Food Protection Trends - July/August 2017 - 267

greater number of participants in each time frame to properly
observe trends over time.
LIMITATIONS
The small sample size and low response rate in this
study may be a limitation, as the sample may not have
been representative of the larger population of food
handlers. Therefore, the conclusions drawn in this study
may not apply to the general population of food handlers
in Canada. However, it is not known how many E-mails
were undeliverable to participants, which would reduce the
number of invited participants from 2,257, thereby increasing
the response rate. There was likely underrepresentation of
some demographic categories that limited the ability to
test for associations with average knowledge scores. There
was low representation of participants who obtained their
food handler certification ≥ 3 years ago but < 5 years ago,
and ≥ 5 years ago, as compared to the high representation
of participants who acquired certification ≥ 1 year ago but
< 3 years ago (Table 1). The larger number of participants
in the group who obtained their most recent food handler
certification ≥ 1 year ago but < 3 years ago may have been
seen because this group was eager to test their food safety
knowledge, as they had more recently certified. There may
have been fewer participants in the other two time frame
groups because they had certified earlier and may have been
facing a decline in food safety knowledge, which would make
them less likely to participate in the survey.
The high turnover rate of employees in the food service
industry may be another reason why there were relatively
few participants who had obtained their food handler
certification ≥ 3 years ago but < 5 years ago, and ≥ 5 years
ago (Table 1). The food service industry employs a sizeable
number of young people and students, seasonal/temporary
workers and part-time workers (7). These workers may be
employed for only a short period of time, such as a summer
or holiday season, or they may be returning to school or
ending their employment in the food service industry for a
position in another industry (7). These factors may indicate
why such a large portion of participants in this study had
obtained their food handler certification in the time frame of
≥ 1 year ago and < 3 years ago from the start of the study.
The survey questions used in this study were picked at
random from four different Ontario MOHLTC food safety
exams, to ensure that no bias was demonstrated in question
selection. Questions that were randomly selected may not
have been the best questions to test food safety knowledge,
compared with other questions that were not selected for the
survey. To eliminate this type of limitation, questions could
be selected based on the food safety knowledge needed to
answer them correctly, instead of by randomization.
The Government of Canada has not mandated a Canadawide minimum passing score for food handler certification
tests; the provinces and territories determine their own

passing scores. As the Ontario MOHLTC's tests were used
for this study, their minimum passing score of 70% was used
for consistency. The only provincial or territorial government
that recommends a minimum passing score for food handler
certification is Ontario (30). In contrast, the passing grade
for TrainCan Inc.'s "Basics.fst" exam is 74% (28). A disparity
may be created by using the Ontario minimum score.
The food safety knowledge survey was forwarded to potential participants by TrainCan Inc., resulting in unavailability of demographic information of potential participants
who did not respond to the survey invitation. The demographic information of non-responding potential participants could give insight into why they did not partake in
the study, compared with the demographic information of
those who participated.
As a result of the design of the study, the country of origin
of participants is not known in relation to the number of
years lived in Canada, which was related significantly to the
amount of food safety knowledge displayed on the food
safety survey. To better explain these results, information on
the country of origin of these participants, other countries
where these participants have previously resided, and the
length of time residing in other countries would be required.
Similarly, the type of bachelor's degree or postgraduate
degree possessed by participants in this study was not
captured. For budgetary reasons, the survey was offered only
in English, possibly resulting in an underrepresented sample
among those who do not speak English as their first language.
English fluency levels were not assessed among participants
in this study, which may affect food safety knowledge survey
scores if participants were not able to understand questions
because of a lack of English language comprehension skills.
The initial food handler certification results of the
participants were not known, which could give statistical
indication of food safety knowledge retention through
analysis of scores before and after food safety training.
Further research in this area should include comparison
of previous and current food handler certification test
scores for assessment of food safety knowledge retention
and changes between tests. Incorporating behavioral
observation of food handling would provide further
information on the practical application of food safety
knowledge among food handlers.
CONCLUSIONS
Food handlers in this study demonstrated incorrect
knowledge of some food safety topics, such as adequate
reheating of potentially hazardous foods, manual
dishwashing, and proper sanitary food storage. Foodhandling training courses should consider emphasizing
these topics to reinforce the required knowledge. The
demographics associated with the highest food safety
knowledge scores in this study - education level, years
lived in Canada, years worked in the food service industry,

July/August Food Protection Trends

267

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2017