A Comparative Study Regarding Food Adulteration and Food Safety in Rural and Urban Area.

 

Dr. Rajashree Chatterjee¹, Prof. P. K. Sharma²

¹RA, SoS in Sociology, Pt.Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur

 

ABSTRACT:

Legally the term "Adulteration" means that a food product fails to meet standards. Adulteration is an addition of other substance to a food item in order to increase the quantity of the food item in raw form or prepared form, which may cause in the loss of the pure quality of food item. These substances may be food items or non-food items. Nutritive food plays vital role in maintaining proper health and also helps in preventing diseases. All body functions like metabolic, hormonal, mental, physical or chemical cannot be performed by the body without nutritive food. The world is facing a number of significant changes which will impact on food safety. But off all deception practiced, adulterating food with ingredients deleterious to health is the most criminal.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Adulteration is an addition of another substance to a food item in order to increase the quantity of the food item in raw form or prepared form, which may result in the loss of actual quality of food item.¹ these substances may be other available food items or non-food items. Among meat and meat products some of the items used to adulterate are water or ice, carcasses, or carcasses of animals other than the animal meant to be consumed. Florence Nightingale recognizes the radically changed outcomes by addressing clean water, nourishing food, light and fresh air. ² Healthy individual realizes abilities, can cope with normal stress of life, can work productively and is able to make contribution to the community.³ Access to good food has been man’s main endeavour from the early days of human existence^.4 Safety of food is a basic requirement of food quality” food Safety” implied absence of any contaminants, adulterants or any other substance that make food injurious to health.⁵Adulteration of foods can either be intentional, unintentional or natural. Intentional adulteration is the act of adding, removing substance to food and alteration of the existing natural properties of food.⁶ Unintentional adulteration is usually attributed to ignorance, carelessness or lack of facilities for maintaining food quality. Natural adulteration occurs due to the presence of certain chemicals, organic compounds or radicals naturally occurring in food which are injurious to health.

 

 

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

A study to access the knowledge regarding food adulteration, its detection and to create awareness among homemakers regarding food safety standards in selected rural and urban community.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

1. To identify the socio- demographic variables of rural and urban group of the homemakers.

2. To access the knowledge of rural and urban home makers regarding food adulteration and its detection.

3. To compare the knowledge of rural and urban home makers regarding food adulteration and its detection.

 

Conceptual Framework:

Conceptual framework is a cohesive support linkage of selected interrelated concepts. Conceptual framework is a theoretical approach to the study of problem that are scientifically based, which emphasizes the selection, arrangement and clarification of its concepts and provides a back ground or foundation of the study.

 

Methods Tool and Techniques used Sampling:

In sample, standardized measurement and sampling procedures are intended to enhance the reliability of observation, facilitate replication a permit statistical analysis of data, generalization to a large population

 

SAMPLE SIZE:

A sample is a small proportion of population selected to participate in the research study. The sample for the study is 60 homemaker’s i.e.30 homemakers each from rural and urban areas.

 

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:

Sampling technique is a process of selecting a group of people, events behavior and other elements with which to conduct a study. In the present study non probability sampling technique namely convenience sampling was used in which sample is chosen according to the choice of the investigator with regard to the characteristic required under investigation.

 

SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA:

a. Belonged to rural community Vaishalinagar (ward no.1) Durg District, Chhattisgarh

b. Belonged to urban community Model Town (ward no.1) Durg District, Chhattisgarh

c. Willingness to participate

d. Present at the time of study and cooperative.

 

SELECTION OF TOOL:

The researcher used self structured interview schedule to assess the knowledge regarding food adulteration and to create awareness among home makers regarding food safety standards in selected rural and urban community

 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOOL:

In order to establish the validity and reliability of instrument following steps were taken in development of tool.

a.        Extensive review of research

b.       Discussion with experts

c.        Pilot survey

d.       News paper reviews.

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Table no.1 Age of the Respondents

Age in yrs	Rural (n1=30)		Urban(n2=30)
	Frequency =n	%	Frequency =n	%
20-30	15	50.0	21	70.0
30-40	8	26.67	4	13.34
40-50	7	23.33	5	16.66
total	30	100	30	100

 

Table I shows that among rural homemakers majority of homemakers belong to the age group of 20-30 years is 50.% whereas in urban setup also majority 70% of the respondents belong to the same age group.As compared to urban area in age group 30 -40 years the researcher found more respondents in rural areas as 26.67% and urban as 13.34 %. 23.33 % and 16.66 % of respondents belong to age group of 40 -50 in rural and urban respectively.

 

Table No.2 Religion of respondents.

Religion	Rural (n1=30)		Urban(n2=30)
	Frequency =n	%	Frequency =n	%
Hindu	13	43.34	14	46.67
Muslim	8	26.67	10	33.33
Christian	9	30.0	6	20.0
Total	30	100	30	100

 

 

Table no.2 shows that in both cases majority of respondent in rural areas is 43.34% and urban area is 46.67% followed by Muslims as 26.67% and 33.33% respectively in rural and Urban areas. The researcher has not bifurcated the sub caste of Muslims taken as one. In rural areas 30% of respondents are Christian and in urban setting 20% are Christians.

 

 

 

Table No.3 Caste of respondents.

Caste	Rural (n1=30)		Urban(n2=30)
	Frequency =n	%	Frequency =n	%
General	06	20.0	12	40.0
Schedule Class	05	16.67	03	10.0
Schedule tribe	04	13.34	05	16.67
Other backward class	15	50.0	10	33.33
Total	30	100	30	100

 

Table No 3 depicts about caste of respondents where the researcher found that majority of the rural people belong to other back ward class ie. 50.% where as it second major in case of urban life ie.33.33%. In response to Schedule class 16.67 in rural and 10. % in Urban, followed by 13.34 % of Schedule tribe in Rural and 16.67 % in Urban where as 20% of general respondents area from Rural and 40% are from urban.

 

Table No.4 Educational Status of Respondents.

Education	Rural (n1=30)		Urban(n2=30)
	Frequency =n	%	Frequency =n	%
Illiterate	2	6.67	0	00.0
Secondary	2	6.67	5	16.67
Higher secondary	15	50.0	11	36.66
Collegiate	11	36.66	14	46.67
Total	30	100	30	100

 

Table No 4 tells about the educational qualification of the respondents. The researcher found that the percentage of Illiterate is nominal ie 6.67% in rural and in Urban no illiterate were found. Respondents with Secondary education is 6.67 in rural and 16.67 in urban settings.The percentage of Higher secondary in rural areas is 50.0 and 36.66 in urban area and In both rural and Urban areas the percentage of Collegiate is ie. 36.66 % in rural and 46.67 % in Urban respectively Analyzing, access the knowledge of rural and urban home makers regarding food adulteration and its detection

 

Table No.5 Overall analysis of knowledge score of rural and urban home makers regarding food adulteration and its detection.

Score	Rural  (n1=30)		Urban(n2=30)
	Frequency =n	%	Frequency =n	%
Poor	15	50.0	14	46.66
Average	8	26.67	7	23.34
Good	6	20.00	7	23.34
Excellent	01	3.33	2	6.66
Total	30	100	30	100

 

Table no 5 depicts that among rural homemakers 50.0% possess poor knowledge regarding food adulteration and detection, 26.67% possess average knowledge, 20.00% good knowledge and 3.33% have excellent knowledge, whereas in urban areas 46.66% possess poor knowledge regarding food adulteration and detection, 23.34% possess average knowledge, as well as good knowledge and 6.66% have excellent knowledge.

 

Table No.6 Scores of food adulteration and its detection

Note:- Maximum received multiple response so  total is not  calculated on 30.

 

Table no 7. To compare the knowledge of regarding food adulteration and its detection

	Rural Home makers	Urban Homemakers	Calculated value ‘t’	df	Critical Value at p<.05	Inference
Mean knowledge score	X=12.86	Y=13.4	.473	58	2.00	Not significant

 

Table no 6 shows about the scores of knowledge regarding food adulteration and its detection where in rural areas 64.33% of homemakers possess knowledge in area related to food adulteration followed by consumer protection acts 51.34% and about detection of adulteration 38.7%. Where as in urban areas 62.33% of homemakers possess knowledge in area related to food adulteration followed by consumer protection acts 66.0% and about detection of adulteration 38.6%.

 

This table shows that the calculated value of ‘t’ is 0.473 which is less than table value (2.00) at p<0.05 therefore the difference in mean scores of knowledge of rural and urban homemakers is not significant.

CONCLUSION:

The increasing number of food producers and the outstanding amounts of imported food stuffs enables the producers to mislead and cheat consumers. To differentiate of those who take advantage of legal rules from the once who commit food adulteration is very difficult. The consciousness of consumers has become very crucial. However, how can we expect consequent behavior from them regarding controversial issues emerging day by day. In addition, ignorance and unfair market behaviors is endangering consumer health. So we need sanctions and judicial penalties with adequate restating force to halt this process.

 

REFERENCES:

1.        Susan H V, Crocker. Real food matters Journal of Psychology2010; 48(10); 48-53

2.        Gupta Kusum, Gupta L.C Gupta Abhishek – Food and Nutrition : Facts and Figures 5^th ed.New Delhi , Jaypee Brothers ltd. 1999.,163

3.        Majumder- Essentials of Human Nutrition1st ed. New Delhi , Jaypee Brothers ltd. 1997.,42

4.        Williams Rodwell Sue- Essentials of Nutrition and Diet Therapy 6^thed Mosby Publication London, 2001, 178-180.

5.        Pass More R, Human Nutrition and Dietetics8th ed.Hong Kong, Churchill Living Stone Publication, 2005 p248.

6.        Kamalam S. Essentials in Community Health Nursing 1^sted new Delhi: Jjjaypee Brothers Ltd. 1994 p521.

 

Received on 25.02.2017

Modified on 15.03.2017

Accepted on 29.03.2017

© A&V Publications all right reserved

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 8(1): January - March, 2017, 65-68.

DOI:  10.5958/2321-5828.2017.00010.9