Is that food RTE?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé

 Background: Rates of foodborne illness linked to consumers misinterpreting, or lack of proper cooking instructions on frozen food products continue to rise. With many recalls and outbreaks in the recent years surrounding frozen breaded chicken (FBC) products due to consumers not adequately cooking products and in turn becoming ill. However, it is not just frozen breaded chicken to blame, frozen microwavable entrees have also contributed to this problem. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to determine what was actually being displayed on the packaging of these frozen foods. Identifying whether or not frozen food products have clear, specific and consistent cooking instructions for the consumers is critical in identifying the risk of cooking and eating these foods. Methods: Secondary data was obtained from the British Columbia Centers for Disease Control (BCCDC) of cooking instructions on FBC packaging, and primary data was collected through visiting grocery stores in the Metro Vancouver area by surveying cooking instructions on frozen microwavable entrees packaging. Four categories of data were assessed, 2008 and 2018 raw FBC products, 2018 cooked FBC, and 2019 frozen microwavable entrees. Parameters such as inclusion of internal cooking temperature, thermometer usage, microwave instructions, and additional food safety handling was gathered. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the results with the statistical software NCSS12. Results: Of all categories surveyed 87.1% (n=122) said to cook the product to a minimum of 74°C, and 12.9% (n=18) did not state anything. 2018 raw FBC always stated an internal cooking temperature (100%), whereas 58% of the 2008 raw FBC stated an internal temperature and 89% of both the 2019 frozen entrees and 2018 cooked FBC did. Out of all 140 products surveyed across categories only 8% stated to use a thermometer when cooking to ensure food has reached proper internal temperature. The frequency of categories to display food safety was as follows, the 2018 raw FBC (82%) and the 2008 raw FBC (79%), followed by the 2019 frozen entrees (42%) and the 2018 cooked FBC (21%). For the microwave instructions the frozen entrees almost always stated this (81%), whereas the 2008 and 2018 raw FBC both never stated to use a microwave (0%). There was a significant association between products and the inclusion of the statement of internal cooking temperature and thermometer usage. This was based on the food product category itself, frozen breaded chicken or frozen entrees, or based on manufacturer of the product. Conclusions: It was evident that the major gap lies in the consistency of instructions. Almost every manufacturer had their cooking instructions presented differently, which could in turn confuse the consumer. Instructions also rarely stated to use a thermometer to check the internal temperature, although almost always stated a specific temperature to cook to. A small portion of manufactures are diligent about displaying all necessary information to the consumer such as, Kraft, Conagra foods, and Olymel which adequately met all parameters assessed. In order to fix the gaps of inconsistency of instructions this information can be used as educational tools by the BCCDC to inform customers on what to look for in cooking instructions of frozen
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».