Reports on an evaluation of the food safety behaviour of 108 consumers conducted using direct observation and temperature measurements. Finds that safe cooking practices were used by the majority of consumers, although more than half of the participants cooked well in advance of consumption and few used any method to speed the cooling of cooked food. Some consumers used potentially unsafe practices such as transporting and storing food at the wrong temperature, holding cooked food at ambient temperature for prolonged periods and inadequate re‐heating. Identifies great potential for indirect and direct cross‐contamination during the preparation of food. Notes some disparity between observed food safety behaviour and self‐reported food handling practices.

No abstract

An evaluation of the food safety behavior of 108 consumers was conducted by means of an HACCP-based audit. The method employed direct observation and temperature measurement linked to a standardized risk-based scoring system based on epidemiological data. A food operation risk (FOR) score was allocated to each consumer and was based on the demerit points awarded for the violation or absence of recommended control or preventative measures, Temperature abuse during food transport and storage was exhibited by more than 40% of people. A great potential for indirect and direct cross-contamination during the preparation of food was identified. Safe cooking practices were used by the majority of consumers, however, more than half of the sample cooked well in advance of consumption and few used any method to speed the cooling of cooked food. Some consumers used potentially unsafe practices such as holding cooked food at ambient temperatures for prolonged periods and inadequate reheating. Expressed as a percentage, the FOR scores ranged from 0 to 65% with over half of the subjects (58%) scoring below 20%.

The purpose of this investigation was to improve the understanding of the public's perception of hygiene standards in eating places and their knowledge of the inspection system. A telephone survey found that despite many claiming experience of food poisoning, and a widely held belief that using eating places may result in illness, people continue to eat out or purchase takeaways regularly. Nearly all respondents claimed that the standard of food hygiene was important to them when deciding where to eat out. Assessments of hygiene standards were mainly based on aesthetics. A minority had concerns/complaints about the hygiene standards of eating places they had used. People do not appear to be well informed about the role of the local authorities in protecting food safety and how the food safety laws are enforced. They believe that they have the right to know the result of a hygiene inspection. Half of them thought that it was difficult to find information on the hygiene standards of eating places. If access to information was easier, some consumers would eat out more often. The public will need to be educated on the inspection and enforcement process if 'scores on doors' is adopted as the main method of raising the confidence of the public in the standards of the food industry.

Describes a survey of food safety training for staff in the retail, care and catering industry. Training provisions were evaluated against the guidance in the relevant industry guides. Additional information was collected on the managers' perceptions of and attitudes towards hygiene training. The extent and level of training of the retail butchers, who had to comply with the licensing regulations, was better than care homes and caterers of an equivalent size. Some of the care homes were not compliant with the training requirements of the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations. There was a similar lack of hygiene management systems in most of the catering businesses in this study but senior staff were better trained and were able to provide in-house training to greater effect. All the businesses carried out on-the-job training, although in some this was restricted to induction training, the content of which was often ill defined. There was a lack of documented hygiene procedures, reinforcement strategies and very little refresher training activity. Many managers failed to provide feedback on performance, to test hygiene knowledge or praise good hygienic performance. Half of the managers were not trained to train, and often were untrained in elementary hygiene themselves. Some managers recognised that conditions in the workplace and time pressures could contribute to poor hygiene performances.