Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023 - 117

TABLE 2. Perceived likelihood of acquiring foodborne illness resulting from foods prepared
in different locations among consumers in Lebanon (n = 95)
Likelihood of foodborne illness to
be from consuming ...
food you have prepared in your own
home
food prepared by other people
(family/friends) in their own homes
food prepared in catering
establishments
food prepared in a retail outlet
(shops/supermarkets)
Proportion (%) of respondents who stateda
Mean
1-3
23
20
21
44
8-10
49
19
8
4
6.4
5.9
5.2
4.3
3.2
2.4
2.2
2.4
7
6
5
4
a1-3, 1 = very likely to 3 = likely of acquiring foodborne illness; 8-10, 8 = unlikely to 10 = very unlikely of acquiring foodborne illness.
Statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test determined
that the participants in this study perceived themselves
to be significantly less likely of contracting foodborne
illness than others (P = 0.002). As indicated in Table 3, the
perceived risk of foodborne illness was considered to be low
to very low by 49% of respondents for themselves, whereas
only 19% of respondents believed that others had the same
low to very low level of risk of foodborne illness.
A Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference
(P = 0.003) in the perceived risk of foodborne illness between
respondents who reported experiencing foodborne
illness during the last 5 years and those who had not experienced
foodborne illness (Table 4). Further exploration
established that a third (33%) of those who reported having
experienced foodborne illness perceived themselves to be at
a high to very high risk of foodborne illness, whereas only 8%
those who had not reported experiencing foodborne illness
perceived themselves to be at a similar level of risk.
Perceived control for food safety
The majority (60%) of respondents perceived themselves
to have high to very high levels of control, whereas only
21% perceived others to have the same level of control as
themselves (Table 3). Statistical analysis determined that no
significant differences were determined in perceived control
of foodborne illness according to gender or age group of selfreported
cooking frequency (P > 0.05). Participants in this
study perceived themselves to have greater levels of control
for food safety than others (P < 0.001; Table 3).
A significant difference (P = 0.006) in the perception
of control of foodborne illness was determined between
respondents who reported experiencing foodborne illness
and those who had not experienced foodborne illness
during the last 5 years (Table 4). It was confirmed that just
over half (53%) of those who had experienced foodborne
illness perceived themselves to have close to total control,
whereas 71% of those who had not experienced foodborne
illness perceived themselves to have the same level of
control. Indeed, 29% of those experiencing foodborne illness
perceived having little or no control of food safety, whereas
only 5% of those who had not experienced foodborne illness
reported the same level of perceived control (Table 4).
Perceived responsibility for food safety
More than half of respondents perceived themselves to
have high levels of responsibility for ensuring food safety
(Table 3). The personal responsibility for food safety was
perceived to be greater for self than for others in this study
(P < 0.001), with 54% perceiving themselves as having high
to very high levels of responsibility compared with less than
a quarter (24%) perceiving others to have the same level
of responsibility for food safety (Table 3). No significant
differences were determined for perceived responsibility
for foodborne illness according to the gender, age group, or
self-reported cooking frequency of participants (P > 0.05).
Significantly lower levels of perceived responsibility were
determined among those who had experienced foodborne
illness (P = 0.027), with 48% perceiving high levels of
responsibility compared with 71% of those who had not
experienced (Table 4).
March/April Food Protection Trends 117
SD
Median
Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023
