Food Protection Trends - December 2009 - 853

FIGURE 2. Alternative food safety label developed using the “Be Food Safe” chill graphic Eat Immediately Or Refrigerate leftovers within 2 hours Use by Data analysis Focus group data was analyzed using content analysis. Quantitative data from the surveys were entered into SAS (17) and analyzed for means. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Focus groups Forty-three seniors and nine cooks participated in the five focus groups (Table 1). Over half of the seniors (51.1%) ate five meals a week at a senior center. Results from the focus group testing of the six labels are listed in Table 2. Responses to all the labels, in general, included: keep it simple, use large print and black ink, and include some type of date. Concerns about what date to put on the label was the focus of much discussion. Should the date be the date received/delivered to the MOW recipient or the date the food should be discarded? For the revised label (Fig. 1), a “use by (date)” was selected. The reheating statement elicited many concerns, such as: (1) whether the statement should be on the label (2) the need to emphasize that Styrofoam delivery containers are not suitable as reheating containers in either a microwave or conventional oven (3) the need for additional directions for reheating the food in a microwave or oven, and (4) whether a temperature should be given for reheating. Because of these concerns and the request to keep the label simple, a reheating statement was not included on the revised label (Fig. 1). Additional information was suggested for inclusion on the label, such as “remember to take medications”, which may be requested by family members of the MOW recipient. We determined that this information cluttered the label, and it was not included on the revised label. Comments about the educational handouts included statements that the participants liked large print, colored pictures, and simple statements. Our results were similar to the findings of Gettings and Kiernan (9) that reported that seniors preferred the larger print size and less print. Interestingly, discussion focused on the educational content of the handouts, as the focus group participants easily understood the food safety messages. MOW interviews Forty-seven MOW recipients (32 rural and 15 urban) participated in the home interviews one week following the use of the labels on the delivered meals and handouts. Table 3 shows meal consumption characteristics for these recipients. Approximately one-third (36.2%) stated that they did not usually eat all the delivered food at lunch, although when asked about the previous week (this would be the week when the labels were used), over half (53.2%) stated that they did not eat all the food delivered for lunch. This conflicts with the responses to our next question, to which 75% of the MOW recipients responded that they saved food to eat later. The foods that are most likely to be kept for later consumption are meats and poultry, fruit, and casseroles/hot dishes. The foods that the seniors in the focus group (Table 1) reported taking home from a restaurant were meats and poultry, vegetables, and desserts. Meats and poultry leftovers are the common leftover foods among both groups and need proper refrigeration. Responses obtained by the interviewers indicate that participants may not always save or eat these leftovers, as some stated that they gave the meat to a pet. Participants stated that they saved bread to make sandwiches for a future meal, saved food to eat for the evening meal, and shared food with another family member or friend. Some participants who indicated they did not eat the food due to lack of appetite, small appetite, dislike of food or difficulty in eating saved the food for some other use. Similar concerns were listed by other researchers (3). People who were raised during the Great Depression generally do not waste anything (12). Prior to the knowledge questions, MOW participants were asked how long they keep leftovers, such as meats and poultry. The time ranged between onehalf day to one week. Albrecht and Larvick (1) found that the average temperature of 74% of the refrigerators was above the recommended 40°F for those who stored meat and poultry items for later use. The long storage time combined with improper refrigerator temperatures increases the risk of food- borne illness for this population. Of the 47 MOW recipients who were interviewed after one week, 94% stated that they read the label on their delivered meals. Only 19% of the participants stated that the correct refrigeration temperature was 40°F (information provided in the FightBAC!® logo on the label) and an additional 12.8% indicated that a temperature of 35°F was the correct refrigeration temperature (Table 4). All participants stated that their refrigerators worked very well DECEMBER 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS

Food Protection Trends - December 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - December 2009