Cited by 49Food Safety and HygieneSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Motivators and barriers to cooking and refrigerator thermometer use among consumers and food workers: a review

Open access
Feng, Yaohua, Bruhn, Christine M.·2019·Journal of Food Protection

Abstract

Temperature control prevents the rapid growth of foodborne pathogens during food storage and assures adequate heating to destroy pathogens prior to consumption. The use of thermometers is a recognized best practice among consumer and food worker guidelines; however, compliance with this recommendation is quite low. Eighty-five studies from the past 21 years were reviewed and an analyzed for the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with thermometer use and the motivators and barriers to cooking and refrigerator thermometer use among consumers and food workers. Barriers to thermometer were categorized into two major groups: "the belief that a thermometer is not necessary" and "the difficulty of selecting and using a thermometer." Each group has its unique aspects. Four barriers were recognized in the "not necessary" group: (i) preference for alternative techniques, (ii) mainstream media and food professionals seldom serve as role models and often negate the need for food thermometers, (iii) limited awareness of potential health issues associated with current practices, and (iv) limited knowledge and awareness related to thermometer usage for specific food groups. Six barriers were recognized in the "difficult to select and use" group: (i) difficulties in selecting the type of food thermometers, (ii) availability of food thermometers, (iii) lack of skills related to the usage of food thermometers, (iv) limited knowledge related to endpoint temperatures, (v) inability to calibrate food thermometers, and (vi) lack of knowledge about food thermometer cleaning and sanitation. These findings will facilitate the development and adoption of effective strategies to increase thermometer use and increase food safety education efficacy with a positive impact on public health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-18-245

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Most people, in the absence of a thermometer, rely solely on visual cues such as the color of the meat's center, which is a poor indicator of safe cooking temperatures.

    “Most people, in the absence of a thermometer, rely solely on visual cues, such as the color of the meat’s center, which is a poor indicator of safe cooking temperatures [40].”

    From Assessing food safety practices and foodborne illness risk factors in Brazilian households. (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    The review’s Abstract says meat color is frequently used to judge doneness but is not a reliable indicator of internal temperature. Its ‘Preference for alternative techniques’ passage (p. 87) calls color the most frequently reported alternative to a thermometer, while also listing touch, taste, and cooking time. It does not establish that most people rely solely on visual cues. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, Y., & Bruhn, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Feng, Yaohua
Venue
Journal of Food Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
128-150
ISSN
0362-028X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907190709
Cited by
49
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Food Protection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012‐68003‐30155, 1016049)
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2012‐68003‐30155, 101604 9)
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
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
cooking temperature, refrigerator temperature, food safety practices, food handlers, foodborne pathogens, food safety education, thermometer calibration, endpoint temperature
MeSH terms
Consumer Product Safety, Cooking, Food Handling, Food Microbiology, Humans, Refrigeration, Thermometers

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