NEHA May 2024 Journal of Environmental Health

TABLE 4

Reported Frequency by Survey Respondents of Methods Used for Assessing Contamination Sources and Probity

Contamina- tion Sources and Probity

Test Knowledge # (%)

Discussion # (%)

Observe Practices # (%)

Observe Food, Equipment, or Staff # (%)

Observe Storage or Premises # (%)

Review Records # (%)

Review Menu # (%)

Review Procedures # (%)

Measure Microbial Activity # (%)

Laboratory Analysis # (%)

Review Complaint Records # (%)

Other # (%)

Adulteration ( n = 115)

–

103 (89.6)

–

47 (40.9)

73 (63.5) 20 (17.4)

Inherent sources ( n = 168)

–

142 (84.5)

–

128 (76.2)

–

132 (78.6)

79 (47.0)

–

11 (6.5)

Food handlers ( n = 204) Environmental ( n = 212) Cross- contamination ( n = 211)

170 (83.3)

–

169 (82.8) 183 (89.7)

–

– 151 (74.0)

–

26 (12.7)

–

211 (99.5)

134 (63.2)

– 121 (57.1)

31 (14.6)

–

25 (11.8)

199 (94.3)

–

203 (96.2) 196 (92.9) 204 (96.7)

–

– 163 (77.3)

–

19 (9.0)

TABLE 5

Reported Frequency by Survey Respondents of Methods Used for Assessing Contamination Sources and Probity via the Open-Ended Text Field

Contamina- tion Sources and Probity

Test Knowledge # (%)

Observation # (%)

Discussion # (%)

Attitude Assessment # (%)

Review Records # (%)

Review Procedures and Processes # (%)

Measure # (%)

History # (%)

Laboratory Analysis # (%)

Intuition # (%)

Unclassified # (%)

Adulteration ( n = 20)

1 (5.0)

4 (20.0)

2 (10.0)

–

6 (30.0)

3 (15.0)

–

4 (20.0)

1 (5.0)

5 (25.0)

Inherent ( n = 11)

1 (9.1)

–

4 (36.3)

2 (18.2)

–

4 (36.3)

Food handlers ( n = 26) Environmental ( n = 25) Cross- contamination ( n = 19)

1 (3.8)

13 (50.0)

6 (24.0)

–

7 (26.9)

2 (7.7)

–

1 (3.8)

–

1 (3.8)

–

7 (28.0)

–

2 (8.0)

4 (16.0)

1 (4.0)

4 (16.0)

–

4 (16.0)

2 (10.5)

6 (31.6)

3 (15.8)

–

4 (21.1)

2 (10.5)

1 (5.3)

–

2 (10.5)

–

2 (10.5)

Note. Survey responses from the questions with preformed answers and open-ended text fields for methods to assess contamination sources and probity are presented separately in Tables 4 and 5. While the responses might be similar, the motivations of respondents are unclear in electing to provide their responses in the open-ended text field. To respect the choice of respondents to provide answers via the open-ended text field and to avoid any assumptions, the presentation of answer types has been kept separate.

of fraudulent or deceptive conduct that could result in food contamination or food unsuit- ability. Respondents reported that sources of cross-contamination were the most regularly assessed contamination source. In contrast, sources or evidence of food adulteration were the least regular focus for assessment dur-

ing a food safety inspection of all areas cov- ered by this survey, with 44% of respondents reporting never assessing it. The regularity of assessing food contamination sources and probity is detailed in Figure 3. The regularity of assessing contamination sources and probity were each cross-tabulated

Assessment of Contamination Sources and Probity

Respondents were asked how regularly they examined common sources of contamina- tion during a food safety inspection. More- over, they were asked about how regularly they examined probity by seeking evidence

May 2024 • our6*l o/ 6=2ro6me6;*l e*l;1