Food Protection Trends - March/April 2021 - 226

TABLE 8. t-tests of food safety knowledge for gender and previous training
Variable
Gender
Overall knowledgea
Time and temp.
Cross-contamination
Risky group
Groups at risk
Common pathogens
Food safety training
Overall knowledge

Mean (SD)

t value

Female (n = 175)

Male (n = 87)

t (260)

21.43 (4.13)
8.61 (1.76)
5.86 (1.61)
1.43 (0.74)
1.24 (0.66)*
4.29 (1.64)
YES (n = 38)
22.37 (4.38)

19.86 (3.89)
8.38 (1.66)
5.14 (1.61)
1.44 (0.70)
1.02 (0.63)*
3.89 (1.62)
NO (n = 227)
20.61 (4.03)

−2.95**
−1.026
−3.406
0.086
−2.545**
−1.897
t (263)
2.46*

Each correct answer received one point.
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01
a

some college (20.21 ± 4.08), a bachelor's degree (21.05
± 4.24), and a graduate or professional degree (21.68
± 4.24). Campers with bachelor's, graduate, and/or
professional degrees appeared to be better able to identify
common pathogens found in different types of foods.
These results indicate that camping food safety knowledge
may be impacted by education level; campers at a higher
education level seem to be more knowledgeable about
food safety topics.
Food safety knowledge and self-reported practice
The present study was also designed to evaluate the association between food safety knowledge and food safety practice.
Participants' food safety knowledge had a weak but positive
correlation with food safety self-reported practice (r = 0.19, P
< 0.05) (Table 10), which indicates that increases in campers'
food safety knowledge and training may lead to improved
camping food safety practice compliance. For instance, if
campers were trained in the causes of foodborne illnesses prior
to camping, this increase in knowledge might result in better
compliance with food safety practices and a likely decrease in
the risk of foodborne illnesses during camping.
Food safety knowledge and other variables
The one-way ANOVA revealed no significant relationship
between food safety knowledge and the number of times
respondents camped within a year (P > 0.05), that is,
camping frequency did not impact food safety knowledge.
The length of each camping event also did not influence food
safety knowledge (P > 0.05) (data not shown in the table).

226

Food Protection Trends March/April

Independent t-tests were conducted evaluate the
differences in food safety knowledge and practices between
campers who had or had not experienced foodborne
illnesses. Campers with foodborne illness experience (21.63
± 3.40) and those without such experience (20.70 ± 4.24)
did not differ significantly on levels of food safety knowledge
(t (263) = 1.398, P = 0.08). Campers with foodborne illness
experience (3.59 ± 0.38) and those without such experience
(3.60 ± 0.44) also did not differ significantly in food safety
practices (t (243) = −0.156, P = 0.20). Campers with food
service work experience (21.17 ± 4.01) and without such
work experience (20.76 ± 4.16) did not significantly differ
in levels of knowledge (t (263) = 0.697, P = 0.86). Campers
with food service work experience (3.66 ± 0.40) and those
without such work experience (3.59 ± 0.44) also did not
differ significantly in terms of their food safety practices
(t (243) = 1.169, P = 0.45).
DISCUSSION
The present study was focused on evaluation and
assessment of the food safety knowledge of campers in the
United States. The results confirmed that more food safety
education should be provided and may be beneficial to
campers for improving their food safety knowledge prior
to camping and thus lowering the risk of foodborne illness.
Because few studies have been conducted on food safety
among campers, these results have practical implication for
enhancing food safety knowledge among campers.
The majority of study respondents were women who can
be classified as middle-age to elderly from working to lower
middle class backgrounds. The participants did not appear
Food Protection Trends - March/April 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2021
