MHFS: Food Safety (2012-2013)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To determine the prevalence of poor produce handling practices, including insufficient washing, poor hygiene, cross-contamination, temperature abuse and inappropriate storage conditions. The results will then be used to create consumer education materials that will be targeted to correct unsafe practices.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Persons that mainly purchased and prepared fresh fruits and vegetables in the households were asked to complete the questionnaire
  • The names and mailing addresses of the sample, purchased from Survey Sampling Inc., reflected demographic distribution of the United States.
Exclusion Criteria:

Not described.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

  • A national survey was conducted in spring 2000 to assess consumers' attitudes toward safety and handling and washing practices associated with fresh fruits and vegetables
  • The names and mailing addresses of the sample, purchased from Survey Sampling Inc., reflected demographic distribution of the United States.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Statistical Analysis

Frequencies of safe handling and washing behaviors were calculated and chi-square tests using SPSS (10.0 for Windows) statistical program were performed to determine if the handling behavior was related to demographic characteristics.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • A national mail survey was conducted in spring 2000 to assess consumers' attitudes toward safety and handling and washing practices associated with fresh fruits and vegetables
  • The questionnaire was pilot tested (N=12) for refinement, then the coded questionnaires were sent out, along with a personally signed cover letter on university letterhead, indicating voluntary participation and confidentiality, along with a postage-paid return envelope, was mailed to a sample of 2,000 households in the United States
  • Before the survey, a focus group study was conducted in early 1999 to identify current methods of handling and washing fresh produce in California.

Dependent Variables

  • Consumer handling of fresh fruits and vegetables; the fruits and vegetables selected were commonly purchased and represent a variety of textures and growth environments
  • A series of questions was asked in the survey to assess the respondents' practices and attitudes toward the purchase, transportation, storage, handling and washing of fresh produce, pre-washed salads, pre-cut fruits and vegetables and six common fruits and vegetables
  • Consumers were also asked about their preferred sources for receiving information on safe handling practices of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Independent Variables

Demographic characteristics:

  • Sex
  • Ethnicity
  • Education
  • Income
  • Age.

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 2,000 questionnaires mailed
  • Attrition (final N): 624 respondents (435 female, 186 male)
  • Age:
    • 24 years or less: 2%
    • 25 to 34 years: 9%
    • 35 to 44 years: 18%
    • 45 to 54 years: 24%
    • 55 to 64 years: 16%
    • Older than 65 years: 31%
  • Ethnicity:
    • 88% Caucasian
    • 3% Hispanic American
    • 4% African American
    • 4% Asian American
    • 1% American Indian
    • 2% Other
  • Other relevant demographics:
    • Some high school: 4%
    • High school graduate: 27%
    • Some college: 27%
    • College graduate: 28%
    • Post-college graduate: 14%
  • Location: University of California, Davis, California.
Summary of Results:

Key Findings

  • Sex, age, income and education were shown to be related to some safety-related food handling practices at a significance level of 0.05 and lower P≤0.05
  • Approximately 6% of consumers responded that they seldom or never wash fresh produce and more than 35% indicated that they do not wash their melons before preparation
  • Approximately 23% of the respondents indicated that they placed their meat, poultry and fish on a refrigerator shelf above other foods and 9% do not place their produce at any specific location in the refrigerator
  • Approximately 97% of respondents reported that they always wash their food preparation surfaces after contact with meat products, but 5% only dry wipe and 24% only wash with water
  • Approximately 20% practiced more risky washing methods. 21% indicated washing their produce before storing in the refrigerator and 19% washed produce just before storing at room temperature on the counter or in a bowl. Results from the chi-square test showed that more women indicated washing fresh produce right before preparation and cooking compared with male consumers P=0.010.
  • Almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not always wash their hands before handling fresh produce, with 34% washing most of the time, 9% washing some of the time, 3% rarely washing and 1% never washing
  • More women indicated always washing their food cutting surface before and after making sandwiches (P=0.031; P=0.038) and cutting fresh produce (P=0.006) than men
  • People 65 years and older were also more likely to prefer information on a produce container than those between the ages of 55 and 64 years and those 44 years and younger (P=0.043)
  • Consumers between the ages of 45 and 54 years were more likely to prefer a cooking show than those 44 years and younger (P=0.021)
  • People aged 65 years and older were found to practice safer food handling methods than younger adults; they were more likely to wash produce before refrigeration (P=0.041), store meat, poultry and fish properly in the refrigerator (P=0.011) and wash food cutting surfaces before cutting produce (P=0.001) and making sandwiches (P=0.000) than younger adults
  • Women, lower-income households, people 65 years and older and non-college graduates practiced safer food handling methods than men, higher-income households, people younger than 65 years and college or post-college graduates.
Author Conclusion:
  • People are more likely to follow a recommendation when they know why it is important.
  • Some are not interested in safe handling information and a comparison of previous with current research indicates that handling errors persist. 
  • Research is needed on effective motivational strategies. 
  • The survey findings suggest that consumer education materials should emphasize safe handling practices from purchase through consumption. Educational outreach should target specific sub-populations, including men, college graduates, higher-income households and people younger than 65 years, because of their higher frequency of unsafe handling and washing practices.
Funding Source:
Government: Food and Drug Administration grant no. FD-400162901
Reviewer Comments:

This study has limitations typical of mail surveys and therefore the findings do not necessarily represent the average consumer in the United States. In general, mail surveys include disproportionally higher response rates from Caucasians, older persons and those with higher incomes and more formal education. 

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) N/A
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) N/A
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? ???
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) Yes
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? N/A
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? N/A
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes