lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0247740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer risk perception towards pesticide-stained tomatoes in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Sekabojja
  • Aggrey Atuhaire
  • Victoria Nabankema
  • Deogratias Sekimpi
  • Erik Jórs
Abstract
Background: Tomatoes are consumed daily. Unfortunately, abuse of pesticide application by vegetable growers in Uganda increases risks of pesticide residue exposure among consumers, as they may be above Maximum Residue Limits (European Union Maximum Residue Limits used as a standard in Uganda). This study aimed to determine consumer attitudes and risk perceptions towards pesticide-stained tomatoes in Uganda to support interventions that could be used to reduce pesticide residue exposures in food. Methods: A mixed methods cross-sectional study sampled 468 household consumers in four regions of Uganda, selecting one district (interventional project area) per region. In each district, about 60 household members were randomly selected from a total of three Sub Counties and interviewed. In addition, 9 tomato handlers (three tomato farmers, three tomato retailers, and three tomato wholesalers) participated in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) per district. Collected data were entered into MS-Excel 13 and exported into Stata version 14.0 for cleaning and analysis at a 5% level of significance and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). The proportion of risk perceptions and attitudes were computed and presented as percentages, while factors associated with risk perception were determined using Fisher exact test. Qualitative data collected under a traditional theory were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: More than half, 54.2% (253/468), of the respondents were females, mean age was 37 years (SD = 13.13, ranging from 18 to 88 years). Half of the respondents, 50.9% (238/467), were farmers by occupation, and 40.3% (188/468) had completed upper primary education. Only 5.0% (20/396) of consumers reported a high-risk perception towards tomatoes stained with pesticide residues, the rest, 95.0% (376/396), were buying pesticide-stained tomatoes despite their awareness of the possible health effects. The main reason for buying the pesticide-stained tomatoes was that a majority, 59.0% (230/390), lacked an alternative to stained tomatoes like organically grown tomatoes. However, consumers generally had a negative attitude towards pesticide-stained tomatoes, with 67.0% (313/468) of the consumers disagreeing with the statement that tomatoes sold on the market are safe. Consumer risk perception was significantly associated with their awareness about residues in the tomatoes; where the proportion of consumers who were aware of the risk of pesticide-stained tomatoes was 42.8 times more likely not to buy stained tomatoes compared to the proportion of those who were not aware. OR, 42.8 (95% CI: 10.76–170.28). However, after Fisher-Exact tests analysis, level of education P(0.975), gender P(0.581), and age group P(0.680) were not associated with consumer risk perception (95% CI and 5% level of significance). Conclusion: Although the consumers had a negative attitude towards the pesticide-stained tomatoes, their risk perception towards them ranked low, with most consumers buying tomatoes stained with pesticide residues due to a lack of an alternative. Ministry of Agriculture extension service efforts should promote and emphasize community to start household-based organic kitchen gardens as the efforts for the establishment of a national pesticide residue monitoring center awaits.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Sekabojja & Aggrey Atuhaire & Victoria Nabankema & Deogratias Sekimpi & Erik Jórs, 2023. "Consumer risk perception towards pesticide-stained tomatoes in Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0247740
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247740&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0247740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antoci, Angelo & Galdi, Giulio & Russu, Paolo, 2022. "Environmental degradation and comparative advantage reversal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    2. Ayla Amamou & Safa Chabouh & Lilia Sidhom & Alaeddine Zouari & Abdelkader Mami, 2025. "Agri-Food Supply Chain Sustainability Indicators from a Multi-Capital Perspective: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-34, May.
    3. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    4. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    5. Clement A. Tisdell, 2014. "Sustainable agriculture," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 32, pages 517-531, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Yuichiro Amekawa & Surat Hongsibsong & Nootchakarn Sawarng & Sumeth Yadoung & Girma Gezimu Gebre, 2021. "Producers’ Perceptions of Public Good Agricultural Practices Standard and Their Pesticide Use: The Case of Q-GAP for Cabbage Farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    7. Esther Devilliers & A. Carpentier, 2019. "Recovering cropping management practices specific production functions: clustering and latent approaches," Post-Print hal-04157853, HAL.
    8. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    10. Asfaw, Solomon & Mithofer, Dagmar & Waibel, Hermann, 2008. "EU private agrifood standards in African high-value crops: pesticide use and farm-level productivity," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44145, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Aparna Rao & Risa Morimoto, 2020. "An Analysis of the use of Chemical Pesticides and their Impact on Yields, Farmer Income and Agricultural Sustainability: The Case for Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia," Working Papers 234, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    12. Margaux Lapierre & Alexandre Sauquet & Julie Subervie, 2019. "Providing technical assistance to peer networks to reduce pesticide use in Europe: Evidence from the French Ecophyto plan," Working Papers hal-02190979, HAL.
    13. Perry, Edward D. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2020. "Neonicotinoids in U.S. maize: Insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Clevo Wilson, 2002. "Private costs and the relation between pesticide exposure and ill health: evidence from Sri Lanka," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(3), pages 213-227, September.
    15. Olivier Boiral & Marie‐Christine Brotherton & David Talbot & Laurence Guillaumie, 2022. "Legitimizing unsustainable practices: The institutional logics of pro‐pesticide organizations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2284-2298, July.
    16. Gerardo Jiménez & Wim Pelupessy, 2009. "La calidad ambiental como variable estratégica en cadenas agroalimentarias con tecnologías continuas," Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, vol. 10, pages 45-59, Mayo.
    17. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    18. Rebekah Brown & Richard Ashley & Megan Farrelly, 2011. "Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(15), pages 4037-4050, December.
    19. Alassane DRABO, 2010. "Interrelationships between Health, Environment Quality and Economic Activity: What Consequences for Economic Convergence," Working Papers 201005, CERDI.
    20. Felix FitzRoy & Ian Smith, 2004. "Welfare, Growth and Environment: A Sceptical Review of the Skeptical Environmentalist by B. Lomborg," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(5), pages 707-717, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0247740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг