NEHA January/February 2025 Journal of Environmental Health

ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE

Open Access

Relationship Between Employee Food Safety Training and Food Safety Risk Factors at Fort Liberty Military Installation in North Carolina

members within the area of responsibility of the Fort Liberty Department of Public Health (DPH) (Military OneSource, 2024). At the end of 2022, the most recent ver- sion of the model Food Code was released by FDA (2024). The Technical Bulletin Medi- cal 530/Navy Medical P-5010-1/Air Force Medical 48-147_IP, Tri-Service Food Code (TSFC) is based on the 2017 FDA Food Code . The TSFC was modified to meet strin- gent DoD requirements and is the governing regulation for food service sanitation across the DoD (Headquarters, Department of the Army [HQDA], 2019a). The TSFC rein- forces mitigation strategies from the Food Code for food safety risk factors and identi- fies five essential public health interventions to protect the health of the DoD population. These interventions include 1) understand- ing and demonstrating food safety knowl- edge, 2) worker health controls, 3) regulat- ing hands as a mode of contamination, 4) time and temperature controls to reduce Shane Smith, MPH, MSEH, REHS Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Services, Womack Army Medical Center Nicole L. Arnold, PhD Ohio State University Extension, The Ohio State University Paul Knechtges, PhD, REHS Department of Health Education and Promotion, Environmental Health Sciences Program, East Carolina University Stephanie L. Richards, MSEH, PhD Department of Health Education and Promotion, Environmental Health Sciences Program, East Carolina University

Abstract Preventing foodborne illness within military opera- tions is essential to maintain the security and defense capabilities of units. Fort Liberty (formerly known as Fort Bragg) in North Carolina is the larg- est Army installation in the U.S. All food service employees at Fort Liberty must have food safety training. Our study evaluated the status of food safety training for the person-in-charge (PIC) and other food service employees. We also evaluated the extent to which training related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) five foodborne illness risk factors identified during inspections. Our study used Fort Liberty Department of Public Health 2021 data, which consisted of 716 periodic food service sani- tation inspections of 124 facilities. Each inspection consisted of 51 inspect- able items, aligned with CDC risk factors and an additional factor of PIC responsibilities and food safety training. Missing food safety training was significantly correlated with deficiencies in the ability of personnel to iden- tify CDC risk factors ( p < .05). The number of deficiencies was significantly higher in facilities that lacked food safety training compared with facilities that received training ( p < .001). Maintaining food safety training by man- agers and employees likely reduces deficiencies and the potential for food- borne illnesses. Keywords: food safety, sanitation, inspection, food service, person-in-charge

Introduction Approximately 48 million people in the U.S. experience foodborne illnesses every year, including 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018; Scallan et al., 2011). Prevention of foodborne illness is the responsibility of various groups such as gov- ernment agencies, the food industry, and the public. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one of many entities that provide food safety guidelines. The U.S. Department

of Defense (DoD) is also responsible for pre- venting foodborne illness because protecting health by mitigating illness increases military security, defense, and combat capabilities. Of the 73 U.S. Army installations, Fort Lib- erty (formerly known as Fort Bragg) in North Carolina is the largest Army installation by size and population (Military OneSource, 2024). There are approximately 43,414 active-duty soldiers, 98,273 military family members, 10,999 DoD civilians, 5,418 government con- tractors, and 125,278 retirees and their family

20

Volume 87 • Number 6

Powered by