European Journal of Scientific Research (ISSN: 1450 ... - EuroJournals

78
© European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol 7, No 5, 2005
The frequencies of consumption of protein foods in both communities were not
significantly different (p>0.05) except for moinmoin, which had higher frequency of
consumption in Akobo than in Abadina(Table 7). The frequencies of consumption of
fruits and vegetables in both communities were not significantly different (p>0.05) except
for the consumption of leafy green vegetables, which were higher in Abadina than in
Akobo (Table 8). The consumption pattern of some food drinks such as Food beverages,
Tea/ Coffee and carbonated drinks were the same in both communities.
DISCUSSION
The socioeconomic characteristics of the households in the two communities studied
differ, as expected, from the results of the 2003 NDHS and the Nigeria Food
Consumption and Nutrition Survey of 2001. IITA (2004) reports that the major primary
occupation of the household heads at national level was farming (40.0%) but the major
primary occupation of the household heads for the two communities was civil service
(45.6%), although most of the household heads in Akobo were artisans (37.3%). These
two communities are in the peri-urban location, not rural where farming is the main
occupation. The predominant source of energy at national level was electricity used by
38.4% households (IITA, 2004), while almost all the households (99.0%) in the two
communities used electricity as the primary energy source. The common source of water
available to households nationally was the well (37%), however pipe borne water supply
(48.6%) appeared to be the most common or primary source of water among these
households. Next to this source was the well water (45.7%). The predominant method of
refuse disposal among the households was refuse dump. This points to possible
environmental hazard yet to be adequately addressed.
The level of food security among the households in the two communities – Akobo and
Abadina – was similar. This therefore implies that the prevalence of food insecurity
among the low socioeconomic households was very high (about 90%) and the prevalence
was far higher than the national value of 40% (IITA, 2004) and the prevalence of food
insecurity (24.4%) reported by Furness et al. (2004) among the low-income households in
Los Angeles County. In spite of the high prevalence of household food insecurity in the
two communities, the degree or type of food insecurity in the households differ between
the two communities; most households (42.3%) in Abadina were food insecure but
without hunger while most households (49.1%) in Akobo were food insecure with
moderate hunger. The reason for the disparity could be attributed to the differences
observed between the two communities in the area of sociodemographic status such as
the number of adults per households, children per households, and the occupation of the
household heads. Although Quandt et al. (2004) found that food insecure households with
children had significantly high prevalence of food insecurity than those without children,
households in Abadina having more number of children per household than Akobo
households still had less prevalence of food insecurity with hunger. Tingay (2003) had
attributed the problem of food insecurity in UK to household income, claiming that food
insecurity was negatively associated with household income and that experiences of food
security may be common in households with income at the level of the UK national
minimum. It must be pointed out that the food availability status of the UK or the USA is
far different to that of Africa. However in the context of the two communities, household