See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263406561

Food additive control: A survey among

selected consumers and manufacturers

Article in British Food Journal February 2014

DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0125

CITATION READS

1 51

3 authors, including:

B. Esha Aumjaud
University of Mauritius
5 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Shalini Amnee Neeliah

Food Science and Technology Divisi
22 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: B. Esha Aumjaud
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 24 October 2016
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Food additive
Food additive control: a survey control
among selected consumers and
manufacturers
353
Bibi Nadia Shaheen Koyratty and Badroonesha Aumjaud
Department of Agriculture and Food Science, University of Mauritius, Received 17 May 2012
Reduit, Mauritius, and Revised 8 August 2012
Accepted 13 August 2012
Shalini Amnee Neeliah
Sustainable Agri-Food Systems, Quatre-Bornes, Mauritius

Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore consumer knowledge, attitudes and practices relating
to food additives and to investigate manufacturers attitudes and practices pertaining to food additives
and their control.
Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire administered face-to-face interviews were
conducted with 180 consumers from the population working at the University of Mauritius while
an interview guide was used for in-depth interviews with 12 manufacturers.
Findings The results showed that 65 per cent of all respondents never checked food labels for
additives. Overall, the respondents had poor knowledge on food additives. A significant relationship
was established between level of education and knowledge rating based on percentage correct answers
to food additive questions ( p , 0.05). The mean percentage correct answers for consumers with
different educational levels increased in the following order: primary education; secondary education;
tertiary education ( p , 0.05). The responses relating to attitudinal statements reflected indecision and
certain misconceptions. In-depth interviews with local food manufacturers revealed positive attitudes
and practices towards food additives. Several problems relating to additive control were mentioned,
such as outdated regulations and weak enforcement.
Research limitations/implications Given the sample sizes, the consumer research should not be
extrapolated to the Mauritian population while the exploratory manufacturer study should not be
generalised to the whole food industry.
Originality/value These findings provide a factual basis for further investigations, review of
current food legislation and development of education strategies for consumers, all aiming towards
enhancing the effectiveness of the national food control system in Mauritius.
Keywords Attitudes, Knowledge, Practices, Consumers, Food additives, Manufacturers
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The role of food additives in maintaining food supply worldwide has become more
prominent in recent years (US Department of Agriculture, 2008). They are essential
tools in the manufacture of many food items to ensure safety and quality, extend
shelf-life and enhance consumer appeal (Ilback and Busk, 2000). However, consumers
tend to look upon their presence in foods suspiciously and many seek to avoid them British Food Journal
Vol. 116 No. 2, 2014
pp. 353-372
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The University of Mauritius is acknowledged for its support of this research along with the 0007-070X
valuable contribution of all consumers and participating food industries. DOI 10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0125
BFJ (Wandel, 1997). According to Emerton and Choi (2008), this mistrust can be explained
116,2 by the fact that over the course of their evolution, food additives have been linked to
food adulteration, use of inferior raw materials, poor processing techniques and health
problems such as allergic and intolerance reactions.
Although risk assessment based on toxicological testing is carried out before using
a food additive (Joint Expert Committee of Food Additives, 2000), the increase in global
354 trade is associated with the risk that new and unapproved additives will appear in
foodstuffs and old ones will be used in unacceptable amounts (Ilback and Busk, 2000).
It is crucial that consumers perceive risks arising from them, learn how to manage
them when making purchases and decide whether the food is safe or not (Onay et al.,
2011).
Indeed, research on food safety issues has reported that consumers tend to make
rational food choices when they have some knowledge about adverse health effects
associated with certain substances and when they are empowered to make judgements
as to the level of risk involved in not changing behaviour (Redmond and Griffith,
2003a). However, Essoo and Chellum (1999) have reported that in food purchases, cost
is of prime importance to Mauritian consumers. Thus, measurement of knowledge
alone is not enough to plan effective strategies to strengthen desirable behaviours and
discourage unsuitable ones. Wilcock et al. (2004) reported that knowledge influences
attitudes which impact on behaviour. However, Redmond and Griffith (2003b) reported
that the findings of food safety studies have demonstrated that knowledge does not
generally correlate with self-reported practices and actual behaviour. It is therefore
important to study consumer knowledge, attitude and practices to generate valid data
for in-depth understanding of consumer behaviour.
Research has shown that knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to food issues
are influenced by factors such as gender, educational level, having children in the
household (Seechurn et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2004), age, income, (Williams et al.,
2004), health issues (Miles et al., 2004) and being the principal shopper (FSA, 2009).
Characterisation of the link between these factors and consumer knowledge, attitudes
and behaviour is of interest to food producers, retailers, public authorities and health
educators (Wilcock et al., 2004). Understanding consumer profile and how it relates to
knowledge, attitude and behaviour is meaningful for: food manufacturers to design
and develop food products, packaging and labelling that fulfil consumer needs and
expectations; food authorities to shape effective risk communication strategies and
actions to enhance consumer behaviour and safety.
Few studies have investigated knowledge, attitudes, perceptions or practices of
stakeholders in matters of food additives. Altug and Elmaci (1995) carried out a
combined questionnaire and interview study among Turkish doctors, housewives,
nurses, high school students, kindergarten teachers as well as students and academic
staff of the food engineering department of Ege University. The study revealed that
irrespective of groups, most of the consumers had little knowledge on food additives
and perceived food additives as being harmful to health. A similar observation was
reported in a quantitative telephone survey among 1200 Australian adults by Williams
et al. (2004). Additionally Wandel (1997) and the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority (2001) reported negative consumer attitudes towards the numbering system
used to declare additives on food labels. Tarnavolgyi (2003) undertook a focus group
study in Hungary which uncovered that food technologists had more knowledge on
additives and that the additive content in foodstuffs played a more important role in Food additive
their buying choices than the common consumers or doctors. control
Mauritius is a small island state of the Indian Ocean, with 1.3 million multi-ethnic
consumers. It has witnessed significant economic development over the last 40 years
with concomitant changes in its food system (Neeliah and Shankar, 2008). Such
changes have comprised the use of increased food additives along the system. A wide
array of food products, from those labelled as Halaal (Jummah Mosque Halaal 355
Council, 2010), Vegetarian (Mackoojee, 2010), GM-free and Diet to infant or street
foods (FSA, 2009) contain food additives. According to a study on the perception and
general use of food additives among local manufacturers, 80 per cent of Mauritian food
industries claimed to use food additives and considered these essential due to
competition (Charles et al., 1998).
Although there are few published studies on food additives in Mauritius, a
documentary analysis focussing mainly on press articles can be very revealing. For
instance, there have been reports of the presence of the textile dye rhodamine in cotton
candy (LExpress, 2008a) and according to health inspectors nine out of ten salted
ground-nut sellers used this dye (LExpress, 2005). Sudan, a non-food grade red
additive was also found in spices imported from India (LExpress, 2008a). Such
adulterations indicate that there are certain inadequacies in the enforcement of food
additive regulations. Thus, understanding how manufacturers view and use food
additives is important to identify the root causes of non-implementation of the relevant
regulations to provide a basis for necessary actions for improvement.
The Mauritian Institute for Consumer Protection explained that there is a lack of
resources in Mauritius (LExpress, 2008b). This is an obstacle to effective enforcement
of food additive regulations. These regulations and standards are spread over several
documents, namely: the Mauritius Food Regulations 1999, Consumer Protection
Regulations 1999, Mauritian Standards 1984 and Pre-packaged Food Regulations 1990.
The main document concerned with food additives is Part VIII of the Mauritius Food
Regulations 1999 enforced under the Mauritius Food Act 1998.
There is evidence of research on perceptions, opinions and practices relating to food
additives in other countries (Altug and Elmaci, 1995; Tarnavolgyi, 2003; Williams et al.,
2004). In Mauritius, a review of the literature indicates that there is no published
consumer research data and no recent studies pertaining to manufacturers on food
additives. Hence, in an attempt to address this gap, this investigation was undertaken
to: 1) determine the practices, knowledge and attitudes of selected consumers towards
food additives, 2) characterise the link between knowledge on food additives and
gender, religion as well as education level of consumers, and 3) investigate the attitudes
and practices of a group of local food manufacturers relating to food additives.

2. Methodology
2.1 Consumer survey: knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to food additives
180 respondents were chosen from the working population on the University of
Mauritius campus, bearing in mind, accessibility, time and cost factors. The
questionnaire administered through face-to-face interview, took on average 25 minutes
for completion. Although time-consuming and costly, personal interviews offer the
highest response rate with the opportunity to clarify answers and arouse interest in
potential respondents (Cohen et al., 2008). It is also less prone to social desirability bias
BFJ which affects the validity of responses from self-reported practices (Redmond and
116,2 Griffith, 2003a).
The questionnaire was sub-divided into three sections. The first section dealt with
whether respondents checked for additive information on food labels. The second
section addressed knowledge on food additives through a series of multiple choice
questions. Three choices were given for the multiple choice questions, along with an I
356
dont know option to reduce the level of bias. Tables I and II indicate the options and
correct answer for each question. Questions and proposed answers were formulated
after consultation of other labelling and food additive research surveys (Altug and
Elmaci, 1995; Australia New Zealand Food Authority, 2001). The questions were
developed according to expected consumer food additive knowledge that is required to
ensure effective food safety control. Other principles which were applied in designing
the options for multiple choice questions were standardisation of presentation and
style to enhance probability that a correct response is based on true knowledge rather
than guessing ability of respondents.

Question Options and correct answer

What do you understand by the term A. Food additives are natural or artificial substances added
food additive? intentionally to food products for technological purposes
B. Food additives are natural or artificial substances that
arise automatically in food products and that may cause
health problems
C. Food additives are artificial substances added
intentionally to food products to hide the low-quality raw
materials used
According to you what is the role of A. To treat, cure or prevent certain diseases like cancer
additives in food? B. To improve the flavour, colour and shelf-life of foods
C. To increase the net weight of food products
How do you differentiate between A. Natural additives are obtained from living sources and
natural and artificial food additives? artificial additives are produced in laboratories
B. Natural additives are obtained from plants and insects
and artificial additives are obtained from animals
C. Natural additives are the same as artificial additives since
they are obtained from the same sources
What do you think is the purpose of A. It is used to enhance the flavour of snacks
adding mono-sodium glutamate (MSG) B. It is used to create an addiction to snacks
to snack foods? C. It is used to improve the colour of snacks
What is the reported health effect of A. Allergy and intolerance especially in asthma sufferers
food preservatives such as sodium B. It is a cancer causing agent in elderly women
sulphite (E221)? C. It leads to bone deformities in new born babies
Table I. What is the reported health effect of A. May cause hyperactivity in children
Questions and options to food colouring additives such as B. May improve the eyesight of the elderly
assess knowledge on food tartrazine (E102)? C. May be carcinogenic to young adults
additive definition, role
and health issues Note: Options in italics indicate the correct answer

Question
How many food additives can you
identify from the ingredient list?
What is the meaning of the E-number,
E221 used with sodium sulphite?
What type of ingredient is the non-
nutritive sweetener aspartame?
Why does the presence of aspartame
necessitate the claim Contains
phenylalanine?
What does the Diet claim on a bottle A. The soft drink is additive free
of soft drink imply?
What do you understand by the No
Preservatives claim on food products? B. The food product does not contain any food additive at all
Note: Options in italics indicate the correct answer
Food additive
Options and correct answers
control
A. 6
B. 8
C. 10
A. It indicates that sodium sulphite is the 221st permitted
additive in Europe 357
B. It indicates that sodium sulphite is a permitted food
additive in Europe
C. It indicates the maximum permitted level of sodium
sulphite in foods
A. It is a sweetening substance that destroys all other
nutrients that are present in a diet
B. It is a sweetening substance that does not contribute to the
total calorie level in a diet
C. It is a sweetening substance that can increase the total
amount of nutrients in a diet
A. To enable people sensitive to phenylalanine to take the
necessary precautions
B. To inform diabetic patients that the corn chips snack
product is safe for them
C. To highlight the health benefit of aspartame in the corn
chips snack product
B. The soft drink does not give energy
C. The soft drink can replace lunch
A. The food product contains additives but not preservatives Table II.
Questions and options to
C. The food product contains only traces of preservatives assess understanding of
labelling relating to food
additives

A fictitious ingredients list was created to evaluate consumers interpretation of the list
of ingredients, a mandatory particular for food labels (Figure 1). It was included in the
knowledge assessment questionnaire.
For each correct answer, one (1) mark was given while a score of zero (0) was
attributed to each wrong answer. The percentage correct answer was then used to rate
observed food additive knowledge as: Poor (Marks , 40 per cent), Good (40 #
marks , 60), Very Good (60 # marks , 80) and Excellent (80 # marks , 100).
The last section evaluated attitudes of the consumers through responses to attitude
statements, measured on a 3-point scale, i.e. Agree, Neither agree nor disagree and
Disagree. A 5-point Likert scale was initially chosen. However, pre-testing revealed
that respondents could not satisfactorily discriminate between the extreme points
strongly agree/strongly disagree and moderate scales agree/disagree.
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 17.0, 2007) was used to
analyse the collected data. Using percentages, descriptive analysis was conducted to
identify the practices and attitudes of the respondents. Cross tabulation, chi-square
BFJ
116,2

358

Figure 1.
Fictitious ingredients list
used for multiple choice
questions

test, analysis of variance and post hoc analysis at statistical significance of 5 per cent,
were used to evaluate the food additive knowledge with respect to the following
variables: religion, gender and education level.

2.2 In-depth study among manufacturers: attitudes and practices relating to food
additives
A total of 12 large-scale food industries were selected for this exploratory study. Based
on the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose by the Central
Statistical Office (2010), food products are grouped as follows: Bread and Cereals; Meat,
Fish and Seafood; Dairy products; Oils and Fats; Fruit products; Vegetable products;
Confectionary; and Alcoholic and Non-alcoholic beverages. The manufacturing
companies which agreed to participate in this study covered most of these food
categories.
A semi-structured in-depth interview guide consisting of specific issues to be
investigated was prepared. The pre-planned questions were followed by probes to help
the interviewer focus on matters relevant to the research objectives. The interviews
were carried out in a conversational style without insisting on asking the questions in a
specific order. On average interviews took 45 minutes. Some respondents agreed to the
recording of the interview. During the interaction, written notes were taken on the
information being provided.
Since most of the interviews were carried out in the respondents offices at
manufacturing plants, interruptions often disturbed the flow of discussions. When
resuming the interview, questions or ideas expressed had to be recapitulated. At times
respondents had to be put in the interviewing mood again. Within 24 hours of the
interview, all field notes and recorded conversations were analysed. All relevant
comments for each question were listed and organised to interpret the information. The
answers were analysed and summarised. Participants quotes were selected to identify
key and common issues that emerged.
3. Results and discussion Food additive
3.1 Consumer survey: knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to food additives control
3.1.1 Socio-demographic profile of respondents. The proportion of consumers
interviewed was equally distributed among gender (male and female) and education
levels (primary, secondary, tertiary). An equal proportion of respondents came from
the three main religious groups in Mauritius namely Hindus, Christians and Muslims.
Of the 180 respondents, 48.3 per cent were aged 18 to 35 years, 38.3 per cent were aged 359
between 36 and 55 years and 13.3 per cent were older than 55 years. In terms of
shopping activities, 53.3 per cent claimed to be the main household shopper.
3.1.2 Practice relating to food additives. Only 35 per cent of the 180 respondents
claimed to check food labels for additive information (Table III). Other local studies
found that more than half of the Mauritians read food labelling information on
additives (Peerbocus;, 2001; Dookhy, 2008). However, these studies have targeted other
consumer groups at different periods of time. The present finding also contrasts with
research in other countries like Norway (Wandel, 1997), UK (Miles et al., 2004) and
Australia (Williams et al., 2004), where food additive information has been found to be
the most read and desired detail on labels. But it should be pointed out that these
studies have used larger samples compared to the current survey and were carried out
in developed countries.
Table III shows that about twice as many Muslim as Hindu and Christian
respondents stated that they checked food labels for additives. Essoo and Chellum
(1999) and Dookhy (2008) found that reading food labels was dependent on religion
because of dietary restrictions. According to Mackoojee (2010), the Muslim community
should consume products containing ingredients, including food additives, from
halaal sources only. The difference in practice between the religious groups can be
explained by the extensive campaigns undertaken by the Mauritius Halaal Council in
mosques all over the island to inform the Muslim population of potential non-halaal
additives they need to avoid ( Jummah Mosque, pers.comm, 26 December 2010).
3.1.3 Knowledge on food additives. More than half of consumers surveyed, correctly
identified the definition of food additive, the role of additives in foods and the
difference between natural and artificial ones (Table IV). This observed trend is not in
line with the reports of researches in Ireland (Altug and Elmaci, 1995) and Korea (Shim
et al., 2011) where most consumers expressed limited knowledge on these points.

Do you check food labels for additive information?

Demographics Yes (%) No (%) Total respondents

Religious group
Hindu 28 72 60
Christian 25 75 60
Muslim 48 52 60
Education level
Primary 15 85 60 Table III.
Secondary 33 67 60 Practice of checking food
Tertiary 53 47 60 additive information on
Total 35 65 180 labels
BFJ
Knowledge questions Correct (%) Incorrect (%) Dont know (%)
116,2
1. What do you understand by the term food
additive? 56.7 27.2 16.1
2. According to you what is the role of additives in
food? 90.0 4.5 5.6
360
3. How do you differentiate between natural and
artificial food additives? 68.9 10.6 20.6
4. What do you think is the purpose of adding mono-
sodium glutamate (MSG) to snack foods? 44.4 3.4 52.2
5. What is the reported health effect of food
preservatives such as sodium sulphite (E221)? 31.7 17.8 50.6
Table IV. 6. What is the reported health effect of food colouring
Knowledge on definition, additives such as tartrazine (E102)? 25.6 41.0 41.7
role and health issues of
food additives Note: n=180; Multiple choice questions with one correct answer to choose from three options

However, the studies in these countries have used a different data collection technique,
namely the semi-structured interview which consists mostly of open-ended questions.
This method is known to yield more detailed information than standard
questionnaires, but is also more time consuming (Boyce and Neale, 2006).
Moreover, about half of the survey participants stated that they did not know the
purpose of using mono-sodium glutamate in foods and the health problems commonly
associated with sodium sulphite and tartrazine. All three substances which are allowed
in food products in Mauritius have been shown to cause adverse effects in humans. For
example, tartrazine causes Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) in children
aged 3, 6 and 9 (FSA, 2008), sodium sulphite exacerbates asthma (Bush and
Montalbano, 2008) and mono-sodium glutamate is associated with headaches, rashes
and chest pain (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2002). Such unawareness may undermine
personal control and increase the food safety risk among consumers who are sensitive
to these additives.
According to Table V, a considerable percentage of the interviewees were unable to
give the correct number of food additives present on the fictitious ingredient list used
to assess their knowledge. A low percentage of consumers correctly identified the
meaning of E-numbers. The main goal of using E-numbers is to make food labels easier
to grasp (FSA, 2009). The finding of the present study point to a lack of understanding
of the E-numbering system which conveys the important message that food additives
used in particular products have obtained safety clearance and are approved for use by
the European Union. Educational actions to shape consumers interpretation of the
E-numbers could contribute to gain consumer confidence in the use of approved food
additives and reduce the gap between perceived and actual food safety risk associated
with additives. Compared to food additives, intolerance and allergic reactions to milk,
soy, wheat, eggs and nuts are more common (Emerton and Choi, 2008). Interestingly
some additives, such as soy or egg lecithin, are made from foods which are sources of
allergens. Thus, understanding food additive labelling is important in health
 Food additive
Knowledge questions Correct (%) Incorrect (%) Dont know (%)
control
1. How many food additives can you identify from
the ingredient list? 9.4 46.6 43.9
2. What is the meaning of the E-number, E221 used
with sodium sulphite? 15.6 40.6 43.9
361
3. What type of ingredient is the non-nutritive
sweetener aspartame? 10.0 51.1 38.9
4. Why does the presence of aspartame necessitate
the claim Contains phenylalanine? 42.2 16.1 41.7
5. What does the Diet claim on a bottle of soft drink
imply? 42.8 40.5 16.7 Table V.
6. What do you understand by the No Understanding of
Preservatives claim on food products? 27.8 50 22.2 labelling information
with respect to food
Note: n=180; Multiple choice questions with one correct answer to choose from three options additive issues

management since current treatment for allergenicity and intolerance include

exclusion of the offending ingredients from the diet (Mills et al., 2004).
Around 42 per cent of respondents correctly answered questions relating to Diet
and phenylalanine warning while half of the interviewees incorrectly identified the
type of ingredient that aspartame is. Diet foods and beverages often make use of many
types of additives aside from aspartame (Ilback and Busk, 2000). In Mauritius, where
non-communicable diseases like diabetes and obesity are prominent (Ministry of
Health and Quality of Life, 2009), diet products may become an important part of
nutrition. Adequate understanding of these terms can contribute to help consumers
make informed decisions about their food purchases. This is particularly important for
phenylketonurics, who may be at higher risks from diet products containing aspartame
(Food and Drugs Administration, 2009). In the present survey less than 30 per cent of
the consumers correctly understood the meaning of the term no preservatives. On the
other hand, in Australia, 55 per cent of main shoppers believed this claim to be useful
(Williams et al., 2004). Nevertheless, claims indicating that products are free from
preservatives are likely to support the misconception that this category of additives is
hazardous (Wandel, 1997; Williams et al., 2004).
Table VI shows that a statistically significant relationship was obtained between
knowledge on food additives and the education level of respondents ( p , 0.05). Shim
et al. (2011) found that knowledge and understanding of food additive labelling
influenced Korean consumer practice of reading labels for these. This also appears to
be the case in the present study since knowledge on food additives increased with
increasing level of education as did the practice of checking food labels for additives.
Two-way ANOVA carried out on the mean percentage correct answers showed that
the mean percentage correct answers to food additive knowledge questions for the
three educational groups, were significantly different (p 0.000). post hoc analysis
showed that the mean percentage correct answers was lowest for respondents with
primary education and highest for respondents with tertiary education ( p , 0.05,
LSD 5.88) (Table VII).
BFJ
Demographics Poor Fair Good Very good Total Significance
116,2
Gender x2 1.857
Male 53 28 8 1 90 df 1
Female 51 27 12 0 90 p 0.084
Religious group
362 Hindu 38 19 3 0 60 x2 6.557
Christian 35 17 7 1 60 df 2
Muslim 31 19 10 0 60 p 0.304
Education level
Primary 167 13 0 0 60 x2 68.321
Secondary 75 66 30 9 60 df 2
Tertiary 51 57 57 15 60 p 0.000
Table VI. Total (%) 54 25 16 5 100
Food additive knowledge
rating Note: n=180

The overall mean percentage score shows that the respondents had poor knowledge on
additives, although the mean knowledge scores increased significantly with increasing
education level (p , 0.05). Other studies have shown that common consumers tend to
have a low knowledge and understanding on food additives (Altug and Elmaci, 1995;
Tarnavolgyi, 2003; Shim et al., 2011). Research in Korea illustrated that knowledge on
food additives can be improved through education campaigns using posters and
leaflets (Shim et al., 2011). In another study, Appanah (2002) reported that the academic
staff of the University of Mauritius, all with tertiary education, claimed to have high
knowledge on food additives. However, this was self-reported and not measured
knowledge as is the case in the current study. As Stacks and Salwen (2008) explained,
the knowledge gaps in a variety of issues decrease with increasing education level. The
outcome of this present study can be used in planning specific education programmes
for consumers from different educational backgrounds based on identified
inadequacies.
3.1.4 Attitudes relating to food additive issues More than half of the interviewees
agreed that foods containing additives are harmful to health (Table VIII). A similar
trend was observed among consumers in Norway (Wandel, 1997), Australia and New
Zealand (Williams et al., 2004) and Turkey (Unusan, 2005). A negative attitude towards
food additives can have harmful effects on health of consumers and cause them to
spend money on products with no real benefit (Ayoob et al., 2002). Interestingly, about

Education level Mean % correct answers ^ standard deviation

Primary 22.6c^12.81
Secondary 45.6b^18.27
Table VII. Tertiary 52.9a^19.61
Mean percentage correct Overall (180) 40.4^21.42
answers by level of
education Note: Means bearing different letters are significantly different at 0.05 significance level, LSD=5.88
 Food additive
Neither agree
Agree nor disagree Disagree control
Attitude statement (%) (%) (%)

1. Foods containing additives are harmful to human

health 57.8 29.4 12.8
2. Without food additives, the variety of food 363
products would be severely limited 52.8 30.6 16.7
3. All foods contain additives, so there is no way to
avoid them 48.9 24.4 26.7
4. I dont mind paying more for additive-free food 31.1 25.6 43.3
5. Natural food additives are safer than artificial
ones 68.9 21.7 9.4
6. The additive content of foods labelled as "Diet" is
very low 41.1 34.4 24.4
7. Food additives play an essential role in foods 30.6 38.3 31.1
8. Foods containing additives are of low quality 28.3 42.2 29.4
9. Food additives obtained from GMOs are safe for
use in convenience foods 17.8 63.9 18.3
10. The food label does not help to identify the
different sources of the food additives 66.7 20.6 12.8
11. Food products labelled as "Halaal Certified",
gives assurance to consumers of Muslim faith that
the ingredients including additives meet their
religious requirements 67.2 25.6 7.2
12. The claim "Suitable for vegetarians" on food
labels means that all ingredients and food additives
are from vegetarian sources 60.0 25.6 14.4
13. I believe food label claims that a product is
"additive free" is true 34.4 43.9 21.7
14. I trust that food manufacturers do not add too
much of permitted food additives in their products 19.4 23.9 56.7 Table VIII.
Responses to attitude
Note: n=180 statements

half of the participants claimed to agree that without food additives, product variety
would be severely limited. Moreover, nearly half of the respondents believed that food
additives are present in all foods and cannot be avoided. Furthermore, only about
one-third of the respondents agreed with the statement: I dont mind paying more for
additive-free food. This finding indicates that price is a factor that determines food
choices among the consumers who expressed disagreement with this statement. Other
researches have reported that price is a determinant of consumer purchasing decisions
(Tarnavogyi, 2003; Dookhy, 2008; Shim et al., 2011).
A high percentage of participants agreed that natural food additives are safer than
artificial ones. This misconception was also reported among consumers in Hungary
and Australia (Tarnavolgyi, 2003; Williams et al., 2004). Whether additives are natural
or synthetic have no bearing on their safety (Mahindru, 2008). It has been suggested
that promotion and marketing of so-called natural foods increases the gap between
perceived and actual risk associated with natural food additives (Baourakis, 2004).
BFJ Based on Spillmann et al. (2011), if consumers no longer equated synthetic with toxic,
116,2 and natural with safe, they would be able to judge food hazards more appropriately.
About 40 per cent of the respondents expressed agreement with the statement that
the additive content of foods labelled as Diet is very low. This opinion could make
consumers easy prey to misleading advertisements. For instance most diet soft drinks
available in Mauritius contain artificial sweeteners like aspartame and ace-sulfame
364 potassium as well as colours, preservatives like benzoate, acidifying agents like citric
and phosphoric acid and flavours. Another example is that of diet jams which contain
artificial sweeteners, gelling agents, flavours and colours. Consumer education can
contribute to enhance understanding of manufacturers claims towards effective use of
food labelling information.
Additionally, a proportion of respondents were undecided about the importance of
the role of additives (38.3 per cent) and the quality of foods containing additives
(42.2 per cent). In Korea, similar trends were observed and explained by a general lack
of knowledge and awareness among the survey participants (Shim et al., 2011).
63.9 per cent of consumers in the current study expressed a neutral opinion concerning
the safety of GMO- derived food additives. Yeung and Morris (2001) and Wilcock et al.
(2004) put forward that one possible explanation for uncertainty on the safety of GM
foods among consumers, is the low level of knowledge on the matter.
An important finding in the present investigation is that about two-thirds of the
consumers surveyed agreed that the food label does not help them identify sources of
additives. Being able to recognise where additives come from is relevant for
management of personal risks since food additives can be obtained from allergenic
sources. Information on the origin of food additives can also help Muslims, vegetarians
and consumers wishing to avoid GM-foods. The attitude responses of consumers
surveyed reflected that a high proportion of them trusted halaal as well as
vegetarian claims. The high trust attitudes may stem from the involvement of
national religious committees in the approval and communication of halaal and
vegetarian claims in Mauritius. 43.9 per cent of consumers expressed uncertain
attitudes towards the veracity of additive-free claims. Liakopoulos and Schroeder
(2003) explained that trust in food claims depends on a multitude of factors, namely:
source of information, trust in regulatory authorities, knowledge with respect to the
food claim and confidence of consumers on their own judgement. Given that consumers
of the present study have a poor knowledge on food additives, this can provide a
possible explanation for the uncertain responses associated with additive-free claims.
Moreover, about half of the respondents disagreed with the statement concerning
trust in manufacturers control of amount of permitted additives. Krebs (2005) reported
that consumers distrust in food manufacturers stems from insufficient communication
among government, consumers and industries. In Mauritius, resources are so limited
that they are rarely used for promoting information flow (Vytelingum, 2003). Indeed,
lack of consultation and coordination with food industry, consumers and government
has been reported to exist in Mauritius (Neeliah et al., 2008; Saib, 2002). Insufficient
communication between key actors of the food industry limits food safety risk
management and weakens the food control system.
3.2 In-depth study among manufacturers: attitudes and practices relating to food Food additive
additives control
3.2.1 Profile of food manufacturers interviewed. The 12 representatives from
large-scale manufacturing plants interviewed held different positions, had several
years of experience and sold their products on different markets (Table IX).
3.2.2 Importance and use of food additives. The views on food additives did not vary
much among respondents. Nine of them provided a fairly good explanation of what 365
they understood by food additive. The most common answer was natural/artificial
substances or chemicals added to impart quality characteristics like improved texture,
taste and colour to foods. Understandably, the respondents knowledge on food
additives were limited mainly to those used in their own products. Their awareness of
food additive issues can be explained by their expertise since all those interviewed
were from top management of food industries and most of them had more than three
years of experience in food production. Charles et al. (1998) found that larger food
industries in Mauritius had better educational levels with a trained and qualified staff
who could clearly define food additives.
Nine out of twelve respondents agreed that food additives while important may not
be absolutely necessary in all foods. Examples given to illustrate this point was that of
the so-called cosmetic additives like food colourings and flavourings that only
enhances organoleptic appeal instead of substantially contributing to other sensory
attributes and safety of foodstuffs. This reflects a positive opinion towards the use of
food additives. Ilback and Busk (2000) stated that as long as the additives serve quality
and safety functions, they are deemed necessary but other uses conferred by cosmetic
ones are needless. However, the manufacturers themselves justified the use of cosmetic
additives by claiming that their products will otherwise be unmarketable owing to
colour/flavour losses during processing. The justification provided for using cosmetic
additives to answer consumer demands and overriding competition holds, if the food
industry is to remain viable and food security ensured.
All the participants strongly felt that food additives are essential for quality and
appeal of their product. Three of them felt that additives are irreplaceable and elaborated
that in the dynamic food sector where consumer demands are diverse and competition is
fierce, only additives can confer certain functional properties that would otherwise be
unachievable. They talked particularly of the increasing demand for halaal and
vegetarian foods. According to them, such demands can be met by making use of
synthetic additives to replace pork or other animal-derived ingredients. As for food safety,
some stated You can never have zero additives if you want to avoid food spoilage. They
believed that unless new methods of processing are devised to tackle quality and safety
problems, additives remain an important economical ingredient to enable compliance

Position in food industry Years in food production Sales outlet

Quality/safety manager (5) , 1 year (2) Local market (12)

Quality/safety officer (4) 1-3 years (2) Hyper/supermarket (12)
Project manager (2) .3 years (8) Exports (8) Table IX.
Laboratory technician (1) Profile of food industry
representatives
Note: Numbers in brackets represent the number of respondents in each category interviewed
BFJ with consumer expectations. As one respondent put it, the aim of any business is to make
116,2 profit and currently, use of additives is most profitable.
3.2.3 Views on local regulations relating to food additives. All those interviewed
claimed to label food additives in their products by stating the E-number and either
chemical or common name, according to the Mauritius Food Composition and
Labelling Regulations 1999. None of the manufacturers interviewed reported
366 difficulties with complying with the Regulations and maintained to be satisfied with
the amount of food additive information they are required to provide on labels.
However, when probed further, five said that no clear directions were given for
labelling of all potentially allergenic, halaal, vegetarian and GMO-derived additives.
One respondent noted that the regulation does not tackle secondary ingredients
containing food additives. Indeed, no specific provisions are made for compound
ingredients in the Mauritius Food Composition and Labelling Regulations 1999. There
is also no mention of Vegetarian or Halaal in the regulations although the law makes
it clear that foods obtained by genetic modification or containing GM ingredients need
to be designated on food labels.
These identified inadequacies relating to labelling of allergenic; halaal and
vegetarian additives need to be addressed to enhance the effectiveness of food law in
ensuring food safety and quality. Firstly, since additives can be made from allergenic
raw materials like soy or eggs; appropriate labelling not only keeps the consumer
informed, but also protects the legal standing of the manufacturers (Eastraugh, 2011).
Manufacturers have the responsibility of warning consumers of the presence of
potentially allergenic substances in a food product through appropriate labelling
information, and consumers have the responsibility to use the labelling information to
avoid food products bearing allergen statements. Given that almost half of the 12
participating industries claimed to provide halaal and vegetarian foods and that the
remaining half has expressed the intention to do so, adequate food additive labelling
regulations is necessary to control the veracity of manufacturers claims.
While agreeing that information on sources and origins of food additives on
package labels is beneficial to consumers, manufacturers considered such details
unnecessary. They argued, that from their experience, few consumers demanded such
information. Interestingly, the present consumer survey on the University of Mauritius
campus (n 180), showed that food additive information is not a widely sought aspect
on food labels. Cramming the already bulky food labels and overloading
consumers with details was judged to be inadvisable as these may reduce the sale of
their products. The International Markets Bureau (2010) explained that labelling rules
should take consumer needs into account and that overloaded labels can be more of a
hindrance than help to consumers with the result that the cautious consumer avoids
the food item altogether.
The three manufacturers surveyed considered the Mauritius Food Additives
Regulations 1999 and its schedules to be completely adequate; nine other interviewees
talked of problems with the content, presentation and ease of reference. The first
inadequacy identified was the fact that the regulation and schedules are outdated. Most
of the industry representatives suggested updating and reviewing the food additive
regulations as urgent need. According to the Chief Health Inspector of the Ministry of
Health and Quality of Life (pers.comm, 20 November 2010), the current Food
Regulations have been reviewed but the revised draft has not been adopted. The delay
in adopting revised regulations limits the capacity of industries to develop new Food additive
products through the use of new additives. In contrast, the EU and US, regularly control
update their lists of permitted food additives in the light of new scientific findings
(International Markets Bureau, 2010; Food and Drugs Administration, 2009).
Interviewees from the food industry, four in total, specifically said that there were
no clear indications, in the Mauritius Food Additive Regulations, of tests that should be
carried out for additives in foodstuffs. Several respondents perceived that many 367
additives, such as tartrazine, considered as dangerous on the international market, are
still present in the permitted lists. Under the Official Journal of the European Union
(2008) Regulations on Food Additives, the use of tartrazine is allowed in the EU.
However, the warning may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children on food labels is mandatory. No such provision is made in the Mauritius Food
Additive Regulations 1999 or the Mauritius Food Composition and Labelling
Regulations 1999. This highlights an important inadequacy since tartrazine can
negatively impact on consumer health. Nevertheless, the interviewed manufacturers
declared to be committed towards food safety and did not use these substances.
A total of five manufacturers claimed to consult Codex standards and European
Union regulations before including an additive in their products to be on the safe side
since they cannot rely wholly on local regulations. Jukes and Anyanwu (1990)
explained that a reduced confidence in local regulations can undermine confidence in
the Food Control System. Previous student research among large food industries in
Mauritius have reported that manufacturers claimed not to have been adequately
involved in development of the current Food Regulations (Ramsamy, 2001; Saib, 2002).
This may explain the lack of confidence in the local food laws. According to the FAO/
WHO (2003), it is important to ensure effective participation of the food industry in the
formulation and review of food laws, to enhance acceptance, relevance and confidence
in the adopted legislation.
However, the fact that some of the interviewees acknowledged the potential
toxicological effects of certain additives and claimed to employ good manufacturing
practices, indicate commitment on the part of manufacturers to ensure product and
consumer safety. Furthermore, a stakeholder analysis to evaluate the Mauritian food
control system established that stakeholders perceived large food manufacturers have
a very good level of adoption of Good Manufacturing Practices (Neeliah et al.,
2008).The respondents were generally concerned about lack of control of food additives
by authorities which could lead to abuse of food additives among food business
operators. Indeed, it has been reported that there is a need to strengthen food law
enforcement in Mauritius (Peersia, 2001; Rumjaun, 2001; Vytelingum, 2003; Neeliah
et al. 2008; Aumjaud, 2008; Aumjaud, 2011).
Food industry representatives who participated in the present research claimed that
health inspectors are mostly concerned with hygiene at the manufacturing plant rather
than with product composition. Similar findings have been reported by Charles et al.
(1998) who undertook a quantitative survey on attitudes and practices relating to food
additives among Mauritian food manufacturers. Of the manufacturers interviewed in
the current survey, eight highlighted the need to provide funds and resources including
laboratory services and training to health inspectors, to prevent uncontrolled practices
especially among street-food operators. Aumjaud (2011) put forward the need to
enhance the monitoring of food safety hazards throughout the Mauritian food chain, to
BFJ provide the inputs for valid scientific risk assessment which is necessary for food law
116,2 formulation and food control.
The presentation of the regulation and schedules was deemed unaesthetic and
confusing to manufacturers. Because the layout was considered user-unfriendly, many
said that it was discouraging to refer to them. Of the respondents, nine expressed
difficulty in finding additives from the schedules and explained that the process was
368 very time-consuming; six of them suggested the setting up of an online interface to
facilitate checking of the permissible additives. In the UK a website dealing with food
laws in the EU, has been developed and maintained since 1996 ( Jukes, 2011). The
website contains updated lists of permitted food additives, guidelines for presentation
of food labelling information, and the guidelines for reviewing of the laws. All the
information needed by manufacturers or consumers are clearly explained and easily
accessible through direct online links saving manufacturers precious time. The local
authorities in Mauritius could work in collaboration with academia to develop and
provide an online food law service to manufacturers towards facilitating
implementation of Food Additive Regulations.

4. Conclusions
The consumer survey carried out on the University of Mauritius campus indicated that
the majority of respondents never checked food labels for additive information when
making purchases. However, a higher proportion of Muslim respondents claimed to
check food labels compared to consumers from the other religious groups. Based on
observed responses to knowledge questions, it can be concluded that the group of
working consumers from the University of Mauritius campus had poor knowledge on
food additives. Nonetheless, the measured level of knowledge increased with higher
level of education ( p , 0.05). The consumers attitude ratings indicated uncertainty
about the safety of food additives obtained from GMOs; negative attitudes towards
issues relating to the safety, labelling and control of food additives; positive attitudes
with respect to the value of food additives and trust in halaal certificate as well as
suitable for vegetarian claim; misconception about natural food additives being safer
than artificial ones. Negative attitudes and misconceptions act as barriers to safe
behaviour and should be addressed by consumer education on food additives.
The in-depth interviews with food industry representatives provided evidence of
manufacturers commitment to the use and control of food additives to ensure product
safety and quality. The interaction with the food industry participants generated
meaningful insights into the perceived inadequacies of the relevant national food
regulations and measures for enhancing implementation of food additive requirements
and food law enforcement.

References
Altug, T. and Elmaci, Y. (1995), A consumer survey on food additives, Developments in Food
Science, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 705-719.
Appanah, N. (2002), Consumers perception, knowledge and control of food risks: a study among
the University of Mauritius academic staff, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished),
University of Mauritius, Reduit.
Aumjaud, B. (2008), Food control: the need to strengthen our national system, Le Mauricien,
Vol. 20, p. 8.
Aumjaud, B. (2011), Safe food for all . . . , Le Mauricien, available at: www.lexpress.mu/story/ Food additive
24549-safe-food-for-all.html (accessed 10 July 2011).
Australia New Zealand Food Authority (2001), Qualitative research with consumers: food
control
labelling issues, available at: www.privacyconference2003.org/forms/Consumer_
Research.pdf (accessed 20 September 2010).
Ayoob, K., Duyff, R. and Quagliani, D. (2002), Position of the American Dietetic Association:
food and nutrition misinformation, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 102, 369
pp. 260-266.
Baourakis, G. (Ed.) (2004), Marketing Trends For Organic Food in the 21st Century, World
Scientific Publishing, Singapore.
Boyce, C. and Neale, P. (2006), Conducting in-depth interviews: a guide for designing and
conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input, available at: www.esfagentschap.be/
uploadedFiles/Voor_ESF_promotoren/Zelfevaluatie_ESF-project/m_e_tool_series_
indepth_interviews.pdf (accessed 10 September 2010).
Bush, R.K. and Montalbano, M.M. (2008), Asthma and food additives, in Metcalfe, D.D.,
Sampson, A.H. and Simon, R.A. (Eds), Food Allergy: Adverse Reactions To Foods And
Food Additives, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 335-339.
Central Statistical Office (2010), Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose,
available at: www.gov.mu/portal/site/cso/menuitem.b8224672e2d20d362ab79cdca
0208a0c/ (accessed 12 August 2010).
Charles, M.J., Goburdhun, D. and Rughoo, A. (1998), Salient features in the use of food additives
in local food industries, Science and Technology Research Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2008), Research Methods in Education, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Dookhy, A. (2008), Food labelling from working womens perspective and compliance of
drinking yoghurt labels with legislation, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished),
University of Mauritius, Reduit.
Eastraugh, A. (2011), Food label manufacturers in the UK, available at: www.articlealley.com/
article_2114812_15.html (accessed 4 April 2011).
Emerton, V. and Choi, E. (eds) (2008), Essential Guide to Food Additives, 3rd ed., Leatherhead
Publishing, Leatherhead.
Essoo, N. and Chellum, J. (1999), Level of Awareness among Mauritian Consumers, Consumer
Behaviour Series, Mauritius Research Council, Reduit.
FAO/WHO (2003), Assuring food safety and quality: guidelines for strengthening national food
control systems, available at: www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/capacity/en/
Englsih_Guidelines_Foodcontrol.pdf (accessed 12 September 2010).
Food and Drugs Administration (2009), What you should know about carbonated soft drinks,
available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/UCM232699.
pdf (accessed 1 April 2011).
Food Standards Agency (FSA) (2008), Food additives and childrens behaviour, available at:
www.food.gov.uk/science/socsci/ssres/ssarchive/ssarchivenut/foodaddchild (accessed 11
January 2011).
Food Standards Agency (FSA) (2009), Public Attitudes to Food, available at: www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/pdfs/publicattitudestofood.pdf (accessed 10 September 2010).
Goldstein, M.C. and Goldstein, M.A. (2002), Controversies in Food and Nutrition, available at:
www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?ao&d101287399 (accessed 12 September 2010).
Ilback, N. and Busk, L. (2000), Food additives: use, intake and safety, Scandinavian Journal of
Nutrition, Vol. 44, pp. 141-149.
BFJ International Markets Bureau (2010), Food labels in Europe: changes to EU labelling regulations
and new eco labels in France, available at: www.ats.agr.gc.ca/eur/5646-eng.pdf (accessed
116,2 22 January 2011).
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (2000), Food additives: guidelines for the preparation
of toxicological working papers for JECFA, available at: www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/
intake_guidelines.pdf (accessed 14 January 2011).
370 Jummah Mosque Halaal Council (2010), JM Halaal Standard JM 9201-2010: General Guidelines
for Production, Preparation, Handling, Distribution and Storage Of Halaal Food, Jummah
Masjid Halaal Council, Port-Louis, Mauritius.
Jukes, D.J. (2011), Food Law- University of Reading, available at: www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/main.
htm (accessed 5 January 2012).
Jukes, D.J. and Anyanwu, R.C. (1990), Food safety control systems for developing countries,
available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/095671359090116T (accessed 10
October 2010).
Krebs, J.R. (2005), Risk: food, fact and fantasy, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society:
Biological Sciences, Vol. 360 No. 1458, pp. 1133-1144.
LExpress (2005), Securite Alimentaire, available at: www.lexpress.mu/services/archive-38871-
pistaches-salees-attention-aux-colorants.html (accessed 2 November 2010).
LExpress (2008a), ALIMENTATION: Gare aux additives, available at: www.lexpress.mu/
services/archive-115328-gare-aux-additifs.html (accessed 2 November 2010).
LExpress (2008b), Des produits suspects retires de la vente, available at: www.lexpress.mu/
services/archive-116023-des-produits-suspects-retires-de-la-vente.html (accessed 2
November 2010).
Liakopoulos, M. and Schroeder, D. (2003), Trust and functional foods, new products, old issues,
Poiesis Prax Springer, Vol. 2, pp. 41-55.
Mackoojee, M.A. (2010), Guide Halaal et Vegetarian (Vegetarian Safe Products (The Veg Society)),
Westprint, Port-Louis, Mauritius.
Mahindru, S.N. (2008), Food additives: chemistry and estimation, Detection and Estimation,
APH Publishing, New Delhi.
Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Ritson, C. and Frewer, L.J. (2004), Public worry
about specific food safety issues, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Mills, E.N.C., Valovirta, E., Madsen, C. and Taylor, S.L. (2004), Information provision for allergic
consumers- where are we going?, available at: www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.
1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00720.x (accessed 30 September 2010).
Ministry of Health and Quality of Life (2009), The Mauritius non communicable diseases
survey, available at: www.gov.mu/portal/goc/moh/file/ncd/ncd-2009.pdf (accessed 12
December 2010).
Neeliah, H. and Shankar, B. (2008), Is nutritional improvement a cause or a consequence of
economic growth? Evidence from Mauritius, Economics Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1-11.
Neeliah, S.A., Goburdhun, D. and Neeliah, H. (2008), Using a stakeholder analysis to assess the
Mauritian food control system, available at: www.reciis.cict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/
article/download/141/208 (accessed 28 August 2010).
Official Journal of the European Union (2008), Regulation (EC)(1333/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the council of 16 December 2008 on food additives.
Onay, D., Ersoy-Quadir, S. and Akman, M. (2011), An analysis of consumers food purchasing
attitudes and habits in relation to food safety, Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 241-248.
Peerbocus, T. (2001), A study on the labelling of foods, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished), Food additive
University of Mauritius, Reduit.
control
Peersia, K. (2001), A critical evaluation of the food control system in Mauritius, BSc (Hons)
dissertation (unpublished), University of Mauritius, Reduit.
Ramsamy, L. (2001), Meeting the requirements of the Food Regulations 1999: a challenge for
selected local large scale food industries, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished),
University of Mauritius, Reduit. 371
Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J. (2003a), A comparison and evaluation of research methods used
in consumer food safety studies, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 17-33.
Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J. (2003b), Consumer food handling in the home: a review of food
safety studies, Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 130-161.
Rumjaun, Z. (2001), A study on the awareness, constraints and benefits of implementation of the
Food Act among street food vendors, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished), University of
Mauritius, Reduit.
Saib, S.B. (2002), A study on the enforcement of the Food Act 1998 and the Food Regulations
1999, BSc (Hons) dissertation (unpublished), University of Mauritius, Reduit.
Seechurn, D., Neeliah, H. and Neeliah, S.A. (2009), Functional foods in Mauritius: a consumer
survey, Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 204-211.
Shim, S., Seo, S.H., Lee, Y., Moon, G.I., Kim, M. and Park, J. (2011), Consumers knowledge and
safety perception of food additives: evaluation on the effectiveness of transmitting
information on preservatives, Food Control, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1054-1060.
Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M. and Kelle, C. (2011), Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with
preference for natural food, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 149-156.
Stacks, D.W. and Salwen, M.B. (2008), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and
Research, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Tarnavolgyi, G. (2003), Analysis of consumers attitudes towards food additives using focus
group survey, Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 193-196.
United States Department Agriculture (2008), Additives in meat and poultry products,
available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/pdf/additives_in_meat_and_poultry_products.pdf
(accessed 13 March 2011).
Unusan, N. (2005), Consumer food safety knowledge and practices in the home in Turkey, Food
Control, Vol. 1, pp. 1-7.
Vytelingum, S.A. (2003), National food control systems: a case-study of Mauritius, available at:
http://foodafrica.nri.org/safety/safetypapers/ShaliniVytelingum.pdf (accessed 15 October
2010).
Wandel, M. (1997), Food labelling from a consumer perspective, British Food Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 212-219.
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J. and Aung, M. (2004), Consumer attitudes, knowledge and
behaviour: a review of food safety issues, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 15,
pp. 56-66.
Williams, P., Sterling, E. and Keynes, N. (2004), Food fears: a national survey on the attitudes of
Australian adults about safety and quality of foods, available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article1016&contexthbspapers (accessed 10 September 2010).
Yeung, R.M.W. and Morris, J. (2001), Food safety risk: consumer perception and purchase
behaviour, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 170-189.
BFJ About the authors
Bibi Nadia Shaheen Koyratty is a student in BSc (Hons) Food Science and Technology at the
116,2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mauritius. Bibi Nadia Shaheen Koyratty is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: nk_sania@hotmail.com
Badroonesha Aumjaud is a Lecturer in the Department of Agriculture and Food Science at the
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mauritius.
Shalini Amnee Neeliah gained a PhD in Food Control Systems from the Faculty of
372 Agriculture, University of Mauritius.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints