The habit, choice, intention, and perception of raw beef consumers on raw beef-eating: the health risk management perspective

Abstract

Apart from its nutritive value, meat is one of the substances for the transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms to consumers and the raw beef eating habit of Ethiopians can create a favourable condition for the transmission of pathogens from contaminated meat to raw beef consumers. The face-to-face interview of raw beef consumers was done using a structured questionnaire and 570 total samples were collected. A considerable number (74%) of raw beef consumers had favourable food choice; 85% of the raw beef consumers had favourable intentions to stop their raw beef eating habit, and 67% of them had an unfavourable perception of the safety of raw beef-eating. In conclusion, the study showed that raw beef consumers were not aware of the health risks of raw beef-eating. As a result, urgent sensitization intervention is required to shift the raw beef consumers from unhealthy eating habits to prudent (processed) eating practices.

Full text

Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-022-00564-1
RESEARCH
The habit, choice, intention, andperception
ofraw beef consumers onraw beef-eating:
thehealth risk management perspective
Daniel Teshome Gebeyehu1*, Biruk Alemu2 and Gemechu Belete1
Abstract
Apart from its nutritive value, meat is one of the substances for the transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms
to consumers and the raw beef eating habit of Ethiopians can create a favourable condition for the transmission of
pathogens from contaminated meat to raw beef consumers. The face-to-face interview of raw beef consumers was
done using a structured questionnaire and 570 total samples were collected. A considerable number (74%) of raw
beef consumers had favourable food choice; 85% of the raw beef consumers had favourable intentions to stop their
raw beef eating habit, and 67% of them had an unfavourable perception of the safety of raw beef-eating. In conclu-
sion, the study showed that raw beef consumers were not aware of the health risks of raw beef-eating. As a result,
urgent sensitization intervention is required to shift the raw beef consumers from unhealthy eating habits to prudent
(processed) eating practices.
Keywords: Raw beef eating, Habit, Choice, Intention, Perception, Raw beef consumers
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco
mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Introduction
Meat is a potential source of biological protein and essen-
tial nutrients [1]. Apart from its nutritional and health
benefits, meat can be a source of both chronic [2] and
infectious diseases [3]. e infectious diseases that origi-
nate from meat can be prevented using proper heat and
cold treatments [4].
Even though modern technologies are advanced for
safe meat production, the safety of meat processing in
developing countries including Ethiopia is still a con-
cern. Except in the big cities of Ethiopia, the animals are
slaughtered locally in open areas without any hygienic
prerequisites [5]. As a result, the chance of the meat
being contaminated with pathogenic microbes is exceed-
ingly high. e contamination of meat occurs during the
removal of hides, evisceration, processing, packaging and
storage, and distribution at slaughterhouses and retail
outlets [6]. Microorganisms that contaminate meat not
only predispose to spoilage but also spread food-borne
illness to consumers [6].
Not only processed (cooked, roasted, stewed, and fried)
meat, eating raw beef is commonly practiced through-
out Ethiopia. Besides beef, eating raw meat from other
animals is not common [7]. e raw beef in Ethiopia is
called “Kurt” in the Amharic language. “Kurt” is directly
consumed without any process by mixing with hot pep-
per and other locally prepared spices. Except the studies
conducted on the meat-eating culture [7] and the raw
beef eating preference of consumers [8], no study was
conducted on the current or related topics and there is
no written document available about how this raw beef-
eating practice was began, but there is a verbal story that
describes eating raw beef began during wartime when
soldiers did not have access to fire and had limited time
for cooking. e raw beef-eating habit of Ethiopians can
create a favourable condition for pathogens to pass from
Open Access
*Correspondence: daniel.teshome@wu.edu.et
1 School of veterinary medicine, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 2 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
contaminated meat to raw beef consumers [9] and this
eating habit is suggested to be changed for the sake of
reducing health crises from foodborne pathogens.
To the best of our knowledge, the study on the raw
beef-eating habit, choice, perception, and practice of
raw beef consumers or its similar was not done in Ethio-
pia or elsewhere. As a result, this study will be the first
for investigating the raw beef consumers’ eating behav-
ior. Not only eating behavioral change, it is important to
formulate implementable and consumer-oriented meat
safety regulation [10]. Since there is no previous study on
our topic of interest, we were depending on a research
hypothesis: raw beef consumers’ food choice is raw beef,
raw bee consumers are not intended to stop raw beef eat-
ing, and they have positive perception on the safety of
raw beef eating. To change the raw beef eating behavior
and to formulate appropriate food safety regulation, it is
imperative to assess consumers’ habits, choice, intention,
and perception. erefore, this study was conducted with
the objective of assessing the eating habits of raw beef
consumers, the consumers’ choice of raw beef-eating,
consumers’ intention toward reducing/stopping raw beef
consumption, and their perception of the safety of raw
beef-eating.
Materials andmethods
Study area
e study was conducted in selected places in South
Wollo (Dessie, Kombolcha, and Wereilu), and Oro-
mia (Kemissie and Bati) zones. South Wollo and Oro-
mia zones are in the Amhara regional state with the
geographic coordinates of 10.8997° N, 38.9877° E, and
10.3959° N, 40.0000° E, respectively. South Wollo and
Oromia zones are situated in the north-eastern part
of Ethiopia, 401, and 327 km away from Addis Ababa
(the capital city of Ethiopia), respectively. South Wollo
and Oromia zones cover the area of 17,067.45 km2, and
286,612 km2, respectively.
Study population
South Wollo and Oromia zones have a total population
number of 2,518,862 and 457,278 respectively [11]. e
study population was consumers of raw beef in selected
raw beef restaurants. For the eating behavior assess-
ment, all age groups greater than 18 years old and both
sexes were included. A total of 570 raw beef consumers
were interviewed. e majority (70.18%) of the partici-
pants were from South Wollo (35.09% in Dessie, 26.32%
in Kombolcha, and 8.77% in Wereilu) and the remaining
(29.82%) were from the Oromia zone (17.54% in Kemis-
sie, and 12.28 in Bati).
Study design
A cross-sectional type of study (a study that investigates
a situation at a point in time) was carried out from Janu-
ary 2021 to September 2021 in selected cities and towns
of South Wollo and Oromia zones for assessing the raw
beef-eating behavior of raw beef consumers. In this study,
both descriptive and inferential statistics were used.
Sample size anddata collection techniques
e sample size for eating behavior was done based on
the suggestions of Taherdoost’s formula [12]. Taherdoost
and his research team suggested that for every type of
cross-sectional survey the following formula is more
appropriate than others.
Where n = is the required sample size.
p = is the percentage occurrence of a state or condition.
z = is the value corresponding to the level of confidence
required.
e = is the percentage maximum error required.
Since there was no preceded raw beef-eating behavior
assessment conducted in the study areas, 50% for p-value,
95% (1.96) for z-value, and 5% for e-value were taken. As
a result, the sample size was calculated as follows.
Even if the minimum sample size is 384, the research-
ers collected a higher number of samples (570). e total
sample size from Dessie, Kombolcha, Kemise, Bati, and
Werielu were 200, 150, 100, 70, and 50, respectively.
Structured questionnaire interviews were conducted to
assess the raw beef-eating behavior of raw beef consum-
ers. e tables in the randomly selected raw beef restau-
rants were chosen randomly and any raw beef consumer
in the selected table of each restaurant was invited for
an interview. All the selected restaurants have sold both
raw and processed (roasted, cooked, and fried) beef. Only
raw beefeaters in the raw beef restaurants at the time of
the interview who were volunteering to be interviewed
were used and processed meat consumers were excluded.
ose raw beef consumers who were not volunteer for
an interview in the selected table were excluded from
sampling. Lunchtime was purposively selected for the
interview and one raw beef consumer was interviewed
from 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on how fast the
n
=
p(100 −p)z
2
e
2
n
=
50(100 −50)1.96
2
5
2
=384 minimum samples were required
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 3 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
raw beef consumer understood the questions. e inter-
view continued until the data or information saturation
was attained. All the questions in the questionnaire were
close-ended. e questionnaire has five sections and dif-
ferent sets of questions. e first section was about the
general demographic characteristics of the raw beef con-
sumers and the second section of the questionnaire was
about the general raw beef eating habit of raw beef con-
sumers while the third and fourth sections were about
the choice of raw beef for consumption and their inten-
tion to change or minimize raw beef-eating, respectively.
e fifth section of the questionnaire was about the per-
ception of raw beef consumers toward raw beef-eating.
e questions in sections three, four, and five enabled the
researcher to understand the choice, intention, and per-
ception of raw beef consumers, respectively. e ques-
tionnaire was composed of 34 questions/variables. Seven
questions were used for each section of demographic
characteristics, andgeneral eating habits,eight questions
about the perception of eating raw beef and six ques-
tions were used for each choice and intentionof raw beef
consumers.
All the questions concerned on the choice, intention,
and perception of the raw beef consumers were pooled
into a single variable, which had two categories. ese
two categories were favourable or unfavourable for
choice, and favourable or unfavourable for both intention
and perception of the raw beef consumers.
e consumers’ choice of raw beef eating was assessed
based on the food choice conceptual model [13]. Six
questions that are related to the consumers food prepara-
tion preference, the food type usually consumed, reason
for the usual consumption of specific food item, feelings
if consumers did not eat the usual food item, daily fre-
quency of eating the usual food item, and the mealtime
consumers eat their usual food item.
e intention of the raw beef consumers was assessed
based on the theory of planned behavior [14]. Six ques-
tions (intention to reduce raw beef eating, knowledge on
the health risk of raw beef-eating, intention to improve
their knowledge on raw beef-eating health risk, will-
ingness to stop raw beef-eating if consumers know raw
beef-eating health risk, easiness to stop raw beef-eat-
ing, and obstacles to stop raw beef-eating) were used
to investigate the raw beef consumers’ intention to stop
eating raw beef.
e perception of raw beef consumers towards the
safety of raw beef-eating was assessed based on Likert’s
scale [15]. e agreement of the raw beef consumers on
the exposure to diseases from raw beef, the fatality of
diseases originated from raw beef, the benefits of raw
beef-eating, the effect of spices and alcohol on the raw
beef borne pathogens, the effect of heating/cooling on
raw beef borne pathogens, the contamination of raw beef
with dangerous pathogens, the raw beef’s potential to
transmit diseases to humans and the respondents’ belief
in the safety of raw beef-eating were the items used for
the assessment of raw beef consumers perception.
e data set prepared from the 34 questions and the
dependent variables of choice, intention, and percep-
tion of raw beef consumers were analyzed using bivariate
logistic regression with SPSS version 25.
Data analysis
After the target sample size was collected, it was admin-
istered in Microsoft Excel 2013. Based on the answer
of each choice, intention, and perception related ques-
tions, dependent binary variables were created for each
choice, intention, and perception assessments of raw
beef consumers. e participants whose answers were
an indicator of raw beef-eating choice was categorized
as “unfavourable choice” and whose answers were an
indicator of not choosing raw beef-eating were grouped
into favourable choice. Likewise, all the participants
who intended to stop eating raw beef were grouped into
favourable intentions, and those whose intentions was
the opposite was categorized into the unfavourable inten-
tion category. In the same with choice and intention, the
participants who perceive the health risks of eating raw
beef were grouped into favourable perceptions, and those
who perceive the opposite were categorized into unfa-
vourable perceptions.
Based on the p-value of the logistic regression, the
predictive explanatory variables for the result, favour-
able choice or unfavourable choice, favourable intention
or unfavourable intention, and favourable perception or
unfavourable perceptions were identified. e investiga-
tions of the participants’ choice, intention, and percep-
tion were conducted in three steps. e first step was
assessing the relationship between potential predictor
variables with the participants’ choice, intention, and
perception one by one. Secondly, the relationship for the
potential confounding effects was adjusted. Finally, the
possibility of an interaction effect among the variables
was considered.
To have initial insight into the structure of the data,
cross-tabulations were used in SPSS version 25. From
this basic descriptive tool, it is possible to see the propor-
tions of each response category, which were indicative of
the level of participants’ choice, intention, and perception
of raw beef-eating.
After descriptive investigations using crosstabs, the
association between the dependent binary variables
(choice, intention, and perception) and each predictive
variable was conducted. Probability values were used
to see the association between these dependent binary
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 4 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
variables and predictive variables (variables produced
from each question). e effect levels of predictive vari-
ables on choice, intention, and perception of the partici-
pants were shown by the odds ratio (OR 95%CI).
Results
General information onraw beef consumers’ eating habits
For this study, a total of 570 raw beef consumers were
interviewed. As indicated in Table1, the majority (76%)
of the participants have three meals per day and 43% of
the raw beef consumers eat their meal at regular intervals
of time (breakfast, lunch, and dinner). All the participants
were raw beef consumers and a considerable number
(31%) of them did not remember how they started eating
raw beef. All (100%) of the participants were added spice
on raw beef and 42% of them had a practice of drinking
alcohol after raw beef-eating to facilitate metabolism,
killing beef-borne pathogens, and for the sake of attain-
ing optimum mood.
Consumers’ choice ofraw beef eating
In statistical analysis, the predicted probabilities for
the consumers’ choice of raw beef consumption were
unfavourable. e predictor variables of raw beef con-
sumers’ favorite meat-preparation type, feeling of raw
beef consumers in the absence of raw beef eating, and the
time of meal (breakfast, lunch, or dinner) for raw beef-
eating were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with the
pooled choice of raw beef consumers on raw beef-eating
(Table2).
e odds of raw beef consumers’ meat-preparation
preferences were 15 times greater than favourable choice
than being unfavourable. Likewise, the odds of the raw
beef consumers’ feeling in the absence of raw beef-eating
was 4.5 (Table2).
The intention ofraw beef consumers towardschanging
raw beef eating habit
e raw beef consumers’ intention to reducing raw beef-
eating, intention in improving raw beef safety knowledge,
and difficulty to change raw beef-eating habits were sig-
nificantly associated (P < 0.05) with the pooled intention
of changing a raw beef eating habit (Table3).
The predicted probability in Table3 is of member-
ship for the unfavourable intention on raw beef con-
sumption. The odds of unfavourable intention in
Table 1 General information of raw beef consumers on raw beef eating habits
Questions Responses Number (n= 570) Percent
How many meals do you usually consume daily? 1 meal 8 1
2 meals 95 17
3 meals 432 76
4 meals 35 6
Do you consume meals at a regular time? No 124 22
Yes, some of them 199 35
Yes, all of them 247 43
How did you start eating raw beef? Peer pressure 129 23
Habit from the ancestors 157 28
I do not remember 174 31
Intentionally started 110 19
Do you add spices to the raw beef before you consume it? Yes, but only sometimes 338 59
Yes, always 232 41
What type of spice do you add to raw beef before you consume it? Pepper 81 14
Chili peppers 219 38
A mixture of spices 270 47
What did you do after you consume raw beef? Drinking alcohol 240 42
Taking tea and coffee 158 28
Physical exercise 9 2
Other 163 29
What is your reason for the post raw beef-eating actions you mentioned in the
previous question? Increasing metabolism 218 38
Killing microbes 10 2
To have a good feeling 137 24
It is my habit 144 25
No reason 61 11
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 5 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
reducing raw beef eating, and the difficulty of chang-
ing raw beef-eating habits were 0.098 and 0.387,
respectively. On the contrary, the odds of raw beef
consumers’ unfavourable intention towards both raw
beef safety, and improving raw beef safety knowledge
were 2.6 times of favourable intention (Table3).
The raw beef consumers’ perception ofthesafety ofraw
beef eating
Among the 8 questions forwarded to the raw beef con-
sumers for assessing their perception of raw beef-eat-
ing, only 3 questions (the disease exposure from raw
beef eating, the advantage and disadvantage of raw
beef consumption, and the effect of cooking and cool-
ing on the pathogens in raw beef) were significantly
associated (P < 0.05) with the pooled perception of raw
beef consumers. The unfavourable perception of raw
beef consumers towards reducing the health risk from
raw beef-eating was 2.7 times greater than the favour-
able perception (Table4).
Summary ofchoice, intention, andperception ofraw beef
consumers
Based on the pooled variables of choice, intention, and
perception, a considerable number (74%) of the raw
beef consumers had favourable beef type choice (Fig.1
a) and 85% of the raw beef consumers had favourable
intentions to stop raw beef-eating habits (Fig.1 b). In
the contrary, majority (67%) of the participants had a
unfavourable perception of the safety of raw beef con-
sumption (Fig.1 c).
Demographic variables’ associations withconsumers’
choice, intention, andperceptions
e predicted probabilities for choice, intention, and per-
ception of the raw beef consumers in Table5 are unfa-
vourable choice, unfavourable intention, and favourable
perception, respectively. Location, sex, marital status,
health status, and educational status had a statistically
significant association (P < 0.05) with the pooled choice
of raw beef consumers on raw beef-eating. Sex, marital
status, health status, and educational status of raw beef
Table 2 The bivariate logistic regression of predictor variables with the pooled consumers’ choice of raw beef eating
OR Odds ratio, CI Condence interval
Questions Responses Percent (n= 570) P-value OR (95% CI)
What is your preferred preparation type? Heated 68 0.0001 15.021
Raw meat 32
What type of raw meat do you usually consume? Beef 89 0.096 0.457
Beef and Mutton 11
What is your reason for eating raw beef? Easy to prepare 10 0.660 1.046
It was Cheap 2
Cheers me up 34
Keeps me healthy 16
My traditional food 25
High nutrient level 13
What did you feel if you did not eat raw beef? Nothing 76 0.0001 4.449
Hunger 9
Uncomfortable 15
How often do you eat raw beef? 1–3 times a month 19 0.991 0.999
Once a day 25
Once a week 13
Few times a day 7
A few times a week 20
Only in the holidays 16
In which of your meals do you prefer to eat raw beef? Breakfast 12 0.0001 1.673
Launch 68
Dinner 8
As part of all meals 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 6 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
consumers have a significant association with the pooled
intention of raw beef consumers to stop raw beef eating
while only the age of the participants had a significant
association with the pooled raw beef safety perception of
the raw beef consumers (Table5).
Discussion
Raw beef eating habit
All (100%) raw beef consumers were adding spices to raw
beef before consumption due to the consumers’ belief in
preventing diseases. As a confirmation of the raw beef
consumers’ belief, the study [16, 17] conducted on “food
spices” revealed that spices are potent to treat different
allergic, chronic, and infectious diseases. In addition to
the spices’ effect on pathogens, the raw beef consumers
have added spices for having deliciousness/good flavor.
Likewise, the study on food spices showed that spices are
added for making the food tasty and for other health ben-
efits [16, 18]. Not only did adding spices to raw beef, but
42% of consumers were also drinking alcohol after they
ate raw beef for killing pathogens and to bring a bright
mood. Comparably, the study [19] done on the benefit of
alcohol drinking after food showed that alcohol can kill
pathogens that were ingested together with food. Even if
different studies confirmed the anti-pathogens effect of
spices and alcohol, their effect could be depending on the
type of pathogen and the dose of the spice and alcohol.
As a result, eating raw beef with the guarantee of spices
in it and the alcohol drunken after raw beef consumption
can cause a substantial health crisis [20, 21].
Consumers’ choice ofraw beef eating
Only 32% of the raw beef consumers had always prepared
raw beef and the remaining 68% of consumers usually eat
processed meat (cooked, roasted, fried, and stewed), and
they occasionally eat raw beef. Comparable with the pre-
sent finding, the study [22] conducted in eastern Asian
countries showed that meat consumers had a variety of
meat preparation preferences that ranges from eating
raw meat to diverse types of processed meat. A substan-
tial number (89%) of raw beef consumers prefer to eat
raw beef than other types of raw meat (mutton, fish, or
Table 3 The bivariate logistic regression of predictor variables with the pooled intention of avoiding the raw beef eating habit
OR Odds ratio, CI Condence interval
Questions Responses Percent
(n= 570) P-value OR (95% CI)
Are you currently intending to reduce/stop eating raw beef? No 59 0.0001 0.098
Yes, for a medical reason 8
Yes, by personal decision 34
How would you describe your knowledge about the health risk of raw beef
consumption? Insufficient 24 0.071 0.749
Sufficient 48
Good 24
Very good 4
Are you intending to improve your knowledge on the health risk of raw beef
consumption? Highly interested 19 0.0001 2.644
Moderately interested 33
In dilemma 18
Not interested 26
Strongly not interested 3
Will you stop /reduce eating raw beef if you know its health impact? Never 15 0.368 1.141
May be 39
Immediately stop 29
Need time to decide 17
How easy is it to change your raw beef eating habit? Very easy 12 0.0001 0.387
Easy 47
Unsure 21
Not easy 12
Impossible 7
What prevents you from stopping eating raw beef? Good for my health 47 0.306 0.841
I am dependent on it 20
It has no health risk 17
I did not have another alternative 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 7 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
chicken). On the contrary, a larger number of consum-
ers prefer to eat raw fish than other types of raw meats
in Vietnam [23]. is raw meat type preferences might
be due to differences in the type of available food (farm-
ing systems) in different geographic locations, and eating
habit differences. ese differences intern results in dif-
ferent food type dependencies of consumers.
In the absence of raw beef consumption, only 15 and
9% of the raw beef consumers had feelings of uncom-
fortable and hunger, respectively. is means that
24% of the raw beef consumers had favourable eating
choice. Like the feeling of consumers with unfavour-
able beef eating choice, dependent consumers showed
Table 4 The bivariate logistic regression of predictor variables with the pooled perception of raw beef consumption health risk
OR Odds ratio, CI Condence interval
Questions Modalities Percent
(n= 570) P-value OR (95% CI)
Eating raw beef can expose the consumers to diseases. Strongly disagree 6 0.0001 0.608
Disagree 22
Neutral 5
Agree 58
Strongly agree 9
The disease that originated from raw beef can be fatal to consumers. Strongly disagree 20 0.076 1.198
Disagree 54
Neutral 12
Agree 11
Strongly agree 3
The benefits of consuming raw beef are greater than the health risks. Strongly disagree 10 0.0001 2.745
Disagree 36
Neutral 23
Agree 26
Strongly agree 5
The spices added to the raw beef and the alcohol drunken after raw beef consump-
tion can kill the pathogens. Strongly disagree 11 0.080 0.850
Disagree 18
Neutral 12
Agree 51
Strongly agree 7
Cooking and/or cooling meat before consumption kills the beef-borne pathogens. Strongly disagree 1 0.002 0.833
Disagree 2
Neutral 5
Agree 61
Strongly agree 30
The meat can be contaminated with dangerous pathogens along its value chain. Strongly disagree 1 0.559 0.945
Disagree 17
Neutral 49
Agree 26
Strongly agree 5
The diseases from animals, persons, and the environment can transmit to humans
through raw beef consumption. Strongly disagree 7 0.916 0.991
Disagree 27
Neutral 18
Agree 36
Strongly agree 12
How do you believe about the safety of raw beef consumption? Safe 32 0.129 1.206
Unsafe 27
Neutral 25
I do not know 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 8 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
Fig. 1 Summary of the raw beef consumers’ choice on raw beef-eating (a), intention to change raw beef-eating (b), and perception on the safety of
raw beef-eating (c)
Table 5 Association of the demographic variables with the pooled raw beef consumers’ choice on raw beef-eating, intention to
change raw beef-eating, and perception about raw beef eating
OR Odds ratio, CI Condence interval
Questions Responses Percent Choice Intention Perception
P-value OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI)
Location Dessie 35.09 0.0001 0.570 0.116 0.844 0.522 0.934
Kombolcha 26.32
Kemissie 17.54
Bati 12.28
Wereilu 8.77
Age 18–35 54.91 0.451 0.843 0.947 1.015 0.003 1.894
36–50 35.96
> 50 9.12
Sex Male 72.11 0.0001 3.402 0.005 2.827 0.216 0.702
Female 27.89
Marital status Single 53.16 0.0001 2.633 0.022 1.692 0.549 0.851
Married 42.28
Widowed 4.56
Health status Poor 3.16 0.0001 0.520 0.0001 0.475 0.643 0.915
Good 57.19
Very good 28.60
Excellent 11.05
Weight status Under 3.16 0.956 0.992 0.364 1.126 0.128 0.740
Normal 84.56
Over 8.60
Obese 3.68
Educational status Primary 8.95 0.006 1.651 0.013 1.593 0.077 0.682
Secondary 37.37
Higher 53.68
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 9 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
discomfort, hunger, sadness, and complicated mood in
the absence of the intended food item [24].
A quarter (25%) of the raw beef consumers in this study
had a practice of eating raw beef once per day and 16% of
the participants had a practice of eating raw beef during
holidays only. As described by the study on food addic-
tion and an eating disorder, the frequent consumption of
a specific type of food is a sign of food addiction [25].
e preferred meat preparation type, the feeling of the
absence of raw beef consumption, and the raw beef-eat-
ing time (lunch, breakfast, or dinner) were significantly
associated (P < 0.05). Raw beef consumers were 15 times
preferred to eat heated meat (favourable eating choice)
than eating raw beef (unfavourable choice). In the same
way, raw beef consumers felt 4.4 times nothing (favour-
able) than other raw beef addiction feelings (hunger and
uncomfortable).
Lunch is the most important and never omitted meal
of the day in Ethiopian people. Consumers are interested
in having the food items they prefer most in their impor-
tant type of meal. In addition to this justification, Aoy-
ama, and Shibata [26] confirmed that the consumers who
eat food items composed of protein and lipid showed a
postprandial dependency on lunchtime. As a result, the
choice of raw beef eaters depends on eating raw beef at
lunchtime or not at lunchtime (breakfast and/or din-
ner). Raw beef consumers were 1.6 times more eating raw
beef at lunchtime (unfavourable beef eating choice) than
not at lunchtime (favourable beef-eating habit). Compa-
rable with the present finding, the time of the meal and
the consumers’ mood in the absence of target food in
their important meal were the signs of food specific food
choice [27].
Intention tochange raw beef eating
About a quarter (27%) of the raw beef consumers
believed that eating raw beef is not safe, and this finding
agrees with [28–30]. A larger number (32%) of the par-
ticipants believed that raw beef-eating is safe for their
health. In contrast with the present finding, the study
[29, 30] on raw beef safety indicated that eating raw beef
exposes consumers to dangerous pathogens.
A larger number (52%) of the raw beef consumers were
interested in improving their knowledge on the safety
of raw beef eating while 29% of the consumers were not
interested. Comparable to the present finding, many
participants were interested in improving their under-
standing of food safety [31, 32]. is finding showed that
if awareness creation on raw beef-eating is done the raw
beef eating habit of raw beef consumers can be changed.
Around half (47%) of the raw beef consumers continued
consuming raw beef because they believe that raw beef’s
health benefit is higher than processed meat (cooked,
stewed, roasted, and fried). is finding is supported by
the study conducted on the nutritional quality of meat
[33, 34], which proves that meat processing reduces the
nutritional and organoleptic quality of meat. Changing
their raw beef eating habit is easy for 59% of the raw beef
consumers and difficult for 19% of them. e interest of
the raw beef consumers in changing their eating habits is
a good standing point to sensitize them about the health
risk [20, 21] of raw beef-eating and then to shift their
imprudent trend to a healthy eating style (consumption
of processed meat).
e raw beef consumers’ intentions regarding their
beliefs on raw beef safety were 2.6 times unfavour-
able intention with unsafe, neutral and I do not know
responses than favourable intention with a safe response.
On the contrary, their interest in improving their food
safety knowledge was 2.6 times more favourable inten-
tion with highly and moderately interested responses
than unfavourable intention with not interested, strongly
interested, and in dilemma responses. In the opposite to
the present finding, the study on “consumers’ intention
and knowledge of food safety” showed that consumers
were very flexible to change their eating habits if they
are properly inducted about the possible consequences
of their practice [35]. ese agreements might be due
to educational, religious, and cultural differences in the
study populations. e raw beef consumers were 0.38
times more favourable intentions (changing their eating
habits easily and very easily) than unfavourable inten-
tions with unsure, not easy, and impossible responses.
is finding showed that the raw beef consumers had
favourable beef eating choice and they were interested
in changing their eating habits if special assistance like
awareness creation is performed. Comparably, the study
done on “mindfulness, mindful eating and intuitive eat-
ing in changing eating behaviors” [36] indicated that it is
possible to change the consumers’ eating habits easily if
they are not strongly addicted, and committed.
Perception towardsraw beef eating
More than half (58%) of the raw beef consumers agreed
that raw beef-eating can expose them to foodborne dis-
eases, and 54% of the raw beef consumers agreed that
the diseases from raw beef can be fatal. Comparably,
the study conducted on food-borne zoonoses [37–39]
showed that raw beef is the most important source of
pathogenic micro-organisms and its fatality rate is
dependent on agent, host, and environmental factors
[40, 41].
More than half of the raw beef consumers (51%), were
perceived that the spice in the raw beef and the alcohol
drunken after raw beef-eating can able to kill raw beef-
borne pathogens. Similarly, the study done on the effect
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 10 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
of spices and alcohols [16, 17] on food-borne patho-
gens indicated that adding spices in raw foods can kill
microbes in them. 61% of the raw beef consumers per-
ceived that heating/cooling of raw beef before consump-
tion can reduce the beef-borne pathogens. Similarly,
other research findings [42] recommended that meat
processing (cooking, stewing, cooling, or roasting) kills/
inhibits multiplication. As the study on the effect of heat-
ing on food-borne pathogens [43] described that some
spores of microbes are resistant to heat treatment and
cooking for a long time with a high-temperature level is
recommended.
A larger number (48%) of participants perceived that
the pathogens from cattle and the environment can be
transmitted to raw beef consumers through raw beef-eat-
ing. is finding agrees with other findings [44–46] con-
ducted on zoonotic and communicable diseases. e raw
beef consumers’ perception of the raw beef-borne dis-
ease exposure, the cons and pros of raw beef consump-
tion, and the effect of cooking/cooling of raw beef in
the reduction of pathogens were significantly associated
(P < 0.05) with the perception of raw beef consumers and
each variable had the odds of 0.61, 2.75, and 0.83, respec-
tively. e raw beef consumers’ favourable perception
of the cons and pros of raw beef-eating was 2.75 times
greater than their unfavourable perception. Comparable
with the present finding the study conducted in Brazil
[47] showed that consumers’ perception of food safety
and nutritional quality of food items were significantly
associated with their thoughts on the advantage and dis-
advantages of eating raw food items.
The eect ofdemographic variables onchoice, intention,
andperception ofraw beef consumers
All sex, marital status, health status, and educational sta-
tus of the raw beef consumers were significantly associ-
ated (P < 0.05) with the consumers’ choice of raw beef
consumption. e consumers with good health status
had 0.5 times less unfavourable food choice than partici-
pants with other types of health statuses. Male raw beef
consumers were 3.4 times unfavourable food choice than
female and, raw beef consumers with single marital sta-
tus had 2.6 times unfavourable food choice than married
and widowed. On the other hand, raw beef consumers
with higher educational status had 1.7 times less favour-
able food choice than raw beef consumers with primary
and secondary school educational status. Contrary to
the present finding, the age of the participants showed
a significant association with the choice and intention of
consumers [48]. Alike the present finding, the marital sta-
tuses of consumers were significantly associated (p > 0.05)
with their beef type choice and intention on eating raw
beef [47]. e location of the raw beef consumers was
significantly associated with the choice of raw beef con-
sumers on raw beef consumption. is can be elaborated
as, the raw beef consumers in Dessie city were 0.6 times
favourable food choice than other city participants.
Alike the choice of the raw beef consumers, sex, mari-
tal status, health status, and educational status of the raw
beef consumers were significantly associated (P < 0.05)
with the intention of consumers to stop raw beef-eating.
Male consumers had 2.8 times more favourable inten-
tion to change their raw beef-eating habits than female
and unmarried/single consumers had 1.69 times favour-
able intention to change their imprudent raw beef-eating
habits than married and widowed consumers. Similarly,
consumers with favourable health status had 0.47 times
more favourable intention to change a raw beef eating
habit than other categories and consumers with higher
educational status had 1.59 times favourable intention
to change their raw beef eating habit. Comparable with
the present finding, the sex and educational status of
consumers in Turkey [48] showed significant association
with the intention of reducing imprudent eating habits.
Only the age of the participants had a significant asso-
ciation with the perception of raw beef consumers on
the safety of raw beef-eating. e adult age groups (18–
35 years) had 1.89 times unfavourable perception of the
safety of raw beef-eating than other age groups (36–50
and > 50 years). Likewise, the study in Brazil showed
that the age of the consumers was significantly associ-
ated with their perception of food safety [47]. Contrary
to the present finding, educational status, marital status,
and sex of the participants were significantly associated
with the food safety perception of consumers. ese dif-
ferences might be a result of cultural, educational, and
socio-economic differences.
Limitations
e study might be liable to social desirability and recalls
bias. In addition, the nature of the study design (cross-
sectional) can influence the cause-and-effect relation-
ship of the predictor variables and the dependent binary
variables (choice, intention, and perception) of the raw
beef consumers. Since there was no study done before
the present assessment, it was not possible to compare
numerical figures with other study findings.
Conclusion
e raw beef eating habit of Ethiopians can create a
favourable condition for the transmission of pathogens
from contaminated meat to raw beef consumers. Even
if many raw beef consumers had favourable beef eating
choice, but some of them were addicted to it. e major-
ity of the raw beef consumers intended to change their
raw beef-eating trend if they know the health crises from
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 11 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
it. e independence of raw beef eaters from eating raw
beef and the consumers’ interest to stop/reduce raw beef-
eating are the excellent opportunities to change the eat-
ing habits of raw beef consumers. From this description,
it is possible to understand that raw beef consumers can
shift from raw beef consumption to processed (cooked,
stewed, roasted, and fried) beef with minimum effort.
e perceptions of many raw beef consumers on the
safety of raw beef consumption were unfavourable. Based
on the current finding, it is recommended to conduct
consecutive awareness creation to change the raw beef
consumers’ eating habits. By increasing the raw beef con-
sumers’ understanding of the health risk of raw beef-eat-
ing, it is possible to change the intention and perception
of raw beef consumers towards reducing raw beef-eating
and increasing consumers’ understanding of the health
risks of raw beef consumption.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to Wollo University for funding this
research project. The funder did not have any role in the study design; in the
collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and
in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization, D.T.G., and B.A.; Methodology, D.T.G., and B.A.; Formal
analysis, D.T.G., and G.B.; Investigation, D.T.G., and G.B.; Resources, D.T.G.,
B.A., and G.B.; Software, D.T.G., Data curation, D.T.G., and G.B.; Original draft
writing, D.T.G., and G.B.; Review and editing, all authors; Supervision, D.T.G;
Funding acquisition, D.T.G., and B.A.; All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the
final manuscript.
Funding
This research work was funded by Wollo University (with a grant number of
WU/01/2020). This funding does not include authorship and publication costs.
Availability of data and materials
The data used to support the findings of this study are included in the article
in the frequency table. In addition to this, the whole data set that is used to
analyze the habit, choice, intention, and perception of raw beef consumers is
attached as supplementary materials.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Permission to conduct the research was approved by the Wollo University
institutional review board (IBR) with the approval number WU/15676/N05/13.
For conducting this research, the researcher was requested and gained a sup-
port letter from the committee. All methods of the research were done based
on the Wollo University IBR ethical guideline. The names of the participants in
all the raw beef restaurants were not stated after data collection, analysis, and
presentation; to ensure confidentiality. Before commencing the interview, all
participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the informa-
tion management that ensures their confidentiality, and informed consent
was obtained from all participants.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interest. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the
writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Author details
1 School of veterinary medicine, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia. 2 Depart-
ment of psychology, teachers and behavioral science institute, Wollo Univer-
sity, Dessie, Ethiopia.
Received: 27 January 2022 Accepted: 14 July 2022
References
1. Wyness L. The role of red meat in the diet: nutrition and health benefits.
Proc Nutr Soc. 2016;75(3):227–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0029 66511
50042 67.
2. Battaglia Richi E, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A, Keller U. Health
risks associated with meat consumption: a review of epidemiological
studies. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2015;85(1–2):70–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1024/
0300- 9831/ a0002 24.
3. Espinosa R, Tago D, Treich N. Infectious diseases and meat production.
Environ Resour Econ (Dordr). 2020;76(4):1019–44. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s10640- 020- 00484-3.
4. Todd E. Food-borne disease prevention and risk assessment. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1714
5129.
5. Gutema FD, Agga GE, Abdi RD, Jufare A, Duchateau L, De Zutter L, et al.
Assessment of hygienic practices in beef cattle slaughterhouses and
retail shops in Bishoftu, Ethiopia. Implications for public health. Int J Envi-
ron Res Public Health. 2021;18:2729. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1805
2729.
6. Lonergan SM, Topel DG, Marple DN. Chapter 12 - meat microbiology and
safety: Academic Press; 2019. p. 183–204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ B978-0-
12- 815277- 5. 00012-3.
7. Seleshe S, Jo C, Lee M. Meat consumption culture in Ethiopia. Korean J
Food Sci Anim Resour. 2014;34(1):7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5851/ kosfa.
2014. 34.1.7.
8. Kuma A, Belete E, Ayza A. Consumer Preference of Raw Beef ("Kurt") in
Wolaita Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia. J Food Sci Technol. 2017;5(4):9–11.
Corpus ID: 52905175. e-ISSN:2321-6204; p-ISSN:2347-2359.
9. Centre for diseases control and prevention (CDC). Foods That Can Cause
Food Poisoning. Retrieved from: https:// www. cdc. gov/ foods afety/ foods-
linked- illne ss. htm. Accessed 8 Oct 2021.
10. van der Meulen BMJ. EU Food Law Handbook. (European Institute for
Food Law series; No. no. 9). Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2014.
Retrieved at https:// libra ry. wur. nl/ WebQu ery/ wurpu bs/ 480946. Accessed
8 Oct 2021.
11. Central Statistical Authority of Ethiopia (CSA). Summary and Statistical
Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census Results. Retrieved
from: https:// www. ethio pianr eview. com/ pdf/ 001/ Cen20 07_ first draft (1).
pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2021.
12. Hamed Taherdoost. Determining Sample Size; How to Calculate Survey
Sample Size. Int J Econ Manag. 2017;2:237. Retrieved via https:// hal. archi
ves- ouver tes. fr/ hal- 02557 333. Accessed 21 Oct 2021.
13. Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Falk LW. Food choice: a concep-
tual model of the process; division of nutritional sciences, vol. 26. Ithaca:
Cornell University; 1996. p. 247–66.
14. Icek A. The theory of planned behavior; University of Massachusetts at
Amherst. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.
15. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol.
1932;22(140):55.
16. García-Casal MN, Peña-Rosas JP, Malavé HG. Sauces, spices, and condi-
ments. Definitions, potential benefits, consumption patterns, and global
markets. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1379(1):3–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
nyas. 13045.
17. Zheng J, Zhou Y, Li Y, Xu DP, Li S, Li HB. Spices for prevention and treat-
ment of cancers. Nutrients. 2016;8(8):495. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ nu808
0495.
18. Jessica Elizabeth T, Gassara F, Kouassi AP, Brar SK, Belkacemi K. Spice use in
food. Properties and benefits. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(6):1078–88.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10408 398.
19. Desenclos JA, Klontz KC, Wilder MH, Gunn RA. The protective effect
of alcohol on the occurrence of epidemic oyster-borne hepatitis a.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 12 of 12
Gebeyehuetal. BMC Nutrition (2022) 8:68
•
fast, convenient online submission
•
thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
•
rapid publication on acceptance
•
support for research data, including large and complex data types
•
gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
•
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your research
Ready to submit your research
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
Epidemiology. 1992;3(4):371–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 00001 648- 19920
7000- 00013.
20. Santeramo FG, Lamonaca E. Objective risk and subjective risk: the role of
information in food supply chains. Food Res Int. 2020;139:109962.
21. Angulo AM, Gil JM. Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for
certified beef in Spain. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(8):1106–17.
22. Nam KC, Jo C, Lee M. Meat products and consumption culture in the east.
Meat Sci. 2010;86(1):95–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. meats ci. 2010. 04.
026.
23. Khoa DV, Hoa DT, Anh DN, Van NT, Dung DT, Huong LT T, et al. Fish-
borne trematode metacercariae detected in fish commonly used
for raw consumption in Ninh Binh Province, Vietnam. Trop Biomed.
2020;37(2):443–51.
24. Fletcher PC, Kenny PJ. Food addiction. A valid concept. Neuropsy-
chopharmacology. 2018;43(13):2506–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41386- 018- 0203-9.
25. Hauck C, Cook B, Ellrott T. Food addiction, eating addiction choiceChoice
and eating disorders. Proc Nutr Soc. 2020;79(1):103–12. https:// doi. org/
10. 1017/ S0029 66511 90011 62.
26. Aoyama S, Shibata S. Time-of-day-dependent physiological responses
to meal and exercise. Front Nutr. 2020;7:18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnut.
2020. 00018.
27. Brunault P, Ducluzeau PH, Bourbao-Tournois C, Delbachian I, Couet C,
Réveillère C, et al. Food addiction in bariatric surgery candidates. Preva-
lence and risk factors. Obes Surg. 2016;26(7):1650–3. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11695- 016- 2189-x.
28. Bulochova V, Evans EW. Exploring Food Safety Perceptions and Self-
Reported Practices of Pet Owners Providing Raw Meat–Based Diets to
Pets. J Food Prot. 2021;84(5):912–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4315/ JFP- 20- 338.
29. Xiong Y, Li W, Liu T. Risk early warning of food quality safety in meat
processing industry. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6579.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1718 6579.
30. Singleton C, Wack R, Larsen RS. Bacteriologic and nutritional evaluation
of a commercial raw meat diet as part of a raw meat safety program. Zoo
Biol. 2012;31(5):574–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ zoo. 20423.
31. Zanin LM, da Cunha DT, de Rosso VV, Capriles VD, Stedefeldt E. Knowl-
edge, attitudes, and practices of food handlers in food safety. An integra-
tive review. Food Res Int. 2017;100(1):53–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
foodr es. 2017. 07. 042.
32. Akabanda F, Hlortsi EH, Owusu-Kwarteng J. Food safety knowledge, atti-
tudes, and practices of institutional food-handlers in Ghana. BMC Public
Health. 2017;17(1):40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12889- 016- 3986-9.
33. Kumar P, Chatli MK, Verma AK, Mehta N, Malav OP, Kumar D, et al. Quality,
functionality, and shelf life of fermented meat and meat products. A
review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(13):2844–56. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 10408 398. 2015.
34. Gómez I, Janardhanan R, Ibañez FC, Beriain MJ. The effects of processing
and preservation technologies on meat quality. Sensory and nutritional
aspects. Foods. 2020;9(10):1416. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ foods 91014 16.
35. Dang HD, Tran GT. Explaining Consumers’ intention for traceable pork
regarding animal disease. The role of food safety concern, risk perception,
trust, and habit. Int J Food Sci. 2020;2020:8831356. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1155/ 2020/ 88313 56.
36. Warren JM, Smith N, Ashwell M. A structured literature review on the role
of mindfulness, mindful eating, and intuitive eating in changing eating
behaviours. Effectiveness and associated potential mechanisms. Nutr Res
Rev. 2017;30(2):272–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0954 42241 70001 54.
37. Van Bree FPJ, Bokken GCAM, Mineur R, Franssen F, Opsteegh M, van der
Giessen JWB, et al. Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in raw meat-
based diets for cats and dogs. Vet Rec. 2018;182(2):50. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1136/ vr. 104535.
38. Ng-Nguyen D, Stevenson MA, Traub RJ. A systematic review of taeniasis,
cysticercosis and trichinellosis in Vietnam. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):150.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13071- 017- 2085-9.
39. Karmali MA. Use of comparative genomics as a tool to assess the clini-
cal and public health significance of emerging Shiga toxin-producing
Escherichia coli serotypes. Meat Sci. 2005;71(1):62–71. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. meats ci. 2005. 03. 001.
40. Dolgopolova I, Li B, Pirhonen H, Roosen J. The effect of attribute framing
on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: a Meta-analysis. Bio
Based Appl Econ. 2022;10(4):253–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 36253/ bae- 11511.
41. Mora C, Menozzi D. Vertical contractual relations in the Italian beef sup-
ply chain. Agribusiness. 2005;21(2):213–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ agr.
20044.
42. Bryan FL, Harvey M, Misup MC. Hazard analysis of party-pack foods pre-
pared at a catering establishment. J Food Prot. 1981;44(2):118–23. https://
doi. org/ 10. 4315/ 0362- 028X- 44.2. 118.
43. Kalinowski RM, Tompkin RB, Bodnaruk PW, Pruett WP Jr. Impact of cook-
ing, cooling, and subsequent refrigeration on the growth or survival of
Clostridium perfringens in cooked meat and poultry products. J Food
Prot. 2003;66(7):1227–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4315/ 0362- 028x- 66.7. 1227.
44. Elelu N, Aiyedun JO, Mohammed IG, Oludairo OO, Odetokun IA, Moham-
med KM, et al. Neglected zoonotic diseases in Nigeria. Role of the public
health veterinarian. Pan Afr Med J. 2019;18:32–6. https:// doi. org/ 10.
11604/ pamj. 2019. 32. 36. 15659.
45. Wang LF, Crameri G. Emerging zoonotic viral diseases. Rev Sci Tech.
2014;33(2):569–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20506/ rst. 33.2. 2311.
46. McArthur DB. Emerging infectious diseases. Nurs Clin North Am.
2019;54(2):297–311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cnur. 2019. 02. 006.
47. Isoni Auad L, Cortez Ginani V, Dos Santos LE, Stedefeldt E, Costa Santos
Nunes A, Yoshio Nakano E, et al. Brazilian food truck Consumers’ profile,
choices, preferences, and food safety importance perception. Nutrients.
2019;11(5):1175. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ nu110 51175.
48. Zorba NN, Kaptan M. Consumer food safety perceptions and practices in
a Turkish community. J Food Prot. 2011;74(11):1922–9. https:// doi. org/ 10.
4315/ 0362- 028X. JFP- 11- 126.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com