lable at ScienceDirect

Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

Contents lists avai

Food Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ foodcont

Food safety awareness, knowledge and practices among studentsin Slovenia

Andrej Ovca a, Mojca Jev�snik a, Peter Raspor b,*a Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SloveniabChair of Biotechnology, Microbiology and Food Safety, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 September 2013Received in revised form21 January 2014Accepted 28 January 2014Available online 12 February 2014

Keywords:Food safetyRisk perceptionKnowledgeFood handlingChildren

* Corresponding author. University of Primorska, Fa42, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia. Tel.: þ386 5 662 64 63; fa

E-mail address: peter.raspor@fvz.upr.si (P. Raspor)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.0360956-7135/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

It is critical for children to understand food-related risks to preserve their health and the health of others,particularly because their food preparation responsibilities will increase in adulthood. The purpose ofthis study (n ¼ 1272) was to explore the inclusion of 10- to 12-year-old students in food preparationactivities and to determine their understanding of food-related risks, food safety knowledge and self-reported practices in their domestic environment prior to systematic involvement in these activitiesduring regular schooling. This study highlighted their inclusion in food preparation activities withlimited experiences. For food-related risks, a high level of perceived severity and a low level of perceivedvulnerability were observed. Particular lack of knowledge was identified regarding the impact of tem-perature on microorganisms. Additionally, self-reported practices indicated risky behaviours for theprevention of cross-contamination, preservation of leftovers, re-heating of food in a potentially unsafemanner and food preparation activities with unprotected wounds on their hands. These resultsdemonstrate that the systematic teaching of basic food safety principles as early as primary school re-mains necessary.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A study of children regarding food safety awareness, knowledgeand practices is addressed on two levels: food preparation at theircurrent stage of development and food preparation responsibilitiesin the future. Understanding food-related risks is critical for thepreservation of the food preparers’ own health and the health ofothers. Children, in addition to the elderly, pregnant women andimmune-compromised persons, are the most vulnerable categoryto foodborne illness, and as adults, they will continue to practicefood-related behaviours at home as caregivers for family membersor as employees in the food business sector. After habits areestablished, they tend to be long lasting and difficult to alter at laterlife stages (Wills, Backett-Milburn, Gregory, & Lawton, 2005).

European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] reports 5648 (1.1/100,000) food-borne outbreaks affecting 69,553 people, with thehousehold/domestic kitchen as the second most commonly (32.7%)reported setting for outbreaks (EFSA, 2013), indicating theweakness

culty of Health Sciences, Poljex: þ386 5 662 64 80..

of consumers as a last link in the food supply chain. However, thesenumbers do not reflect the actual epidemiology because in theofficial reports, only the reported outbreaks are recorded. Therefore,the importance of unreported cases should not be ignored becausepeople with mild clinical symptoms often do not seek medicalassistance and are therefore not counted in the official reports.

Although childhood is a crucial time for developing food safetyknowledge and skills (Mullan, Wong, & Kothe, 2013), more studiesare devoted to adult consumers than children and their food-handling practises. There is evidence that children either collabo-rate with their parents to prepare food (Byrd-Bredbenner, Abbot, &Quick, 2010) or prepare food at home by themselves (Haapala &Probart, 2004). A previous study of Slovenian adults reports thatrespondents learnt their cooking practices primarily from theirparents (Jev�snik, Hlebec, & Raspor, 2008). Furthermore, studies ofchildren, adolescents and young adults report that parents are aprimary source of information or the first introduction to foodsafety concepts (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010; Coulson, 2002; Eveset al., 2006). According to the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,1991), an individual is more likely to perform a specific behaviour ifhe or she believes that parents (as important others) also think thisbehaviour is essential. This presents a risk that deficiencies in foodhandling may be passed on to children, and previous studies

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151 145

identified these deficiencies as a lack of responsibility, lack ofknowledge and bad practices. Although Caraher, Baker, and Burns(2004) considered mothers to be the primary person to pass oncooking skills, they also report that as the child matures, parentalpower may be reduced by influence from teachers, peers and ce-lebrity chefs. Whereas malpractice is often related to health dam-age or the risk of death, risk perception is a factor that influencesmotivation and is an important aspect when investigating foodsafety knowledge and practices (Mullan et al., 2013). Furthermore,self-efficacy in safe food handling by children, as demonstrated bytheir confidence to perform a specific behaviour, was also evaluated(Haapala & Probart, 2004; Mullan et al., 2013).

Research of children and adolescents primarily focuses ondefining baseline data to serve as a starting point for educationalinterventions (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010; Haapala & Probart,2004), the evaluation of educational interventions (Faccio et al.,2013) and social marketing campaigns (Byrd-Bredbenner et al.,2007). However, the systematic delivery of these contents to allchildren during regular schooling should not be neglected. As re-ported by others (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2007; Griffith &Redmond, 2001; Mullan et al., 2013), because of changes in theeducational system, food safety information has been restricted innational curriculums, which indicates that food safety issues arenot high-priority topics in schools.

Previous studies of the general Slovenian population and itssub-groups revealed misunderstanding of responsibility towardsfood safety and gaps in knowledge and practices (Jev�snik, Hlebec,et al., 2008; Jev�snik, Hoyer, & Raspor, 2008; Jev�snik et al., 2013),prompting continued research with children. The purpose of thisstudywas to gain insight into the experiences of childrenwith food,their understanding of food-related risks, food safety knowledgeand self-reported practices in the domestic environment prior tosystematic involvement in these activities during regular schooling.The results of this study will provide a starting point for the laterevaluation of existing regular schooling contributions to overallfood safety.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Design

This study was conducted at the beginning of school year (2012/13). The participants were recruited by an e-mail invitation sent to52 primary schools in the municipality of Ljubljana, capital ofSlovenia, and its surroundings, addressed to home economicsteachers. Half the schools (26) responded to the invitation, repre-senting 5.8% of all primary schools in Slovenia (450). After officialpermission by the school principal for the proposed study wasgranted, the home economics teacher collected the parentalpermission. All respondents were anonymised and participatedvoluntarily. The National Medical Ethics Committee approved thestudy design.

The questionnaires and survey instructions were sent by post tothe home economics teachers. The teachers were expected to bepresent when the respondents were answering the questionnaireand were instructed with written guidelines to explain the ques-tions/content when necessary. The teachers were also instructed toemphasise to the respondents the importance of honesty in the re-sponses, particularly when reporting their practices. The goal ofthese instructions was to prevent respondents from reporting ‘al-ways’ to practices they recognised as necessary, but do not alwaysperform. After the questionnaires were answered, home economicsteachers sent them back by post. As a reward for participation in thesurvey, a special workshop related to cleaning, cross-contamination,heat treatment, temperature control and hand hygiene mistakes,

with the necessary measures to prevent foodborne illness at home,was offered. Theworkshopwas held approximately twoweeks afterthe survey. The students were involved in the workshop and theirteachers were present as observers.

2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed by authors considering pre-ventive measures identified by the World Health Organization(2012) as crucial for food safety (keep clean, separate raw andcooked, cook thoroughly, keep food at safe temperatures, use safewater and raw materials), and previous studies (Byrd-Bredbenneret al., 2010; Haapala & Probart, 2004). The questionnaire wasdivided into four sections. The 1st section was composed of fivequestions and ascertained the experiences of the childrenwith food.The 2nd section evaluated their personal understanding of food-related risk and was assessed with six statements. Food safetyknowledge was tested in the 3rd section using 18 true-and-falsequestions divided into six categories, including cleanliness ofkitchen surfaces and kitchen utensils, prevention of cross-contamination, heat treatment, temperature control, checking foodbefore use/eating, hand hygiene and one uncategorised questionrelated to food safety responsibility after purchase. Self-reportedfood safety practices were investigated in the 4th section,composed of the 15 previously described actions. Using a 5-pointscale (never, almost never, sometimes, almost always, always) therespondents reported how often they performed the described ac-tion. There was an additional option for those not involved in thedescribed situation. The questionnaire was tested by 42 students(two classes in one primary school not included in dataset) todetermine the question clarity, identify additional response options,and gauge the length of time necessary to answer the survey. Thequestionnaire was revised on the basis of the pre-test.

2.3. Data analysis

The results were evaluated and analysed using the SPSS 20.0software package. To examine the relationships among and be-tween the variables, cross tabulations and the c2 test, Pearsoncorrelation coefficient and an independent sample t-test were usedaccording to the question type. In addition to gender and place ofliving, self-reported prior knowledge about the prevention of foodpoisoning was also used as an independent variable. The re-spondents who did not prepare food, help their parents during foodpreparation, or selected the option ‘other’, were not included in theanalysis of self-reported food safety practices when appropriate(self-reported practices including food preparation operations).

3. Results

A total of 1272 respondents participated in the study of which50.9% were boys and 49.1% were girls. The respondents lived in thecity (72.7%) or in the suburb (27.3%) and were between 10 and 12years of age with majority (93.8%) being 11 years old.

3.1. Experiences with food

The majority of respondents are already included in food prep-aration operations at home, and 84.2% report that they enjoy pre-paring food, with girls responding more favourably than boys(p ¼ .000). Consequently, participation (Table 1) was also genderrelated, with girls more frequently involved in these activities(p ¼ .000). However, when asked to list the three most frequentfood items they prepare, the respondents answered primarilysnacks and simple dishes, which are not classified as potentially

Table 1Experiences with food preparation and food poisoning.

Query Response Boys (%) Girls (%) Total (%) c2 test n

p value

How often do you prepare food at home on your own or collaboratewith other family members when preparing food?

I do not prepare food neither helpmy parents during preparation

2.0 0.7 2.6 0.000 1212

Daily 8.9 12.6 21.5Several times a week 13.9 16.4 30.3Several times a month 4.9 5.4 10.3Occasionally 18.2 13.9 32.0Othera 1.5 1.7 3.2

Have you ever been poisoned by food? Yes 6.1 6.2 12.4 0.447 1220No 29.8 32.7 62.5I do not know 13.0 12.0 25.1

Has anyone ever tell you how you can prevent food poisoning? Yes 21.4 24.7 46.2 0.101 1213No 27.5 26.3 53.8

If yes, who did?b Father 2.3 0.6 2.9 0.006 516Mother 9.1 12.2 21.3Both parents 13.8 19.0 32.8Other family members 4.1 2.5 6.6Family member/s and school 4.8 9.1 14.0Teacher and/or school 8.7 8.7 17.4Physician 1.9 0.8 2.7Otherc 1.0 1.4 2.3

n e Number of respondents.a Weekend only, during holidays, If asked, in case of parents’ lateness/tiredness/illness, do not cook at home.b Respondents answered in free text and their answers were ordered in categories.c Farmer, neighbour, peers and friends, TV, journals.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151146

hazardous (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2001; Institute ofPublic Health of the Republic of Slovenia [IVZ], 2011). However,21.5% deal with potentially hazardous dishes, including meat, fishand leafy greens.

Almost half the respondents report that they have beeninstructed how to prevent food poisoning (Table 1), and of these, asignificantly greater number reported experiences with foodpoisoning (p ¼ .001). Among those who reported that they havebeen taught how to prevent food poisoning, parents (especiallymothers) have a particularly significant impact (Table 1). Amongthe other family members, grandmothers and siblings are the mainexamples. Only 22.4% of respondents did not mention familymembers in this context. The impact of physicians is also evident.He/she is more frequently listed (p ¼ .021) by those who experi-enced food poisoning (8.1%) then by those who did not (1.6%).Gender related differences were observed because girls quote theirmother more often and other family members and physicians lessoften than boys (Table 1).

3.2. Susceptibility towards food related risk

The majority (91.3%) of respondents agree that food poisoningcan be fatal, indicating high-perceived risk severity, particularlyamong girls (Table 2). The degree of agreement is higher amongthose who report that they have been taught how to prevent food

Table 2Susceptibility towards food poisoning and confidence in current skills.

Item

Food poisoning can be fatal.I think it is very unlikely to be poisoned by food.There is a bigger probability of being poisoned by food in a restaurant than at home.I know how to handle food so that I won’t get sick.Food poisoning is possible only in developing countries (in Africa) while in developed

countries (like Slovenia) it is not.I believe my knowledge in the field of food preparation can be further improved.

n e Number of respondents.A e I agree.NA e I do not agree.

poisoning (p ¼ .026). Closer examination of the perceived vulner-ability to food poisoning reveals that opinions in this matter aredivided, particularly among boys, who think that food poisoning ismore unlikely compared to girls (Table 2). The majority understandthat food poisoning occurs in developed countries, including theirown. However, they do not recognise the domestic environment asplace where food poisoning occurs, particularly girls (p ¼ .000).

Regardless of gender, the majority of respondents already feelconfident that they know how to handle food safely (Table 2),indicating high perceived self-efficacy. The degree of agreement ishigher among those who report that they have already been taughthow to prevent food poisoning (p ¼ .000). By contrast, the re-spondents, particularly the girls (Table 2), believe that their level ofknowledge is not final and can be further improved, indicating theirreadiness to learn.

3.3. Knowledge of safe food handling

The respondents scored an average of 12.5 (SD ¼ 2.5), whichrepresents a correctness rate of 65.8%. There is a small but signifi-cant difference (p ¼ .000) in the average scores of the girls (12.8;SD ¼ 2.5) and boys (12.3; SD ¼ 2.4). A larger difference (p ¼ .000)was observed between those who report that they have beentaught how to prevent food poisoning (13.0, SD ¼ 2.8) and thosewho were not (12.1, SD ¼ 2.5).

Boys (%) Girls (%) Total (%) c2 test n

A NA A NA A NA p value

43.9 5.1 47.5 3.6 91.3 8.7 0.051 106221.6 30.6 15.9 31.9 37.5 62.5 0.013 90434.5 15.4 39.9 10.2 74.3 25.7 0.000 90841.3 8.3 41.9 8.4 83.2 16.8 0.988 9735.0 45.0 3.4 46.5 8.5 91.5 0.061 1053

46.6 2.2 50.4 0.8 97.0 3.0 0.005 1114

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151 147

For the individual categories, significant differences with regardto gender were identified in the following categories: B e pre-venting cross-contamination, E � checking food before use/eatingand F e hand hygiene (Table 3). The scores were always better forthe girls. For the individual categories with regard to previousknowledge, significant differences were identified in categories Eand F (p ¼ .000). The least correct answers to all items in a singlecategory were in the following categories: A e cleanness of kitchensurfaces and kitchen utensils, C e heat treatment and D e tem-perature control (Table 3). The correctness rate of these categoriesis lower than the rest, in which approximately half the respondents(48.8e52.2%) answered all items in a single category correctly.

For the single items, the least correct answers (less than 50%correctness rate) were for dish washing procedure, manner ofchecking whether the food is properly cooked and refrigeratortemperatures, with no significant differences with regard to genderor previous knowledge. Furthermore, a greater than 85% correct-ness rate was observed for cleanness of the surfaces coming intocontact with food, understanding the effect of cleaning, separatingraw and cooked foods and the importance of removing jewellerybefore working with food. The last two items are related to gender(p¼ .006 and .002), with better scores for the girls (90.8% and 92.3%correct answers, respectively), whereas the impact of previousknowledge was not detected.

The place where they live (city or its surrounding) or whetherthey had been previously food poisoned (Table 2) did not signifi-cantly impact the average test scores or correctness rate of a singlecategory or item.

3.4. Self-reported food safety practices

Themajority of respondents, particularly thosewhowere taughthow to prevent food poisoning (p ¼ .000), report always checkingkitchen surfaces and utensils for cleanliness before use and alsocleaning immediately after use (Fig. 1). However, a significantnumber of respondents, particularly the boys (p¼ .000), sometimes

Table 3Distribution of food handling knowledge by correctness rate of a single item and relevan

Category Correctness rate Item

3/3 1/3

% n % n

N.C. 74.6 1242 The consumer is responsible for food safetA 19.0 1235 98.9 1253 Before we start preparing food, it is necess

are clean.22.1 1255 If we do not use a dishwasher, dishes can

removed and dishes then wiped with a cle88.0 1249 Cleaning the surfaces removes visible dirt,

B 52.5 1205 87.8 1235 Roasted meat (e.g. burger) and unclean vegrefrigerator, since the storage in the refrige

78.8 1245 If you prepare vegetables with the same chknife first have to be washed well with wa

71.2 1242 It is enough to use only one cloth during foC 9.2 1133 67.0 1174 If we want that raw meat (e.g. chicken win

60.1 1227 When we reheat food, we have to do it veminutes.

22.4 1221 Tasting is the most reliable check way to cD 13.4 1114 62.7 1234 If we (after purchasing food) visit a friend,

63.2 1150 The most suitable temperature for growth32.5 1154 The temperature that prevents growth of m

E 52.3 1176 75.6 1229 Damaged food packaging does not present82.2 1237 Food that has an unpleasant odour, suspec72.1 1214 If the can is bulging, it does not present an

F 48.8 1211 89.5 1241 Before we wash our hands prior to food pr68.2 1236 Washing our hands with clean, running w75.3 1238 If we have an unprotected scab on our han

N.C. e Not categorised, 3/3 e correctness rate at relevant category, 1/3 e correctness ratkitchen utensils, B e preventing cross-contamination, C e heat treatment, D e temperat

or even often display risky behaviour with regard to cross-contamination prevention (Fig. 1), using an unwashed choppingboard/knife (24.8%) and using kitchen cloths for drying both wethands dishes (25.5%). Comparing the distribution of answers ofboth practices reveals that whether the utensils were previouslyused by their parents have no significant impact. This type ofbehaviour is even more risky because 66.1% of the respondentsreport washing dishes with warm water only (Fig. 1).

The lack of knowledge of the impact of temperature on micro-organisms (Table 3) is also reflected in the reported practices(Fig. 1). The majority of respondents are never (40.2%) or almostnever (17.0%) attentive to this factor. They were specifically askednot to answer if temperature monitoring in their domestic refrig-erator is not possible. Furthermore, when preserving leftovers,only half the respondents (48.8%) always or almost always preservethe leftovers in the refrigerator. Moreover, re-heating leftovers onthe kitchen range is far from ideal, whereas a considerable numberof respondents never (15.4%), almost never (10.8%) or onlysometimes (21.8%) reheat food to the boiling point. By contrast,they, particularly girls who were taught how to prevent foodpoisoning, reject food when there is a suspicious smell/look/taste(p ¼ .005), expired shelf-life (p ¼ .002) and/or damaged packaging(p ¼ .004).

Based on their report, hand washing before food preparation isthe most highly followed, particularly by girls (p ¼ .008). However,the respondents are not that consistent always to remove jewellerybefore food preparation, although the majority, particularly thosewho were taught how to prevent food poisoning (p ¼ .004) reportalways to follow this rule. It is worrisome that only 25.6% report notworking with food when they have an unprotected wound.

Although the respondents mostly agree (83.2%) that they knowhow to handle food safely (Table 2), only 39.4% warn their parents(Fig. 1) if they notice mistakes, and these tend to be those whoweretaught how to prevent food poisoning (p¼ .000).Whether they hadalready been poisoned by food (Table 2) had no significant impacton any of their self-reported practices.

t category.

y from the purchase onward.ary to ensure that all surfaces and utensils that come in contact with food

be effectively washed only with warm water, if uneaten food is previouslyan cloth.food residues and the vast majority of microbes.etables (e.g. lettuce), can be together in the same container if stored in therator prevents microbial growth.opping board and knife you already used for preparing raw meat, the board andrm water and detergent (if the dishwasher in not used).od preparation for drying wet hands, wiping the dishes and work bench.gs) be suitable for consumption, it has to be treated at least at 37 �C or above.ry quickly. Soups, sauces and other ‘pot meals’ have to be boiled for a few

heck whether cooking or roasting was sufficient.this does not pose a threat that food (e.g. minced meat) would be spoiled.of microbes that cause food poisoning is between 20 and 40 �Cicrobes in the refrigerator is 10 �C or less.any threat that food would be spoiled.t appearance or taste is not suitable for consumption.y risk if its contents are eaten.eparation, it is necessary to remove jewellery (bracelets, rings, watches).ater prior to food preparation is enough to remove germs from them.ds, we can still prepare food if this does not hinder us.

e at single item, n e number of respondents, A e cleanness of kitchen surfaces andure control, E e checking food before use/eating; F e hand hygiene.

Fig. 1. Self-reported food handling practices.n e number of respondents; * The respondents who did not prepare food, help their parents during food preparation, or selected the option ‘other’ (Table 1), were not included inthe analysis.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151148

4. Discussion

The number of respondents represents 7.2% of all students(17,666) enrolled in the 6th grade on the national level and theirgender ratio is almost entirely representative to the national ratio(51.5% boys and 48.5% girls) in this particular school year (StatisticalOffice of the Republic of Slovenia, 2012). For their age, cognitivedevelopment at this stage allows children to proceed from concreteto abstract thoughts. They can consider several dimensions at onceand relate them in a thoughtful and relatively abstract manner(Roedder, 1999). Therefore, teaching food safety concepts at thislevel is critical.

4.1. Experiences with food

The number of respondents who prepare food at home is com-parable to a previous study (Haapala & Probart, 2004). Genderrelated differences for frequency of food preparation indicates rolesharing for this type of activity. Although they primarily prepare

simple dishes and snacks regardless of their gender, the majorityregularly deal with eggs, presenting a risk for the cross-contamination of kitchen utensils and surfaces when hand hygieneis not adequate (Humphrey, Martin, & Whitehead, 1994; IVZ, 2011).

Almost half the respondents report to know how to preventfood poisoning before this topic is taught during primary school.Respondents of the same age most likely obtain this informationfrom various sources; therefore, these results indicate who is moreinfluential. The teachers and school at this stage seem to haveminor impacts, whereas, the role of parents, particularlymothers, isdominant. Although as reported by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010),children do not always follow the advice of parents when parentsare not present. Parental influence may be reduced in the future byteachers, peers and celebrity chefs (Caraher et al., 2004); however,it is difficult to change basic concepts as children age. The listing ofphysicians as a source of information may be related to foodpoisoning experiences because mentioning a physician is morefrequent among those who report previous experiences with foodpoisoning.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151 149

For previous food poisoning experience, the results are differentthan those reported by Haapala and Probart, (2004) in which re-spondents report being sick by something they ate in 21% and arenot sure in 45%. Notably, those who are not sure of this questionmay increase the actual number because of the unreported cases.However, those with food poisoning may consider digestive prob-lems related to other causes as food poisoning.

4.2. Susceptibility towards food related risk

Faccio et al. (2013) report that children aged 9e11 are alreadyaware that microorganisms can cause illnesses in the context offood safety, and can also distinguish between harmful and benefi-cial microorganisms for human health. Gender related differencesof perceived risk severity revealed in this study are consistent withthe general population, in which higher food safety awarenessamong women compared to men was identified (Jev�snik, Hlebec,et al., 2008; Jev�snik, Hoyer, et al., 2008). Although perceived riskseverity can be powerful motivation for food-handling practices(Redmond & Griffith, 2004), the use of fear-arousing communica-tion for food safety is not always effective (Mullan et al., 2013),particularly in situations similar to this study in which the re-spondents are persuaded that there is a greater probability of beingpoisoned by food outside the domestic environment than at home.This may be because the perceived vulnerability to risk is low(Chow & Mullan, 2010), and they believe there is a little risk asso-ciated with the food prepared at home. These results are consistentwith a previous Slovenian study of the general population, whichshowed that adults believe they are not responsible for food safetyto the same degree as other links in the food supply chain (Jev�snik,Hlebec, et al., 2008). Haapala and Probart (2004) also reported highperceived risk severity and low personal vulnerability. However,when the perceived risks are not considered serious, then, as re-ported by Chow and Mullan (2010), the implementation of properfood safety practices decreases.

Although self-efficacy may be a powerful initiator of safe food-handling behaviour, we must not be misled with possible opti-mism bias, in which respondents can underestimate the likelihoodfor negative consequences because of their actual practices (Mullanet al., 2013). Despite the high perceived self-efficacy, also shown ina previous study (Haapala & Probart, 2004), the respondents areinfluenced by their sources of this knowledge, whereas those whoreport that they have been taught how to prevent food poisoningfeel more confident in their practices. Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010)also report that respondents of a similar age feel they are not at riskfor food poisoning from foods they prepare because they either donot cook or prepare only simple foods.

Their joy for food preparation and their readiness to payattention to these topics is advantageous, whereas knowledge af-fects beliefs related to perceived susceptibility and severity of food-related risks (Champion & Skinner, 2008).

4.3. Knowledge of safe food handling

The correctness rate of this study (65.8%) is lower compared toprevious studies (Eves et al., 2006; Haapala & Probart, 2004) andhigher compared to a recent study (Mullan et al., 2013), in whichthe correctness rates were 69%, 72% and 42%, respectively, forcomparable age groups. The differences between the respondentswho were taught how to prevent food poisoning and those whowere not indicate a positive but selective effect of past notification,primarily by their parents. The positive impact of previous notifi-cation is in cautiousness before food use and knowledge of handhygiene. For categories with low correctness rates, no significantdifferences were observed.

For the single items, the least correct answers were observed fordish washing, method of checking whether the food was properlycooked and refrigerator temperatures, which are comparable tothat reported by Eves et al. (2006) for similar age group. Each of thethree itemsmay be related to the lack of knowledge of the impact oftemperature on microorganisms. During the workshops (after thequestionnaire was answered), the children frequently stated thatmoderately warmwater kills microorganisms, which explains theirincorrect answers for dish washing and handwashingwithout soap(Table 3). Answers for the refrigerator storage temperatures areconsistent with findings of adult Slovenian consumers, of which43.7% do not know the temperature of their home refrigerator(Jev�snik, Hlebec, et al., 2008). The knowledge of keeping raw andcooked foods separate to prevent cross-contamination is compa-rable to previous studies (Eves et al., 2006; Haapala & Probart,2004), whereas knowledge of the correct refrigerator tempera-ture, manner of checking whether cooking/roasting is sufficientand washing hands with water only is worse. As observed duringthe workshops (after the questionnaire was answered), studentsare not familiar with the phrase ‘from farm to fork’; however, themajority agree with the responsibility of an individual for foodsafety after purchase (Table 3).

Gender related differences may occur because girls are alreadymore frequently involved in food activities (Table 1), are moreinterested in improving knowledge (Table 2) and enjoy preparingfood more than boys. The differences in removing jewellery beforeworking with food may occur also because girls wear jewellerymore often than boys. Although a recent study (Faccio et al., 2013)identified differences in knowledge between urban and rural areas,the difference between respondents living in the city and its sur-rounding was not revealed, most likely because the city sur-rounding is a suburb and not a traditional rural area. Additionally,previous food poisoning (Table 2) had no significant impact on theaverage test scores, most likely because this was not related to anydirected educational intervention. Findings based on focus groupsperformed by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010) indicate that knowl-edge of safe food handling reported by children of this age is pri-marily at the knowledge recall level with limited comprehension asto why safe food handling is essential, although the knowledge isoften correct.

There is evidence that knowledge is (Abbot, Byrd-Bredbenner,Schaffner, Bruhn, & Blalocket, 2009) and is not (Mullan et al.,2013) a significant predictor of safe food-handling practices. Inthis study, the total scores of safe food-handling knowledgecorrelate with self-reported food handling practices in 8 of 15 re-ported practices (p< .01), although the correlation is weak (r� 0.2).This is consistent with the general belief that knowledge is essen-tial but sufficient for safe food-handling practices (Fishbein & Ajzen,2010).

4.4. Self-reported food safety practices

Potential malpractices were identified in cross-contaminationprevention, control of microorganisms with temperature, dealingwith leftovers and activities with unprotected wounds on theirhands. By contrast, rules related to checking kitchen utensils andtheir cleanliness before preparing food, cases when the rejection offood is necessary, taking off jewellery before hand washing andhand washing before food preparation are reported to be followedby the majority.

Although the respondents demonstrate relatively adequateknowledge of cross-contamination prevention (Table 3), their self-reported practices (Fig. 1) do not confirm it completely. It seemsthat they are aware of the importance of kitchen-ware cleanlinessbefore use and cleaning immediately when finished only for its

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151150

single use, but not when sequential use is applied. The uninten-tional usage of kitchen-were and kitchen cloths can lead to fastergrowth and reproduction of microorganisms (United StatesDepartment of Agriculture [USDA], 2008). This risk increaseswhen washing dishes with warm water only (Fig. 1).

When preserving leftovers, only half the respondents always oralmost always preserve the leftovers in the refrigerator (Fig. 1),which is significantly less than in previous studies (Haapala &Probart, 2004) in which 81% report practicing this almost alwaysor always. Theway of re-heating leftovers on the kitchen rangemaybe related to impatience. During the workshops (after the ques-tionnaire was answered), the explanation for this specific practicewas that they usually re-heat food only for immediate consumptionand therefore not too hot. Insufficient temperature control in do-mestic refrigerators combined with improper reheating enablessuitable conditions for the growth of potentially harmful bacteriaand toxins, such as staphylococcal enterotoxins (Jay, Loessner, &Golden, 2005).

Respondents report strict rejection of food with suspiciousorganoleptic properties, reflecting a belief that food poisoningbacteria changes the sensory characteristics of food. When re-spondents and/or their parents do not distinguish between ‘best-before’ and ‘use by’ dates (Directive 2000/13/EC), the strict rejec-tion of food with expired shelf-life can result in unnecessary foodwaste because of lower food quality for labels with best-beforedates.

Although the respondents, comparable to a previous study (Eveset al., 2006), report washing their hands regularly before foodhandling, efficiency is important. There is evidence that despiteknowledge and positive attitudes for implementing safe practices,consumer hand-washing and hand-drying actions are not alwaysconsistent with the observational data (Redmond & Griffith, 2003).The hand washing technique of the respondents was not system-atically investigated in this study, although coincidental observa-tions during workshops (after the questionnaire was answered)revealed deficiencies in hand washing technique. Additionally, thecorrectness rate with regards to the efficiency of washing handswith running water only (Table 3) confirms a knowledge gap. Eveset al. (2006) identified discrepancies among 10e11-year-old stu-dents who reported washing hands more frequently at home thanat school. Through interviews, they clarify that they wash handsbefore working with food at school because the class teacherinsisted, whereas at home, opportunities to talk about food hygienewith adults are created more frequently. This explanation confirmsa need for specialised subjects, such as home economics, in whichopportunities for explanations of particular behaviours are created.It is worrisome that only 25.6% report not working with food whenthey have an unprotected wound. This concern is related to the factthat some food poisoning bacteria are commonly found on ulcerouswounds (IVZ, 2011).

Although the respondents mostly report to know how to handlefood safely (Table 2), less than half warned their parents (Fig. 1)when they noticedmistakes. Although the reasons for this were notinvestigated, it may be explained by the theory of planned behav-iour (Ajzen,1991), inwhich the parents are considered as importantothers and role models.

As reported by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010), many children ofthis age were previously taught how to prevent food poisoning,although they do not always practice safe food handling because ofhunger (too hungry to spend time on precautionary steps) andother priorities. A significant barrier for implementing food safetypractices is also peer pressure (wanting to be like their peers).Although others (Millman, Rigby, Edward-Jones, Lighton, & Jones,2014) report differences between the people who had sufferedcampylobacteriosis and those who had not, previous food

poisoning had no significant impact on self-reported food safetypractices in this study.

5. Conclusions

Based on these results, it is evident that children are included infood preparation at home; however, because of the dishes theyprepare, children’s experiences are limited. For food-related risks, ahigh level of perceived severity and a low level of perceivedvulnerability are observed. The latter combined with confidence intheir skills may diminish their performance of appropriate foodsafety practices during food preparation, even in situations inwhich their knowledge is appropriate. The results of the foodhandling knowledge demonstrate familiarity with single items;however, the children often do not master the entire relevantcategory. Particular lack of knowledge was identified regarding theimpact of temperature on microorganisms. Self-reported practicesindicate risky behaviour for cross-contamination, when preservingleftovers, re-heating food in a potentially unsafe manner, and handhygiene in relation to unprotected hand wounds.

Although previous experience with food poisoning had no sig-nificant impact on food safety knowledge and practices, differencesin gender and previous notification were identified. Previousnotification at this stage, primarily by parents, has a selectiveimpact on knowledge and behaviour, and the results demonstratethat systematic learning of basic food safety principles as early as inprimary school is necessary to fill the gaps. Further restrictions oreven withdrawal of these topics in schools may lead to extremesituations in which children will not be included or are included inan incorrect manner in food preparation activities at home orschool. Therefore, these topics will not be important in the futurewhen their food preparation activities will increase together withrisk for foodborne illness.

6. Research limitations

A questionnaire is an appropriate tool for performing studies onlarger samples, but it has its weak points, particularly for self-reported practices. Despite our clear statement regarding theimportance of honesty, the risk that respondents will over-reportdesired practices cannot be eliminated. However, a recent studyby Milton and Mullan (2012) demonstrates that self-reportingsignificantly correlates with observed food hygiene behaviour.However, the authors believe it is crucial to perform observations offood-safety practices on smaller samples to verify the reportedoutcomes.

Acknowledgements

This surveywas a part of the project ‘What can I do for safe food?’,financially supported by the Municipality of Ljubljana, Capital ofSlovenia. The authors would also like to acknowledge ZalaSchmautz and Katja �Su�star�si�c for technical support, and thank theparticipating primary schools for making this study possible.

References

Abbot, J. M., Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C. M., & Blalock, L. (2009).Comparison of food safety cognitions and self-reported food-handling behav-iors with observed food safety behaviors of young adults. European Journal ofClinical Nutrition, 63, 572e579.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 50, 179e211.

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Abbot, J. M., & Quick, V. (2010). Food safety knowledge andbeliefs of middle school children: implications for food safety educators. Journalof Food Science Education, 9, 19e30.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151 151

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Maurer, J., Wheatley, V., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C., & Blalock, L.(2007). Food safety self-reported behaviors and cognitions of young adults:results of a national study. Journal of Food Protection, 70, 1917e1926.

Caraher, M., Baker, H., & Burns, M. (2004). Children’s views of cooking and foodpreparation. British Food Journal, 106(4), 255e273.

Champion, V., & Skinner, C. (2008). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. Rimer, &K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education. Theory, research, andpractice (4th ed.) (pp. 45e65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chow, S., & Mullan, B. (2010). Predicting food hygiene: an investigation of socialfactors and past behaviour in an extended model of the health action processapproach. Appetite, 54, 126e133.

Coulson, N. S. (2002). Source of food safety information: whom do adolescentstrust? Appetite, 38, 199e200.

Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to thelabelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.

EFSA e European Food Safety Authority. (2013). The European Union summary reporton trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in2011. Scientific report of EFSA and ECDC. Retrieved from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3129.htm.

Eves, A., Bielby, G., Egan, B., Lumbers, M., Raats, M., & Adams, M. (2006). Food hy-giene knowledge and self-reported behaviours of UK school children (4e14years). British Food Journal, 108, 706e720.

Faccio, E., Costa, N., Losasso, C., Cappa, V., Mantovani, C., Cibin, V., et al. (2013). Whatprograms work to promote health for children? Exploring beliefs on microor-ganisms and on food safety control behaviour in primary schools. Food Control,33(2), 320e329.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned actionapproach. New York: Psychology Press.

FDA e Food and Drug Administration. (2001). Evaluation & definition of potentiallyhazardous foods. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094141.htm.

Griffith, C., & Redmond, E. (2001). Evaluating hygiene behaviour in the domesticsetting and the impact of food hygiene education. Journal of Infection, 43, 70e74.

Haapala, I., & Probart, C. (2004). Food safety, perceptions and behaviours amongmiddle school students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 36, 71e76.

Humphrey, T. J., Martin, K. W., & Whitehead, A. (1994). Contamination of hands andwork surfaces with Salmonella enteritidis PT4 during the preparation of eggdishes. Epidemiology & Infection, 113, 403e409.

IVZ e Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia. (2011). Higienska pri-poro�cila za varnost �zivil za potro�snike [Hygienic recommendations to consumersregarding food safety]. Retrieved from http://www.ivz.si/Mp.aspx?

ni¼23&pi¼5&_5_Filename¼4561.pdf&_5_MediaId¼4561&_5_AutoResize¼false&pl¼23-5.3.

Jay, J. M., Loessner, M. J., & Golden, D. A. (2005). Modern food microbiology (7th ed.).New York: Springer.

Jev�snik, M., Hlebec, V., & Raspor, P. (2008). Consumers’ awareness of food safetyfrom shopping to eating. Food Control, 19(8), 737e745.

Jev�snik, M., Hoyer, S., & Raspor, P. (2008). Food safety knowledge and practicesamong pregnant and non-pregnant women in Slovenia. Food Control, 19(5),526e534.

Jev�snik, M., Ovca, A., Bauer, M., Fink, R., Oder, M., & Sev�sek, F. (2013). Foodsafety knowledge and practices among elderly in Slovenia. Food Control, 31(2),284e290.

Millman, C, Rigby, D, Edward-Jones, G, Lighton, L, & Jones, D (2014). Perceptions,behaviours and kitchen hygiene of people who have and have not sufferedcampylobacteriosis: a case control study. Food Control, 41, 82e90.

Milton, A. C., & Mullan, B. A. (2012). An application of the theory of plannedbehavior e a randomized controlled food safety pilot. Health Psychology, 31(2),250e259.

Mullan, B. A., Wong, C., & Kothe, E. J. (2013). Predicting adolescents’ safe foodhandling using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Food Control, 31(2),454e460.

Redmond, C., & Griffith, E. (2003). A comparison and evaluation of researchmethods used in consumer food safety studies. International Journal of Con-sumer Studies, 27(1), 17e33.

Redmond, C., & Griffith, E. (2004). Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, controland responsibility. Appetite, 43(3), 309e313.

Roedder, J. D. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look attwenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183e213.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. (2012). Pupils in the 9-year elementaryschool program by the municipality of the school, type of school, class, gender andage, the start of the school year, Slovenia. Retrieved from http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma¼0952706S&ti¼&path¼../Database/Dem_soc/09_izobrazevanje/04_osnovnosol_izobraz/01_09527_zac_sol_leta/&lang¼2.

USDA e United States Department of Agriculture. (2008). Kitchen companion. Yoursafe food handbook. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Kitchen_Companion_Single.pdf.

Wills, W., Backett-Milburn, K., Gregory, S., & Lawton, J. (2005). The influence ofthe secondary school setting on the food practices of young teenagersfrom disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland. Health Education Research, 20(4),458e465.

WHO. (2012). Five keys to safer food. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/consumer/5keys/en/.