Cited by 782Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety

Consumer Food Handling in the Home: A Review of Food Safety Studies

Open access
Redmond, Elizabeth C., Griffith, Christopher J.·2003·Journal of Food Protection

Abstract

Epidemiological data from Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand indicate that a substantial proportion of foodborne disease is attributable to improper food preparation practices in consumers' homes. International concern about consumer food safety has prompted considerable research to evaluate domestic food-handling practices. The majority of consumer food safety studies in the last decade have been conducted in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (48%) and in the United States (42%). Surveys (questionnaires and interviews), the most frequent means of data collection, were used in 75% of the reviewed studies. Focus groups and observational studies have also been used. One consumer food safety study examined the relationship between pathogenic microbial contamination from raw chicken and observed food-handling behaviors, and the results of this study indicated extensive Campylobacter cross-contamination during food preparation sessions. Limited information about consumers' attitudes and intentions with regard to safe food-handling behaviors has been obtained, although a substantial amount of information about consumer knowledge and self-reported practices is available. Observation studies suggest that substantial numbers of consumers frequently implement unsafe food-handling practices. Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and self-reported practices did not correspond to observed behaviors, suggesting that observational studies provide a more realistic indication of the food hygiene actions actually used in domestic food preparation. An improvement in consumer food-handling behavior is likely to reduce the risk and incidence of foodborne disease. The need for the development and implementation of food safety education strategies to improve specific food safety behaviors is reviewed in this paper.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4315/0362-028x-66.1.130

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J.
Affiliations
Cardiff Metropolitan University (GB)
Corresponding author
Redmond, Elizabeth C.
Venue
Journal of Food Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
130-161
ISSN
0362-028X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W121813486
Cited by
782
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 44
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Food Protection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cardiff Metropolitan Research Repository (Cardiff Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Keywords
home food handling, food safety, food poisoning, food preparation practices, raw chicken meat, food hygiene, food safety education
MeSH terms
Consumer Product Safety, Cooking, Cross Infection, Food Handling, Foodborne Diseases, Health Promotion, Humans, Hygiene, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review