Tag Archives: culture

The UK version of the 20 most significant inventions in the history of food and drink

Posted on by
Reply

This is adapted from the Atlantic, which parsed the conclusions of the UK’s Royal Society, and I agree with almost all of them.

1. Refrigeration
The use of ice to lower the temperature of and thus preserve food dates back to prehistoric times. Machine-based refrigeration, however, was developed as a process starting in the mid 18th century and moving into the 19th. Domestic mechanical refrigerators first became available in the early 20th century. Throughout its long history, refrigeration has allowed humans to preserve food and, with it, nutrition. It has also allowed for a key innovation in human civilization: cold beer.

2. Pasteurization / sterilization
Useful for the prevention of bacterial contamination in food, particularly milk. 

3. Canning

4. The oven
The earliest ovens, found in Central Europe, date from 29,000 BC.

5. Irrigation

6. Threshing machine/combine harvester

7. Baking

8. Selective breeding / strains

9. Grinding / milling

10. The plough

11. Fermentation
Beer. More formally, “the conversion of carbohydrates to alcohols and carbon dioxide or organic acids using yeasts, bacteria, or a combination thereof, under anaerobic conditions” — which leads to such products as alcohol, wine, vinegar, yogurt, bread, and cheese. Mostly, though: beer. 

12. The fishing net

13. Crop rotation

14. The pot

15. The knife

16. Eating utensils

17. The cork

18. The barrel

19. The microwave oven

20. Frying

Retailer double talk on produce safety

Posted on by
Reply

My friend and Randy Bachman-inspired guitar player Roy Costa writes:

One of the hallmarks of protecting the fresh produce supply is a concept known as “buyer-driven” food safety controls. In the absence of regulations, the produce industry has been working under private standards drafted by the major buyers of produce, meaning the large retailers — the major supermarket chains. While the need to satisfy the retailer that foods supplied to them are safe, retailers themselves have been less than effective in ensuring that the people they commission to buy for them, their own buyers, only deal with operations with acceptable food safety systems.

This means that many, if not most retailers, will buy produce from firms that have not been verified by competent third parties or by the retailers themselves (second party verification), when it is opportune for them to do so. For a revealing piece on this issue see The Perishable Pundit.

The sad truth is that when buyers can get produce from a vendor at a cheaper price, the requirements for safety take second place.

Even worse, buyers utilize the unapproved firm as a lever to get the operator with a food safety system, and subsequently higher production costs, to lower their price.

Even small operations may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in satisfying the strict rules of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). Often, firms must hire food safety personnel due to the overwhelming amount of self-inspection and paperwork involved. Laboratories and auditors must be paid for. Many times there are requirements for structural improvements and maintenance, chemicals to clean and treat water and many other similar costs to be borne day in and day out by suppliers. Thanks to the attitude of the major retailers, these suppliers cannot typically charge more for their products, and must absorb the costs as best they can while trying to stay competitive.

It is unfair to say the least that buyers for the major retailers would use the lower priced unapproved supplier as leverage to keep down their costs. Instead of rewarding suppliers for diligent efforts that not only protect the retailer, but public health in general, they are causing animosity; many conscientious produce operators are indignant at the current double standard, but the fear of losing customers precludes most of them from expressing their exasperation.

“Food safety culture” is a much used phrase and one preached to the supply chain by many of the world’s largest retailers. Retailers should be reminded that food safety culture begins at home, and such talk becomes a mockery in the eyes of the producer when retailers say one thing and do another.

Not all produce firms have had an opportunity to be qualified by third party accreditation under any private scheme, but the population of certified firms is growing, Part of the reason for the shortfall is that the auditing firms performing such audits are themselves overwhelmed and lack the necessary manpower.

In order to maintain pressure on the supply chain, the buyers for the major retailers have set deadlines for compliance, but then have to announce that another grace period or extension has been granted. Some relatively large producers of fruits and vegetables have just decided that the retail communities demands for conformance with third party food safety standards is a bluff and carry on business as usual; and they find most retailers are willing to buy their products anyway, on the basis of price and quality.

Lawsuits involving the produce industry cost retailers many millions, however, too many are seemingly willing to take a chance as long as the short term economic benefit is there.

I am sure the food safety experts at the nation’s leading retailers cringe when their buyers go outside the approved supplier list, yet the corporate decision makers do not always value a food safety department’s input.

Again, this is not food safety culture, when a firm puts short term profits over safety and public health; this is the antithesis-corporate greed.

Such business practices are undermining food safety efforts and causing many a bitter attitude among firms who have invested millions over the years to satisfy the demands of retailers, only to have their competitors flaunt such food safety efforts and prosper.

 

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate: sprouts and food safety

Posted on by
Reply

Raw sprouts are the poster child for failures in what academics call, risk communication.

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time.

About 1999, graduate student Sylvanus Thompson started working with me on risk analysis associated with sprouts. He got his degree and went on to rock-star status in the food safety world with the implementation of the red-yellow-green restaurant inspection disclosure program with Toronto Public Health, but we never published anything.

I remember frantically flying to Kansas City to hang out with this girl in Manhattan (Kansas) I’d met a couple of weeks before, in the midst of the 2005 Ontario raw sprout outbreak that sickened over 700; Jen Tryon, now with Global News, interviewed me at the airport, with me wearing a K-State hockey shirt (that’s the joke; there is no hockey at K-State, and I was still employed by Guelph; and I was going to hang out with this girl).

After the German E. coli O104 outbreak that killed 53 people last year and sickened over 4,000, along with the ridiculous public statements and blatant disregard for public safety taken by sandwich artist Jimmy John’s in the U.S., I figured we really needed to publish something.

The basic conclusions:

• raw sprouts are a well-documented source of foodborne illness;

• risk communication about raw sprouts has been inconsistent; and,

• continued outbreaks question effectiveness of risk management strategies and producer compliance.

We document at least 55 sprout-associated outbreaks occurring worldwide affecting a total of 15,233 people since 1988. A comprehensive table of sprout-related outbreaks can be found at http://bites.ksu.edu/sprouts-associated-outbreaks.

Sprouts present a unique food safety challenge compared to other fresh produce, as the sprouting process provides optimal conditions for the growth and proliferation of pathogenic bacteria. The sprout industry, regulatory agencies, and the academic community have been collaborating to improve the microbiological safety of raw sprouts, including the implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), establishing guidelines for safe sprout production, and chemical disinfection of seed prior to sprouting. However, guidelines and best practices are only as good as their implementation. The consumption of raw sprouts is considered high-risk, especially for young, elderly and immuno-compromised persons (FDA, 2009).

Sol Erdozain, now a graduate student in psychology at Kansas State University, took the lead on this one. Kevin Allen, now a prof-type and hockey goon at the University of British Columbia (that’s blue-eyes, right) who used to take great pleasure firing pucks off my head – even though he is also a goalie – weighed in with his microbiology expertise, Katija Morley (nee Blaine) made our arguments more coherent, and I pestered everyone. Because I should have published something like this 12 years ago.

Writing is hard.

From November 2010 into 2011, an outbreak linked to raw sprouts in the U.S. and involving sandwich franchise Jimmy John’s sickened 140 people. This was the third sprout related outbreak involving this franchise, yet the owner of the Montana Jimmy John’s outlet, Dan Stevens, expressed confidence in his sprouts claiming that because the sprouts were locally grown they would not be contaminated. By the end of December 2010 a sprout supplier, Tiny Greens Farm, was implicated in the outbreak. Jimmy John’s owner, John Liautaud, responded by stating the sandwich chain would replace alfalfa sprouts with clover sprouts since they were allegedly easier to clean. However, a week earlier a separate outbreak had been identified in Washington and Oregon in which eight people were infected with Salmonella after eating sandwiches containing clover sprouts from a Jimmy John’s restaurant. This retailer was apparently not aware of the risks associated with sprouts, or even outbreaks associated with his franchisees.

In late December 2011, less than one year after making the switch to clover sprouts, Jimmy John’s was linked to another sprout related outbreak, this time it was E.coli O26 in clover sprouts. In February 2012, sandwich franchise Jimmy John’s announced they were permanently removing raw clover sprouts from their menus. As of April 2012, the outbreak had affected 29 people across 11 states. Founder and chief executive, John Liautaud, attempted to appease upset customers through Facebook stating, “a lot of folks dig my sprouts, but I will only serve the best of the best. Sprouts were inconsistent and inconsistency does not equal the best.” He also informed them the franchise was testing snow pea shoots in a Campaign, Illinois store, although there is no mention regarding the “consistency” or safety of this choice.

Despite the frequent need for sprout-based risk communication, messaging with industry and public stakeholders has been limited in effectiveness. In spite of widespread media coverage of sprout-related outbreaks, improved production guidelines, and public health enforcement actions, awareness of risk remains low. Producers, food service and government agencies need to provide consistent, evidence-based messages and, more importantly, actions. Information regarding sprout-related risks and food safety concerns should be available and accurately presented to producers, retailers and consumers in a manner that relies on scientific data and clear communications.

Erdozain, M.S., Allen, K.J., Morley, K.A. and Powell, D.A. 2012. Failures in sprouts-related risk communication. Food Control. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.08.022

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713512004707?v=s5

Abstract

Nutritional and perceived health benefits have contributed to the increasing popularity of raw sprouted seed products. In the past two decades, sprouted seeds have been a recurring food safety concern, with at least 55 documented foodborne outbreaks affecting more than 15,000 people. A compilation of selected publications was used to yield an analysis of the evolving safety and risk communication related to raw sprouts, including microbiological safety, efforts to improve production practices, and effectiveness of communication prior to, during, and after sprout-related outbreaks. Scientific investigation and media coverage of sprout-related outbreaks has led to improved production guidelines and public health enforcement actions, yet continued outbreaks call into question the effectiveness of risk management strategies and producer compliance. Raw sprouts remain a high-risk product and avoidance or thorough cooking are the only ways that consumers can reduce risk; even thorough cooking messages fail to acknowledge the risk of cross-contamination. Risk communication messages have been inconsistent over time with Canadian and U.S. governments finally aligning their messages in the past five years, telling consumers to avoid sprouts. Yet consumer and industry awareness of risk remains low. To minimize health risks linked to the consumption of sprout products, local and national public health agencies, restaurants, retailers and producers need validated, consistent and repeated risk messaging through a variety of sources.

Food safety ultimately producers responsibility

Posted on by
1

The ultimate responsibility for food safety lies with producers and not auditors, inspectors or government agencies, according to Doug Powell from Kansas State University.

In a paper published in Food Control, Doug Powell et al. critiqued the limits food safety audits and inspections and provided recommendations for strengthening the system.

In the “Audits and inspections are never enough: A critique to enhance food safety” paper, they noted there have been many foodborne illness outbreaks linked to food processors that have passed third-party audits and inspections, raising questions about the utility of both.  

They identified audit reports as useful if the purchaser who requires them reviews the results, understands the risks addressed by the standards and makes risk-reduction decisions based on the results.

“From past examples, there appears to be a disconnect between what auditors provide (a snapshot) and what buyers believe they are doing (a full verification of product and process).”

Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University, told FoodProductionDaily.com that everyone talks a good food safety game but it is the companies who are ultimately responsible for ensuring food is safe.

“Any inspection is only a snapshot but it can still provide valuable information.

“Take restaurant inspections, they are made public and are subject to public accountability but that doesn’t happen in food processing plants.”

Powell added that the industry needs to get ahead of and stop reacting to food safety
concerns.

“Outbreaks culminate in a bunch of mistakes, they are not a random act of god.

“With most food we can’t be sure if it is luck or if firms are doing the right things but they label if it is healthy, organic, sustainable so why not, here’s what we do to ensure food safety.”

“Audits and inspections are not enough, when there is an outbreak the public response is huge and it gets them thinking about it.”

When asked if a lack of resources was the problem, he said: “Economics always play a role with low margins and needing to maximise turnover but you are only as good as your frontline employees.

“USDA and FDA are doing all they can with their resources, the onus is on food producers who make the food, as an outbreak can take you down.”

The use of audits to help create, improve, and maintain a genuine food safety culture holds the most promise in preventing foodborne illness and safeguarding public health.

They concluded: “A common thread in all of the outbreaks described is a clear lack of food safety culture among the implicated companies. Companies who blame the auditor or inspector for outbreaks of foodborne illness should also blame themselves.” 

But will training change anything? California slaughterhouse reopens with promise of new training

Posted on by
Reply

A California slaughterhouse that was shut down last week amid wide-ranging allegations of animal abuse reopened for business Monday, with federal officials saying that employees will receive new training on the handling of electric cattle prods, stun guns and other devices.

But does training actually work? Or is the culture of the workplace more important to continuous reinforcement and desired results (like not abusing animals).

The company also said more frequent third-party audits of its operations, would "establish a new industry standard for the handling of animals."

Third-party audits can sorta suck.

Culture encompasses the shared values, mores, customary practices, inherited traditions, and prevailing habits of communities.

Frank Yiannas, the vice-president of food safety at Wal-Mart wrote in his aptly named 2009 book, Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-based Food Safety Management System, that an organization’s food safety systems need to be an integral part of its culture, and that culture is patterned ways of thought and behaviors that characterize a social group which can be learned through socialization processes and persist through time.

Yiannas also writes:

• The goal of the food safety professional should be to create a food safety
culture – not a food safety program.
• An organization’s culture will influence how individuals within the group
think about food safety, their attitudes toward food safety, their willingness
to openly discuss concerns and share differing opinions, and, in general, the
emphasis that they place on food safety.
• When it comes to creating, strengthening, or sustaining a food safety culture
within an organization, there is one group of individuals who really own it –
they’re the leaders.
• Having a strong food safety culture is a choice. The leaders of an organization
should proactively choose to have a strong food safety culture because
it’s the right thing to do, as opposed to reacting to a significant issue or
outbreak.
• Creating or strengthening a food safety culture will require the intentional
commitment and hard work by leaders at all levels of the organization,
starting at the top.
• Although no two great food safety cultures will be identical, they are likely to
have many similar attributes.
• Identifying food safety best practices can be useful, but one major drawback
to creating such a list is that it doesn’t really demonstrate how these activities
are linked together or interrelated. It misses the big picture – the system.
• To create a food safety culture, you need to have a system.

Cantaloupe food safety solutions leave consumers praying; market food safety at retail

Posted on by
1

Tim Chamberlain seems like a nice enough guy. According to the Indianapolis Star he started growing cantaloupe and watermelon on an acre of land and now, 30 years later, he and his wife, Mia, have built Chamberlain Farms into a midsized melon-growing operation, with 500 acres and about 20 employees.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced earlier this week that the Chamberlains’ southwestern Indiana farm "may be one source of contamination" in the salmonella outbreak that has killed two people in Kentucky and sickened 178 people in 21 states.

The story says it’s difficult for the 48-year-old father of four to imagine that his farm could have been a source of such tragedy. He doesn’t believe his farm was the source of contamination, though he emphasized that he is not disputing anything public health authorities have said.

Dan Egel, a Purdue Extension specialist in Vincennes, Ind., said Chamberlain
has worked closely with the Extension Service over the years on disease and pest control though not specifically on food safety.

And that could be the biggest clue until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration releases its inevitable report documenting faith-based food safety.

(Updated: Dan Egel writes, "The reason that Tim Chamberlain and I never spoke about food safety is because food safety is not my specialty. I know for certain that Tim interacted with other Purdue University specialists that are experts on food safety.")

The effect on others is staggering: Vernon Stuckwish of Stuckwish Family Farms in Jackson County said that initial stigma has "already pretty much destroyed our market."

Like any other major outbreak, there’s lots of commentary about how the outbreak confirms preexisting notions: that more needs to be done, that federal regulations would have made a difference, that there should be more testing. After 20 years of watching and participating in this food safety stuff, the lack of imagination and creativity is staggering.

Victims and consumers remain the stray sheep in the food safety marketplace.

As pointed out by News-Sentinel.com, knowing the name of Tim Chamberlain’s farm does nothing to help consumers. All the talk of traceability is a joke and consumers have no microbial food safety choice at retail.

Hucksters who promote produce on trust alone are no better than snake-oil salesthingies:

Kelly’s Fruit Market in Madison County is taking extra steps to make sure its customers are safe. "We have the finest produce in Madison County," explains Kelly Ratliff, owner of Kelly’s Fruit Market. "We know exactly where all of our produce is coming from and we always make sure it’s the highest quality … with most of our produce that we have and that we sell I can tell you every single growers name, who grows it where it’s grown and a little bit about their family."

But can you tell me their water quality testing results? What soil amendments are used? The verification of employee handwashing and sanitation?

Cantaloupe growers in other parts of the country are frustrated. Probably not as much as the families of the dead and sickened, but frustrated.

Trevor Suslow, research extension specialist at the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of California-Davis, said he thought more could have been done to educate growers across the country about safe harvesting, handling and distribution in the wake of last year’s deadly listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupe from Jensen Farms in Holly, Colo.

“I think there was a missed opportunity,” Suslow said Aug. 23. “I wish we could have done a better job of getting existing information to county extension agents and others who were already engaged with the smaller growers.”

But what about missed opportunities over the past decade? As noted in The Packer, the 10-year anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s import alert on Mexican cantaloupe is near, enacted after outbreaks three years in a row (and two deaths) traced to those melons. In doing so, the FDA basically killed Mexican cantaloupes to the U.S. for a few years, giving rise to offshore melon deals in Central and South America.

The clampdown on Mexican growers forced U.S. import partners to work on food safety protocols for fields and packinghouses in Guerrero, the origin of the banned cantaloupes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Mexican counterpart, SAGARPA, had to sign off on each facility before it was allowed to ship to the U.S. again.

The U.S. farms central to cantaloupe outbreaks and recalls probably wouldn’t have passed similar scrutiny.

With 10 years of guidelines, endless outbreaks, the lack of solutions remains stunning.

The Packer is finally catching on to the notion of marketing food safety at retail, which we’ve been advocating since the 2006 E. coli-in-spinach outbreak.

“The unwritten rule in the produce industry is that a company should not market its product as safer than a competitor’s.

“The thinking is that once consumers get in their heads that a fruit or vegetable is more safe, that means another is less safe, and then maybe they’ll avoid the commodity or category altogether.

“But what if your company or growing region has a strong food safety record, drafted best practices documents, followed and documented them, and then suffers for the second year in a row as a different region’s product kills consumers?"

Someone could at least try marketing microbial food safety at retail. Nothing else seems to be working. And maybe Tim Chamberlain would be more accountable.

Training proposed for workers at restaurants that violate food-safety regulations in Ottawa

Posted on by
Reply

Food handlers should receive training if their restaurants and businesses repeatedly violate food-safety regulations, says a proposal to go to Ottawa’s board of health.

Except there’s little to no evidence that training works to improve food safety behavior (some call it culture) and little evidence about what makes training effective.

The Ottawa Citizen reports that restaurants and other food premises that have more than four repeat critical infractions over a 12-month period would have to participate in training, according to the proposal from public health staff.

The targeted training would supplement punishment applied to places that break the rules, which can range from fines to closures. (The city also posts the results of inspections on its website, meaning restaurants that violate regulations face the threat of lost business.)

The public health unit currently offers voluntary courses and certification in food-handler training. Staff looked into the possibility of mandatory training for all food handlers, but found it wouldn’t be a worthwhile use of resources.

It’s difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of mandatory certification from other Ontario health units, the report states, and making such requirements mandatory is unwarranted for low-risk establishments such as variety stores.

The board of health is to discuss the proposal on Monday.

Inspection results can be found at ottawa.ca/restaurantinspections.

I’m all for providing compelling information so there’s fewer sick people from food. But the days of plopping butts in a classroom are long gone. We’ll have much more to say about the effectiveness of food service  training in the near future.

Do as I say, not as I do; petting zoo deficiencies can allow disease transmission

Posted on by
Reply

As 12 people were sickened with influenza A (H3N2) variant from contact with pigs at petting zoos last week and four outbreaks linked with mail-order chicks that have sickened hundreds with Salmonella, primarily children, Kanssas State researchers are warning that interactions between animals and the public need better oversight,

“People have to be careful, and a lot more careful than they thought, “ said Dr. Douglas Powell a professor of food safety at Kansas State University. “That’s what I told my 3-year-old’s daycare as they prepared for a chicken coop. I’m not sure people like that message.”

Gonzalo Erdozain, a veterinary and Masters of Public Health student who works with Powell, lead the study and visited numerous petting zoos and fairs in Kansas and Missouri in 2010 and 2011. Erdozain found many sanitary problems at the facilities..

The other authors were Katherine KuKanich of Kansas State and Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University.

Scott Weese, an OK hockey player, veterinarian, and author of the Worms & Germs Blog first published the news our paper was public.

A recent study in Zoonoses and Public Health by Erdozain et al 2012 (under the guidance of Doug Powell and Ben Chapman of barfblog fame…or infamy, I guess, if you’re particularly slack regulator or politician) evaluated petting zoos in Kansas and Missouri in 2010-2011.

They focused on behaviours or factors that would be associated with public health risks, and found:

Handwashing station and signs were present at the exit of 7/13 petting zoos. Yes, it means the majority had them but it’s a pretty disappointing number. It’s easy to do and there’s no excuse for not having proper hand hygiene station at the exit. The other 6 at least had hand hygiene stations within or near animal contact areas, but that’s not ideal. People need to be able to clean their hands on the way out. Doing it in the middle doesn’t help much, and if people have to go out of the way to perform hand hygiene after leaving, it will rarely get done.
At one event, there was only a sink with no soap, and at another, 2/3 hand sanitizers were empty and there was no area to wash hands. Having hand hygiene facilities is only useful if they are actually appropriately stocked.
Signs encouraging hand washing were present at the exit of 10/13 petting zoos, but signs were present at the entrance or entrance to eating areas.
Staff were present monitoring activities in only 6/13 events. At one unsupervised facility, kid goats were able to escape through the fence and were roaming freely.

When they observed people, they saw that only 37% of visitors washed their hands or used a hand sanitizer when leaving. That’s not really surprising but it’s disappointing nonetheless. People are skipping what is typically the biggest risk factor for pathogen transmission in petting zoos.

Visitors were almost 5 times as likely to wash their hands when a staff member was present. That’s consistent with a study we published last year and shows the importance of a little encouragement.

High-risk animals were present in some petting zoos. That includes chicks, young ruminants (kid goats) and, a new one for me, a petting zoo that allowed people to enter an area and pet and sit with tortoises.

People were allowed into animal enclosures in 7 petting zoos, and not surprising, fecal contamination of the ground was common (petting zoo animals not being house trained).

Various behaviors that might increase the risk of disease were observed, including kids (the human kind, not the goat kind) touching their faces (77% of events), kids eating or drinking in the petting zoo (15% and 38%, respectively), kids eating petting zoo food (7%) and kids sucking on pacifiers (23%). Children were also seen picking up animal feces at one event.

Overall, despite the lessons that should have been learned from various outbreaks, numerous deficiencies were present, including many that would take little effort to rectify.

The state of petting zoos, at least around here, has certainly improved over the past decade, in part due to more attention from location public health officials, but how do we get more, sustained and widespread improvement?

More strict governmental regulation and enforcement is one way, but that tends to be slow. The more effective approach is probably one that involves the almighty dollar. Most petting zoos are there to make money or bring people to a broader event that makes money. Like many issues, if consumers start demanding change, change will occur quickly. Maybe that’s easier said than done, but the more pressure that’s put on petting zoo operators and people that run events where petting zoos are present, the more likely it is that change will occur. Petting zoos can be great opportunities, particularly for kids, but we need to make them as safe as possible. Providing hand hygiene stations, some good signs, having staff supervise, avoiding high-risk animals and logical facility design are easy and inexpensive, and not doing so is inexcusable.

That means, parents, rather than just sending your kids on the latest self-funded school trip, be sure to ask questions about where the kids are going when they visit the animals.

A table of petting zoo outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/petting-zoos-outbreaks.

Abstract below:

Observation of public health risk behaviors, risk communication and hand hygiene at Kansas and Missouri petting zoos – 2010-2011Outbreaks of human illness have been linked to visiting settings with animal contact throughout developed countries. This paper details an observational study of hand hygiene tool availability and recommendations; frequency of risky behavior; and, handwashing attempts by visitors in Kansas (9) and Missouri (4), U.S., petting zoos. Handwashing signs and hand hygiene stations were available at the exit of animal-contact areas in 10/13 and 8/13 petting zoos respectively. Risky behaviors were observed being performed at all petting zoos by at least one visitor. Frequently observed behaviors were: children (10/13 petting zoos) and adults (9/13 petting zoos) touching hands to face within animal-contact areas; animals licking children’s and adults’ hands (7/13 and 4/13 petting zoos, respectively); and children and adults drinking within animal-contact areas (5/13 petting zoos each). Of 574 visitors observed for hand hygiene when exiting animal-contact areas, 37% (n=214) of individuals attempted some type of hand hygiene, with male adults, female adults, and children attempting at similar rates (32%, 40%, and 37% respectively). Visitors were 4.8x more likely to wash their hands when a staff member was present within or at the exit to the animal-contact area (136/231, 59%) than when no staff member was present (78/343, 23%; p<0.001, OR=4.863, 95% C.I.=3.380-6.998). Visitors at zoos with a fence as a partial barrier to human-animal contact were 2.3x more likely to wash their hands (188/460, 40.9%) than visitors allowed to enter the animals’ yard for contact (26/114, 22.8%; p<0.001, OR= 2.339, 95% CI= 1.454-3.763). Inconsistencies existed in tool availability, signage, and supervision of animal-contact. Risk communication was poor, with few petting zoos outlining risks associated with animal-contact, or providing recommendations for precautions to be taken to reduce these risks.

Surveys still suck; useless at measuring culture

Posted on by
1

Food safety culture is all the rage. I was gassing on about it in 2007 in Calgary based on funding proposals me and Amy wrote in 2006, Chris had started down that path much earlier, and Frank wrote book about it in 2008.

Now, it’s everywhere, and seems to have already jumped the shark.

A self-reported survey does not measure culture; it measures what people think they’re supposed to say. Observation, direct or indirect, is much more powerful.

Neal et al invoke the food safety culture brand in the latest issue of Food Protection Trends, which I glanced at while luffaing in my Kansas hot tub (which seemed ridiculous since it was 105F or 40.5C outside).

The authors say, “One of the most important procedures that retail food establishments
(RFEs) can implement to decrease the chance of foodborne illness is training employees on proper food handling practices.”

There’s no evidence that works.

So in a study allegedly designed to “assess food safety practices contributing to food safety culture in food service operations,” the authors conclude the “two most important factors for developing a food safety culture in food service operations are management commitment and worker food safety behavior."

Jumped the shark.

Why porn and journalism (and food safety) have the same big pay problem

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone loves food safety – as long as it’s free.

I figured that out about 20 years ago, hanging out with food safety professionals at megalomarts who were neglected until there was an emergency.

Insert food safety in places to this piece below from The Atlantic by Jordan Weissmann:

The early days of the Internet were a bonanza for major pornography studios, as the web transformed adult entertainment into an instant, unlimited, and completely private experience — always just a credit card charge and a cable modem away. But what the Internet giveth, the internet taketh away. As the most recent Bloomberg Businssweek recounts in its feature on the rise of the new and controversial .XXX domain, the big production companies have seen their profits shrink by as much as half since 2007, as audiences have fled to aggregators such as XTube and YouPorn that offer up a never-ending stream of free naked bodies.

Stuart Lawley, the entreprenuer behind .XXX, has a plan to try and reclaim some of that lost revenue — micropayments. Per Businessweek:

Next year, ICM plans to introduce a proprietary micropayment system. This service, Lawley promises, will help blue-chip pornographers fight back against the proliferation of free and pirated smut online. "We’re going to do for adult what Apple (AAPL) did for the music business with the iTunes store," he predicts. Consumers who have become conditioned to grainy, poorly shot giveaways, Lawley says, will get reacclimated to paying for higher-quality hard core. Price, quantity, and specificity are key. Rather than the traditional model–$24.99 upfront for all-access monthly memberships–porn consumers will shell out 99¢ apiece for short clips of niche material (akin to buying a favorite song, not the whole album). Perhaps more compelling, people seeking porn on their mobile devices will have a convenient way to purchase a quickie on the run.

Yikes. … Convincing people to pay for to watch sex is a much taller task these days than getting them to pay for a song.

In fact, it’s a bit like getting them to pay for a newspaper. Like the porn studios, big media companies have seen their own profits plummet in the face of free aggregators, amateur bloggers, and the nearly limitless competition supplied by the web. Unsurprisingly, micropayments have been a hot topic in the news industry over the past few years. But so far, they haven’t really taken off.

What holds for journalism in this case holds for sex. In both cases, the competition is so broad that customers are likely to go elsewhere rather than pay. There are, obviously, exceptions in the case of newspapers — the Wall Street Journal has a profitable paywall, and the New York Times appears to be having some early success with its own. But that might be cold comfort for the adult entertainment world.