Despite the food safety measures by the Nigerian Government, food safety is still being compromised especially at grassroots level. This study examined the compliance of rural and urban food vendors to food safety regulations in Oyo State. The study was conducted in 5 zones in Afijio LGA; namely Awe, Ilora (urban areas); Jobele, Akinmorin and Fiditi (rural areas). A multi stage sampling technique was used to select 86 vendors ranging from restaurants, hotels, bukaterias/canteens and hawkers while data was collected through interview schedule. Percentages, Chi-square, PPMC and T-test were used for data analysis. The result indicated that a higher number of females (90.7%) were involved in food vending. Majority (89.5%) had a high level of awareness on food safety regulations. Most respondents obtained information from food canteen association (86.0 %) and health workers (62.8 %). The respondents identified inadequate supply of electricity (51.2 %) as the major challenge faced by food vendors. Although, more than half (53.5 %) of the respondents had high level of compliance to food safety regulations, the type of food vendor (χ2 = 7.664, p = 0.022) had significant relationship with their compliance. Moreover, there was a significant difference (t = 9.597, p = 0.003) between the level of compliance of rural and urban food vendors to food safety regulations. The study concluded that rural food vendors had lower compliance to food safety regulations and recommended that more measures be taken to enforce compliance of food vendors to food safety regulations in the rural areas.
Food safety remains of public health concern, ensuring that consumed food substance is prepared in a risk-free condition [1]. According to Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, food safety is the guarantee that ingested food does not create any harm to human health and well-being. Various laws and regulations have been enacted over the years to safeguard the safety and hygiene of the nation’s food supply [2]. However, Nigeria’s food supply chain is increasing becoming complex and the widespread of food borne diseases is posing significant threat to human health and the economy at large [3]. The occurrence of food borne disease remains an important health issue in both developed and developing countries despite governments efforts to boost the safety of food supply, globally [2].
Ige [4], opined that food vendors, including restaurants, hotels, bukaterias (canteens) and as food hawkers are primarily the source of most contamination as people continue to eat more often outside their homes than they do at home. Although Onyeneho and Hedberg [5], reported that food vending/hawking provide a source of inexpensive, convenient and nutritious meals for urban and rural dwellers, creating easy access to new job opportunities in low-income countries [6]. However, Adigun [7], revealed that street-vended food presents major public health challenges because most vendors’ cook with very basic cooking facilities and are habitually situated next to open gutters. Similarly, Chukuezi, [8], reported that Street food vendors work under crude unsanitary conditions and are often unlicensed and untrained in food safety, food hygiene and sanitation. Ifenkwe [9], buttressed that most food vendors, especially those in rural communities, would terribly fail if subjected to food safety and hygiene tests, stating that a good number of food canteens serve as breeding grounds for cockroaches, flies and rodents which are vectors of disease vectors for cholera, dysentery, diarrhoea, Lassa fever, etc and presenting risks to consumer’s health.
It remains alarming that over 200,000 Nigerians die from food poisoning every year [10], as large quantity of food produced and distributed in the country get to the consumers in unpleasant conditions ensuing from poor handling, inadequate storage practices, inefficient processing, high ambient tropical temperature and humidity conditions that promotes rapid bacterial decomposition, fungal contamination and insect infestation [9]. Consequently, Onyeneho and Hedberg [5], attributed this lagging public health challenge to the lack of proper monitoring, supervision and enforcement of food hygiene regulations by food safety officers. This study therefore aims to assess the level of compliance of food vendors to food safety regulations. The Food Safety Regulations used for this study were adapted from the 2013 Oyo State of Nigeria Gazette, containing the State’s regulations/guidelines for food handlers.
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the study is to determine the level of compliance of food vendors to food safety regulations in some selected rural and urban areas of Afijio local Government area in Oyo state. The specific objectives are to:
Identify the selected personal characteristics of food vendors in the study area
Determine the respondents’ level of awareness on food safety regulations
Ascertain the respondents’ sources of information on food safety regulations
Identify the challenges faced by respondents in compliance to food safety regulations
Determine the level of compliance of food vendors to food safety regulations
Hypotheses of the Study
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between the selected respondents’ personal characteristics and compliance level of respondents to food safety regulations
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ level of awareness and level of compliance to food safety regulations
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ sources of information on hygienic practices and level of compliance to food safety regulations
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ challenges and level of compliance to food safety regulations
Ho5: There is no significant difference between the level of compliance of respondents in rural areas and that of those in urban areas
The study area for this research is Afijio Local Government Area, which is one of the thirty-three Local Government Areas that make up Oyo State. It consists of ten wards with the Administrative Headquarters located at Jobele. It occupies a land area of 685.085 square kilometres with 2010 estimated population size of 152,193 using a growth rate of 3.2% from 2006 census figures. The population density of the area is 222 persons per square kilometre. It is bounded in the North by Oyo East Local Government Area, Akinyele Local Government Area to the South and Iseyin Local Government Area to the West. It also shares common boundaries with Ejigbo and Iwo Local Government Areas of Osun State to the East and is mainly dominated by The Yoruba tribe.
The population for the study includes food vendors in hotels, restaurants, bukaterias (canteen) and hawkers in Afijio Local Government Area of Oyo State. Multi stage sampling technique was used to select 86 respondents for the study. Afijio LGA was stratified into urban and rural areas. According to the Association of Canteen Food Seller of Oyo State (ACFSO), there are (10) zones for the canteen food sellers in the L.G.A., out of which five zones were randomly selected, with two zones (Awe and Ilora) as urban area and three zones (Jobele, Akinmorin and Fiditi) as rural areas. Random sampling was used to select 48 and 18 food canteen vendors from urban and rural areas, respectively. Snowballing technique was used to select a total of twelve hotels/restaurants vendors, while 8 food hawkers were randomly selected in the study area. Primary data was collected through the use of interview schedule and well-structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Chi square, Pearson Product Moment Correlation and T-test.
Table 1: Distribution Showing Sampling Procedure and Sample Size in Afijio Local Government Area
| Selected LGA | No of wards in Afijio LGA | 50% of wards | Zone Stratification | Randomly selected zones | Selected Restaurants/ Hotels | Selected food hawkers | Selected Bukatarias | Total no of respondents sampled |
| Afijio | 10 | 5 | Rural | Fiditi | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 |
| - | - | - | Jobele | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | |
| - | - | - | Akinmorin | 2 | 2 | 6 | 10 | |
| - | - | - | Urban | Awe | 4 | 1 | 24 | 29 |
| - | - | - | Ilora | 4 | 1 | 24 | 29 | |
| TOTAL | 10 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 66 | 86 |
Personal Characteristics of Respondents
Table 2 revealed that majority (90.7%) of the respondents were female, which implies that more females were involved in food vending. This agrees with Meludu, Ewebiyi and Sangotegbe [11], that more females are involved in food vending than males. It also revealed that a very high proportion (73.3 %) of the respondents were married, majority (68.6 %) had food vending as their major occupation and more than half (53.5 %) had spent less than or equal to ten years in food vending.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents Based On Their Personal Characteristics
| Variables | Frequency | Percentage |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 8 | 9.3 |
| Female | 18 | 90.7 |
| Age (years) | ||
| Less or equal to 30 | 14 | 16.3 |
| 31 – 40 | 29 | 33.7 |
| 41-50 | 23 | 26.7 |
| 51-60 | 17 | 19.8 |
| Greater than 60 | 3 | 3.5 |
| Faith based | ||
| Christianity | 59 | 68.6 |
| Islam | 25 | 29.1 |
| Traditional | 2 | 2.3 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 15 | 17.4 |
| Married | 63 | 73.3 |
| Divorced | 3 | 3.5 |
| Widowed | 5 | 5.8 |
| Educational background | ||
| No formal education | 20 | 23.3 |
| Primary education | 21 | 24.4 |
| Secondary education | 30 | 34.9 |
| Tertiary education | 15 | 17.4 |
| Major occupation | ||
| Food vending | 59 | 68.6 |
| Alternative sources | 27 | 31.4 |
| Type of vendor | ||
| Hotel/ restaurant | 12 | 14.0 |
| Canteen | 66 | 76.7 |
| Hawker | 8 | 9.3 |
| Experience (years) | ||
| Less or equal to 10 | 46 | 53.5 |
| 11 – 20 | 23 | 26.7 |
| 21 – 30 | 13 | 15.1 |
| Greater than 30 | 4 | 4.7 |
Awareness on Food Safety Regulations
Table 3 shows that all the respondents (100%) were aware of food safety regulations like maintaining high standard of sanitation in food premises, stores and places where food is sold; not serving food that has touched the floor, unwashed hands or dirty equipment; and providing hand washing facilities for customers’ use among other regulations. This implies that the food safety regulations are circulated among vendors to create awareness for them.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents Based On Their Level of Awareness On Food Safety Regulations
| S/N | Food vendors (handlers) shall: | Freq. | % |
| Undergo routine food handlers test and obtain a medical certificate of fitness | 80 | 93.0 | |
| Provide adequate portable water supply facilities | 86 | 100.0 | |
| Maintain high standard of sanitation in food premises, stores & places where food is sold | 86 | 100.0 | |
| Use detergents and preferably hot water to clean surfaces, equipment, floor and walls | 86 | 100.0 | |
| Regularly remove food waste from all food-preparation area | 86 | 100.0 | |
| Not handle food when ill (especially if having diarrhoea, running nose, cough open wounds, eye discharge) | 84 | 97.7 | |
| Wear clean clothes, apron and head cover when cooking and serving food | 84 | 97.7 | |
| Keep nails short and not polished (painted) | 85 | 98.8 | |
| Not wear jewels like costume rings and bangles when handling food | 85 | 98.8 | |
| Wash their hands after using the toilet, sneezing or coughing | 86 | 100 | |
| Wash their hands after handling raw food, or touching dirty objects e.g. money, pet or animals | 85 | 98.8 | |
| Keep raw food away from ready-to-eat food | 83 | 96.5 | |
| Keep food away from chemicals including chemical cleaning agents | 86 | 100 | |
| Wash all raw fruits and vegetables with clean water before preparation | 86 | 100 | |
| Cover food during preparation | 86 | 100 | |
| Not serve food that has touched the floor, unwashed hands or dirty equipment | 86 | 100 | |
| Never touch food with bare hands but using protective covers | 85 | 98.8 | |
| Provide hand washing facilities for customers use | 86 | 100 | |
| Not talk over food | 85 | 98.8 | |
| Place food on elevated platform and not on the floor | 84 | 97.7 |
Level of Awareness on Food Safety Regulations
Table 4 indicates that a very large proportion of the respondents (89.5%) had a high level of awareness on food safety regulation while minority (10.5%) had low level of awareness on the regulations. This implies that majority of the food vendors are highly aware of the food safety regulations. Similarly, findings from Ige [4], affirms that majority (73.3%) of food vendors are fully aware while a few (26.7%) of them are partially aware of food safety practices.
Table 4: Categorization of Respondents Based On Level of Awareness On Food Safety Regulations
| Awareness | Scores | Frequency | Percentage | Mean |
| Low | 35 – 39 | 9 | 10.5 | 40 |
| High | 40 | 77 | 89.5 |
Sources of Information on Food Safety Regulations
Table 5 shows that food canteen associations, health workers and radio ranked highest (1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively) among the sources of information on food safety regulations. Sources like internet, extension agents and newspapers ranked lowest. This implies that most respondents rely on their associations, health workers and radio for information on food safety regulations. Similarly, Ewebiyi [12], reported that food handlers rely more on personal contact with health workers for information on food safety practices. Also, Meludu et al., [11], reported that majority (93.3%, 78.3% and 65.0%) of food vendors received information on food safety issues through radio, television and friends respectively.
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents Based On Their Sources of Information On Food Safety Regulations
| S/N | Sources of information | Frequency of information | ||||
| Always Freq. (%) | Occasionally (Freq. %) | Never (Freq. %) | Mean | Rank | ||
| Food vendors association | 74 (86.0) | 7 (8.1) | 5 (5.6) | 2,80 | 1st | |
| Relatives | 32 (37.2) | 46 (53.5) | 8 (9.3) | 2.28 | 4th | |
| Health workers | 54 (62.8) | 29 (33.7) | 3 (3.5) | 2.59 | 2nd | |
| Radio | 32 (37.2) | 52 (60.5) | 2 (2.3) | 2.35 | 3rd | |
| Television | 12 (14.0) | 56 (65.1) | 18 (20.9) | 1.93 | 5th | |
| Neighbours | 9 (10.5) | 61 (70.9) | 16 (18.6) | 1.92 | 6th | |
| Newspaper | 7 (8.1) | 24 (27.9) | 55 (64.0) | 1.44 | 7.5th | |
| Extension Agents | 3 (3.5) | 32 (37.2) | 51 (59.3) | 1.44 | 7.5th | |
| Internet | 3 (3.5) | 11 (12.8) | 72 (83.7) | 1.20 | 10th | |
| Others (Please specify) | 2 (2.3) | 30 (34.9) | 54 (62.8) | 1.40 | 9th | |
Challenges Faced in Food Compliance to Food Safety Regulations
Ranking of results from Table 6 revealed that the three major challenges faced by food vendors in the study area included: inadequate supply of electricity, insufficient fund and illiteracy. Similarly, Meludu et al., [11], reported epileptic power supply as a very severe constraint to the food safety practices of food vendors. Ige however reported lack of water as the major challenge to the compliance of food vendors to food safety practices.
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents Based On Their Challenges
| S/N | Challenges faced in food compliance to food safety regulations | Major Challenge Freq. (%) | Minor Challenge Freq. (%) | Not a Challenge Freq. (%) | Mean | Rank |
| Insufficient knowledge on food safety regulations | 12 (14.0) | 12 (14.0) | 62 (72.1) | 1.42 | 4th | |
| Taboo | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.35) | 83 (96.5) | 1.07 | 10th | |
| Religion | 3 (3.5) | 4 (4.7) | 79 (91.9) | 1.12 | 9th | |
| Health status (pneumonia, catarrh, cough, skin diseases etc.) | 6 (7.0) | 1 (1.2) | 79 (91.9) | 1.15 | 8th | |
| Lack of portable water | 10 (11.6) | 14 (16.3) | 62 (72.1) | 1.40 | 5.5th | |
| Inadequate supply of electricity | 44 (51.2) | 13 (15.1) | 29 (33.7) | 2.17 | 1st | |
| Insufficient funds/poverty | 19 (22.1) | 32 (37.2) | 57 (33.7) | 1.81 | 2nd | |
| Illiteracy | 10 (11.6) | 19 (22.1) | 57 (33.7) | 1.45 | 3rd | |
| Poor governmental enforcement of food safety regulation | 11 (12.8) | 12 (14.0) | 63 (73.3) | 1.40 | 5.5th | |
| Unconcerned attitude of customers to food safety | 4 (4.7) | 10 (11.6) | 72 (83.7) | 1.21 | 7th |
Compliance to Food Safety Regulations
From Table 7, result shows the rate of respondents’ compliance to food safety regulations, with 91.9% of the respondents practicing keeping food away from chemicals including chemical cleaning agents; 86% providing adequate portable water supply facilities and 84.9% not serving food that has touched the floor, unwashed hands or dirty equipment always. However, 9.3% never undergo routine food handlers test and obtain a medical certificate of fitness; 4.7% of the respondents never wear clean clothes, apron and head cover when cooking and serving food; and 55.8% of the respondents always talk over food. This implies that they select what regulation they wish to adhere to and have a lassie faire attitude towards some other regulations.
Table 7: Distribution of Respondents Based On Their Level of Compliance to Food Safety Regulations
| S/N | Food safety regulations | Always practiced Freq. (%) | Occasionally practiced Freq. (%) | Never practiced Freq. (%) |
| Undergo routine food handlers test and obtain a medical certificate of fitness | 60 (69.8) | 18 (20.9) | 8(9.3) | |
| Provide adequate portable water supply facilities | 74 (86.0) | 10 (11.6) | 2(2.3) | |
| Maintain high standard of sanitation in food premises, stores & places where food is sold | 70 (81.4) | 15 (17.4) | 1(1.2) | |
| Use detergents and preferably hot water to clean surfaces, equipment, floor and walls | 65 (75.6) | 20 (23.3) | 1(1.2) | |
| Regularly remove food waste from all food preparation area | 69 (80.2) | 16 (18.6) | 1(1.2) | |
| Not handle food when ill (especially if having diarrhoea, running nose, cough, open wounds, eye discharge) | 54 (62.8) | 31 (36.0) | 1(1.2) | |
| Wear clean clothes, apron and head cover when cooking and serving food | 24 (27.9) | 58 (67.4) | 4(4.7) | |
| Keep nails short and not polished (painted) | 53 (61.6) | 32 (37.2) | 1(1.2) | |
| Not wear jewels like costume rings and bangles when handling food | 61 (70.9) | 24 (27.9) | 1(1.2) | |
| Wash their hands after using the toilet, sneezing or coughing | 56 (65.1) | 30 (34.9) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Wash their hands after handling raw food, or touching dirty objects e.g. money, pet or animals | 50 (58.1) | 35 (40.7) | 1(1.2) | |
| Keep raw food away from ready-to-eat food | 69 (80.2) | 17 (19.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Keep food away from chemicals including chemical cleaning agents | 79 (91.9) | 7 (8.1) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Wash all raw fruits and vegetables with clean water before preparation | 71 (82.6) | 15 (17.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Cover food during preparation | 65 (75.6) | 21 (24.4) | 0 (0.00) | |
Not serve food that has touched the floor, unwashed hands or or dirty equipment | 73 (84.9) | 13 (15.1) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Never touch food with bare hands but using protective covers | 51 (59.3) | 33 (38.4) | 2 (2.3) | |
| Provide hand washing facilities for customers use | 67 (77.9) | 17 (19.8) | 2 (2.3) | |
| Not talk over food | 48 (55.8) | 35 (40.7) | 3 (3.5) | |
| Place food on elevated platform and not on the floor | 60 (69.8) | 23 (26.7) | 3 (3.5) |
Level of Compliance to Food Safety Regulations
As presented on Table 8, over half (53.5%) of the respondents had a high level of compliance while near average (46.5 %) had a low compliance level to food safety regulations in the study area. Although a relatively high compliance level was recorded, this is still not commensurate to their awareness level (89.5%) as the expectation is that respondents’ awareness should closely influence their compliance to the regulations. Therefore, more enforcement measures should be taken to increase the compliance rate of food vendors to food safety regulations in the study area. In agreement, Richardson and Nkalu [13], emphasized the need to sensitize and enforce standard hygienic practices among food vendors.
Table 8: Frequency and Mean Distribution Based On Respondents’ Level of Compliance to Food Safety Regulations
| Compliance | Scores | Frequency | Percentage | Mean |
| Low | 43 – 53 | 40 | 46.5 | 54 |
| High | 54 – 60 | 46 | 53.5 |
Test of Hypotheses
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between the selected respondents’ personal characteristics and compliance level of respondents to food safety regulations
The Chi Square result on Table 9 revealed that sex (χ2 = 1.641, p = 0.200), faith based (χ2 = 1.783, p = 0.410), marital status (χ2 = 0.862, p = 0.835), educational background (χ2 = 3.494, p = 0.322) and major occupation (χ2 = 0.042, p = 0.837) had no significant relationship with the respondents’ compliance to food safety regulation. On the contrary, Chi-square revealed that the type of vendor (χ2 = 7.664, p = 0.022) was significantly related to the respondents’ compliance to food safety regulation.
Table 9: Chi Square Analysis of Hypothesis 1
| Variables | χ2 | Df | p-value | Decision | Remark |
| Sex | 1.641 | 1 | 0.200 | NS | Accept |
| Faith based | 1.783 | 2 | 0.410 | NS | Accept |
| Marital status | 0.862 | 3 | 0.835 | NS | Accept |
| Educational background | 3.494 | 3 | 0.322 | NS | Accept |
| Major occupation | 0.042 | 1 | 0.837 | NS | Accept |
| Type of vendor | 7.664 | 2 | 0.022 | S | Reject |
DF: Degree of freedom, Significant at p <0.05, NS: Not significant; S: Significant
Ho2-Ho4: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ selected personal characteristics, their level of awareness; respondents’ sources of information on hygienic practices; respondents’ challenges and respondents’ level of compliance to food safety regulations
Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) result on Table 10 showed that there was no significant relationship between the respondents’ age (χ2 = 0.004, p = 0.968), years of experience in food vending (χ2 = 0.042, p = 0.699), level of awareness (r = 0.094, p = 0.389), sources of information (r = 0.194, p = 0.068), challenges faced (r = 0.066, p = 0.266) and the respondents’ level of compliance to food safety regulations.
Table 10: Pearson Product Moment Correlation of hypothesis 1 to 6
| Variable | r value | p-value | Decision | Remark |
| Age | 0.004 | 0.968 | NS | Accept |
| Years of experience in food vending | 0.042 | 0.699 | NS | Accept |
| Level of awareness | 0.094 | 0.389 | NS | Accept |
| Source of information | 0.198 | 0.068 | NS | Accept |
| Challenges faced in compliance | 0.066 | 0.266 | NS | Accept |
Significant at p <0.05, N = 86
Ho5: There is no significant difference between the level of compliance of respondents in rural areas and that of those in urban areas
The t-test result (t = 9.597, p = 0.003) on Table 11 revealed that there was a significant difference between the response of the respondents in rural areas and those in urban areas. Respondents from the urban area are more compliant to food safety regulations than those in the rural areas. This could be due to the different level of exposure of those in the urban areas. Similarly, Subratty, Beeharry and Sun [14] reported that most rural food vendors are not implementing their knowledge into practice, hence non-compliant to proper hygiene practices.
Table 11: t - Test Analysis Showing the Difference Between the Level of Respondents’ Compliance to Food Safety Regulations in Rural and Urban Area
| Variable | T | Df | p-value | Decision | Remark |
| Area | 9.597 | 84 | 0.003 | S | Reject |
Significant at p <0.05; N = 86; S: Significant
The study revealed that most of the respondents are aware of food safety regulations and the most utilised source of information are from food canteen association and health workers respectively. The major challenges encountered by food vendors in compliance to food safety regulations included inadequate supply of electricity, insufficient fund and illiteracy. The study also revealed that more than half of the respondents had a high level of compliance to food safety regulations in the study area. From observations and findings, key among the regulations that were not practiced by most respondents includes the wearing of apron/head cover and not talking over food, while majority of the regulations are occasionally practiced.
The study indicated that the rate at which the respondents comply with food safety regulations vary with whether they are hotel/restaurant vendor, canteen vendor or hawker. The canteen vendor had the highest level of compliance, followed by the hotel/restaurant vendors while the hawkers had the least compliance to the regulations. The study also revealed that the food vendors in urban areas have a higher level of compliance than those in rural areas.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are hereby made based on the results of this study
More measures should be taken to enforce compliance of food vendors to food safety regulations in rural areas, since results from this study shows that their awareness of the regulations is not equivalent to their compliance level. Generally, wearing of apron/head cover and not talking over food should be made mandatory for all food vendors. In the same vein, consumers should be sensitized on food safety regulations and its essence. The knowledge of individuals can serve as a check for vendors and encourage them to be more compliant
Health workers and government officials should work with the local people to formulate indigenous food safety practices that will meet the local food safety needs
The government should endeavour to provide adequate supply of electricity to combat the challenges faced by respondents in the study area
Ehirim N.C. “Determinants of consumers’ preference for safe chicken consumption in Imo State, Nigeria.” Researcher, vol. 2, no. 12, 2010, pp. 42–50.
Omojokun J. “Regulation and enforcement of legislation on food safety in Nigeria.” Studies in Sociology of Science, 2013, pp. 251–256. https://doi.org/10.5772/54423
Rondon M. et al . “Food and agricultural import regulations and standards – narrative.” FAIRS Country Report, 2011, pp. 1–14.
Ige B.A. Food Safety Practices of Food Vendors in Rural Primary and Secondary Schools in Ikorodu Local Government Area of Lagos State. B.Sc. thesis, University of Ibadan, 2005.
Onyeneho S.N. et al . “An Assessment of Food Safety Needs of restaurants in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2013, pp. 3296–3309.
Rheinländer T. et al . “Keeping up appearances: perceptions of street food safety in urban Kumasi, Ghana.” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 85, no. 6, 2008, pp. 952–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-008-9318-3
Adigun G.T. “Emerging agribusiness enterprises: The need for food safety policy in Nigeria.” International Journal of Agriculture, Environment & Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 2, 2014, pp. 381–390. https://doi.org/10.5958/2230-732X.2014.00259.9
Chukuezi C.O. “Food safety and hygienic practices of street food vendors in Owerri, Imo state, Nigeria.” Studies in Sociology of Science, vol. 1, no. 1, 2010, pp. 50–57.
Ifenkwe G.E. “food safety regulations: reducing the risk of food-borne diseases in rural communities of Abia State, Nigeria.” Agricultural Research Journals, vol. 2, no. 7, 2012, pp. 384–389.
Ihenkuronye A. “Nigeria: The Prevalence of Food Poisoning.” AllAfrica, 2020. https://allafrica.com/stories/202001200076.html
Meludu N.T. et al . “Constraints to food safety practices of street food vendors in ogun waterside local government area of Ogun state.” Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2012, pp. 98–106.
Ewebiyi I.O. Food Safety Practices of Rural Dwellers in Oyo State. M.Sc. thesis, University of Ibadan, 2003.
Richardson K.E. et al . “Operations of street food vendors and their impact on sustainable life in rural Nigeria.” American Economic and Social Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.46281/aesr.v4i1.207
Subratty A.H. et al . “A survey of hygiene practices among food vendors in rural areas in mauritius.” Nutrition and Food Sciences, vol. 34, no. 5, 2004, pp. 203–205.
Download PDF
Download PDF
Download PDF
Download PDF
Download XML
