1.48007 .14308
Price of item is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
below 20 11 3.0000 1.48324 .44721
21 - 29 107 2.6449 1.46179 .14132
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for health
reasons
below 20 11 3.1818 1.07872 .32525
21 - 29 107 3.3271 1.47799 .14288
I buy products from only well
known outlets or markets.
below 20 11 3.4545 .68755 .20730
21 - 29 107 2.6449 1.32645 .12823
157
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
The food system in
Nigeria
Equal variances
assumed
1.025 116 .308 .30841
Equal variances not
assumed
.788 11.103 .447 .30841
The food system in
your state
Equal variances
assumed
.444 116 .658 .11130
Equal variances not
assumed
.435 12.047 .671 .11130
Food system in a
neighbouring state
Equal variances
assumed
-.151 116 .880 -.03314
Equal variances not
assumed
-.171 12.946 .867 -.03314
The food in Nigeria
and its neighbouring
countries
Equal variances
assumed
-1.393 116 .166 -.28972
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.199 11.468 .255 -.28972
The food in your state
and its neighbouring
states
Equal variances
assumed
.195 116 .845 .04588
Equal variances not
assumed
.181 11.759 .860 .04588
A national supply
chain that occurs
entirely within Africa
Equal variances
assumed
-1.412 116 .160 -.28037
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.401 12.107 .186 -.28037
158
a global supply chain
that occurs in multiple
countries outside
Africa
Equal variances
assumed
-.323 116 .747 -.06797
Equal variances not
assumed
-.308 11.904 .763 -.06797
in your Country Equal variances
assumed
-1.291 116 .199 -.33730
Equal variances not
assumed
-.974 11.051 .351 -.33730
in your state Equal variances
assumed
.633 116 .528 .15038
Equal variances not
assumed
.523 11.325 .611 .15038
in Africa Equal variances
assumed
1.238 116 .218 .26933
Equal variances not
assumed
1.095 11.575 .296 .26933
outside Africa Equal variances
assumed
-.442 116 .659 -.11555
Equal variances not
assumed
-.395 11.615 .700 -.11555
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety
concern
Equal variances
assumed
.266 116 .791 .12744
Equal variances not
assumed
.291 12.709 .776 .12744
Bacteria are a major
food safety concern
Equal variances
assumed
-.371 116 .712 -.15463
Equal variances not
assumed
-.412 12.830 .687 -.15463
Foreign bodies/objects
are major food safety
Equal variances
assumed
.065 116 .948 .02889
159
concern Equal variances not
assumed
.074 13.055 .942 .02889
i think local food is
better for my health
than food transported
across country
Equal variances
assumed
-.104 116 .917 -.04503
Equal variances not
assumed
-.093 11.586 .928 -.04503
I think that local food
grown with inorganic
fertilizer (i.e food
grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for
my health than organic
food (grown with
compost manure etc)
Equal variances
assumed
-.728 116 .468 -.30161
Equal variances not
assumed
-.696 11.917 .500 -.30161
Science has proven
that organic food is
better than
conventional food
Equal variances
assumed
.816 116 .416 .35344
Equal variances not
assumed
.700 11.460 .498 .35344
the contact information
on food label are very
important to me
Equal variances
assumed
-.887 116 .377 -.42736
Equal variances not
assumed
-.858 11.979 .408 -.42736
Access to the food
item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Equal variances
assumed
-.935 116 .352 -.41631
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.038 12.806 .319 -.41631
The health status of
food items is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Equal variances
assumed
2.241 116 .027 1.01784
Equal variances not
assumed
3.599 17.865 .002 1.01784
160
Price of item is a
factor I always
consider before
purchasing
Equal variances
assumed
.766 116 .445 .35514
Equal variances not
assumed
.757 12.085 .463 .35514
I prefer foreign
products to locally
made products for
health reasons
Equal variances
assumed
-.317 116 .752 -.14528
Equal variances not
assumed
-.409 14.182 .689 -.14528
I buy products from
only well known
outlets or markets.
Equal variances
assumed
1.992 116 .049 .80969
Equal variances not
assumed
3.322 18.856 .004 .80969
Oneway
Descriptives
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
The food system in Nigeria FSLC 30 2.6333 .88992
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.5070 .88122
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.5500 .86699
M.Sc and above 35 2.7143 1.01667
Total 387 2.5556 .88680
The food system in your state FSLC 30 2.2333 .85836
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.2817 .70827
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.3111 .68739
M.Sc and above 35 2.2000 .75926
Total 387 2.2842 .71391
Food system in a neighbouring FSLC 30 2.2333 .72793
161
state SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.0915 .69348
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.3111 .68739
M.Sc and above 35 2.1143 .75815
Total 387 2.2067 .70428
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
FSLC 30 1.9667 .61495
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.1901 .66240
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.2611 .62859
M.Sc and above 35 2.1143 .63113
Total 387 2.1990 .64318
The food in your state and its
neighbouring states
FSLC 30 2.1667 .79148
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.2676 .70374
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.3389 .67818
M.Sc and above 35 2.2000 .75926
Total 387 2.2868 .70373
A national supply chain that occurs
entirely within Africa
FSLC 30 1.9667 .61495
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.1761 .68726
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.2333 .64384
M.Sc and above 35 2.0571 .68354
Total 387 2.1757 .66374
A global supply chain that occurs
in multiple countries outside Africa
FSLC 30 2.1333 .68145
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.0915 .66209
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.1778 .66143
M.Sc and above 35 2.1143 .58266
Total 387 2.1370 .65527
In your Country FSLC 30 3.5000 .90019
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.5915 .92372
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.6833 .75838
M.Sc and above 35 3.7714 .68966
Total 387 3.6434 .82824
162
In your state FSLC 30 1.5333 .68145
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 1.5845 .76486
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 1.4222 .65974
M.Sc and above 35 1.6286 .73106
Total 387 1.5090 .71025
In Africa FSLC 30 1.6000 .81368
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 1.5141 .74125
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 1.4444 .63617
M.Sc and above 35 1.6000 .77460
Total 387 1.4961 .70296
Outside Africa FSLC 30 1.4667 .73030
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 1.6479 .82683
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 1.4944 .78745
M.Sc and above 35 1.5143 .70174
Total 387 1.5504 .79142
Pesticide residues are a major food
safety concern
FSLC 30 3.2000 1.27035
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.5282 1.50975
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.4111 1.50526
M.Sc and above 35 3.6286 1.41600
Total 387 3.4574 1.48048
Bacteria are a major food safety
concern
FSLC 30 3.0333 1.09807
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.5775 1.34388
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.5000 1.38830
M.Sc and above 35 3.3429 1.49397
Total 387 3.4780 1.36439
Foreign bodies/objects are major
food safety concern
FSLC 30 3.4000 1.47625
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.5141 1.44760
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.3111 1.48094
M.Sc and above 35 3.6857 1.43017
Total 387 3.4264 1.46341
163
I think local food is better for my
health than food transported across
country
FSLC 30 3.1667 1.48750
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.5211 1.42280
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.3833 1.41924
M.Sc and above 35 2.1714 1.36092
Total 387 2.4755 1.43288
I think that local food grown with
inorganic fertilizer (i.e food grown
with chemical fertilizers) is better
for my health than organic food
(grown with compost manure etc)
FSLC 30 2.4667 1.13664
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.2324 1.28640
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.2556 1.27775
M.Sc and above 35 2.3714 1.35225
Total 387 2.2739 1.27447
Science has proven that organic
food is better than conventional
food
FSLC 30 2.7333 1.25762
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.6056 1.33133
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.4500 1.33820
M.Sc and above 35 2.4857 1.42192
Total 387 2.5323 1.33540
The contact information on food
label are very important to me
FSLC 30 2.5667 1.16511
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.4366 1.36035
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.3556 1.46323
M.Sc and above 35 3.6000 1.39748
Total 387 3.3463 1.41385
Access to the food item is a factor I
always consider before purchasing
FSLC 30 2.6667 1.26854
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.6056 1.30985
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.4444 1.40320
M.Sc and above 35 2.6857 1.60462
Total 387 2.5426 1.37713
The health status of food items is a
factor I always consider before
purchasing
FSLC 30 3.4333 1.19434
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.4789 1.44261
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.3778 1.47665
M.Sc and above 35 3.4571 1.52128
Total 387 3.4264 1.44381
164
Price of item is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
FSLC 30 2.9333 1.14269
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.8521 1.40892
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.5111 1.39227
M.Sc and above 35 2.3143 1.43017
Total 387 2.6512 1.39383
I prefer foreign products to locally
made products for health reasons
FSLC 30 2.8667 1.13664
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 3.2535 1.39114
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 3.4111 1.42519
M.Sc and above 35 3.4857 1.54104
Total 387 3.3178 1.40678
I buy products from only well
known outlets or markets.
FSLC 30 3.1000 1.26899
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 2.4789 1.38235
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 2.6000 1.34787
M.Sc and above 35 2.2571 1.33599
Total 387 2.5633 1.36119
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
The food system in Nigeria Between Groups 1.403 3 .468 .593 .620
Within Groups 302.152 383 .789
Total 303.556 386
The food system in your
state
Between Groups .457 3 .152 .297 .827
Within Groups 196.277 383 .512
Total 196.734 386
Food system in a
neighbouring state
Between Groups 4.165 3 1.388 2.839 .038
Within Groups 187.297 383 .489
Total 191.463 386
165
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
Between Groups 2.576 3 .859 2.093 .101
Within Groups 157.103 383 .410
Total 159.680 386
The food in your state and its
neighbouring states
Between Groups 1.237 3 .412 .832 .477
Within Groups 189.925 383 .496
Total 191.163 386
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
Between Groups 2.401 3 .800 1.828 .141
Within Groups 167.651 383 .438
Total 170.052 386
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
Between Groups .611 3 .204 .472 .702
Within Groups 165.130 383 .431
Total 165.742 386
in your Country Between Groups 1.859 3 .620 .903 .440
Within Groups 262.931 383 .687
Total 264.791 386
In your state Between Groups 2.683 3 .894 1.784 .150
Within Groups 192.035 383 .501
Total 194.718 386
In Africa Between Groups 1.228 3 .409 .827 .480
Within Groups 189.516 383 .495
Total 190.744 386
Outside Africa Between Groups 2.169 3 .723 1.156 .326
Within Groups 239.598 383 .626
Total 241.767 386
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern
Between Groups 4.110 3 1.370 .623 .600
Within Groups 841.937 383 2.198
Total 846.047 386
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
Between Groups 8.063 3 2.688 1.449 .228
Within Groups 710.500 383 1.855
Total 718.563 386
166
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
Between Groups 5.859 3 1.953 .911 .436
Within Groups 820.792 383 2.143
Total 826.651 386
I think local food is better for
my health than food
transported across country
Between Groups 19.392 3 6.464 3.202 .023
Within Groups 773.125 383 2.019
Total 792.517 386
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost manure
etc)
Between Groups 1.753 3 .584 .358 .783
Within Groups 625.214 383 1.632
Total 626.966 386
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
Between Groups 3.271 3 1.090 .610 .609
Within Groups 685.075 383 1.789
Total 688.346 386
The contact information on
food label are very important
to me
Between Groups 21.661 3 7.220 3.688 .012
Within Groups 749.941 383 1.958
Total 771.602 386
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
Between Groups 3.477 3 1.159 .609 .609
Within Groups 728.569 383 1.902
Total 732.047 386
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
Between Groups .851 3 .284 .135 .939
Within Groups 803.800 383 2.099
Total 804.651 386
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Between Groups 15.625 3 5.208 2.717 .044
Within Groups 734.282 383 1.917
Total 749.907 386
167
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
Between Groups 9.246 3 3.082 1.564 .198
Within Groups 754.661 383 1.970
Total 763.907 386
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
Between Groups 13.177 3 4.392 2.396 .068
Within Groups 702.022 383 1.833
Total 715.199 386
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Dependent Variable
(I) Educational
Qualification
(J) Educational
Qualification
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
The food system in
Nigeria
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .12629 .17847 .480
HND/BSC/B.Ed .08333 .17516 .635
M.Sc and above -.08095 .22099 .714
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.12629 .17847 .480
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.04296 .09969 .667
M.Sc and above -.20724 .16762 .217
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.08333 .17516 .635
SSCE/GCE/OND .04296 .09969 .667
M.Sc and above -.16429 .16408 .317
M.Sc and above FSLC .08095 .22099 .714
SSCE/GCE/OND .20724 .16762 .217
HND/BSC/B.Ed .16429 .16408 .317
The food system in
your state
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.04836 .14384 .737
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.07778 .14117 .582
M.Sc and above .03333 .17811 .852
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .04836 .14384 .737
168
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.02942 .08035 .714
M.Sc and above .08169 .13510 .546
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .07778 .14117 .582
SSCE/GCE/OND .02942 .08035 .714
M.Sc and above .11111 .13225 .401
M.Sc and above FSLC -.03333 .17811 .852
SSCE/GCE/OND -.08169 .13510 .546
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.11111 .13225 .401
Food system in a
neighbouring state
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .14178 .14052 .314
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.07778 .13790 .573
M.Sc and above .11905 .17399 .494
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.14178 .14052 .314
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.21956* .07849 .005
M.Sc and above -.02274 .13197 .863
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .07778 .13790 .573
SSCE/GCE/OND .21956* .07849 .005
M.Sc and above .19683 .12919 .128
M.Sc and above FSLC -.11905 .17399 .494
SSCE/GCE/OND .02274 .13197 .863
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.19683 .12919 .128
The food in Nigeria
and its neighbouring
countries
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.22347 .12869 .083
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.29444* .12630 .020
M.Sc and above -.14762 .15935 .355
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .22347 .12869 .083
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.07097 .07189 .324
M.Sc and above .07586 .12087 .531
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .29444* .12630 .020
SSCE/GCE/OND .07097 .07189 .324
M.Sc and above .14683 .11832 .215
M.Sc and above FSLC .14762 .15935 .355
169
SSCE/GCE/OND -.07586 .12087 .531
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.14683 .11832 .215
The food in your state
and its neighbouring
States
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.10094 .14150 .476
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.17222 .13887 .216
M.Sc and above -.03333 .17521 .849
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .10094 .14150 .476
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.07128 .07904 .368
M.Sc and above .06761 .13289 .611
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .17222 .13887 .216
SSCE/GCE/OND .07128 .07904 .368
M.Sc and above .13889 .13009 .286
M.Sc and above FSLC .03333 .17521 .849
SSCE/GCE/OND -.06761 .13289 .611
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.13889 .13009 .286
A national supply
chain that occurs
entirely within Africa
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.20939 .13294 .116
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.26667* .13047 .042
M.Sc and above -.09048 .16461 .583
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .20939 .13294 .116
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.05728 .07426 .441
M.Sc and above .11891 .12486 .341
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .26667* .13047 .042
SSCE/GCE/OND .05728 .07426 .441
M.Sc and above .17619 .12222 .150
M.Sc and above FSLC .09048 .16461 .583
SSCE/GCE/OND -.11891 .12486 .341
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.17619 .12222 .150
A global supply chain
that occurs in multiple
countries outside
Africa
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .04178 .13194 .752
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.04444 .12949 .732
M.Sc and above .01905 .16337 .907
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.04178 .13194 .752
170
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.08623 .07370 .243
M.Sc and above -.02274 .12391 .855
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .04444 .12949 .732
SSCE/GCE/OND .08623 .07370 .243
M.Sc and above .06349 .12130 .601
M.Sc and above FSLC -.01905 .16337 .907
SSCE/GCE/OND .02274 .12391 .855
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.06349 .12130 .601
In your Country FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.09155 .16649 .583
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.18333 .16339 .263
M.Sc and above -.27143 .20615 .189
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .09155 .16649 .583
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.09178 .09300 .324
M.Sc and above -.17988 .15636 .251
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .18333 .16339 .263
SSCE/GCE/OND .09178 .09300 .324
M.Sc and above -.08810 .15306 .565
M.Sc and above FSLC .27143 .20615 .189
SSCE/GCE/OND .17988 .15636 .251
HND/BSC/B.Ed .08810 .15306 .565
In your state FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.05117 .14228 .719
HND/BSC/B.Ed .11111 .13964 .427
M.Sc and above -.09524 .17618 .589
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .05117 .14228 .719
HND/BSC/B.Ed .16228* .07948 .042
M.Sc and above -.04406 .13363 .742
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.11111 .13964 .427
SSCE/GCE/OND -.16228* .07948 .042
M.Sc and above -.20635 .13081 .116
M.Sc and above FSLC .09524 .17618 .589
171
SSCE/GCE/OND .04406 .13363 .742
HND/BSC/B.Ed .20635 .13081 .116
in Africa FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .08592 .14135 .544
HND/BSC/B.Ed .15556 .13872 .263
M.Sc and above .00000 .17502 1.000
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.08592 .14135 .544
HND/BSC/B.Ed .06964 .07895 .378
M.Sc and above -.08592 .13275 .518
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.15556 .13872 .263
SSCE/GCE/OND -.06964 .07895 .378
M.Sc and above -.15556 .12995 .232
M.Sc and above FSLC .00000 .17502 1.000
SSCE/GCE/OND .08592 .13275 .518
HND/BSC/B.Ed .15556 .12995 .232
Outside Africa FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.18122 .15893 .255
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.02778 .15598 .859
M.Sc and above -.04762 .19679 .809
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .18122 .15893 .255
HND/BSC/B.Ed .15344 .08877 .085
M.Sc and above .13360 .14926 .371
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .02778 .15598 .859
SSCE/GCE/OND -.15344 .08877 .085
M.Sc and above -.01984 .14611 .892
M.Sc and above FSLC .04762 .19679 .809
SSCE/GCE/OND -.13360 .14926 .371
HND/BSC/B.Ed .01984 .14611 .892
Pesticide residues are
a major food safety
concern
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.32817 .29792 .271
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.21111 .29238 .471
M.Sc and above -.42857 .36889 .246
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .32817 .29792 .271
172
HND/BSC/B.Ed .11706 .16641 .482
M.Sc and above -.10040 .27980 .720
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .21111 .29238 .471
SSCE/GCE/OND -.11706 .16641 .482
M.Sc and above -.21746 .27390 .428
M.Sc and above FSLC .42857 .36889 .246
SSCE/GCE/OND .10040 .27980 .720
HND/BSC/B.Ed .21746 .27390 .428
Bacteria are a major
food safety concern
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.54413* .27368 .048
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.46667 .26859 .083
M.Sc and above -.30952 .33888 .362
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .54413* .27368 .048
HND/BSC/B.Ed .07746 .15287 .613
M.Sc and above .23461 .25703 .362
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .46667 .26859 .083
SSCE/GCE/OND -.07746 .15287 .613
M.Sc and above .15714 .25161 .533
M.Sc and above FSLC .30952 .33888 .362
SSCE/GCE/OND -.23461 .25703 .362
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.15714 .25161 .533
Foreign bodies/objects
are major food safety
concern
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.11408 .29416 .698
HND/BSC/B.Ed .08889 .28869 .758
M.Sc and above -.28571 .36423 .433
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .11408 .29416 .698
HND/BSC/B.Ed .20297 .16431 .217
M.Sc and above -.17163 .27626 .535
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.08889 .28869 .758
SSCE/GCE/OND -.20297 .16431 .217
M.Sc and above -.37460 .27044 .167
M.Sc and above FSLC .28571 .36423 .433
173
SSCE/GCE/OND .17163 .27626 .535
HND/BSC/B.Ed .37460 .27044 .167
I think local food is
better for my health
than food transported
across country
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .64554* .28549 .024
HND/BSC/B.Ed .78333* .28018 .005
M.Sc and above .99524* .35350 .005
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.64554* .28549 .024
HND/BSC/B.Ed .13779 .15947 .388
M.Sc and above .34970 .26812 .193
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.78333* .28018 .005
SSCE/GCE/OND -.13779 .15947 .388
M.Sc and above .21190 .26247 .420
M.Sc and above FSLC -.99524* .35350 .005
SSCE/GCE/OND -.34970 .26812 .193
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.21190 .26247 .420
I think that local food
grown with inorganic
fertilizer (i.e food
grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for
my health than organic
food (grown with
compost manure etc)
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .23427 .25673 .362
HND/BSC/B.Ed .21111 .25196 .403
M.Sc and above .09524 .31789 .765
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.23427 .25673 .362
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.02316 .14340 .872
M.Sc and above -.13903 .24111 .565
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.21111 .25196 .403
SSCE/GCE/OND .02316 .14340 .872
M.Sc and above -.11587 .23603 .624
M.Sc and above FSLC -.09524 .31789 .765
SSCE/GCE/OND .13903 .24111 .565
HND/BSC/B.Ed .11587 .23603 .624
Science has proven
that organic food is
better than
conventional food
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .12770 .26874 .635
HND/BSC/B.Ed .28333 .26374 .283
M.Sc and above .24762 .33276 .457
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.12770 .26874 .635
174
HND/BSC/B.Ed .15563 .15011 .300
M.Sc and above .11992 .25239 .635
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.28333 .26374 .283
SSCE/GCE/OND -.15563 .15011 .300
M.Sc and above -.03571 .24707 .885
M.Sc and above FSLC -.24762 .33276 .457
SSCE/GCE/OND -.11992 .25239 .635
HND/BSC/B.Ed .03571 .24707 .885
the contact
information on food
label are very
important to me
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.86995* .28117 .002
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.78889* .27595 .004
M.Sc and above -1.03333* .34816 .003
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .86995* .28117 .002
HND/BSC/B.Ed .08106 .15706 .606
M.Sc and above -.16338 .26407 .536
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .78889* .27595 .004
SSCE/GCE/OND -.08106 .15706 .606
M.Sc and above -.24444 .25850 .345
M.Sc and above FSLC 1.03333* .34816 .003
SSCE/GCE/OND .16338 .26407 .536
HND/BSC/B.Ed .24444 .25850 .345
Access to the food
item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .06103 .27714 .826
HND/BSC/B.Ed .22222 .27199 .414
M.Sc and above -.01905 .34316 .956
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.06103 .27714 .826
HND/BSC/B.Ed .16119 .15480 .298
M.Sc and above -.08008 .26028 .759
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.22222 .27199 .414
SSCE/GCE/OND -.16119 .15480 .298
M.Sc and above -.24127 .25479 .344
M.Sc and above FSLC .01905 .34316 .956
175
SSCE/GCE/OND .08008 .26028 .759
HND/BSC/B.Ed .24127 .25479 .344
The health status of
food items is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.04554 .29109 .876
HND/BSC/B.Ed .05556 .28568 .846
M.Sc and above -.02381 .36044 .947
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .04554 .29109 .876
HND/BSC/B.Ed .10110 .16260 .534
M.Sc and above .02173 .27339 .937
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.05556 .28568 .846
SSCE/GCE/OND -.10110 .16260 .534
M.Sc and above -.07937 .26762 .767
M.Sc and above FSLC .02381 .36044 .947
SSCE/GCE/OND -.02173 .27339 .937
HND/BSC/B.Ed .07937 .26762 .767
Price of item is a
factor I always
consider before
purchasing
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .08122 .27822 .771
HND/BSC/B.Ed .42222 .27305 .123
M.Sc and above .61905 .34450 .073
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.08122 .27822 .771
HND/BSC/B.Ed .34100* .15541 .029
M.Sc and above .53783* .26130 .040
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.42222 .27305 .123
SSCE/GCE/OND -.34100* .15541 .029
M.Sc and above .19683 .25579 .442
M.Sc and above FSLC -.61905 .34450 .073
SSCE/GCE/OND -.53783* .26130 .040
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.19683 .25579 .442
I prefer foreign
products to locally
made products for
health reasons
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND -.38685 .28206 .171
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.54444* .27681 .050
M.Sc and above -.61905 .34925 .077
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC .38685 .28206 .171
176
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.15759 .15755 .318
M.Sc and above -.23219 .26490 .381
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC .54444* .27681 .050
SSCE/GCE/OND .15759 .15755 .318
M.Sc and above -.07460 .25931 .774
M.Sc and above FSLC .61905 .34925 .077
SSCE/GCE/OND .23219 .26490 .381
HND/BSC/B.Ed .07460 .25931 .774
I buy products from
only well known
outlets or markets.
FSLC SSCE/GCE/OND .62113* .27204 .023
HND/BSC/B.Ed .50000 .26699 .062
M.Sc and above .84286* .33685 .013
SSCE/GCE/OND FSLC -.62113* .27204 .023
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.12113 .15196 .426
M.Sc and above .22173 .25550 .386
HND/BSC/B.Ed FSLC -.50000 .26699 .062
SSCE/GCE/OND .12113 .15196 .426
M.Sc and above .34286 .25011 .171
M.Sc and above FSLC -.84286* .33685 .013
SSCE/GCE/OND -.22173 .25550 .386
HND/BSC/B.Ed -.34286 .25011 .171
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
177
One-way
Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
The food system in Nigeria 0 - 20,000 98 2.5408 .96504 .09748
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.5645 .86907 .06372
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.3200 .85245 .17049
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.5714 .76376 .10911
above 80,000 29 2.7241 .95978 .17823
Total 387 2.5556 .88680 .04508
The food system in your
state
0 - 20,000 98 2.2857 .77326 .07811
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2312 .70924 .05200
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.2800 .67823 .13565
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.3878 .60609 .08658
above 80,000 29 2.4483 .73612 .13669
Total 387 2.2842 .71391 .03629
Food system in a
neighbouring state
0 - 20,000 98 2.0714 .69237 .06994
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2151 .71053 .05210
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.1200 .66583 .13317
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.3469 .66304 .09472
above 80,000 29 2.4483 .73612 .13669
Total 387 2.2067 .70428 .03580
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
0 - 20,000 98 2.1939 .66825 .06750
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.1613 .64582 .04735
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.2400 .66332 .13266
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.2653 .60469 .08638
above 80,000 29 2.3103 .60376 .11212
Total 387 2.1990 .64318 .03269
The food in your state and its
neighbouring states
0 - 20,000 98 2.3163 .72648 .07339
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2312 .70158 .05144
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.3200 .74833 .14967
178
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.3265 .62543 .08935
above 80,000 29 2.4483 .73612 .13669
Total 387 2.2868 .70373 .03577
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
0 - 20,000 98 2.1531 .67887 .06858
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.1667 .67317 .04936
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.2000 .70711 .14142
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.2041 .61168 .08738
above 80,000 29 2.2414 .63556 .11802
Total 387 2.1757 .66374 .03374
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
0 - 20,000 98 2.1224 .64641 .06530
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.1720 .66777 .04896
40,001 - 60,000 25 1.9600 .61101 .12220
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.1224 .59974 .08568
above 80,000 29 2.1379 .74278 .13793
Total 387 2.1370 .65527 .03331
In your Country 0 - 20,000 98 3.5714 .91944 .09288
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.6720 .79524 .05831
40,001 - 60,000 25 3.6000 .86603 .17321
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.6735 .77427 .11061
above 80,000 29 3.6897 .80638 .14974
Total 387 3.6434 .82824 .04210
In your state 0 - 20,000 98 1.6020 .75628 .07640
20,001 - 40, 000 186 1.4462 .67368 .04940
40,001 - 60,000 25 1.5600 .82057 .16411
60,001 - 80,000 49 1.4082 .57440 .08206
above 80,000 29 1.7241 .84077 .15613
Total 387 1.5090 .71025 .03610
In Africa 0 - 20,000 98 1.4490 .67538 .06822
20,001 - 40, 000 186 1.5591 .73466 .05387
40,001 - 60,000 25 1.3600 .63770 .12754
179
60,001 - 80,000 49 1.4286 .67700 .09671
above 80,000 29 1.4828 .68768 .12770
Total 387 1.4961 .70296 .03573
Outside Africa 0 - 20,000 98 1.5510 .83878 .08473
20,001 - 40, 000 186 1.5161 .75856 .05562
40,001 - 60,000 25 1.6800 .94516 .18903
60,001 - 80,000 49 1.5918 .76153 .10879
above 80,000 29 1.5862 .77998 .14484
Total 387 1.5504 .79142 .04023
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern
0 - 20,000 98 3.2755 1.31432 .13277
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.6505 1.55665 .11414
40,001 - 60,000 25 3.2800 1.51438 .30288
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.3469 1.39270 .19896
above 80,000 29 3.1724 1.55997 .28968
Total 387 3.4574 1.48048 .07526
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
0 - 20,000 98 3.2245 1.25617 .12689
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.5645 1.41751 .10394
40,001 - 60,000 25 4.0000 1.19024 .23805
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.3469 1.37766 .19681
above 80,000 29 3.5517 1.37805 .25590
Total 387 3.4780 1.36439 .06936
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
0 - 20,000 98 3.4082 1.46320 .14781
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.3978 1.47879 .10843
40,001 - 60,000 25 3.7200 1.36991 .27398
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.1633 1.44837 .20691
above 80,000 29 3.8621 1.43238 .26599
Total 387 3.4264 1.46341 .07439
I think local food is better
for my health than food
transported across country
0 - 20,000 98 2.6939 1.46018 .14750
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2527 1.36980 .10044
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.5600 1.47422 .29484
180
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.8776 1.50876 .21554
above 80,000 29 2.4138 1.40197 .26034
Total 387 2.4755 1.43288 .07284
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost
manure etc)
0 - 20,000 98 2.4898 1.23726 .12498
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.0968 1.26546 .09279
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.4800 1.35769 .27154
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.3878 1.36651 .19522
above 80,000 29 2.3103 1.13715 .21116
Total 387 2.2739 1.27447 .06478
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
Conventional food
0 - 20,000 98 2.9898 1.25587 .12686
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2688 1.28307 .09408
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.4400 1.35647 .27129
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.4490 1.42976 .20425
above 80,000 29 2.8966 1.34549 .24985
Total 387 2.5323 1.33540 .06788
the contact information on
food label are very important
to me
0 - 20,000 98 2.8673 1.32881 .13423
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.5591 1.35935 .09967
40,001 - 60,000 25 3.4400 1.41657 .28331
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.5306 1.56926 .22418
above 80,000 29 3.2069 1.44863 .26900
Total 387 3.3463 1.41385 .07187
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
0 - 20,000 98 3.0816 1.24083 .12534
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.3548 1.37660 .10094
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.2400 1.33167 .26633
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.4082 1.45657 .20808
above 80,000 29 2.4138 1.32334 .24574
Total 387 2.5426 1.37713 .07000
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
0 - 20,000 98 3.1429 1.27627 .12892
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.5753 1.48405 .10882
181
consider before purchasing 40,001 - 60,000 25 3.2400 1.56205 .31241
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.5102 1.51551 .21650
above 80,000 29 3.4483 1.42894 .26535
Total 387 3.4264 1.44381 .07339
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
0 - 20,000 98 3.1122 1.15663 .11684
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.2796 1.39393 .10221
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.6000 1.58114 .31623
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.8367 1.46269 .20896
above 80,000 29 3.2069 1.20651 .22404
Total 387 2.6512 1.39383 .07085
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
0 - 20,000 98 2.8061 1.24070 .12533
20,001 - 40, 000 186 3.6667 1.42816 .10472
40,001 - 60,000 25 3.5200 1.32665 .26533
60,001 - 80,000 49 3.1224 1.33280 .19040
above 80,000 29 2.9655 1.40109 .26018
Total 387 3.3178 1.40678 .07151
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
0 - 20,000 98 2.7857 1.32579 .13393
20,001 - 40, 000 186 2.3925 1.36431 .10004
40,001 - 60,000 25 2.5600 1.52971 .30594
60,001 - 80,000 49 2.8163 1.21918 .17417
above 80,000 29 2.4828 1.45457 .27011
Total 387 2.5633 1.36119 .06919
182
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
The food system in Nigeria Between Groups 2.260 4 .565 .716 .581
Within Groups 301.296 382 .789
Total 303.556 386
The food system in your state Between Groups 1.830 4 .457 .896 .466
Within Groups 194.904 382 .510
Total 196.734 386
Food system in a neighbouring
state
Between Groups 4.650 4 1.163 2.377 .051
Within Groups 186.812 382 .489
Total 191.463 386
The food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
Between Groups .884 4 .221 .532 .713
Within Groups 158.796 382 .416
Total 159.680 386
The food in your state and its
neighbouring states
Between Groups 1.522 4 .380 .766 .548
Within Groups 189.641 382 .496
Total 191.163 386
A national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
Between Groups .245 4 .061 .138 .968
Within Groups 169.807 382 .445
Total 170.052 386
A global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
Between Groups 1.043 4 .261 .605 .660
Within Groups 164.699 382 .431
Total 165.742 386
In your Country Between Groups .814 4 .203 .294 .882
Within Groups 263.977 382 .691
Total 264.791 386
In your state Between Groups 3.487 4 .872 1.741 .140
Within Groups 191.232 382 .501
Total 194.718 386
In Africa Between Groups 1.648 4 .412 .833 .505
183
Within Groups 189.096 382 .495
Total 190.744 386
Outside Africa Between Groups .760 4 .190 .301 .877
Within Groups 241.008 382 .631
Total 241.767 386
Pesticide residues are a major
food safety concern
Between Groups 13.920 4 3.480 1.598 .174
Within Groups 832.126 382 2.178
Total 846.047 386
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
Between Groups 15.502 4 3.875 2.106 .079
Within Groups 703.061 382 1.840
Total 718.563 386
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
Between Groups 11.236 4 2.809 1.316 .263
Within Groups 815.415 382 2.135
Total 826.651 386
I think local food is better for
my health than food
transported across country
Between Groups 22.117 4 5.529 2.742 .028
Within Groups 770.400 382 2.017
Total 792.517 386
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost manure
etc)
Between Groups 12.139 4 3.035 1.886 .112
Within Groups 614.827 382 1.609
Total 626.966 386
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
Between Groups 37.825 4 9.456 5.553 .000
Within Groups 650.521 382 1.703
Total 688.346 386
the contact information on
food label are very important
to me
Between Groups 33.354 4 8.339 4.315 .002
Within Groups 738.248 382 1.933
Total 771.602 386
184
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider before
purchasing
Between Groups 38.688 4 9.672 5.329 .000
Within Groups 693.359 382 1.815
Total 732.047 386
The health status of food items
is a factor I always consider
before purchasing
Between Groups 13.228 4 3.307 1.596 .175
Within Groups 791.424 382 2.072
Total 804.651 386
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Between Groups 57.227 4 14.307 7.890 .000
Within Groups 692.680 382 1.813
Total 749.907 386
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
Between Groups 54.786 4 13.697 7.378 .000
Within Groups 709.120 382 1.856
Total 763.907 386
I buy products from only well
known outlets or markets.
Between Groups 13.601 4 3.400 1.851 .118
Within Groups 701.598 382 1.837
Total 715.199 386
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Dependent Variable (I) Income (J) Income
Mean
Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
The food system in
Nigeria
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.02370 .11085 .831
40,001 - 60,000 .22082 .19899 .268
60,001 - 80,000 -.03061 .15539 .844
above 80,000 -.18332 .18774 .329
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .02370 .11085 .831
40,001 - 60,000 .24452 .18918 .197
60,001 - 80,000 -.00691 .14261 .961
above 80,000 -.15962 .17731 .369
185
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.22082 .19899 .268
20,001 - 40, 000 -.24452 .18918 .197
60,001 - 80,000 -.25143 .21828 .250
above 80,000 -.40414 .24238 .096
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .03061 .15539 .844
20,001 - 40, 000 .00691 .14261 .961
40,001 - 60,000 .25143 .21828 .250
above 80,000 -.15271 .20807 .463
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .18332 .18774 .329
20,001 - 40, 000 .15962 .17731 .369
40,001 - 60,000 .40414 .24238 .096
60,001 - 80,000 .15271 .20807 .463
The food system in
your state
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .05453 .08916 .541
40,001 - 60,000 .00571 .16005 .972
60,001 - 80,000 -.10204 .12498 .415
above 80,000 -.16256 .15100 .282
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.05453 .08916 .541
40,001 - 60,000 -.04882 .15216 .749
60,001 - 80,000 -.15657 .11470 .173
above 80,000 -.21709 .14261 .129
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.00571 .16005 .972
20,001 - 40, 000 .04882 .15216 .749
60,001 - 80,000 -.10776 .17556 .540
above 80,000 -.16828 .19494 .389
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .10204 .12498 .415
20,001 - 40, 000 .15657 .11470 .173
40,001 - 60,000 .10776 .17556 .540
above 80,000 -.06052 .16735 .718
186
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .16256 .15100 .282
20,001 - 40, 000 .21709 .14261 .129
40,001 - 60,000 .16828 .19494 .389
60,001 - 80,000 .06052 .16735 .718
Food system in a
neighbouring state
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.14363 .08729 .101
40,001 - 60,000 -.04857 .15669 .757
60,001 - 80,000 -.27551* .12235 .025
above 80,000 -.37685* .14783 .011
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .14363 .08729 .101
40,001 - 60,000 .09505 .14897 .524
60,001 - 80,000 -.13189 .11229 .241
above 80,000 -.23322 .13962 .096
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .04857 .15669 .757
20,001 - 40, 000 -.09505 .14897 .524
60,001 - 80,000 -.22694 .17188 .188
above 80,000 -.32828 .19085 .086
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .27551* .12235 .025
20,001 - 40, 000 .13189 .11229 .241
40,001 - 60,000 .22694 .17188 .188
above 80,000 -.10134 .16384 .537
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .37685* .14783 .011
20,001 - 40, 000 .23322 .13962 .096
40,001 - 60,000 .32828 .19085 .086
60,001 - 80,000 .10134 .16384 .537
The food in Nigeria
and its neighbouring
countries
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .03259 .08048 .686
40,001 - 60,000 -.04612 .14446 .750
60,001 - 80,000 -.07143 .11281 .527
above 80,000 -.11647 .13629 .393
187
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.03259 .08048 .686
40,001 - 60,000 -.07871 .13734 .567
60,001 - 80,000 -.10402 .10353 .316
above 80,000 -.14905 .12872 .248
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .04612 .14446 .750
20,001 - 40, 000 .07871 .13734 .567
60,001 - 80,000 -.02531 .15847 .873
above 80,000 -.07034 .17596 .690
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .07143 .11281 .527
20,001 - 40, 000 .10402 .10353 .316
40,001 - 60,000 .02531 .15847 .873
above 80,000 -.04504 .15106 .766
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .11647 .13629 .393
20,001 - 40, 000 .14905 .12872 .248
40,001 - 60,000 .07034 .17596 .690
60,001 - 80,000 .04504 .15106 .766
The food in your state
and its neighbouring
states
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .08514 .08795 .334
40,001 - 60,000 -.00367 .15787 .981
60,001 - 80,000 -.01020 .12328 .934
above 80,000 -.13195 .14894 .376
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.08514 .08795 .334
40,001 - 60,000 -.08882 .15009 .554
60,001 - 80,000 -.09535 .11314 .400
above 80,000 -.21709 .14067 .124
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .00367 .15787 .981
20,001 - 40, 000 .08882 .15009 .554
60,001 - 80,000 -.00653 .17317 .970
above 80,000 -.12828 .19229 .505
188
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .01020 .12328 .934
20,001 - 40, 000 .09535 .11314 .400
40,001 - 60,000 .00653 .17317 .970
above 80,000 -.12175 .16508 .461
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .13195 .14894 .376
20,001 - 40, 000 .21709 .14067 .124
40,001 - 60,000 .12828 .19229 .505
60,001 - 80,000 .12175 .16508 .461
A national supply
chain that occurs
entirely within Africa
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.01361 .08322 .870
40,001 - 60,000 -.04694 .14939 .754
60,001 - 80,000 -.05102 .11665 .662
above 80,000 -.08832 .14094 .531
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .01361 .08322 .870
40,001 - 60,000 -.03333 .14202 .815
60,001 - 80,000 -.03741 .10706 .727
above 80,000 -.07471 .13311 .575
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .04694 .14939 .754
20,001 - 40, 000 .03333 .14202 .815
60,001 - 80,000 -.00408 .16387 .980
above 80,000 -.04138 .18196 .820
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .05102 .11665 .662
20,001 - 40, 000 .03741 .10706 .727
40,001 - 60,000 .00408 .16387 .980
above 80,000 -.03730 .15621 .811
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .08832 .14094 .531
20,001 - 40, 000 .07471 .13311 .575
40,001 - 60,000 .04138 .18196 .820
60,001 - 80,000 .03730 .15621 .811
189
A global supply chain
that occurs in multiple
countries outside
Africa
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.04959 .08196 .545
40,001 - 60,000 .16245 .14712 .270
60,001 - 80,000 .00000 .11488 1.000
above 80,000 -.01548 .13880 .911
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .04959 .08196 .545
40,001 - 60,000 .21204 .13987 .130
60,001 - 80,000 .04959 .10544 .638
above 80,000 .03411 .13109 .795
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.16245 .14712 .270
20,001 - 40, 000 -.21204 .13987 .130
60,001 - 80,000 -.16245 .16138 .315
above 80,000 -.17793 .17920 .321
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .00000 .11488 1.000
20,001 - 40, 000 -.04959 .10544 .638
40,001 - 60,000 .16245 .16138 .315
above 80,000 -.01548 .15384 .920
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .01548 .13880 .911
20,001 - 40, 000 -.03411 .13109 .795
40,001 - 60,000 .17793 .17920 .321
60,001 - 80,000 .01548 .15384 .920
In your Country 0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.10061 .10376 .333
40,001 - 60,000 -.02857 .18626 .878
60,001 - 80,000 -.10204 .14545 .483
above 80,000 -.11823 .17573 .501
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .10061 .10376 .333
40,001 - 60,000 .07204 .17708 .684
60,001 - 80,000 -.00143 .13348 .991
above 80,000 -.01761 .16596 .916
190
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .02857 .18626 .878
20,001 - 40, 000 -.07204 .17708 .684
60,001 - 80,000 -.07347 .20431 .719
above 80,000 -.08966 .22687 .693
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .10204 .14545 .483
20,001 - 40, 000 .00143 .13348 .991
40,001 - 60,000 .07347 .20431 .719
above 80,000 -.01619 .19476 .934
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .11823 .17573 .501
20,001 - 40, 000 .01761 .16596 .916
40,001 - 60,000 .08966 .22687 .693
60,001 - 80,000 .01619 .19476 .934
In your state 0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .15580 .08832 .079
40,001 - 60,000 .04204 .15853 .791
60,001 - 80,000 .19388 .12379 .118
above 80,000 -.12210 .14957 .415
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.15580 .08832 .079
40,001 - 60,000 -.11376 .15072 .451
60,001 - 80,000 .03807 .11361 .738
above 80,000 -.27790* .14126 .050
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.04204 .15853 .791
20,001 - 40, 000 .11376 .15072 .451
60,001 - 80,000 .15184 .17390 .383
above 80,000 -.16414 .19310 .396
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.19388 .12379 .118
20,001 - 40, 000 -.03807 .11361 .738
40,001 - 60,000 -.15184 .17390 .383
above 80,000 -.31597 .16577 .057
191
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .12210 .14957 .415
20,001 - 40, 000 .27790* .14126 .050
40,001 - 60,000 .16414 .19310 .396
60,001 - 80,000 .31597 .16577 .057
in Africa 0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.11016 .08782 .210
40,001 - 60,000 .08898 .15764 .573
60,001 - 80,000 .02041 .12310 .868
above 80,000 -.03378 .14873 .820
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .11016 .08782 .210
40,001 - 60,000 .19914 .14987 .185
60,001 - 80,000 .13057 .11298 .249
above 80,000 .07638 .14047 .587
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.08898 .15764 .573
20,001 - 40, 000 -.19914 .14987 .185
60,001 - 80,000 -.06857 .17292 .692
above 80,000 -.12276 .19202 .523
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.02041 .12310 .868
20,001 - 40, 000 -.13057 .11298 .249
40,001 - 60,000 .06857 .17292 .692
above 80,000 -.05419 .16484 .743
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .03378 .14873 .820
20,001 - 40, 000 -.07638 .14047 .587
40,001 - 60,000 .12276 .19202 .523
60,001 - 80,000 .05419 .16484 .743
Outside Africa 0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .03489 .09915 .725
40,001 - 60,000 -.12898 .17797 .469
60,001 - 80,000 -.04082 .13897 .769
above 80,000 -.03519 .16791 .834
192
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.03489 .09915 .725
40,001 - 60,000 -.16387 .16920 .333
60,001 - 80,000 -.07571 .12754 .553
above 80,000 -.07008 .15858 .659
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .12898 .17797 .469
20,001 - 40, 000 .16387 .16920 .333
60,001 - 80,000 .08816 .19522 .652
above 80,000 .09379 .21678 .665
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .04082 .13897 .769
20,001 - 40, 000 .07571 .12754 .553
40,001 - 60,000 -.08816 .19522 .652
above 80,000 .00563 .18609 .976
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .03519 .16791 .834
20,001 - 40, 000 .07008 .15858 .659
40,001 - 60,000 -.09379 .21678 .665
60,001 - 80,000 -.00563 .18609 .976
Pesticide residues are
a major food safety
concern
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.37503* .18423 .042
40,001 - 60,000 -.00449 .33070 .989
60,001 - 80,000 -.07143 .25823 .782
above 80,000 .10310 .31200 .741
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .37503* .18423 .042
40,001 - 60,000 .37054 .31440 .239
60,001 - 80,000 .30360 .23700 .201
above 80,000 .47812 .29466 .105
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .00449 .33070 .989
20,001 - 40, 000 -.37054 .31440 .239
60,001 - 80,000 -.06694 .36275 .854
above 80,000 .10759 .40280 .790
193
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .07143 .25823 .782
20,001 - 40, 000 -.30360 .23700 .201
40,001 - 60,000 .06694 .36275 .854
above 80,000 .17452 .34579 .614
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.10310 .31200 .741
20,001 - 40, 000 -.47812 .29466 .105
40,001 - 60,000 -.10759 .40280 .790
60,001 - 80,000 -.17452 .34579 .614
Bacteria are a major
food safety concern
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.34003* .16934 .045
40,001 - 60,000 -.77551* .30397 .011
60,001 - 80,000 -.12245 .23736 .606
above 80,000 -.32723 .28678 .255
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .34003* .16934 .045
40,001 - 60,000 -.43548 .28899 .133
60,001 - 80,000 .21758 .21784 .319
above 80,000 .01279 .27085 .962
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .77551* .30397 .011
20,001 - 40, 000 .43548 .28899 .133
60,001 - 80,000 .65306 .33344 .051
above 80,000 .44828 .37025 .227
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .12245 .23736 .606
20,001 - 40, 000 -.21758 .21784 .319
40,001 - 60,000 -.65306 .33344 .051
above 80,000 -.20479 .31784 .520
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .32723 .28678 .255
20,001 - 40, 000 -.01279 .27085 .962
40,001 - 60,000 -.44828 .37025 .227
60,001 - 80,000 .20479 .31784 .520
194
Foreign bodies/objects
are major food safety
concern
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .01031 .18237 .955
40,001 - 60,000 -.31184 .32736 .341
60,001 - 80,000 .24490 .25563 .339
above 80,000 -.45391 .30885 .142
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.01031 .18237 .955
40,001 - 60,000 -.32215 .31122 .301
60,001 - 80,000 .23458 .23460 .318
above 80,000 -.46422 .29169 .112
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .31184 .32736 .341
20,001 - 40, 000 .32215 .31122 .301
60,001 - 80,000 .55673 .35909 .122
above 80,000 -.14207 .39874 .722
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.24490 .25563 .339
20,001 - 40, 000 -.23458 .23460 .318
40,001 - 60,000 -.55673 .35909 .122
above 80,000 -.69880* .34230 .042
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .45391 .30885 .142
20,001 - 40, 000 .46422 .29169 .112
40,001 - 60,000 .14207 .39874 .722
60,001 - 80,000 .69880* .34230 .042
I think local food is
better for my health
than food transported
across country
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .44119* .17726 .013
40,001 - 60,000 .13388 .31820 .674
60,001 - 80,000 -.18367 .24847 .460
above 80,000 .28008 .30020 .351
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.44119* .17726 .013
40,001 - 60,000 -.30731 .30251 .310
60,001 - 80,000 -.62486* .22804 .006
above 80,000 -.16110 .28352 .570
195
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.13388 .31820 .674
20,001 - 40, 000 .30731 .30251 .310
60,001 - 80,000 -.31755 .34904 .364
above 80,000 .14621 .38757 .706
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .18367 .24847 .460
20,001 - 40, 000 .62486* .22804 .006
40,001 - 60,000 .31755 .34904 .364
above 80,000 .46376 .33272 .164
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.28008 .30020 .351
20,001 - 40, 000 .16110 .28352 .570
40,001 - 60,000 -.14621 .38757 .706
60,001 - 80,000 -.46376 .33272 .164
I think that local food
grown with inorganic
fertilizer (i.e food
grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for
my health than organic
Food (grown with
compost manure etc)
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .39302* .15836 .013
40,001 - 60,000 .00980 .28426 .973
60,001 - 80,000 .10204 .22197 .646
above 80,000 .17945 .26819 .504
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.39302* .15836 .013
40,001 - 60,000 -.38323 .27025 .157
60,001 - 80,000 -.29098 .20372 .154
above 80,000 -.21357 .25328 .400
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.00980 .28426 .973
20,001 - 40, 000 .38323 .27025 .157
60,001 - 80,000 .09224 .31181 .768
above 80,000 .16966 .34624 .624
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.10204 .22197 .646
20,001 - 40, 000 .29098 .20372 .154
40,001 - 60,000 -.09224 .31181 .768
above 80,000 .07741 .29723 .795
196
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.17945 .26819 .504
20,001 - 40, 000 .21357 .25328 .400
40,001 - 60,000 -.16966 .34624 .624
60,001 - 80,000 -.07741 .29723 .795
Science has proven
that organic food is
better than
conventional food
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .72098* .16289 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .54980 .29239 .061
60,001 - 80,000 .54082* .22832 .018
above 80,000 .09324 .27586 .736
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.72098* .16289 .000
40,001 - 60,000 -.17118 .27798 .538
60,001 - 80,000 -.18016 .20955 .390
above 80,000 -.62773* .26053 .016
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.54980 .29239 .061
20,001 - 40, 000 .17118 .27798 .538
60,001 - 80,000 -.00898 .32074 .978
above 80,000 -.45655 .35615 .201
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.54082* .22832 .018
20,001 - 40, 000 .18016 .20955 .390
40,001 - 60,000 .00898 .32074 .978
above 80,000 -.44757 .30574 .144
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.09324 .27586 .736
20,001 - 40, 000 .62773* .26053 .016
40,001 - 60,000 .45655 .35615 .201
60,001 - 80,000 .44757 .30574 .144
The contact
information on food
label are very
important to me
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.69179* .17352 .000
40,001 - 60,000 -.57265 .31149 .067
60,001 - 80,000 -.66327* .24323 .007
above 80,000 -.33955 .29387 .249
197
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .69179* .17352 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .11914 .29613 .688
60,001 - 80,000 .02853 .22323 .898
above 80,000 .35224 .27754 .205
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .57265 .31149 .067
20,001 - 40, 000 -.11914 .29613 .688
60,001 - 80,000 -.09061 .34168 .791
above 80,000 .23310 .37940 .539
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .66327* .24323 .007
20,001 - 40, 000 -.02853 .22323 .898
40,001 - 60,000 .09061 .34168 .791
above 80,000 .32372 .32570 .321
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .33955 .29387 .249
20,001 - 40, 000 -.35224 .27754 .205
40,001 - 60,000 -.23310 .37940 .539
60,001 - 80,000 -.32372 .32570 .321
Access to the food
item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .72679* .16817 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .84163* .30187 .006
60,001 - 80,000 .67347* .23572 .005
above 80,000 .66784* .28480 .020
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.72679* .16817 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .11484 .28699 .689
60,001 - 80,000 -.05332 .21633 .805
above 80,000 -.05895 .26897 .827
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.84163* .30187 .006
20,001 - 40, 000 -.11484 .28699 .689
60,001 - 80,000 -.16816 .33113 .612
above 80,000 -.17379 .36768 .637
198
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.67347* .23572 .005
20,001 - 40, 000 .05332 .21633 .805
40,001 - 60,000 .16816 .33113 .612
above 80,000 -.00563 .31564 .986
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.66784* .28480 .020
20,001 - 40, 000 .05895 .26897 .827
40,001 - 60,000 .17379 .36768 .637
60,001 - 80,000 .00563 .31564 .986
The health status of
food items is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.43241* .17966 .017
40,001 - 60,000 -.09714 .32251 .763
60,001 - 80,000 -.36735 .25184 .145
above 80,000 -.30542 .30427 .316
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .43241* .17966 .017
40,001 - 60,000 .33527 .30661 .275
60,001 - 80,000 .06506 .23113 .778
above 80,000 .12699 .28737 .659
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .09714 .32251 .763
20,001 - 40, 000 -.33527 .30661 .275
60,001 - 80,000 -.27020 .35377 .445
above 80,000 -.20828 .39283 .596
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .36735 .25184 .145
20,001 - 40, 000 -.06506 .23113 .778
40,001 - 60,000 .27020 .35377 .445
above 80,000 .06193 .33723 .854
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .30542 .30427 .316
20,001 - 40, 000 -.12699 .28737 .659
40,001 - 60,000 .20828 .39283 .596
60,001 - 80,000 -.06193 .33723 .854
199
Price of item is a
factor I always
consider before
purchasing
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .83268* .16808 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .51224 .30172 .090
60,001 - 80,000 .27551 .23560 .243
above 80,000 -.09465 .28466 .740
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.83268* .16808 .000
40,001 - 60,000 -.32043 .28685 .265
60,001 - 80,000 -.55716* .21623 .010
above 80,000 -.92733* .26884 .001
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.51224 .30172 .090
20,001 - 40, 000 .32043 .28685 .265
60,001 - 80,000 -.23673 .33097 .475
above 80,000 -.60690 .36750 .099
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.27551 .23560 .243
20,001 - 40, 000 .55716* .21623 .010
40,001 - 60,000 .23673 .33097 .475
above 80,000 -.37016 .31549 .241
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .09465 .28466 .740
20,001 - 40, 000 .92733* .26884 .001
40,001 - 60,000 .60690 .36750 .099
60,001 - 80,000 .37016 .31549 .241
I prefer foreign
products to locally
made products for
health reasons
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 -.86054* .17007 .000
40,001 - 60,000 -.71388* .30528 .020
60,001 - 80,000 -.31633 .23838 .185
above 80,000 -.15939 .28802 .580
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 .86054* .17007 .000
40,001 - 60,000 .14667 .29023 .614
60,001 - 80,000 .54422* .21878 .013
above 80,000 .70115* .27201 .010
200
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 .71388* .30528 .020
20,001 - 40, 000 -.14667 .29023 .614
60,001 - 80,000 .39755 .33487 .236
above 80,000 .55448 .37184 .137
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .31633 .23838 .185
20,001 - 40, 000 -.54422* .21878 .013
40,001 - 60,000 -.39755 .33487 .236
above 80,000 .15693 .31921 .623
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 .15939 .28802 .580
20,001 - 40, 000 -.70115* .27201 .010
40,001 - 60,000 -.55448 .37184 .137
60,001 - 80,000 -.15693 .31921 .623
I buy products from
only well known
outlets or markets.
0 - 20,000 20,001 - 40, 000 .39324* .16916 .021
40,001 - 60,000 .22571 .30366 .458
60,001 - 80,000 -.03061 .23712 .897
above 80,000 .30296 .28649 .291
20,001 - 40, 000 0 - 20,000 -.39324* .16916 .021
40,001 - 60,000 -.16753 .28869 .562
60,001 - 80,000 -.42385 .21762 .052
above 80,000 -.09029 .27057 .739
40,001 - 60,000 0 - 20,000 -.22571 .30366 .458
20,001 - 40, 000 .16753 .28869 .562
60,001 - 80,000 -.25633 .33309 .442
above 80,000 .07724 .36986 .835
60,001 - 80,000 0 - 20,000 .03061 .23712 .897
20,001 - 40, 000 .42385 .21762 .052
40,001 - 60,000 .25633 .33309 .442
above 80,000 .33357 .31751 .294
201
above 80,000 0 - 20,000 -.30296 .28649 .291
20,001 - 40, 000 .09029 .27057 .739
40,001 - 60,000 -.07724 .36986 .835
60,001 - 80,000 -.33357 .31751 .294
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Crosstabs
Sex * Occupation
Crosstab
Occupation
Total
Civil
Servant Farmer Business Unemployed Private
Sex Male Count 46 23 45 4 5 123
% of Total 11.9% 5.9% 11.6% 1.0% 1.3% 31.8%
Female Count 77 34 88 37 28 264
% of Total 19.9% 8.8% 22.7% 9.6% 7.2% 68.2%
Total Count 123 57 133 41 33 387
% of Total 31.8% 14.7% 34.4% 10.6% 8.5% 100.0%
202
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.362a 4 .002
Likelihood Ratio 19.915 4 .001
Linear-by-Linear
Association
11.067 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 10.49.
Sex * Age
Crosstab
Age
Total below 20 21 - 29 31 - 39 40 - 49
50 and
above
Sex Male Count 4 49 49 16 5 123
% of Total 1.0% 12.7% 12.7% 4.1% 1.3% 31.8%
Female Count 7 58 119 36 44 264
% of Total 1.8% 15.0% 30.7% 9.3% 11.4% 68.2%
Total Count 11 107 168 52 49 387
% of Total 2.8% 27.6% 43.4% 13.4% 12.7% 100.0%
203
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 20.874a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 22.615 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
16.412 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 3.50.
Sex * Location
Crosstab
Location
Total Urban Rural
Sex Male Count 85 38 123
% of Total 22.0% 9.8% 31.8%
Female Count 185 79 264
% of Total 47.8% 20.4% 68.2%
Total Count 270 117 387
% of Total 69.8% 30.2% 100.0%
204
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .037a 1 .847
Continuity Correctionb .006 1 .941
Likelihood Ratio .037 1 .847
Fisher's Exact Test .905 .468
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.037 1 .847
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 37.19.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Educational Qualification * Occupation
Crosstab
Occupation
Total
Civil
Servant Farmer Business
Unemplo
yed Private
Educational
Qualification
FSLC Count 1 7 6 12 4 30
% of Total .3% 1.8% 1.6% 3.1% 1.0% 7.8%
SSCE/GCE/OND Count 13 38 70 21 0 142
% of Total 3.4% 9.8% 18.1% 5.4% .0% 36.7%
HND/BSC/B.Ed Count 84 12 50 8 26 180
% of Total 21.7% 3.1% 12.9% 2.1% 6.7% 46.5%
M.Sc and above Count 25 0 7 0 3 35
% of Total 6.5% .0% 1.8% .0% .8% 9.0%
Total Count 123 57 133 41 33 387
% of Total 31.8% 14.7% 34.4% 10.6% 8.5% 100.0%
205
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 161.611a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 179.099 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
31.892 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 5 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.56.
Educational Qualification * Age
Crosstab
Age
Total
below
20 21 - 29 31 - 39 40-49
50 and
above
Educational
Qualification
FSLC Count 6 6 11 3 4 30
% of Total 1.6% 1.6% 2.8% .8% 1.0% 7.8%
SSCE/GCE/OND Count 5 33 66 18 20 142
% of Total 1.3% 8.5% 17.1% 4.7% 5.2% 36.7%
HND/BSC/B.Ed Count 0 65 68 27 20 180
% of Total .0% 16.8% 17.6% 7.0% 5.2% 46.5%
M.Sc and above Count 0 3 23 4 5 35
% of Total .0% .8% 5.9% 1.0% 1.3% 9.0%
Total Count 11 107 168 52 49 387
% of Total 2.8% 27.6% 43.4% 13.4% 12.7% 100.0
%
206
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 55.673a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 44.792 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
1.567 1 .211
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 7 cells (35.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .85.
Educational Qualification * Location
Crosstab
Location
Total Urban Rural
Educational Qualification FSLC Count 20 10 30
% of Total 5.2% 2.6% 7.8%
SSCE/GCE/OND Count 84 58 142
% of Total 21.7% 15.0% 36.7%
HND/BSC/B.Ed Count 137 43 180
% of Total 35.4% 11.1% 46.5%
M.Sc and above Count 29 6 35
% of Total 7.5% 1.6% 9.0%
Total Count 270 117 387
% of Total 69.8% 30.2% 100.0%
207
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.996a 3 .003
Likelihood Ratio 14.070 3 .003
Linear-by-Linear
Association
9.728 1 .002
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 9.07.
Income * Occupation
Crosstab
Occupation
Total
Civil
Servant Farmer Business
Unemplo
yed Private
Income 0 - 20,000 Count 6 46 5 38 3 98
% of Total 1.6% 11.9% 1.3% 9.8% .8% 25.3%
20,001 - 40, 000 Count 82 10 82 3 9 186
% of Total 21.2% 2.6% 21.2% .8% 2.3% 48.1%
40,001 - 60,000 Count 11 0 8 0 6 25
% of Total 2.8% .0% 2.1% .0% 1.6% 6.5%
60,001 - 80,000 Count 15 1 24 0 9 49
% of Total 3.9% .3% 6.2% .0% 2.3% 12.7%
above 80,000 Count 9 0 14 0 6 29
% of Total 2.3% .0% 3.6% .0% 1.6% 7.5%
Total Count 123 57 133 41 33 387
% of Total 31.8% 14.7% 34.4% 10.6% 8.5% 100.0%
208
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 280.553a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 277.008 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.317 1 .574
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 7 cells (28.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.13.
Income * Age
Crosstab
Age
Total below 20 21 - 29 31 - 39 40 - 49
50 and
above
Income 0 - 20,000 Count 9 25 36 15 13 98
% of Total 2.3% 6.5% 9.3% 3.9% 3.4% 25.3%
20,001 - 40, 000 Count 2 51 85 21 27 186
% of Total .5% 13.2% 22.0% 5.4% 7.0% 48.1%
40,001 - 60,000 Count 0 7 9 7 2 25
% of Total .0% 1.8% 2.3% 1.8% .5% 6.5%
60,001 - 80,000 Count 0 12 25 6 6 49
% of Total .0% 3.1% 6.5% 1.6% 1.6% 12.7%
above 80,000 Count 0 12 13 3 1 29
% of Total .0% 3.1% 3.4% .8% .3% 7.5%
Total Count 11 107 168 52 49 387
% of Total 2.8% 27.6% 43.4% 13.4% 12.7% 100.0%
209
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 31.381a 16 .012
Likelihood Ratio 29.487 16 .021
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.146 1 .702
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 8 cells (32.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .71.
Income * Location
Crosstab
Location
Total Urban Rural
Income 0 - 20,000 Count 30 68 98
% of Total 7.8% 17.6% 25.3%
20,001 - 40, 000 Count 146 40 186
% of Total 37.7% 10.3% 48.1%
40,001 - 60,000 Count 23 2 25
% of Total 5.9% .5% 6.5%
60,001 - 80,000 Count 45 4 49
% of Total 11.6% 1.0% 12.7%
above 80,000 Count 26 3 29
% of Total 6.7% .8% 7.5%
Total Count 270 117 387
% of Total 69.8% 30.2% 100.0%
210
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 100.560a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 99.004 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
59.291 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 387
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 7.56.
NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
What stage of the food supply
chain do you consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item below
in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
387 3.4419 1.82771 1.00 8.00
Processing 387 2.3488 1.63186 1.00 8.00
Packaging 387 2.7494 1.97043 1.00 8.00
Distribution (including storage) 387 3.1938 1.99121 1.00 8.00
Wholesale/retail marketing 387 3.5685 2.14436 1.00 8.00
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
387 3.7881 2.20258 1.00 8.00
In-home food preparation 387 3.2067 2.11671 1.00 8.00
Storage of food after cooking
(refrigerating, warming, etc)
387 2.8708 1.81498 1.00 8.00
Educational Qualification 387 2.5685 .76337 1.00 4.00
211
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
Educational Qualification N Mean Rank
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
FSLC 30 200.15
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 191.19
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 197.83
M.Sc and above 35 180.47
Total 387
Processing FSLC 30 185.57
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 198.07
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 190.95
M.Sc and above 35 200.40
Total 387
Packaging FSLC 30 270.42
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 200.70
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 175.10
M.Sc and above 35 198.50
Total 387
Distribution (including
storage)
FSLC 30 254.72
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 196.10
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 186.22
M.Sc and above 35 173.43
Total 387
Wholesale/retail marketing FSLC 30 252.72
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 223.40
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 163.57
M.Sc and above 35 180.86
Total 387
212
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
FSLC 30 255.00
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 211.38
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 169.71
M.Sc and above 35 196.10
Total 387
In-home food preparation FSLC 30 225.25
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 211.65
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 174.54
M.Sc and above 35 195.67
Total 387
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
FSLC 30 219.37
SSCE/GCE/OND 142 222.76
HND/BSC/B.Ed 180 168.07
M.Sc and above 35 188.96
Total 387
Test Statisticsa,b
What stage of the
food supply
chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank
the item below in
order of unsafe)
(a) Production
Process
ing
Packagi
ng
Distribution
(including
storage)
Wholesale
/retail
marketing
Consumer
travel to and
from the place
of purchase
In-home
food
preparation
Storage of
food after
cooking
(refrigerati
ng,
warming,
etc)
Chi-Square .943 .665 20.995 11.327 32.701 21.311 11.760 21.661
Df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .815 .881 .000 .010 .000 .000 .008 .000
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Educational Qualification
213
NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
387 3.4419 1.82771 1.00 8.00
Processing 387 2.3488 1.63186 1.00 8.00
Packaging 387 2.7494 1.97043 1.00 8.00
Distribution (including
storage)
387 3.1938 1.99121 1.00 8.00
Wholesale/retail marketing 387 3.5685 2.14436 1.00 8.00
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
387 3.7881 2.20258 1.00 8.00
In-home food preparation 387 3.2067 2.11671 1.00 8.00
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
387 2.8708 1.81498 1.00 8.00
Income 387 2.2894 1.19106 1.00 5.00
214
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
Income N Mean Rank
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
0 - 20,000 98 190.97
20,001 - 40, 000 186 180.20
40,001 - 60,000 25 241.98
60,001 - 80,000 49 223.52
above 80,000 29 201.48
Total 387
Processing 0 - 20,000 98 194.46
20,001 - 40, 000 186 194.39
40,001 - 60,000 25 207.54
60,001 - 80,000 49 184.52
above 80,000 29 194.29
Total 387
Packaging 0 - 20,000 98 254.69
20,001 - 40, 000 186 171.67
40,001 - 60,000 25 194.08
60,001 - 80,000 49 170.54
above 80,000 29 171.72
Total 387
Distribution (including
storage)
0 - 20,000 98 208.19
20,001 - 40, 000 186 205.35
40,001 - 60,000 25 141.72
60,001 - 80,000 49 152.68
above 80,000 29 188.09
Total 387
215
Wholesale/retail marketing 0 - 20,000 98 256.14
20,001 - 40, 000 186 163.29
40,001 - 60,000 25 220.66
60,001 - 80,000 49 169.24
above 80,000 29 199.81
Total 387
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
0 - 20,000 98 245.47
20,001 - 40, 000 186 160.70
40,001 - 60,000 25 220.20
60,001 - 80,000 49 166.72
above 80,000 29 257.10
Total 387
In-home food preparation 0 - 20,000 98 230.12
20,001 - 40, 000 186 172.43
40,001 - 60,000 25 224.34
60,001 - 80,000 49 170.09
above 80,000 29 224.52
Total 387
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
0 - 20,000 98 257.02
20,001 - 40, 000 186 176.57
40,001 - 60,000 25 145.20
60,001 - 80,000 49 167.65
above 80,000 29 179.43
Total 387
216
Test Statisticsa,b
What stage of
the food supply
chain do you
consider as
most
UNSAFE(rank
the item below
in order of
unsafe) (a)
Production
Proces
sing
Packag
ing
Distribution
(including
storage)
Wholesale
/retail
marketing
Consumer
travel to and
from the place
of purchase
In-home
food
preparation
Storage of
food after
cooking
(refrigeratin
g, warming,
etc)
Chi-Square 11.535 .792 42.159 16.273 49.402 51.867 24.261 45.673
Df 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .021 .940 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Income
217
T-Test
Group Statistics
Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
Male 123 3.4715 1.89185 .17058
Female 264 3.4280 1.80054 .11082
Processing Male 123 2.1870 1.59584 .14389
Female 264 2.4242 1.64592 .10130
Packaging Male 123 2.6829 1.96826 .17747
Female 264 2.7803 1.97442 .12152
Distribution (including
storage)
Male 123 3.1382 2.05389 .18519
Female 264 3.2197 1.96476 .12092
Wholesale/retail marketing Male 123 3.2439 1.93476 .17445
Female 264 3.7197 2.22264 .13679
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
Male 123 3.5772 2.08039 .18758
Female 264 3.8864 2.25435 .13875
In-home food preparation Male 123 3.2520 2.06689 .18636
Female 264 3.1856 2.14308 .13190
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
Male 123 2.7398 1.69782 .15309
Female 264 2.9318 1.86704 .11491
Have you ever personally
experience an issue with
food safety?
Male 123 1.8130 .39150 .03530
Female 264 1.8864 .31797 .01957
q11 Male 0a
. . .
Female 0a . . .
218
The food system in Nigeria Male 123 2.5203 .81331 .07333
Female 264 2.5720 .92006 .05663
the food system in your state Male 123 2.2764 .72768 .06561
Female 264 2.2879 .70878 .04362
food system in a
neighbouring state
Male 123 2.2114 .66840 .06027
Female 264 2.2045 .72162 .04441
the food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
Male 123 2.1626 .65754 .05929
Female 264 2.2159 .63693 .03920
the food in your state and its
neighbouring states
Male 123 2.2927 .69814 .06295
Female 264 2.2841 .70763 .04355
a national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
Male 123 2.2602 .65082 .05868
Female 264 2.1364 .66724 .04107
a global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
Male 123 2.1870 .60530 .05458
Female 264 2.1136 .67714 .04168
In your Country Male 123 3.7236 .69307 .06249
Female 264 3.6061 .88294 .05434
In your state Male 123 1.4878 .69384 .06256
Female 264 1.5189 .71885 .04424
In Africa
Male 123 1.5772 .73561 .06633
Female 264 1.4583 .68538 .04218
Outside Africa Male 123 1.5203 .79289 .07149
Female 264 1.5644 .79184 .04873
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern.
Male 123 3.6098 1.45779 .13144
Female 264 3.3864 1.48835 .09160
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern.
Male 123 3.4878 1.35117 .12183
Female 264 3.4735 1.37304 .08450
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
Male 123 3.3577 1.44364 .13017
Female 264 3.4583 1.47416 .09073
I think local food is better Male 123 2.4390 1.40926 .12707
219
for my health than food
transported across country. Female 264 2.4924 1.44610 .08900
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost
manure etc).
Male 123 2.0894 1.20795 .10892
Female 264 2.3598 1.29758 .07986
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
Male 123 2.5447 1.36857 .12340
Female 264 2.5265 1.32225 .08138
the contact information on
food label are very important
to me
Male 123 3.4472 1.41539 .12762
Female 264 3.2992 1.41335 .08699
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
Male 123 2.6098 1.39457 .12574
Female 264 2.5114 1.37047 .08435
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
Male 123 3.4715 1.52211 .13724
Female 264 3.4053 1.40833 .08668
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Male 123 2.6016 1.49172 .13450
Female 264 2.6742 1.34812 .08297
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
Male 123 3.4309 1.46030 .13167
Female 264 3.2652 1.38080 .08498
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
Male 123 2.5691 1.36755 .12331
Female 264 2.5606 1.36082 .08375
a. t cannot be computed because at least one of the groups is empty.
220
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
Equal variances assumed .235 .628 .218 385 .828
Equal variances not
assumed
.214 227.8
75 .831
Processing
Equal variances assumed .720 .397 -1.333 385 .183
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.348
244.9
82 .179
Packaging
Equal variances assumed .008 .928 -.452 385 .651
Equal variances not
assumed
-.453
238.8
56 .651
Distribution (including
storage)
Equal variances assumed .312 .577 -.374 385 .708
Equal variances not
assumed
-.368
228.9
05 .713
Wholesale/retail marketing
Equal variances assumed 7.331 .007 -2.041 385 .042
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.146
270.6
82 .033
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
Equal variances assumed 1.110 .293 -1.287 385 .199
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.325
256.4
05 .186
In-home food preparation
Equal variances assumed .010 .921 .287 385 .774
Equal variances not
assumed
.291
246.1
76 .771
Storage of food after
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
Equal variances assumed 2.095 .149 -.969 385 .333
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.003
259.9
25 .317
221
Have you ever personally
experience an issue with
food safety?
Equal variances assumed 14.656 .000 -1.959 385 .051
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.817
199.7
61 .071
The food system in Nigeria
Equal variances assumed 1.277 .259 -.533 385 .594
Equal variances not
assumed
-.557
266.8
49 .578
the food system in your state
Equal variances assumed .039 .843 -.147 385 .883
Equal variances not
assumed
-.145
232.6
06 .885
food system in a
neighbouring state
Equal variances assumed .598 .440 .089 385 .929
Equal variances not
assumed
.091
255.5
30 .927
the food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
Equal variances assumed .017 .897 -.759 385 .448
Equal variances not
assumed
-.750
231.4
62 .454
the food in your state and its
neighbouring states
Equal variances assumed .004 .949 .112 385 .911
Equal variances not
assumed
.112
241.1
16 .911
a national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
Equal variances assumed .711 .400 1.713 385 .088
Equal variances not
assumed
1.728
243.6
45 .085
a global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
Equal variances assumed .818 .366 1.026 385 .306
Equal variances not
assumed
1.068
264.0
96 .286
in your Country
Equal variances assumed 7.337 .007 1.301 385 .194
Equal variances not
assumed
1.419
297.3
83 .157
in your state
Equal variances assumed .370 .543 -.401 385 .689
Equal variances not
assumed
-.406
246.0
00 .685
in Africa
Equal variances assumed 2.089 .149 1.552 385 .121
Equal variances not
assumed
1.513
223.6
71 .132
222
outside Africa
Equal variances assumed .210 .647 -.510 385 .611
Equal variances not
assumed
-.509
237.8
95 .611
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern
Equal variances assumed .348 .555 1.384 385 .167
Equal variances not
assumed
1.394
242.7
17 .164
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
Equal variances assumed .068 .795 .096 385 .924
Equal variances not
assumed
.097
241.6
80 .923
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
Equal variances assumed .024 .877 -.629 385 .530
Equal variances not
assumed
-.634
242.7
56 .527
i think local food is better
for my health than food
transported across country
Equal variances assumed .170 .681 -.341 385 .733
Equal variances not
assumed
-.344
243.8
42 .731
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost
manure etc)
Equal variances assumed 4.880 .028 -1.951 385 .052
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.002 254.3
38 .046
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
Equal variances assumed .403 .526 .125 385 .901
Equal variances not
assumed
.123
230.9
30 .902
the contact information on
food label are very
important to me
Equal variances assumed .041 .839 .958 385 .339
Equal variances not
assumed
.958
237.8
70 .339
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
Equal variances assumed .001 .978 .654 385 .514
Equal variances not
assumed
.650
234.4
67 .516
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
Equal variances assumed 3.025 .083 .420 385 .675
Equal variances not .408 222.3 .684
223
consider before purchasing assumed 24
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Equal variances assumed 6.354 .012 -.477 385 .634
Equal variances not
assumed
-.459
217.8
79 .646
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
Equal variances assumed 1.740 .188 1.079 385 .281
Equal variances not
assumed
1.058
226.5
73 .291
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
Equal variances assumed .031 .861 .057 385 .954
Equal variances not
assumed
.057
237.1
21 .955
224
Nonparametric Tests
225
226
227
228
NPar Tests
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks
Sex N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
What stage of the food
supply chain do you
consider as most
UNSAFE(rank the item
below in order of unsafe) (a)
Production
Male 123 195.74 24076.00
Female 264 193.19 51002.00
Total 387
Processing
Male 123 180.26 22171.50
Female 264 200.40 52906.50
Total 387
Packaging
Male 123 188.33 23164.50
Female 264 196.64 51913.50
Total 387
Distribution (including
storage)
Male 123 189.41 23297.50
Female 264 196.14 51780.50
Total 387
Wholesale/retail marketing
Male 123 179.35 22060.00
Female 264 200.83 53018.00
Total 387
Consumer travel to and from
the place of purchase
Male 123 184.40 22681.50
Female 264 198.47 52396.50
Total 387
In-home food preparation
Male 123 197.80 24330.00
Female 264 192.23 50748.00
Total 387
Storage of food after Male 123 188.15 23142.00
229
cooking (refrigerating,
warming, etc)
Female 264 196.73 51936.00
Total 387
Have you ever personally
experience an issue with
food safety?
Male 123 184.32 22671.00
Female 264 198.51 52407.00
Total 387
The food system in Nigeria
Male 123 192.54 23682.00
Female 264 194.68 51396.00
Total 387
the food system in your state
Male 123 192.61 23691.50
Female 264 194.65 51386.50
Total 387
food system in a
neighbouring state
Male 123 195.51 24047.50
Female 264 193.30 51030.50
Total 387
the food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries
Male 123 188.61 23199.50
Female 264 196.51 51878.50
Total 387
the food in your state and its
neighbouring states
Male 123 195.27 24018.00
Female 264 193.41 51060.00
Total 387
a national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa
Male 123 206.80 25436.00
Female 264 188.04 49642.00
Total 387
a global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
Male 123 200.87 24707.50
Female 264 190.80 50370.50
Total 387
In your Country
Male 123 199.42 24529.00
Female 264 191.47 50549.00
Total 387
230
In your state
Male 123 191.50 23554.50
Female 264 195.16 51523.50
Total 387
In Africa
Male 123 205.62 25291.00
Female 264 188.59 49787.00
Total 387
outside Africa
Male 123 189.56 23316.00
Female 264 196.07 51762.00
Total 387
Pesticide residues are a
major food safety concern
Male 123 205.30 25252.00
Female 264 188.73 49826.00
Total 387
Bacteria are a major food
safety concern
Male 123 194.39 23909.50
Female 264 193.82 51168.50
Total 387
Foreign bodies/objects are
major food safety concern
Male 123 189.03 23250.50
Female 264 196.32 51827.50
Total 387
I
think local food is better for
my health than food
transported across country
Male 123 191.63 23570.50
Female 264 195.10 51507.50
Total 387
I think that local food grown
with inorganic fertilizer (i.e
food grown with chemical
fertilizers) is better for my
health than organic food
(grown with compost
manure etc)
Male 123 179.02 22019.50
Female 264 200.98 53058.50
Total 387
231
Science has proven that
organic food is better than
conventional food
Male 123 194.55 23929.50
Female 264 193.74 51148.50
Total 387
the contact information on
food label are very important
to me
Male 123 202.07 24855.00
Female 264 190.24 50223.00
Total 387
Access to the food item is a
factor I always consider
before purchasing
Male 123 199.26 24509.50
Female 264 191.55 50568.50
Total 387
The health status of food
items is a factor I always
consider before purchasing
Male 123 199.37 24522.00
Female 264 191.50 50556.00
Total 387
Price of item is a factor I
always consider before
purchasing
Male 123 188.49 23184.00
Female 264 196.57 51894.00
Total 387
I prefer foreign products to
locally made products for
health reasons
Male 123 203.78 25064.50
Female 264 189.45 50013.50
Total 387
I buy products from only
well known outlets or
markets.
Male 123 194.15 23880.00
Female 264 193.93 51198.00
Total 387
Frequency Table q35
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 80 20.7 20.7 20.7
somewhat unaware 92 23.8 23.8 44.4
somewhat aware 70 18.1 18.1 62.5
aware 79 20.4 20.4 82.9
very much aware 66 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
232
q36
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 89 23.0 23.0 23.0
somewhat unaware 81 20.9 20.9 43.9
somewhat aware 84 21.7 21.7 65.6
aware 93 24.0 24.0 89.7
very much aware 40 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q37
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 81 20.9 20.9 20.9
somewhat unaware 96 24.8 24.8 45.7
somewhat aware 69 17.8 17.8 63.6
aware 114 29.5 29.5 93.0
very much aware 27 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q38
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 75 19.4 19.4 19.4
somewhat unaware 92 23.8 23.8 43.2
somewhat aware 67 17.3 17.3 60.5
aware 127 32.8 32.8 93.3
very much aware 26 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
233
q39
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 60 15.5 15.5 15.5
somewhat unaware 91 23.5 23.5 39.0
somewhat aware 67 17.3 17.3 56.3
aware 123 31.8 31.8 88.1
very much aware 46 11.9 11.9 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q40
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 56 14.5 14.5 14.5
somewhat unaware 82 21.2 21.2 35.7
somewhat aware 82 21.2 21.2 56.8
aware 111 28.7 28.7 85.5
very much aware 56 14.5 14.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q41
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 71 18.3 18.3 18.3
somewhat unaware 82 21.2 21.2 39.5
somewhat aware 80 20.7 20.7 60.2
aware 91 23.5 23.5 83.7
very much aware 63 16.3 16.3 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q42
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
234
Valid
Unaware 79 20.4 20.4 20.4
somewhat unaware 92 23.8 23.8 44.2
somewhat aware 68 17.6 17.6 61.8
aware 83 21.4 21.4 83.2
very much aware 65 16.8 16.8 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q43
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 92 23.8 23.8 23.8
somewhat unaware 81 20.9 20.9 44.7
somewhat aware 82 21.2 21.2 65.9
aware 93 24.0 24.0 89.9
very much aware 39 10.1 10.1 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q44
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 83 21.4 21.4 21.4
somewhat unaware 95 24.5 24.5 46.0
somewhat aware 69 17.8 17.8 63.8
aware 115 29.7 29.7 93.5
very much aware 25 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q45
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Unaware 78 20.2 20.2 20.2
somewhat unaware 91 23.5 23.5 43.7
somewhat aware 67 17.3 17.3 61.0
aware 125 32.3 32.3 93.3
very much aware 26 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
235
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
q35 387 1.00 5.00 2.8941 1.39453
q36 387 1.00 5.00 2.7778 1.31835
q37 387 1.00 5.00 2.7674 1.26846
q38 387 1.00 5.00 2.8372 1.25993
q39 387 1.00 5.00 3.0103 1.28559
q40 387 1.00 5.00 3.0749 1.28646
q41 387 1.00 5.00 2.9819 1.35516
q42 387 1.00 5.00 2.9044 1.39156
q43 387 1.00 5.00 2.7571 1.32255
q44 387 1.00 5.00 2.7519 1.26551
q45 387 1.00 5.00 2.8191 1.26669
Valid N (listwise) 387
Descriptives Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
q46 387 1.00 5.00 3.3669 1.37511
q47 387 1.00 5.00 3.2791 1.34459
sq48 387 1.00 5.00 3.1292 1.40275
q49 387 1.00 5.00 3.1318 1.46662
q50 387 1.00 5.00 3.0904 1.46269
q51 387 1.00 5.00 3.2610 1.45986
q52 387 1.00 5.00 3.3643 1.45896
q53 387 1.00 5.00 3.3359 1.35464
q54 387 1.00 5.00 3.3824 1.34608
q55 387 1.00 5.00 3.1886 1.38200
Valid N (list wise) 387
236
Frequencies
Frequency Table q46
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 61 15.8 15.8 15.8
Disagree 44 11.4 11.4 27.1
Undecided 67 17.3 17.3 44.4
Agree 122 31.5 31.5 76.0
Strongly Agree 93 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q47
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 58 15.0 15.0 15.0
Disagree 53 13.7 13.7 28.7
Undecided 82 21.2 21.2 49.9
Agree 111 28.7 28.7 78.6
Strongly Agree 83 21.4 21.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q48
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 71 18.3 18.3 18.3
Disagree 63 16.3 16.3 34.6
Undecided 80 20.7 20.7 55.3
Agree 91 23.5 23.5 78.8
Strongly Agree 82 21.2 21.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q49
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 77 19.9 19.9 19.9
Disagree 67 17.3 17.3 37.2
Undecided 66 17.1 17.1 54.3
237
Agree 82 21.2 21.2 75.5
Strongly Agree 95 24.5 24.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q50
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 92 23.8 23.8 23.8
Disagree 38 9.8 9.8 33.6
Undecided 83 21.4 21.4 55.0
Agree 91 23.5 23.5 78.6
Strongly Agree 83 21.4 21.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q51
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 84 21.7 21.7 21.7
Disagree 25 6.5 6.5 28.2
Undecided 81 20.9 20.9 49.1
Agree 100 25.8 25.8 74.9
Strongly Agree 97 25.1 25.1 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q52
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 80 20.7 20.7 20.7
Disagree 24 6.2 6.2 26.9
Undecided 60 15.5 15.5 42.4
Agree 121 31.3 31.3 73.6
Strongly Agree 102 26.4 26.4 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q53
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 65 16.8 16.8 16.8
Disagree 34 8.8 8.8 25.6
238
Undecided 76 19.6 19.6 45.2
Agree 130 33.6 33.6 78.8
Strongly Agree 82 21.2 21.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q54
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 55 14.2 14.2 14.2
Disagree 48 12.4 12.4 26.6
Undecided 69 17.8 17.8 44.4
Agree 124 32.0 32.0 76.5
Strongly Agree 91 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
q55
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree 69 17.8 17.8 17.8
Disagree 54 14.0 14.0 31.8
Undecided 77 19.9 19.9 51.7
Agree 109 28.2 28.2 79.8
Strongly Agree 78 20.2 20.2 100.0
Total 387 100.0 100.0
Factor Analysis Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
q46 3.3669 1.37511 387
q47 3.2791 1.34459 387
q48 3.1292 1.40275 387
q49 3.1318 1.46662 387
q50 3.0904 1.46269 387
q51 3.2610 1.45986 387
q52 3.3643 1.45896 387
q53 3.3359 1.35464 387
q54 3.3824 1.34608 387
q55 3.1886 1.38200 387
239
Communalities
Initial Extraction
q46 1.000 .708
q47 1.000 .638
q48 1.000 .608
q49 1.000 .651
q50 1.000 .585
q51 1.000 .328
q52 1.000 .663
q53 1.000 .459
q54 1.000 .651
q55 1.000 .752
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Componen
t
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumula
tive %
1 1.530 15.301 15.301 1.530 15.301 15.301 1.252 12.516 12.516
2 1.402 14.020 29.321 1.402 14.020 29.321 1.251 12.507 25.023
3 1.082 10.825 40.146 1.082 10.825 40.146 1.225 12.248 37.270
4 1.024 10.239 50.386 1.024 10.239 50.386 1.212 12.123 49.393
5 1.003 10.034 60.420 1.003 10.034 60.420 1.103 11.027 60.420
6 .910 9.095 69.515
7 .846 8.463 77.978
8 .809 8.092 86.070
9 .704 7.038 93.108
10 .689 6.892 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
240
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
q46 -.058 .509 .510 .245 -.355
q47 -.143 .601 .193 .045 .465
q48 .310 .587 -.028 -.111 .393
q49 .416 .405 -.333 -.394 -.220
q50 .420 .309 -.321 .092 -.450
q51 .523 -.217 -.078 -.036 -.004
q52 .431 -.149 .060 .668 .069
q53 .495 -.032 -.086 .354 .283
q54 .444 -.320 .272 -.418 .319
q55 .398 -.071 .693 -.197 -.263
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 5 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
q46 .046 -.212 .172 -.022 .794
q47 -.151 -.136 .759 -.052 .132
q48 .270 .110 .716 .099 -.013
q49 .762 .131 .176 -.139 -.058
q50 .707 -.150 -.082 .197 .133
q51 .243 .366 -.140 .320 -.114
q52 -.055 -.032 -.086 .798 .122
q53 .076 .127 .154 .632 -.116
q54 -.072 .789 .056 .050 -.131
q55 .028 .601 -.120 .011 .612
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5
1 .547 .581 .055 .598 .055
2 .422 -.351 .741 -.146 .358
3 -.483 .422 .098 -.047 .760
4 -.248 -.560 -.076 .758 .210
5 .219 .658 .209 -.497
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
241
Descriptives
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Etaga Harrison\Documents\Rollins work\data.sav
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
q35 387 1.00 5.00 2.8941 1.39453
q36 387 1.00 5.00 2.7778 1.31835
q37 387 1.00 5.00 3.3023 1.45184
q38 387 1.00 5.00 2.8372 1.25993
q39 387 1.00 5.00 3.3592 1.36867
q40 387 1.00 5.00 3.2765 1.33643
q41 387 1.00 5.00 3.1292 1.40275
q42 387 1.00 5.00 3.1137 1.46372
q43 387 1.00 5.00 3.0827 1.45872
q44 387 1.00 5.00 2.7519 1.26551
q45 387 1.00 5.00 2.8191 1.26669
Valid N (listwise) 387
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
The food system in Nigeria 387 2.5556 .88680 .04508
the food system in your state 387 2.2842 .71391 .03629
food system in a neighbouring
state 387 2.2067 .70428 .03580
the food in Nigeria and its
neighbouring countries 387 2.1990 .64318 .03269
the food in your state and its
neighbouring states 387 2.2868 .70373 .03577
a national supply chain that
occurs entirely within Africa 387 2.1757 .66374 .03374
a global supply chain that
occurs in multiple countries
outside Africa
387 2.1370 .65527 .03331
242
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3 t Df Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
The food system in Nigeria -9.859 386 .000 -.44444 -.5331 -.3558 the food system in your state -19.723 386 .000 -.71576 -.7871 -.6444 food system in a neighbouring state
-22.158 386 .000 -.79328 -.8637 -.7229
the food in Nigeria and its neighbouring countries
-24.501 386 .000 -.80103 -.8653 -.7368
the food in your state and its neighbouring states
-19.936 386 .000 -.71318 -.7835 -.6428
a national supply chain that occurs entirely within Africa
-24.431 386 .000 -.82429 -.8906 -.7580
a global supply chain that occurs in multiple countries outside Africa
-25.910 386 .000 -.86305 -.9285 -.7976
