Printer Friendly

Assessment of food safety practices among cassava processors in selected rural communities of Oyo State, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Food safety is a significant and growing public health problem in Nigeria. Inadequate food processing and food-borne disease are important contributors to the huge burden of sickness and death. Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) News line on the 16th September, 2012 reported of a family of five who died in Akure, Nigeria after afufu meal due to related food safety practices. Cassava products are important food source in any rural household. Young leaves are eaten as vegetables in small quantities, after being boiled or steamed [1]. Roots are utilized for direct human consumption, and processed either for food or non-food products. As a staple food, cassava is largely consumed among low income groups living in rural areas as well as in urban slums [2]. The roots are processed to gari, fufu, tapioca, flour and starch for onward consumption and it appears to be a 'food of choice' even in the face of alternative food options in urban areas [1].

Food safety assessment involves articulating effective means for establishing relative risk of human disease at different stages of the overall safety systems in order to achieve the ultimate food safety system outcome required. Consequently, the process will help to develop information required for public policies on food safety risk management. Illness resulting from eating contaminated food is one of the most widespread health problems in the contemporary world and a significant factor in the reduction of productivity. There is some evidence that consumers think about the safety of the food they consume [3].

Quality processing of cassava roots is highly essential for the reduction of cyanide poisoning upon consumption. Meanwhile, cassava processing is said to reduce the levels of hydrogen cyanide before consumption [4]. Procedures such as peeling, grating, soaking, fermentation, pressing, roasting or drying, and exposure of cassava products to air have been determined to help allow the cyanide to dissipate out of the food matrix in order to present cassava products with safe cyanide levels. Research has shown that heap fermentation of cassava roots may reduce toxic compounds by up to 96% - 98% in grating (shredding) detoxification method [5]. Diet pattern also influences the risks involved in consuming cassava products [6]. When cassava is eaten or fortified with other foods that are rich in sulphuric amino acids, like soy bean, to balance the nutritional value, there is a limited risk of intoxication. Proper cassava processing ensures safer and more marketable products. It reduces cyanide content in the processed products, prolongs shelf life, reduces post-harvest losses, food contamination, environmental pollution and increases the nutritional value of cassava products [7].

The common concern is the risk related to the natural toxin that is in the edible cassava roots that are often categorized as either "sweet" or "bitter", which signifies absence or presence of toxic levels of cyanogenic glucosides. Cyanogenic glucosides on hydrolysis will release hydrocyanic acid (HCN) which can cause goiter and cretinism in humans and animals due to iodine deficiency; however, HCN content is significantly reduced during fermentation of cassava dough. Some of the clinical symptoms of acute cyanide poisoning include rapid breathing, drop in blood pressure, rapid pulse, headache, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, mental confusion, stupor, discoloration of the skin due to lack of oxygen (cyanosis), twitching, convulsion and death in severe cases [8, 9]. It is against this background that the study assessed the cassava processors' safety practices among rural communities of Oyo State, Nigeria.

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study was to assess the food safety practices among cassava processors in rural communities of Oyo State, while the specific objectives were to:

1. determine the socio-economic characteristics of the cassava processors in the study area.

2. identify the cassava processors' information sources in the study area.

3. describe the cassava processors' safety practices in the study area.

4. investigate the cassava processors' knowledge of food safety practices in the study area.

5. examine the cassava processors' attitude to food safety practices in the study area.

6. determine the constraints to food safety practices in the study area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

The study area was Oyo State. It is an agrarian community located within the derived savanna vegetation of Nigeria. The crops grown in this vegetation include cassava, maize, melon, groundnut, cocoa, kola, oil palm and cashew.

Methods

Sampling Procedure and Sample Size

Multi-stage sampling technique was used to collect sample for the study. The first stage involved the purposive selection of 4 Local Government Areas (LGAs) from the thirty-three LGAs in the study area where there is the concentration of cassava production and processing activities. These are Saki-West, Saki-East, Atisbo and Afijio. In the second stage, snowballing technique was used to generate the list of all the cassava processors in the 4 selected LGAs. In the third stage, cassava processors were stratified into gari, fufu, cassava flour and tapioca processors. Randomly, 11 respondents each were selected from gari, fufu, and cassava flour processors, while purposive sampling was used to select all the 22 respondents involved in tapioca to give a total of 154 respondents interviewed for the study.

Sources of data

The primary data for this study were collected through the use of both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Qualitative methods used included Focus Group Discussion (FGD), In-depth Interview (IDI) and direct observation, while the quantitative data were obtained using well-structured interview schedule with both open and close ended questions.

Measurement of Variables Independent Variables

a) Information on the socio-economic characteristics of the cassava processors such as sex, marital status, educational level, ethnic background, processing experience (in years) were measured at nominal level of measurement while age, income per month (in naira) and processing experience (in years) were measured at the interval level.

b) Sources of information on cassava food safety practices were examined by presenting the list of the sources of information gathered from literature and personal experience to the respondents. Responses were assessed on a four point scale of 'Always', 'Occasionally', 'Rarely' and 'Never' with a score of 3,2,1,0, respectively.

c) Respondents' level of knowledge on cassava food safety was determined by presenting a list of cassava food safety practices to test their level of knowledge on the practices. Twenty-four statements were presented on a two point scale of 'Yes' and 'No'. A score of 1 was assigned to a correct response and 0 to an incorrect response.

d) Attitude of respondents towards cassava food safety practices was measured by presenting twenty attitudinal statements on a 5-point Likert scale of 'Strongly Agreed', Agreed', 'Undecided', 'Disagreed', 'Strongly Disagreed'. A score of 5,4,3,2,1 was assigned to positive statements , while a score of 1,2,3,4,5 was assigned to negative statements. Individual scores and mean were obtained. Attitudinal value of [bar.x] [greater than or equal to] 34.0 was used to categorize respondents into favourable, while value of [bar.x] < 34.0 was considered unfavourable levels of attitude towards cassava food safety practices.

e) Constraint to cassava processing was measured by presenting a list of constraints gathered from personal experience, observations and literature to respondents. This was measured on a three point scale of 'Very severe', 'Severe' and 'Not severe' and they were assigned 2, 1 and 0, respectively.

Dependent variable

Cassava food safety practices were categorized into four in order to capture the level of use for each of the cassava products gari, juju, cassava flour and tapioca processing practices. The extent of use was measured on a three point scale of 'Always', 'Occasionally' and 'Rarely' that were assigned 3, 2 and 1, respectively. Individual scores and mean were obtained, which were then used to categorize respondents into safe and unsafe practices.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed with both descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics used included frequency counts and percentages, while inferential statistics used for testing hypotheses were Chi-Square, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

The socio-economic characteristics of respondents (Table 1) show that majority (95.6 %) were female and married (76.0%). About half (51.3%) were in their productive ages (31-40 years), processing experience of between 17 and 23 years were 43.5%. Majority (59.1%) had one form of formal education or the other. The mean income of the respondents was N20, 695, substantial (86.9%) were in low income earners category.

Table 2 shows that majority ([bar.x] = 2.61) public sanitary officers and fellow processors ([bar.x] = 2.11) were ranked as the most used sources of information about cassava safety practices. Table 3a revealed that most (99.4%) of the respondents knew that cassava does not need to be processed immediately after harvesting, 92.9% recognized that immediate pressing out of water from cassava mash is not essential for cassava food safety practice and 93.9% considered the need to follow all the processing steps involved in the practice as unimportant. On the other hand, majority (99.4%) viewed fermentation period of 3-5 days as an unnecessary measure of reducing the cyanide content of cassava. Substantial respondents (92.9%) indicated that washing of peeled cassava roots may not necessarily enhance the quality and safety of its products. Table 3b shows the level of respondents' knowledge of safety practices. The mean score of the respondents' knowledge was 14.0 from the result of the analysis and this was used to categorize the respondents' knowledge into high and low levels. Respondents that score below the mean were categorized as having a low level of knowledge, while those with mean score and above as having a high level of knowledge. The table revealed that a huge number (71.4%) of the respondents has low knowledge of cassava safety practices; while very few (28.6%) have high knowledge of cassava food safety practices.

Table 4a shows that about 84.4% of the respondents strongly agreed that environmental sanitation was not an important part of their job responsibility; in the same vein, about 58.5% agreed that there is the accumulation of waste and debris in the surroundings of the processing house and 80.5% viewed the safety practices as a big task to be carried out to ensure food safety practices. Result shows a minimum score of 27.0, maximum score of 44.0 and a mean of approximately 34.0. A slight majority (51.3%) of the respondents had unfavourable attitude towards cassava food safety, while 48.7% of the respondents were favourably disposed (Table 4b) towards cassava food safety practices.

On constraints, individual scores and mean were calculated and result shows a minimum mean value of 0.47 and a maximum mean score of 1.75 with a weighted mean of constraint being approximately 1.06. Table 5 shows that cassava processing activity was considered as time-consuming ([bar.x] = 1.75). Others include the cumbersome nature of the safety practices ([bar.x] = 1.73) and inadequate access to clean water ([bar.x] = 1.62).

Table 6 shows that gari processing practices, fufu processing practices, cassava flour processing practices and tapioca processing practices have means 34.0, 28.0, 21.0, and 37.0, respectively. The table further shows that all the processors: gari (52.3%) fufu (59.1%) cassava flour (56.8%) and tapioca (77.3%) do not comply with safe practices in the course of processing cassava products.

Table 7 summarizes and shows that there was a significant relationship between cassava food safety practices and the income (p = 0.04) of respondents. However, no significant relationship existed between sex (p = 0.42), age (p = 0.48), marital status (p = 0.67), educational level (p = 0.53) and processing experience (p = 0.92) of the respondents. Furthermore, Table 8 shows that there is no significant difference between the safety practices among cassava processors (p = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

Respondents' socio-economic characteristics variable on sex was consistent with Kolawole et al. [10] who found that most cassava processing activities were carried out by women in the rural areas. An array of problems hinders cassava processors from effectively carrying out food safety practices. The result agrees with the assertion, which opined that using traditional methods of cassava processing unnecessarily prolonged processing time and makes it laborious [10]. Several studies have found that majority of the rural dwellers are married [11]. This implies that any processing interventions targeted at women in the quest for food safety practices will consequently impact positively on households to achieve reduction in processing related food contamination.

The result shows that most processors unintentionally carry out activities that help remove the harmful content in cassava roots, but are not really aware of the presence of a poisonous substance called cyanide in cassava roots. Substantially low knowledge of cassava food safety among processors implies that their level of education did not really translate to high knowledge of food safety. Increasing knowledge of correct food safety and hygiene practices through awareness campaigns and sensitization will drive home the importance of food safety practices. Government and non government agencies' effort in this direction will advance cassava food safety in Nigeria. Also, training and retraining programmes will reinforce food safety knowledge and consequently bring about favourable and sustainable attitudes among cassava processors [12].

Cassava processors were in the low earners' category and thus, were poor. Efforts should be put in place by government and non-government organizations to strengthen farmers' involvement in cassava value chain. This will raise cassava processors' financial base and ultimately alleviate their poverty [13].

The unfavourable disposition by the respondents about cassava food safety practices is adduced to the views of the majority who considered food safety practices a big unnecessary task. This could be associated with the cumbersome nature and drudgery involved in cassava processing. This finding also stemmed from the low knowledge of the respondents about food safety (Table 3b). Provision of necessary modern technology for the processors could be a means to reduce this problem [14]. The result shows high education level amongst selected processors, thus education campaign will likely advance knowledge, attitudes and practice of cassava processors. Knowledge acquired through education has a significant impact on people's attitude on food safety practices [15]. The knowledge of respondents on the transfer of harmful substances to cassava products through cross contamination was high. This is consistent with a study that found that contamination of foods is inimical to food safety, and should therefore be avoided [15]. Public sanitary officers, fellow processors and family were the most preferred information sources. This implies that extension messages on cassava processing and its safety channeled through these preferred sources will definitely bridge the information gap among the processors.

The accumulation of waste and debris in the surrounding area of the processing house as observed during the study is suggestive of the respondents' poor attitude towards food safety practices. Most of the processing areas do not have drainage for easy flow of effluents and where there are drainages; they are either blocked or left unattended to. It can be inferred from the findings that most of the processors do not follow safety practices. This further corroborates an assertion in a study conducted on attitudes of food industry towards safety regulations; where producers and processors were found to oppose food safety practices and regulations [16]. Efforts geared towards training, retraining (reinforced training) and enforcing safety practices through the use of the public sanitation officers will engender social interaction and ensure cassava food safety among processors, knowing well that most (63.0%) of the respondents are in ages that can respond to change (31 and 50 years). This finding is consistent with a study conducted to facilitate adequate hand washing and changing/washing chopping boards between preparation of raw chicken through the use of a social marketing intervention (leaflets, posters, TV documentary, and newspaper articles). The intervention was effective immediately after the implementation, but food safety behaviour decreased during the follow-up period of 4-6 weeks [17].

Non-compliance with the cassava food safety practices by processors could be adduced to low level of knowledge (as reported in Table 3b) and unfavourable attitude towards cassava food safety. This had earlier been proven that awareness of the knowledge of proper food handling practices is an antidote to food safety practices [18]. The implication of this finding is that products consumed from this kind of practice can cause different kinds of ailments or even death. Consistent with this report is an earlier study that posited that the largest predictor of attitude towards food safety practice and regulation is the processors' own belief about the safety of food [16]. Focus Group Discussion conducted corroborated this assertion, as one of the discussants put it: "we don't consider those safety practices important even though we know them ". In essence, cassava processors do not follow all the steps required for food safety thereby predisposing consumers to poison related ailments. Adequate training and awareness campaign that will alter the traditional beliefs of food processors on the issue of food safety should be embarked upon by relevant agencies.

Income level of respondents is significantly related to food safety practices. This explains the importance of deliberate effort at raising the processors' income. In essence, processors will be able to afford simple machines and use adequate technology that will reduce drudgery. This will ensure safe practices that will help reduce the toxicants in cassava roots among processors. The Table 8 shows that there was no significant difference between the safety practices among cassava processors. It implies that the safety practices employed do not differ among the processors across the selected cassava products (gari, fufu, cassava flour and tapioca). Improved processing, quality control, packaging and food safety practices are expected to spur increase in the demand for cassava and its acceptance as a food source [19, 20].

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that respondents exhibited low knowledge and unfavourable attitude towards cassava safety practices. Major constraints to cassava processing activities included: safety practices were considered to be time-consuming and cumbersome and weak institutional support services by extension agents. Income contributed significantly to the cassava food safety practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Training on food safety should have a follow- up and effective monitoring component. This will guarantee that processors' knowledge is translated to food safety practices. Government and non-governmental organizations' participation in cassava value chain should be institutionalized to promote a better food safety practice among processors. Adequate provision of modern processing technology that will make processing less cumbersome and less time-consuming should be made available for the processors by relevant stakeholders in order to ensure cassava food safety practices. Sensitization and enlightenment campaigns on cassava food safety should be embarked on towards sustaining a favourable attitude to cassava food safety by relevant regulatory authorities.

REFERENCES

[1.] Phillips TP, Taylor DS, Sanni L and MO Akoroda A cassava industrial revolution in Nigeria The potential for a new industrial crop. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, International Fund For Agricultural Development, Food And Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Rome, Italy. 2004. 43.

[2.] Hartojo K and E Ginting Cassava processing technologies unused in Indonesia. Research Institute for Legumes and Tuber Crops Central Research Institute for Food Crops Agency of Agricultural Research and Development Indonesia. 2002.

[3.] Turnbull-Fortune S and N Badrie Perception, Attitude and Practices to Food Safety among University Students Living in Residence Halls, Trinidad, West Indies. Online International Journal of Food Science. 2012; 1(1): 1-11. Available Online at http://www.onlineresearchiournals.org/OIJFS accessed on 08-04-13.

[4.] Agbor-Egbe T and I Lape Mbome The effects of processing techniques in reducing cyanogen levels during the production of some Cameroonian cassava foods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2006; 19: 354-363.

[5.] Tivana LD, Bvochora JM, Mutukumira AN and JD Owens A Study of Heap Fermentation Process of Cassava Roots in Nampula Province, Mozambique. Journal of Root Crops. 2007; 33 (2): 119-128.

[6.] Tivana LD Cassava Processing: Safety and Protein Fortification. Lund University, Sweden: Media-Tryck. 2012; 1-58.

[7.] James B, Okechukwu R, Abass A, Fannah S, Maziya-Dixon BL, Osei-Sarfoh AS, Fomba and S Lukombo Producing Gari from Cassava: An illustrated guide for smallholder cassava processors. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA): Ibadan, Nigeria. 2012; 1-38.

[8.] FSANZ. Final assessment report proposal P257. Advice on the preparation of cassava and bamboo shoots. Report Number 2-04. Canberra: FSANZ. 2004.

[9.] Asegbeloyin JN and AE Onyimonyi The Effect of Fermentation Time and Variety on the Cyanide Content of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Nigeria Society for Animal Production. 2005; 199-200.

[10.] Kolawole PO, Agbetoye L and SA Ogunlowo Sustaining World Food Security with Improved Cassava Processing Technology: The Nigeria Experience. Sustainability. 2010;2:3681-3694. Retrieved from www.mdpi. com/iournal/sustainability, accessed on 31-05-13.

[11.] Oyesola OB and MA Adegboye Challenges facing rural dwellers participation in a community-based agriculture and rural development project in Gombe State. Nigerian Journal of Rural Extension and Development. 2011; 4: 48-56.

[12.] Milton A and B Mullan Consumer food safety education for the domestic environment: A systematic review. British Food Journal, in press. 2010.

[13.] Sanni LO, Onadipe OO, Ilona P, Mussagy MD, Abass A and AGO Dixon Successes and challenges of cassava enterprises in West Africa: a case study of Nigeria, Benin, and Sierra Leone. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. 2009; 19.

[14.] Aworh OC The Role of Traditional Food Processing Technologies In National Development: the West African Experience. International Union of Food Science & Technology. 2008; 1-18.

[15.] Mullan B and CL Wong Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to design a Food Hygiene Intervention. FoodControl.2010;21(11):1524-1529. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.04.026.

[16.] Kaplowitz SA and TA Ten Eyck Attitudes of the Food Industry towards Safety Regulations: Descriptive Statistics and Some Major Predictors. Human Ecology Review. 2006; 13 (1): 11-22.

[17.] Redmond EC and CJ Griffith Consumer Food Handling in the Home: A Review of Food Safety Studies. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66 (1): 130-161.

[18.] Ackah M, Gyamfi ET, Anim AK, Osei J, Hansen JK and O Agyemang Socio-Economic Profile, Knowledge of Hygiene and Food Safety Practices among Street-Food Vendors in some parts of Accra-Ghana. Internet Journal of Food Safety. 2011; 13: 191-197.

[19.] UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) Master plan on Cassava development in Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Abuja, Nigeria. 2006.

[20.] Abdul Salaam-Saghir PB, Okunlola OO and K Adebayo Stakeholders' perceptions of the Impact of the UNAAB Cassava Fufu Commercialization Project in Ogun State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology. 2007;7 (1&2):1-9.

Thomas KA (1) * and ON Philips (1)

* Corresponding author's email kehindeadesina@yahoo.com

(1) Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Table 1: Respondents' socio-economic characteristics (n=154)

Characteristics                  Frequency   Percent (%)

Sex

Male                             7           4.45
Female                           147         95.55

Ages (Years)

[less than or equal to] 20       14          9.1
21-30                            14          9.1
31-40                            79          51.3

41-50                            18          11.7
51-60                            19          12.3
> 60                             10          6.5

Educational level

no formal                        63          40.9
Adult                            1           0.6
Primary                          61          39.6
Secondary                        28          18.2
post-secondary                   1           0.6
Marital Status
Single                           18          11.7
Married                          117         76.0
Widowed                          19          12.3

Income in naira (N)

12000-15000                      15          9.7
16000-19000                      21          13.6
20000-23000                      98          63.6
24000-27000                      13          8.4
28000-31000                      3           1.9
32000-35000                      4           2.6

Processing experience in
years

[less than or equal to] 9        4           2.6
10-16                            44          28.6
17-23                            67          43.5
24-30                            32          20.8
[greater than or equal to] 31    7           4.5

Table 2: Respondents' sources of information about cassava food safety

Sources        Yes           No          If Yes, to what extent

                                         Always        Occasionally
                                         (3)           (2)

Public         152(98.7) *   2(1.3) *    100(64.9) *   50(32.5) *
  Sanitary
  Officers
Fellow         150(97.4)     4(2.6)      30(19.5)      115(74.7)
  Processors
Family         117(76.0)     37(24.0)    83(53.9)      24(15.6)
Extension      136(88.3)     18(11.7)    2(1.3)        56(36.4)
  agents
Radio          92(59.7)      62(40.3)    2(1.3)        63(40.9)
Television     28(18.2)      126(81.8)   1(0.6)        22(14.3)
Newspaper      7(4.5)        147(95.5)   2(1.3)        1(0.6)

Sources        If Yes, to what extent   Weighted   Rank
                                        mean
               Rarely     Never
               (1)        (0)

Public         2(1.3) *   2(1.3) *      2.61       1st
  Sanitary
  Officers
Fellow         5(3.2)     4(2.6)        2.11       2nd
  Processors
Family         40(26.0)   37(24.0)      1.37       3rd
Extension      78(50.6)   18(11.7)      1.27       4th
  agents
Radio          27(17.5)   62(40.3)      1.03       5th
Television     5(3.2)     126(81.8)     0.78       6th
Newspaper      4(2.6)     147(95.5)     0.34       7th

* values in parentheses are percentages


Table 3a: Respondents' knowledge of cassava food
safety practices

Knowledge Statement on            Yes         No
Cassava Safety Practices

Cassava roots may not be          1(0.6) *    153(99.4) *
necessarily processed
immediately after harvesting

Will you process harvested        13(8.4)     141(91.6)
cassava roots after 10-12
months of planting

Consuming raw cassava without     2(1.3)      152(98.7)
any processing is not a big
deal

Cassava contains a poisonous      12(7.8)     142(92.2)
substance called Cyanide

Processing non-fibrous cassava    153(99.4)   1(0.6)
roots is not necessary

Washing of peeled cassava         11(7.1)     143(92.9)
enhances the quality and
ensures safety

Grating might not play any        152(98.7)   2(1.3)
major role in reducing the
Cyanide content of cassava

Non rusty knives and grater       13(8.4)     141(91.6)
can help prevent cross
contamination

Fermentation may not              153(99.4)   1(0.6)
necessarily help in reducing
the cyanide content of cassava

Fermentation of mash should be    11(7.1)     143(92.9)
for a minimum of 3 days and a
maximum of 5 days

Immediate pressing of cassava     153(99.4)   1(0.6)
mash after grating is not
essential

Pressing out water from           11(7.1)     143(92.9)
cassava mash is a good food
safety practice

Sieving is not an enhancer of     152(98.7)   2(1.3)
quality of cassava products

Roasting/drying/cooking is a      12(7.8)     142(92.2)
means of making cassava
products safe for consumption

Drying of mash on a raised        151(98.1)   3(1.9)
platform does not aid
prevention of product
contamination

Commencing drying of chips        61(39.6)    93(60.4)
and/or mash immediately after
chipping/grating can improve
quality.

Products can be packed and        153(99.4)   1(0.6)
stored after processing in any
place, neat or not neat.

Personal and environmental        12(7.8)     142(92.2)
hygiene should be strictly
observed during processing

Washing/cleaning of processing    153(99.4)   1(0.6)
equipment before and after use
does affect the safety of
cassava products.

Ethnic background influences      105(68.2)   49(31.8)
the processing practices

There is no need to follow all    153(99.4)   1(0.6)
the processing steps

Improperly processed cassava      13(8.4)     141(91.6)
can be hazardous

Cross contamination does not      151(98.1)   3(1.9)
transfer any harmful substance
to cassava food products

Following all the processing      10(6.5)     144(93.9)
procedure will help reduce
risk of food borne illnesses

* values in parentheses are percentages

Table 3b: Respondents' knowledge of cassava food safety

Level of knowledge          Frequency   Percentage

High ([bar.x] [greater      44.0        28.6
  than or equal to] 14.0)
Low ([bar.x] < 14.0)        110.0       71.4
Total                       154.0       100.0

Table 4a: Cassava processors' attitude to cassava food safety
practices

Attitudinal statements cassava    SA            A             U
food safety practices

Good processing hygiene can       127(82.5) *   26(16.98) *   2(1.3) *
prevent food borne illness

Environmental sanitation is       130(84.4)     20(13.0)      2(1.3)
not an important part of my
job responsibilities.

I believe that good processor     1(0.6)        3(1.9)        25(16.29)
hygiene can prevent food borne
illness.

It is a big task for the food     124(80.5)     23(14.9)      3(1.9)
processors to ensure that food
is safe to serve.

I am willing to change my food    --            2(1.3)        7(4.5)
processing behaviors when I
know they are incorrect.

Obtaining more knowledge on       100(64.9)     37(24.0)      9(5.8)
cassava safety is not a
solution to food safety
problems.

Food safety knowledge not only    3(1.9)        5(3.2)        --
benefits my work but also my
personal life.

It is more important to have      123(79.9)     24(15.6)      3(1.9)
tasty food rather than safe
food

I am willing to attend a food     --            2(1.3)        2(1.3)
safety training course.

It is not very interesting to     77(50.0)      40(26.0)      29(18.8)
learn about food safety.

Food safety knowledge would       2(1.3)        2(1.3)        3(1.9)
make me more confident about
my work

I process anyhow I like           34(22.1)      106(68.8)     1(0.6)
because my customers do not
demand thorough assurances
about the safety of my
products before they buy.

Government should do more to      88(57.1)      48(31.2)      --
assure safe food.

Removal of poisonous substance    1(0.6)        8(5.2)        4(2.6)
in food is not of concern to
me because I do sell them

Sneezing or coughing over         92(59.7)      59(38.3)      3(1.9)
unprotected products should be
avoided during processing

Safe processing practices are     106(68.8)     37(24.0)      --
excessively burdensome.

Provision of appropriate,         1(0.6)        2(1.3)        --
suitable, clean and protective
clothing is necessary during
processing

The design and layout of my       63(40.9)      62(40.3)      26(16.9)

processing facility do not
enhance effective maintenance,
cleaning and disinfection.

I ensure no activity is           --            5(3.2)        1(0.6)
carried out near processing
facility that could compromise
food safety.

There is the accumulation of      61(39.6)      90(58.5)      --
waste and debris in the
surrounding of the processing
house.

Attitudinal statements cassava    D          SD
food safety practices

Good processing hygiene can       --         --
prevent food borne illness

Environmental sanitation is       2(1.3)     --
not an important part of my
job responsibilities.

I believe that good processor     61(39.6)   64(41.6)
hygiene can prevent food borne
illness.

It is a big task for the food     4(2.6)     124(80.5)
processors to ensure that food
is safe to serve.

I am willing to change my food    58(37.7)   87(56.5)
processing behaviors when I
know they are incorrect.

Obtaining more knowledge on       7(4.5)     1(0.6)
cassava safety is not a
solution to food safety
problems.

Food safety knowledge not only    45(29.2)   101(65.6)
benefits my work but also my
personal life.

It is more important to have      4(2.6)     --
tasty food rather than safe
food

I am willing to attend a food     28(18.2)   122(79.2)
safety training course.

It is not very interesting to     7(4.5)     1(0.6)
learn about food safety.

Food safety knowledge would       45(29.2)   102(66.2)
make me more confident about
my work

I process anyhow I like           8(5.2)     5(3.2)
because my customers do not
demand thorough assurances
about the safety of my
products before they buy.

Government should do more to      6(3.9)     12(7.8)
assure safe food.

Removal of poisonous substance    60(39.0)   81(52.6)
in food is not of concern to
me because I do sell them

Sneezing or coughing over         --         --
unprotected products should be
avoided during processing

Safe processing practices are     6(3.9)     5(3.2)
excessively burdensome.

Provision of appropriate,         54(35.1)   97(63.0)
suitable, clean and protective
clothing is necessary during
processing

The design and layout of my       3(1.9)     --
processing facility do not
enhance effective maintenance,
cleaning and disinfection.

I ensure no activity is           87(56.5)   61(39.6)
carried out near processing
facility that could compromise
food safety.

There is the accumulation of      3(1.9)     --
waste and debris in the
surrounding of the processing
house.

* values in parentheses are percentages

SA: Strongly Agreed, A: Agreed, U: Undecided,
D: Disagreed, SD: Strongly Disagreed

Table 4b: Respondents' attitudinal level towards
cassava food safety

Attitudinal level                Frequency   Percentage

Favourable ([bar.x] [greater     75.0        48.7
  than or equal to] 34.0)
Unfavourable ([bar.x] < 34.0)    79.0        51.3
Total                            154.0       100

Table 5: Cassava processors' constraints to
cassava food safety practices

Constraints                        Very Severe   Severe       Not
                                                              Severe

Processing activity is             117(76.0) *   36(23.4) *   1(0.6) *
  time consuming
Cumbersome nature of the           117(76.0)     32(20.8)     5(3.2)
  safety practices
Inadequate access to clean         101(65.6)     47(30.5)     6(3.9)
  water
Inadequate finance for use         60(39.0)      86(55.8)     8(5.2)
  to purchase modern equipment
Weak institutional support         66(42.9)      72(46.7)     16(10.4)
  services by Extension workers
  or Public Officers
Non availability of freshly        32(20.8)      110(71.4)    12(7.8)

  harvested roots
High cost of cassava roots         19(12.3)      126(81.9)    9(5.8)
Lack of disposal facility          16(10.4)      90(58.4)     48(31.2)

Non-availability of processing     6(3.9)        101(65.6)    47(30.5)
  facilities
Fluctuation in market prices       11(7.1)       79(51.3)     64(41.6)

Investments costs for the          7(4.5)        85(55.2)     62(40.3)
  more efficient technologies
  are high
Skilled labor not readily          6(3.9)        61(39.6)     87(56.5)
  available
Competitive prices of similar      2(1.3)        69(44.8)     83(53.9)
  products such as cereal
  Cassava Flours in the market

Constraints                        Weighted   Overall   Rank
                                   mean       rating

Processing activity is             1.75       Severe    1st
  time consuming
Cumbersome nature of the           1.73       Severe    2nd
  safety practices
Inadequate access to clean         1.62       Severe    3rd
  water
Inadequate finance for use         1.34       Severe    4th
  to purchase modern equipment
Weak institutional support         1.32       Severe    5th
  services by Extension workers
  or Public Officers
Non availability of freshly        1.13       Severe    6th
  harvested roots
High cost of cassava roots         1.06       Severe    7th
Lack of disposal facility          0.86       Not       8th
                                              Severe
Non-availability of processing     0.73       Not       9th
  facilities                                  Severe
Fluctuation in market prices       0.66       Not       10th
                                              Severe
Investments costs for the          0.64       Not       11th
  more efficient technologies                 Severe
  are high
Skilled labor not readily          0.47       Not       12th
  available                                   Severe
Competitive prices of similar      0.47       Not       13th
  products such as cereal                     Severe
  Cassava Flours in the market

* values in parentheses are percentages

Table 6: Respondents' level of cassava food safety practices

Cassava food safety practice               Frequency   Percentage
among processors

Gari processors

Safe practice(Mean score 34 and above)     21.0        47.7
Unsafe practice (Below mean score 34)      23.0        52.3
Total                                      44.0        100.0

Fufu processors

Safe practice (Mean score 28 and above)    18.0        40.9
Unsafe practice (Below mean score 28)      26.0        59.1
Total                                      44.0        100.0

Cassava flour processors

Safe practice (Mean score 21 and above)    19.0        43.2
Unsafe practice (Below mean score 21)      25.0        56.8
Total                                      44.0        100.0

Tapioca processors

Safe practice (Mean score 37 and above)    5.0         22.7
Unsafe practice (Below mean score 37)      17.0        77.3
Total                                      22.0        100.0
Total                                      154.0       100.0

Table 7: Chi Square analysis between socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents and cassava food
safety practices

Variables           [chi square]   Contingency   Degree of
                                   Coefficient   freedom
                                   Value

Sex                 2.789          0.133         3
Age                 134.877        0.683         135
Marital Status      3.999          0.159         6
Educational Level   11.027         0.258         12
Income (in naira)   76.910         0.577         57
Processing          58.473         0. 525        75
Experience
  (in years)

Variables           p-      Decision
                    value

Sex                 0.42    Not Sig.
Age                 0.48    Not Sig.
Marital Status      0.67    Not Sig.
Educational Level   0.53    Not Sig.
Income (in naira)   0.04    Sig.
Processing          0.92    Not Sig.
Experience
  (in years)

Table 8: Two-way ANOVA of the difference between the
safety practices among respondents

                Sum of    df    Mean      F        P
                Squares         Square

Between         4493.88   3     1497.96   229.96   0.100
Groups
Within Groups   682.02    150   0.23
Total           5176.90   153   4.55
COPYRIGHT 2015 Rural Outreach Program
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Adesina, Thomas K.; Philips, O.N.
Publication:African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2015
Words:6102
Previous Article:Plantain, banana and wheat flour composites in bread making: prospects for industrial application.
Next Article:Africa's top research journals on Google scholar H5 index.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters