The awareness-to-agreement-to-adherence model of the food safety compliance: the case of street food consumers in Manila City, Philippines

Abstract

Background: Street food consumption can pose food safety hazards. To mitigate this risk, both vendors and consumers must play essential roles in implementing the Philippine Food Safety Act 2013 (RA 10611). While there are sufficient reports about the food handling practices of vendors, there is limited evidence regarding the behavior of consumers. This study aims to determine the awareness, agreement, and adherence of street food consumers to the food safety as stipulated in RA 10611. Methods: The study aimed to test the awareness-to-agreement-to-adherence model by analyzing the results of a self-administered survey on food safety. The survey was completed by 384 street food consumers in Manila City, Philippines. It consisted of three parts, each containing 15 items that assessed consumers’ awareness, agreement, and adherence to food safety policies. Each item was assigned a score of 1 for a positive response and 0 otherwise. Total scores and percentages were calculated. A score ranging 80–100% was considered good, 60–79% moderate, and <60% poor. Respondents who consistently scored high in awareness, agreement, and adherence were classified as fitting the model. Results: The distribution of male (n=189; 49.2%) and female (n=195; 50.8%) respondents adhered to the study’s quota. The majority of respondents (n=346, 90.1%) were aged 18–30 years old, and most (n=224; 58.3%) had attained a college level of education. Out of the 384 respondents, 315 (82.0%) had a good score in ‘awareness’, 361 (94.0%) had a good score in ‘agreement’, and 339 (88.3%) had a good score in ‘adherence’. A total of 290 (75.5%) respondents fit the model, while 94 (24.5%) deviated from the model. Six deviations were observed, including respondents with good awareness and agreement but poor adherence, noted as good-good-poor (n=12; 3.1%). Other deviations included good-poor-good (n=7; 1.8%), good-poor-poor (n=6; 1.6%), poor-good-good (n=45; 11.7%), poor-good-poor (n=13; 3.4%), and poor-poor-poor (n=11; 2.9%). Regression analysis revealed that adherence to food safety was significantly positively associated with awareness (B=0.219, P value =0.01) and agreement (B=0.774, P value =0.006). Awareness accounted for 21.9% of the variance in adherence, t(1, 384) =6.194, P value =0.01, while agreement accounted for 77.4% of the variance in adherence, t(1, 384) =14.346, P value =0.006. Among the socio-demographic characteristics, only the highest educational attainment was associated with consumers’ awareness, agreement, and adherence to food safety. Conclusions: Most street food consumers in Manila, Philippines were aware of the food safety as stipulated in the Philippine Food Safety Act 2013. However, this study found that awareness does not guarantee agreement and adherence to food safety. ‘Agreement’ influences ‘adherence’ more than ‘awareness’ does. It is suggested that existing interventions related to food safety issues among street food consumers be reviewed, with the goal of not only increasing awareness but also instilling consumers’ accountability for food safety.