ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
Research Question Scoring by State TABLE 4 continued from page 25
Code Year
Jurisdiction
RQ1 a
RQ2 b
RQ3 c
RQ4 d
RQ5 d
RQ6 e
RQ Summary
RQ Average
Change Score
Composite Permissible % Change or Omission
2013 Ohio
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 2 5 4 6 5 4 4
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.17 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.33 0.83 0.67 1.00 0.83 0.67 0.67
-1 -2
0.82 0.81 0.86 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.13 0.67 0.81 0.83 0.28 0.83 0.67 1.02 0.83 0.66 0.66
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8.5 7.0 6.9 2.8 4.2 7.0
2013 Oklahoma
2009 Oregon
3
2017 Pennsylvania 2017 Rhode Island 2017 South Carolina 1995 South Dakota
-2 -1 -1 -4
No
37.5
2009 Tennessee 2013 Texas 2013 Utah 2001 Vermont 2017 Virginia
0
Semi
8.2 2.8 1.4
-2
Yes Yes
0
-5
No
31.3
0 0 2 0
Yes
2.8
2009 Washington, DC 2017 Washington 2013 West Virginia
Semi
15.9
Yes Yes
5.6 1.4 8.3
2013 Wisconsin 2013 Wyoming
-1 -1
Semi Semi
12.5
a Based on 3-304.16C from the federal Food Code . b Not included in the federal Food Code . c Determined by exclusion. d Based on 3-304.17/Annex and 4-603.17 from the federal Food Code . e Based on 3-304.17/Annex from the federal Food Code . f Federal Food Code version that is 2001 or earlier.
Note. For the shaded cells, green indicates permissible, pink indicates non-permissible, and orange indicates semi-permissible. RQ = research question; RQ1 = Can consumers use personal thermoses or containers for beverage refills?; RQ2 = Can consumers use personal containers for food refills?; RQ3 = Can consumers put leftover food in personal take- home containers that they brought, themselves, with no affiliation to the establishment?; RQ4 = Can establishments use take-home thermoses or containers that they have provided to consumers for beverage or hot liquid refills?; RQ5 = Can establishments clean, using their own in-house equipment, take-home reusable containers that they have provided to consumers?; RQ6 = Can establishments have third parties provide the cleaning service for their (that they provided) reusable take-home containers?
remained unchanged by the state in terms of content, permission, and restriction—as in, there was no notable dierence. By contrast, a meaningful change is one that fundamentally changes the purpose, function, or the implementation of a regula- tion or a definition. Codifying a change as meaningful is not intended to imply a posi- tive or negative eect on the code or the gen- eral public. Rather, this subclassification is a statement used to express that the code is fundamentally dierent in some way from that which is found in the federal guidance on which the state code is reportedly based. This change can manifest as a correction to the federal code, as added specificity, as the
addition of relevant exclusions or inclusions, or as an adjustment to wording that creates ambiguity in interpretation. Codes listed as missing were codified as such because, in searching the state’s food code (or food codes) specifically and exclu- sively, neither the code nor a close enough cor- relate in wording or meaning could be found. The distinction of codified changes by con- tent allowed us to conduct quantitative analy- sis of these changes. Given a list of the codes relevant to their referenced year, these three categories were distinguished numerically so that descriptive data could be assessed. We then generated an additional qualitative modi- fier metric that reflected the nature of changes
Qualifying and Quantifying Changes to Federal Codes
With respect to changes made by states to the federal code, three subclassifications were established: nonmeaningful, meaningful, and missing. Changes to regulations were consid- ered only with respect to the year assigned to the state’s food code—either as reported by FDA or as made logical sense in the absence of updated reporting. A nonmeaningful change is one that adjusts only the grammar or makes adjustments in a way that does not necessitate or dictate a dierence in the implementation or interpretation of the original codified regu- lation. This subclassification was conflated with those codes that were found to have
26
Volume 86 • Number 8
Powered by FlippingBook