Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DSpace Institution
DSpace Repository http://dspace.org
Food technology thesis
2021-06
THE ASSESSMENTS OF MEAT
SAFETY KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE
AND PRACTICES OF MEAT
HANDLERS IN ADDIS ABABA
ABATTOIR AND BUTCHERY SHOP.
TAYE, ENDALEW
http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/12564
Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository
1
BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND
POSTGRADUATE STUDIES.FACULTY OF CHEMICAL AND FOOD
ENGINEERING
NAME OF THE PROGRAM: FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY
MSC THESIS ON: THE ASSESSMENTS OF MEAT SAFETY KNOWLEDGE,
ATTITUDE AND PRACTICES OF MEAT HANDLERS IN ADDIS ABABA
ABATTOIR AND BUTCHERY SHOP.
BY
TAYE ENDALEW
DATE: JUNE 2021
BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA
2
BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND
POSTGRADUATE STUDIES FACULTY OFCHEMICAL AND FOOD
ENGINEERING
Thesis tittle: The assessments of meat safety knowledge, attitude and practices of meat
handlers in Addis Ababa Abattoir and butchery shop
BY
Taye Endalew Nemera
A thesis submitted in a partial fulfilment of award of master‘s degree (MSC) in food
safety and quality.
Dr.TakeleAyano : Research Advisor
June, 2021
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to research advisor, Dr.TakeleAyano for his helpful
advises, guidance‘s and intellectual feedback to prepare this thesis.
I want to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Addis Ababa Abattoirs‘ Enterprise (AAAE)
for providing me basic information about the company and to collect data.
My great thanks also to Assistant Professor TadeleAndarge the leader of the master program in Bahir
Dar Institute of Technology.
Lastly I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues of master program who supported me in
one and another
ii
DECLARATIONS
This is to certify that the thesis entitled assessments of meat safety knowledge, attitude and practice
in Addis Ababa Abattoir submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for degree of master of
science in food safety and quality under chemical and food engineering, recorded of original work
carried out by me and has never been submitted to this or any other institution to get any other
certificate or degree.
Name of the Candidate: TayeEndalew
Date June 2021
Bahir Dar , Ethiopia
iii
iv
ABBERVAITION
AAAE: Addis Ababa Abattoirs Enterprise
CSA: Central Statics Agency
AACG: Addi
s Ababa City Government
SSL: Slaughter supply lines
NVD: National vendor declarations
LPA: Livestock production
MLA: Meat and Livestock Australia
NLIS: National livestock Identification system
PIC: Property Identification Code
LDL: Lives Data Link
KAP: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice
v
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ......................................................................................................................................... i
DECLARATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. ii
ABBERVAITION ................................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................................................................. ix
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTURE ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the study ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 General objective ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Specific objective ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Significance of the study ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Scope of the research .............................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Overview of the livestock sector in Ethiopia .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Food safety .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Food- borne diseases .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Best Employee Work Practices ............................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP): .......................................................................................... 8
2.6 KAP on food Safety and Food-borne Diseases ..................................................................................... 10
2.7 Impact of education of food industry .................................................................................................... 11
2.8 Managing the slaughter animals. ........................................................................................................ 12
vi
2.9 Food- borne illness and its type ............................................................................................................ 12
2.10 Food safety and hazards ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.12 Food-borne infections ............................................................................................................................... 13
2.13 Prevention and control of food-borne pathogens .................................................................................. 14
2.14 The effects of pre-slaughter handling on meat quality ......................................................................... 14
2.15 Thefood Control System ....................................................................................................................... 15
2.15.1 Prerequisite programs ................................................................................................................... 15
2.15.2 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) .......................................................................... 16
2.16 Good Practices ...................................................................................................................................... 17
2.17 Good manufacturing practices for food Industry ................................................................................. 18
2.18 Good manufacturing practices and personal hygiene ........................................................................... 19
2.19 Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) schemes ............................................................................................ 20
2.20 Slaughtering techniques and its source of contamination ................................................................... 21
2.21 The advantage of a strengthened food safety system ............................................................................ 22
2.22 Slaughter procedure in AAAE .............................................................................................................. 23
CHAPTURE THEREE: METHDOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Research Site............................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Research Design ......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Sample Size Determination and Sampling Procedure ................................................................................ 25
3.4 Study design and sample collection ............................................................................................................ 26
3.5 Questioners description (Data collection tools). ......................................................................................... 26
3.6 Statistical analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSION ............................................................................................ 28
4.1 Socio demographic characterises of the meat handlers in study area ......................................................... 28
4.2 Food safety knowledge of meat handlers in the study area ...................................................................... 31
4.3 Food Safety Attitude of meat handlers in the study area ............................................................................ 36
vii
4.4 Food safety practice of meat handlers in the study area. ............................................................................ 41
4.5 Observational Survey .................................................................................................................................. 45
4.5.2 Physical observation of butchery ....................................................................................................... 49
4.5.3 Evaluation of Meat Distribution in Addis Ababa ................................................................................ 50
4.6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 51
CHAPTURE FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................. 54
5.1 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 54
5.2 RECOMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tab.1. Summary of socio- demographic characteristics of respondents ____________________ 29
Table2 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Education with Knowledge). _________ 76
Table 3 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Age with Knowledge) ______________ 76
Table 4 Summary of meat handlers’ food safety knowledge Addis Ababa abattoir and retail
meat shops ______________________________________________________________________ 32
Table 5 Summary of meat handlers food safety attitude in Addis Ababa Abattoir and retail meat
shop ____________________________________________________________________________ 37
Table 6 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Age with practices) ________________ 76
Table 7 Correlation with demographic characteristics (work experience with practices) ______ 77
Table8. Summary of meat handlers food safety practice in Addis Ababa Abattoir and retail
meat shops ______________________________________________________________________ 41
Table9. AAAE appraised as per standard (WHO). ____________________________________ 47
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1 Educational status ________________________________________________________ 30
Figure 2 Work experience _________________________________________________________ 30
Figure 3 Educational Status of the respondent’s in bar chart ______ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4 Work Experience of the respondent’s in bar charts _______ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5 Food Safety Knowledge for hand washing Practice _______ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 6 Meat Safety Attitudes _____________________________________________________ 39
Figure 7 Hand washing before handling of Meat _______________________________________ 39
Figure 8 Food Safety Practice ________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 8.1 food Safety practice in food conception _______________ Error! Bookmark not defined.
x
ABSTRACT
Food-borne disease remains major health challenge in developing countries. Cross-contamination
from raw meat due to poor handling as a result of poor knowledge and practices of meat handlers is
major contributing factors for meat borne disease. Adequate knowledge and preventive practice of
meat handlers are crucial in limiting the outbreak of food-borne disease and contamination of raw
meat. Across-sectional study was carried out in March 2021 in Addis Ababa Abattoir among 224 meat
handlers by using structured quaternaries. This study aims to assess the meat safety knowledge,
attitude and practice in abattoir and retail meat shop of Addis Ababa town. The result shows that
majority of meat handlers were male (78.1%) and most of the respondents were attended secondary
education (46.4%) and primary school leaver (38.84%), illiterate 8%, college 7.2% and out of total
respondent only 11.6% was taken food safety training. in contrary (88.4%).The result indicated that
the food-handlers knowledge 55.46% and safety practices 41.26% which were below acceptable level
with the mean score of 11.11±2.33 and 8.1±2.1 respectively. Only few respondent knew about
staphylococcus aureus (11.2% correct answer), hepatitis A virus (22.8% correct answer), and E. coli
(21.3% correct answer) as food-borne pathogens. About 65% of meat handlers have good attitude
about safety of food with mean of total score 13.1±2.2.Almost all respondents were answer correctly
questions about meat handling and hand washing but did not translate into strict food hygiene
practices. Chi-square analysis testing for the association between knowledge, attitude and practice
did not show any significant association. It may be due to food handlers below acceptable level safety
practice regardless of socio demographic characterise, knowledge and attitude. Though, there was
strong association between level of education and knowledge p= 0.024 and knowledge and age of the
respondents p=0.04 .There was also significant association between age and practice p=0.028. There
was association between work experience and practices p=0.062 but not statically significant. This
study revealed that the overall knowledge, practices, and attitude towards food safety among meat
handlers were low. Therefore, the findings of this study proposed that a continuous education and
regular training and retraining of the meat handlers on safe meat handling as well as general and
personal hygiene are strongly recommended.
1
CHAPTURE ONE:INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Food safety that refers to the conditions and practices that prevent contamination of foods from toxic
chemicals or microbes remains a major public health concern around the globe (WHO, 2015).
According to WHO global burden of food-borne diseases estimates 600 million people, almost 1 in 10
fall ill every year from eating contaminated food and 420, 000 die as a result (WHO,2014). Even in
developed countries, every year one third of the total population are likely tosuffer from food borne
diseases and from which 70% of the cases are linked with the consumption of contaminated
food (Havelaar AH, 2013). The issue of food safety is much more complicated in developing country
due to enormous reasons. Poverty is one of the leading causes of consumption of unsafe food
attributing to lack of access to adequate food and clean water, poor arrangement in government
structural, perpetuating infectious diseases in the community, inconvenient environmental conditions
to assure food safety and poor food handling and sanitation practices (Dewaal,2005). Food borne
diseases are preventable, if food protection principles are followed from primary production to the
level of consumer. However, it is practically unachievable to apply in developing countries. Ethiopia
is not exceptional since the prevailing of poor food handling and sanitation practices, inadequate food
safety laws, weak regulatory systems, lack of financial resources to invest on food safety, and lack of
education and training for food handlers (Tessema AG, 2014). A study conducted by Todd et al.
revealed that most of the food borne outbreaks occurred worldwide is linked to food handlers (Todd
ECD, 2010). According to Sharif & Al-Malki, food handlers‘ knowledge, attitude and practice are the
three key factors that are playing vital role in food poisoning outbreaks (Sharif L, 2010). Other studies
also came across with a conclusion that knowledge of food handling is significantly related with food
handling practices (Bas M, 2006)Whereas, studies done in Bangladesh, India and Nigeria indicated
that food handling practices were related with educational status of food handlers (Zain MM 2002).
Meat handlers have crucial role in controlling food borne pathogens either from contaminated utensils
or from the animal itself such as E. coli and other pathogens. They may also carry some human
specific food borne pathogens like Hepatitis A, Noroviruses, Typhoidal Salmonella, Staphylococcus
aureus and Shigella in their hands, mouth, skin, hair and cuts or sores, and disseminate to Food safety
knowledge, attitude and practices of meat handlerthe consumer (Havelaar AH 2013). In Ethiopia very
2
few studies have been conducted on food safety knowledge, attitude and practices of food handlers but
none of them were focused to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of meat handlers Rabbi (SE
2013) .No study has been conducted on food safety knowledge, attitude and practices among meat
handlers in abattoirs and meat retail shops in the country (Tessema AG 2014). It is also crucial to
address the hygienic status of meat production and distribution as such information will be beneficial
in designing any preventive strategies and control measures. It also serves as a baseline data source for
related research. With the above motives, the objective of this study was to evaluate the level of
knowledge, attitudes and practices among meat handlers from a municipality abattoir and in some
retail shops in Addis Ababa.
1.2 Statement of the problem
Ethiopia is estimated to have 53.99 million heads of cattle, 25.5 million heads of sheep and 24.06
million head of goat (CSA, 2013). Simultaneously, as per capital income of the population is
increasing, annual per capital consumption of meat is also continuously growing. Consequently, in
2020 meat per capital consumption is estimated to be 30kg (FAO, 2009). On the other hand, even
though there is no precise data, the incidence of food -borne outbreaks in Ethiopia seems to be higher
compared to developed countries (Tavakoli et al., 2008). Even if data regarding meat-borne diseases in
Ethiopia are extremely scarce, a few studies conducted in different parts of the country showed that
pathogenic organisms like Campylobacter ssp, Salmonellas pp, Taeniaspp, Toxoplasma spp,
Mycobacterium spp, Brucellaspp, Escherichia coli, Echinococcos/hydatid cysts were identified as
causes of food-borne illness (TesfayKebedeet al., 2014) In developing countries like Ethiopia, food-
borne diseases occur because of the prevailing poor food handling and sanitation practices, inadequate
food safety laws, weak regulatory systems, lack of financial resources to invest in safer equipment and
lack of education for food-handlers (WHO, 2004). Animal products such as meats, fish and their
products are generally regarded as high risk commodity with regard to pathogen contents, natural
toxins and other possible contaminants and adulterants (Yousuf et al.,2008). Microbial contamination
of raw meat results from processing and starts during slaughter, when the carcass becomes
contaminated with microorganisms residing on external surfaces, the gastrointestinal tract and lymph-
nodes of the animal and from environment (Ousman Mohamed et al., 2014). Because of the nature of
meat, the means by which it has to be obtained from the animal and the means of distribution to the
consumer are prone to microbial contamination including pathogenic bacteria (Nozha et al., 2006).
3
The demand for meat product in the country has been increased dramatically; especially the
consumption of raw meat becomes a status the symbol. It is clearly stated that, around 30% of the
national meat consumption is in Addis Ababa City (TesfayKebede et al., 2014). However, the full
value chain of meat supply from abattoirs, distribution, butchery shops to final consumer are not
properly handled to ensure microbial quality, safety, soundness, wholesomeness and hygiene. There is
also a limited study on the investigation of microbial safety, quality and safe handling procedures of
meat processed in Addis Ababa abattoirs. Besides, there is no adequate information regarding the
assessment on food safety practice, food-borne diseases and microbial load of the meat contact
surfaces in Addis Ababa abattoirs and butchery shops. These factors could hinder the government and
other stakeholders to accurately apply measures on the impact of food contamination problems on
public health. The final consumer alsohas limited information on the quality and safety of the meat
consumed regularly. Therefore, this study focused on to evaluate the level of meat safety knowledge,
attitude and practices among meat handlers of AA Abattoir and in some butchery shop.
1.3 Objective
1.3.1 General objective
The main objective of this research is to assess awareness and meat safety knowledge, attitude and
practice related to meat safety among the slaughterhouse workers at Addis Ababa city Abattoirand
butchery shop
1.3.2 Specific objective
To see the effect of demographic characteristics of the respondents (age,education and work
experience) on food safety knowledge and practices in meat handling.
To examine the hygienic practices conducted in a meat slaughtering house and retail shop.
To appraise some basic facilities and activities that were carried out in the slaughtering house
as related to international standards sated by the world health organization (WHO).
4
1.4 Significance of the study
The outcome of this study will directly or indirectly support the progress in the development of the
livestock subsector in the country in general and improve the safety and quality of abattoirs operation,
and meat distribution in Addis Ababa in particular. Stakeholder such as line ministries and
government office, animal transporter, meat and live animal exporters, traders, butchers and others
involved in livestock subsector will use the result of this study to improve meat handling and product
quality. The administration of Addis Ababa Abattoir can also use the result to improve the meat
distribution process and upgrade food safety activities.
Finally, it will increase the Knowledge and awareness of the public on potential food hazards and
related food safety problems. It will also help the abattoir to know the current status of food safety in
abattoir to develop, implement and maintain an effective food safety management system.it also
benefit researchers and other scientific communities as reference for further research study in the area.
1.5 Scope of the research
The study is restricted to the assessment of food safety Knowledge, Attitude and practice in Addis
Ababa Abattoir Enterprise and Butchery shop.
5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of the livestock sector in Ethiopia
Ethiopia ranks first in Africa and tenth in the world with respect to livestock population
(Gebremedhin, 2007). According to the report by Netherlands-African Business Council (NABC,
2010), the population of livestock in Ethiopia is believed to be one of the largest in the world and the
largest in Africa with an estimated total number of 13433 million animals. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2004) also reported that Ethiopia has one of the largest
livestock inventories in Africa with livestock ownership supporting and sustaining the livelihood of an
estimated 80 percent of the rural poor. Livestock play an important role in the country both at
individual household and national level. At individual householders‘ level, livestock serves as source
of food (meat and milk), cash income, services (transport and traction) and manure (for soil fertility
management and fuel). Moreover, livestock have social and cultural values among producers
particularly pastoralists and they are store of wealth and hedge against inflation for the average rural
farm household with limited investment alternatives (ILRI, 2007).
2.2 Food safety
Food safety Food is the assurance that food will not cause any harm to the consumers when taken in
its current state and as it is (FAO/WHO, 2001).Food –borne diseases and zoo noses exerts a major toll
on health as thousands of millions of people fall ill and many die as a result of unsafe food. Serious
outbreaks of food-borne diseases and zoo noses have been documented on every continent illustrating
both their public health and social significance. Due to this, (WHO, 2000) recognized food safety as
an essential public health priority and later on adopted the WHO global food safety strategy (WHO,
2002). According to the (WHO 2000) global food safety strategy, traditional food safety management
systems have not been effective in preventing food-borne diseases and zoo noses over the last decades.
The strategy therefore, advocates food safety programmers based on a broader science based concept
of risk assessment, risk management. Through process control long the entire production chins and
risk communication. This is farm to table approach and involves consideration of every step in the
chin, the community and all actors from raw material to consumption. The strategy also advocates
sustainable agriculture production systems and redirection of some of the existing approaches to
ensure they meet the challenges of global food safety (WHO, 2002).
6
2.3 Food- borne diseases:
Contaminated food and water have been known to be sources of illness in human. Food-borne diseases
are still among the most widespread health problems in the contemporary world. In rich and poor
countries alike, they pose substantial health burdens, ranging in severity from mild indisposition to
fatal illnesses (Tracy, 2011). Every year food-borne outbreaks associated with consumption of
contaminated foods cause millions of cases and thousands of deaths worldwide, making food-borne
illness one of the most widespread public health problems in modern society (Cagri-Mehmetoglu,
2009). For example many communicable diseases, including emerging zoo noses, are transmitted
through food, and many other diseases, including cancers are associated with chemicals and toxins in
the food supply. This existing burden will be compounded by the effects of climate change which is
likely to increase the incidence of foodborne diseases because of the faster growth rate of
microorganisms in food and water at higher temperatures, potentially resulting in higher levels of
toxins or pathogens in food (WHO, 2010). According to what (Arie et al. 2010) microbes can enter the
food chain at different steps are highly versatile and can adapt to the environment allowing survival
growth and production of toxic compounds and therefore (Cagri-Mehmetoglu2009) recommended to
decrease food-borne illness the implementation of safe food handling practices and protection from
high-risk choices throughout the entire farm-to-fork continuum with the home food preparer being the
last link in this chain and ensuring washing hands with soap and water before preparing food which
decreases the risk of food-borne illnesses. The FDA recommends that hands be washed with 5 soap
and warm water for at least 20 seconds before and after handling food, especially raw meat (Cagri-
Mehmetoglu, 2009). Critical control points preventing food-borne illness include preventing cross-
contamination from the raw products to ready-to eat, using adequate times and temperatures for
cooking, avoiding recontamination after cooking by surfaces previously contaminated with the raw
meat and properly chilling and storing meat after cooking (Iossaso et al,2012). Bruhn and
Schutz(1998) failure to fully recognized the symptoms or sources of food-borne disease prevents
consumers from taking corrective action, and when consumers mishandle food during preparation, the
health community, food industry, regulators and the media are ultimately responsible. Whether
inappropriate temperature control, poor hygiene or another factor, the error occurs because consumers
have not been informed about how to handle food the food safety message has not been delivered
effectively (Bruhan, 1997). Although acute gastrointestinal diseases are not all food-borne and food-
7
borne diseases do not always result in acute gastroenteritis, food does represent an important vehicle
for pathogens causing acute gastroenteritis (Tracy, 2011). The FAO estimated that as much as 70% of
diarrheal diseases in developing countries are believed to be of food-borne origin also the World
Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that food-borne diseases include a wide spectrum of illnesses
which are a growing public health problem worldwide and are a major contributor to illness,
compromised nutritional status, less resistance to disease and loss of productivity (Tracy, 2011).
2.4 Food hygiene and quality of meat
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2010) "Hygiene refers to conditions and
practices that help to maintain health and prevent the spread of diseases. The term "food hygiene" is
used to describe the preservation and preparation of foods in a manner that ensures the food is safe for
human consumption, and to prevent – as far as possible – the contamination of food. Personal hygiene
of food handlers pertains to the hygiene practices that prevent contamination food with mixing
chemicals, spreading from people, pets, and pests. Personal hygiene is performed by an individual to
care for one's bodily health and wellbeing, through cleanliness. Motivations for personal hygiene
practice include reduction of personal illness, healing from personal illness, optimal health, social
acceptance and prevention of spread of illness to others. Other practices are generally considered
proper hygiene include washing hands regularly and especially before handling food, washing scalp
hair, wearing clean clothing, cutting finger nails. Moreover, it is an important factor to be aware of
dangers of cross contamination between raw and cooked food by separating raw and cooked food.
Temperature and length of time should appropriate for cooking. Food handlers store food at the proper
temperature. Meat is a medium vehicle for multiplication and colonization of microorganisms
particularly bacteria and contamination are the major concern associated with prevention of food
borne diseases. The high level of contamination is following at any stages of the food chain. In
slaughtering process, mainly during scalding, dehairing, singeing, and evisceration, chilling, cutting 7
and slicing (Borch et al., 1996; Berends et al., 1998; Gill et al., 2000; Kennedy et al., 2014).
8
The five key principles of food hygiene, according to (WHO, 2010) Are:
1. To prevent contaminating food with pathogens spreading from people, pets, and pests.
2. To separate raw and cooked food to prevent contaminating the cooked food.
3. To cook food for the appropriate length of time and at the appropriate temperature to kill
pathogens.
4. To store food at the proper temperature.
5. To use safe water and raw materials.
2.4 Best Employee Work Practices:
Establishments must ensure that the facility is designed properly to provide sufficient sanitation
stations, tools, gloves, equipment, etc., to allow the employees to properly conduct the recommended
procedures. It is important that the sanitizing process for all equipment (knife, steel, hook, etc.) is
sufficient to effectively sanitize the equipment. If using hot water, then the establishment may need to
leave the knife in the dip long enough to sanitize (180°F has been shown to take approximately 4-6
seconds, but this varies based on the level of contamination). Other options include adding a chemical
sanitizer. Remember it is important that the plant be able to demonstrate proper sanitation (Kerri and
Savell et al, 2003). Also the hide removal personnel must follow procedures for hand washing,
cleaning of arms and gloves based on the task being performed to prevent contamination. These
practices will vary based upon 8 the task being done and should be monitored and evaluated on a
routine basis (Kerri and Savell et al, 2003).
2.5 Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP):
The relationship between knowledge, attitudes and practices is often explained through the (KAP). It
has been traditionally assumed that knowledge is automatically translated into behaviour (Glanz et al.,
2002). A KAP survey is a quantitative type method by interviewing through the use a structured,
standardized questionnaires and statistical method for collected information. It serves as an
educational diagnosis of the community. A KAP survey is widely used to gather information through
various types of crosssectional surveys that planning public health program.The public health
programs are implemented to improving the health of poor people across the world that depends upon
adequate understanding of the socio-cultural and economic aspects of the context in countries
9
(Launiala, 2009). KAP study show that food handlers who have never trained in food safety related
with poor knowledge of food-borne illness. It is a significant positive correlation between the level of
knowledge, attitudes and practices of meat handlers. Food handlers should practice all the skill and on-
going training to get more knowledge in hygiene and food safety (Powell et al., 1997). 9 Knowledge
accumulates through learning processes and these may be formal or informal instruction, personal
experience and experiential sharing (Tracy, 2011).Knowledge however is not insignificant and it is
found to be vital in the cognitive processing of information in the attitude-behaviour relationship.
Attitudes involves evaluated concepts associated with the People think, feel and behave, it comprises a
cognitive,emotional and behavioural component ( Keller,J. 2007 ). In health related studies, however,
it has been found that knowledge is not the only factor that influences treatment seeking practice and
in order to change behaviour, health programs need to address a number of issues including
sociocultural, environmental, economic and structural factors (Tracy 2011). Behaviourists further add
that a number of factors can influence one or more of the KAP variables such as self-esteem, self-
efficacy and misconception. World Health Organization (2010) introduced simpler, more generally
applicable and essential food safety messages or principles linked to behaviours. If adopted and
practiced, these messages will reduce the probability of food borne illness. The core messages of the
five keys to safer food are
Keep clean.
Separate row and cooked.
Cook thoroughly.
Keep food at safe temperatures.
Use safe water and raw materials.
On the other hands (Byre et al,2007)developed a food safety knowledge into five concepts or keys
inspired by WHO(2010), which are cross contamination prevention/disinfection procedures; safe
times/temperatures for cooking/storing foods ; groups at greatest risk for food borne disease ;food
that 11 increase risk of food borne disease ; and food borne disease pathogens. Across sectional
study by Maryam et al., (2010) from school of veterinary medicine, Shiraz University, Iran the
evaluated the knowledge, attitudes and practices of workers in meat processing plant. The results
indicated that there was an acceptable level of knowledge, excellent attitudes and poor practices
towards food hygiene measures. The study also showed lack of knowledge about microbial food
10
hazards and negative correlation between knowledge and practices, attitudes and practices. Study
done by Siow and Norrakiah (2011) in Malaysia to evaluate the level knowledge, attitudes and
practices among food handlers. The study revealed that the respondents share a good knowledge
on personal hygiene and definition of foodborne diseases (93.85%) and poor knowledge on food
storage and preparation temperature (28%) and they showed good attitudes in food handling.
Studies have found that food safety training is positively associated with self-reported changes in
food safety practices (Clayton et al., 2002). Other studies found that training helps to improve the
overall employee knowledge about food safety (Castello et al., 1997). Another study by Sufen Liu
et al., (2015) from china evaluated the knowledge, attitudes and practices of food safety among
risk factors contributing to food-borne disease out breaks. The majority of respondents did not
know the maximum stored time at room temperature, they have positive attitudes about food
safety and training, and there was significant variation among different food establishments,
different ages and different times of training.11 A recent study by Ola (2014) in Khartoum state
showed that television and radio are the most important sources of information for the consumers
and there was a direct relationship between the internet and the level of consumer's knowledge, al
so the degree of knowledge of each individual has a strong link with his life style. Other studies
by Khalid (2016) in Khartoum state found that there was a need for more education to the
consumers about food safety and food-borne diseases.
2.6 KAP on food Safety and Food-borne Diseases.
A study to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour concerning food-borne diseases and food
safety issues amongst formal food handlers conducted in Italy found that the majority of food handlers
who had attended a training course had knowledge and appositive attitude toward food-borne diseases
control and preventive measures (Tracy 2011). The positive attitude was not supported when asked
about self-reported behaviours and when observed during food preparation for practice of hygienic
principles (Tracy, 2011). On other hand Abdalla et al., (2009) considering food handling personal play
important role in ensuring food safety throughout the chain of food production and storage, although
there are also many gaps in food safety knowledge and practices that may result in food-borne
diseases according to (Eduarda et al.,2007). Food safety experts have identified the most common
food handling mistakes made by consumers at home. These mistakes include serving contaminated
raw food, cooking or 12 heating food inadequately, allowing 12 hours or more between preparations
11
and eating, and having a colonized person handle implicated food or practice poor hygiene. The same
factors were identified in mishandling associated with specific pathogens. (Bruhan 1997)so the authors
suggested that emphasis should continue on improving knowledge and control of food-borne diseases
amongst food handlers (Angelillo et al., 2000), these included the perception that unsafe food is a
personal health threat, the perception that one could do something about the threat (self-efficacy),and
the motivation to maintain good health (Robert et al., 1993) so recent survey studies pinpointing the
need for training and education of food handlers in public hygiene measures and revealed a general
lack of knowledge of microbiologic food hazard, refrigerator temperature ranges, cross contamination
and personal hygiene (Bas et al., 2006).
2.7 Impact of education of foodindustry.
Educational materials may not be effective if they are designed without looking at the worksite social,
physical, and environmental factor surrounding the target audience. Food safety education is most
likely to be effective when it is designed specifically for the audience (workers) and the particular
hazard of interest (Nieto- Montenegro et al., 2005) so requires a re-examination of food safety
educational messages to conform epidemiological changing of food-borne illnesses and the increase in
knowledge concerning emerging food-borne pathogens to ensure that the guidance given to consumers
is appropriate for controlling pathogens that are prevalent in the food supply chain (Jevsnik et al.,
2008). Also research is needed to establish reliable and valid evaluation measures for five behavioural
constructs which are practice personal hygiene, cook foods adequately, avoid cross contamination,
keep foods at safe temperatures, and avoid food from unsafe sources. If evaluation instruments focus
on these five behaviour areas, the result will be more easily summarized across food safety education
programs for consumers (Lydia et al., 2001) because at the end of the day the best ways to manage
risk of food-borne illness to promote safer handling of food at the consumer end of the food chain are
communication and consumer education (Patil et al., 2005). Education of food industry personal in
hygiene matters is recommended for improving safer food handling practices (Tracy, 2011). Media
presentation can motivate people to listen and change behaviour because consumers need to
understand how to protect themselves through kitchen and personal hygiene, including thoroughness
and frequency of hand washing, temperature control, and safe food choices such as foods processed by
heat or energy pasteurization (Bruhan, 1997). Educational material regarding Good Housekeeping
12
Practice should be available to the general public from many sources. Only safety –conscious
consumers can become active partners within the food safety circle (Jevsnik et al., 2008).
2.8 Managing the slaughteranimals.
Animals undergo several activities and processes that may reduce their product quality before
slaughtering. These activities and processes take place on the farm, during transportation, marketing
and at the slaughter plant itself. Unless we care for them, animals appreciably change their conditions
within few days prior to slaughter which will adversely reduce their weight, affect the meat quality
and subsequently reduce profit. According to (Adzitey, 2011) due to poor 15 pre-slaughter handling,
animals are exposed to all kinds of stresses ranging from physical such as high temperature, vibration
and changes in acceleration, confinement, noise, and crowding; to psychological such as the
breakdown of social groupings and mixing with unfamiliar animals, and unfamiliar or noxious smells
2.9 Food- borne illness and its type
Most cases of food-borne illness are a result of pathogens in food. Pathogens aremicroorganisms that
can cause illness in humans. The pathogens that cause food-borne illness don‘t necessarily cause
undesirable changes in food. Many times, pathogens cause a food to be unsafe to eat before there are
any visible signs of spoilage (Adams and Moss, 2000). Pathogens can cause illness in one of three
ways: intoxication, infection or toxic infection (FirewTafesseetal., 2010).
2.10 Food safety and hazards
WHO defines food safety as the conditions and measures that are necessary during production,
processing, storage, distribution and preparation of food to ensure that it is safe, sound, and
wholesome and fit for human consumption (WHO, 1984). Food safety remains a critical issue
nowadays among professionals in the food service sector as well as consumers (Scheule et al., 2001;
Badrie et al., 2006). This is basically due to outbreaks of food-borne diseases resulting in substantial
costs to individuals and the economy (Kaferstein et al., 1997; Egan et al., 2007) Food safety is directly
related to the harmful substances present in it. Any substance that is reasonably likely to cause harm,
injury or illness, when present above an established acceptable level, is a food safety hazard. Food
hazards in foods may arise from different sources. They can be natural components of the food itself,
13
they can arise from contamination of the food during any stage of the production, processing, storage
and distribution or can be a result of decomposition and deterioration of the food items. In most
countries regulatory bodies have established acceptable limits for all types of hazards (Ali, 2000).
Food hazards are grouped into three main categories: chemical, physical and microbiological hazards.
2.12 Food-borne infections
Food infections follow the ingestion of bacteria, their toxins or viruses, which may be present in
already contaminated food, or derived during processing from other foods by cross contamination
(from surfaces, equipment or catering staff hands), or, less likely, from carriers (Barrie et al., 1996).
On top of that, poisonous chemicals and/or other harmful substances may also be causes for food-
borne diseases if they are present in food. People can become ill if a pesticide is inadvertently added to
a food, or if naturally poisonous substances are used to prepare a meal.
More than 250 different food-borne diseases have been identified and most of these diseases are
bacterial, viral and parasite infections. Other diseases include poisonings that are caused by harmful
toxins or chemicals that have contaminated the food. In many countries, people become ill after
mistaking poisonous mushrooms for safe species, or after eating poisonous reef fishes (CDC, 2005).
These different diseases have many different symptoms, so there is no one "syndrome" that is food-
borne illness. However, the microbe or toxin enters the body through the gastrointestinal tract, and
often causes the first symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps and diarrhea (CDC,
2005).
The most commonly recognized food-borne infections are those caused by the bacteria
Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E.coli, and by a group of viruses called calicivirus, also known as the
Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses. Some common diseases such as Hepatitis A, Shigella, Giardia
lamblia and Cryptosporidia are occasionally food-borne, even though they are usually transmitted by
other routes.
In addition to disease caused by direct infection, some food-borne diseases are caused by the presence
of a toxin in the food that was produced by a microbe in the food. For example, the bacterium
Staphylococcus aurous can grow in some foods and produce a toxin that may lead to intense vomiting;
botulism occurs when Clostridium botulinum grows and produces a powerful paralytic toxin in foods.
14
These toxins can produce illness even if the microbes that produced them are no longer there (CDC,
2005)
2.13 Prevention and control of food-borne pathogens
Food-borne bacterial illness by bacteria are most commonly prevented and controlled by proper
cooking and preparing of food as well as storing (WHO,2008). The control method or measures
includes; 1) Education of those who prepare the food at home and other food handlers, so that they
have to take proper personal care; 2) Prohibiting individuals with absences or other skin lesions from
handling food; 3) Placing of food in cold place at 4 degree centigrade or lower of all food in order to
prevent bacterial multiplication and the formation of toxin. Foods must be kept at room temperature
for as little time as possible (WHO, 2008).The prevention/avoidance of food-borne illness caused by
E. coli can be prevented by the same method as prevention of other food-borne illness caused by
bacteria. However, in the cases of ground beef, the recommendation is that it cooked to 160o
F or that
the core temperature bebrought to a minimum of 155oCfor at least 15 second and that the juices are
clear (MokonnenAddis and DestaSisay, 2015).There is a critical need to develop method to control the
spoilage or poisoning of food bySalmonella ordinary farms by instituting bio-security and bio-
containment practices in addition to enhanced food processing method, preparation and storage
practices (Quinn et al., 2001). Effective heat processing of food of animal origin,which includes
pasteurization of milk andeggs, irradiation of meat and poultry thermal processing; good hygiene
practices duringproduction of food; vaccination of egg-producing flocks and food producing animals
(MokonnenAddis and DestaSisay, 2015).
2.14 The effects of pre-slaughter handling on meat quality
A number of quality problems attributable to pre-slaughter handling can be recognized and these
generally also reflect poor welfare. Animals may die, they may suffer trauma such as bruises or
broken bones, long periods without food may reduce carcass yield, deprivation of water may cause
dehydration, and stress may produce poor quality of the lean meat. In particular, short-term (acute)
stress may stimulate glycol sis immediately post-mortem and produce PSE (pale, soft, exudative) meat
and long-term (chronic) stress may deplete muscle glycogen levels and produce DFD (dark, firm, dry)
meat. The transport of animals can spread disease, which has implications for both welfare and
quality, and may compromise traceability if systems for animal identification are less than perfect.
15
Effective traceability, so that the exact origin and provenance of each piece of meat sold at retail are
known, is central to the quality control of hygiene and safety.
2.15 Thefood Control System
2.15.1 Prerequisite programs
According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (1998), prerequisite programs are universal steps
or procedures that control the operational conditions within a food establishment allowing for
environmental conditions that are favorable for the production of safe food. The Codex International
Code of Practice and General Principles of Food Hygiene is believed to be the basis for these
programs. The wide range of activities and events included in prerequisite programs may have an
impact on an HACCP system for a specific food product even though they are not parts of the HACCP
system per se. Briefly stated, prerequisite programs include concerns and aspects of the entire food
environment before the HACCP system is initiated. They include the suitability of facilities, control of
suppliers, safety and maintenance of production equipment, cleaning and sanitation of equipment and
facilities, personal hygiene of employees, controls of chemicals, pest control and the like. These
programs include good manufacturing practices and should be brought up to acceptable standards
before the HACCP system is initiated (Jay, 2000). Food establishments working with ready-to-eat
(RTE) food products understand the importance of developing and implementing procedures to reduce
the potential for contamination with microorganisms. Therefore, it is extremely important that anyone
involved with ready-to-eat food products develop and implement effective Good Manufacturing
Practices (GMPs) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as the foundations of a successful
HACCP program (North American Meat Processors, 1995). As the matter of fact, prior to application
of HACCP to any sector of the food chain, that sector should have in place prerequisite programs such
as good hygienic practices according to the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene, the
appropriate Codex Codes of Practice, and appropriate food safety requirements. These prerequisite
programs to HACCP, including training, should be well established, fully operational and verified in
order to facilitate the successful application and implementation of the HACCP system. All
prerequisite programs 12 must be initially verified and validated and appropriate preventive measures
and a monitoring system should be in place. Whereas a deviation from the limits set for the monitoring
of prerequisites occurs, a proper corrective action should be applied and addressed under the HACCP
plan (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997). GMP is a crucial element in food quality. It encloses
16
all practices regarding the conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and suitability of
food at all stages of the food chain. In other words it contains detailed requirements in order to avoid
the incidence of problems in: Personnel - disease control, hygiene, clothing, training, etc. Plant and
grounds - construction and design, product flow, drainage, etc. Sanitary operations - general
maintenance, cleaning and sanitizing, pest control, etc. Sanitary facilities and controls water supply,
plumbing, sewage disposal, rubbish and offal disposal, etc. Freezers and coolers - monitored and
maintained to ensure temperature control, recording devices, alarms, etc. Equipment maintenance and
calibration adequate frequency for thermometers, recording devices, compressed air equipment, etc.
Recall program - It is recommended that all RTE facilities develop a recall program and that mock
recalls should be conducted periodically to ensure that the program works as planned (Sandrou et al.,
2000). Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) can be defined as established or prescribed methods to
be followed routinely for the performance of designated operations or undesignated situations (Mulat,
2003). They are very concise and specific step-by-step instructions and establishments are encouraged
to have SOPs for every task or activity in the facility. SOPs are also very useful in training employees
and in establishing a consistent method for conducting daily operations. Therefore, individual
establishments should develop SOPs for their operations. GMPs can help guide the development of
SOPs and SSOPs describe how GHP is to be achieved (North American Meat Processors, 1995). 13
As part of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) there is Good Hygienic Practice (GHP) which is
mainly concerned with all precautions required to ensure appropriate hygiene. This includes
microbiological safety as well as hygienic suitability such as general hygiene and product spoilage
(Heggum, 2001). Combining strong GMPs, SOPs, SSOPs and HACCP will increase the total process
control system and help in the production of a product that is as safe as possible (Mulat, 2003).
2.15.2 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) HACCP is a management system for food safety.
Like the latest quality approaches, HACCP is a preventive rather than an inspection based approaches
to food safety. HACCP system is in conformity with the manufacture-base approach of Garvin
(quality guru). WTO (World Trade Organization) has made HACCP mandatory for trade between its
member states. The USA and European countries have even adopted it into their food laws, which
sometimes used as a non-tariff trade barrier for exporters into their country. HACCP has the following
benefits: 1)Customer Confidence: -Standardized and certified system like that of HACCP provides
17
customers confidence on the product's safety of the organization. 2)Access to Markets: -Both
companies and governments are demanding suppliers of food products with a documented quality
system that has been audited by a third party. 3)Defining processes: -HACCP system clearly defines
and documents processes, which give stability and consistency to the overall production. It also helps
in training and standardizing methods thus reducing chance for error. 4)Save money: -Recognizing
and concentrating on potential risks can reduce the reject at the end production. When problems arise,
it provides quick and easy methods for pinpointing the sources, thus saving money as well as time.
5)Base for improvement: -Since HACCP system monitor, control and document the process, it
provides good base for process improvement. a) The definition of HACCP consists of three
components, which are given below: Hazards: -It refers to any part of the food production chain that is
not accepted because it has the potential to cause food safety problems. Hazards can be of three types:
Biological, Chemical or Physical. Analysis: -It is the identification and assessment of the seriousness
and likelihood of occurrence of the hazards in raw materials, processing, storage or distribution of the
product, which will cause it to be unsafe for consumption.
2.16 Good Practices
Good Practices (GP) are the base for any HACCP implementation. GP can be taken as the 'Hardware'
and HACCP system as the 'Software' for any food safety system implementation. There are a number
of GP developed by international organization for industries involved especially in food and
pharmaceutical products. To list some these Good Practices in food processing industries - Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP), Good Hygienic Practices (GHP), Good Agricultural Practice (GAP),
Good Handling Practices (GHP), and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). Due to their relevance to the
subject under discussion GMP & GHP are discussed further more below. Good Manufacturing
Practice (GMP) is one component of HACCP. It prescribes sanitation and hygienic practices for
people in direct contact with food, surface in contact with food and packing materials. Once an
incoming raw material is inspected and tested for all necessary quality and safety, it proceeds to the
processing area. Food can easily be contaminated and become unfit at any stage right up to the
consumption. Therefore, it is vital to implement safe practices in the processing, storage &
transportation of food items. One good reference standard of GMP is the U.S. Federal Government's
Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) current Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and its main
components are briefly discussed below [74]: 1.Personnel: - It deals with employees that are working
18
in close contact with the food item processed. Any sickness,. Personal hygiene can also be the source
for contamination. This includes clothing, personal cleanliness, jewellery, and hair. The packing
materials can also cause contamination. Training and education on the danger of personal hygiene and
unsanitary practices can enhance the overall practice of employees. 2. Building and Facilities: The
building's layout must be properly designed to avoid any contamination of food. This includes
removing all sources of hazards, proper waste disposal, sanitized facility, equipments and utensils,
effective pest and animal control etc. 3.Warehousing and Distribution: the storage and transportation
of appropriate design for stores, pallet, bins, containers and other storage materials. Transport vehicles
must be properly equipped and maintained to prevent any contamination of the food item.
2.17 Good manufacturing practices for food Industry
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a system for ensuring that products are consistently produced
and controlled according to quality standards. It is designed to minimize the risks involved in any
pharmaceutical production that can simplify this, GMP helps to ensure the consistent quality and
safety of products by focusing attention on five key elements, which are often referred to as the 5 P's
of GMP—people, premises, processes, products and procedures. And if all five are done well, there is
a sixth P.GMP covers all aspects of production from the starting materials, premises, and equipment to
the training and personal hygiene of staff. Employees are the largest contamination source. Especially
those, who do not follow sanitary practices properly, contaminate food that they touch with spoilage
and pathogenic microorganisms. Employees hands, hair, nose and mouth, harbour micro-organisms
that can be transferred to food during processing, packaging, preparation and service by touching,
breathing, coughing or sneezing (TofickKedir, 2013).
Many good manufacturing practices focus directly on reducing contamination by food handlers.
Examples of personal hygiene include washing hands, removing jewellery, and maintaining personal
cleanliness. Also, the food processor should provide training for new employees in personal hygiene
based on creating good manufacturing practices. Equipment‘s for food processing should be free from
dirt to reduce contamination of food (Keener, 2009).
HACCP focuses on three types of hazards: biological hazards, chemical hazards and physical hazards.
Biological hazards are the types of hazards that receive the most attention in the HACCP system and
19
which also present the greatest risk of severity and occurrence. Biological hazards include hazards
from pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, yeast, and molds. Bacteria that receive the greatest attention
include E. coli, Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and Campylobacter.
Chemical hazards in meat products could result from the misuse of antibiotics in production,
contamination with sanitizers or cleaning agents, or environmental contamination from hydraulic
fluids. Physical hazards are probably the most recognized by consumers as they usually find this
hazard. Glass, metal and plastic is physical hazards that can occur in meat products (Pearsen and
Dutson, 1999).
2.18 Good manufacturing practices and personal hygiene.
Employees are the largest contamination source. Especially those, who do not follow sanitary
practices properly, contaminate food that they touch with spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms.
Employees hands, hair, nose and mouth, harbour micro-organisms that can be transferred to food
during processing, packaging, preparation and service by touching, breathing, coughing or sneezing
(TofickKedir, 2013).
Many good manufacturing practices focus directly on reducing contamination by food handlers.
Examples of personal hygiene include washing hands, removing jewellery, and maintaining personal
cleanliness. Also, the food processor should provide training for new employees in personal hygiene
based on creating good manufacturing practices. Equipment‘s for food processing should be free from
dirt to reduce contamination of food (Keener, 2009).
HACCP focuses on three types of hazards: biological hazards, chemical hazards and physical hazards.
Biological hazards are the types of hazards that receive the most attention in the HACCP system and
which also present the greatest risk of severity and occurrence. Biological hazards include hazards
from pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, yeast, and molds. Bacteria that receive the greatest attention
include E. coli, Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and Campylobacter.
Chemical hazards in meat products could result from the misuse of antibiotics in production,
contamination with sanitizers or cleaning agents, or environmental contamination from hydraulic
fluids. Physical hazards are probably the most recognized by consumers as they usually find this
hazard. Glass, metal and plastic are physical hazards that can occur in meat products (Pearsen and
Dutson, 1999).
20
2.19 Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) schemes
Good Hygienic Practices/GHP follows general hygienic rules and applies recognized hygienic
principles as well as laws and regulations issued by the competent authorities, referring to meat and
meat product equipment, premises and personnel. GHP schemes are notfactoryspecific; they apply to
all types of meat plants. They are intended to establish and maintain acceptable hygienic standards in
relevant meat operations. There is more emphasis on slaughter hygiene in GHP schemes for
slaughterhouses and more emphasis on meat processing hygiene in GHP schemes for meat products
manufacturing enterprises. However in principle, GHP schemes remain interchangeable for similar
types of meat plants. GHP for meat processing plants refers principally to:
appropriate functional plant layout and sanitary design of equipment
Raw materials that meet hygiene quality standards.
Processing methods that allow safe handling of food.
Appropriate waste and pest control measures
Appropriate sanitation procedures (cleaning and disinfection).
Compliance with potable water criteria.
Functional cold chains. 8. Regular examinations of health and personal hygiene of staff. 9
Regular training of staff on hygiene requirements. Despite GHP in place, accidental hazards
cannot be ruled out and may occur at any processing step of the individual meat product.
Specifically for meat processing plants, such hazards may be provoked by failures such as: 1
batches of incoming raw meat materials with abnormal tissues or heavy contamination,
breakdowns in refrigeration, 2 failure in cooking/sterilization operations, 3 abnormal pH or aw
in raw or finished products, 4 errors in levels of application of curing salts and other additives,
5 technical problems in sealing of vacuum packages or cans with the risk of recontamination.
Meat processing hygiene first place of physical, chemical and visual nature (temperature, pH, visual
check etc.), are installed at selected control points to detect such potential hazards. These control
mechanisms are designed to deliver most results almost instantly and allow immediate intervention
during the processing phase of food/meat products.
21
2.20 Slaughtering techniques and its source of contamination
Pre-slaughter handling of livestock and post-slaughter handling of meat play an important part in
deterioration of meat quality (David and Gihaly, 2011. The glycogen content of animal muscles is
reduced when the animal is exposed to pre-slaughter stress which changes the pH of the meat, to
higher or lower levels, depending on the production level of lactic acid. Lactic acid is produced due to
the breakdown of glycogen content of animal muscles via an anaerobic glycolytic pathway. Higher
levels of pH (6.4-6.8) result in Dark, Firm and Dry (DFD) meat. Long term stress causes DFD meat
which has a shorter shelf life. Sever short term stress results in a Pale, Soft and Exudative (PSE) meat.
PSE meat has a pH lower than normal ultimate value of 6.2 which is responsible for the breakdown of
proteins, providing a favourable medium for the growth of bacteria (David and Gihaly, 2011). It is
generally agreed that the internal tissues of healthy slaughter animals are free of bacteria at the time of
slaughter, assuming that the animals are not in a state of exhaustion.
When one examines fresh meat and poultry at the retail level, varying numbers and types of
microorganisms are found (Delmore et al., 1999). According to James et al. (2005), the following are
the primary sources and routes of microorganisms to fresh meats with particular emphasis on red
meats: 1. the stick knife. After being stunned and hoisted by the hind legs, animals such as steers are
ex sanguinities by slitting the jugular vein with what is referred to as a ―stick knife.‖ If the knife is not
sterile, organisms are swept into the bloodstream, where they may be deposited throughout the
carcass. 2. Animal hides. Organisms from the hide are among those that enter the carcass via the stick
knife. Others from the hide may be deposited onto the dehaired carcass or onto freshly cut surfaces.
Some hide biota becomes airborne and can contaminate dressed out carcasses. 3. Gastrointestinal tract.
By way of punctures, intestinal contents along with the usual heavy load of microorganisms may be
deposited onto the surface of freshly dressed carcasses. Especially important in this regard is the
paunch or rumen of ruminant animals, which typically contains 1010 bacteria per gram. 4. Hands of
handlers. This is a source of human pathogens to freshly slaughtered meats. Even when gloves are
worn, organisms from one carcass can be passed on to other carcasses. 5. Containers. Meat cuts that
are placed in non-sterile containers may be expected to become contaminated with the organisms in
the container. This tends to be a primary source of microorganisms to ground or minced meats. 6.
Handling and storage environment. Circulating air is not an insignificant source of organisms to the
surfaces of all slaughtered animals. 7. Lymph nodes. In the case of red meats, lymph nodes that are
22
usually embedded in fat often contain large numbers of organisms, especially bacteria. If they are cut
through or added to portions that are ground, one may expect this biota to become prominent. In
general, the most significant of the above are non-sterile containers. When several thousand animals
are slaughtered and handled in a single day in the same abattoir, there is a tendency for the external
carcass biota to become normalized among carcasses, although a few days may be required. The
practical effect of this is the predictability of the biota of such products at the retail level (Dillon and
Board1991). Carcass sanitizing/washing Just prior to slaughter, the outer surfaces of meat animals are
laden with dust, dirt, and faecal matter. It is inevitable that some of the microorganisms from these
sources will be found on the carcasses of slaughtered animals, and although most are non-pathogens.
2.21 The advantage of a strengthened food safety system
Food safety plays a significant role in the national economic and health development by safe guarding
the health of the nation, enhancing tourism, national and international trade for production,
distribution and consumption of safe food, preventing avoidable losses and conserving natural
resources. Countries with well-established food safety assurance systems could export trade their
products without any barriers and become competitive in the global trade (FAO and WHO,
2005).Food safety problems create an enormous burden on the country‘s economy such as consumer
costs include medical, legal, and other expenses, as well as absenteeism at work and school. For many
consumers who live at a subsistence level, the loss of income due to food-borne illness can perpetuate
the cycle of poverty (WHO,2002).Chronic diseases caused by contaminated food, like reactive
arthritis or temporary paralysis, can be even more damaging than the initial disease and add
dramatically to the medical costs and lost wages (WHO,1998). Costs to national governments stem
from increased medical expenses, outbreak investigations, food recalls, and loss of consumer
confidence in the products. Also it leads to increased demands on already overburdened and poorly
funded healthcare systems in the countries. Food safety system plays a great role also in foodsecurity
by:(i) Contributing to improved nutrition and health status of the population there by increasing
productivity and livelihoods.(ii) Reducing public health costs through a decrease in food borne illness
among vulnerable population and related social and economic implication.(iii) Reducing food losses
(per/postharvest), resulting in increased availability, stability and utilization (food chain).(iv)
Increasing national and international market access, increasing purchasing power and resulting in
beneficial effects on farmers, food businesses and consumers (FAO,2011).
23
2.22 Slaughter procedure in AAAE
According to the website of the abattoir the live animals are purchased at the terminal market by
butcheries or supermarkets, they are sent directly to the official Addis Ababa Abattoirs Enterprise. The
animals are kept in a holding lot for a maximum of three to four hours, and then sent through to
slaughter facilities. Sheep and goats are slaughtered on a long table, skinned, and vertically hung and
inspected by one of the 30 full-time veterinarians from the Ministry of Agriculture. Cattle are brought
into the building and are slaughtered on the ground, followed by a haphazard butchery in which the
carcasses are cut into four parts. After inspection by the Ministry of Agriculture, the carcasses are
shipped to the customers within 30 minutes. Abattoir at Kera facility processes all species except
camels, which are slaughtered at the Akaki branch abattoir. Cattle and sheep/goats are slaughtered
under either Muslim or Orthodox Christian rites, depending on customer requirements. As we have
informed from Butchers Associations, Kera‘s facilities include:
1) Lair age facility for cattle, sheep, goat and pigs.
2) One Christian sheep and goat slaughtering hall one pig slaughtering hall (located on a separate
level and away from main halls).
3) One Muslim cattle/sheep and goat slaughtering hall.
4) Seven carcass dispatch rooms.
5) Three cold rooms (chillier).
6) Rendering facilities and storage for rendering products.
7) Pumps and equipment for handling water supply, effluent disposal. The Akaki slaughterhouse
is simpler; it processes all species except pigs and has no chillier. Bones, hides, skins and other
waste are returned to Kera for further handling.
24
CHAPTURE THEREE:METHDOLOGY
3.1 Research Site
The study was conducted in Addis Ababa Abattoir located kirkos sub city. The company is mainly
working in slaughter house business sector. AAAE is owned by the Addis Ababa City Government
and is mandated to provide livestock slaughtering services for the city of Addis Ababa. According to
company website the AAAE has a total of 1,171 permanent employees, of whom 773 are employed in
slaughter operations; 142 in by-products and associated; and 256 support staff. The existing abattoir at
Kera, established in the 1950‘s with expressed mission.
To provide hygienically slaughtered and wholesome meat to the public at a competitive price
and in a speedy and trustful manner.
To provide wholesome meat to institutions and hotels at competitive prices.
.To reduces different products from inedible parts of the carcass.
According to the abattoir explanations, in the abattoir there are slaughter halls (Christian and Muslim);
a pig slaughter floor; a by-products area including skins and hides storage areas; a rendering
department; and retail shop selling mutton. In 2012 AAAE‘s turnover was ETB 119.75 million. It is
administered under the city municipality. It has a fixed scale of service fees which are adjusted
annually or as required. There is also a small satellite abattoir located in the city‘s southeast, Akaki,
where cattle, camels and small stock are slaughtered.
As per information gathered from the company management team currently they have three customer
groups. These are: 1. Retail butchers located around the city (Christian and Muslim) who have their
own livestock purchases killed at Abattoir 2. Wholesalers who send livestock for slaughter at AAAE
and then supply butcher shops, supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and other businesses (these livestock
could be purchased either in the city‘s livestock markets or outside the city from feedlots or other
growers). 3. Private customers who buy mutton from AAAE through the abattoir‘s shop around
company compound.
25
3.2 Research Design
The main aim of this research is to assess food safety and quality assurance and of meat distribution
in Addis Ababa city Abattoir. Both quantitative and qualitative technicians used to achieve the
objective meat safety and quality.
The descriptive survey was designed to answer questions concerning the current status of food safety
and quality assurance practiced in the abattoir. Reliable data is necessary to meet the designed
objective of the study. The researcherwas used judgmental sampling for employees and accidental
sampling techniques depending on their responsibilities and willingness to respond to various
questions. This technique enabled us to collectthe required data within the available time and money.
Therefore, Workers from the abattoir were interviewed through a structured questionnaire to answer
questions concerning facilities, equipment‘s, current status of food hygiene, and quality knowledge
and sanitation practice in abattoir. And also direct observation of the hygienic status and practices of
the abattoir was evaluated.
Besides on site observation, face to face interviews were conducted. Based on this, AAAE was
observed and cross checked against a given standard check list attached. Lay out of the abattoir, toilet
ration (no. of workers: no. toilet), water and power supply, chilling facility, slaughtering techniques,
distribution system and others were checked weekly. The knowledge of workers in the abattoir
regarding the hygienic practices during slaughtering of meat was observed.
3.3 Sample Size Determination and Sampling Procedure.
The sample size was determined using a single population formula n=Z2P(1-P)/d
2 . We take 50%
prevalence for meat handling practice with 95 % confidence interval and margin of error 5% between
the sample and the underlying population, which give us as sample size of 384. However the final
sample size was determined by using correction formula FN= n/1 +n/N (Since N<10,000) by adding
10% nonresponsive rate, the sample size became 224. Out of total number, fifty of meat retail shops
were selected from two sub cities 25 from each (Akakikality&NifasNilklafto) by systematic random
sampling methods.
26
3.4Study design and sample collection
Across- sectional survey was conducted among meat handlers from a municipal abattoir and fifty
retail meat shops in the Addis Ababa town. Total 224 meat handlers were interviewed by using
structured questionnaire with 100% response rate. All (n = 224) workers involved in meat processing
in the abattoir and retail meat shops town included in the study and the respondents were interviewed
faceto-face on a once-off basis during working hours without prior notice of the interview.
Explanation on the purpose of the study was given before and the respondents were assured about the
confidentiality of their status. The questionnaire was read and completed by an interviewer in
individual interviews.
3.5Questioners description (Data collection tools).
A structured questionnaire was adopted from previous published research articles in order to meet the
objective of this study (Adesokan HK, 2014). The language of the questionnaire was translated to the
local language (Amharic) in which all the participants able to communicate. After pre-testing the
questionnaire at a neighbour town (Gelan) of the study area with 20 meat handlers the last version was
prepared. The questionnaire structured into four distinct parts including demographic information such
as respondents‘ gender , age, marriage, level of education , years of service, responsibility/duty,
income, employment status, health certificate renewal and attending food safety training.
The second section of the questionnaire is about food safety knowledge. Questions on knowledge
referred to their personal hygiene, cross contamination, causes and symptoms of food borne diseases,
type of food-borne pathogens and time temperature control. It contains 22 close ended questions and
each question has three optional answers (―yes‖, ―No‖ and ―do not know the answer‖).
The response was analyzed as categorical variables (Yes or No). A score of one was given to right
answer and zero to the No and I do not know answer. A scale ranging between 0 and 22 which
representing the total number of questions on food safety knowledge. Meat handlers that got overall
score ≤ 14 points (63.63% accuracy) were considered to have ―unsatisfactory‖ and those scored ≥ 15
points (≥ 68 % accuracy) ―satisfactory‖ knowledge of food safety.
The third part of the questionnaire was about food safety attitude of meat handlers. It comprises 20
questions about hand washing, cross contamination, food handling, storage etc. In this section, the
respondents‘ answers were ―agree‖, ―disagree‖, and ―don‘t know‖. The response was analyzed as
27
categorical variables (right or wrong answer). A score of one was given to right answer and zero to the
wrong and I do not know answer. Each correct answer was given one point whereas incorrect answer
including the answer I do not know was awarded zero point. For evaluation, food-handlers that
answered 14 points or more out of 20 (70% accuracy) or more questions correctly were measured to
have ―good‖ attitude whereas respondents answer 13 points or less questions correctly were measured
to have ―poor‖ attitude.
The last section dealt with food hygiene practices. The question comprises the issues of personal
hygiene, hand washing practices, practices against food borne diseases and cross contamination. This
section had 20 questions with two possible responses: ―yes‖, and ―no‖. Each correct practice reported
scored one (1) point. For evaluation, a score ≥ 70% that means food-handlers practiced 14 or more out
of 20 considered as having ―good‖ food hygienic practice [20].
3.6Statistical analysis
The statistical analyses of the data were performed by using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences) software version 20. Descriptive statistics such as frequency (%) for categorical and mean
and standard deviation (SD) for numerical data were used to sum up the data. Chi square (X2) test was
also used to find the relationship between the socio demographic characteristics with knowledge and
practice scores. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
28
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSION
4.1 Socio demographic characterises of the meat handlers in study area
Socio demographic profile about of respondents is summarized in Table one. Result indicated that of
the 224 respondents participate in this study the majority were males (78.1 %) than women (21.9 %.).
Most of the respondents were within the age category of 31-45 years comprised 65.63% followed by
age of 20-30 (27.23%). The mean age of respondents was 35.8 ± 6.73. The age ranged from 19 years
to 55 years. Education level of majority of the respondents (46.4%) was at the level of secondary
school followed by considerable number of primary school (38.84%), illiterate (8%). And 100%
Ethiopian citizens had involved. Only few meat handlers 26 person (11.6%) attained college
education.
Monthly income of majority of the meat handlers (51.34%) from 4001-6000.The range salary the
respondent was between 1000- 9702 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) with mean salary ETB 5153. which is less
than 125USD per month. Only a nine person get more than 8000 ETB (4%) and 25.89% monthly
income were less than 4000 ETB.The basicsalaries of the respondents were ETB (1000-9702).
About 42% of respondents have been working in this sector for 2-6 years and 33% for 7-10 years and
about 8% have been working more than 10 years‘ experience, 17 % had less than two years with an
average length of 6.1 ± 4.2 years of experience.
About Eighty two (81.3%) percent full time workers in the abattoir while the rest were part time
worker. Only a few (11.6%) of the respondents self-reported that they have ever received training in
food safety. Although several studies have shown that training may contribute to upgrading food
safety knowledge of food-handlers. This does not always translate in to a positive change in food
handling behaviour and attitude.
29
Tab.1. Summary of socio- demographic characteristics of respondents (n = 224).
S/L Characteristic N % Mean; SD Range
1
Gender
Male
Female
175
49
78.1
21.9
2
Age
< 20
20-30
31-45
46-55
2
61
147
14
0.9
27.23
65.63
6.24
35.8±6.73
19---55
3
Level of education
Illiterate
Primary education
Secondary education
Tertiary
18
86
104
16
8
38.84
46.4
7.2
4
Employment status
Daily bases
Contract
Permanent
11
31
182
4.9
13.8
81.3
5
Income
1000-4000 ETB
4001-6000 ETB
6001-8000 ETB
> 8000ETB
58
115
42
9
25.89
51.34
18.75
4.02
5153±15.87
1000---9702
6
Year of Service
(experience)
< 2
2-6
7-10
>10Years
38
94
74
18
17
42
33
8
6.1 ± 4.2
1-30
7
Food safety training
Yes
No
26
198
11.6
88.4
8
How do you
supervised with
health expert
Regular
Intermittently
Never supervised
134
62
28
59.8
27.7
12.5
9
Health certificate
renewal
Six months
12 months
I don‘t know
32
143
49
14.3
63.8
21.9
30
Figure 1 Educational status
Figure 2 Work experience
31
4.2 Food safety knowledge of meat handlers in the study area
Food safety knowledge the overall knowledge level of respondents aboutpersonalhygiene, cross-
contamination, causes and transmutation of food-borne disease, and time temperature control of food
summarized in Table II. About 58.42% of respondents have answered correctly which is
unsatisfactory knowledge level with the mean score of 12.85 ± 2.33, which is below the cut of point
15 (≥ 68% accuracy). However, almost all meat handlers were aware of washing of hands before and
during meat processing reduces risk of contamination (98.7%) and improper handling of meat could
pose health hazards to consumers (96% answer correctly), how to clean and sanitize food contact
surface (67.4%). It‘s also known by almost all (75.4% correct answer) meat handlers about the role of
insect and pets in food contamination. Many meat handler believe that diarrheal disease symptoms can
be transmitted by contaminated meat (78.6% correct answer), and cooking with elevated temperature
or freezing as safe method to destroy bacteria (75.4% correct answer). From 224 respondents 75.9%
said people with open skin injury, gastroenteritis, and ear or throat disease should not be allowed to
handle meat. On the other hand, the respondents had least knowledge about the importance people of
using gloves (40.6% correct answer) and rotation of disinfectants for cleaning (24.6% correct answer),
the difference between cleaning and sanitation the (46% correct answer). Most of the respondents did
not know about Staphylococcus aureus as one of food –borne pathogens (11.2% correct answer),
hepatitis A virus (22.8% correct answer), and E. coli (21.3% correct answer) as food-borne pathogens.
Most respondent declare the right answer that as diarrheal can be transmitted by food (78.6%). As
stated below the result shows that age and education of the respondents were statistical significant
with Knowledge (p<0.05).
32
Table 4Summary of meat handlers’ food safety knowledge Addis Ababa abattoir and
retail meat shops (n = 224).
Statement
Response
Yes % (n) No%(n) Do not know
%(n)
1 Improper handling of meat could pose health
hazards to consumer
96(215)
4 (9)
2 Regular washing of hands before and during meat
processing reduce risk of contamination
98.7 (221)
1.3( 3 )
3 Using gloves while handling meat reduces the
risk of contamination
40.6 (91)
28.1 (63)
31.3 (70)
4 Proper cleaning and sanitization of knives and
hooks reduce the risk of meat contamination
67.4(151)
17.9 ( 40 )
14.7 ( 33 )
5 Eating and drinking in the work place increase
the risk of meat contamination.
23.2(52 )
61.2(137)
15.6 (35)
6 Washing and disinfection of working surface and
tools are important for safety of meat.
89.3(200)
8(18)
2.7 (6)
7 Regular rotation of disinfectants for cleaning can
reduce the risk of meat contamination from
working surface and cutting tools.
24.6( 55)
26.8(60)
48.7(109)
8 Insect and pest could be a source of
contamination to raw meat.
75.4 ( 169)
14.3 (32)
10.3 (23)
9 Diarrheal can be transmitted by food 78.6 (176) 11.6 (26) 9.8(22)
10 E.coli is of the food- borne pathogens 21.3 (49) 18.3(41) 59.8(134)
11
Hepatitis A virus is one of the food-borne
pathogens
22.8 (51)
37.1(83)
40.2 (90)
Staphylococcus is one of the food-borne
33
12 pathogens 11.2 (25) 17.5(40) 71 (159)
13 Microbes areon the skin ,nose and mouth of
health meat handlers
75.4 (169) 15.6 (35) 8.9 (20)
14 Clean is the same as sanitized. 46(103) 24.6(55) 29.5 (66)
15 Cross contamination is when micro-organisms
from a contaminated meat are transferred by the
meat handlers or utensils to another
35.7(80)
24.6(55)
39.7 (89)
16 The idea place to store raw meat is in the
refrigerator
43.8(98)
34.8(78)
21.4(48)
17 Freezing kills all bacteria that may that may
cause food-borne illness
48.2(108)
42.9(96)
8.9(20)
18 High temperature or freezing is a safe method to
destroy bacteria.
75.4(169)
13.8 ( 31)
10.7(24)
19 The correct temperature for storing perishable
food is 500
c
29.5(66)
24.1(54)
46.4(104)
20 Contaminated meat always has some change in
colour, odour or taste.
78.6(176)
12.1(27)
9.4(21)
21 People with open skin injury, gastroenteritis, and
ear or throat disease should be not allowed to
handle meat.
75.9(170)
19.2 (43)
4.9 (11)
22 The health status of workers should be evaluated
before employment.
86.6 (194)
8.9 (120)
4.5(10)
Total percentage mean of correct answer 58.42% 21.58% 20%
34
Fig 3 Food safety Knowledge
35
Fig 4 Food Safety Knowledge
36
4.3 Food Safety Attitude of meat handlers in the study area
Table III below summarized food safety attitudes of the meat handler‘s .Around 64.12% of
respondents have good attitude of food safety with mean of total 12.9 ± 2. They also had good attitude
towards the risk of improper meat storage (78.6%). Almost all the respondent said washing hands
before and during food preparation is mandatory (84.8%). Meat handler‘sattitude towards taking
regular training for better meat safety and hygiene practice were satisfactory (75.4%). High percentage
(73.2%) of meat handlers were also aware of keeping working surface and a utensil clean reduces the
risk of illness. Next to this 70.5% were believed the facts that surfaces and equipment should be clean
before reusing for meat processing. Approximately, 74.1% meat handlers said knives and cutting
boards should be properly sanitized to prevent cross contamination, for 65.5% for the reason was
hooks knives and cutting boards can be a source of food contamination. About 68.3% respondent
recommend that wearing protective clothing and shoes could help to improve work safety and hygiene
practices where as 65.2% said putting on hair cover on the head is a good practice in food industry.
Higher percentage of the surveyed meat handlers (78.8%) stated that using potable water to wash meat
contact surface and utensils were crucial for meat safety. Approximately (67.4%) respondents in this
study also thought sneezing or coughing without covering noses or moth could contaminate meat.
37
Table 5Summary of meat handlers food safety attitude in Addis Ababa Abattoir and retail meat
shop(n = 224).
Statements
Response
Agree disagree Do not know
1 Meat handlers with wounds , bruises or injuries on
their hands must not touch or handle meat
80.8(181)
12.1(27)
7.1(16)
2 Using watches, earring and ring will increase the
risk of meat contamination
41.1(92)
50.9 (114)
8 (18)
3 Improper meat storage is dangerous to human
health.
78.6(176)
17 (38)
4.5 (10)
4 Hand washing before handling meat reduced the risk
of contamination.
84.8(190)
10.7(24)
4.5 (10)
5 Regular training could improve meat safety and
hygiene practice.
75.4(169)
17.9 (40)
6.7 (15)
6 Safe meat handling to avoid contamination and this
is part of meat handlers job responsibilities
68.8(154)
18.3(41)
12.9(29)
7 Keeping working surface and utensils clean reduce
the risk of illness
73.2(164)
18.3(41)
8.5(19)
8 Using different knives and cutting boards for meat
and offal is worth to reduce contamination
52.7(118)
33.5(75)
13.8(31)
9 It is unsafe to leave meat out of the refrigerator for
more than 2 hours.
59.4(133)
25.4(57)
15.2(34)
10 Inspecting meat for freshness and wholesomeness is
valuable.
67(150)
20.1(45)
12.9(29)
11 Surface and equipments should be clean before re
using for meat processing.
70.5 (158)
19.6(44)
9.8 (22)
12 After processing meat, any leftovers should kept in
cool place
42(94)
19.2(43)
48.8(87)
13 Raw meat is healthier and nutritious than cooked 29(65) 46.4(104) 24.1(54)
14 Knives, hooks and cutting boards can be a source of 65.5(146) 28.6(64) 6.3(14)
38
food contamination.
15 Knives and cutting boards should be properly
sanitized to prevent cross contamination.
74.1(166)
16.5(37)
9.4(21)
16 The same towel can be used to clean many place 58.9(132) 32.6(73) 8.5(19)
17 Sneezing or coughing without covering our nose or
mouth could contaminate the meat.
67.4 (151)
25.9(58)
6.7 (15)
18 Wearing protective clothing and shoes could
improve work safety and hygiene practice.
68.3(153)
16.2(37)
15.2 (34)
19 Putting on hair cover on the head is good practice in
food industry
65.2(146)
22.3(50)
12.5(28)
20 It is important to use potable water to wash working
surface and cutting tools after disinfection
78.8(154)
20.1(45)
11.2(25)
Total percentage mean of correct answer 64.12% 23.95% 11.93%
39
Figure 5 Meat Safety Attitudes
40
Figure6. Food safety Attitude
41
4.4 Food safety practice of meat handlers in the study area.
As summarized in the below tab IV Food handler‘s practices towards food hygiene and sanitation. In
assessing food safety practices 20 questions interviewed for 224 meat handlers. It was found that
about (58.18%) of the respondent was not maintained food safety practices with the mean total score
of 8.36 ± 2.1. The mean of total percentage scores of safety practices was 41.26 ± 27.3. As per the
survey result, 61.2% of respondents eat and drink and 58.5% smoke at their work place. About 90% of
meat handlers were not used face mask while doing their work. Most of the respondents do not use
aprons (60.3%), 54% was not used hairnet and (58.9%) of the respondent was handle meat when they
have cuts, wounds on their hand. Concerning sanitizer use, 71.4% respondents do not use any sanitizer
to wash utensils such as knives; hooks cutting boards and the floor surface as well, (87.9%) of the
respondents not use gloves while handling meat. Most of the meat handlers (81.7%)did not wash their
handsafter smoking, coughing, and sneezing age and work experience of the respondents were
statistical significant with meat safety practice (p<0.05).
Table8. Summary of meat handlers food safety practice in Addis Ababa Abattoir and retail
meat shops(n = 224).
Food safety practices questions
Response
Yes No
1
Do you eat or drink at your work place?
61.2(137)
38.8 (87)
2
Do you smoke in side meat processing area?
58.5 (131)
41.5(93)
3
Do you use gloves while handling meat?
13.4 (30)
86.6 (194)
4 Do you wash your hands properly before or after
using gloves?
12.1(27)
87.9( 197 )
5 Do you wash your hand before and after handling
42
meat? 28.1(63) 71.9(161)
6 Do you wash your hands after handling
waste/garbage?
58 (130)
42(94)
7 Do you wash hands after using toilet 75(168) 25(56)
8 Do you wash your hands after smoking, sneezing or
coughing?
18.3(35)
81.7(189)
9 Do you wear an apron while working? 39.7(89) 60.3(135)
10 Do you wash your aprons after each day‘s work? 46.1(76) 53.9(89)
11 Do you wear a hairnet or a cap while working? 46 (103) 54 (121)
12 Do you wear nail polish when handling meat? 18.8(42) 81.3(182)
13 Do you properly clean the meat storage area before
storing new products?
59(133)
40.6(91)
14 Do you use the sanitizer when washing service
utensils (knives, hooks and cutting boards)?
28.6 (64)
71.4(160)
15 Do you replace knives or sterilize them after each
meat processing?
24.1(54)
75.9(170)
16 Do you remove your work equipment when using
toilets
72.1 (163)
30.9 (61)
17 Do you remove your personal stuff such as rings,
necklaces, watch etc. while processing?
67.4 (151)
32.6(73)
18 Do you handle/process meat when you are ill? 74.1 (166) 25.9(58)
19 Do you use face mask while processing meat? 10(22) 90(202)
20
Do you handle / process meat when you cuts,
wounds, bruises or injuries on your hands?
58.9(132)
41.1(92)
Total percentage mean of safety practices
41.26 %
43
Fig 7 Food safety practice
44
Fig 8 Food safety practice
45
4.5 Observational Survey
4.5.1 Physical Observation of Addis Ababa Abattoir Enterprise.
Addis Ababa abattoir enterprise (Table 5) has two separated lines for cattle slaughtering (for Christian
and Muslim).This abattoir has a slaughtering capacity of more than 4,000 heads of cattle per week.
And more than 600 workers are assigned to beef carcass preparation.
The loading and unloading of meat was done using labours and the hygiene issues during these times
were very poor. The dressings of the workers were poor in terms of neatness and these needs to be
improved to avoid the product from contamination.AAAE had very small amount of number of toilets
for the slaughtering workers, the ratio of number of toilets to the number of the workers was one to
more than twenty and there was no hand washing facility in the toilet. Besides, the sanitation of the
toilers was poor which can be one potential source of contamination. The Lair age of the abattoir has
enough pens for daily slaughtering, but the maximum fasting period practiced is not more than 4 hours
prior to slaughtering.Therefore, the actual fasting period of the abattoir deviated from the slaughtering
standards. A 12-24 hrs.‘ fasting period before to slaughtering reduce the volume of gut contents and
hence bacteria and therefore reduce the risk of contamination of the carcass during dressing reduces
the volume of gut contents and (FAO, 2010). In this abattoir, there was no stunning box; the cattle
were stunned by sharp knife on the floor (Table one). Most of the slaughtering processes are done
manually by the butchers and nothing of butchers uses gloves during this survey. The carcasses are
washed by potable water only before dispatching. Even though all the slaughtering workers wear coat
and hair cover, the coat was not clean and the general personal hygiene of the slaughtering workers
were poor. And ‗one man one job‘ principle was not applied. The moist, warm meat surface of a
freshly slaughtered animal provides ideal condition for microbial growth and this if uncontrolled can
result in spoilage or food poisoning. Chilling as the fundamental operation in applying cold to meat to
reduce its temperature quackingChilling rapid cooling of meat surface not only slows and nearly stops
the development of surface microbes but also reduces weight loss and discoloration of the surface
owing to haemoglobin oxidation. In general, chillies retard bacteria growth and extend the shelf life of
food. I have observed that the slaughtering house was air ventilated but there was no controlled air
conditioner in the production line and chilling facilities were not available. Moreover, the distribution
tracks had no chilling facilities and the carcasses were transported together with the offal. This
indicates the cold chain management was poor. According to WHO (1996) to prevent cross
46
contamination the vehicle used to transport meat should be clean and not carry other materials and
equipped with the cold chain.
47
Table9. AAAE appraised as per standard (WHO).
No Variables Standard Actual Description
1 Cross contamination due to lay out No yes Flow of personnel, material
and waste disposal cause
cross contamination and
lack of adequate facilities
and equipment in meat
slaughtering and distribution
area. The abattoir located at
middle of town in which
different activities carried
out.
2 Ratio of number of toilet and
number of workers at AAAE
1:05 >1:25 The number of toilet in the
abattoir is not complying
with the employees who
engaged different activity.
3 Cattle washing before slaughtering Optional No The cattle is not washed
before being slaughtered so
as to make clean the hide
from different dirty material
which may leads to cross
contamination.
4 Fasting period/resting time 12-24 hr. < 6 hr. Fating period is less than the
recommended time. Hence,
exposed to contamination of
the carcass during dressing.
5 Stunning techniques Bolt Knife We have seen that the
stunning technique was
conducted by knife.
48
6 Slaughtering house room air
conditioner
Must Not
accessible
Duringobservation the
slaughtering house room
have mechanical ventilation
but have no air conditioner
in meat handling area.
7 General personal hygiene of the
butchers
Good Poor The butcher‘s wear
protective clothing like
white coat and white hair
cover but they are not
cleaned.
8 Sanitation and sterility of the
equipment
Good Poor Sanitation and sterility of
the equipment was not kept
very well. The equipment‘s
was washed with clean
water but not sterilized.
9 Frequent use of clean water for
washing
Must Done They were used clean water
to wash their hands and
equipment‘s.
10 Chilling facility Must Not
obtainable
The chilling facility is not
accessible in both
slaughtering house and
butchery shop.
11 Cold chain management Sustainable no I haven‘t seen cold chain
management in sustainable
ways.
12 Butchers ‗renewal of their health
certificate
6 month‘s 12 month‘s As I have observed their
document they renew health
certificate once in a year.
13 Know-how of the butchers about
personal and food hygiene
Good Good They know about the
importance of personnel
49
hygiene. But they did not
translate to safety practice.
14 Training about personal hygiene and
food-borne diseases
Good no A few worker has taken
training concerning food
safety practice
15 Refrigerated distribution track Must Not
obtainable
We have observed that the
abattoir has more than 30
tracks that used for meat
distribution. But all are
unrefrigerated.
16 Separate transportation for beef and
offal
Must Not used Both beef and offal
transported to butchery shop
in the same track and
hanged together in meat
retail outlet shop.
17 Vehicles washing program Each
Shipments
Each
shipments
They were performing
vehicles washing activities
at every consignment‘s
18 Method of loading and unloading Over handrail Manual Both loading and unloading
activities were carried out
manually by labour.
19 The vehicles are disinfected when
necessary
Must Used They perform these
activities very well to
reduce cross contamination.
20 The sanitation of the loading area of
the vehicle
Good Good The loading area of the
abattoir is somewhat good.
*FAO (2010), **MOA (2008)
4.5.2 Physical observation of butchery
The overall sanitation of the butcher shops included in this study was poor. The meat product was not
separated from offal. Most of the butcher shops had refrigerator. This poor sanitation, condition for
50
cross contaminations and poor cold chain management may cause favourable condition for
multiplication of microorganisms. In this study, most of the meat products, in the butcher shops were
held on hanger on or on the table for more than 8 hours and even more than this. This leads togive
sufficient time for microbial growth. In agreement with this, DeribaMuleta and MogessieAshenafi
(2002) reported that, microbial duplicates dramatically, if food waits as greater as 4 hours at
temperatures of 15-45°C
4.5.3 Evaluation of Meat Distribution in Addis Ababa
AAAE was responsible to distribute 85% of the total meat consumption in Addis Ababa as the
enterprise was the only biggest Abattoir for fulfilling the meat demand of the city. In addition to
AAAE, Kara-Alo Abattoir and Abattoirs in Oromia regional state nearby Addis Ababa were
responsible to cover for 15% of the meat demand. AAAE has 30 vehicles specially designed for
transporting meat to the gate of 1463 customers through 16 predefined distribution routes.
The loading and unloading of meat was done using labours and the hygiene issues during these times
were very poor. The dressings of the workers were poor in terms of neatness and these needs to be
improved to avoid the product from contamination. Mostly the distribution time of the enterprise were
in the night times although some distributions may start early in the evening during the peak traffic
hours. There were a lot of traffic congestion for distributions during peak traffic hours and this would
result in a delay of transporting vehicles where it needs proper scheduling of delivery times.
51
4.6 DISCUSSION
On this study area more males likely involved in meat slaughtering and handling (Jianu C,2014). This
is true for my finding that the majority were males (78.1%) as camper to women (21.9%). The mean
age of the respondents in this study is lower (35.8 ± 6.73) than the study conducted by Alkabanda et
al.2017 (41.5±9.5) , Soares et al. 2012 (43.9±8.4), and Sharif & Al-Malki 2010 ( 43.9±8.4). but higher
than Farahat, El-Shafie , and Waly 2015 (25.1±9.6) and H.A Tegegne, 2017 ( 29±5.78).
ButOlumakaiye&Bakare 2013 mentioned that food handlers at their older age have better hygienic
practice score than their younger colleagues. In the findings literacy rate of food handler were much
lower than the findings of other studies (Jianu C,2014). In my finding also there was strong
association between level of education and knowledge p= 0.024. Knowledge and age of the
respondents p=0.04 .There was alsoa strong significant association between age and practice p=0.028.
There was association between work experience and practices p=0.062 but not statically
significant.Lack of training among food handlers have negative consequence on performing
behaviours (Robert KR,2008), it was found that most of respondents was not attended training related
to food safety except 26 persons (11.6%) that have taken the training. several studies mentioned that
food safety training should be provided to improve knowledge, attitude and safety practices of food
handlers (ParkSH, 2010). Almost all meat handlers have same thought and answer the question
correctly about proper meat handling(96%) and hand washing (98.7%) which was similar findings
tothe study conducted by (Haapala and probart,2004) reported that most participant gave correct
answers for hand washing question.The overall knowledge level of meat handlers in the study area
were lower (12.2±2.33) comparing with a study conducted in Camacari, Brazil schools food handlers,
which reported the mean score of food safety knowledge 16.3±2.26( Soares LS 2012). Our results also
lower than the findings (Jianu C,2014) and (Webb&Morancie, 2015). The study conducted by
(Sani&Siow 2014) mentioned that 98.2% of the respondent knew it is necessary to wash hands before
processing or handling foods. Knowing the importance of proper handling of meat, proper hand
washing and other important hygienic procedures by meat handlers is very important since meat-
handlers can serve as a vector for cross contamination and spread of food-borne pathogens ( Ansari
Laria 2010). According to (Xavier,CAC 2007), proper hand washing among meat handlers have
significant impact on reducing threat of diarrheal disease transmission .improper temperature in meat
processing and storage will also lead to increase of microbes which ensuring to food-borne infection
52
and intoxication(Ademas M, 2008). Our result agrees with findings by (Bas ET al.2006) that many of
the respondent unaware of the correct refrigerator temperature for food storage.
Like my finding (77%), in a study by (Akabanda et.2017) 70% of food handlers did not
know/remember the hepatitis A is a food-borne pathogen. The motive of dealing with this question
was to know whether the respondents are conscious about it and able to connect with disease
outbreaks that occurred throughout the world (Afifi HS,2012).In my study area most of the
respondents were not aware in food-borne pathogens but study conducted in Malaysia reported that
73.4% of food handlers had acceptable knowledge of food-borne pathogens (Abdul Mutalib, 2012).
This might be related to food safety training since of them (94.3%) attended one or more food safety
training but in our case only 11.6% was attended on food safety training. pervious study show that
food safety training increase knowledge regarding food safety issues(Lunch R, 2003).Training and
education may be an effective tool to increase food safety knowledge among food handlers and thus
improve food safety practice (Gillespie, 200).Attitude of meat handlers have key role that may
influence food safety practice that help to decrease the chance of food-borne disease
outbreaks.(Akabanda et al.2017)mentioned a strong linkage between positive attitudes and
maintaining safe food handling practice. About 80.8% meat handlers agreed that a person with
wounds, bruises or injuries on their hands must not touch or handle meat and 68.8% believe safe meat
handling to avoid contamination and diseases is part of their responsibilities. My finding was lower
than ( Al-Shabib et al.2016) and (Zanin,da Cunha , Stedefeltd,&Capriles 2015)82% and 85% of
theirrespondents were aware of the risk of touching food with cut hands or fingers respectively
.around 58.9% of the workers thought that the same towel can be used to clean many places. This
observation differing with the report by (Sani&Siow , 2014 )where 97.4% respondents recommended
that the use different clean clothes to wipe different food utensils. (Abdul-MutalibET al.2012) and
(Al-Shabib et al.2016) did similar to my observation, where 49% and 40% of respondents use the
same towel to clean different utensils respectively. Personal hygiene practices play vital role to ensure
safety of food and safeguard the consumer from food-borne infection and intoxication. More than half
(75%) of respondents in this study said, they always wash their hands after using toilets. This result is
lower than the findings ( Soares et al.2012) and (Adesokan and Raji 2014) whoreported around 90%
and 78.2& respondents washes their hands after using toilets respectively. About 67.4% of the
respondent removed personnel stuffs such as watches, rings and jewellery during meat processing.
53
(Cakiroglu&Ucar 2008) demonstrated similar result that 84.2% indicated that they are did not wear
jewellery during foodproduction.
As per the CAC- Codex AlimentariusCommission 2003, improper food handling and poor hand
hygiene is the main risk factor in the occurrence of food contamination that leads to food-borne
disease. The codex recommended that food handlers should always wash their hands at every stage of
food production to safeguard the consumer from diarrheal and other food –borne diseases.Particularly,
before handling meat, after eating, smoking, coughing, sneezing, touching garbage and using toilet are
critical time the meat handlers should wash their hands. Meat handlers with open skin injury,
gastroenteritis, and ear or throat diseases should not deal with any meat production (CAC,2003). In
this study, about 59.9% respondent handles meat while they are sick or having wounds and cuts. This
substantial risk involved with contamination of food by the sick and wounded.
As limitations, assessing hygienic practices would have been better through observational study rather
than interview to avoid information bias. Due to this motive, the investigator had designed both
observation and interview as sample collection tools. However, some vender at retail meat shops did
not allow any observer while they process meat. On the other hand, we had chance to see repeatedly
how the slaughtering practice looks like in Addis Ababa abattoir. In my finding regardless of any
demographic characteristics, level of knowledge and attitude of the hygienic practices by all
respondents were much lower that the acceptable level. In this study there was significant association
between level of education, age withknowledge andwork experience, age of the respondent with safety
practice, knowledge with hand washing at the value of p<0.05. According to (Nigusse&Kumie 2012)
food safety knowledge of food handlers significantly related with food handling practice( Rabbi and
Dey,f2013) indicated that food handling practice was related with educational status of food handlers
.Nonetheless, more knowledge does not always lead to positive changes in food handling behaviours
(Ansari-larim, 2010).
54
CHAPTURE FIVE:CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, meat handlers had unsatisfactoryknowledge mainly on food-borne pathogens, time
temperature control, cross contamination and difference between cleaning and sanitation. It may be
due to high proportion of primary & secondary school leaver meat handlers in the study area.
Furthermore, most of meat handler had not taken food safety training. Though most of meat handlers
have basic understanding and good attitude about personal hygiene, hand washing and proper cleaning
they did not translate into strict food hygiene practice.Therefore, continuous food safety education and
training for meat handlers should be organized and given to strengthen good safety practices through
better understanding and productive attitude. In additions, educations and practical food safety training
should be provided frequently to the meat handler staff in order to minimize food- borne hazards.The
information gained from this study can be utilized to formulate essential safety measure to safeguard
the consumer from food borne disease.Finally, public health education, policy formulation and regular
training and retraining of the meat handlers on safe meat handling as well as general and personal
hygiene are strongly recommended.
55
5.2 RECOMENDATIONS
Proper training, monitoring and educating slaughter personnel will help to guarantee that the
workers are provided with good quality wholesome meat all the times.
Regular inspection by responsible authorities like FDA is also advisable to assess compliance
with the standards and requirement according to the rules and regulation for safer meat
processing in abattoirs.
Chilling of beef carcass before distribution and distribution of beef carcass and offal using a
separate truck is highly recommended. And the truck should have a chilling facility
A proper motivation of the workers toward maintaining a positive attitude and good safety
practiceshould be encouraged.
The Abattoir is a state of disrepair, and their physical, sanitary and operational condition is
very poor. So the government should take action to upgrade with adherence to modern
structural requirement, good management practice GMP and HACCP and environmental
compliance or relocate new abattoir thatequipped with modem technology away from
residential town.
56
REFERENCES
1. Adesokan HK, Raji AOQ. Safe meat-handling knowledge, attitudes and practices of private and
government meat processing plants‘ workers: Implications for future policy. J Prev Med Hyg
2014;55:10-6.
2. Al-Shabib NA, Mosilhey SH, Husain FM. Cross-sectional study on food safety knowledge, attitude
and practices of male food handlers employed in restaurants of King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
Food Control 2016;59:212-7
3. Akabanda F, Hlortsi EH, Owusu-Kwarteng J. Food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of
institutional food-handlers in Ghana. BMC Public Health 2017;17:40.
4 Adams M, Moss M. Food Microbiology. The Royal Society of Chemistry 2008.
5.Abdul-Mutalib NA, Abdul-Rashid MF, Mustafa S, Amin-Nordin S, Hamat RA, Osman M.
Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding food hygiene and sanitation of food handlers in Kuala
Pilah, Malaysia. Food Control 2012;27:289-93
6.Afifi HS, Abushelaibi AA. Assessment of personal hygiene knowledge, and practices in Al Ain,
United Arab Emirates. Food Control 2012;25:249-53.
7.Baş M, Ersun ŞA, Kivanç G. The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices of
food handlers‘ in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control 2006;17:317-22
8. CAC - Codex AlimentariusComission. General Principles of Food Hygiene. CAC/RCP 1-1969 Rev.
4. Codex Aliment Com 2003:1-31
9.Çakiroǧlu FP, Uçar A. Employees‘ perception of hygiene in the catering industry in Ankara
(Turkey). Food Control 2008;19:915
10.de Boer E, Zwartkruis-Nahuis JTM, Wit B, Huijsdens XW, de Neeling AJ, Bosch T, van Oosterom
RAAA, Vila A, Heuvelink AE. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in meat. Int
J Food Microbiol 2009;134:52-6
11.DeWaal C, Robert N, Global & Local: Food Safety Around the World 2005:89
57
12.Farahat MF, El-Shafie MM, Waly MI. Food safety knowledge and practices among Saudi women.
Food Control 2015;47:42735
13. Gillespie I, Little C, Mitchell R. Microbiological examination of cold ready-to-eat sliced meats
from catering establishments in the United Kingdom. J ApplMicrobiol 2000;88:467-74
14.Haileselassie M, Taddele H, Adhana K, Kalayou S. Food safety knowledge and practices of
abattoir and butchery shops and the microbial profile of meat in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. Asian Pac J
Trop Biomed 2013;3:407-12.
15.Havelaar AH, Cawthorne A, Angulo F, Bellinger D, Corrigan T, Cravioto A, Gibb H, Hald T, Ehiri
J, Kirk M, Lake R, Praet N, Speybroeck N, de Silva N, Stein C, Torgerson P, Kuchenmüller T. WHO
initiative to estimate the global burden of foodborne diseases. Lancet 2013; 381:S59.
16. H.A Tegegne Food safety Knowledge ,attitude and practices of meat handler in Abattoir and
retail meat shope of JigigaTowen,Ethiopia.
17.Howes M, McEwen S, Griffiths M, Harris L. Food handler certification by home study: Measuring
changes in knowledge and behavior. Dairy, Food Environ Sanit. 1996;16(11):737–44
18.Haapala I, Probart C. Food safety knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors among middle school
students. J NutrEducBehav 2004;36:71-6
19. Sharif L, Al-Malki T. Knowledge, attitude and practice of Taif University students on food
poisoning. Food Control 2010;21:55-60
20.Ifeadike C, Ironkwe O, Adogu PU, Nnebue C. Assessment of the food hygiene practices of food
handlers in the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. Trop J Med Res 2014;17:10.
21.Jianu C, Goleţ I, Knowledge of food safety and hygiene and personal hygiene practices among
meat handlers operating in western Romania. Food Control 2014;42:214-9
22.Kassa H. An outbreak of Norwalk-like viral gastroenteritis in a frequently penalized food service
operation: a case for mandatory training of food handlers in safety and hygiene. J
23.Kibret M, Abera B. The sanitary conditions of food service establishments and food safety
knowledge and practices of food handlers in bahirdar town. Ethiop J Health Sci 2012;22:27-35.
58
24.Nigusse D, Kumie A. Food hygiene practices and prevalence of intestinal parasites among food
handlers working in Mekelle university students cafeteria, Mekelle. Garjss 2012;1:65-71
25. Lynch R, Elledge B, Griffith C, Boatright D. A comparison of food safety knowledge among
restaurant managers, by source of training and experience, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. J Environ
Health 2003;66:9
26.Mudey AB, Kesharwani N, Mudey GA, Goyal RC, Dawale Food safety knowledge, attitudeand
practices of meat handler E327AK, Wagh VV. Health status and personal hygiene among food
handlers working at food establishment around a rural teaching hospital in Wardha district of
Maharashtra, India. Glob J HelathSci 2010;2:198-20
27.Olumakaiye MF, Bakare KO. Training of Food Providers for Improved Environmental Conditions
of Food Service Outlets in Urban Area Nigeria. Food and Nutrition Sciences 2013;4:99105.
28. Park SH, Kwak TK, Chang HJ. Evaluation of the food safety training for food handlers in
restaurant operations. Nutr Res Pract 2010;4:58-68
29.Powell S, Attwell R, Massey S. The impact of training on knowledge and standards of food hygiene
Eth a pilot study. Int J Environ Health Res. 1997;7(4):329–34
30. Rabbi SE, Dey NC. Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in
Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:89.
31. Roberts KR, Barrett BB, Howells AD, Shanklin CW, Pilling VK, Brannon L. Food Safety
Training and Foodservice Employees Knowledge and Behavior. J Food Prot Trends 2008;28:252-60
32.Soares LS, Almeida RCC, Cerqueira ES, Carvalho JS, Nunes IL. Knowledge, attitudes and
practices in food safety and the presence of coagulase-positive staphylococci on hands of food
handlers in the schools of Camaçari, Brazil. Food Control 2012;27:206-13.
33.Siau MF. Food court hygiene assessment and food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of
food handlers in Putrajaya. Int Food Res J 2015;22:1843-54
34.Sani NA, Siow ON. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers on food safety in food
service operations at the UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia. Food Control 2014;37:210-7.
59
35.Ansari-Lari M, Soodbakhsh S, Lakzadeh L. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of workers on food
hygienic practices in meat processing plants in Fars, Iran. Food Control 2010;21:260-3.
36.Xavier CAC, de O. Oporto CF, da Silva MP, da Silveira IA, de Abrantes MR. Prevalência de
Staphylococcus aureusemmanipuladores de alimentos das crechesmunicipais da cidade do Natal/RN.
RevistaBrasileira de AnálisesClínicas 2007;39:1658.
37.Tessema AG, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH. Factors affecting food handling practices among food
handlers of Dangila town food and drink establishments, North West Ethiopia. BMC Public Health
2014;14:1-5.
38. Todd ECD, Michaels BS, Greig JD, Smith D, Holah J, Bartleson CA. Outbreaks where food
workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 5. sources of contamination and
pathogen excretion from infected persons. J Food Prot 2010;73:1552-65.
39.Vivas AP, Gelaye B, Aboset N, Kumie A, Berhane Y, Williams MA. Knowledge, attitudes and
practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. J Prev Med Hyg
2010;51:73-9.
40.WHO. FOOD SAFETY: What you should know. World Heal Organ Reg Off South-East Asia
2015.
41.WHO. WHO estimates of the global burden of diseases? WHO 2014; 46:1-15.
42.Webb M, Morancie A. Food safety knowledge of foodservice workers at a university campus by
education level, experience, and food safety training. Food Control2015;50:259-64.
43. WHO, Five Keys to Safer Food Manual. Five Keys to Safer Food Man 2006:30.
44.Zain MM, Naing NN. Sociodemographic characteristics of food handlers and their knowledge,
attitude and practice towards food sanitation: A preliminary report. Southeast Asian J Trop Med
Public Health 2002;33:410-7
45.Zanin LM, da Cunha DT, Stedefeldt E, Capriles VD. Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-
reported practices and risk perceptions of seafood workers. Food Res Int 2015;67:19-24.
60
46. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health
Organization (WHO), (2001). Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene
47. Losasso,C.; Cibin,V.;Cappa and V.;Roccato, A.,(2012) Food safety and nutrition: Improving
consumer behavior. Food control Vol.23(1)
48. Tracy, P. (2011). Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Street Food Vendors in
the City of Johannesburg regarding Food Hygiene and Safety. etd.uwc.ac.za
49. WHO, (2002) global food strateg
50. Cagri-Mehmetoglu, A. (2009) Public perception of food handling practices and food safety in
Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.7 (2): 113 - 116
51. FAO (2009). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the state of food and
agriculture, livestock in the balance, retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/catalog/inter-e.htm.
52. Ousman Mohammed, DawitShimelis, PetrosAdmasu and TekaFeyera(2014).Prevalence and
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern of E. Coli Isolates from Raw Meat Samples Obtained from
Abattoirs in Dire Dawa City, Eastern Ethiopia.
53. TesfayKebede, BerihunAfera, HabtamuTaddele and AbrhaBsrat(2014). Assessment of
Bacteriological Quality of Sold Meat in the Butcher Shops of Adigrat, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Applied J. Hygiene3: 38-44. Thomas, N. Kiros, A. Pal, M. Aylate, A
54. Tracy, P. (2011). Assessing the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Street Food Vendors in
the City of Johannesburg regarding Food Hygiene and Safety. etd.uwc.ac.za
55. WHO. Food Safety: What you should know.World Heal Organ Ragoff South-East Asia 2015.
56. WHO. WHO estimates of the global burden of diseases. WHO 2014;46:1-15.
57.Ifeadike C, Ironkwe O, Adogu PU, Nnebue C. Assessment of the food hygiene practices of food
handlers in the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. Trop J Med Res 2014;17:10.
58. Havelaar AH, Cawthorne A, Angulo F, Bellinger D, Corrigan T, Cravioto A, Gibb H, Hald T,
Ehiri J, Kirk M, Lake R, Praet N, Speybroeck N, de Silva N, Stein C, Torgerson P,
Kuchenmüller T. WHO initiative to estimate the global burden of foodborne diseases. Lancet
2013;381:S59.
59. DeWaal C, Robert N, Global & Local: Food Safety Around the World 2005:89.
61
60.Tessema AG, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH. Factors affecting food handling practices among food
handlers of Dangila town food and drink establishments, North West Ethiopia. BMC Public Health
2014; 14:1-5.
61. Todd ECD, Michaels BS, Greig JD, Smith D, Holah J, Bartleson CA. Outbreaks where food
workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 5. Sources of contamination and
pathogen excretion from infected persons. J Food Prot 2010; 73:1552-65.
62. Sharif L, Al-Malki T. Knowledge, attitude and practice of Taif University students on food
poisoning. Food Control 2010; 21:55-60.
63.Baş M, Ersun ŞA, Kivanç G. The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices of
food handlers‘ in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control 2006;17:317-22.
64.Nigusse D, Kumie A. Food hygiene practices and prevalence of intestinal parasites among food
handlers working in Mekelle university student‘s cafeteria, Mekelle. Garjss 2012; 1:65-71.
65.Kibret M, Abera B. The sanitary conditions of food service establishments and food safety
knowledge and practices of food handlers in bahirdar town. Ethiop J Health Sci 2012;22:27-35.
66.Zain MM, Naing NN. Sociodemographic characteristics of food handlers and their knowledge,
attitude and practice towards food sanitation: A preliminary report. Southeast Asian J Trop Med
Public Health 2002;33:410-7.
67. Rabbi SE, Dey NC. Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in
Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:89.
68.Mudey AB, Kesharwani N, Mudey GA, Goyal RC, Dawale Food safety knowledge, attitudeand
practices of meat handler E327AK, Wagh VV. Health status and personal hygiene among food
handlers working at food establishment around a rural teaching hospital in Wardha district of
Maharashtra, India. Glob J HelathSci 2010;2:198-206.
69.Haileselassie M, Taddele H, Adhana K, Kalayou S. Food safety knowledge and practices of
abattoir and butchery shops and the microbial profile of meat in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. Asian Pac J
Trop Biomed 2013;3:407-12.
62
70.Vivas AP, Gelaye B, Aboset N, Kumie A, Berhane Y, Williams MA. Knowledge, attitudes and
practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. J Prev Med Hyg
2010;51:73-9.
71. Adesokan HK, Raji AOQ. Safe meat-handling knowledge, attitudes and practices of private and
government meat processing plants‘ workers: Implications for future policy. J Prev Med Hyg 2014;
55:10-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar.
72. Zain MM, Naing NN. Socio-demographic characteristics of food handlers and their knowledge,
attitude and practice towards food sanitation: A preliminary report. Southeast Asian J Trop Med
Public Health 2002; 33:410-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Adams M, Moss M. Food Microbiology. The Royal Society of Chemistry 2008. [Google Scholar]
63
APPENDICES
1. Demographic of the respondent
I. General information
1. Sex/: A. Male/------- B. Female/-------. Age/:--------------
3. Marital status/ A. Single B. married C. Divorce
4. Nationality A. Ethiopia B. Foreigner
5. Religion A .Orthodox B. Muslim C. Others
5. Educational Statuses/:
A. Illiterate (no formal Education)
B. Primary school C. Secondary school D. College E. University graduate
5. Field of study------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Employment status
A. daily B. Contract C. Permanent
7. Monthly salary Income -----------------ETB
8. Work experience. For how long have you been working in AAAE.
A. <2 years
B. 2-6 years.
C. 6-10 Years
D. > 10 Years
64
9. Had you been given any training about food Safety handling of food? A. Yes B. No if yes when---
------------------------
10. If you had been given any training, who gave you the training?
A. From approved organization/ B. Cite administration health office/ C. Others----------------------
11. Have you ever suffered from disease symptoms like vomiting, diarrheal, skin infection and
continuous coughing during the period of your food handling? A. yes/ B. no /
12. If you have suffered from any of these disease symptoms status of sick leave and resting after
suffer of the disease
A. Taken rest till become free of sign and symptoms/
B. Not taken rest and have been on my duet/
C. Others
13. How do you being supervised with health experts on normal working days
A. Regular /
B. Intermittently/
C. Never supervised/
14. How often the Abattoir renew their health certificate? A. 6 months/ 6 B. annually/ C. they
don‘t have at all/.
2. Food safety knowledge among meat handler at AA abattoir
1. Improper handling of meat could pose health hazards to consumers.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
2. Regular washing of hands before and during meat processing reduces risk of contamination.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
3. Using gloves while handling meat reduces the risk of contamination.
65
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
4. Proper cleaning and sanitization of knives and hooks reduce the risk of meat contamination.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
5. Eating and drinking in the work place increase the risk of meat contamination.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
6. Washing and disinfection of working surfaces and tools are important for safety of meat.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
7. Regular rotation of disinfectants for cleaning can reduce the risk of meat contamination from
working surfaces and cutting tools.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
8. Insects and pests could be a source of contamination to raw meat.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
9. Diarrheal can be transmitted by food.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
10. E.coli is one of the food-borne pathogens.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
11. Hepatitis A virus is one of the food-borne pathogens.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
12. Staphylococcus is one of the food-borne pathogens.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
13. Microbes are on the skin, nose and mouth of healthy meat handlers.
66
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
14. Clean is same as sanitized
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
15. Cross contamination is when microorganisms from a contaminated meat are transferred by the
meat handler‘s hands or utensils to another.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
16. The ideal place to store raw meat is in the refrigerator.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
17. Freezing kills all the bacteria that may cause food-borne illness.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
18. High temperature or freezing is a safe method to destroy bacteria.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
19. The correct temperature for storing perishable foods is 50C.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
20. Contaminated meat always have some change in colour, odour or taste.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
21. People with open skin injury, gastroenteritis, and ear or throat diseases should not be allowed to
handle meat.
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
22. The health status of workers should be evaluated before employment
A. Yes B. No C. do not know the answer
67
3. Food safety attitude AAAE
1. Meat handlers with wounds, bruises or injuries on their hands must not touch or handle meat
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
2. Using watches, earrings and rings will increase the risk of meat contamination
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
3. Improper meat storage is dangerous to health.
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
4. Hand washing before handling meat reduces the risk of contamination
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
5. Regular training could improve meat safety and hygiene practices.
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know.
6. Safe meat handling to avoid contamination and diseases is part of meat handler job
responsibilities
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
7. Keeping working surfaces and utensils clean reduces the risk of illness
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
8. Using different knives and cutting boards for meat and offal is worth
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
68
9. It is unsafe to leave meat out of the refrigerator for more than 2 hour
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
10. Inspecting meat for freshness and wholesomeness is valuable
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
11. Surfaces and equipment should be clean before re-using for meat processing
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
12. After processing meat, any leftovers should be kept in a cool place within
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
13. Raw meat is healthier and nutritious than cooked
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
14. Knives, hooks and cutting boards can be a source of food contamination
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
15. Knives and cutting boards should be properly sanitized to prevent cross contamination
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
16. The same towel can be used to clean many places
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
17. Sneezing or coughing without covering our noses or mouth could contaminate the meat
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
69
18. Wearing protective clothing and shoes could help improve work safety and hygiene practices
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
19. Putting on hair cover on the head is a good practice in food industry
A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
20. It is important to use potable water to wash working surfaces and cutting tools after
disinfection A. Agree B. disagree C. don‘t know
4. Food safety practices in AAAE
1. Do you eat or drink at your work place? A. Yes B. No
2. Do you smoke inside meat processing areas? A. Yes B. No
3. Do you use gloves while handling meat? A. Yes B. No
4. Do you wash your hands properly before or after using gloves? A. Yes B. No
5. Do you wash your hands before and after handling meat? A. Yes B.No
6. Do wash your hands after handling waste/garbage? A. Yes B.No
7. Do you wash hands after using toilet? A. Yes B. No
8. Do you wash your hand after smoking, sneezing or coughing? A. Yes B. No
9. Do you wear an apron while working? A. Yes B. No
10. Do you wash your aprons after each day‘s work? A. Yes B. No
11. Do you wear a mask while working? A. Yes B. No
12. Do you wear a hairnet or a cap while working? A. Yes B. No
13. Do you wear nail polish when handling meat? A. Yes B. No
14. Do you properly clean the meat storage area before storing new products? A. Yes B. No
15. Do you replace knives or sterilize them after each meat processing? A. Yes B. No
16. Do you remove your work equipment when using toilets? A. Yes B. No
17. Do you remove your personal stuffs such as rings, necklaces, watch etc. while processing meat?
A. Yes B. No
18. Do you handle/process meat when you are ill? A. Yes B. No
19. Do you handle/process meat when you have cuts, wounds, bruises or injuries on your hands?
70
A, Yes B. No
20. Do you have a locker/ dressing room in the abattoir? A. Yes B. No
5. Check list for the abattoir observation
1. Is the layout of the slaughtering house and the compound does cause cross contamination? .
A. Yes B. No
2. What is the average cattle slaughtered each day? Head .
3. The ratio of no. of toilet and no. of butchers. A. 1:5 B. 1:10 C. 1: 15 D. 1:20
4. Is there reserve electric power and water supply? . A. Yes B. No
5. Does the slaughtering house have enough amount/size of Lair age for it daily slather capacity?.
A. Yes B. No
6. Do they have enough water line and supply to the Lair age?. A. Yes B. No
7. Do the cattle‘s wash before slaughtering? . A. Yes B. No
8. The time of fasting period/resting time. A. < 12 hours B. 12-24 C. >24 D. no resting period
9. Stunning techniques they use A. Bolt B. sticking knife C. other
10. The temperature of the slaughtering house A. 20-250C B. 25-300C C. >300C
11. Do they have hot water supply? A. Yes B. No
12. General personal hygiene of the butchers A. Poor B. Good C. better
13. Sanitation and sterility of the equipments they use A. Poor B. Good C. better
71
14. Do they frequently use clean water to wash/clean slaughtering wastes and their hands at every
steps of the process?
1. After bleeding A. Yes B. No
2. After skinning A. Yes B. No
3. after evisceration A. Yes B. No
15. The temperature of the chillers A. 00c B. 0-200C C. >20 0C D. not specified
16. The time takes from stunning to chillers A. <45 min. B. 45-60 min. C. > 60 min.
17. The cold chin management A. Poor B. Good C. better
18. Do they use carcass washing/sanitizing chemicals? Yes B. No
If yes, specify ____________________________________________
19. Do the butchers wash their hands at each step and after each cattle? A. Yes B. No
20. Do the butchers wash their hand when they visit rest room/toilet? A. Yes B. No
21. Is there any missing step from a standard slaughtering procedure? A. Yes B. No If yes,
________________________________________________
22. How often the butchers renew their health certificate? A. 6 months B. annually C. they don‘t have
at all
23. Know-how of the butchers about personal and food hygiene A. Poor B. Good C. better
24. Do the butchers have been given any training about personal hygiene and food borne diseases A.
Yes
25. Does the worker wear appropriate over coat?
72
26. Does the worker wear appropriate hair cover? A. Yes B. No
27. Are nails short and clean? A. Yes B. No
28. Discharge from noise, eye, ear and cough during visit A. not observed B. Observed
29. Any visible skin rash, skin boils, cut and wound at time of visit A. not observed B. Observed
30. Is there a refrigerator in the shop A.? Yes B. No
31. General sanitation of the Abattoir A. Poor B. Good C. better
32. Is the location of the toilet can cause contamination? A. Yes B. No
73
6. Check list for transportation observation
1. Do the vehicles which transport the beef carcass possess refrigerated environment for the product?
A. Yes ----- B. No-----
2. Is the capacity of the vehicles specified with regards to the distance they cover? A. Yes B. No---
3. Is there a standard space among the hanged caresses inside the vehicles? A. Yes B. No
C. if no therefore these is cross contamination---------------------------------- A Yes B. No
4. Do they transport the beef carcass with other red and green offal? A. Yes B. No
5. How often the vehicles washed? A. After each shipment B. daily C. not specified
6. The sanitation of the loading area of the vehicle A. Poor B. Good C. better
7. Method of loading and unloading of the beef carcass from and/or to the vehicle
A. Manually B. through conveyer C. other
8. Do the workers who transport the carcass to the vehicle wear clean cloths and safety materials
A. Yes B. No
9. The vehicles are disinfected when necessary. A. yes B. No
74
7. Questions on practical work at slaughtering house
No
Questions
N%
Strongly
agree
Agree Not
sure
Disagree Strongly
disagree
1
All abattoirs must be registered and
approved according to the lows set-up
by the ministry of agriculture.
2
Only properly trained personnel will
be allowed to work in an abattoir
3
All personnel working in the abattoir
must be in their protective clothing
during operation
4
Any animal found with the zootomic
disease at ante mortem inspection
must be condemned completely
5
The government should compensate
owners whose animals are found not
be fit for human consumption
6
All meat inspection activity must be
carried only by qualified veterinary or
meat inspector
7
Compliance with the abattoir lows
during meat processing and waste
disposal can only be achieved if all
proper measure are taken and followed
Only clean and safe water should be
used to wash all carcasses in the
75
8 abattoir
9
Compliance with the standard
methods of waste disposal is the only
solution that can prevent water and air
pollutions
10
You are one of the most important
people to flow mall the related law to
prevent disease transmission
11
The carcass should be weighed and
graded before being sold
12
The abattoir environment should be
clean and hygienically maintained
regularly
76
Table2 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Education with Knowledge).
Table 3 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Age with Knowledge)
Table 6 Correlation with demographic characteristics (Age with practices)
Respondent age with safety practice Age Practices Remarks
Age
Pearson correlation 1 0.028 P<0.05
N 224 224
Practices
Pearson correlation 0.028 1
N 224 224
Education with food safety Knowledge Education Knowledge Remarks
Education
Pearson correlation 1 0.024 P<0.05
N 224 224
Knowledge
Pearson correlation 0.024 1
N 224 24
Age of the respondent with Knowledge Age Knowledge Remarks
Age
Pearson correlation 1 0.040 P<0.05
N 224 224
Knowledge
Pearson correlation 0.040 1
N 224 224
77
Table 7 Correlation with demographic characteristics (work experience with practices)
Work Experience with food safety practice Experience Practices Remarks
Experience
Pearson correlation 1 0.052 P<0.05
N 224 224
practices
Pearson correlation 0.062 1
N 224 224
78
Fig 1 lair age of the Abattoir
79
Fig 2 sheep and goats slaughtering house investigation
80
Fig 3 Cattle slaughtering house
81
Fig 4 goat and sheep slaughtering house
82
Fig4Abattoir office
83
Fig 5 Transportations facility in AAAE
84
Fig 6 Locker Room
85
86
87
88
![Bohner Attitude Attitude Change 2011[1]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/577cdc9c1a28ab9e78aaef04/bohner-attitude-attitude-change-20111.jpg)
