A mixed-methods approach to evaluate producer knowledge, attitudes and practices towards food safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge and attitudes towards food safety and reported use of good production practices (GPP) were investigated among dairy, broiler chicken and niche-market producers in Canada. A mailed questionnaire was administered to all dairy producers enrolled in dairy herd improvement organizations in Canada in 2008. The response percentage was 20.9% (2185/10,474). Respondents who reported completion of a dairy-health management education course were less likely to support the availability of unpasteurized milk for consumers (OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.92) and more likely to be concerned about antimicrobial resistance (OR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.69). Knowledge gaps were also identified (e.g. zoonotic potential of 'Brucella'). Latent class analysis identified five groups of producers based on their reported use of GPP: "minimal", "sanitation-only", "employee-visitor hygiene", "typical" and "ideal" users (11.1%, 23.8%, 20.2%, 37.1 % and 7.7% of respondents, respectively). Respondents in the "ideal users" group used more GPP and were more likely to have completed an educational course in food safety compared to each other group. Mailed and web-based questionnaires were administered to all broiler chicken producers registered in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec in 2008. The response percentage was 33.2% (642/1932). Greater than 80% and 21.1% of respondents indicated that 'Salmonella' and 'Campylobacter ', respectively, can be transmitted from chicken to humans. Respondents who rated the Safe, Safer, Safest program requirements as effective (70%) or easy (49%) to implement were more likely to report the use of five of six highly recommended GPP. A questionnaire was administered and 23 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with niche-market (i.e. organic and small-scale) producers in Ontario during 2008-2009. In total, 575 questionnaires were collected. Disinfection of food animal drinking water and post-harvest produce wash water was reported by <40% of respondents. Primary themes identified in semi-structured interviews included concerns about imported products, suggestions to tailor on-farm food safety programs by farm scale and ensure that they are user-friendly and cost-recoverable, and the importance of producer education and government support. Baseline estimates for the knowledge, attitudes and practices towards food safety were identified, which can be used to support future decision-making regarding food safety programs and education for producers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".