Exploring customers’ perceptions of food adulteration at bazaars and supermarkets in Dhaka, Bangladesh 

Abstract Background: Food adulteration is an increasingly recognized global public health problem. In low- and middle-income countries like Bangladesh, adulteration is difficult to detect and respond to. We explored customers’ perceptions on food adulteration, perception of risk, and connections between information, participant characteristics, and patterns of adulterated food concerns that impact risk perception in urban Bangladesh.Methods: The study was conducted in Dhaka, between June and August 2015 at a supermarket, and a wet market. We explored differences in awareness and response to chemical contaminants (adulterants) by socio-economic status. The team conducted 38 in-depth interviews with 12 customers, and 4 staff from a supermarket, and 12 customers and 10 vendors from a wet market. Participants were selected purposively. Audio recorded data were coded based on thematic content and analyzed manually.Results: When asked what proportion of foods were likely adulterated, most participants estimated that at least 70% were adulterated with chemicals or artificial colors, especially fish, milk, and vegetables. The supermarket more commonly sold packaged foods with nutritional and expiry information on the label; and offered convenience in terms of size, layout, and cleanliness. All customers from the wet market thought that foods were cheaper and fresher than from supermarkets. Supermarket customers expressed greater concern about adulterated foods than wet market customers. Most participants from both markets reported that food adulteration is invisible, adulterated foods cannot be avoided, and have long-term negative health impacts including cancer, diabetes, paralysis, heart attack, and others. Nearly half of customers from both markets (n=11) were concerned about the poor nutritional value of adulterated food. Participants from both settings expressed the need for access to credible information about adulteration to help choose safe foods. The majority expressed the need for government action against those who are responsible for this. Conclusions: Food adulteration was considered a major health threat. The government could act on food adulteration prevention if provided credible population-based data on disease burden, a model food sampling and testing protocol, a model for inspections, organizational strengthening and training, example social and behavioral change communications with estimated costs.