1 Introduction

 Food safety is critical to food security, particularly for the urban poor in the global South. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight the need for safe and nutritious food for everyone to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030 (FAO et al., 2017; Ilieva, 2017; Lartey et al., 2018). Unsafe food could seriously harm consumers' health, costing them money and time (Grace, 2015). Unfortunately, poor urban consumers in Low and Middle-income countries (LMIC) such as Bangladesh bear the most considerable burden of unsafe food due to low levels of education, hostile living conditions, and insufficient capacity to manage food safety (Jaffee et al., 2018; Liguori et al., 2022). These poor consumers must develop coping strategies for food safety concerns amidst challenging socioeconomic contexts, inadequate infrastructure, and malfunctioning institutions. It is critical to explore the coping strategies of the urban poor given the consequences of concerns about food safety on their overall well-being (HLPE, 2017; Ruel et al., 1999; Wahlqvist et al., 2012; Zhong et al., 2019).

Bangladesh is highly susceptible to food safety risks due to inappropriate food handling, insufficient refrigeration facilities, and insufficient temperature control (Noor, 2016). Recent studies have shown that food safety issues such as artificial colours, illegal additives, diseased animals, and microbial and chemical contamination are the most significant concerns for Bangladeshi consumers (Alam et al., 2015; Hossain et al., 2015; Ishra et al., 2022; Mohiuddin, 2018). Nearly 30 million consumers experience foodborne illnesses annually in Bangladesh. The capital city, Dhaka, with its rapid urbanisation and burgeoning slum population accounting for 40% of its population, makes it an ideal location for researching food safety coping strategies among urban poor inhabitants (Ahmed, 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2012). The slum dwellers have low affordability, low education, limited food storage facilities, and lack of proper cooking facilities. Slums in Dhaka are the primary destination for the rural poor, who seek better economic prospects and escape the effects of climate change (Saracoglu & Roe, 2004). New migrants in slums may need to adjust to the different food environments, necessitating a shift from self-production in rural areas to dependency on food purchases in urban areas (Zezza & Tasciotti, 2010). With rural–urban migration likely to continue in the coming years, the issue of guaranteeing safe food will become even more pressing. Evidence shows that migration deteriorates the food security of migrants (Berning et al., 2022). However, more information is needed to understand how dealing with food safety concerns is associated with migration.

Previous research in developing countries demonstrates that consumers adopt coping strategies at retail points to avoid the consequences of unsafe food—their perceived hazards influence purchasing behaviours (Yeung et al., 2010). Shoppers actively seek information about food by smelling, checking food appearance, and asking vendors about their origin (Ha et al., 2021). In China and Vietnam, urban consumers addressed safety concerns by cultivating their food rather than depending solely on purchasing (Kendall et al., 2019; Wertheim-Heck & Spaargaren, 2016). Studies further reveal that consumer in Hanoi and Addis Ababa shift their purchase points because of distrust of traditional markets and sidewalk vendors (Pham & Turner, 2020; Trübswasser et al., 2021). Additional coping strategies included creating connections with food vendors and planning shopping trips considering location and timing (Wertheim-Heck et al., 2014). Daily food shopping constitutes a critical decision influencing the safety and quality of food consumption in urban areas, a context where food shopping typically supersedes food production.

Given the apparent resource constraints of the urban poor, our goal is to investigate food safety coping strategies in food shopping. We expect to understand coping strategies better by exploring the concerns and adjustment in shopping routines among recently arrived migrants (RAMs) and compare these with the shopping practices of urban poor who have lived in Dhaka for a longer time (here called “established residents (ERs)”). This study takes a social practice approach and defines food shopping as a routinised activity embedded in everyday life. According to the social practice perspective, individuals' behaviours and daily lives are positioned within larger social contexts and influenced by institutional processes, social structures, and cultural norms. This viewpoint allows for a thorough analysis of low-income urban residents' management of food safety concerns during daily routine food shopping. Through the social practice approach, we aim to generate insights that can contribute to improving the urban food system by identifying possible interventions to support food safety strategies for the urban poor. This paper seeks to understand how poor urban inhabitants cope with food safety concerns in their everyday shopping practices. It also seeks to shed light on how coping strategies from recently RAMs differ from ERs.

The paper continues as follows: Section two outlines the conceptual framework rooted in a social practice approach, while section three details our mixed-methods data collection and analysis process. Section four offers findings and the concluding section discusses the implications and leverage points for enhancing Bangladesh's food safety governance.

2 Conceptual framework

This study employs a social practice theory (SPT) approach to explore how the urban poor in Dhaka employ coping strategies to address safety concerns during food shopping. SPT recognises everyday practices as the unit of analysis and explores how social, cultural, and material dimensions shape these practices (Adeosun et al., 2022; Fonte, 2008; Halkier et al., 2011; Kantamaturapoj, 2012; Schatzki, 1997; Veen et al., 2014; Warde, 2005; Wertheim-Heck & Spaargaren, 2016). Shove et al. (2012) define the practice as composed of three core elements: materials, meanings, and competencies. The participants in this study serve as performers of shopping wherein some practice elements may appear more prominent than others due to shifts in the location or performers. This performance includes food items, affordability, infrastructure, and time. The materials encompass food items, the money involved in buying the food, and their food safety characteristics. The meanings comprise the shared understanding of buying safe food, convenience, and the value of money. Competencies in food shopping include skills, experiences, and knowledge in coping strategies such as selecting food and food shopping points and maintaining social relations.

Practices do not exist in isolation; instead, they are interdependent with other practices as part of daily life and constitute a "bundle of practices". This concept refers to how other daily activities, such as childcare, cooking, and livelihood, are linked to buying food. Moreover, the everyday life of Dhaka’s poor relies on food shopping, which may impact their self-production opportunities. By identifying the bundle of practices, this study understands the influence of other practices on safer food shopping.

3 Methodology

3.1 Study settings, design, and sampling

The study was conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh, examining four selected slums (Dholpur, Korail, Mirpur, and Shyampur) from two city corporations: Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) and Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC). The choice of this study site is based on several criteria. These include being a recognised migration destination for rural poor individuals (DhakaTribune, 2018), predominant dependency on market-based food sources, comparable migration duration of slum residents, and similar food retailers' location patterns and opening hours (Razzaque et al., 2019). There were three traditional wet markets in the Korail slum: Bou Bazaar, Jamai Bazaar, and TNT Market along with the nearby Mohakhali and Banani Bazaars outside the slum. There were no supermarkets in the Korail slum.

This study followed an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach, incorporating four methods: focus group discussions (FGDs), semi-structured interviews (SSIs), Go-along, and a household survey. A "Go-along" is when a researcher participates in participants’ daily activities (here food shopping) with them (Carpiano, 2009). This provides direct perceptions of their activities, decisions, and interactions in the real world. We collected qualitative data first, followed by a shoppers' household survey (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The study was a comparative analysis of safety concerns, aiming to highlight potential coping strategy differences in food shopping between RAMs and ERs. The qualitative data from these two groups were analysed and compared, and the generalisable findings from the survey were validated by the qualitative results via triangulation.

The sample included 444 respondents, comprising both qualitative and quantitative studies (see Table 1). The qualitative sample was purposively drawn exclusively from the Korail slums and consisted of self-reported adults and primary shoppers for their households. The purpose was to include shoppers from low-income urban households, assuming that many of them work out of home and that their various professions have a range of daily routines. The sample households were selected from the Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System Survey (UHDSS) by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B) (Razzaque et al., 2019). Each of the two Focus Group Discussions (FGD) included eight shoppers, 25 semi-structured interviews (SSI) had 27 shoppers, and the Go-along included 5 shoppers who were already SSI respondents. FGDs offered insights into the broad aspects of shopping practices and food safety concerns, serving as a foundation for the exploration. SSIs gathered in-depth data on specific areas, including types of food items bought, consumers’ daily shopping routine, considerations, food safety concerns and strategies to cope with them. Go-along allowed observing and talking about their actual food shopping practice as a daily performance. While collecting data, individuals residing in the slum for two years or less were classified as Recently Arrived Migrants (RAMs), whereas those with a residency exceeding two years were designated as Established Residents (ERs).

Table 1 An overview of data collection and analysis methods
Full size table

The quantitative sample comprised 401 randomly selected households from the UHDSS, utilising Probability Proportional to Size (PPS). As the distribution of ERs and RAMs in these urban slums was not documented in previous studies and surveys, we assumed that 50% of the slum populations are ERs and others are RAMs (Pourhoseingholi et al., 2013; Lakens, 2022). The lack of prior knowledge regarding the distribution of ERs and RAMs did not allow us to employ a stratified sampling method. In this study, the two-stage sampling approach aimed to achieve a representative sample of households in urban slums in Dhaka. First, using the random sample calculator, we determined that a minimum sample of 392 respondents is needed to achieve a precision level of 5%. Next, we employed PPS to determine the number of sample households in each slum (see Table 2). It is worth noting that there are five slums in total in the UHDSS base, but one is located outside Dhaka. Therefore, this one was not included in the sampling process. This approach enabled us to obtain a representative sample of migrants residing in urban slums in Dhaka to estimate the prevalence of safety concerns about food among this population.

Table 2 Survey sample households from each slum
Full size table

3.2 Data collection

Data were collected from February to November 2020. Initially, two FGDs, thirteen SSIs, and five Go-alongs were done in person before the COVID-19 pandemic hit Bangladesh in March 2020. The remaining SSIs and the survey were completed over the phone. The data collection team consists of seven trained research officers: two qualitative data collection experts, five enumerators for the survey, and the first author. Respondents in the qualitative segment were contacted via a community development committee leader. Verbal informed consent was recorded; only one SSI interviewee declined to participate. The FGDs were conducted in the community leader’s house, and respondents were free to express their opinions. In-person SSIs were conducted in respondents’ houses. RAMs were asked about their former practices when living in rural areas. The survey questionnaire was based on the information gathered in the qualitative exploration, for example, RAMs were asked about their current practices in Dhaka and their former practices when living in rural areas. Data was collected using the Open Data Kit (ODK) forms over the phone from October to November 2020. We conducted the survey using respondents' phone numbers recorded in UHDSS. A total of 705 households were contacted, but only 401 were included in the analysis due to 33% declining or unreachable.

3.3 Data analysis

The FGDs and SSIs were transcribed, coded, and segmented into categories (Braun & Clarke, 2006) using the ATLAS Ti_9 software. The analysis was deductive (following themes from the SPT concepts) and inductive (arising from respondents’ discussions). During the analysis process, the first author read the transcripts multiple times, familiarised himself with the data, and listed the codes in a codebook. Later, he discussed with the other authors to apply the codes in all interviews and developed the themes presented in the result section. In this process, the two categories of shoppers were compared on their current shopping practices, safety concerns, indicators of (un)safe food, and coping strategies. The statistical analyses were performed in STATA 13.1 to generate descriptive statistics to support the qualitative findings. First, the surveyed 401 households were grouped into RAMs and ERs based on 2 years of residence. Then Chi-square and other summary statistics were used to compare the food shopping performance of the two groups and their food safety concerns for buying.

In section 4.2, this study uses an integrated procedure in presenting results, sequentially exhibiting qualitative and quantitative findings in general, giving priority to qualitative discoveries, and attempting to expand them through quantitative analysis.

4 Results

4.1 Socio-economic status of respondents

Table 3 summarises the profiles of the respondents. Most respondents were younger than 40 years with ERs tending to be older than RAMs. Gender was balanced, except for the slightly higher representation of men in the survey. Most shoppers were private employees and housewives, including day labourers, transport workers, readymade garment workers, other factory workers, maids, shop workers, office peons, etc. ERs showed higher self-employment and illiteracy than RAMs. Nearly one-third of the survey participants lacked formal education, while around 40% had attended primary education (up to 5 years).

Table 3 Respondents’ demographics in qualitative and quantitative methods
Full size table

4.2 Daily food shopping practice of urban poor in Dhaka

The qualitative data revealed the dynamics of food shopping practices among the urban poor in Dhaka and highlighted five key themes: food items, outlets, affordability, social networks, and relations to work (see Table 4 in appendix). These themes reflect the elements of the practice, exhibiting distinct characteristics. The engagement of RAMs and ERs revealed commonalities and variations, providing a comprehensive understanding of their considerations and behaviours in daily food acquisition.

From FGD and SSI data, it became evident that the groups shared similarities in terms of outlets and relations to work. Dhaka's food market encompasses corner shops, street vendors, peddlers, and supermarkets. Approximately 90% of survey respondents bought food from traditional wet markets and corner shops, while only 1% from supermarkets (See Table 5 in appendix).

Respondents emphasised the importance of proximity and convenience for food shopping. Nearby outlets were valuable due to their accessibility and affordable transportation costs. One respondent emphasised the importance of proximity: “My home is far away from the workplace. So, I can not always carry food from there" (48y, male, street fruit vendor). Most survey respondents (75%) preferred buying food from nearby outlets within the 500-m radius (See Table 6 in appendix).

Despite a preference for morning food shopping, job requirements compelled shoppers to visit outlets after work or on weekends. In the rural area, RAMs were limited to shopping for food twice a week at a weekly market. However, Chi-square tests indicated a significant difference between the two groups regarding the moment of food shopping in urban areas, with the ERs (51%) tending to shop earlier in the day (i.e., before lunch) compared to RAMs (37%) (see Table 7 in appendix).

Turning to the differences between the two groups, variations were observed in their food choices, affordability, and social networks for shopping. Although ERs slightly differed from RAMs, both groups valued the diversity and freshness of wet market items in Korail’s market available in the morning. RAMs discussed the less-diversified and seasonal food availability in rural markets. Additionally, they mentioned the availability of free and fresh food in rural areas, such as free fish caught from nearby canals, wild vegetables harvested from neighbouring land, and cultivated vegetables obtained from family or other familiar people. Compared to RAMs, ERs prioritised affordability and had stronger connections with neighbours and retailers. This connection provided them with access to more information when buying food on credit and support for food storage: "My brother has a refrigerator. I keep them [bought food] in his refrigerator" (24y, female, school teacher).

Our SSI data revealed connections between daily food shopping and other activities such as childcare, cooking, livelihood, and the daily mobility of respondents, highlighting a bundle of practices. Childcare influenced shopping schedules, particularly for mothers who may go food shopping while their children are napping in the presence of another caregiver. Furthermore, food buying was connected to the dependence on public transportation and Dhaka traffic congestion. For instance, employees at readymade garment factories, peddlers, and drivers left their homes at about 7h and returned at around 22h. On the way home, these workers visited traditional markets and street-side shops in the evening. They also preferred the morning shopping practice because the unstable pipe gas supply was more reliable, and shared cooking areas were easier to access. Later in the day, it was harder to access these amenities.

Overall, our observation points to the shopping practice of closer home were similar across both quantitative and qualitative respondents. However, RAMs and ERs differed in shopping moments, connection with neighbours and affordability.

4.3 Food safety concerns related to daily food shopping

Food safety concerns related to food shopping were prevalent among both groups. According to the survey, 96% of the respondents expressed concerns about food shopping, particularly the safety of fish, fruits, and vegetables (see Tables 8 and 9 in appendix). Furthermore, 90% believed that rural-urban migration had increased their concerns. Notably, supermarkets were the least concerning option in terms of food safety, while street vending was the most concerning outlet (see Table 10 in appendix).

All respondents in FGD and SSI expressed safety concerns about their daily food shopping, primarily due to health issues such as: fever, diarrhoea, and cholera. We identified eight themes and nineteen safety concerns for food and non-food elements (see Table 11 in appendix). RAMs expressed greater concern about nine items, lower concern about five items, and equal concern about four items. Children and the elderly were perceived to be more vulnerable to unsafe food than adults. A shared understanding of “safe food” was identified through the native term "Taaja" (in English, "fresh"). This concept encompassed locally grown, self-cultivated, and well-known production and handling processes.

Regarding food items, three key themes emerged: concerns about undesirable substances, issues regarding freshness, and uncertainties about processing methods. Regarding undesirable substances, the major concern revolved around the usage of formalin (a chemical used as a preservative and disinfectant), with one RAM mentioning, “In Dhaka, formalin is added to fish, fruits and vegetables and present in almost every food item (34y, female, housewife)”. In addition to formalin, RAMs expressed greater concerns about various undesirable substances such as chemical fertilisers in plants, dust in grains, animal diseases, and ice on fish, while artificial colours to conceal paleness in meat, fish, and vegetables raised less concern. Concerning freshness, RAMs were less concerned about rotten food, foul odours, and expired food products; however exhibited more concern about the longer selling period in wet markets causing foul smells due to prolonged exposure to Dhaka outdoor temperatures. Additionally, fewer RAMs than ERs were concerned about being illiterate and its impact on their understanding of freshness by checking the expiration dates of packaged goods. Lastly, RAMs expressed greater concern about unknown processing practices, for instance, cultivation and handling processes and the slaughter of already deceased animals. Both groups showed similar concerns about mixing meat types–cow and dog meat. However, only 1.9% of survey respondents were concerned about unidentified food processing, and 1.7% were concerned about food origin.

Regarding non-food aspects of shopping, both groups expressed similar levels of concern about outlet choices and affordability. Taking into account the image of the shops, they believed smaller corner shops and street vendors provide unsafe food. A shared connection between food safety concerns and affordability emerged; both groups believed that cheaper food is associated with poor quality, and credit-based food purchase limits their access to better foods from other outlets. However, a slight distinction existed between the groups regarding social networks and relations to work. RAMs showed more concern than ERs towards unfamiliar neighbours, vendors, and shopping schedules. This unfamiliarity restricted access to information and refrigeration availability. As a respondent put the challenge of night shopping, “Not good at all; it is bad. Nothing to do; we have to eat to survive. Good things are not part of our luck. When good things come in the morning, we go to work" (35y, female, readymade garments worker).

In general, RAMs expressed greater concern about undesirable substances and unknown processing practices than ERs, while both groups showed similar levels of concern about non-food aspects of shopping.

4.4 Coping strategies in daily food shopping

In FGDs and SSIs, we found three significant themes for coping strategies: identifying safe and unsafe food, proactive selection, and creating and maintaining relationships (see Table 12 in appendix).

RAMs were more engaged in identifying safe food indicators, although both groups examined the external appearance and packaged food items. RAMs often relied on visual indicators of vegetables such as full baskets, wild vegetables, and freshwater fish in the market. Besides, they looked for ‘Desi’ (locally bred) and live animals to indicate safer food. For instance, RAMs actively avoided purchasing fish stored under loose ice or selecting vegetables with a smell of chemical fertiliser. Assuming they had been fattened, avoiding larger fish was consistent across the groups. In the survey, 97% of participants observed, and 73% smelled to assess food safety (see Table 13 in appendix).

Shoppers with safety concerns tended to address their concerns proactively (see Box 1). Overall, RAMs adopted less proactive action than ERs. The actions included choosing particular outlets and avoiding the cheaper foods, which may be of lower quality or contaminated. For instance, a respondent described, “I do not buy from that shop but rather from another shop…they sell cheaper and expired items” (25y, female, housewife). More RAMs than ERs paid higher prices and refrained from credit-based food purchases. When compared to ERs, fewer RAMs purchased packaged items. Furthermore, RAMs exhibited greater vigilance in verifying the expiration dates of food items, with higher numbers of RAMs inspecting such dates. However, no significant differences were found in the rest of the coping strategies except observing and smelling among the groups (see Table 13 in appendix).

Respondents created and maintained relationships with vendors and neighbours as a critical social coping strategy. Social networks could offer them support during difficult times and aid with further information on food items. RAMs, more than ERs, explained that creating relations with vendors could build trust and provide access to high-quality food items. On the other hand, ERs highlighted arguments with vendors to alter spoiled products. For RAMs, relying on rural relatives to bring safer food from rural areas was another coping strategy. Additionally, they delegated family members for food shopping to avoid the evening shopping practice.

6 Discussion and conclusion

This study looks at how the poor urban inhabitants cope with food safety concerns during daily food shopping in Dhaka and whether the strategies differ between two groups: RAMs and ERs. Drawing on social practice theory and using exploratory sequential mixed methods, we comprehensively understand everyday performances of food shopping practices and how they manifest coping strategies in shopping practices by interconnecting with the core elements: meanings, materials, competencies, and parts of other practices. Despite some resemblance, both groups expressed distinct shopping practices, food safety concerns, and coping strategies. The shopping practice of urban poor in Dhaka comprises of five major elements: food items, outlets, affordability, social connections, and work relations. We found notable differences in food choices, affordability, and social networks, and partial similarities concerning outlets and work relations. Shoppers applied a variety of sensor-based safe food identification, proactive measures, and social coping mechanisms while food shopping. Based on these findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the challenges faced by RAMs and ERs. Tailored interventions must be developed to cater for their specific needs, such as educating them on safe food identification, and fostering community building to ensure inclusive access to safer food for all city dwellers.

Firstly, our findings underscore the influence of migration on the established routine of food shopping practices among migrants, suggesting the need for re-routinisation. Departing from accustomed shopping routines due to migration led to material and competency differences between the groups. Specifically, RAMs encountered challenges engaging in various elements of food shopping practices in urban areas. For instance, affordability was identified as an essential material in food shopping for the urban poor, often leading to compromises in food quality and safety due to buying inexpensive food items. The convenience of buying food from nearby outlets resonates with findings from prior studies (Li et al., 2019). They may need to establish a morning shopping routine to obtain fresh food products. Furthermore, food shopping is connected to other practices and can be completed with stable links with elements of different practices.

Secondly, Dhaka's daily food shopping practices are plagued by numerous safety concerns regarding food and non-food materials, making it a health hazard threat for shoppers. Concerns about formalin in food were widespread among the shoppers, highlighting the need for further research on formalin use in food and to take appropriate measures (Ishra et al., 2022). Key stakeholders, including researchers and food safety monitoring agencies, must pay closer attention, regardless of whether applying formalin in food is a fact or just consumers' perception. Although supermarkets are perceived as a safer option than street vendors, they remain inaccessible to many urban poor due to low affordability issues (Pham & Turner, 2020; Trübswasser et al., 2021). While the ability to identify hazards during food shopping is crucial, these competencies are primarily self-taught and lack formal training. Structured training programmes or improved communication processes are necessary to ensure proper information dissemination and to promote better food safety practices. Given the high rates of illiteracy among urban poor people, community-based education focusing on food safety and hygiene awareness could empower both consumers and vendors to make informed decisions.

Thirdly, RAMs face challenges in coping due to limited social networks with neighbours and vendors. Establishing relationships with neighbours and vendors could help them compensate for their lack of social connections. While formalin is a major concern, shoppers, particularly RAMs lack specific strategies to address it. Shoppers rely on sensor-based strategies such as looking for food appearance (Ha et al., 2021). However, many of these sensor-based actions might not be scientifically proven approaches to ensure safer food at retail points. Shoppers adapt to the concerns about the outlets by altering and developing trust relationships (Wertheim-Heck et al., 2019). Besides, addressing the need for more competencies in reading food labels (which necessitates education) could be managed by possible innovation for alternative labelling. ERs may possess better coping strategies due to their longer exposure to food safety concerns. Facilitating knowledge transfer for appropriate meaning and competence for safe food shopping, along with ensuring access to improved materials can enhance safe food provision to the urban poor. Essentially, most of the coping strategies are embedded in the roots of shoppers’ understanding of safe food, materials and the competencies in their hands.

The aspect of migrants' food safety concerns, within the broader spectrum of food security challenges faced by the urban poor, is frequently neglected, highlighting the necessity for greater attention. The current study reveals food safety coping strategies while considering social and cultural dimensions with an empirical application of Social Practice Theory (SPT). By applying SPT and beginning with qualitative methods, this thorough investigation within a single city is one of its inherent strengths; delving into social dimensions that transcend conventional rational choices. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge some limitations. COVID-19 led to protocol modifications, including shifting to phone surveys and limiting the intended data collection, for instance, household size information. The comparison between RAMs and ERs is the primary focus of this study, revealing differences with partial similarities in the qualitative studies primarily. However, our survey sample may represent the broader urban slum population in Dhaka, not exclusively RAMs or ERs. This necessitates caution in interpreting the difference between the groups in the quantitative research findings due to potential covariate variables within this context. Future exploration should consider taking equal samples from both RAMs and ERs for clarity. We only considered the shopping practices of poor urban inhabitants in a South Asian city. However, the limitation pertains primarily to the transferability of the findings to different cities or countries. The food shopping practices of the rural poor, the urban poor of other cities, and other groups of urban shoppers may reveal additional elements. Thus, the coping strategies revealed in this study may only apply to some consumers.

Nevertheless, this study makes a noteworthy contribution to realising the complexities of coping strategy as a dynamic process inherent in everyday shopping practice. Cities in the rapidly urbanising South Asia are under increasing pressure to manage food safety challenges and accommodate rural–urban migrants. For instance, Bangladeshi consumers and policymakers have expressed concerns about hazardous food available on the market due to the (over)use of chemicals and other harmful substances over the last decade (Hassan, 2015; Hossain et al., 2008; Solaiman & Ali, 2014). In 2013, the government passed the Food Safety Act to address these concerns. However, the media continue to report unsafe food and criminal prosecution of (primarily urban) retailers who violate food safety regulations (Mohiuddin, 2018). This may indicate a disconnection between the actual documentation of policies and the situation on the ground, necessitating focused interventions. This paper offers actionable insights that policymakers and researchers of the global south such as Bangladesh can use to address the pressing concerns.

The current food shopping practices of poor urban inhabitants can be improved through better accessible material resources and enhanced skills, depending on their situation as RAMs or ERs. This study also emphasises social practice understanding to research coping strategies in food shopping. It shows how routinised everyday food shopping practices may be interrupted due to food safety concerns and migration. This approach identifies critical element(s) in food shopping across the two types of urban populations such as RAMs and ERs and their different strategies employed in the same marketplace. A better understanding of everyday practices will enable policymakers to intervene, monitor, and modify food acquisition spaces to achieve inclusive food safety for all. Overall, our study sheds light on the complexities of migrants’ food shopping practices and provides policymakers with insights and scope for improvements in the global south.