Cited by 19Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyRisk Perception and Management

Consumer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding food safety – A perspective from Laos

Open access
Kasza, Gyula, Izsó, Tekla, Kunszabó, Atilla, Szakos, Dávid, Lénárt, István, Bozánné Békefi, Emese, Vongxay, Khamphouth, Popp, József +5 more·2024·Heliyon

Abstract

Primary research data on food chain safety at consumer level is needed to help policymakers to decrease the risk of foodborne infections in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to 1) determine Lao people's food safety knowledge, attitudes, and intentions and identify the most influential factors that shape their food safety behaviour, and 2) to support the government in the development of more efficient risk communication programmes. A paper-based consumer survey was implemented to collect quantitative data on the selected topics about Laotian consumers, as well as on the equipment of households regarding the conditions and tools necessary for safe food preparation and storage. A model was developed based on the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was applied to analyse the factors that affect food safety behaviour. The elements of Knowledge and Perceived Behavioural Control positively influence behaviours, such as using separate chopping boards for raw and ready-to-eat foods. According to the model, only 10 % of the Intentions would be translated into Behaviours, which gap can be explained by the lack of a hygienic environment. Although the survey indicated that Laotian people intend to follow food safety guidelines, participants felt they lacked sufficient knowledge. This perception was validated by the knowledge test and behavioural part of the study. In the light of these findings, it is essential to raise awareness and promote food safety knowledge and interventions, such as enhancing food safety education in childhood. This would help to facilitate and encourage adopting safe practices to improve overall food safety at the consumer level, delivering positive impacts also to the food business sector.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29725

Cites

67 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most of these studies (n = 9) described practices as poor or unsatisfactory.

    “Most of these studies (n = 9) described practices as poor or unsatisfactory [51,52,53,54,55,64,66,69,72].”

    From Food Safety Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) of Urban Consumers in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries (LLMICs): A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Results and discussions (Descriptive statistics; page unavailable) identify an unsatisfactory practice: only 9.2% of respondents reported always using separate chopping boards. But the same section reports several safe practices performed regularly, and the Conclusions say most Lao consumers knew essential food-safety rules. The paper supports shortcomings in particular practices, not an overall description of practices as poor or unsatisfactory. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A significant number of studies revealed that consumers often possessed adequate theoretical knowledge regarding food safety but failed to apply this knowledge in their daily routine.

    “a significant number of studies [46,48,49,50,51,55,61] revealed that consumers often possessed adequate theoretical knowledge regarding food safety—such as the need for handwashing or proper storage temperatures—but failed to apply this knowledge in their daily routine.”

    From Food Safety Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) of Urban Consumers in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries (LLMICs): A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say most Lao consumers knew essential food-safety rules, and the Descriptive statistics section reports that few always used separate chopping boards. This supports a gap between some knowledge and practice, but the paper also identifies knowledge gaps, particularly about cooled storage; handwashing and chilled storage were among the practices respondents reported performing most often. It therefore does not support the claim that consumers generally had adequate knowledge yet failed to apply the handwashing and storage guidance cited as examples. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies collected information through a combination of interviews and questionnaire-based surveys.

    “Most of the studies collected information through a combination of interviews and questionnaire-based surveys [47,48,52,55,56,59,61,62,63,64,66,69].”
  • One study found that consumers in Lao PDR had some general awareness but lacked the specific knowledge to effectively prevent foodborne diseases, particularly regarding microbial contamination.

    “One study [55] found that consumers in Lao PDR had some general awareness but lacked the specific knowledge to effectively prevent foodborne diseases, particularly regarding microbial contamination.”
  • Other studies described knowledge as average or mixed.

    “Several studies reported good or satisfactory knowledge levels [49,50,51,52,57,58,60,63,68], while other studies described knowledge as average or mixed [47,55,61,62,67,71].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [16]Mekong Institute Mekong Institute joins forces with Lao PDR's Ministry of industry and Commerce to promote agribusiness and investment in processed food sector at the 4th Lancang-Mekong business Forum - NEWS - Mekong Institute. [Internet] [cited 2023 July 20]. Available from: https://www.mekonginstitute.org/news-activities/news-details/2022/11/09/mekong-institute-joi-2/ 2022
  2. [18]Lénárt I. Hungarian Tied Aid Loan Program in Laos, Final Review Meeting Presentation 2023
  3. [40]Chanthakoun V. Manysoat S. Briatia X. Bandavong V. Study on food safety by detection of contamination in food of the market at Luang Prabang Sujournal 3 1 2017 144 155 http://www.su-journal.com/index.php/su/article/view/31/31
  4. [47]FAO, European Union and CIRAD, Food Systems Profile – The Lao People's Democratic Republic. Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. Rome, Brussels and Montpellier, France. 10.4060/cc0302en [Internet] 2022 [cited 2023 May 23]. Available from: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/603045/1/Food%20system%20profile%20LAO%20PDR_en.pdf. · DOI
  5. [50]Süth M. Authority Risk Communication in the Food Chain. (Hatósági Kockázatkommunikáció Az Élelmiszerláncban) PhD Thesis 2018 University of Kaposvár Kaposvár
  6. [67]IFAD Lao people's Democratic Republic country Strategic opportunities programme 2018-2024 World Population Policies 2015 2018 10.18356/9b444715-en · DOI
  7. [102]Nunnally J.C. Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory third ed. 1994 McGraw-Hill Inc New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kasza, G., Izsó, T., Kunszabó, A., Szakos, D., Lénárt, I., Bozánné Békefi, E., Vongxay, K., Popp, J., Oláh, J., Lakner, Z., Nugraha, W. S., Bognár, L., & Süth, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Veterinary Medicine (HU)
  • Sechenov University (RU)
  • Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (LA)
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
  • University of Debrecen (HU)
  • Magyar Agrár- és Élettudományi Egyetem (HU)
  • Ministry of Agriculture (HU)
Corresponding author
  • Kasza, Gyula
  • Izsó, Tekla
  • Kunszabó, Atilla
  • Szakos, Dávid
  • Lénárt, István
  • Vongxay, Khamphouth
  • Popp, József
  • Oláh, Judit
  • Lakner, Zoltán
  • Nugraha, Widya Satya
  • Bognár, Lajos
  • Süth, Miklós
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e29725
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394858114
Cited by
19
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Food Safety Authority
  • Hungarian Government
  • Maa- ja MetsätalousministeriÖ
  • Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (\u00DANKP-21-5)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
food safety knowledge, food safety attitudes, food safety behavior, consumer behavior, theory of planned behavior, risk communication, household food hygiene, food poisoning, Laos, food safety education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review