Journal of Public Health and Nutrition

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +447723862070

Research Article - Journal of Public Health and Nutrition (2022) Volume 5, Issue 6

Study of Meat Hygiene Practices among the Meat Retailers in Pokhara Metropolitan City

Binayak Banstola*, Dipendra Kumar Yadav, Rakshya Sharma

Department of Health and Allied Sciences, Pokhara University, Lekhnath, Nepal

Corresponding Author:
Binayak Banstola
Department of Health and Allied Sciences
Pokhara University, Lekhnath, Nepal
Email: [email protected]

Received: 06-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. AAJPHN-22-71370; Editor assigned: 09-Aug-2022, PreQC No. AAJPHN-22-71370(PQ); Reviewed: 24-Aug-2022, QC No AAJPHN-22-71370; Revised: 27-Oct-2022, Manuscript No. AAJPHN-22-71370(R); Published: 03-Nov-2022, DOI:10.35841/aajphn-5.6.126

Citation: Banstola B, Yadav DK, Sharma R, et al. Study of meat hygiene practices among the meat retailers in Pokhara metropolitan city. J Pub Health Nutri. 2022;5(6):126

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Public Health and Nutrition

Abstract

Introduction: Meat consumption is increasing day by day. Workers hygiene practice directly influence the meat hygiene and poor hygiene has huge public health implication due to possibilities of transmitting animal, human and environmental derived pathogens to the workers and consumers. The objective of the study is to assess the meat hygiene practices among the meat retailers of Pokhara Metropolitan city. Methods: A cross sectional study was carried out among 240 meat retailers in between July to October 2018 in Pokhara metropolitan city, Nepal. Proportionate simple random sampling method was used. Data were collected through face to face interview and observation using the semi-structured questionnaire and observation checklist. Chi-square test was performed to assess the association between meat hygiene practice and independent variables. Results: Majority (84.6%) of the participants had knowledge about personal protective equipment and almost all (99%) who have knowledge about personal protective equipment have habit of using it. All had habit of cleaning the shops/slaughter house. Similarly, all had practice of cleaning their hands, equipment's and clothes. More than half (52.5%) of the participants had good hygiene practice. Education and ethnicity of participants (P<0.05) were statistically significant with meat hygiene practice. Conclusion: The study concludes that hygiene practices of the meat retailers in Pokhara Metropolitan were not found to be satisfactory and practice of hygiene needs to be improved. Provision of training for improving the hygiene practice was discovered as the key recommendation of this study.

Keywords

Hygiene practice, Meat, Retailers.

Introduction

Meat hygiene refers to all conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and suitability of meat at all stages of the food chain [1]. As meat consumption is increasing around the world, so do concerns and challenges to meat hygiene and safety [2]. Inadequate facilities and hygiene at slaughter houses can result in contamination of meat and occupational hazards to worker and has huge public health implication due to possibilities of transmitting animal, human and environmental derived pathogens to the workers and consumers [3]. Previous study showed that in developing countries slaughtering places are frequently contaminated and are often deteriorated due to bacterial infection or contamination which may cause food poisoning or diseases to the consumers [4].

The objective of this study is to assess the meat hygiene practices and factors associated with it among the retailers of Pokhara Metropolitan.

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among the workers of retailers of meat products in Pokhara Metropolitan, Nepal from July-October 2018. The sample size of 240 was derived using finite population formula assuming that 50% practice of meat hygiene and with 637 estimated registered retailers in Pokhara Metropolitan. This study included workers of retailers in Pokhara Metropolitan who were engaged in the handling of meats and excluded those who refused to participate, whose age was below 15 years and above 60 years and those who were unable to answer. The data was obtained through face-to-face interview and observation using semi-structured questionnaire and observation checklist. Simple random sampling was done to choose sample representative. Independent variable included socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants (Age, Sex, Caste/Ethnicity, Religion, Educational level), training and occupation related factors (Working experience, hours of work, training received, provision of inspection, waste management practices). Dependent variable was level of meat hygiene practice, which was derived from observation checklist.

To ensure validity of the study, tool was developed by using standard questionnaire for meat hygiene and in consultation with supervisor. Reliability was ensured by pretesting the tool among 10% of the estimated sample size. Tools was developed in both English and Nepali language. Data entry was done in Epi-data and exported to IBM SPSS version 20 for analysis. Descriptive statistics (like mean, range, frequencies, and percentages) was performed to describe the study population. Chi-square test was done to observe the association between dependent and independent variables.

Ethical approval was obtained from Institutional Review Committee (IRC), Pokhara University. The participants were fully informed about the nature and benefits of the research and written informed consent was taken.

Scoring of practice: Twenty-two questions were developed to assess practice. Positive responses to all 22 variables of the observations were given an equal score of one and grand score was computed by adding all the values. The mean score was 15.26. As per the category the hygiene scores greater or equal to 15.26 is considered as good hygiene and less than 15.26 is considered as poor hygiene.

Results

All the participants (n=240) participated in the study. Quantitative analyses of findings are reflected in different tables. (Tables 1-4).

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Age
<20 13 5.4
20-40 152 63.3
>40 75 31.3
Mean= 35 years, SD= 9.659, Minimum= 18, Maximum= 59
Sex
Male 165 68.7
Female 75 31.3
Religion
Hindu 197 82.1
Buddhist 20 8.3
Christian 14 5.8
Muslim 9 3.8
Ethnicity
Brahmin 63 26.3
Chhetri/Thakuri 49 20.4
Janajati 70 29.2
Newar 23 9.6
Dalit 27 11.3
Religious Minorities 8 3.3
Marital status
Married 199 82.9
Unmarried 38 15.8
Widow 3 1.3
Family type
Nuclear 150 62.5
Joint 90 37.5
Education
Illiterate 15 6.3
Non-formal 25 10.4
Basic education 51 21.3
Secondary level 135 56.3
Bachelor 13 5.4
Master's and above 1 0.3
Main Occupation
Meat selling 231 96.3
Others 9 3.7

Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants..

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of meat sellers. More than half (63.3%) of the participants were of age between 20-40 years. The mean age was 34.90 years (SD±9.66). Similarly, more than two-third (68.7%) of the participant were male and nearly one-third (31.3%) of the participants were female. Majority (82.1%) of participants were Hindu. More than half (56.3%) of the participants had secondary level of education. Table 2 shows the occupational related factors of the participants. It was observed that majority (89.6%) of the participants did not attend any training regarding the meat hygiene practices, majority (91.2%) of the participants worked for more than 8 hours a day. More than half (60%) of the participants had less than 5 years of working experience, nearly one-third (31.2%) of the participants reported there was no provision of inspection from the higher authorities. Table 3 Association between level of practice and independent variables. Table 4 shows the association between meat hygiene and independent variable. Statistically association was observed between educational qualification and practice on meat hygiene (P<0.05). Similarly, strong association was observed between ethnicity of participants and practice on meat hygiene (P<0.01).

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Training
Yes 25 10.4
No 215 89.6
Working hours
Less than 8 hours 21 8.8
More than 8 hours 219 91.2
Working Experience
Less than 5 years 144 60
5-10 years 51 21.2
More than 10 years 45 18.8
Provision of inspection
Yes 165 68.8
No 75 31.2
Interval for Inspection (n=165)
Time to time 121 73.3
In every 3 months 17 10.3
In every 6 months 14 8.5
In every 1 year 13 7.9
Measures for waste management (n=240)
Burning 1 0.4
Burrowing 10 4.2
Using local way (Municipal) 190 79.3
Dumping on open place 9 3.6
Throwing in river and other water source 1 0.4
Food for pig 29 12.1

Table 2 Occupational related factors of the participants.

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Good hygiene 126 52.5
Poor hygiene 114 47.5

Table 3 Hygiene practice of participants.

Characteristics Level of practice Total Chi-square-value P-value
Good Poor
  n % n % n %    
Education qualification
Illiterate and non-formal 12 30 28 70 40 100 13.128 0.04*
Basic 24 47.1 27 52.9 51 100
Secondary 83 61.5 52 38.5 135 100
Bachelor and above 7 50 7 50 14 100
Ethnicity of the participants
Brahmin 43 68.3 20 31.7 63 100 15.939# 0.007**
Chhetri/Thakuri 27 55.1 22 44.9 49 100
Janajati 32 45.7 38 54.3 70 100
Newar 13 56.5 10 43.5 23 100
Dalit 7 25.9 20 74.1 27 100
Religious minorities 4 50 4 50 8 100

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization. Code of Hygenic Practice for Meat. 2005;1-52.
  2. Sofos JN, Geornaras I. Overview of current meat hygiene and safety risks and summary of recent studies on biofilms, and control of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in nonintact, and Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat, meat products. Meat sci. 2010;86(14):2-14.
  3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Komba EVG, Komba EV, Mkupasi EM, et al. Sanitary practices and occurrence of zoonotic conditions in cattle at slaughter in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania: implications for public health. Tanzan J Health Res. 2012;14(2):131-8.
  5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Joshi D, Maharjan M, Johansen MV, et al. Improving meat inspection and control in resource-poor communities: the Nepal example. Acta Trop. 2003;87(1):119-27.
  7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Bhattarai J, Badhu A, Shah T, Niraula S. Meat Hygiene Practices among Meat sellers in Dharan municipality of Eastern Nepal. Birat J Health Sci. 2017;2(3):184-90.
  9. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Ghimire L, Dhakal S, Pandeya YR, et al. Assessment of pork handlers’ knowledge and hygienic status of pig meat shops of Chitwan district focusing campylobacteriosis risk factors. Int J Infect Microbiol. 2013;2(1):17-21.
  11. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  12. Kumar DR. Assessment of awareness and hygienic practices among poultry butchers in Patna city, Bihar 2006.
  13. Google Scholar

  14. Alhaji N, Baiwa M. Factors affecting workers’ delivery of good hygienic and sanitary operations in slaughter houses in north-central Nigeria. Sokoto J Vet Sci. 2015;13(1):29-37.
  15. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  16. Birhanu W, Weldegebriel S, Bassazin G, et al. Assesment of Microbiological Quality and Meat Handling Practices in Butcher Shops and Abattoir Found in Gondar Town, Ethiopia. Int J Microbiol Res. 2017;8(2):59-68.
  17. Google Scholar

  18. Aburi PAS. Assessment of Hygiene practices used by Small Butchers and Slaughter Slabs in beef value chain in Juba town-South Sudan: Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science; 2012.
  19. Google Scholar

  20. Chepkemoi S, Lamuka PO, Abong GO, et al. Sanitation and Hygiene Meat Handling Practices in Small and Medium Enterprise butcheries in Kenya - Case Study of Nairobi and Isiolo Counties. Int J Food Saf. 2015;17:64-74.
  21. Google Scholar

Get the App

Vizag Tech Summit