An evaluation of British Columbia’s guideline for the sale of foods at temporary food markets in allowing the sale of potentially hazardous food
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and the purpose: British Columbia’s Guideline for the Sale of Foods at Temporary Food Markets is a document that Environmental Health Officers’ (EHOs) and farmers’ market managers will have to consult with when determining what food products are allowed to be sold in farmers’ markets. This guideline plays a vital role because it indirectly influences EHOs’ and farmers’ market managers’ judgments and the public’s risk exposure to potentially hazardous foods (PHFs) in farmers’ markets. It is necessary to evaluate and compare BC’s guideline with other provinces’ to see where it sits in the spectrum with respect to its permissibility in allowing the sale of PHFs in farmers’ markets, perhaps contributing to the further revision or development of the farmers’ markets guideline or policy. Methods: An online Google Docs survey consisting of 20 questions was created to ask farmers’ market managers from British Columbia and other provinces in Canada whether their farmers’ markets allow the sale of the five food types: poultry, shell egg, sauerkraut, unpasteurized juice/cider and cheese and how these foods are handled and stored. Results: There were 56 farmers’ market managers who participated in this survey (46% from BC and 54% from outside BC). Chi-square results had p-values greater than 0.05 for all the five surveyed categories. Two-tail t test results had p-values less than 0.05 in the raw poultry and sauerkraut categories. Discussion: Although no association between the location of farmers’ markets in Canada and the sale of the five surveyed food categories, BC farmers’ market managers disallowed the sale of raw poultry and unpasteurized juice more often than markets outside BC whereas fewer BC farmers’ market managers disallowed the sale of eggs and cheese when compared to markets outside BC. A significant difference in the handling and storage practices of raw poultry and sauerkraut was identified between farmers’ market managers in BC and outside BC. Also, BC’s managers were shown to have safer food handling practices to raw poultry, sauerkraut and unpasteurized juice than managers from outside BC. Conclusion: The types of foods sold in BC and outside BC appeared similar as this survey found no differences between the five surveyed PHF categories allowed for sale. However, handling practices of these foods did vary, and that might be associated with guidelines, or with farmers’ market manager knowledge. Of concern, BC farmers’ market indicated that eggs and juices were sourced and made on farms. These two categories required more attention and food safety awareness from both EHOs and farmers’ market managers. Overall, the survey responses reaffirmed that review and approval for the sale of potentially hazardous food from EHOs and scrutiny from farmers’ markets managers must be in place to ensure public’s safety as well as minimizing public’s risk exposure to improperly handled PHF sold in farmers’ markets.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,034 | 0,062 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».