TABLE 4. Pair-wise comparisons of mean L. casei log counts at different kitchen sampling locations by category Category Oven Handle Sink Handle Group by Mealb Salad Salt Shaker Cuesc Sink Handle Small Towel Group by Cues Small Towel Oven Handle Sink Handle Meal by Cues Large Towel Small Towel Small Towel Small Towel Oven Handle Group by Meal by Cues Salt Shaker Fridge Handle Source Mean (log CFU) Control 0.77 FSM AdCM Chicken FSM Chicken AdCM Chicken FSM Chicken FSM Beef FSM Chicken No Cues Yes Cues AdCM No Cues AdCM Cues AdCM Cues FSM Cues Control No Cues Control Cues Beef No Cues Beef Cues Beef Cues Chicken Cues Chicken No Cues Chicken Cues AdCM Chicken No Cues AdCM Chicken Cues AdCM Chicken Cues FSM Chicken Cues Control Chicken No Cues Control Chicken Cues FSM Beef Cues 0.49 1.22 0.79 1.96 1.47 0.78 0.27 1.16 0.94 3.87 3.25 3.25 3.92 0.98 0.56 1.22 0.88 4.73 4.17 4.01 3.50 3.95 2.95 2.95 3.88 1.03 0.45 0.88 FSM Chicken Cues 0.23 AdCM Chicken No Cues 1.03 FSM Chicken No Cues Groupa Dependent Variable P-value 0.45 0.061 0.064 0.083 0.039 0.091 0.089 0.089 0.041 0.065 0.058 0.093 0.059 0.080 0.047 0.059 0.047 Participants were assigned to one of three groups: control; Food Safety Messages (FSM); and Ad Council Messages (AdCM). Participants were randomly assigned to prepare a recipe with either raw ground beef or chicken. c Half of the participants in each group were randomly provided food safety cues on refrigerator magnets. a b foodprotection.org Food Protection Trends 43http://www.foodprotection.org