lable at ScienceDirect

Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141

Contents lists avai

Food Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ foodcont

Students’ food safety concerns and choice of eating place in Ghana

Issahaku Adam*, Stephen Edem Hiamey, Ewoenam Afua AfenyoDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 September 2013Received in revised form24 February 2014Accepted 4 March 2014Available online 19 March 2014

Keywords:Bush canteenConcernsEating placeFood safetyRestaurantUniversity students

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ233 242 358740.E-mail address: issahaku.adam@ucc.edu.gh (I. Ada

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.03.0050956-7135/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Food safety concerns are critical elements in improving food services and subsequently enhancingpatronage of food service establishments. Despite its critical role in determining the viability of foodservice establishments, little empirical studies have attempted to link food safety to choice of eatingplaces especially in non-western societies. Using the University of Cape Coast as a case study, data wascollected from a randomly sampled 1106 students and analysed with the binary logistic regression. Thestudy revealed that students who were concerned with food safety issues have higher tendencies ofeating from restaurants than unorganised food service establishments (bush canteen) despite its highprice tags. The study therefore concluded that food safety concerns determine the choice of an eatery.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Food consumption away from home is an increasing phenom-enon among all sub-categories of the population across the world(Ares, Gimenez, & Gambaro, 2009; Huffman & West, 2007). It isestimated that by the year 2015, 50% of the expenses on foodwill beon food consumed away from home (Huffman & West, 2007;Wansink, van Ittersum, & Painter, 2004). The increasing pattern ofconsumption of food away from home raises a lot of concerns aboutfood safety. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)food safety includes actions that should be taken to ensure thatfood is safe for consumption. ‘Food safety encompasses actionsaimed at ensuring that all food is as safe as possible’ (WHO, 2014).Miles et al. (2004) express the view that consumers are exposed toseveral food hazards as a result of their choice of food and con-sumption behaviour. It is the choice of food and the eating place orplace to get the food that exposes the consumer to a myriad of riskand concerns.

Consumers are often exposed to food safety risks due to thematerial product (what the consumer actually consumes), thebehaviour or attitude of the food service establishment employeesand the environment (the only tangible feature at the time ofpurchase) in which the food is prepared and served (Goh, Garcia,Joung & Fowler, 2013). Consequently, the eating environment

m).

becomes the basis for determining whether an establishmentprovides safe food or not (Worsfold & Worsfold, 2008).

Although food prepared at home have been attributed to be-tween 50 and 87 percent of foodborne illnesses (Redmond &Griffith, 2003; WHO, 2002), most people are of the view thatfoodborne illness originate from restaurant and food manufac-turers (Sanlier & Konaklioghi, 2012). This view follows the intuitionthat individuals have control over meals prepared at homewhereasfood prepared outside of the home is subject to controls that theindividual can do nothing about, leaving his/her fate in the hands offood service operators (Knight, Worosz, & Todd, 2007).

Consumers’ concerns about the safety of the food they eat havebeen around for some time now (Naspetti & Zanoli, 2009). How-ever, it has assumed a growing prominence mainly due in part tofood safety scares around the globe in 2011. The German Escher-ichia coli vegetable problems, milk and spinach lovers fear of eatingcontaminated milk and spinach from Japan due to the Fukushimanuclear reactor problems and the recurrence of melaminecontaminated baby food in China are recent examples (Rampl,Eberhardt, Schutte, & Kenning, 2012). In July of 2013, scores ofschool children in Goa, India died from eating poisoned food. InGhana, in 2012 alone, there were several incidences of choleraoutbreaks in the country with 9542 reported cases and 100 fatal-ities (Smith-Asante, 2013) which were mostly attributable to un-hygienic eating places or surroundings which again highlight thereasons why consumers rate food safety issues higher than crimeprevention, safe drinking water, health and nutrition and theenvironment (Kennedy, Worosz, Todd, & Lapinski, 2008).

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141136

Public eating places have been implicated in food borne illnessesoutbreaks with most of the cases relating to mishandling of foodand dirty environment (Knight et al., 2007; Knight, Worosz, & Todd,2009; Medus, Smith, Bender, Leano, & Hedberg, 2010; Rudder,2006). Clayton and Griffith (2004) note that commercial cateringpremises are the most frequently identified setting for foodborneoutbreaks in the UK and the USA. And in Ghana, research by Tiimub,Kuffour, and Kwarteng (2012; lettuce used in food production),Feglo and Sakyi (2102), Tomlins and Johnson (2004) and Mensah,Yeboah-Manu, Owusu-Darko, and Ablordey (2002) into thewholesomeness of samples of food sold in a number of eateries alsofound large concentrations of E. coli, staphylococcus aureus andmesophilic bacteria among other harmful bacteria which furtherbuttress the argument that food vendors are at the centre oftransmitting foodborne illness.

Consumers’ choice of food and to an extent, the choice of theeating place is influenced by a myriad of factors. Studies includingLee, Niode, Simonne, and Bruhn (2012), Knight et al. (2009),Henson et al. (2006), Worsfold (2006) have observed a relation-ship between consumers’ perception of food safety and their choiceof eating places. Lee et al. (2012) stated that consumers oftenemploy aesthetics, cleanliness of the dining room and restroom,and health inspectors’ report as an indication of the safeness of foodbeing served by the food establishment. Similarly, Knight et al.(2009) in their review of consumers’ perceptions about foodsafety at restaurants observed that the appearance of the food,taste, property of the food (e.g. spicy, greasy), cleanliness of thestaff, level of patronage, years of existence of the food establish-ment were used by consumers as parameters for determining foodsafety in restaurants. Worsfold (2006) citing a consumer surveydone by Kimberley Clark Professional revealed that about 84% ofthe respondents rated food safety above the quality and price offood and would not return to a particular restaurant they consid-ered as unhygienic. Again, Henson et al. (2006) in their study onconsumers’ assessment of safety of restaurants and its impact onrestaurant choice in Canada showed that consumers expressedfood safety concerns mainly about ethnic and fast food restaurants.About 56% of their respondents had actually stopped eating atparticular restaurants due to food safety concerns.

In Ghana, tertiary students are expected to arrange their ownfood unlike the boarding facilities that are provided for secondaryand lower level students by school authorities. Yet, food preparedand sold on university campusesmay not bewell regulated in termsof the health and hygienic conditions under which it is preparedespecially in developing countries where regulatory bodies areeither non-existent or do not have the courage to enforce regula-tions. The absence of food control systems to regulate the activitiesof food vendors could result in breaches in food hygiene withpossible health consequenceswhich should not be out of place sincepersonal hygiene is found to be least observed by food vendors.There is evidence to support the fact that about 70% of all bacterialfood poisoning in Ghana is caused by caterers (Annor & Baiden,2011). Even in countries where there are regulations and legisla-tions on inspection of food service facilities, there are still inade-quate food safety practices and non-compliance (Griffith, Livesey, &Clayton, 2010; Knight et al., 2007). In the USA, for instance, mostrestaurants routinely ignored rules for safe food preparation(Buchholz, Run, Kool, Fielding, & Mascola, 2002; Walczak, 2000).

In 2007, thirty students at the University of Ghana, Legon wererushed to the hospital after they had consumed “wakye” a localmeal of rice and beans sold by food vendors on campus (Ghanaweb,2007). The University of Cape Coast hospital in 2010 reported thatmost of the students that reported to the hospital sick had foodrelated diseases including abdominal pains, diarrhoea, vomiting,and typhoid fever (Duodu, 2012).

The threat of eating contaminated food among tertiary studentsis worrying since they are expected to engage themselves in anevaluation of food safety and the hygienic conditions under whichcertain foods are prepared and sold before they make purchases ofsuch food (Morris, Evans, Tangney, Bienias, & Wilson, 2005). Thisview is further bolstered by Kris-Etherton, Harris, and Apple (2002)and Mozaffarian and Rimm (2006) who opine that students arecritical of the health implications of where they buy their foodfrom.

Despite the unregulated nature of the activities of food serviceestablishments on Ghanaian university campuses, little empiricalresearch work exists in exploring the health and safety concerns ofstudents and its influence on their choice of eating places oncampus. However, health and safety issues constitute importantareas of concern for both students and university authorities. Thispaper therefore aims to explore the health and safety concerns ofstudents and determine the influence of health and safety concernson their choice of eating places on campus.

Mostly, the price of food is the utmost factor associated withuniversity students’ choice of eating places on campus (Adderley-Kelly, 2007; Haapala & Probart, 2004), however, gaining an un-derstanding into the health and safety concerns and its influence onchoice of eating place will draw the authorities attention to the factthat the price of food is not the only factor students concernthemselves with. Once the food health concerns of the students areknown, food service establishments can work on their services toimprove on such health and safety conditions. This will help allaythe fears of the students and subsequently help improve onpatronage by the students. In addition to this, the findings of thisstudy may also be useful to university authorities by drawing theirattention to the unhygienic and unhealthy food practices of foodservice providers on campus. In terms of addition to literature, thispaper stands to contribute by highlighting on the food health andsafety concerns of students and how it impacts on their choice ofeating places. Generally, the influence of health and safety concernson the choice of eating place has received little empirical attentionespecially within the context of developing countries like Ghana. Inthis regard, this study will add new knowledge on the influence ofhealth and safety concerns on the choice of eating places.

2. Theoretical framework

The optimist and pessimist theory is adopted for this study.Optimistic and pessimistic beliefs are widespread hopes of positiveand negative outcomes (Milam, Richardson, Marks, Kemper, &Mccutchan, 2004). Optimism and pessimism reflect the extent towhich individuals hold favourable and unfavourable expectationsabout a future event respectively (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom,2010; Rasmussen, Scheier, & Greenhouse, 2009). According toMilam et al. (2004) pessimism generally has a direct associationwith poor health outcomes; as pessimism increases, poor healthbehaviours and outcomes also increase. Further, some studies thatseparated optimism and pessimism found a direct and strong as-sociation between health outcomes and pessimism than the asso-ciation for optimism (Long & Sangster, 1993; Smith et al., 1995).Although the two have been considered to be two sides of the samecoin and therefore not mutually exclusive, some researchersconsider dispositional optimism and pessimism to be empiricallydistinct, representing two unipolar dimensions as opposed toopposite ends of a single continuum (Achat, Kawachi, Spiro,DeMolles, & Sparrow, 2000; Raikkonen, Matthews, Flory, Owens,& Gump, 1999; Robinson-Whelen, Kim, MacCallum, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1997). Carver et al. (2010) consider the two as traits ortrait-like personality dispositions which could remain stable acrosstime.

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141 137

Palgi (2013) is of the view that at a certain point in time whenindividuals are confronted with a finite outcome, the optimisticapproach gives way or is degraded and the pessimist approach setsin. This theory is relevant to study of consumers’ food safety con-cerns in the light of increasing foodborne diseases. In the foodservice industry De Jonge, VanTrip, Van der Lans, Renes, and Frewer(2008) have used the theory to study consumer confidence in thesafety of food. The thrust of the model is on consumers’ confidencein the safety of the food they eat. That is, the degree to whichconsumers perceive the food they eat to be safe (Amuquandoh,2011). Optimism is the degree to which consumers are confidentin the safety of the food they eat and pessimism is the degree towhich they feel less confident in the safety of the food they eat (DeJonge et al., 2008). Therefore, in choosing eating places that providevarying expectations of safety especially on a university campus,students’ choice is seen to be influenced by whether they areoptimistic or pessimistic about the safety of such places.

3. Study method

3.1. Study area

The University of Cape Coast is located about 100 m from theAtlantic Ocean. It has two main adjourning campuses namely theNorth and South campuses. The University was established in 1962as a University College. It was the third public university to beestablished in Ghana after the University of Ghana and KwameNkrumah University of Science and Technology. Currently, it is oneof the eight public universities in the country. The Universitycurrently has a student population of 16, 113 comprising 10, 813males and 5300 females.

Today, the University provides avenues for learning in a myriadof subject areas which are grouped under faculties of Arts, SocialSciences, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, Education, andBusiness. The University has seven main halls of residence oncampus and students upon admission are affiliated to one of thesehalls. Each of the seven halls has various eateries ranging fromtraditional food hawkers who either prepare the food at home orprepare it within the premises of the halls, to conventional res-taurants with highly structured menus and formalised eating en-vironments. In addition to this, the University has also provided alot of avenues for food hawkers to prepare and sell food at certainvintage points or prepare the food at their home and sell them oncampus. Also, there are other formalised eateries on campus thatoperate under more organised environment. All these eateries oncampus are owned by private individuals and the University itselfdoes not provide any eating avenues to students. The various fooditems sold by the vendors on campus include snacks, beverages,fruits, and all sorts of Ghanaian traditional dishes with the popularones being fufu, banku, waakye, and kenkey. These food vendorsare largely not regulated by a body within the University or outsideit and hence raise a lot of questions regarding the health and hy-gienic conditions under which these foods are prepared and sold.

3.2. Data collection

The study was based on a sample of 1106 students of the Uni-versity of Cape Coast in November 2012. A multistage samplingtechnique was used in selecting the students. The first stageinvolved the stratification of the students into the seven halls ofaffiliation or residence in the University. At the second stage, aproportionate sample was drawn from each of the halls. The thirdstage involved a proportional allocation of the sample to each hallby gender. The fourth stage was based on a systematic randomsampling which was used to draw specific students from each hall

based on the list of students obtained from the data managementsection of the University.

The data was collected through a questionnaire which consistedof two sections. The first section focused on the food safety con-cerns of students. Various food safety concerns of consumers wereconsidered from Walczak (2000), Tomlins and Johnson (2004) andMensah et al. (2002) in the construction of the questions on foodsafety concerns of the students. The respondents were asked to listtheir food safety concerns related to the food they buy on campus.The idea was to allow the students to freely express their concernsrather than limiting them in the level of concerns they can express.This technique allowed for varied responses on food safety con-cerns which were later grouped under major themes. The secondsection of the instrument captured the frequency (number oftimes) of buying food or eating at the two main eateries on campusin a week. For the purpose of this study and following the classi-fication given by the University, the eateries on campus wereclassified into two main types namely ‘bush canteen’ and ‘restau-rant’. ‘Bush canteen’ comprises all eateries on campus that are notformalised and include such foods provided by food hawkers.‘Restaurant’ on the other hand refers to all eateries on campus thatare formalised with specific settings and highly structured fooddelivery procedures and menus. The third and final section of thequestionnaire captured the socio-demographic characteristics ofthe students including variables such as semester expenditure(used a proxy for income or socio-economic status), age, sex,marital status, ethnic origin, year of study and hall of affiliation, andfaculty of study.

The questionnaire was pretested on a sample of 30 students atthe Cape Coast Polytechnic. This institution of study was selectedfor the pre-testing exercise because it is also a tertiary institutionlocated in the same city as the University and hence students of thepolytechnic are likely to share the same characteristics in terms offood safety concerns as those of the University. Besides being stu-dents of a tertiary institution, students of the Polytechnic havesimilar characteristics in terms of demography, interests andlearning environment as their counterparts in the University. Thepre-testing exercise helped to assess the reliability of the questionsas well as the validity of the results obtained and where appro-priate, modifications were made to the questionnaire. The ques-tionnaire was constructed in the English Language since English isthe official language and the medium of instruction at all levels ofeducation in Ghana.

3.3. Data analyses

Out of a total of 1200 questionnaires that were filled by thestudents, 1106 questionnaires were found to be well answered andhence useful for further analyses. Subsequently, the useful ques-tionnaires were coded and keyed into the Statistical Package forService Solution (SPSS) version 16 for the analyses. One main sta-tistical technique was used in analysing the data. Binary logisticregression was used to assess the influence of students’ food safetyconcerns on their choice of eating place (formal [restaurant] andinformal [bush canteen]) on campus. Thus, each of the food safetyconcerns raised by the students were used as the independentvariable and regressed against the eating place frequently patron-ised by students. The binary logistic regression model has theability to accept independent variables of varying measurementlevels (Pallant, 2005; Sweet, 1999). The dependent variable (eatingplace) was subsequently coded into binary form (0 and 1). Since theideal is to have students buy food and eat from formalised andwell-structured eating places (Cooley & Toray, 2001; Szweda & Thorne,2002), the formal eating places (restaurants) were coded as 1while the informal eating places (bush canteen) were coded as 0. For

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141138

each of the independent variables, the response categories weretwofold: not concerned and concerned which were coded as notconcerned ¼ 1 and concerned ¼ 2. The not concerned responsecategory was used as the reference category for each of the inde-pendent variables.

4. Results of the study

4.1. Profile of the sample

The sample was dominated by male students who constituted65.5% of the sample as against 34.3% of females. In terms of agedistribution, students in the ages of 20e25 years were in the ma-jority (59.0%) as opposed to thosewhowere 20 years or less (18.0%),26e30 years (15.2%) and above 30 years (7.8%) as shown in Table 1.

Most of the students were single (54.3%) while almost one-third(29.5%) indicated they were in relationship with only 16.2% beingmarried. Table 1 indicates that students who are of the Akan ethnicgroup were in the majority (52.9%). The Ewe (17.8%) ethnic groupwas the next highest followed by Ga-Adanbge (17.8%), Mole-Dabgani (8.9%) and other northern extracts (7.6%).

Table 1Profile of the sample.

Socio-demographic N Percent

SexMale 303 65.7Female 158 34.3

Age (years)�20 83 18.021e25 272 59.026e30 70 15.231þ 36 7.8

Marital statusIn a relationship 136 29.5Single 250 54.3Married 75 16.2

Ethnic groupGa-Adangbe 59 12.8Akan 244 52.9Ewe 82 17.8Mole-Dabgani 41 8.9Other northern extracts 35 7.6

Expenditure (US $)�250 120 26.0251e550 263 57.0551e850 40 8.7851e1150 18 3.91151þ 20 4.3

Hall of affiliationKwame Nkrumah 109 23.6Valco 93 20.2Casford 52 11.3Atlantic 48 10.4Oguaa 78 16.9Adehye 35 7.6Valco Trust 46 10.0

FacultySocial Science 46 10.0Arts 75 16.3Physical Science 81 17.6Biological Science 58 12.6School of Business 59 12.8Education 102 22.1School of Agriculture 40 8.7

Most of the students (57.0%) spent between 251 and 550 USdollars in a semester while 26% of them spent 250 US dollars or less.Other students also spent between 551 and 850 US dollars (8.7%),851 to 1150 US dollars (3.9%) and 1151 US dollars and above (4.3%).Students in the Education Faculty were more (22.1%) than theircounterparts in Physical Science Faculty (17.6%), Arts Faculty(16.3%), School of Business (12.8%), School of Biological Science(12.6%), Social Science Faculty (10.0%) and School of Agriculture(8.7%).

4.2. Food safety concerns

Students listed and indicated their levels of concerns relating toa number of food safety issues. As shown in Table 2, the students’food safety concerns spanned nine areas relating to the food itself,food handlers, and the environment within which the food isserved. The food safety issue that attracted the most concern bystudents was the food temperature (82.9%) as well as the hygienicappearance of the food handlers (82.7%).

Other food safety concerns of the students include cleanliness ofthe serving area (73.0%), ventilation of the eating area (71.8%) andthe freshness of the food (71.2%) being patronised. The studentsalso indicated that their concernwith food safety relates to the tasteof the food (66.9%), how well cooked the food (66.9%) they eat is,the cleanliness of the dining tables (63.8%) and the food presen-tation skills of the food handlers (63.2%). On the overall, studentsexpressed concerns (73.2%) with the various food safety measures.

4.3. Food safety concerns and choice of eating place on campus

This section explored the influence of students’ food safetyconcerns on their choice of eating place on campus. Here, the twomain categories of eating places on campus (bush canteen andrestaurant) were used. The binary logistic regression was used todetermine the influence of the food concerns on the choice ofeating place. The characteristics of the output of the binary logisticregression are displayed in Table 3. The characteristics include theExp (B) which represents the odds ratio (likelihood ratio), the Waldvalue and the significance (P) which shows the degree of impor-tance the individual predictor has on the entire model, B and the SEwhich represents the unstandardized beta and standard errorrespectively. To be considered significant to the model, a predictorvariable should have a combined odds ratio value of more than 1and a significant (P) value of less than 0.05 (Kinnear & Gray, 2002;Pallant, 2005; Sweet, 1999). When the Exp (B) or odds ratio is lessthan 1, increasing values of the variable correspond to decreasingodds of the event’s occurrence and vice versa.

The model emerged as a good predictor of students’ choice ofeating place on campus as indicated by the Omnibus Tests of ModelCoefficients {(c2 ¼ 10.407, 9) P¼ 0.019}. This was further confirmedby the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test {(c2 ¼ 5.495, 8) P¼ 0.704}. For a

Table 2Students’ food safety concerns.

Food safety concern N Concerned Not concerned

Clean eating tables 1106 63.8 36.2Food taste 1106 66.9 33.1Food temperature 1106 82.9 17.1Food presentation 1106 63.2 36.8Well cooked 1106 66.9 33.1Freshness of food 1106 71.2 28.8Cleanliness of serving area 1106 73.0 27.0Cleanliness of eating area 1106 70.5 29.5Ventilation of eating place 1106 71.8 28.2Appearance of food handlers 1106 82.7 17.3

Table 3Binary logistic regression on influence of food safety concerns on choice of eatingplace.

Food safety concern B SE Odds ratio Wald P value

Clean tables 0.523 0.265 5.66 1.72 0.018*Taste of food 0.867 0.276 1.84 0.69 0.213Temperature of food 1.320 0.275 6.53 1.67 0.002*Well cooked food 1.112 0.277 3.87 1.06 0.021*Cleanliness of serving area 1.311 0.345 1.22 0.89 0.413Cleanliness of eating area 1.103 0.282 4.31 1.21 0.001*Ventilation of eating area 0.855 0.302 1.12 1.74 0.452Neat appearance of servers 0.987 0.339 4.25 1.21 0.011*Freshness of food 0.982 0.287 2.36 0.78 0.327Constant 1.838 0.617 6.67 2.17 0.000*

*P � 0.05.Nagelkerke R2 ¼ 0.557.Hosmer and Lemeshow Test: c2 ¼ 5.495, df ¼ 8, P ¼ 0.704.Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients: c2 ¼ 10.407, df ¼ 9, P ¼ 0.019.

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141 139

model to be a good predictor, the P value of the Hosmer andLemeshow test has to be greater than 0.05. The P value for theHosmer and Lemeshow test of this model was 0.704 thus indicatinga string reliability of the model. Meanwhile, Pallant (2005) arguesthat this is the most reliable test of model fit in a binary logisticregression model.

The model predicted over half (55.7%) of the variation in stu-dents’ choice of eating place on campus as indicated by theNagelkerke R Square of 0.557. However, despite the significance ofthe model in explaining students’ choice of eating place on campus,not all the independent variables (food safety concerns) proved tobe significant in its contribution to the choice of eating place. Five ofthe nine food safety concerns raised by the students were found tobe significant to the model. The greatest significant influence offood safety concern on choice of eating place was exerted by theconcern on the temperature of the food on account of its odds ratioand significance (P) value. Thus, students whowere concernedwiththe temperature of food they buy are significantly more likely (5.66times) to buy food from a restaurant than the bush canteen. Simi-larly, students who were concerned with the cleanliness of theeating area were five times likely to eat from restaurant than bushcanteen. Also, the model indicated that students who were con-cerned with appearance of the food handlers were four (4) timeslikely to eat from restaurant than bush canteen. How well food iscooked as a concern by the students was also significant in pre-dicting choice of eating place. It can be observed from Table 3 thatstudents who expressed concern with how well food is cookedwere three (3) times likely to eat from restaurant than bushcanteen.

4.4. Discussion, conclusion and implications

Students’ concern on food temperature as a food safety issue isconsistent with the literature on food safety. Kris-Etherton et al.(2002) and Mozaffarian and Rimm (2006) have intimated thatcustomers who eat out usually have favour for hot food to ensurethat he heating process have eliminated vegetative forms of food-borne pathogens and thus the risk of infection. In the case of theGhanaians, cooked foods are usually expected to be warm espe-cially if it is being bought and consumed away from the home.

The emergence of clean and hygienic eating tables as a key foodsafety concern and predictor of choice of eating place is in tandemwith the observations made by Kidd (2000), Brunso, Fjord, andGrunert (2002), Grunert (2005) and Sanlier and Kanaklioghi(2012) that hygienic eating conditions are usually measured bythe cleanliness of the immediate eating environment such as thedining table which constitutes of the important considerations for

customers who dine out. The dining eating table serves as the stageduring eating and communicates volumes of information to thecustomer in terms whether the food itself might have been pre-pared under hygienic conditions. With regards to the results of thestudy favouring restaurant than the bush canteens, the restaurantshave employees who usually clean the tables immediately aftereating whiles the bush canteen usually has one personwhose mainjob is to dish out the food. In fact, in the case of the bush canteen,the same employee will have to stop dishing out the food inter-mittently in order to wash the plates but the dining tables areusually cleaned once only after the day’s activities. Indeed, it istherefore not surprising that students who are concerned with thecleanliness of the dining table have higher tendency of eating froma restaurant than a bush canteen.

In terms of the cleanliness of the eating environment, this is aperhaps one of themost visible areas in food service operations andtend to give indication of the overall hygienic conditions underwhich the actual food is served. Also, the cleanliness of the diningarea is an indication of the eateries awareness and adherence tofood safety practices and may tend to enhance patronage particu-larly among the educated customer base such as students (Egan,2007; Worsley & Lea, 2008). The study thus suggests that stu-dents who are concernedwith this food safety issue are likely to eatfrom the restaurant is also in line with assertions by Trepka,Murunga, Cherry, Huffman, and Dixon (2006) that reinforces thegeneral thinking that restaurants usually have hygienic operatingenvironments and hence tend to be appealing to consumers whoare interested in food safety issues than the unorganised foodvending services. Similarly, Van Rijswijk and Frewer (2008) andSanlier and Konaklioghi (2012) observed that consumers who areparticular about the hygienic conditions under which food is pre-pared and served are likely to be inclined to patronising restaurantsto food vendors (bush canteen).

The finding also points to the influence of the appearance offood handlers on food patronage. This is an indication that studentsalso equate the appearance of the food handlers to their food safetypractices. It is common practice for consumers to use social andnormative notions to express their concerns on food safety and thussuch notions influence their patronage of eating places(Rheinländer et al., 2008). Per this notion, food handlers who do notappear neat are less likely to adhere to food safety practices whilesthose who appear neat are more likely to adhere to food safetypractices. For this reason, it is a common to find consumers to besceptical about the safety of food being sold by food handlers whodo not appear neat. Similar finding has been reported byRheinländer et al. (2008) in their study on street food in the KumasiMetropolis. Rheinländer et al. (2008) indicated that food safetyknowledge is usually verbalised through social and normative no-tions. They reported that consumers of street food were influencedby physical appearance and presentation of the food vendors. Infact, another Ghanaian normative thought concerning food pre-pared and sold out of the home is that formalised eating places areusually neat and hence less likely to be associated with food borneillnesses as compared to food sold at informal eating places(Rheinländer et al., 2008).

Another food safety concern expressed by the students andwhich influence their choice of eating place as indicated in thestudy was whether the food is cooked well or not. This finding isconsistent with the idea that most food borne illnesses on campusand indeed most parts of Ghana are related food not being wellcooked (Duodu, 2012; Offie-Ansah, 2013). Food that is not wellcooked can result in gastro intestinal infections leading to acutediarrhoea and hence consumers are usually careful about food thatis not well cooked. It is a common occurrence for students to reportsuch problems to the university hospital (Duodu, 2012).

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141140

The study concludes that students’ food safety concerns influencetheir choice of eating places on campus. This therefore confirms theassertions made by Naspetti and Zanoli (2009) that food safety con-cerns of consumers need to be taken seriously by food service pro-viders since it has the tendency to influence the patronage of theirservices. Also, there is sufficientevidence fromthe resultsof the studyto conclude that students’ food safety concerns transcend the fooditem itself to include the environment within which the food is pre-pared and served. Cleanliness of the eating area, appearance of foodhandlers and cleanliness of the dining tables all significantly influ-enced the choice of eating place. However, these food safetyconcernsas expressed by the students related more to the cooking and eatingenvironment than just the food item.

Based on the findings of the study, the following implicationsare posited. The finding that students’ food safety concerns deter-mine their choice of eating place on campus implies once the foodsafety concerns of the students are taken care of and improvedupon, it will invariably lead to increase patronage and hence salesvolume. Further, the study results suggest that students’ food safetyconcerns are greater with the bush canteen than the restaurantsand thus, imply that the University authorities are not doingenough to ensure that various food sellers under the bush canteencategory adhere to food safety practices like their counterparts inthe restaurants. Subsequently, the University authorities canembark on education programmes to educate food handlers on thefood safety concerns of students and also institute a regularmonitoring scheme to ensure that food handlers adhere to certainbasic standards in relation to food safety.

References

Achat, H., Kawachi, I., Spiro, A., DeMolles, D. A., & Sparrow, D. (2000). Optimism anddepression as predictors of physical and mental health functioning: thenormative aging study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22(2), 127e130.

Adderley-Kelly, B. (2007). The prevalence of overweight and obesity among un-dergraduate health science students. ABNF Journal, 18(2), 46e50.

Amuquandoh, F. E. (2011). International tourists’ concerns about traditional foods inGhana. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18, 1e9.

Annor, G. A., & Baiden, E. A. (2011). Evaluation of food hygiene knowledge attitudesand practices of food handlers in food businesses in Accra, Ghana. Food andNutrition Sciences, 2, 830e836.

Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Gambaro, A. (2009). Consumer perceived healthiness andwillingness to try functional milk desserts. Influence of ingredient, ingredientname and health claim. Food Quality & Preference, 20(1), 50e56.

Brunso, K., Fjord, T. A., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and qualityperception. MAPP working paper 77. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business.

Buchholz, U., Run, G., Kool, J. L., Fielding, J., & Mascola, L. (2002). A risk-basedrestaurant inspection system in Los Angeles County. Journal of Food Protection,65(2), 367e372.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical PsychologyReview, 30, 879e889.

Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2004). Observation of food safety practices in cateringusing notational analysis. British Food Journal, 106(3), 211e227.

Cooley, E., & Toray, T. (2001). Body image and personality predictors of eatingdisorder symptoms during the college years. International Journal of EatingDisorders, 30, 28e36.

De Jonge, J., Van Trip, J. C. M., Van der Lans, I. A., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2008).How trust in institutions and organizations build general consumer confidencein the safety of food: a decomposition of effects. Appetite, 5, 311e317.

Duodu, G. A. (2012). Eating behaviour among students of University of Cape Coast. AMaster of Philosophy thesis submitted to the Department of Hospitality andTourism Management. Ghana: University of Cape Coast.

Egan, M. B. (2007). A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in thecommercial sector. Food Control, 18(10), 1180e1190.

Feglo, P., & Sakyi, K. (2012). Bacterial contamination of street vending food inKumasi, Ghana. Journal of Medical and Biomedical Sciences, 1(1), 1e8.

Ghanaweb. (2007). 35 Legon students suffer food poisoning Accessed on 23.3.14http://mobile.ghanaweb.com/wap/article.php?ID¼132200.

Goh, B. K., Garcia, M., Joung, H. W., & Fowler, D. (2013). Residents’ satisfaction withfoodservice at a continuing care retirement community: a pilot study. Journal ofQuality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(2), 185e199.

Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The assessment of food safetyculture. British Food Journal, 112(4), 439e456.

Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand.European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369e391.

Haapala, I., & Probart, C. (2004). Food safety knowledge perceptions and behavioursamong health science students. ABNF Journal, 18(2), 46e50.

Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al. (2006).Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: the role of inspection noticesand other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26, 275e301.

Huffman, L., & West, D. S. (2007). Readiness to change sugar sweetened beverageintake among college students. Eating Behaviors, 8(1), 10e14.

Kennedy, J., Worosz, M., Todd, E. C., & Lapinski, M. K. (2008). Segmentation of USconsumers based on food safety attitudes. British Food Journal, 110(7), 691e705.

Kidd, M. (2000). Food safety e consumer concerns. Nutrition & Food Science, 30(2),53e55.

Kinnear, P., & Gray, D. (2002). SPSS for windows made simple. Sussex: PsychologyPress.

Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. E., & Todd, E. C. D. (2007). Serving food safety: consumerperceptions of food safety at restaurants. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 19(6), 476e484.

Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., & Todd, E. C. D. (2009). Dining for safety: consumerperceptions of food safety and eating out. Journal of Hospitality & TourismResearch, 33(4), 471e486.

Kris-Etherton, P. M., Harris, W. S., & Apple, L. J. (2002). Fish consumption, fish oil,omega 3 fatty acids and cardiovascular diseases. Circulation, 106(21), 2747e2757.

Lee, L. E., Niode, O., Simonne, A. H., & Bruhn, C. M. (2012). Consumer perceptions onfood safety in Asian and Mexican restaurants. Food Control, 26, 531e538.

Long, B. C., & Sangster, J. I. (1993). Dispositional optimism/pessimism and copingstrategies: predictors of psychosocial adjustment of rheumatoid and osteoar-thritis patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1069e1091.

Medus, C., Smith, K. E., Bender, J. B., Leano, F., & Hedberg, C. W. (2010). Salmonellainfections in food workers identified through routine public health surveillancein Minnesota: impact on outbreak recognition. Journal of Food Protection, 73,2053e2058.

Mensah, P., Yeboah-Manu, D., Owusu-Darko, K., & Ablordey, A. (2002). Street foodsin Accra, Ghana: how safe are they? Bulletin of the World Health Organization,80(7), 546e554.

Milam, J. E., Richardson, J. L., Marks, G., Kemper, C. A., & Mccutchan, A. J. (2004). Theroles of dispositional optimism and pessimism in HIV disease progression.Psychology & Health, 19(2), 167e181.

Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Ritson, C., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Publicworry about specific food safety issues. British Food Journal, 106(1), 9e22.

Morris, M. C., Evans, D. A., Tangney, C. C., Bienias, J. L., & Wilson, R. S. (2005). Fishconsumption and cognitive decline with age in a large community study. Ar-chives of Neurology, 62(12), 1849e1853.

Mozaffarian, D., & Rimm, E. B. (2006). Fish intake, contaminants, and human health:evaluating the risk and the benefits. Journal of the American Medical Association,296(15), 1885e1899.

Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. (2009). Organic food quality and safety perceptionthroughout Europe. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15(3), 249e266.

Offie-Ansah, C. (2013). Food habits and preferences as a factor in the choice of mealsby students in the University of Cape Coast. Nutrition and Health, 21(3), 151e172.

Palgi, Y. (2013). Are on-going cumulative chronic stressors associated with opti-mism and pessimism in the second half of life? Anxiety, Stress & Coping: AnInternational Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2013.784901.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to using SPSS for windows(version 12). New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

Raikkonen, K., Matthews, K. A., Flory, J. D., Owens, J. F., & Gump, B. B. (1999). Effects ofoptimism, pessimism, and trait anxiety on ambulatory blood pressure andmoodduring everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 104e113.

Rampl, L. V., Eberhardt, T., Schutte, R., & Kenning, P. (2012). Consumer trust in food:conceptual framework and empirical evidence. International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, 40(4), 254e272.

Rasmussen, H. N., Scheier, M. F., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2009). Optimism and physicalhealth: a meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 239e256.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9111-x.

Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J. (2003). A comparison and evaluation of researchmethods used in consumer food safety studies. International Journal of Con-sumer Studies, 27(1), 17e33.

Rheinländer, T., Olsen, M., Abubakar, J., Takyi, H. B., Konradsen, F., & Samuelsen, H.(2008). Keeping up appearances: perceptions of street food safety in urbanKumasi, Ghana. Journal of Urban Health, 85(6), 952e964.

Robinson-Whelen, S., Kim, C., MacCallum, R. C., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1997). Dis-tinguishing optimism from pessimism in older adults: is it more important tobe optimistic or not to be pessimistic? Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 73, 1345e1353.

Rudder, A. (2006). Food safety and the risk assessment of ethnic minority food retailbusinesses. Food Control, 17, 189e196.

Sanlier, N., & Kanaklioghi, E. (2012). Food safety knowledge, attitude and foodhandling practices of students. British Food Journal, 114(4), 469e480.

Smith, C. A., Wallston, K. A., & Dwyer, K. A. (1995). On babies and bathwater: diseaseimpact and negative affectivity in the self-reports of persons with rheumatoidarthritis. Health Psychology, 14, 64e73.

Smith-Asante, E. (2013). No cholera deaths this year but. Accessed on 23.3.14http://graphic.com.gh/archive/General-News/no-cholera-deaths-this-year-but.html.

Szweda, S., & Thorne, P. (2002). The prevalence of eating disorders in female healthcare students. Occupational Medicine-Oxford, 52(3), 113e119.

I. Adam et al. / Food Control 43 (2014) 135e141 141

Sweet, S. (1999). Data analysis with SPSS. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.Tiimub, B. M., Kuffour, R. A., & Kwarteng, A. S. (2012). Bacterial contamination levels

of lettuce irrigated with waste water in the Kumasi Metropolis. Journal ofBiology, Agriculture and Healthcare. ISSN: 2225-093X, 2(10).

Tomlins, K., & Johnson, P. N. (2004). Developing food safety strategies and proceduresthrough reduction of food hazards in street-vended foods to improve food securityfor consumers, street food vendors and input suppliers. Crop Post Harvest Pro-gramme (CPHP) Project R8270.

Trepka, M. J., Murunga, V., Cherry, S., Huffman, F. G., & Dixon, Z. (2006). Food safetybeliefs and barriers to safe food handling among WIC program clients, Miami,Florida. Journal of Nutritional Education and Behaviour, 38, 371e378.

Van Rijswijk, W., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). Consumer perceptions of food quality andsafety and their relation to traceability. British Food Journal, 110(10), 1034e1046.

Walczak, D. (2000). Overcoming barriers to restaurant food safety. FIU HospitalityReview, 18(2), 89e97.

Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2004). How descriptive food namesbias perceptions in restaurants. Food Quality & Preference, 16(5), 393e400.

WHO. (2002). Statistical information on food-borne disease in Europe: microbio-logical and chemical hazards. In Paper presented at FAO/WHO Pan-Europeanconference on food safety and quality. Budapest, Hungary, 25e28 February 2002.

WHO. (2014). Food safety Accessed on 23.3.14 http://www.who.int/topics/food_safety/en/.

Worsfold, D. (2006). Eating out: consumer perceptions of food safety. InternationalJournal of Environmental Health Research, 6(3), 219e229.

Worsfold, D., & Worsfold, P. M. (2008). ‘Scores on doors’: hygiene disclosureschemes for consumers. Nutrition & Food Science, 38(1), 22e31.

Worsley, A., & Lea, E. (2008). Consumer concerns about food and health: exami-nation of general and specific relationships with personal values and de-mographics. British Food Journal, 110(11), 1106e1118.