MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3108075540 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2020.22

Changes in processing and labelling of frozen chicken products available to consumers in Vancouver

2020· article· en· W3108075540 sur OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Kelsey Lutz, Environmental Health BCIT School of Health Sciences, Dale Chen, Lorraine McIntyre

Notice bibliographique

RevueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueFood Safety and Hygiene
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Mots-clésBusinessFood safetySalmonellaProduct (mathematics)Convenience foodAgency (philosophy)Food productsAgricultural scienceFood scienceBiologyMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Between May 2017 and May 2019, 18 Salmonella outbreaks in Canada were linked to raw chicken, resulting in the recall of 13 chicken products. Most of these products contained frozen raw breaded chicken, such as chicken nuggets, chicken fries, and breaded chicken burgers. (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2019) These products are especially risky for consumers because they may appear precooked, resulting in inadequate food safety measures being taken. (Catford, Ganz, & Tamber, 2017). Due to this concern, as of April 1, 2019, all frozen raw breaded chicken product manufacturers are required to follow one of four Salmonella control measures set out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The simplest option for processors is to precook their products to destroy Salmonella bacteria and produce a ready-to-eat product. (Government of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, & Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, 2019a) Methods: Data was collected from all frozen chicken products available at 14 retail locations in Metro Vancouver that were randomly selected in previous studies carried out in 2018 and 2019 by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) and British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) students. The processing status of the products surveyed in this study (n=466) was compared to those collected in the previous studies done in 2018 and 2019, respectively (n=383; n=415). Other information collected included whether product packaging contained statements of internal temperature, requirements for thermometer use, and additional food safety instructions. Data on these parameters collected in the current study (n=466) were compared to similar data collected in 2008 (n=24) and in 2018 (n=67). Photos were taken of all product labels and relevant data from the photos was compiled in Microsoft Excel. Statistical analyses were done using chi-square tests performed using NCSS 2019 software. Results: The proportion of surveyed frozen chicken products that were cooked as opposed to raw increased from 38% in 2018 to 41% in 2019 to 69% in 2020. The proportion of products containing statements regarding required internal temperatures increased from 58% in 2008 to 96% in 2018 and then decreased to 86% in 2020. 0%, 4.5%, and 1.7% of products surveyed in 2008, 2018, and 2020, respectively, included an indication to use a food thermometer. 79%, 57%, and 25% of products surveyed in the same years included additional food safety statements. Conclusions: This study showed that the ratio of cooked to uncooked frozen chicken products available to consumers in the Metro Vancouver area has increased since the CFIA’s Salmonella control measure requirements for frozen breaded chicken manufacturers were implemented in 2019. The 28% and 26% increase since 2018 and 2019, respectively, suggests that many frozen chicken product manufacturers are complying with the CFIA requirements by using a validated cook process to reduce Salmonella in their products. This study also showed that, since 2019, there has been a significant decline in the proportion of frozen chicken products that contain information about internal cooking temperatures and additional food safety information on their packaging.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,718
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,350

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,228
Écart entre enseignants0,171 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2020
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalMême sujetFood Safety and HygieneTravaux en français237 207