Food Protection Trends - August 2008 - (Page 587)

moderated the four discussion groups, two with health majors and two with non-health majors. Per guidelines, it was determined that four discussion groups were adequate, because new information was not received after the third and fourth sessions (8). Previous literature was used to formulate questions for discussion (5, 10, 11, 14, 15). Following recommendations of experts (8, 10), each session lasted approximately 90 minutes, including time for rapport to be established. Groups included 6–10 participants plus a moderator, a research project observer, and a recorder. All sessions were recorded on audiotape and on paper. Participants discussed fourteen food safety issues, exploring (a) food safety concerns and knowledge and how students protected themselves from foodborne illness, (b) food safety practices, including thawing, how doneness of foods was determined, sanitation practices, and refrigeration of foods, and (c) the extent to which students were open to changing undesirable practices (see Appendix A). Questions were presented orally and were projected onto a screen to encourage focused discussion. Students were free to answer any question they wanted at any time. Students were given name tags and were informed that if they were quiet for a while, they may be called upon to provide a response, but they could also choose to not answer a question. Students were told that the moderator would neither agree nor disagree with any response, and students were encouraged to express their view even if it differed from what other participants might say (see Appendix B). After each discussion of a food safety topic, very brief (one minute or less) education on the recommended food safety guidelines was provided to students before discussion of openness to changing practices ensued. Responses were analyzed by use of the Long-Table Approach to identify themes and categorize results (8). This method involves rearranging the data to compare and contrast relevant information. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Food safety concerns and protection Food safety concerns. Two discussion questions dealt with how concerned the participants were about food safety and whether they perceived risk when preparing food for themselves or others in their homes. The students indicated very little concern about home food safety. They were more concerned with food safety issues when eating in restaurants. One student stated, “You have to put your trust in the cook and the server.” While they didn’t specifically look for food safety problems at restaurants, they were more aware of it there than at home. Students indicated that they had control over food safety when they prepared food themselves. One student stated, “I’m more concerned when others are cooking for me because I know what to do when cooking for myself.” A common thought voiced by health majors was that “cooking at home is not a concern because of my class knowledge.” Participants stated that students who lived in group housing, such as residence halls and sororities, had very little control over food safety issues and that they believed that their food was safe to eat because they trusted the food preparers. Some students who lived independently were similarly not concerned about food safety issues and they stated no need for food safety control because they cooked very little. One student indicated he was “Not too concerned about food safety because I eat fast food.” Food safety protection. Previously, college students had indicated that it was the government’s responsibility to protect them from foodborne illness (15), so we asked students how they could protect themselves from foodborne illness. Their strategies for protection included: “When I go grocery shopping, I don’t buy dented cans;” “I check expiration dates on dairy products;” “I try to use by the ‘sell by date’ depending upon how long it was opened;” “I keep myself healthy to keep my body healthier to prevent catching something;” “I wash my hands really well” and “I keep my counter clean.” Other strategies included checking high risk foods with a thermometer, avoiding pink meats, and looking for health inspection signs in restaurants and public food serving establishments. When eating restaurant foods, students based safeness on the cleanliness of the restaurant and on trust in the cooks; they assumed cooks had received food safety training. As stated by a student, “At a nice restaurant, you may forget about food safety. At other places that aren’t as nice, you think more about it.” Current personal practices Food handling. Students were asked how they thawed their foods, specifically meats, prior to cooking, since previous research (15) showed that college students did not feel a personal responsibility to protect themselves. Techniques for thawing varied from safe to unsafe. Those with previous food safety in-class education, primarily health majors, were more likely to state that they thawed food in the refrigerator in original packaging. Non-health majors more often indicated that they thawed foods the same way their mothers did. Examples from students were, “Mom would put meat on the counter in the morning” and “My mother puts meat in a bowl with water on the counter for the day.” One student stated, “I let it [meat] set out a couple of hours before going to class.” Many students indicated that they thawed their food items in the microwave, and then cooked the food immediately. Preparation. When preparing foods, accurate methods for determining doneness, such as use of a thermometer, are important to prevent foodborne illness (5). Instead, most students indicated that they looked at the color of the meat item and color of the meat juices to determine doneness. Comments from students were, “If it looks done, I cut it open to see if the juices are clear or all one color;” “I use a thermometer only for chicken;” “When cooking chicken, I cut it and look for pink and cook a little past pink” and “I cook ground beef until blood doesn’t come out, I’m too lazy to use a thermometer and if it still isn’t done, I stick it in the microwave.” Very few students reported using a thermometer to check end-point cooking temperatures of meat items. Primary reasons given for non-use were cost of thermometers and lack of knowledge concerning recommended temperatures. One student stated, “I would use a thermometer if I were given a sheet to tell correct temperatures.” Other reasons stated for thermometer non-use were: “No, because I’ve had no problems yet and no risk so far;” “I don’t really know which ones [thermometers] to use;” “With hamburgers, it’s not real convenient” and “If I were cooking beef or fish I would possibly use one.” Risky food consumption. Students were asked about specific food items known to cause foodborne illness, and AUGUST 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 587

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - August 2008

Food Protection Trends - August 2008 Contents Sustaining Members Lone Star Perspective from Your President Commentary from the Executive Director Hand Hygiene in the Food Industry: Resolving an Enigma? Food Safety Awareness: Concerns, Practices, and Openness to Change of College Students with Health and Non-Health Majors Highlights from the Brazil International Food Safety Conference Audiovisual Library Listing Audiovisual Library Order Form New Members Updates News Industry Products Coming Events Advertising Index Journal of Food Protection� Table of Contents Booklet Order Form Membership Application

Food Protection Trends - August 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.