Food Protection Trends - January/February 2014 - (Page 33)

were related to: Display of Valid Permit and Consumer Advisories and Ware Washing. In both cases, P values were greater than 0.01. Non-critical violations in most categories also occurred more often in restaurants than in school foodservice operations. The number and patterns of non-critical violations in different categories were similar to those of non-behavioral violations. Most non-critical violations were found in Premises and Equipment Maintenance for both restaurants (0.41 ± 0.65) and schools (0.34 ± 0.67), with P < 0.001. Other prevalent non-critical violation categories were Non-food Contact Surface Maintenance, Plumbing and Adequate Toilet Facilities, Pest and Animal Controls, and Use of Utensils and Linens. Schools had fewer citations than restaurants in all of these categories. Although the mean scores were low, restaurants had fewer violations (P < 0.001) than schools in two categories: Approved Food Sources (0.01 ± 0.11 versus 0.04 ± 0.20, t = -6.05) and Adequate Equipment for Cold/Hot Holding (0.00 ± 0.00 versus 0.0± 0.08, t = -4.14). Two by two cross-tabulation tables were created and odds ratios of behavioral, non-behavioral, critical, and non-critical violations were calculated to evaluate the likelihood of restaurants receiving particular types of citations compared to schools. Table 5 includes cross-tabulation tables and odds ratios. Restaurants were 3.6 times more likely than schools to have behavioral violation citations and 3.0 times more likely than schools to have critical violation citations. Even though the facilities themselves were smaller, the odds of receiving non-behavioral and non-critical Food Code violation citations in restaurants were more than double those of schools. Such clear differences in the odds of specific types of violations occurring were not unexpected. As explained earlier, restaurant and school operations differ in operating hours, types and number of food items prepared, and complexity of preparation. Therefore, restaurants may be more likely than schools to prepare or serve unsafe food. Previous research by the CDC showed that 10 times more foodborne illness outbreaks were associated with restaurants TABLE 5. than schools (16). Our findings based on health inspection reports are consistent with the frequency of foodborne illness outbreaks at these establishments. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ur purpose was to identify target behaviors for food safety training, to indicate the need for necessary facility improvements, and to consider other non-behavioral risks. This study quantified the food safety risks using health inspection reports of restaurants and school foodservice operations, two of the most common foodservice environments responsible for foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S. These data confirmed that school foodservice operations had significantly fewer health inspection citations than restaurants, which indicates lower food safety risks for school foodservice. Food code violations for which numbers of citations were greater in restaurants were: Use of Single-use Gloves and Utensils/Bare Hand Contact, Protecting Food from Contamination, Non-food Contact Surface Maintenance, Use of Utensils and Linens, Pest and Animal Controls, and Time and Temperature Control. Other than Non-food Contact Surface Maintenance and Use of Utensils and Linens, all of these behavioral violations also are considered critical violations. School foodservice operations had fewer behavioral violations in all of these categories. School foodservice operations had the greatest number of citations in Premises and Equipment Maintenance, followed by Plumbing and Adequate Toilet Facilities. Violations in these categories are often related to the age and poor maintenance of facilities and have little, direct impact on food safety risks. Furthermore, foodservice employees and managers have little influence over decisions to improve these facility problems. School foodservice personnel may need to bring the health inspection violations related to this category to the attention of school administrators to encourage needed improvements. O Cross-tabulation and odds ratios of behavioral, non-behavioral, critical, and non-critical violations Restaurants (n = 2,624) Schools (n = 2,511) No. of Facilities with Violations(%) Odds Ratio Behavioral violations 2,123 (80.9%) 1,364 (54.3%) 3.6 Non-behavioral violations 1,793 (68.3%) 1,268 (50.5%) 2.1 806 (32.1%) 1,542 (58.8%) 3.0 2,194 (83.6%) 1,726 (68.7%) 2.3 Critical violations Non-critical violations foodprotection.org Food Protection Trends 33 http://www.foodprotection.org

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2014

Food Protection Trends - January/February 2014
Contents
Economically Motivated Adulteration of Honey: Quality Control Vulnerabilities in the International Honey Market
Efficacy of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds on Different Conveyor Chips Contaminated with Poultry Rinsate
What Implications Does a Baseline of Self-efficacy of Food Safety in Adolescent Populations Have for Future Food Safety Education Interventions?
Food Safety Risks in Restaurants and School Foodservice Establishments: Health Inspection Reports
INOFOOD 2013 Conference & Expo
The 3rd Asia Pacific International Conference on Food Safety
China International Food Safety & Quality Conference (CIFSQ) + Expo
Dubai International Food Safety Conference (DIFSC)
Beyond the Bio
FSMA: Article 7
PDG
Industry Products
Coming Events

Food Protection Trends - January/February 2014