4.6 Article

Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe

期刊

FOOD POLICY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 352-361

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.09.003

关键词

vitamin A deficiency; household income; organoleptic characteristic; probit model; nutrition education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzes consumers' awareness of and attitudes towards yellow maize products in Zimbabwe and suggests intervention strategies that will ensure increased production and consumption of the crop, which is rich in provitamin A to help prevent the incidence of vitamin A deficiency prevalent among vulnerable groups. Data from 360 randomly selected rural and urban households show that yellow maize is known to all but few are aware of its nutritional qualities or consume it. The main source of supply is imported food aid. Rich in oils, carotenoids and fructose, yellow maize easily undergoes chemical changes to produce unacceptable organoleptic properties (or bad taste) if poorly handled during importation. These two factors are responsible for it being perceived inferior to white maize by consumers. Quality assurance during importation can improve consumer confidence but a long-term strategy will be to vigorously promote domestic production of yellow maize varieties rich in high levels of beta-carotene that meet the preferences of consumers. Drawing from a probit model regression analysis, nutritional education can potentially promote yellow maize consumption, especially if targeted at low income households. Domestic production and consumption of yellow maize will decrease vitamin A deficiency among vulnerable groups and improve food insecurity through reduced grain prices and increased incomes for farmers. These results draw attention to the need for policy makers in developing countries to review their agricultural policies to ensure that they do not undermine the local production and consumption of nutritionally valuable crops. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据