Food Protection Trends
Abstracts - September 2007
Refrigerator Practices
of Participants in the Meals
on Wheels Program
Evaluation of Cleaning
Treatments for Almondcontact
Surfaces in Hulling
and Shelling Facilities
Determining the Effect
of Good Agricultural
Practices Awareness on
Implementation: A Multi-state
Survey
Refrigerator Practices
of Participants in the Meals
on Wheels Program
Julie A. Albrecht-1 and Carol Larvick-2
1-Dept. of Nutrition and Health Sciences, 119 RLH, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0806, USA;
2-Dakota County Extension Office, 1601 Broadway, P.O. Box 285, Dakota City, NE 68731-0129, USA
SUMMARY
Meals-on-wheels (MOW) recipients may be more at risk for
foodborne illness than healthy elderly people. The objectives
of this project were to conduct a survey of MOW participants
for refrigerator food practices and monitor their refrigerator
temperature for one week with a Temperature Data Tracker.
Participants included 81 MOW recipients from 10 counties.
Sixty percent stated that they usually eat all the food delivered
soon after delivery, while 40 percent saved food. Meat and
poultry were most often saved for an average of 4 days. Only
4 of the 81 participants had refrigerator thermometers with a
temperature range of 38°F – 41°F. The average temperature from
the Temperature Data Trackers (n = 81) was 41.3°F + 3.98, with
an average range of 37.6°F – 49.3°F. Thirty-four refrigerators averaged
above 41°F (the recommended FDA Food Code
temperature) while 43 refrigerators averaged above 40°F (the
recommended home refrigerator temperature). Only one
participant reported having a refrigerator that did not keep
food cold. As a result of this project, it is concluded that MOW
recipients would benefit from having a refrigerator thermometer
to keep food safe in their refrigerators. Education may need to be
focused on proper storage of uneaten food from the delivered
meal.
Full Text Article
Evaluation of Cleaning
Treatments for Almondcontact
Surfaces in Hulling
and Shelling Facilities
Wen-Xian Du-1 Michelle D. Danyluk-2 and Linda J. Harris-3
1-USDA-ARS-WRRC, Processed Foods Research Unit, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA 94710, USA
2-University of Florida,
Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Citrus Research and Education Center, 700 Experiment Station Road,
Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA
3-Dept. of Food Science and Technology, University of California-Davis, One Shields Ave.,
Davis, CA 95616, USA
SUMMARY
After harvest, almond hulls and shells are separated from kernels in specialized huller-sheller
(HS) facilities. This study evaluated various cleaning and sanitizing treatments on contact surfaces
typically found in HS facilities. Dust (hull, shell, and soil particulates) was collected from an HS facility
and applied to samples of new and worn conveyor belting and painted and unpainted galvanized steel.
Dust-contaminated surfaces (100 cm2) were swabbed before and after blowing with air for 30 s and/
or wetting with water, an aqueous commercial cleaner, or isopropyl alcohol quaternary ammonium
(IPAQUAT) sanitizer. Aerobic plate counts (APCs) and, in some cases, adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
levels were determined. Combinations of air, commercial cleaner, and IPAQUAT significantly reduced
APCs and ATP levels; however, the correlation between APCs and ATP levels was poor. The use of
water or aqueous cleaners is not recommended for HS facilities unless complete dust removal can
be assured and there is adequate time for thorough drying of equipment (e.g., post- or pre-season).
Air blowing reduced APCs by 10 fold (on worn and new belting) to 100 fold (on unpainted and
painted steel). In the laboratory, applying an IPAQUAT sanitizer after air blowing reduced APCs by
an additional 10 fold on belting or 100 fold on steel surfaces. However, when this same treatment
was evaluated in a commercial HS facility, the APCs were not significantly reduced on any of the
surfaces tested.
Full Text Article
SDetermining the Effect
of Good Agricultural
Practices Awareness on
Implementation: A Multi-state
Survey
Crystal Jackson-1, Douglas l. Archer-2, Renee Godrich-Schneidet-2, Robert B. Gravani-3,
Elizabeth A. Bihn-3, and Keith R. Schneider-2
1-Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, Dept. of Food and Nutrition Services, 1600 SW Archer Road,
Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
2-Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept., University of Florida, 359 FHSN Bldg.,
Newell Drive, Gainesville, FL 32611-0370, USA
3-Dept. of Food Science, 11 Stocking Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853-7201, USA
SUMMARY
A written survey on Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) was sent to growers and packers in
Florida, Texas, California, Georgia, Michigan, New York and Arizona. Approximately 5,000 surveys
were mailed to respondents, of which 596 (12%) were completed and returned for statistical
analysis. This study was conducted to assess grower and packer knowledge of GAPs and of related
educational concepts, and implementation of changes in health and sanitation practices that may
have resulted from grower possession of GAPs knowledge. Factors examined for effect on GAPs
awareness were respondent age, acres farmed, years farming, and commodity grown.
The conclusions are that growers and packers who have knowledge of GAPs are more likely
to provide handwashing and toilet facilities for workers on the farm and in the packinghouse and
to encourage proper hygiene practices in agricultural operations. Further, GAPs training increases
the likelihood that workers will receive hygiene-specific training. The GAPs program appears to
have been successful in reaching agricultural operations, as more respondents were aware of
GAPs than not aware for each analysis. Age of respondent, size of farm, and years farming did not
affect GAPs awareness. In addition, size of the farm and age of the respondent did not affect the
perceived usefulness of GAPs materials. Nearly all ages of farmers, size of farms, and tenure in
farming systems reported widespread knowledge of GAPs. Implementation of hygiene practices,
although recognized as needed, may be resisted because of perceived cost and perceived difficulty
of provision. Changing these perceptions may be the next focus for GAPs outreach and extension.
Full Text Article
|
