BCFPA Conference October 22, 2009 Beyond self reporting: Exploration of food safety behaviours through observation Dr. Ben Chapman Food safety extension

BCFPA ConferenceOctober 22, 2009

Beyond self reporting: Exploration of food safety behaviours through observation

Dr. Ben Chapman

Food safety extension specialist

North Carolina State University

[email protected]


What is safe food?


In-the-home

Processors

Retail and food service

Farmers

Transport


WHO factors contributing to foodborne illness• Improper cooking procedures• Temperature abuse during storage• Lack of hygiene and sanitation by food handlers• Cross-contamination between raw and ready-to-eat

foods• Foods from unsafe sources

o All human factors, behaviour basedo WHO, 2002


Background - communication

• “If you think the 10 commandments being posted in a school is going to change behavior of children, then you think “Employees Must Wash Hands” is keeping the piss out of your happy meals. It's not.”o Source: Jon Stewart,

Saturday Night Live monologue, 2002


Food safety communication philosophy• Anyone who tries to make a distinction

between education and entertainment doesn`t know the first thing about eithero Marshall McLuhan, 1967

• Disconnect between knowledge and food handler practiceso Green et al., 2006; Green and Selman, 2005; Pragle et al.,

2007; Redmond et al., 2004


Where it all began• MSc project (on-farm food safety)

o Put information into context (Chapman, 2004)

• Began to shift to food service food handlers (restaurant inspection interest) o Post at urinals?

From Chapman, MacLaurin and Powell, 2009. BFJ (in press)

and Chapman, Eversley, Filion, MacLaurin and Powell.

JFP (in review)



www.foodsafetyinfosheets.com





Sample

• 8 sites in Ontario (out of 13 possible)• Stations

o Grill/fryero Deli and salado Preparation areas

• Similar menus o Burgers, chicken, sandwiches, salads, specials

• 47 food handlers


Methodology

• Baseline practices recorded• Food safety infosheets were designed (to be

current) and provided weekly for 7 weeks• Posted by researcher/assisstants• 5 highly visible areas• May have been integrated into on-going training• Rerecorded


Data collection

• 174 hours of video on each occasion (pre and post food safety infosheet introduction) o 348 total hours

• On-camera for a mean of 13.43 hours of actual food handling pre-food safety infosheet introduction and

• 13.55 hours post-infosheet introduction. • Recording commenced 30 minutes prior to the first

scheduled employee’s start time and end 30 minutes after


Results: Mean events per food handler

Event Pre Post Change percentage

Handwashing attempts 21.09 22.51 +1.42* +6.7%

Correct handwashing events

2.38 4.02 +1.64* +68.9%

Indirect cross-contamination

15.70 13.13 -2.57* -19.6%

Direct cross-contamination

1.89 1.04 -0.85* -81.7%

*Significance level (p <.05, 95% CI)



Did your microwave nuke the bacteria?

Source: NYT (14.oct.07

DeDonder, S., Wilkinson, C., Surgeoner, B., Phebus, R, Chapman, B. and Powell, D. 2009. Direct Observation of Meal Preparation by Consumers. British Food Journal (in press).


Similar appearance of fully cooked and uncooked breaded products

Product packaging of fully cooked vs. uncooked products

Cause for consumer confusion?


N.Y. Times, May 15, 2009



Methods

• Convenience sampleo 21 Primary meal preparers o 20 Adolescents

• Direct Observationo Meal preparation in model kitcheno Trained scorers and predetermined scale

• Self-report survey• Data analysis

o Descriptive and frequency statistics (SPSS 15.0)


Handwashing

Primary Meal Preparers

Behavior Self-report Direct Observation

Before food preparation 90% 90.5%

After handling raw poultry 90% 52.4%

Adolescents


Before food preparation 90.5% 55%

After handling raw poultry 85% 10%


Read/apply label instructions• Reading: Little time

spent reading

• Applying: Only 7% of all participants followed directions precisely

Participant Group Time Spent (in seconds)

Number of Times

Primary Meal Preparers 22.6 2.9 Adolescents 21.4 3.2


Food Thermometer UsePrimary Meal Preparers


Owns a food thermometer 80.9% ---

Uses a food thermometer while cooking 9.5% ---

Used a food thermometer while cooking raw breaded chicken

19% (4)* 19%

Adolescents


Owns a food thermometer 68.4% ---

Uses a food thermometer while cooking 0% ---

Used a food thermometer while cooking raw breaded chicken

20% 5%



Objectives

• To investigate compliance to hand hygiene at the peak of an outbreak investigation

• To assess cognitive factors related to hand hygiene

From Surgeoner, Chapman and Powell, University Students’ Hand Hygiene Practice During a Gastrointestinal Outbreak in Residence: What They Say They Do and What They Actually Do. Journal of Environmental Health, September 2009, Volume 72, No. 2.


Methodology

• Combination of different research methodologies

• Provides more illuminating evidence of intervention impact and/or effectso Covert observations (n=357)o Self-report surveys (n=100)o Long interviews (n=6)


Covert observations


Observation resultsUsed hand sanitizer Total

Yes No

Gender Male Count 16 97 113

% within gender

14.2% 85.8% 100%

Female Count 46 198 244

% within gender

18.9% 81.1% 100%

Total Count 62 295 357

% within gender

17.4% 82.6% 100%


Key survey results cont’d

Beliefs toward hand hygieneo Most respondents considered they knew recommended

guidelines on hand hygiene (mean = 5.8)

Perceived adherence:o 64% of respondents ALWAYS perform hand hygiene as

recommended (another 20% usually did)o But…only 20% of their peers ALWAYS performed hand

hygiene as recommended


Conclusions

• Human behavior is key• Education alone ≠ application of knowledge gained• Re-evaluate sanitized messages• Providing easy access to tools does not necessarily improve

desired practices• Improving safety culture at societal level, merits emphasis


“Prayer is antiseptic”


Methods

• June and July 2007• 3 Communities

o Region of Waterloo, City of Toronto, Haiburton Kawartha Pine Ridge

• Catalogue practices• Trained to write down everything, risk or not,

o gleaned from past studies with food handlers, health inspections

• Exploratoryo sense of frequency


Observation results

• Proper handwashing was problematico Not consistent, tools not there in one dinner

• Cross-contaminationo Tongs and platters: raw meat to RTE burgerso Dirty equipment used

• No thermometer usage at any of the CMEso Despite participants’ discussions

• Refrigerators over-packed, out of temperatureo To conserve energy, fridge not turned on until morning of

event


Observation results


Have the tools


Dishwashing (hand towels -- everyone uses towel dry)


39

So What?

• Measuring behaviour methodologieso What do people actually do?o Observation has limitations, but better than self

report or otherso Secret peers/shoppers

• Understanding and tailoring information to target audienceso Moms-to-beo Menu builders at long term care homeso On-farm


40

So What? (cont)

• Learning from outbreakso Storytelling

• Moving beyond traditional trainingo Risk identification, other dialogue enriching toolso Food safety culture creation, evaluation and

enhancement


BCFPA ConferenceOctober 22, 2009bites.ksu.edu


Dr. Ben [email protected] me on twitter @benjaminchapman919 809 3205www.foodsafetyinfosheets.comwww.bites.ksu.eduwww.barfblog.com

Documents

BCFPA Conference October 22, 2009 Beyond self reporting: Exploration of food safety behaviours through observation Dr. Ben Chapman Food safety extension