Assessment of the Standard of Consumer Food Safety Behavior

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%.

Development and assessment of pilot food safety educational materials and training strategies for Hispanic workers in the mushroom industry using the Health Action Model

“…Several studies have concluded that observing workers during day-to-day operations is important for planning and evaluating training programs (Clayton et al, 2002;Redmond & Griffith, 2003). Studies to assess consumer food safety behaviors have similarly used direct observations of food handlers (Daniels, Daniels, & Noonan, 2001;Jay, Comar, & Govenlock, 1999;Toshima et al, 2001;Worsfold & Griffith, 1997). These studies often find that self-reported behaviors obtained through surveys do not always match behaviors obtained through direct observations.…”

Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Methodology and Risk-Based Grading to Consumer Food Safety Surveys

“…Worsfold and Griffith's (109, 110) FOR score system was adjusted and adapted to present Norwegian conditions. The concept was first introduced in 1982 by Bryan (29), who originally developed a risk index system for the catering industry that was the basis for the development of a customized scoring system for use in the domestic environment (49,109,110). Worsfold and Griffith adjusted the FOR score so that the risk was related to the food itself.…”

“…This score was based on the Worsfold and Griffith food operation risk (FOR) score, a logarithmic scale ranging from 0 to 90 demerit points (49,96,109,110). This method originally included direct observation and temperature measurement in combination with a standardized risk-based scoring system derived from epidemiological data (49,109,110). A high risk score indicates that more food safety violations occurred or that fewer control measures were applied (49,96).…”

“…The self-reported answers in the survey were given a score based on demerit points awarded for a food safety and/or hygiene violation or for absence or lack of knowledge of recommended controls or preventative measures. This score was based on the Worsfold and Griffith food operation risk (FOR) score, a logarithmic scale ranging from 0 to 90 demerit points (49,96,109,110). This method originally included direct observation and temperature measurement in combination with a standardized risk-based scoring system derived from epidemiological data (49,109,110).…”

Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh meats–sudden partial adaptation caused an increase in sustainability of dutch supply chains of fresh meats

“…The opportunistic growth behaviour of most spoilage organisms therefore causes a much larger growth than what would be expected based on the average tem- peratures (2-4°C). Furthermore, more than 40% of all home refrigerators are insufficiently chilled in Great Britain, 15 and there is no reason to assume that this situation is different in The Netherlands. Both cooling systems can easily be modified with a minimal investment to yield better performing refrigerating devices.…”