Perception and adoption of food safety practices (FSP) among beef sellers and consumers: Empirical evidence from Ghana

Abstract

Food-borne diseases remain a pressing global health issue, particularly in developing countries. Inadequate knowledge and low adoption of food safety practices among beef sellers lead to cross-contamination of raw beef, significantly contributing to the occurrence of beef-borne diseases. To effectively address this problem, it is crucial to prioritize the development of perception and adoption of food safety practices among beef sellers and consumers. Therefore, this paper examines perception and adoption of food safety practices using data from 820 beef sellers and 562 beef consumers in Ghana. We found positive perceptions with beef consumers and sellers about food safety practices. Additionally, the adoption of food safety practices by beef sellers was influenced by gender, age, educational level, income, credit access, engaged in other economic activity and membership of association. To ensure sustainable and healthy beef processing, consumption and marketing, enforcement of periodic medical examinations and hygienic selling environments should be considered. Policies for strengthening credit access capacity to drive the adherence to safety practices should be geared towards sellers in the beef industry.

Keywords:

• adoption
• perception
• beef sellers
• food safety practices
• multivariate probit

1. Introduction

Food safety, quality, and nutrition are intricately interconnected subjects. Unsafe food does not only pose a significant risk of disease to consumers but can also contribute to undernourishment, especially among vulnerable populations such as the sick, children, lactating women, and adults (World Health Organization, 2019). Therefore, ensuring a safe food supply can foster sustainable development within communities particularly in Africa. Consequently, placing a high priority on food safety plays a crucial role in realizing the objectives outlined in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2, 3, and 6 (Bukachi et al., 2021; World Health Organization, 2019). These goals aim to eliminate hunger, combat nutrition-related illnesses, provide access to healthcare services, and ensure clean water and sanitation, which are essential fundamentals for promoting good health (World Health Organization, 2019, 2021, 2022).

Throughout history, meat has held a special status in various cultures, often considered a luxurious indulgence reserved for momentous occasions or specific days of the week. However, in modern times, it has evolved into a dietary staple, readily found in restaurants and kitchens across the globe. Forecasts indicate that the meat industry’s market value will experience remarkable growth, projected to surge from 897.5 billion U.S. dollars in 2021 to over 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars by 2027 (Shahbandeh, 2022). The United States emerged as the leading market for meat products and sausages in 2021, surpassing Germany, by generating revenue that was nearly double that of Germany’s 28 billion U.S. dollars (European Commission, 2023; Shahbandeh, 2022). Additionally, countries such as Russia, France, and Brazil rank among the top five nations with the highest revenue from processed meats (European Commission, 2023; Shahbandeh, 2022). In 2020, South Africa took the lead in beef production within Africa, generating over one million metric tons of cattle meat (European Commission, 2023; Kamer, 2022). Tanzania and Chad followed suit, with production volumes of 487 thousand and 473 thousand metric tons of meat, respectively (Kamer, 2022; Vaskó et al., 2022). Ethiopia, known for having the largest cattle stock on the continent, produced approximately 433 thousand metric tons of beef and veal meat. In Ghana, meat and edible meat offal worth 78.4 million U.S. dollars were imported in 2019 (Anachinaba et al., 2022; Rich & Wane, 2021; Sasu, 2022) which has declined slightly from the 2014 import value of 98.3 million U.S. dollars (Anachinaba et al., 2022; Sasu, 2022; Vaskó et al., 2022). This suggests that the country continues to rely on meat imports to fulfill its domestic demand for meat protein.

The meat demand in developing countries is undergoing a notable transformation, with a growing preference for high-value meat products (Pingali, 2015). This trend is especially evident in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where a similar shift towards meat consumption is occurring at an accelerated pace (Tschirley et al., 2015). African beef and milk markets which represent a major business opportunity for livestock producers, in terms of both volume and value is more likely be a good investment opportunity in animal-sourced foods (Adzitey et al., 2020; Bukachi et al., 2021; Monten et al., 2021; Sofea et al., 2022). In Ghana, particularly in the Northern, Upper East and Upper West regions, beef production serves as a major source of income and livelihood for many rural households (Adzitey, 2013; Adzitey et al., 2020; Monten et al., 2021). However, concerns have been raised about the conditions under which beef is traded in recent years. For instance, World Health Organization (2015) estimates that food-borne diseases are caused by variety of factors including bacteria, viruses, parasites, toxins, and chemicals, affect around 600 million people global annually, resulting in an estimated 420,000 deaths each year. It is not uncommon for instances of foodborne diseases to either go unreported or receive inadequate attention in terms of investigation (Sofea et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022). One out of ten people worldwide are susceptible to falling ill due to consumption of contaminated food (Sofea et al., 2022; WHO, 2022; Yu et al., 2022), and it is estimated that nearly 4.2 million people die each year from such food-related illnesses (Pethick et al., 2021; WHO, 2022). Distressingly, over 125,000 of these fatalities are children below 5 years of age (WHO, 2022). According to World Bank (2021), foodborne diseases also have severe economic implications, causing an estimated annual loss of US$110 billion in productivity in low- and medium-income countries. Consequently, despite the various regulations established to ensure meat safety and hygiene among beef sellers in Ghana, adherence to such regulations to protect consumer health remains a challenge. Most beef sellers fail to adopt the required safety and hygienic protocols which prevent beef contamination. Such unhygienic practices include: selling close to untidy roads, refuse damps and open gutters, failing to wear hand gloves, not sterilizing their cutting equipment and uncovered meat exposed to houseflies, hence, selling contaminated beef to consumers.

In Ghana, there are growing concerns about beef safety and quality issues which has been linked with safety practices in beef selling. The Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA, 2021) in Ghana, reported that more than 350 meat sellers vend without health certificates in the local meat markets in the Accra. Beef sellers have been linked with numerous foodborne illnesses and food poisoning outbreaks (Adzitey et al., 2020; Monten et al., 2021; Sakyi, 2012). This has led to a growing public health concern on meat safety (Adzitey et al., 2020; Bukachi et al., 2021; Monten et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2017, 2022). The activities of beef sellers in many countries are therefore regulated to ensure the provision of safe and wholesome meat for human consumption. Studies on food safety practices have been conducted in Ghana (Adzitey et al., 2018, 2020; Sulleyman et al., 2018). Adzitey et al. (2020) opined that meat consumers are progressively gaining education on the need to be conscious about the safety of meat purchased as evidenced by the numerous media reports on poor safety practices adopted by meat sellers in some parts of the country. However, consumer preference for meat is gradually becoming more influenced by nutrition and health considerations more than safety practices (Liu et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022).

Consumers have different views about food safety compared to experts, and there are significant differences within these groups (Verbeke et al., 2017). This is because their preference for safety practices in meat selling may vary from producers since they may be influenced by different factors (Monten et al., 2021; Owusu-Sekyere, 2014; Verbeke et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2017). For instance, Bukachi et al. (2021) found that the way consumers perceive food safety is strongly influenced by their concerns regarding various aspects of food production, processing, handling, storage, and the associated health risks posed by consuming different agricultural and food service products. Also, the authors highlighted that within the community, several key perceptions stand out, including worries about the lack of traceability. Kehinde et al. (2020) examined the knowledge, attitude and practice of meat hygiene using 318 meat sellers in Nigeria. Using Chi-square, the authors established a relationship between practice of meat hygiene and socioeconomic factors (such as age, education level, religion and experience). In Ethiopia, Tegegne and Phyo (2017) studied food safety knowledge, attitude and practices of meat handlers in abattoir and retail shops using cross-sectional data of 91 respondents. Authors indicated that meat handlers’ knowledge of safety practices are below acceptable level. Furthermore, Sulleyman et al. (2018) studied the knowledge and practices of meat in Ghana and indicated that provision of information on FSPs to consumers through media has been important in improving consumer perception, thus, as the perception of consumers improves, their preference for sellers who adopt FSPs increases. Other studies have shown the factors that influence the adoption of food safety practices by meat sellers in Ghana using probit model (see; Adzitey et al., 2018; Delia et al., 2012; Odonkor & Odonkor, 2020). Delia et al. (2012) indicated that gender has a significant influence on the adoption of food safety practices. Specifically, the study found that, women have significantly better food safety practice than men though there was no significant difference in their knowledge and attitude towards food safety. Odonkor and Odonkor (2020) also reported that there is no correlation between gender and the adoption of food safety practices. However, the authors posited that the adoption of FSPs is significantly influenced by variables such as age, marital status and education level. However, prior research has not examined the factors that affect the adoption of beef safety practices from the perspectives of both sellers and consumers, and also utilizing a multivariate probit model.

While most abattoirs attempt to follow regulations aimed at safeguarding consumer health, the handling and processing of meat still pose significant challenges to meat safety. Despite various efforts by stakeholders in the Ghana to ensure meat safety, the incidence of foodborne illnesses remains high. Therefore, it is essential to examine perception gaps among beef sellers and consumers to ensure healthy and safe meat. This study seeks to assess the perception and adoption of safety among beef sellers and consumers in Ghana. The Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) under the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Ghana ensures that meat available for public consumption is safe. The Environmental Health Department also ensures the periodic training of beef sellers on meat safety and hygiene (Lovatt, 2015); however, beef sellers still fail to adopt the required food safety practices. The study contributes to existing literature in the following ways: First, evidence on the factors that influence the adoption of safety practices is limited. We examine the factors that influence adoption of FSPs by beef sellers and consumers using the multivariate probit framework to jointly predict the numerous correlated binary outcomes (Greene, 2008). However, using binary probit model will lead to biased estimates because it fails to account for interrelatedness between the multiple binary outcomes. Second, our study contributes to the extant literature on beef by providing information on the nexus between beef sellers and consumers with regard to the perception and adoption of FSPs. Third, the findings of this paper could serve as a useful guide for policy formulation to enhance the adoption of FSPs in the meat industry due to the pivotal role it plays in ensuring meat safety.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Data and sampling

The study was conducted in the Kumasi Central Market (Kejetia Market), Ashanti region of Ghana. The rationale of the study area selection was that the central market is the largest and fastest growing urban market center in Ghana with an estimated population of 1.2 million and annual growth rate of 2.6% (Ghana Statistical Service [GSS], 2014). It lies approximately 480 km north of the Equator and 160 km north of the Gulf of Guinea (GSS, 2014). It is also bordered to the north by the Kumasi Cultural Centre, northwest by the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, and to the south by Adum and the commercial center of the city. Currently, the market as over 10,000 stores and stalls (KMA, 2011) and regarded as one of the single largest markets in West Africa (KMA, 2011). Virtually everything that one wants to purchase from a market can be found at market.

Primary data and secondary information were used in this study. Primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire that contained both open- and closed-ended questions. Secondary information was sourced from the Kumasi Municipal Assembly (KMA) websites, articles and others. A multistage sampling was used to sample consumers and beef sellers. First, we purposively selected Kumasi central market because it is one of the major beef consuming areas in Ghana with state-of-the art slaughterhouse, hence, attracts more buyers and sellers. Second, we used simple random sampling to select 820 beef sellers in the market. Selection of the beef sellers was based on available list of registered sellers from KMA. With selection of beef consumers, three out of the four sub-metros (Asokwa, Bantama, and Oforikrom) were purposely selected because of growing demand and population as well as known for massive beef consumption areas. In addition, 10 communities were selected and 53 beef consumers sampled from each community. A total of 526 beef consumers were selected for the study due to incomplete response rate of 0.75%.

2.2. Methodological framework

Data collected was subjected to Stata version 16 and SPSS version 20. The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents were summarized using descriptive statistics. To examine the perceptions on FSPs, we used a five-point Likert scale. A multivariate probit regression model was used to evaluate the factors influencing adoption of food safety practices. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to rank consumers’ safety preferences.

2.2.1. Perception index

Series of perception statements were presented for consumers and beef sellers to rank ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree. The mean score of the ranks is computed as:

(1) $M{S}_i=\frac{(f_{sa}x5)+(f_{a}x4)+(f_{n}x3)+(f_{d}x2)+(f_{sd}x1)}{X}$(1)

where; P_i = perception index, f_sa = frequency of strongly agreed, f_a = frequency of agreed f_n = frequency of neutral, f_d = frequency of disagreed, f_sd = frequency of strongly disagreed and X = number of respondents who responded to the specific perception statement.

The perception index is then specified as:

(2) $P{I}_i=\frac{\sum MS}{n}$(2)

where; $PI$=perception index, and $n$=number of statements.

2.2.2. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W)

Preference of safety practices among beef consumers was assessed using the Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance. Consumers were asked to rank their preferences based on safety practices adopted by sellers where 1 = most preferred, 2 = more preferred, 3 = least preferred and so on. The Kendall’s $W^a$was specified as:

(3) $W^a=\frac{12{\sum }_{R_i}^{-2}-3N{(N-1)}^2}{N(N-1)}$(3)

where; $W^a$= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance; N=Total sample size; R= Mean of the Rank. Therefore, a lower mean rank will mean that the preference is more important. The Kendall’s W indicates the level of agreement among respondents of the rankings obtained. Clearly, a higher Kendall’s W denotes a higher level of agreement on the rankings.

2.2.3. Multivariate probit model (MVP)

Adoption decisions regarding food safety practices are not mutually exclusive. The decision by a subject to adopt a safety practice does not preclude a respondent from adopting other safety practices. More specifically, a seller can choose to adopt as many among the safety practices he/she wants to practice. A randomly selected seller is likely to adopt a particular safety practice if the benefits obtained from adopting it are greater than non-adoption. In line with the works of Kassie et al. (2013), Mulwa et al. (2017) and Asante et al. (2023), it is assumed that the decision to adopt a safety practice(s) is governed by a random utility framework. The i^th seller faced with the decision to adopt a j^th safety practice where i = 1, 2, 3 ……., n; and j = 1, 2, 3…., n, thus, j = cleaning and maintenance (CM), undergoing medical examination before venturing into beef selling (ME), washing hands before and after each time one touches the meat for each transaction (HW), not selling when one has a cut/wound on their hands (CW), wearing gloves when selling (WG). Let $Q^{\ast }$indicate the difference between the utility from adoption ($U_{iA}$) and the utility from non-adoption ($U_{iNA}$) of a safety practice, such that a seller in market i will choose to adopt the safety practice if $Q^{\ast }=U_{iA}-U_{iNA}>0$. The net benefit from the adoption of safety practice is a latent variable which is determined by observed socioeconomic and market-level factors (X_i), and the error term (ɛ_i) specified as:

(4) ${Q^{\ast }}_{ij}=X_i^{\prime }{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_i$(4)

Again, the two utilities are unobservable, however, can be expressed for each safety practice as a function of observable components in the latent variable specified as:

(5) $Q_{ij}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1={Q^{\ast }}_{ij}>0\\ 0=otherwise\end{array}\right\}$(5)

where ${Q^{\ast }}_{ij}$ is a latent variable which represents the observed and unobserved preferences associated with the $j^{th}$safety practice, and $Q_{ij}$represents the binary dependent variables (cleaning and maintenance (CM), undergoing medical examination before venturing into beef selling (ME), washing hands before and after each time one touches the meat for each transaction (HW), not selling when one has a cut/wound on their hands (CW), wearing gloves when selling (WG)).

$X_{jk}$denotes a set of seller and market-specific characteristics. ${\delta }_k$are parameters to be estimated and ${\epsilon }_k$represents the multivariate normally distributed stochastic error term (Wooldridge, 2002). In the MVP estimations, there is a possibility of adopting multiple safety practices, the error terms jointly follow a multivariate normal distribution (MVN) with zero conditional mean and variance normalized to unity, that is (U_CM, U_ME, U_HW, U_CW, U_WG) ≈ MVN (0, Ω) which is specified as:

(6) $\mathrm{\Omega }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& {\rho }_{CM}& .& {\rho }_{WG}\\ {\rho }_{MG}& 1& .& .\\ .& .& 1& {\rho }_{CW}\\ {\rho }_{WG}& .& {\rho }_{ME}& 1\end{array}\right]$(6)

where ρ represents the pairwise correlation coefficient of the error terms with regard to any two of the estimated adoption equations of the safety practices. Subsequently, the off-diagonal elements (e.g., ρ_CM, ρ_WA) in the covariance matrix represent the correlation between the stochastic components of the different safety practices adopted (Mulwa et al., 2017). The non-zero value of these correlations in the off-diagonal elements supports the appropriateness of the use of the MVP.

The full list of explanatory variables used in estimating the MVP model for the binary has been defined with their a priori signs in Table 1.

Table 1. Variable definitions and a priori sign

Variables	Definition	A priori sign
Age	Age of the seller in years	+
Education	Level of education (1=No formal, 2=Primary, 3=Junior High, 4=Senior High, 5=Tertiary)	+
Gender	1 if the farmer is male; 0 otherwise	+/-
Work experience	Years of experience in beef selling	+
Income	Income of respondents (GHC)	+
Member of association	1 if the seller is a member of any beef seller’s association, 0 if otherwise	+
Access to credit Engagement in other economic activity	1 if the seller has access to credit; 0 otherwise 1 if seller engages in other economic activity; 0 if otherwise	+ +

The signs +, -, and +/- signify a positive, negative or mixed effect of the factor on adoption of the safety practices, respectively.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Socioeconomic characteristics of beef sellers and consumers

Table 2 presents the socioeconomic characteristics of sampled beef sellers and consumers. The results show that most beef sellers (93%) were males. This agrees with previous studies which indicated that higher proportion of males are involved in beef selling (Adzitey et al., 2018, 2020; Kehinde et al., 2020). The mean age of beef sellers was 38 years, implying that the majority of the meat sellers were relatively young. This conforms with an earlier study by Adzitey et al. (2018) that the butchering profession is energy demanding and requires stronger men and youth who can cope with challenges of the profession. While 50% of the meat sellers were Muslims, 49% Christians. This is not surprising and agrees with the findings of Kehinde et al. (2020) because generally Muslims are found to engage in meat butchering activities. Most of the sellers had been in the business for an average of 14.2 years, which means that sellers are familiar with issues involving the handling and selling of meat. This implies that sellers are equipped with the nitty-gritty of the meat activities similar to the findings of Kehinde et al. (2020) and Teferi and Hernández Yáñez (2022). Over 40% of the respondents were members of a meat-selling association with an average of 7 years of membership. This suggest that meat sellers are more likely to adopt food safety practices because sellers are members of social networks benefit from sharing and learning of ideas from members as well as offer them negotiate power in the market (Andres et al., 2018). A typical beef seller earned an average income of GHS1,098.92.

Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of beef sellers and consumers

Categorical Variables	Beef sellers (N=820)		Consumers (N=526)
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Gender
Male	766	93.4	80	15.3
Female	54	6.6	446	84.7
Religion
Christian	408	49.7	430	81.7
Muslim	412	50.3	96	18.3
Credit access
Yes	34	4.1	-	-
No	786	95.9	-	-
Membership of Association
Yes	366	44.6	-	-
No	454	55.4	-	-
Engaged in other economic activity
Yes	29	3.5	-	-
No	791	96.5	-	-
Occupation
Student	-	-	38	7.2
Trader	-	-	222	42.3
Artisan	-	-	160	30.4
Public/Civil servant	-	-	78	14.8
Business man/woman	-	-	28	5.3
Continuous variables	Mean	(SD)	Mean	(SD)
Age (years)	38.3	8.5	37.1	8.6
Years of schooling	4.8	2.7	7.2	4.8
Work experience	14.2	8.3
Income (GHS)	1098.92	398.21	867.83	670.36
Amount of credit received (GHS)	222.30	273.80	-	-
Years of association membership	7.1	2.2	-	-
Amount earned from other economic activity	1159.51	765	-	-
Household size	-	-	7.3	3.3
Amount spent on beef	-	-	48.38	36.67
Frequency of purchasing beef	-	-	2.7	2.0
Distance to market (km)	-	-	3.4	3.0

SD=Standard deviation. Source: Field survey, 2021

Drawing on beef consumers, the results show that majority of consumers (84.7%) were females suggesting that women are mostly involved in the purchasing of meat from the Kejetia market than their male counterparts. The female dominance may be attributed to the fact that in most households in Ghana, women are more responsible for purchasing and preparing of food. This finding is consistent with the result of Owusu and Anifori (2013). The average age of consumers was 37 years, implying that majority of the meat consumers were young and economically active. Similar findings were obtained in Adzitey et al. (2020) in Ghana. A typical consumer has spent an average of 7.2 years of schooling and this implies that most consumers have completed basic education which they can read and write. The average beef-consuming household was seven members and spends about GHS48.38 on beef per month.

3.2. Perceptions of beef sellers on food safety practices (FSPs)

Table 3 presents the perceptions of beef sellers on food safety practices. The results show that most sellers (52%) agreed that purchasing from abattoirs for sale ensures good quality of the meat. With 42.14% strongly agreeing with this statement. Also, 58.80% of the sellers agreed that meat stored in cold storage after selling enhances the quality of the meat, while 36.16% strongly agreed to this statement. Additionally, more than two-thirds of the sellers agreed that keeping of cleaning tools away from meat selling area is desirable to ensure that the meat is safe for consumption.

Table 3. Sellers’ perceptions of safety practices

Statements	SD (1)	D (2)	N (3)	A (4)	SA (5)	MS
Purchasing from abattoirs for sale ensures good quality	5 (0.62%)	5 (0.62%)	39 (4.72%)	425 (51.89%)	346 (42.14%)	4.34
Meat stored in cold storage after selling enhances the quality of the meat	0	5 (0.62%)	36 (4.40%)	187 (58.80%)	115 (36.16%)	4.30
Keeping of cleaning tools away from meat selling area is desirable to ensure that the meat is safe for consumption	0	13 (1.57%)	142 (17.30%)	634 (77.36%)	31 (3.77%)	3.83
Covering your meat with mesh reduces contamination	0	3 (0.31%)	198 (24.21%)	606 (73.90%)	13 (1.57%)	3.77
Sterilizing of equipment promotes meat safety	0	3 (0.31%)	214 (26.10%)	583 (71.07%)	20 (2.52%)	3.76
Wearing of gloves help prevents transmission of infections onto the meat	3 (0.31%)	3 (0.31%)	211 (25.79%)	596 (72.64%)	7 (0.94%)	3.74
Washing of hands before and after each time you touch the meat improves meat safety	0	5 (0.62%)	77 (9.43%)	702 (85.53%)	36 (4.40%)	3.94
Medical examination of persons venturing into meat selling is desirable to enhance meat safety	0	0	150 (18.24%)	657 (80.19%)	13 (1.57%)	3.83
Training of meat sellers promotes meat safety	0	3 (0.31%)	44 (5.35%)	709 (86.48%)	64 (7.86%)	4.02
Wearing of aprons during the selling process improves meat safety	0	0	73 (8.81%)	719 (87.74%)	28 (3.46%)	3.95
Adhering to safety practices enable you to get more customers	0	5 (0.62%)	70 (8.49%)	701 (85.53%)	44 (5.35%)	3.96
Adopting safety practices helps sellers to make more sales and get more profit	0	26 (3.14%)	82 (10.06%)	660 (80.50%)	52 (6.29%)	3.90
Selling in a clean environment helps attract more customers	0	39 (4.72%)	36 (4.40%)	696 (84.91%)	49 (5.97%)	3.90
Overall Perception Index						4.27

SD=Strongly Disagree, Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree and SA=Strongly Agree.

Source: Field survey, 2021.

Furthermore, majority of the beef sellers (73.90%) agreed that covering meat with mesh reduces contamination. Close to 71.07% of the sellers agreed that sterilizing of equipment promotes meat safety. Interestingly, most of the sellers (72.6%) strongly agreed that wearing of gloves during selling helps prevent transmission of infections. Most of the sellers (85.53%) agreed that washing of hands before and after touching the meat improves meat safety. Considering the statement that medical examination of persons venturing into meat selling is desirable to enhance the safety of the meat, the results show that 80.19% of the beef sellers were in agreement.

Furthermore, 86.48% of the beef sellers agreed that training of meat sellers promotes meat safety. The implication is that most sellers agreed to the statement that training of meat sellers could promote meat safety (Adzitey et al., 2020; Kehinde et al., 2020). While 87.74% of the sellers agreed that wearing of aprons during the selling process helps to improve meat safety, about 85.53% of the sellers agreed that adhering to safety practices enables sellers to get more customers. These findings concord with Monten et al. (2021) who asserted that well-packaged meat products attract consumers in Ghana. Around 80.50% of the sellers agreed that adopting safety practices helps sellers to make more sales and obtain more profit. Over 80% of the sellers agreed that selling in a clean environment helps to attract more customers. The computed overall perception index was 4.27, and this suggests that generally, sellers agreed to all the statements. The implication of these results is that beef sellers with continued education could observe good safety practices in beef selling in order to attract top notch consumers in the market. Previous studies (Bukachi et al., 2021; Monten et al., 2021; Tegegne & Phyo, 2017; Yu et al., 2022) indicated that a good understanding of safety practices among sellers could serve as a gateway for higher prices of their meats in the market.

3.3. Perceptions of beef consumers on food safety practices (FSPs)

In order to better understand the nexus between beef sellers and consumers with regard to safety practices in beef selling, this section presents the perceptions of beef consumers about safety practices in beef vending. Table 4 presents the perception of beef consumers on food safety practices. The result shows that, 66.9% of the consumers agreed that meat purchased from abattoirs are of good quality. Close to 63.12% of the consumers agreed that buying meat from sellers who obtained their meat from abattoirs is safer. Additionally, about 68.82% and 29.66% of the consumers agreed and strongly agreed that buying meat from sellers who keep cleaning tools away from meat selling area reduces potential contamination of the meat. While most consumers (66.16%) agreed that buying meat from sellers who have cold storage systems makes them feel more secured of better quality. Nearly 69% of the consumers agreed that meat covered with mesh is more appealing to purchase as it appears neat and wholesome. With regard to the practice of sterilizing of equipment by beef sellers, most consumers (71.86%) were in agreement. About 68.44% of the consumers agreed that buying meat from sellers who wear gloves help prevent transmission of infections onto the meat. For this perception statement, 30.42% strongly agreed. Also, 68.06% of the consumers agree that buying meat from sellers who wash their hands before and after contact with the meat improves meat safety.

Table 4. Consumers’ perception on safety practices

Statements	SD (1)	D (2)	N (3)	A (4)	SA (5)	MS
Meat purchased from abattoirs are of good quality	0	2 (0.4%)	8 (1.5%)	352 (66.9%)	164 (31.18%)	4.29
Buying meat from sellers who obtained their meat from abattoirs is safer	0	2 (0.4%)	6 (1.14%)	332 (63.12%)	186 (35.36%)	4.33
Buying meat from sellers who keep cleaning tools away from meat selling area reduces potential contamination of the meat	0	0	8 (1.52%)	362 (68.82%)	156 (29.66%)	4.28
Buy meat from sellers who have cold storage makes me feel more secured of better quality.	0	4 (0.76%)	4 (0.76%)	348 (66.16%)	170 (32.32%)	4.30
Meat covered with mesh is more appealing to buy as it appears neat and wholesome	0	0	6 (1.14%)	362 (68.82%)	158 (30.04%)	4.29
Sterilizing of equipment will enhance the safety of meat	0	2 (0.4%)	4 (0.76%)	378 (71.86%)	142 (26.99%)	4.25
Buying meat from sellers who wear gloves help prevent transmission of infections onto the meat	0	0	6 (1.14%)	360 (68.44%)	160 (30.42%)	4.29
Buying meat from sellers who wash their hands before and after contact with the meat improves meat safety	0	0	0	358 (68.06%)	168 (31.94%)	4.32
Training of meat sellers promotes meat safety	0	0	2 (0.4%)	332 (63.12%)	192 (36.50%)	4.36
Selling in a clean environment improves meat safety	0	2 (0.4%)	6 (1.14%)	350 (66.54%)	168 (31.94%)	4.30
Wearing of aprons during the selling process improves meat safety	0	0	0	372 (70.72%)	154 (29.28%)	4.30
Overall Perception Index						4.30

SD=Strongly Disagree, Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree and SA=Strongly Agree.

Source: Field survey, 2021.

Moreover, 63.12% of the consumers agreed that training of meat sellers promotes meat safety while 66.54% believe selling in a clean environment improves meat safety. Furthermore, 70.72% of the consumers agreed that wearing of aprons during the selling process improves meat safety. Overall perception index of consumers was 4.30 implying that generally, consumers agreed to all the statements which signals consumers to be health conscious when comes to beef purchase at the market.

3.4. Safety practices adopted by beef sellers

The distribution of the safety practices adopted by the beef sellers are presented in Table 5. Results show that most sellers (96.2%) store their leftover beef in a cold facility after selling and 80.4% of them keep their cleaning and maintenance tools away from the meat selling area. This result agrees with Adzitey et al. (2018) who found that most butchers stored their leftover meat in refrigerator. Although the FDA code of practice for meat markets requires sellers to be medically examined before venturing into meat selling (Food and Drug Authority [FDA], 2013), our result shows that most (95%) of the beef sellers in the market were not examined medically. About 96.2% of sellers do not sell when they have a wound or cut on their hands. Additionally, close to 86.5% of the sellers do not wash their hands before and after contact with the meat for each transaction. This implies that most beef sellers were not practicing the FDA codes of washing their hands before and after touching the meat for each transaction which could result into food contamination. Furthermore, approximately 92% and 72% of the sellers do not wear gloves and aprons, respectively, when selling. Consistent with Sulleyman et al. (2018), most sellers indicated that they would wear aprons and gloves if they had financial assistance. Other sellers also revealed that wearing gloves during work would make their hands feel slippery.

Table 5. Safety practices adopted by beef sellers

Safety practices	Frequency (N=820)	%
Store your unsold meat in a cold facility after selling (Yes=1)	789	96.2
Keep cleaning and maintenance tools away from the meat selling area (Yes=1)	659	80.4
Examined medically and confirmed fit before venturing into beef selling Yes=1)	41	5.0
Wash your hands before and after each time you touch the meat for each transaction (Yes=1)	111	13.5
Sell when you have a cut or a wound on your hands	31	3.8
Wear gloves when selling your meat (Yes=1)	13	1.6
Wear apron when selling your meat (Yes=1)	230	28.0

Source: Field survey, 2021.

3.5. Safety preference of beef consumers

Table 6 presents the results of the ranking of safety practices preferred by consumers based on the level of preference. The results reveal that beef consumers rated meat from sellers who sell in a clean environment as their most preferred meat purchasing point. This confirms the findings of Owusu-Sekyere (2014) where consumers in the Ashanti region rated shopping environment among other factors as extremely important attributes of beef preferred and considered in purchasing decision.

Table 6. Safety preferences of beef consumers

Preference	Mean	Rank
Meat from sellers who sell in a clean environment	3.86	1^st
Meat from well-trained sellers	4.82	2^nd
Meat from sellers who wear aprons	4.94	3^rd
Meats stored in refrigerators the previous day	5.25	4^th
Meat covered with mesh	5.63	5^th
Meat cut with sterilized tools	5.72	6^th
Sellers who wash their hand regularly	5.73	7^th
Meats obtained from approved sources such as abattoirs	5.89	8^th
Sellers with no cuts and wounds on hands used in handling the meat	6.19	9^th
Sellers who wear gloves to handle the meat	6.97	10^th
Test statistics
N	526
Kendall’s W^a	0.780
Chi Square	184.222
Df	9
Asymp. Significance	0.000

Note: 1=Most preferred, 2=more preferred, 3=moderately preferred and so on.

Source: Field survey, 2021.

The next ranked safety practices were meat purchased from well-trained sellers, meat from sellers who wear aprons and meats stored in refrigerators the previous day which were ranked as the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th preferred safety practices, respectively. However, consumers ranked purchasing from meat sellers who wear gloves as the least preferred practice. The Kendall’s W is 0.780 suggesting that there is a high level of agreement (78%) among the consumers in terms of rankings of their preference for the various safety practices; hence, majority of the consumers agreed to the rankings of the statements. Consequently, meat sellers in Ghana should pay attention to the aforementioned safety preferences in order to enhance their sales.

3.6. Factors influencing adoption of safety practices by beef sellers

The multivariate probit model estimates of factors influencing adoption of safety practices in beef selling are presented in Table 7. The Wald chi-square test (X² = 122.42, p-value = 0.000) is significantly different from zero suggesting the joint influence of the explanatory variables. Also, the likelihood ratio test confirms that the MVP model appropriately fits the data. The key safety practices adopted are: hand washing before and after each time sellers touch the meat, selling without cut/wound, wearing of aprons, storage of left-over meat in a cold facility, medical examination of sellers before venturing into the beef selling activity, keeping of cleaning and maintenance tools away from the meat selling area and wearing of gloves. The results show that various socioeconomic factors influenced the adoption of safety practices. Interestingly, credit access has a positive and significant influence on adopting of all the food safety practices. Credit access enhances sellers’ financial capacity to purchase materials required for adhering to these safety practices, hence, the positive and highly significant effect of access to credit on the adoption of all the safety practices. Hence, meat sellers with access to credit are more likely to adhere to and adopt the recommended safety practices. Credit also empowers sellers to be able to afford the needed logistics for adopting and adhering to the safety practices in meat selling. In addition, in order to repay for the loan, sellers need to make more sales and hence more income to be able to repay for the credit hence cannot afford the risk of not adhering to these safety practices which could lower their incomes (Teferi & Hernández Yáñez, 2022; Yu et al., 2022).

Table 7. Multivariate probit estimates of factors influencing adoption of safety practices among beef sellers

Variables	Hand Wash	Wound Sell	Apron Wear	Cold storage	Medical Exam	Clean and Maintenance	Gloves Wear
	ME	ME	ME	ME	ME	ME	ME
Gender (male)	0.015*	0.032**	−0.164	0.533	0.053	0.137**	0.070
	(0.066)	(0.081)	(0.072)	(0.041)	(0.040)	(0.057)	(0.018)
Age (years)	0.077**	0.040	0.131***	0.050***	0.376***	−0.958	0.023
	(0.083)	(0.093)	(0.008)	(0.047)	(0.046)	(0.066)	(0.021)
Income (GHS)	0.221***	0.020	−0.017	0.040***	−0.073**	−0.067	0.021**
	(0.033)	(0.039)	(0.035)	(0.020)	(0.019)	(0.028)	(0.009)
Work Experience	0.102***	−0.035	0.307***	0.049**	−0.146***	0.433***	−0.035
	(0.032)	(0.036)	(0.032)	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.026)	(0.008)
Credit access	0.254***	0.170**	0.013**	0.086**	0.039*	0.101*	0.027***
	(0.060)	(0.074)	(0.065)	(0.037)	(0.037)	(0.052)	(0.017)
Member of Association	0.082	0.069**	0.101***	0.032**	0.010	0.157***	−0.004
	(0.030)	(0.032)	(0.028)	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.023)	(0.007)
Engaged in other economic activity	0.114	0.537***	0.357***	−0.217	0.082	0.123	0.322
	(0.077)	(0.091)	(0.081)	(0.046)	(0.046)	(0.065)	(0.021)
Primary	0.064 (0.041)	−0.029 (0.046)	0.142 (0.041)	−0.031 (0.023)	−0.031 (0.023)	−0.126 (0.033)	−0.041 (0.011)
Junior High	−0.048 (0.052)	−0.010 (0.057)	0.229 (0.050)	0.016 (0.029)	0.055 (0.028)	−0.265*** (0.040)	0.055*** (0.013)
Senior High	0.359*** (0.068)	0.049 (0.080)	0.228 (0.070)	−0.061 (0.040)	−0.139 (0.040)	−0.033 (0.056)	0.101*** (0.018)
Constant	0.290***	0.196***	−0.498***	−0.632	−0.228**	0.239**	0.186***
	(0.211)	(0.170)	(0.750)	(0.690)	(0.099)	(0.072)	(0.017)
Number of observations		820
Wald chi^2 (10)		122.42
Prob > chi^2		0.000
Likelihood ratio test of rho21 = rho31 = rho41 = rho32 = rho42 = rho43 = 0: chi2(15)= 34.11

Standard errors in parentheses. ME=Marginal Effects. No formal education used as base group. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Source: Field survey, 2021.

Male sellers are more likely to adopt hand wash, wound sell and clean and maintenance practices together. This finding is surprising because women tend to be more directly involved in household cleanliness and hygiene hence such values are expected to reflect in their meat selling businesses. This finding is contrary to Delia et al. (2012) who found women to have better food safety practice behaviors than men. However, with regard to selling meat without cuts/wounds, there was a higher likelihood for men to sell when they have a cut/wound than females. This reflects the less affinity of men to adhere to safety practices than women, hence having less concern with the implications of selling the meat when having cut/wound. Similar to the findings of Delia et al. (2012) women have been found to have better potential to adhere to food safety practice than men.

Age has a positive and significant effect on the adoption of hand wash, apron wear, cold storage and medical examination. Aged beef sellers are more likely to adopt wash, apron wear, cold storage and medical examination by 7.7%, 13.1%, 5% and 37.6%, respectively. Adzitey et al. (2020) reported that almost all meat sellers are aware that washing their hands reduces the risk of contamination, hence the positive effect of work experience on the adoption of the hand washing. Of the seven safety practices, income of a seller positively and significantly influenced four practices—hand wash, cold storage, gloves wear. As beef sellers’ income increases by GHS1, their probability of adopting hand wash, cold storage, gloves wear increased by 22.1%, 4%, 7.3% and 2.1%, respectively. Generally, higher incomes increase beef sellers’ ability to afford the required materials such as soaps and detergents used in hand washing. However, income variable has a negative effect on medical exam indicating that lower income decreases the likelihood of adopting medical examinations. Work experience of beef sellers positively and significantly influenced five out of the seven safety practices—hand wash, wound sell, apron wear, cold storage, medical exam, and clean and maintenance. Additional year of working experience increases the beef sellers’ probability of adopting hand wash. However, work experience and income had a negative influence on medical examination. This implies that experienced beef sellers tend not to undergo medical examination prior to beef selling. This is because their previous experiences make them contented with the business hence ignoring such a crucial safety practice. Consistent with previous studies (Adzitey et al., 2020; Kehinde et al., 2020; Teferi & Hernández Yáñez, 2022; Zelalem et al., 2021) found positive relationship between experience and safety practices. SHS level of education had a positive and significant effect on the adoption of hand washing and gloves wearing safety practices. This is because the higher the level of education of the seller, the higher the likelihood of he/she being educated on the implications of hygiene. Education enhances beef sellers’ understanding and knowledge of the importance adhering to the relevant safety practices and the implications of hygiene on both themselves and consumers. This agrees with the findings of Al Banna et al. (2021) who asserted that respondents with high educational levels have a better appreciation of food safety practices in Bangladesh. Similar findings were found in Malaysia (Sofea et al., 2022), the United States (Yu et al., 2022) and Ethiopia (Teferi & Hernández Yáñez, 2022).

Belonging to association influenced the adoption of four out of the seven safety practices—apron wear, cold storage, clean and maintenance, and wound sell. The implication is that by joining meat sellers associations, they are more likely to adopt better food safety practices since the association may target particular niche of consumers in the market. In addition, sellers who are members of a beef selling association have a higher likelihood of receiving training lessons on the required safety practices through their associations. Through the activities of the association, they are able to receive education from professionals in safety practices through organized meetings or seminars by the association (Thuo et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2022). Engaging in other economic activities has a positive significant effect on selling with cut/wound. The implication is that such wound/cut may have been acquired through the engagement in other economic activities. For instance, sellers are likely to have divided attention when they manage two or more additional businesses and hence, more likely not to pay attention to the adoption of the required safety practices in beef selling. Sellers who engage in other economic activities are able to generate income from the other business to help them afford the materials such as aprons required in adopting the safety practice (Kehinde et al., 2020; Limon, 2021).

4. Conclusions and policy recommendation

We examined the perception and adoption of food safety practices among beef sellers and consumers using 820 beef sellers and 526 beef consumers sampled from the Kumasi central market in Ghana. The results show that the overall perception index was 4.27, indicating that most sellers agreed to all the perception statements on food safety practices. This implies that most of the beef sellers had knowledge on the required food safety practices specified by the Food and Drugs Authority. On assessing the perception of consumers on the safety practices, the overall perception index was 4.30 suggesting that most consumers agreed to all the statements, hence, had knowledge on the safety practices required in beef selling. The results on safety practices adopted by beef sellers show that majority of the sellers store their leftover meat in a cold facility after selling and also keep their cleaning and maintenance tools away from the meat selling area. Nevertheless, most sellers do not sell when they have a wound or cut on their hands. We further indicate that sellers are not examined medically and confirmed fit before venturing into the beef industry. Majority of the sellers do not adopt safety practices such as washing their hands before and after each time they touch the meat for each transaction, wearing gloves when selling their meat and wearing apron. Our findings suggest that consumers rated meat from sellers who sell in a clean environment and meat from well-trained sellers as the most preferred safety practices.

Consequently, results on factors influencing adoption of safety practices by beef sellers revealed that variables such as age, gender, educational level, credit access, membership of association, income and work experience significantly influenced sellers’ probability of adopting food safety practices. More importantly, credit access positively and significantly influenced all the food safety practices—hand washing, selling without cut/wound, wearing of aprons, cold storage, medical examination of sellers, clean and maintenance tools, and wearing of gloves. This emphasized the need of credit to sellers to improve adoption of food safety practices.

The study makes the following recommendations: First, most beef sellers were not examined medically before venturing into the activity; therefore, there is a need that the FDA should enforce the medical examination requirement for beef sellers and the issuance of medical certificates. Also, meat is handled fresh and unpackaged by the seller hence wounds/cuts on the seller will cause the transfer of infections and diseases onto the meat which renders the meat unsafe for public consumption. Therefore, enforcement of the medical examination requirement will help prevent this menace. Issuance of medical certificates will also help justify if a seller has been examined medically. Second, we recommended that there should a continuous public education on healthy and safe meat practices among beef sellers by veterinary practitioners because of its significant influence on adoption of FSPs. It is also recommended that the creation of a comfortable and hygienic selling environment could be considered as a strategy in beef selling because if a seller considers selling in a clean and hygienic environment, there is a higher likelihood of he/she attracting more customers. Lastly, policies for strengthening credit access capacity in the face of adherence to safety practices should be targeted beef sellers as the credit access significantly influenced all adoption of FSPs. Also, encouraging creation of meat associations could help and motivate beef sellers to adopt the necessary FSPs in order to attract more consumers. Future studies should examine the intensity of adoption of FSPs and also use longitudinal data to study the dynamics of beef sellers and consumers perception about food safety practices.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).