Physical, Economic, and Social Limitations to Egg Consumption in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia
Authors: Hong Josephine J. , Martey Emily B. , Dumas Sarah E. , Young Sera L. , Travis Alexander J. 
Published: November 2023

Background

Poor dietary quality is an important determinant of poor maternal and child nutritional status in low‐income countries. Animal source foods (ASF) are rich in micro‐ and macronutrients, but their consumption among children in low‐income countries is often limited by poor physical, economic, and social accessibility. Eggs are less expensive than other ASF and can be easily produced in low‐income communities, but cultural food proscriptions (“taboos”) may limit their consumption by women and children. We therefore aimed to 1) explore perceptions, beliefs, and practices surrounding egg consumption, and 2) identify the primary limitations to egg consumption in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia.

Methods

In a cross‐sectional survey in 40 villages in the Luangwa Valley, questionnaires were administered to 877 women with children aged 6–36 months as part of baseline data collection for a nutrition‐sensitive agricultural intervention. Egg consumption by the household, by the woman, and by her child were assessed by 7d recalls. Egg perceptions, beliefs, and practices were assessed by level of agreement with a series of questions using a 5‐point Likert scale. Barriers to egg consumption were assessed by asking respondents what factors influenced their level of egg consumption.

Results

On average, participants reported that the household ate only 2.8 (±4.5) eggs over the past 7d; women ate 0.73 (±1.3) eggs and their children ate 0.77 (±1.3) eggs. The majority believed that eggs were nutritious for babies (92.1%), young children (94.0%), and pregnant (82.7%) and lactating (90.0%) women. Nearly all of the women (95.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that eggs are safe, but only 25.7% believed that raw eggs were unsafe to eat and 56.9% believed old eggs were unsafe. Surprisingly, perceiving eggs to be safe was associated with significantly less egg consumption in households (p=0.03).

Only a minority of participants (8.4%) believed that some people should not eat eggs because of cultural or social norms, and pregnant women were most commonly identified as being subject to egg taboos (5.2%). There was no association between believing in egg taboos and egg consumption over the past 7d by the household (p=0.45), women (p=0.80), pregnant women (p=0.87), or children (p=0.61).

While 43.3% of respondents reported that cost is was the primary limitation to routine egg consumption, a majority (52.0%) felt that physical availability was the main barrier. The average reported travel time for eggs was 14.1 minutes (± 23.4); however, travel time was not significantly associated with egg consumption by the household (p=0.09), woman (p=0.19), or child (p=0.98).

Conclusion

Overall, egg consumption in this region is very low. Although none of the identified barriers were associated with significantly lower egg consumption, these findings suggest that economic factors and physical accessibility play a greater role in limiting egg consumption than do social and cultural norms. The lack of egg safety knowledge was concerning and should be addressed in future agricultural interventions and behavioral change campaigns to prevent food‐borne illnesses. Because the limitations to egg consumption were associated with cost and low egg availability, increasing local production will likely increase consumption by lowering the cost of eggs and improving access.

Support or Funding Information

NIH T32 OD011000 (SED); NIH K01 MH098902 (SLY); Cornell University Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future (AJT)