Direct video observation of adults and tweens cooking raw frozen chicken thingies
One of the first things I did after officially joining Kansas State University in 2006 was try and figure out some novel research. Chapman flew in from Guelph, we had a beer with Phebus at a local bar and sketched out a proposal on the back of a napkin, to observe people cooking chicken.
.jpg)
Sarah Wilson, my composed colleague from the Guelph days, drafted the proposal and it got funded by the American Meat Institute.
The observational research was conducted in 2007 and the results were published this week by the British Food Journal.
Chapman created a novel video capture system to observe the food preparation practices of 41 consumers and the press summary is below, as is the abstract.
A Kansas State University study has shown that when preparing frozen foods, adolescents are less likely than adults to wash their hands and are more susceptible to cross-contaminating raw foods while cooking.
"While half of the adults we observed washed their hands after touching raw chicken, none of the adolescents did," said Casey Jacob, a food safety research assistant at K-State. "The non-existent hand washing rate, combined with certain age-specific behaviors like hair flipping and scratching in a variety of areas, could lead directly to instances of cross-contamination compared to the adults."
Food safety isn't simple, and instructions for safe handling of frozen chicken entrees or strips are rarely followed by consumers despite their best intentions, said Doug Powell, K-State associate professor of food safety who led the study.
.jpg)
As the number and type of convenience meal solutions increases — check out the frozen food section of a local supermarket — the researchers found a need to understand how both adults and adolescents are preparing these products and what can be done to enhance the safety of frozen foods.
In 2007, K-State researchers developed a novel video capture system to observe the food preparation practices of 41 consumers – 21 primary meal preparers and 20 adolescents – in a mock domestic kitchen using frozen, uncooked, commercially available breaded chicken products. The researchers wanted to determine actual food handling behavior of these two groups in relation to safe food handling practices and instructions provided on product labels. Self-report surveys were used to determine whether differences exist between consumers' reported food handling practices and observed behavior.
The research appeared in the November 2009 issue of the British Food Journal. In addition to Jacob and Powell, the authors were: Sarah DeDonder, K-State doctoral student in pathobiology; Brae Surgeoner, Powell's former graduate student; Benjamin Chapman, an assistant professor at North Carolina State University and Powell's former graduate student; and Randall Phebus, K-State professor of animal science and industry.
Beyond the discrepancy between adult and adolescent food safety practices, the researchers also found that even when provided with instructions, food preparers don't follow them. They may not have even seen them or they assume they know what to do.
"Our results suggest that while labels might contain correct risk-reduction steps, food manufacturers have to make that information as compelling as possible or it will be ignored,” Chapman said.
They also found that observational research using discreet video recording is far more accurate than self-reported surveys. For example, while almost all of the primary meal preparers reported washing hands after every instance in which they touched raw poultry, only half were observed washing hands correctly after handling chicken products in the study.
Powell said that future work will examine the effectiveness of different food safety labels, messages and delivery mechanisms on consumer behavior in their home kitchens.
Self-reported and observed behavior of primary meal preparers and adolescents during preparation of frozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products
01.nov.09
British Food Journal, Vol 111, Issue 9, p 915-929
Sarah DeDonder, Casey J. Jacob, Brae V. Surgeoner, Benjamin Chapman, Randall Phebus, Douglas A. Powell
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=6146E6AFABCC349C376B7E55A3866D4A?contentType=Article&contentId=1811820
Abstract:
Purpose – The purpose of the present study was to observe the preparation practices of both adult and young consumers using frozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products, which were previously involved in outbreaks linked to consumer mishandling. The study also sought to observe behaviors of adolescents as home food preparers. Finally, the study aimed to compare food handler behaviors with those prescribed on product labels.
Design/methodology/approach – The study sought, through video observation and self-report surveys, to determine if differences exist between consumers' intent and actual behavior.
Findings – A survey study of consumer reactions to safe food-handling labels on raw meat and poultry products suggested that instructions for safe handling found on labels had only limited influence on consumer practices. The labels studied by these researchers were found on the packaging of chicken products examined in the current study alongside step-by-step cooking instructions. Observational techniques, as mentioned above, provide a different perception of consumer behaviors.
Originality/value – This paper finds areas that have not been studied in previous observational research and is an excellent addition to existing literature.
Faith-based food safety? Market microbial food safety directly at retail so consumers can choose
Most food purchases are based on faith. That’s why an extensive series of rules, regulations and punishments emerged beginning in 12th century Mediterranean areas.
.jpg)
Faith-based food safety systems are prevalent from the farmer’s market to the supermarket, especially in the produce section. And almost anything can, and is, claimed on food labels – except microbial food safety.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced they are going to examine the growing number of nutrition claims found on the front of food packages after complaints the labels promote health fairytales.
In the U.K., the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has encouraged diners to boycott restaurants that cannot answer questions about the origin of their food.
British chefs Raymond Blanc, Peter Gordon, Martin Lam, Paul Merrett and Antony Worrall-Thompson issued a joint statement saying:
“The British public need to stop being so reticent in restaurants and start asking where their food comes from. It’s your right to know the origin of the food you are served and what types of farms are being used - and the mark of a good restaurant is one that is proud to tell you.”
In response to this news Freedom Food has launched a new long-term campaign called ‘Simply Ask’ which aims to get people asking about food provenance when eating out. This is in a bid to encourage restaurants, pubs and cafes to start sourcing products from higher welfare farms such as Freedom Food, free-range or organic.
Americans are questioning nutrition claims, Brits are questioning allegedly animal-friendly sources of food, maybe there’s room to ask for microbiologically safe food – the stuff that sickens up to 30 per cent of all people everywhere every year (so says the World health Organization).
Lots of companies and retailers are taking baby steps in the direction of empowering consumers to hold producers accountable, but lots aren’t.
.jpg)
Maple Leaf Foods, whose listeria-laden cold-cuts killed 22 Canadians last year, is continuing on its bad Journey to Food Safety Leadership by announcing today that, “Industry and government come together to make food safer for Canadians.”
Invoking the two groups shoppers distrust the most – industry and government – and proclaiming they are working together to better things may not be the best communication strategy to build trust and confidence.
Dr. Randall Huffman, Chief Food Safety Officer for Maple Leaf Foods, stated,
"The Canadian food industry is united that food safety not be used as a competitive advantage. Every member at every step in the production process is a steward of food safety. This spirit of cooperation heralds a new beginning for our industry, and together we will make Canada the gold standard for food safety. This symposium is the first in a series to ensure we share experiences and knowledge, and gain insights into emerging risks, technology advances and cutting edge science that can deliver safer food for Canadians."
That’s nice. Computer companies share technology all the time but that doesn’t stop them from marketing their individual technological advantages.
Stop pandering. Companies that are serious about food safety will go beyond the trust-me approach of faith-based food safety systems and provide public access to food safety test results, provide warnings to populations at risk, and market food safety at retail, to enhance the food safety culture back at the producer or processor level, and to build consumer confidence. May even make money.
.jpeg)
Candy porn: Do these images make you randy?
Simon Simpkins, a Pontefract, West Yorkshire, U.K. father of two, says he was buying Haribo MAOAM sour candies for his children when he noticed the 'pornographic' illustrations of limes, lemons and cherries romping with each other.
'The lemon and lime are locked in what appears to be a carnal encounter.
'The lime, whom I assume to be the gentleman in this coupling, has a particularly lurid expression on his face.'
A spokesman for Haribo said the 'fun' packaging of the sweets was introduced in Germany 2002 and added: 'This jovial MAOAM man is very popular with fans, both young and old.'
Nestle Toll House cookie dough returns; Linda Rivera still hospitalized
In Room 519 of Kindred Hospital, Linda Rivera can no longer speak.
Her mute state, punctuated only by groans, is the latest downturn in the swift collapse of her health that began in May when she curled up on her living room couch and nonchalantly ate several spoonfuls of the Nestlé cookie dough her family had been consuming for years. Federal health officials believe she is among 80 people in 31 states sickened by cookie dough contaminated with a deadly bacteria, E. coli O157:H7.
The impact of the infection has been especially severe for Rivera and nine other victims who developed a life-threatening complication known as hemolytic uremic syndrome. One, a 4-year-old girl from South Carolina, had a stroke and is partially paralyzed.
But good news. Two weeks ago, Nestle announced, in breathless PR-speak,
After almost two months of being out of the U.S. marketplace, Nestle USA is pleased to announce that Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough is returning to stores this week.
To make it easy for both retail partners and consumers to identify the new batch of cookie dough, a blue "New Batch" label will appear on all new production cookie dough items. Nestle Toll House shipping cases also are marked in blue (rather than the previous black) to denote new production and will contain the statement: "Do not consume raw cookie dough." The adoption of this distinct labeling is the result of helpful discussions between Food & Drug Administration (FDA) officials and Nestle, following reports of E.coli O157:H7 illnesses that appeared to be related to the consumption of raw cookie dough.
I bet the discussions were helpful. Probably similar to the ones ConAgra had with the U.S. Department of Agriculture geniuses who said, safe cooking instructions for frozen $0.50 pot pies should tell consumers to use a thermometer to make sure the pie is safe. Food safety is a shared responsibility apparently means it’s the consumer’s responsibility, especially in foods that may be perceived as ready-to-eat.
This is what the new Nestle cookie label looks like, on a package I picked up at a local store on Saturday (front, above, right; back, below, left).
Labeling is a lousy way to provide information about food safety risks, but better than nothing. I’m sure Nestle and ConAgra, in the best interests of their consumers, will publicly release the evaluative data they (probably? maybe?) acquired to show that these particular labels have a positive impact on consumer food safety behavior.
Dubai restaurant requires signed disclaimer with purchase
What a cop-out.
After the tragic death of Nathan, 5, and his sister, Chelsea, 7, in connection with home-delivered Chinese food in June, the importance of food safety should have come into sharp focus for restaurateurs in Dubai.
On the off-chance that restaurant owners didn’t catch the news, the Dubai Municipality stepped up restaurant inspections and conducted a food safety awareness campaign under the banner "Food Safety is our Priority."
Establishments like Kempinski Hotel in Mall of the Emirates were given the opportunity to demonstrate to customers that food safety was indeed a priority.
Instead, as Gulf News reports,
“Hotel Kempinski in Mall of the Emirates is getting its customers to sign a disclaimer note stating that its restaurants would not be responsible for the quality of food once it is taken out of their premises.”
The disclaimer reads,
"Please note that the Kempinski Hotel Mall of the Emirates takes no responsibility whatsoever for any food or beverage bought from the hotel or any outlets of the hotel for personal consumption.
"This is due to the fact that the Kempinski Hotel Mall of the Emirates has no more control or any way of ascertaining the safety and hygienic condition of this food and beverage once outside the premises. Please sign the waiver below to indicate your acceptance of the terms stipulated.
"Otherwise the hotel is unable to permit any food or beverage to be purchased."
The establishment’s haughty and self-serving culture is absolutely disgusting and leaves me with very little faith in the safety of its food.
Another outlet, Calicut Paragon in Karama, invested their resources in stickers for take-out bags that advise consumers to eat their food within two hours of purchase—a step that suggests a shared responsibility for the safety of food and that I find a little more palatable.
I agree with this guy:
"I think it is completely unethical to make customers sign disclaimers like that. It is good to safeguard the business, but not at the cost of displeasing customers," said Ronald D'Souza, operations manager at Sofra Worldwide - a firm that owns restaurant chains like Gelato, NaanPlus and Uno Chicago Grill.
"From your side, you have to ensure that quality and hygiene standards are maintained at the highest levels. But as we are in the business of food, there is an element of risk that you must take," D'Souza said.
Kempinski Hotel should step up to the plate and recognize that selling microbiologically safe food is a good way to protect your business, and showing a commitment to food safety is a good way to promote it.
Belgica mussels under the microscope; is New Zealand better than Old Zeeland?
A year ago Amy and I were sitting in a Wellington, New Zealand restaurant overlooking the harbor, pulling mussels from the shell (it was a holiday complete).
Consumers in Belgium are just beginning to enjoy the annual harvest of so-called Belgica mussels. According to a report forwarded by our European safe food correspondent, Albert Amgar:
Last year there was a lot of hubbub around the so-called presence of toxic substances in Belgica mussels. This toxin would provoke Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning, characterized by gastric and intestinal problems, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and intestinal cramps. Counter analyses could not confirm the presence of this toxin.
The mussels cultivated in Belgian waters underwent bimonthly bacteriological testing conducted by the Federal Agency for Food Safety. Weekly tests were also taken in order to detect the possible presence of toxins in mussels and the presence of toxin-bearing algae in the water where the mussels are raised. French authorities are responsible for testing the mussels raised in France.
Belgica was the name given to a Roman province encompassing parts of modern Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. These Belgica mussels are 20 per cent from Belgian waters and 80 per cent from French waters of the North Sea. Apparently, the less-fleshier Zeeland mussels, from the Zeeland waters of the North Sea – Zeeland is a southern province of The Netherlands – compete with Belgica mussels for the food dollars of Belgian consumers (apparently American and Canadian country-of-origin labels aren’t the only confusing – and largely meaningless – labels out there).
To continue on with the wiki-ized history, the name New Zealand originated with Dutch cartographers – Dutch explorers being the first Europeans to arrive -- who called the islands Nova Zeelandia, after the Dutch province of Zeeland. British explorer James Cook subsequently anglicised the name to New Zealand.
Katie, enjoy some NZ mussels; cause as the poster says, New Zealand: Better than Old Zealand.
Organic crap gets crappier
One of the reasons I don’t buy organic – besides being on a professor’s salary, which I have no complaints about but I’m certainly not going to waste it on organic – is that the so-called claims and rules are followed about as thoroughly as Peanut Corporation of America can pass an audit and end up having 4,000 products recalled because Salmonella makes people barf. Every time someone says, “Organic has strict rules for composting …” I chuckle and wonder about verification.
.jpg)
The Washington Post reports this morning what many have been saying for over a decade – that the sham of organics would eventually be found out.
Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula.
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture.
Relaxation of the federal standards, and an explosion of consumer demand, have helped push the organics market into a $23 billion-a-year business, the fastest growing segment of the food industry. Half of the country's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.
But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.
(1)(1).jpg)
The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.
Don’t care about a label. I’m more interested in food that doesn’t make people barf. As far as baby food, I don’t feed any of that organic crap to baby Sorenne, although making such a statement is essentially an invitation to family services to check out my terrible parenting techniques.
My colleague Katija Blaine covered this thoroughly back in 2003.
An episode of the popular U.S. television show, 20/20 in 2000, sparked a fierce debate over the microbial safety of organically grown fresh fruits and vegetables. Are organic foods safer than conventional foods? On the show, correspondent John Stossel concluded that organic produce was no safer than conventional produce and might in fact be more dangerous because of the heavy use of manure in organic farming (Ruterberg & Barringer, 2000). Such statements have been supported by several prominent food scientists (Tauxe, 1997; Forrer et al., 2000) while the organic industry has argued that their strict standards on manure usage reduces such risks (DiMatteo, 1997). The organic industry has refrained from making direct claims of improved microbial food safety. Katherine DiMatteo, president of the Organic Trade Association has stated publicly that "Organic is not a food safety claim" (Juday, 2000)
According to the most recent expert report from the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT, 2002) "the available scientific information is insufficient to ensure that food-borne pathogens are killed during composting and soil application."
Since organic growers already have a certification and inspection system, the CGSB organic standards could be expanded to better incorporate food safety concerns. Specific additions would include ensuring adequate facilities and training to ensure worker hygiene and recommendations for processing and processing water. The documentation, monitoring and regulation of high-risk inputs give organic growers a head start over conventional growers who may be trying to implement an on-farm food safety system from scratch. It is also the responsibility of food producers to use knowledge to aggressively reduce the risk of food and waterborne illness, whether conventional or organic or somewhere in between. And with both conventional and organic systems, verification through microbial testing is required to demonstrate that actions match words.
This is not about organic and conventional. Food safety goes far beyond ideology. As has been stated elsewhere, poor farming and processing practices are the product of poor farmers and processors.
As I said in 2007, the production of safe food is the responsibility of everyone in the farm-to-fork chain -- conventional or organic -- and food safety, especially with fresh produce, must begin on the farm.
References
Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB). 1999. Organic Agriculture. National Standard of Canada. CGSB. CAN/CGSB-32.310-99.
DiMatteo KT. 1997. Does Organic Gardening Foster Foodborne Pathogens? To the Editor. JAMA. 277(21):1679-80.
Juday D. 2000. Are organic foods really better for you? Natural grown killers in organic food make it no safer than produce grown in pesticides. BridgeNews Service (Knight Ridder) February, 14.
Ruterberd J and Barringer F. 2000. Apology highlights ABC reporter's contrarian image. The New York Times August 14. C1.
Tauxe RV. 1997. Does Organic Gardening Foster Foodborne Pathogens? In Reply. JAMA. 277(21):1679-80.
New Canadian organic logo is pornographic?
Raise a butter tart and Molson Export – or Labatt Crystal if you’re into the skid stuff – it’s Canada Day, the celebration of the July 1, 1867 enactment of the British North America Act, which united Canada as a single country of four provinces.
(1).jpg)
The N.Y. Times has a fun piece of famous ex-pats saying what they miss most about Canada – original Coffee Crisp chocolate bars seems to be the best thing folks can conjure up – but more importantly to some, the new Canadian organic food logo went into effect (below, left, exactly as shown).
Organic is a production standard. Doesn’t mean anything about quality, taste or safety. It’s a marketing concept, but now they have their own label.
All produce will have to be completely organic to be stamped with the logo, while products with multiple ingredients must have 95 per cent organic content.
Farmers who want their produce to carry the new "Canada Organic" label have to apply in writing for certification. The application must include:
* The name of the agricultural product.
* The substances used in its production.
* The manner in which those substances are used.
The logo will also be used on USDA-certified organic products imported from the United States.
Between 70 and 80 per cent of all organic products available in Canada are imported primarily from the U.S., according to government figures.
My group has written extensively about organic and conventional food safety – it’s just not on. There are good farmers and bad farmers, conventional, organic and otherwise.
But this logo? I sent it to a few of my colleagues and asked them what they thought – all the results were too pornographic to publish here. Maybe on twitter.
Possible poop remnants and Nestle's raw cookie dough
During the evening of Thursday, June 18, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment urged Coloradans not to eat raw Nestle Toll House cookie dough because of possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7.
.jpg)
The next morning, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers not to eat any varieties of prepackaged Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough due to the risk of contamination with E. coli O157:H7. At the same time, Nestlé announced a voluntary recall of all Toll House refrigerated cookie dough products, “out of an abundance of caution.”
My colleague Evan managed to get some of that recalled cookie dough, I got some other cookie dough, and we made cookies.
In the latest video from the Safe Food Café, I stress that cookie dough is a raw product (although the eggs have been pasteurized in any commercial product) and can therefore cross-contaminate anything in the kitchen, and that the warning labels and safe-handling instructions on packages of raw cookie dough are terrible.
Dean Cliver responds to Rachael Ray 20 years earlier
Rachael Ray (right, sampling goods in Florida last weekend) offered up some suggestions for so-called healthier cooking in that annoying USA Weekend insert to many local newspapers, including this gem:
"Look at labels. ... If you can't read an ingredient, chances are you should not be putting it in your body."
Dr. Dean Cliver, who officially retired October 1, 2007 and is winding down from 46 years in academia, battling infectious agents in food and water, realized that he had come up to the solution to this very problem some 20 years ago and decided to once again share his thoughts with barfblog.com. Dr. Cliver’s proposed label is left, bottom.
The following was originally published in University of Wisconsin-Madison AG LIFE LINES, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, page 6, and republished in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, Vol. 34, No. 4, Mar-Apr 1989, page 18.
A subtle and probably pernicious trend in the U.S. food supply seems to be occurring virtually unnoticed. If one reads the information on a food package, as it seems few do, one finds that many food in the U.S. today are composed almost entirely of ingredients. The use of ingredients in foods has become so widespread and flagrant that one can hardly guess what will appear next on the growing list of polysyllabic horrors printed on packages. Through insouciance or ineptitude, we have let the situation get quite out of hand.
Labels seem to be intended rather to obfuscate than to inform. Aside from water, which evidently abounds in these products (though who knows where it has been before it goes into the food?), hardly any of the names that appear on these lists are comprehensible to the average consumer or even pronounceable. The acronyms are even worse. It is not enough to know that “BHA” stands for “butylated hydroxyanisol.” How are we to know where and by whom the hydroxyanisole we are about to ingest was butylated or whether the hydroxyanisole itself was natural or synthetic?
Though most consumers apparently do not read labels at all, those who do seem to have become jaded. My son asked me recently whether the “regular”-flavored generic toothpaste we had just purchased contained natural or artificial regular. And what about the blind — should lists also appear in Braille?
There is little doubt that most of these ingredients are harmful, at least at some level, in foods. Why, for example, would salt be listed as “sodium chloride” if there were nothing to hide? Would any of us willingly be called “The Sodium Chloride of the Earth"? Sugar now comes in enough forms to confound the ablest pancreas. Fats are listed as though they were all polyunsaturated, without any indication of the degree of polity. Plain, American English is nowhere to be found.
Not only are we consuming ingredients ourselves, but we are inflicting them on our unsuspecting children, mindless of potential harm to all future generations. Small wonder that behavioral problems abound in the society whose children have been fed ingredients virtually from birth! For example, many young people today are probably essentially addicted to calcium propionate in their bread. What becomes of them if their supply is cut off? Packages marked “no preservatives” should probably be viewed with extreme caution.
Time and the press have made it clear that the predominance of ingredients in U.S. foods is largely due to the greed of profit-hungry food manufacturers. There is little doubt that this is true: if one travels to parts of the world where the profit motive has been outlawed, one finds that foods are virtually free of ingredients. This has such a favorable effect on quality that people are willing to stand in long lines for food every day. By contrast, hardly anyone stands in line to get food in the U.S. — with all those ingredients why bother?
I submit that the time has come for action on this matter. Consumer groups and enlightened members of the general public must bring pressure to bear on Congress and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to mandate reduced levels of ingredients in foods, probably with a view to an eventual complete ban. Nowadays, virtually the only food one can buy that is almost certainly free of ingredients is an egg in its original shell, and we are now being told not to eat more than one of them per week. How are we to survive on such a diet?
American food manufacturers, in their cupidity, must not be allowed to continue perpetrating this sesquipedalian atrocity on the indifferent or benighted public. Let us speak out now, so that those in government will recognize their duty to regulate, reduce, and eventually eliminate ingredients from the US food supply! Let's get the American public back on real, ingredient-free food, before accumulated subtle deficiencies and abnormalities put us all under the table to stay. Our posterity and their posterity demand this of us.
