Food Protection Trends - October 2008 - 705

following food safety practices, and (3) develop a preliminary model to explain motivators for following food safety practices, using expectancy model as a theoretical underpinning. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Food safety Research related to food safety examines all aspects from the farm to table. At the farm end of the continuum, research has focused on methods producers can use to improve safety practices to minimize the risk of foodborne illnesses, while research at the table end of the continuum has focused on what retail foodservice employees can do to provide safe food. Well publicized foodborne illness outbreaks all over the world, including the outbreak caused by bagged spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 in the United States and the 1988 Hepatitis A outbreak in China affecting 300,000 people, have heightened consumers’ food safety awareness. Between 1998 and 2001, the number of foodborne disease outbreaks caused by microorganisms was greater for foods prepared in commercial and non-commercial foodservice operations than for those prepared at home or linked to food manufacturers for countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan (1). Some researchers have approached food safety through cost-benefit analysis, attempting to quantify various expenses incurred when an outbreak occurs (42). Others have emphasized the legal aspect, noting that between the years 1988 and 1997, one-third of liability lawsuits targeted restaurants (3). included not refrigerating potentially hazardous foods between preparation steps, not minimizing bare hand contact with food, and not keeping food temperature logs. Handwashing, temperature monitoring, and sanitizing effectiveness were areas in need of improvement in assisted-living facilities (31). Interviews and site visits at 153 restaurants in seven states revealed unsafe handling practices with eggs (22). In focus groups with foodservice workers, internal and external barriers to following proper handwashing procedures were identified, including time pressure, inadequate facilities/supplies, lack of accountability, lack of involvement of managers/coworkers, and lack of support from organization (26). Barriers to following various safe food handling practices have been identified as: time constraints, lack of resources, inadequate knowledge, and lack of understanding the consequences (25); inadequate resource management, employee motivation, and employee confidence (14); and problems related to employees and resources (41). Food safety education Guion, Simonne, and Easton (16) surveyed 248 Florida 4-H youth ranging in age from 13 to 19 years. Youth surveyed indicated that they received their food safety information from parents and friends. Ellis, Sebranek, and Sneed’s (11) survey of Iowa high school students found that 62% had some food safety education in school and 32% worked in jobs where they prepared or handled food. Researchers have assessed college students’ attitudes, practices, and knowledge about food safety and noted improvement after the students took a food safety course (36, 39). Strohbehn (33) tracked training of college students working in various foodservice operations. She found that corporate-owned quick service operations were more likely to train employees than other types of foodservice operations. In contrast, Johnson, Shin, Feinstein, and Mayer (19) found that employees in fine dining restaurants had higher scores on a food safety knowledge test than employees in quick service restaurants. Researchers have studied multiple food safety education methods and settings for effectiveness (2, 5, 20, 29). Some researchers report that the majority of managers studied indicted willingness to pay for food safety training and/or pay trained workers a premium wage (18). Lynch, Elledge, Griffith, and Boatright (23) found that more experienced managers (more than 4 years in management) had higher mean scores on a food safety knowledge questionnaire than those with shorter tenure (1–4 years in management). It is well documented that knowledge, education, and training alone do not ensure safe food handling practices. In a study of school foodservice employees, Henroid and Sneed (17) found that food safety knowledge was high, but safe food handling practices were not consistently followed. Green and Selman (15) conducted focus groups with food workers and managers and found that food safety education and training were just one component of preparing safe food; other factors included restaurant procedures, time pressure, equipment and resources, management and coworker emphasis on food safety, and worker characteristics. Mentoring, with extensive education, has been shown to improve food safety knowledge and food handling practices (30, 32). Motivation theory and research Expectancy theory of motivation was first proposed by Vroom (43) to explain employees’ motivation to perform as they do. Central to the theory and subsequent model are three variables: valence, expectancy, and instrumentality. Valance is the value an employee places on the expected outcome of an action. Expectancy refers to a relationship between an employee’s effort and the success of the action. Instrumentality refers to the relationship between the success of the action and the expected outcome of the action. The theory supports the concept that employees behave in a way that brings them pleasure and allows them to avoid pain. Putting this into a food safety context utilizing a foodservice employee’s perspective: Valance: “I value praise from my supervisor” Expectancy: “If I work hard to follow safe food handling practices, then food will be safer” Instrumentality: “If I serve safe food, I will be praised.” Food safety practices Adequate handwashing practices, proper sanitizing, and proper measuring and recording of food temperatures have been identified as food safety practices that often are not followed in schools (17). Giampaoli, Cluskey, and Sneed (13) developed an audit tool to assess school foodservice employees’ food handling practices and tested the tool in 15 schools. School foodservice employees were not following all recommended food safety practices, and these shortcomings OCTOBER 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 705

Food Protection Trends - October 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - October 2008