Introduction

Food safety is a critical global public health concern, with nearly one in ten people worldwide falling ill each year after consuming contaminated food, resulting in approximately 420,000 deaths [1]. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), these risks are amplified in wet markets, where live poultry are commonly sold and slaughtered on site and where there is weak regulatory oversight on hygiene and practices [2]. Global population growth is projected to reach approximately 9.7 billion people by 2050, increasing the demand for affordable sources of animal protein [3]. Poultry has become one of the most important protein sources worldwide, accounting for nearly 40% of global meat production and playing a key role in meeting the dietary needs of rapidly growing urban populations [4,5].

Wet markets are the major retail outlets of poultry and other animal-source foods in many LMICs, as they provide low-cost protein sources and easily accessible options in urban and peri-urban locations [6]. Consumers in wet markets purchase poultry and poultry products that are extremely valued due to their low cost, availability, and freshness. However, even though these markets enable people to afford poultry, they also create a consistent food safety and health risk to the population [7]. Hygiene and handling practices during poultry slaughter and processing in wet markets can contribute to contamination of carcasses with foodborne pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter [8,9]. In many informal market settings, slaughtering activities are conducted within the market environment, where limited cold-chain storage, poor waste disposal, and inadequate sanitation infrastructure increase the risk of microbial contamination. These risks are further amplified by consumer preference for freshly slaughtered poultry, which often results in on-site processing with minimal inspection or protective protocols [10].

The development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in foodborne pathogens is considered a major global public health concern [11,12]. In poultry production systems, the widespread use of antibiotics can contribute to the emergence antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, which may spread along the poultry supply chain and through slaughter and handling practices in wet markets [13,14]. For example, multidrug-resistant Salmonella has been recovered from carcass rinse water and knives in poultry stalls within wet markets in Dhaka, Bangladesh [14]. In Hong Kong, chicken meat sold in wet markets showed a high prevalence of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli, and from the study, it was observed that there was a lack of compliance with hygiene and food safety regulations among vendors [15]. These findings indicate that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria are present throughout wet market environments and can readily contaminate vendors, consumers, and the food supply chain [14]. Despite growing concern regarding food safety risks in wet markets, limited research has examined the behavioral drivers of food safety practices among poultry vendors operating in urban wet markets in Kenya. Previous studies have largely focused on pathogen contamination and antimicrobial resistance in poultry products, with less attention given to the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of vendors who directly handle and process poultry within these markets. Understanding how vendor characteristics and socioeconomic factors influence food safety behavior is essential for designing effective interventions in informal market systems.

This study aimed to assess the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices of poultry vendors in Burma Market, Nairobi, and to examine how vendor demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influence behaviors that may contribute to microbial contamination in this informal wet market setting.

Materials and methods

Scoring criteria

Knowledge on hazard entry points, sources of contamination, symptoms of food-borne illnesses, signs of sick birds, and foodborne hazards was assessed using Likert-scale questions. Overall food safety knowledge, attitude, and practices were assessed using 22-item, 5-item, and 8-item questionnaires, respectively. Scores were calculated using a five-point Likert scale and categorized using an 80% threshold based on Bloom’s cut-off point method. The 80% threshold for categorizing knowledge, attitude, and practice scores was adopted based on the established Bloom’s cut-off point method commonly used in KAP studies [18,19]. Detailed scoring ranges and classification criteria are presented in Table 1.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Scoring of constructs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t001

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics and operational characteristics of vendors

The majority of vendors were male (58.2%) and aged between 35 and 44 years, with 55.3% of the vendors having attained secondary-level education. Poultry vending was the primary source of income for 97.9% of respondents, and 57.4% reported monthly household incomes ranging from KES 20,000–30,000 (USD 154–231). Most vendors were married (64.5%), and 73.8% operated independently. The majority (81.6%) sourced poultry from farms located outside Nairobi. While a high proportion had access to electricity (80.1%), 53.2% reported access to running water, waste disposal systems (53.9%), and cold storage facilities (56.0%). Most vendors (67.4%) operated from temporary structures, with 17.7% working in open-air setups as shown in Table 2.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Socio-demographic and operational characteristics of vendors (N = 141).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t002

Vendor stall and poultry handling practices

Vendors reported varied levels of experience, with most having sold poultry for 1–3 years (29.1%), followed by those with more than 10 years of experience (27.0%). The majority of vendors (95.7%) operated 1–5 cages, with an average of 59 birds per cage, and most (86.5%) reported restocking poultry daily. The majority (85.5%) stored birds overnight, primarily in temporary cages (49.6%) or covered stalls (47.1%). About two-thirds of vendors (65.2%) mixed birds from different suppliers, although over half (56.7%) reported isolating sick or injured birds. Most vendors (75.2%) fed birds commercial feeds during storage. Poultry sales volumes varied, with (39.0%) selling more than 300 birds per week, and most vendors (96.4%) conducted slaughter within the market slaughterhouse. 66.0% of the vendors reportedly slaughtered and sold sick or dead birds, with 27.0% selling these at reduced prices. Slightly less than half of the poultry vendors (48.2%) reportedly inspected birds prior to sale as shown in Table 3.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Vendor stall and poultry handling practices (N = 141).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t003

Birds slaughtering, cleanliness, and hygiene practices of birds

Most vendors (92.2%) hired personnel to conduct slaughter within the market, and tool sharing was common (64.5%), with nearly half (48.9%) cleaning tools only at the end of the day. Defeathering practices varied, with 53.9% of the respondents utilizing both dry and wet methods. In cases of wet defeathering, 75.2% of the poultry vendors reheated scalding water throughout the day and shared defeathering spaces and tools (58.9%). Most vendors reportedly avoided placing birds on the ground (75.9%) and used raised surfaces (92.9%), with only 64.5% maintaining separate surfaces for live birds and dressed carcasses. Waste was mainly collected by market cleaners (65.2%). Water for carcass rinsing was primarily stored in containers such as buckets, drums, or jerrycans (61.0%), typically changed once or twice daily (38.3%) or after each batch (32.6%). Consumer concern was evident, with 58.9% reporting frequent safety inquiries and 61.0% receiving customer complaints or feedback as summarized in Table 4.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Birds slaughtering, cleanliness, and hygiene practices of birds (N = 141).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t004

Knowledge of food safety among poultry vendors

29.1% of vendors identified the slaughter operation as a high-risk hazard entry point. The majority of vendors (61.0%) were extremely familiar with signs of illness in birds unfit for sale. Regarding the vendor’s knowledge of the sources of contamination, 44.0% strongly agreed that poor storage in the slaughterhouse contributes to poultry products contamination. The majority of the vendors (57.4%) were very unfamiliar with common food-borne pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella. However, most poultry vendors strongly agreed on the common symptoms of food-borne illness as shown in Table 5.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Knowledge on food safety (N = 141).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t005

A majority of vendors were not knowledgeable about hazard entry points (85.1%), sources of contamination (59.6%), symptoms of food-borne illnesses (55.3%), and microbial food hazards (90.8%). However, slightly more than half of the vendors (55.3%) were knowledgeable about signs of sick birds. Overall, most vendors lacked food safety knowledge, while only 29.1% demonstrated adequate food safety knowledge (Fig 1).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Overall food safety knowledge level among poultry (N = 141).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.g001

Influence of socio-demographic variables on food safety knowledge

Age was associated with vendors’ food safety knowledge levels. Vendors aged 18–24 years had lower odds of having food safety knowledge compared with those aged 45 years and above (OR = 0.270, 95% CI = 0.029–2.197, p = 0.044). Vendor household income was also associated with food safety knowledge, whereby vendors with a monthly income of KES. 20,000–30,000 had higher odds of having food safety knowledge as compared to those who earned more than KES 30,000 (OR= 3.168, 95% CI = 1.207–8.318, p = 0.019) as shown in Table 6.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Influence of socio-demographic variables on food safety knowledge.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t006

Food safety attitudes among poultry vendors

A majority of vendors (56.0%) strongly disagreed that preventing contamination is important. Among these, most (54.6%) strongly agreed that it does not matter if consumers become ill, and 42.6% reported being unwilling to change their poultry handling practices, as shown in Table 7.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 7. Attitude towards food safety.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t007

Influence of socio-demographic variables on food safety attitude

Vendor’s household income was associated with food safety attitude, whereby vendors with a monthly income of KES. 20,000–30,000 had lower odds of having positive food safety attitudes compared to those who earned more than KES 30,000 (OR= 0.335, 95% CI = 0.125–0.898, p = 0.030). The number of dependents was associated with food safety attitude among the vendors. Vendors who had no dependents had higher odds of having a positive food safety attitude as compared to those with more than five dependents (OR = 2.289, 95% CI = 0.155–3.877, p = 0.047) as summarized in Table 8.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 8. Influence of socio-demographic variables on food safety attitude.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t008

Food safety practices among poultry vendors

A majority of the vendors (51.8%) reportedly separated raw poultry from ready-to-eat or cooked foods, and reportedly wore protective clothing (48.9%) when handling poultry. With regards to poultry waste disposal, 32.6% of the respondents reported sometimes disposing of poultry waste safely using sealed containers. However, 80.9% of the poultry vendors reported never having any formal food safety training, as shown in Table 9.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 9. Food safety practices.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t009

Influence of sociodemographic characteristics on food safety practices

Vendor age was associated with food safety practices. Vendors who were 18–24 years old had lower odds of having good food safety practices as compared to those who were 45 years and above (OR= 0.193, 95% CI = 0.136–2.327, p = 0.043). Gender was associated with food safety practices, whereby female vendors had lower odds of having good safety practices as compared to males (OR = 0.411, 95% CI = 0.182–0.926, p = 0.032). Vendor household income was associated with food safety practices. Vendors with a household income of below KES. 20,000 had lower odds of having good food safety practices as compared to those with a household income of over KES. 30,000 (OR= 0.254, 95% CI = 0.059–3.153, p = 0.046). Additionally, marital status was associated with food safety practices, whereby single vendors had very high odds of having good food safety practices as compared to those who were widowed (OR = 11.863, 95% CI = 0.821–17.426, p = 0.040), as shown in Table 10.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 10. Influence of sociodemographic characteristics on food safety practices.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t010

Association between knowledge, attitudes, and food safety practices

There was an association between knowledge of hazard entry points and food safety practices among the vendors (χ² = 6.234, p = 0.013). A majority (92.8%) of vendors who had good food safety practices were not knowledgeable on hazard entry points, while 7.2%were knowledgeable. There was an association between overall food safety knowledge and food safety practices (χ² = 2.132, p = 0.044). 65.2% of vendors had good food safety practices but had no food safety knowledge. Similarly, a majority of vendors who had poor food safety practices were not knowledgeable about hazard entry points, and overall, food safety knowledge. There was an association between attitude and food safety practices (χ² = 3.512, p = 0.041). A majority (66.7%) of vendors displaying good food safety practices had positive attitudes as summarized in Table 11.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 11. Association between knowledge domains and food safety practices.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t011

Influence of knowledge domains and attitude on food safety practices among vendors

Vendors’ food safety attitude was associated with food safety practices. Vendors who had a positive attitude had higher odds of having good safety practices as compared to those who had a negative attitude (OR = 2.196, 95% CI = 0.998–4.834, p = 0.0489), as shown in Table 12.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 12. Influence of knowledge and attitude on food safety practices among vendors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356776.t012

Discussion

This study assessed the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices of poultry vendors operating in an informal urban wet market in Nairobi. The findings showed that a vast majority of vendors had limited food safety knowledge, negative attitudes toward food safety, and inconsistent hygiene practices during poultry handling and slaughter. Socio-demographic factors, including age, gender, and household income, were associated with variations in food safety behaviors. Vendors with positive attitudes toward food safety were more likely to demonstrate better hygiene practices. These findings suggest that improving food safety in informal wet markets requires interventions that address behavioral and socioeconomic factors influencing vendor practices in addition to training.

In this study, poultry vending in Burma Market was predominantly undertaken by men in their economically productive years, with most vendors having attained secondary-level education. Similar patterns have been reported in wet markets in Bangladesh, where poultry vending is largely dominated by male vendors [20]. Poultry vending also served as the primary source of income for nearly all respondents in this study, highlighting the strong economic dependence of vendors on this activity. Comparable findings have been reported in South Africa, where poultry vending was identified as the main livelihood for most market vendors [21]. Such economic reliance on poultry sales may influence vendor decision-making, particularly in situations where financial pressures discourage the disposal of sick birds. Similar livelihood pressures have been documented in the poultry value chain in Burkina Faso, where vendors sometimes sell sick poultry to avoid financial losses [22].

In this study, the majority of poultry vendors sourced birds from farms located outside Nairobi, indicating a highly interconnected poultry supply chain linking rural farms to urban wet markets. Similar supply chain structures have been documented in other poultry market systems, where birds are transported through networks of traders and intermediaries before reaching retail markets [23]. Such trading networks increase opportunities for the introduction, mixing, and spread of pathogens along the poultry value chain. Studies on Kenyan poultry value chains have also reported that multiple actors and limited biosecurity measures create vulnerabilities for disease transmission within these supply systems [24,25]. In the present study, vaccination records were rarely provided by suppliers, which further limits traceability and may hinder rapid response during disease outbreaks. Similar conditions have been associated with the presence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in raw poultry products in Kenya [8].

In this study, several infrastructural limitations were observed within the market environment, including limited access to running water, waste disposal systems, and cold storage facilities, as well as the widespread use of temporary stall structures. Such conditions may create environments that favor microbial persistence and cross-contamination during poultry handling and processing. Similar infrastructural challenges have been reported in wet markets in Hong Kong, where poor hygienic maintenance of meat contact surfaces was associated with increased microbial contamination [15]. These findings highlight the importance of adequate sanitation infrastructure in maintaining food safety within informal market settings [26]. Comparable observations have also been reported in wet markets in Tanzania, where inadequate sanitation infrastructure contributed to unhygienic slaughter and storage conditions [10]. Similar evidence from other Asian wet markets shows that congested stalls and poor sanitation practices can increase the risk of disease transmission in market environments [7].

In this study, many vendors stored birds overnight and frequently mixed poultry obtained from different suppliers within the same cages. Such practices may increase the risk of disease transmission among birds by facilitating close contact and pathogen exchange within crowded holding conditions. Similar concerns have been reported in poultry production systems in Northern Vietnam, where livelihood pressures and market demands were found to conflict with disease risk management practices [27]. The mixing of birds from multiple sources in market environments may therefore contribute to the amplification and spread of infectious agents along the poultry supply chain.

In this study, nearly all vendors relied on hired personnel to carry out poultry slaughter within the market. Similar divisions of labor have been reported in poultry market systems in sub-Saharan Africa, where specialized workers perform slaughter while vendors focus primarily on sales and stall management [28]. While the separation of roles can improve operational efficiency, food safety risks may arise in informal market settings where slaughter tools and processing areas are frequently shared among multiple vendors and sanitation controls are limited. Under such conditions, inadequate cleaning of shared equipment may increase the potential for cross-contamination during poultry processing.

In the present study, poultry vendors reported using both wet and dry defeathering methods, and many vendors reheated scalding water throughout the day rather than replacing it regularly. Such practices may increase the risk of microbial contamination during processing. Previous studies have shown that infrequent replacement of scalding water during wet defeathering can increase bacterial contamination of poultry carcasses because the water may accumulate blood, fecal material, and microorganisms during repeated use [29,30]. Similar hygiene deficiencies have also been reported in poultry retail outlets in Nigeria, where inadequate sanitation of processing surfaces compromised the microbial quality of broiler meat [31]. In addition, microorganisms present on feathers can be transferred to the carcass surface during dry plucking when birds are handled manually, further increasing contamination risks [30]. These findings highlight the importance of proper sanitation and water management during poultry processing in wet market environments.

In the present study, waste management practices within the market environment were often inadequate, with offal, feathers, and other poultry by-products not consistently disposed of using proper sanitation procedures. Poor management of slaughter waste may contribute to unhygienic conditions in market environments and increase the risk of microbial persistence and cross-contamination. Similar sanitation challenges have been reported in slaughterhouse facilities in several developing countries, where improper handling of offal and other by-products compromises hygiene standards [10]. In live-bird markets, inadequate disposal of feathers and offal has also been shown to attract scavengers and facilitate the survival and spread of microorganisms [32]. Such conditions may increase the risk of pathogen transmission through contaminated surfaces and contact between live and processed poultry.

The findings of this study also showed that socioeconomic factors influenced food safety behavior among poultry vendors. In particular, vendor household income was associated with variations in food safety attitudes and practices. Similar relationships between economic conditions and food safety behavior have been reported in Mekelle City, Ethiopia, where higher income levels were linked to improved food safety attitudes and practices among food handlers [33,34]. In contrast, some studies have reported that acceptable food safety practices may occur even when knowledge levels are low. For example, a survey conducted in Pakistan found that food handlers demonstrated relatively good food safety practices despite limited knowledge of food safety principles [35]. Another study in Brazil found no significant association between food safety knowledge and self-reported food safety practices among food handlers indicating that knowledge alone may not be sufficient to predict food handling behavior. Practical experience and routine work practices also play an important role in shaping food safety practices [36]. In the present study, positive food safety attitudes were associated with better food safety practices, a finding that aligns with research in Ethiopia showing that food handlers who perceive food safety as important are more likely to comply with hygiene requirements regardless of their technical knowledge [37,38]. This study highlights the need for integrated food safety interventions in informal wet markets. Given that positive food safety attitudes were associated with good hygiene practices, interventions should extend beyond one-off education sessions to continuous vendor training and behavior change programmes that reinforce safe poultry handling and hygiene practices. Intervention efforts should be supported by investment in market infrastructure such as reliable access to clean water, proper handwashing facilities, and proper waste disposal systems. There is a need to strengthen routine food safety inspections and coordinated action among county governments, public health and veterinary authorities, and market management. Such integrated approaches could improve compliance with safe food-handling practices, reduce the risk of foodborne diseases, and enhance consumer protection in Kenya’s informal poultry markets. Limitations of this study were that the food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices were assessed using self-reported responses, which may have introduced social desirability bias where some vendors may have underreported unsafe practices or overreported desirable food safety behaviors. This may have been influenced by concerns about potential regulatory implications associated with disclosing poor food safety practices. Time pressures and the busy market environment occasionally limited the depth of responses obtained during interviews. Additionally, this study was conducted in a single urban wet market, and the findings may not be representative of all informal wet markets in Kenya. Future studies involving multiple wet markets across different geographical settings are needed to improve the generalizability of these findings. The study design inherently limits causal inference therefore, the findings in the study are interpreted as associative rather than causal.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that food safety practices among poultry vendors in informal wet markets are influenced not only by knowledge but also by vendor attitudes and socioeconomic conditions. Vendors with positive food safety attitudes were more likely to adopt safer hygiene practices, highlighting the importance of behavioral factors in shaping food safety outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving food safety in informal wet markets should therefore go beyond knowledge-based training and address structural barriers such as limited infrastructure, economic pressures, and access to sanitation resources. Strengthening both behavioral and environmental conditions within wet markets may help reduce microbial contamination risks along the poultry supply chain.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the field enumerators, Nairobi City County Veterinary Board, and all the poultry vendors who participated in the study.