Abstract

Abstract Objectives A multi-year, integrated methods study showed comprehensive consumer food handling practices when preparing a meal, compared to prevalence of self-reported behaviors. Experimental conditions provided insights on the effectiveness of current and future food safety messages. Methods Demographically-diverse participants were recruited from various communities in one state. Year 1: Participants prepared raw turkey burgers in a simulated home kitchen. Half of participants viewed an educational video on thermometer use before meal preparation; the other half served as a control. Year 2: Participants who self-reported washing poultry prepared raw chicken products. Half of participants received mock social media messages about not washing poultry; the other half served as a control. Food handling behaviors were coded and compared to self-reported actions and attitudes towards food safety, collected via written surveys and in-depth interviews. Results At least one contributing factor to foodborne illness was examined during each observation; cross-contamination actions were always observed. Year 1: Over 60% (n = 383) of participants self-reported owning and using a food thermometer when cooking raw meat and poultry products; however, only 35% of unprompted participants measured final internal temperature with a food thermometer. Year 2: Nearly 25% (n = 300) of participants cross-contaminated a ready-to-eat side; over 50% cross-contaminated due to poor sink sanitation. Differences between self-reported and observed food safety behaviors were seen across participant groups. Lack of sufficient handwashing leading to bacterial cross-contamination was a notable secondary outcome. Conclusions Observations more accurately reflect consumer food handling behaviors and allow for targeted message development to decrease risk of foodborne illness through safe at-home food handling. Findings and messages are shared with health educators, news and social media outlets, and directly to consumers through various resources. Funding Sources This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). All views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily of USDA FSIS. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call