Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perceptions of seafood...

��

Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk percep-tions of seafood workers

Laı́s Mariano Zanin, Diogo Thimoteo da Cunha, Elke Stedefeldt, VanessaDias Capriles

PII: S0963-9969(14)00659-0DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.013Reference: FRIN 5525

To appear in: Food Research International

Received date: 21 August 2014Accepted date: 22 October 2014

Please cite this article as: Zanin, L.M., da Cunha, D.T., Stedefeldt, E. & Capriles, V.D.,Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perceptions ofseafood workers, Food Research International (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.013

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.013

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT1

Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perceptions

of seafood workers

Author names and affiliations

Laís Mariano Zanina, Diogo Thimoteo da Cunha

a, Elke Stedefeldt

b*, Vanessa Dias

Caprilesa

a GeQual - Study Group of Food Quality, Department of Biosciences, Federal

University of São Paulo, Santos, Brazil. Silva Jardim Street, 136, Vila Mathias, 11015-

020, Santos city, SP, Brazil.

b GeQual - Study Group of Food Quality, Health Care and Management Department,

Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, Brazil. Silva Jardim Street, 136, Vila Mathias,

11015-020, Santos city, SP, Brazil.

*Corresponding author

GeQual - Study Group of Food Quality, Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, Brazil.

Silva Jardim Street, 136, Vila Mathias, 11015-020, Santos city, SP, Brazil.

e-mail: [email protected]

+55(11) 98201.6468

Abstract

The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge, attitudes and self-reported

practices regarding seafood safety and the risk perception of seafood-borne diseases

among seafood workers and to study the relationships among these variables. This study

was cross-sectional, and the data collection was conducted using questionnaires

administered through face-to-face interviews with 193 seafood workers in Brazil. Of

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


these workers, 49.8% handled fish on the fishery boats (Fishery Workers, FWs) and

50.2% were seafood handlers in two seafood warehouses (Seafood Warehouse Workers,

SWWs). A minority of the seafood workers (33.7%) had participated in at least one

food-safety training session. The knowledge and attitudes scores of the SWWs were

higher than the scores of the FWs. However, no difference was observed between the

self-reported practice scores of the SWWs and FWs. The mean level of risk perception

score of the SWWs was higher than that of the FWs; nevertheless, both groups were

classified as having an average risk perception of seafood-borne diseases. The risk

perception score was correlated with the knowledge and attitude scores in both groups.

Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the attitude score and the age of the

worker were related to the self-reported practice scores of both groups. These results

showed the need for immediate actions to improve the knowledge, attitudes, and

practices regarding food safety and handling to ensure the production of seafood that is

safe for consumption.

Keywords: Food safety, good handling practices, fishery workers, seafood handlers.

1. Introduction

Seafood workers directly handle seafood during different stages of the

production/capture chain, including stages that occur on fishery boats and in seafood

warehouses, industrial locations and seafood stores. Fishery workers, as well as seafood

workers, directly handle seafood during different stages, including while transferring

seafood from fishing nets to boats and while handling, sorting, grading, bleeding,

gutting, washing, freezing, storing, and unloading the seafood (FAO/WHO, 2014).

The characteristics of seafood workers differ from those of food handlers in other

food service areas, including having a dangerous workplace and work conditions

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


(Jeebhay, Robins, & Lopata, 2004) and socio-cultural aspects and family traditions that

result in the workers remaining in the seafood sector for long periods.

Seafood is a very perishable food that requires proper handling and preservation to

ensure its safety, quality and nutritional benefits (Soares, & Gonçalves, 2012). Several

factors can affect seafood safety, such as the interruption of the cold chain; inadequate

equipment, utensils and fishing tackle cleaning; the seafood workers’ hygiene; and the

lack of control at critical points (Codex Alimentarius, 2011; Pérez et al., 2007). Failure

to adhere to food-safety best practices during the seafood production chain can trigger

microorganism contamination and may result in foodborne diseases (FBD) (Huss,

Ababouch, & Gram, 2003).

In Brazil, data from the National Health Surveillance Agency showed that

approximately 2% of reported foodborne outbreaks from 2000 to the beginning of 2013

were caused by the consumption of fish, seafood and processed products (Brazil, 2013).

In the United States of America, seafood was responsible for 23% of the reported cases

of foodborne outbreaks, accounting for 5,603 sick consumers from 2001 to 2010.

During this same period, seafood was considered the food with the highest risk of

causing disease, at a probability 19 times higher than that of fruit and dairy products

(CSPI, 2013).

Inappropriate handling practices can cause seafood contamination and deterioration

and, consequently, FBD that can affect consumer health. Thus, an important tool to

ensure sanitary conditions is the use of diagnostic strategies related to Knowledge,

Attitudes and Practices (KAP) and risk perception surveys related to food safety

conducted among food handlers.

Several studies about food safety KAP and the risk perception of FBD demonstrated

the need for the participation in and enhancement of food-safety training in many food

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


sectors (Bas, Ersun, & Kivanç, 2006; Da Cunha, Stedefeldt, de Rosso, 2012, 2014;

Jevsnik, Hlebec, & Raspor, 2008; Osaili et al., 2013; Pichler, Ziegler, Aldrian, &

Allerberger, 2014). These studies emphasized the food preparation stage. However,

highly perishable foods, such as seafood, require an expanded investigation that

encompasses the entire seafood-production chain.

Little is known about seafood workers’ knowledge, beliefs, and habits regarding

seafood handling and safety. Hence, there is a need for studies that assess seafood-

handling practices by seafood workers to ensure or improve seafood safety.

The aims of this study were to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and self-reported

practices regarding seafood safety and the risk perception of seafood-borne diseases

among seafood workers and to study the relationships among these variables.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Subjects and design

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee in Research of the Federal

University of São Paulo, and all of the participants signed an informed consent.

This cross-sectional study involved 193 seafood workers from two seafood

warehouses located in different states in Brazil. Only workers who directly handled

seafood were invited to participate in the survey. Of our study sample, 96 fishery

workers (FWs) (49.8%) handled seafood on the fishery boats, and 97 seafood

warehouse workers (SWWs) (50.2%) worked in a seafood processing plant.

A pilot study of 5 FWs and 5 SWWs was first performed to test their comprehension

of the questionnaires. Minor adjustments were necessary.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


The seafood workers were questioned about their age, gender, educational level,

years of seafood working experience, type of employment contract and participation in

food-safety training.

2.2 Seafood-safety knowledge, attitudes and self-reported practices assessment

To evaluate the KAP regarding seafood handling and safety, a structured

questionnaire was created based on the method described by Bas et al. (2006) and Da

Cunha, Stedefeldt and De Rosso (2014).

The content of the KAP-related questions was based on international publications

regarding seafood and food safety (Codex Alimentarius, 2003, 2011; FAO/WHO, 2006)

and current Brazilian seafood-safety laws and publications (Brazil, 2009, 2011; Pérez et

al., 2007).

The KAP questions related to seafood handling practices addressed personal

hygiene, seafood safety, cross-contamination, temperature control, and environmental

hygiene.

The first part of the questionnaire aimed to evaluate the knowledge of seafood

workers about seafood handling and safety and included ten questions. Respondents

were instructed to select one of three possible answers: “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know”.

The order of “yes” and “no” as the correct answer was shuffled, and thus, it did not

follow a pattern. One point was assigned for each correct answer, and no points were

assigned for wrong or “I don’t know” answers. The possible knowledge scores ranged

from 0 to 10.

The second part of the questionnaire aimed to evaluate the seafood workers’

attitudes toward seafood handling and safety and included ten affirmatives. The seafood

workers indicated their level of agreement using a three-point rating scale of “agree”,

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


“not sure” and “disagree”. The order of “agree” and “disagree” as a correct answer was

shuffled, and thus, it did not follow a pattern. One point was assigned for each positive

attitude, and no points were assigned for negative attitudes or “not sure” answers. The

possible attitude scores ranged from 0 to 10.

The last part of the questionnaire aimed to evaluate the self-reported practices of

seafood workers about seafood handling and safety and included ten questions. A

response was given on a five-point rating scale (1=never to 5=always). The possible

self-reported practices scores ranged from 10 to 50.

2.3 Risk perception of seafood-borne disease assessment

To evaluate risk perception of seafood-borne disease, a structured questionnaire was

created based on the method described by Frewer et al. (1994) and Da Cunha et al.

(2012). It contained eight questions regarding seafood handling and safety that was

based on international publications regarding seafood and food safety (Codex

Alimentarius, 2003, 2011; FAO/WHO, 2006) and current Brazilian seafood safety laws

and publications (Brazil, 2009, 2011; Pérez et al., 2007).

The responses were given by marking on a 10-cm linear scale anchored with

descriptors of intensity that ranged from “0-no risk” to “10-high risk”. The answers to

the risk-perception questions were classified as low perceived risk (0.0-4.0 cm), average

perceived risk (4.1-7.0 cm) and high perceived risk (7.1-10.0 cm) (Da Cunha et al.,

2012). The overall risk perception score was defined by the mean value of the eight

answers.

2.4 Statistical analysis

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


The results were expressed as the mean value and the standard deviation or as

percentages.

To compare the mean score of the SWWs and FWs, Student’s t-test was used.

To compare the number of correct answers of the SWWs and FWs, the chi-squared test

and Fisher's exact test were used. Simple linear correlations (Pearson’s correlation

coefficient) were also evaluated.

A multiple linear regression model was used to determine which variables were

associated. The independent variables in the model were those that presented a

Pearson’s correlation coefficient higher than 0.30. The independent variables remained

in the model if they were significant (p < 0.05). The fit of the model was evaluated

using residual analysis. The data analysis was performed using SPSS version 17.0

software.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Seafood workers’ characteristics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the seafood workers.

The FWs and SWWs had similar working periods but differed in relation to the type

of employment; the majority of the FWs (76.0%) reported having a formal job, whereas

the majority of the SWWs (78.4%) reported having an informal job. This organization

may be affected by the regulations for fishing vessels that require permits and labor

rights for FWs.

The minority (33.7%) of the seafood workers reported participating in food- or

seafood-handling training. A higher percentage of SWWs (55.7%) than FWs (11.5%)

reported participation. These results showed that some of the seafood workers in this

study did not comply with the food law that requires that seafood handlers must receive

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


training immediately after hiring and before starting their work (Codex Alimentarius,

2003). This law considers only SWWs as food handlers (Brazil, 2009). However, FWs

also handle seafood.

It is harder to train FWs because they work on fishing vessels in ocean waters for

long periods; when on land, they use their free time to rest or for other personal

activities. Nevertheless, these workers can play a key role in ensuring seafood quality at

the start of the production chain, which directly affects the safety of the other steps.

Thus, quality control measures (such as good handling practices and maintenance of the

seafood at proper temperatures) must be implemented at all stages that occur on the

vessels. Otherwise, physicochemical and sensory changes may occur even before the

vessels land, resulting in seafood that is unfit for consumption (Brazil, 2009; Codex

Alimentarius, 2011; FDA, 2011).

The most recent training of the FWs occurred 3.3 (6.6) years ago and that of the

SWWs occurred 2.6 (6.2) years ago. These long periods without training can negatively

affect the conditions of seafood handling and safety because reinforcement of training is

an important aspect of food-safety knowledge (Da Cunha et al., 2012, 2014; McIntyre,

Peng, & Henderson, 2014).

3.2. Seafood safety knowledge, attitudes and self-reported practices

Table 2 shows that SWWs and FWs gave the highest percentage of correct answers

to question 6. According to Medeiros, Cavalli, Salay, & Proença (2011), this theme is

not emphasized during food-safety training. However, it is noteworthy that a worker’s

absence due to illness is a labor right supported by Brazilian law (Brazil, 1991).

Therefore, the percentage of correct answers may be related to this worker’s right, not to

knowledge about food contamination.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


The FWs and SWWs gave the lowest percentage of correct answers to question 10.

This result indicated a gap in the seafood workers’ knowledge about the maintenance of

the cold chain. This gap may reflect training that did not emphasize this theme, a lack of

specific training for seafood workers or the illusory idea that ice placed only on the top

surface can maintain the optimal temperature of all seafood. In practice, fresh seafood

should be stored such that all surfaces are in contact with ice (Graham, Johnston, &

Nicholson, 1992).

The mean knowledge score of the SWWs was 5.84 (2.09), equivalent to 58%, which

was higher than the FW’s score of 4.69 (2.24), which was equivalent to 47% (p=0.01).

This difference may be related to the higher percentage of trained SWWs, because the

training reinforces and sustains the handlers’ knowledge regarding food handling and

safety (Ehiri, Morris, & McEwen, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2014).

To our knowledge, this is the first study that investigated KAP regarding seafood

handling and safety among SWWs and FWs. However, the knowledge-score results

were comparable to those reported by food handlers in other food sectors, which ranged

from 43 to 69% (Ansari-lari, Soodbakhsh, & Lakzadeh, 2010; Bas et al., 2006; Da

Cunha et al., 2014; Osaili et al., 2013; Sani, & Siow, 2014).

Table 3 shows that significant differences between the groups were found only for

Attitudes 1, 6 and 9. Affirmative 9 received the highest percentage of positive attitudes

by the SWWs (100%) and FWs (90.6%). Sani, & Siow (2014) evaluated food handlers

in university restaurants and found similar values for this affirmative (93.7%).

This affirmative most likely reflects the work environment because an uniform is

generally provided by the companies, and its use by the SWWs is required by the

quality-control team. Nevertheless, FWs work in a hazardous workplace with the

constant presence of water and a high risk of accidents. The use of uniforms is a

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


protection measure: caps protect against sunlight radiation, boots protect against falls in

slippery environments, and cold-weather workwear protects the worker while stowing

seafood on board or during extremely cold weather (Jeebhay et al., 2004).

Affirmative 8 received the lowest percentage of positive attitudes by both groups.

The lowest percentage of correct knowledge was also demonstrated for this theme

(Table 2), showing that the seafood workers have no knowledge or positive attitude

about storing seafood storage in ice.

The SWWs had a higher mean score for positive attitudes, of 7.90 (1.25), than did

the FWs, whose score was 7.22 (1.78) (p=0.01). Attitude is an important factor for the

application of knowledge and can affect behavior and practices and consequently the

FBD risk (Ko, 2013; Sani, & Siow, 2014). However, Ansari-Lari et al. (2010) found

98% positive attitudes among meat handlers, but these attitudes had not been translated

into practice.

Table 4 shows the frequencies of the self-reported practices of the SWWs and FWs.

Practice 9 had the highest percentage of the appropriate frequency, with 93.8% of each

group reporting that they always wore a uniform. This theme corresponds to the

statement that received the highest percentage of positive attitudes, showing the

possible effect of the work environment and that attitude can affect practice (Sani, &

Siow, 2014).

Both groups showed a high percentage of an inadequate frequency of following

Practice 8. Regarding this practice, 67% of the SWWs and 78.1% of the FWs reported

always speaking or singing while handling seafood. This item is related to the hygiene

practice standards of food handlers (Codex Alimentarius, 2003; 2011).

A higher percentage of the FWs than SWWs reported the following: the appropriate

frequency of following Practice 2, most likely because FWs are more susceptible to

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


accidents due to entangling their adornments in fishing tools and boat part; the

appropriate frequency of following Practice 4, most likely because every FW is

responsible for cleaning the work environment, whereas generally, a team was

responsible for this duty in the seafood warehouses; and the appropriate frequency of

following Practice 10, most likely because the wages of the FWs depended on the

quality of the landed seafood, whereas the wages the SWWs were not affected by the

quality of the seafood they handled. These explanations for the differences between the

groups were drawn from observations made during data collection.

Unlike the knowledge and attitude scores, the self-reported practice scores of the

groups did not differ. The self-reported practice score of the SWWs was 38.54 (6.99),

and that of the FWs was 37.41 (6.47) (p=0.246). It is important to note that these are

self-reported practices, and further studies could be conducted to assess the observed

practices.

Studies have reported that inadequate food-manipulation practices are the main

cause of outbreaks of foodborne diseases (EFSA, 2010). Improving the practices of

food handlers is necessary to ensure safety of food (Green et al., 2007).

Several factors affect hygienic practices, including the type of activity, the

infrastructure, the availability of supplies (e.g., gloves, soap and towels) and the use of

FBD-prevention methods (Green et al., 2007). In the case of seafood workers, the

differences between the infrastructures of the workplaces should be considered,

particularly for fishing vessels, which typically have an inadequate structure to achieve

good handling practices and personal hygiene.

3.3 Risk perception of seafood-borne disease

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


The SWWs had a higher score of overall perceived risk of 5.40 (1.60) compared to

4.57 (1.66) for the FWs (p=0.01) (Table 5). However, both groups were classified as

having an average risk perception of seafood-borne disease. The level of risk perception

was related to their experiences; the popular interpretation of a health threat is mainly

based on beliefs and convictions, not on facts and scientific evidence (Slovic, 1987).

Frewer et al. (1994) considered that a hazard with very severe consequences but

with a low probability of occurrence could might be perceived as a low-magnitude risk.

However, a perceived risk of low severity with a high probability of occurrence could

be associated with a higher magnitude risk perception of higher magnitude (high risk).

There is evidence that people overestimate risks that are not frequent. Thus, possibly

most likely the FWs overestimated the risks related to accidents on boats and

underestimated the risks related to food safety.

The SWWs and FWs had the highest scores of perceived risk for Question 8 (Table

5). Individuals often indicate a high level of risk regarding operations over which they

have no control or when other people are in control; this effect is called the “illusion of

control” (Frewer et al., 1994). The high level of risk perception of seafood workers

regarding this question may be related to the fact that cleaning the seafood

transportation vehicle was not their duty.

The SWWs exhibited a higher level of perceived risk regarding Question 1 than did

the FWs (Table 5). The subject of this question was perceived by both groups as low

risk, as were the subjects of Questions 3 and 7. Risk judgments involve people and what

they think and feel about a risk. If the feelings are favorable, the risk is judged to be

low, otherwise, there is a tendency to judge the risk as high (Dijk, Fischer, & Frewer,

2011; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2004).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Several factors, such as knowledge, experience, attitudes and emotions, can affect

thinking and individual judgment regarding the seriousness and acceptability of a risk

(Sjöberg, 2000; Wachinger, Renn, Begg, & Kuhlicke, 2013). Risk perception is

supported by experience and understanding that concept is important to the success of

risk communication (Behrens et al., 2010).

3.4. Relationship between the variables

The risk perception of the SWWs and FWs was positively correlated with their

knowledge (r=0.61, p<0.01 and r=0.65, p<0.01, respectively) and their attitudes (r=0.52,

p<0.01 and r=0.58, p<0.01, respectively), and their knowledge was correlated with their

attitudes (r=0.54, p<0.01; r=0.71, p<0.01, respectively). The scores for knowledge,

attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perception were not correlated with the period

of working with seafood, the working period in the same warehouse, the time of the

most recent training or the educational level.

Ansari-Lari et al. (2010) also found a positive correlation between knowledge and

attitudes, but they found a negative correlation between self-reported knowledge and

practices and a positive correlation between knowledge and educational level, which

differs from the results of this study. The lack of correlation between knowledge and

education is most likely related to the fact that most of the seafood workers (78.7%) in

this study did not have a high school degree, which can affect the level of knowledge of

food safety.

It appeared that knowledge and attitudes did not always result in appropriate self-

reported practices, and that other variables interfered with these practices. Thus, a linear

regression model was used to evaluate the variables related to the self-reported practices

reported in this study. The multiple linear regression model for the data from the SWWs

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


revealed significant (p<0.01). The variables related to the self-reported practices were

the attitude score (β=2.12, p<0.01) and the age of the worker (β=0.11, p=0.02); the

knowledge scores did not play a significant role in the model (β=0.13, p=0.72). The

regression model of the data from the FWs also revealed significant (p<0.01). The

variables related to the self-reported practices of this group were the attitude score

(β=0.99, p=0.05) and the age of the workers (β=0.13, p=0.02); again, the knowledge

scores did not play a significant role in the model (β=0.26, p=0.51).

The adjusted models of the self-reported practices of both groups were affected by

to their attitudes, and the attitudes had a greater impact on the self-reported practices of

the SWWs than that of the FWs. The adjusted models of the self-reported practices of

both groups were not affected by their knowledge. Knowledge is necessary but is not a

guarantee of a behavioral change (Ehiri et al., 1997) and knowledge alone has little

direct effect on the food handlers’ intentions to engage in safe behavior. However,

behavior can be compensated by social cognitive factors (Mullan, Wong & Kothe,

2013).

A useful tool for understanding the factors that interfere with the food handlers’

practices that can be used to inform the development of training programs is the Theory

of Planned Behavior (TPB). In this approach, the main target is the intention, the main

precursor of behavior, which can promote changes in practice (Mullan et al., 2013;

Seaman, & Eves, 2010). According to the TPB, the intended behavior affects the three

following aspects: the individual's attitude toward the behavior, the subjective norm and

the perception of behavioral control. Behavioral intentions are generally stronger when

the individual's attitude toward the action is favorable (Mari, Tiozzo, Capozza, &

Ravarotto, 2012). Thus, these variables (knowledge, attitudes, practices and risk

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


perception) combined with the TPB can support the development of appropriate training

programs regarding seafood safety and consumer health.

4. Conclusions

The seafood-safety knowledge and attitude scores of the SWWs were higher than

those of the FWs; however, no difference was observed in the self-reported practice

scores of the groups. The risk perception score of the SWWs was higher than that of the

FWs; nevertheless, both groups were classified as having an average level of risk

perception of seafood-borne disease. The risk perception score was correlated with the

knowledge and attitude scores of both groups. The attitude score and the worker’s age

were related to the self-reported practice score of the SWWs and FWs.

These data allowed for analysis of seafood handling and safety issues, which is

valuable due to the lack of information about seafood workers in several countries,

including Brazil. This analysis shows the need for actions regarding specific training on

the hygienic and sanitary aspects of seafood handling for all seafood workers to ensure

the production of seafood that is safe for consumption.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants in this study and CAPES – BRAZIL

for sponsoring the study.

Author Contributions

L. Zanin, E. Stedefeldt and V. Capriles designed the study. L. Zanin collected the data

and analyzed them together with D. Cunha and both wrote the paper under the

supervision of E. Stedefeldt and V. Capriles.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


References

Ansari-lari, M., Soodbakhsh, S., & Lakzadeh, L. (2010). Knowledge, attitudes and

practices of workers on food hygienic practices in meat processing plants in Fars, Iran.

Food Control, 21, 260–263.

Bas, M., Ersun, A. S., & Kivanç, G. (2006). The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge,

attitudes, and practices of food handlers in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control, 17,

317–322.

Behrens, J. H, Barcellos, M. N., Frewer, L. J., Nunes, T. P., Franco, B. D. G. M, Destro,

M. T., & Landgraf, M. (2010). Consumer purchase habits and views on food safety: A

Brazilian study. Food Control, 21, 963–969.

Brazil – Labour Ministry (1991). Law nº 8.213 of July, 24th

, 1991. Provides on Plans

Social Security benefits and other provisions. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do

Brasil. Available at <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8213compilado.htm>.

Brazil – Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply Ministry (2009). Ofício Circular

GAB/DIPOA Nº 25/09. Verification procedures of self-programs in establishments of

seafood and derivatives. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil. Available at

<http://www.pescadog9site.xpg.com.br/3a.docx>.

Brazil, Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministry (2011). Publications: Booklet of Best

Practices for Seafood Handling. Available at

<http://www.mpa.gov.br/publicidade/publicacoes>.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Brazil – Health Ministry (2013). Epidemiological surveillance of foodborne diseases.

Available at <www.saude.gov.br>.

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) (2013). Outbreak Alert! 2001-2010. a

review of foodborne illness in America. Available at

<http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/outbreak_alert_2013_final.pdf>.

Codex Alimentarius (2003). Recommended international code of practice general

principles of food hygiene. CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev. 4.

Codex Alimentarius (2011). Código de prácticas para el pescado y los productos

pesqueros. CAC/RCP 52-2003. Rev.6-2011.

Da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & De Rosso, V. V. (2012). Perceived risk of foodborne

disease by school food handlers and principals: the influence of frequent training.

Journal of Food Safety, 32, 219-225.

Da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & De Rosso, V. V. (2014). The role of theoretical food

safety training on Brazilian food handlers’ knowledge, attitude and practice. Food

Control, 43, 167-174.

Dijk, H. V., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2011). Consumer Responses to

Integrated Risk-Benefit Information Associated with the Consumption of Food. Risk

Analysis, 31(3), 429-439.

Ehiri, J. E., Morris, G. P., & Mc Even, J. (1997). Evaluation of a food hygiene training

course in Scotland. Food Control, 8, 137–147.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2010). The community summary report on

trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the

European Union in 2008. European Food Safety Authority Journal, 8(1), 410 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization

(2006). Five keys to safer food manual. WHO Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses

and Foodborne Diseases. Available at

<http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/consumer/manual_keys.pdf>.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization

(2014). Handling of fish and fish products. Available at

<http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12321/en>.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2011). Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and

Controls Guidance. Fourth Edition. Department of Health and Human Services. Public

Health Service. Available at

<http://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/guidanceregulation/ucm251970.pdf>

Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The Interrelationship Between

Perceived Knowledge, Control And Risk Associated with a Range of Food-Related

Hazards Targeted at the Individual, Other People And Society. Journal of Food Safety,

14, 19-40.

Graham, J., Johnston, W. A., & Nicholson, F. J. (1992). Ice in fisheries. Food and

Agriculture Organization fisheries technical paper, 331, 75p.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Green, L. R., Radke, V., Mason, R., Bushnell, L., Reimann, D. W., MacK, J. C.,

Motsinger, M. D., Stigger, T., & Selman, C. A. (2007). Factors Related to Food Worker

Hand Hygiene Practices. Journal of Food Protection, 70 (3), 661–666.

Huss, H. H., Ababouch, L., & Gram, L. (2003). Assessment and management of

seafood safety and quality. Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries Technical

Paper, 444, 230p.

Jeebhay, M. F., Robins, T. G., & Lopata, A. L. (2004). World at work: Fish processing

workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61, 471-474.

Jevsnik, M., Hlebec, V., & Raspor, P. (2008). Food safety knowledge and practices

among food handlers in Slovenia. Food Control, 19, 1107–1118.

Ko, W. H. (2013). The relationship among food safety knowledge, attitudes and self-

reported HACCP practices in restaurant employees. Food Control, 29, 192-197.

Mari, S., Tiozzo , B., Capozza, D., & Ravarotto, L. (2012). Are you cooking your meat

enough? The efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior in predicting a best practice to

prevent salmonellosis. Food Research International, 45, 1175–1183.

McIntyre, L., Peng, D., & Henderson, S. B. (2014). Retraining effectiveness in

FOODSAFE trained food handlers in British Columbia, Canada. Food Control, 35, 137-

141.

Medeiros, C. O., Cavalli, S. B., Salay, E., & Proença, R. P. (2011). Assessment of the

methodological strategies adopted by food safety training programmes for food service

workers: a systematic review. Food Control, 22, 1136-1144.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Mullan, B. A., Wong, C., & Kothe, E. J. (2013). Predicting adolescents’ safe food

handling using an extended theory of planned behavior. Food Control, 31, 454-460.

Osaili, T. M., Jamous, D., Obeidat, B. A., Bawadi, H. A., Tayyem, R. F., & Subih, H. S.

(2013). Food safety knowledge among food workers in restaurants in Jordan. Food

Control, 31, 145-150.

Pérez, A. C. A., Avdalov, N., Neiva, C. R. P., Neto, M. J. L., Lopes, R. G., Tomita, R.

Y., Furlan, E. F., & Machado, T. M. (2007). Sanitary-Hygienic Procedures for Industry

and Seafood Inspectors: Recommendations, Santos. Available at

<http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14470380/1986059436/name/pescado.pdf>.

Pichler, J., Ziegler, J., Aldrian, U., & Allerberger, F. (2014). Evaluating levels of

knowledge on food safety among food handlers from restaurants and various catering

businesses in Vienna, Austria 2011/2012. Food Control, 35, 33-40.

Sani, N. A., & Siow, O. N. (2014). Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers

on food safety in food service operations at the University Kebangsaan Malaysia. Food

Control, 37, 210-217.

Seaman, P., & Eves, A. (2010). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour model in

predicting safe food handling practices. Food Control, 21, 983–987.

Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 20 (1), 1-11.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236 (4799), 280-285.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L, Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and

risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis,

24 (2), 311-322.

Soares, K. M. P., & Gonçalves, A. A. (2012). Seafood quality and safety. Instituto

Adolfo Lutz, 71 (1), 1-10.

Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The Risk Perception

Paradox – Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards. Risk

Analysis, 33 (6), 1049-1065.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Tables

Table 1 - Seafood worker’s characteristics.

Variable Seafood

warehouse

workers

Fishery

workers

Total

Age 39.5

(12.2)

38.7

(11.7)

38.9

(11.8)

Gender

Male

Female

71%

29%

100%

0%

85.5%

14.5%

Education level

No schooling/ Primary school incomplete

Primary school completed /Secondary school

incomplete

Secondary school completed/ High school

40.2%

63.5%

51.8%

29.9%

24.0%

26.9%

29.9%

12.5%

21.3%

Years of seafood working experience

16.8

(13.3)

16.3

(12.0)

16.5

(12.5)

Years of working in the same warehouse/

boat

12.0

(12.1)

11.6

(11.2)

11.8

(11.4)

Type of employment contract

Formal job

21.6%

76.0%

48.7%

Informal job

78.4% 24.0% 51.3%

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Participation in food-safety training

No

44.3%

88.5%

66.3%

Yes 55.7% 11.5% 33.7%

Table 2 - Evaluation of seafood warehouse workers’ and fishery workers’ correct

knowledge about seafood safety.

Knowledge

Seafood

warehouse

workers

n (%)

Fishery

workers

n (%)

p

1 - Hand hygiene before beginning work reduces

the risk of diseases caused by the consumption

of contaminated seafood.

83

(85.6)

56

(58.3)

0.01

2 - Eating and drinking in the seafood handling

area increases the risk of seafood contamination.

51

(52.6)

33

(34.4)

0.01

3 - Water can be a vehicle for disease

transmission, but after it turns into ice, the risk

of disease is reduced.

24

(24.7)

33

(34.4)

0.14

4 - Washing utensils and equipment (plastic

boxes, baskets and mats) with detergent is

sufficient to eliminate microorganisms that

cause disease.

67

(69.1)

53

(55.2)

0.04

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


5 - Wearing adornments (earrings, rings,

watches, bracelets, necklaces and piercings)

during seafood manipulation can cause seafood

contamination.

48

(49.5)

28

(29.2)

0.01

6 - During the course of an infectious skin

disease, flu or diarrhea, a seafood handler needs

to be excluded from work.

86

(88.6)

80

(83.3)

0.28

7 - Consuming seafood that has fallen to the

ground during handling (from capture to

marketing) can increase the risk of discomfort

(malaise) or disease.

59

(60.8)

41

(42.7)

0.01

8 - Undamaged seafood can be contaminated by

contact with damaged fish (torn or crushed due

to stacking), increasing the risk of discomfort

(malaise) or illness to the consumer.

55

(56.7)

50

(52.1)

0.52

9 - After unloading in the warehouse, seafood

can be washed using seawater.

79

(81.4)

59

(61.5)

0.01

10 – Ice placed over seafood is sufficient to

maintain the proper temperature.

15

(15.5)

18

(18.8)

0.54

p - p value determined using chi-squared test or Fisher exact test.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Table 3 - Evaluation of seafood warehouse workers’ and fishery workers’ positive

attitudes about seafood safety.

Attitude

Seafood

warehouse

workers

n (%)

Fishery

workers

n (%)

p

1 - Sanitizing hands while handling seafood

can prevent discomfort (malaise) or seafood-

related disease.

85

(87.6)

73

(76.0)

0.03

2 - Learning more about safe seafood

handling is important to me and to my work

with seafood.

93

(95.9)

90

(93.8)

0.53

3 - Sanitizing the environment, equipment

and utensils before seafood handling prevents

foodborne illness.

90

(92.8)

82

(85.4)

0.10

4 - Safe seafood handling is part of my job

responsibilities.

81

(83.5)

84

(87.5)

0.43

5 - The consumption of seafood stored with

little ice is dangerous to health.

89

(91.8)

83

(86.5)

0.24

6 - Wearing adornments (rings, earrings,

watches, bracelets, necklaces, and piercings)

during my work can cause seafood

contamination.

50

(51.5)

29

(30.2)

0.01

7 - When I have sores or lesions on my 83 76 0.24

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


hands, I must not touch the fish. (85.0) (79.2)

8 - Fish must be stored with ice on top of the

last fish placed in the box/basket.

13

(13.4)

15

(15.6)

0.66

9 - The use of a cap, boots and a clean

uniform is an important approach to

preventing food contamination.

97

(100.0)

87

(90.6)

0.01

10 - Not consuming food during my work to

avoid contaminating the fish is one of my

responsibilities.

86

(88.7)

79

(82.3)

0.21

p - p value determined using chi-squared test or Fisher exact test.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Table 4 - Evaluation of seafood warehouse workers’ and fishery workers’ self-reported practices regarding seafood safety.

Self-reported Practice Seafood warehouse workers (%)

Fishery workers (%)

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

1 - Do you sanitize your hands

correctly before handling seafood?

16.5 1.0 22.7 1.0 58.8 43.7 2.1 16.7 0.0 37.5

2 - Do you keep your nails short and

remove all adornments (rings,

earrings, watches, bracelets,

necklaces, and piercings) before

starting seafood processing?

23.7 1.0 12.4 0.0 62.9 24.0 0.0 6.3 1.0 68.7

3 - Is your hair completely covered

while working?

8.3 1.0 3.1 1.0 86.6 18.7 0.0 9.4 0.0 71.9

4 - Do you clean and sanitize your

workplace after finishing your

35.1 0.0 1.0 2.1 61.8 5.2 0.0 3.1 1.0 90.7

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


service?

5 - Do you handle seafood at work

when you have a disease (malaise) or

cuts on your hands?

54.6 0.0 7.2 0.0 38.2 41.7 1.0 14.6 0.0 42.7

6 - Do you eat or drink inside the

seafood-manipulation area?

81.4 1.0 12.4 2.1 3.1 65.6 1.0 5.2 1.0 27.1

7 - Do you change or wash your

uniform/work clothes daily, keeping

them clean?

1.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 87.6 6.3 4.1 15.6 5.2 68.8

8 - Do you speak or sing during

seafood manipulation?

18.5 0.0 12.4 2.1 67.0 8.4 1.0 11.5 1.0 78.1

9 - Do you wear a specific uniform

(clothes, boots and cap) when

entering the seafood-manipulation

area?

2.1 0.0 4.1 0.0 93.8 1.0 0.0 4.2 1.0 93.8

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


10 - Do you care about the

temperature of the seafood while you

perform your duties?

36.1 1.0 8.2 2.1 52.6 12.5 1.0 4.2 0.0 82.3

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Table 5 - Perceived risk of seafood-borne disease of seafood warehouse workers and

fishery workers.

Risk Perception

Seafood

warehouse

workers

Fishery

workers

Mean

value

(cm)

SD

Mean

value

(cm)

SD p

1 - What is the risk of the seafood

handled by you causing discomfort

(malaise) or illness to the consumer?

1.96 2.38 1.34 1.74 0.04

2 - What is the risk of seafood not

packed on ice causing discomfort

(malaise) or illness to the consumer?

6.88 2.58 6.59 2.99 0.48

3 - What is the risk of a discomfort

(malaise) or illness to the consumer if

you wear adornments (rings, earrings,

watches, bracelets, necklaces and

piercings) while handling seafood?

3.88 3.56 2.31 3.16 0.01

4 - What is the risk of fresh seafood (still

on the boat) deteriorating (rotting) if it is

not packed on ice immediately after

capture?

7.16 2.54 6.09 3.19 0.01

5 - What is the risk of discomfort 7.40 2.17 6.36 3.00 0.01

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


(malaise) or illness to the consumer if the

seafood is stored in containers (baskets,

boxes and plastic coolers) that have not

been washed?

6 - What is the risk of discomfort


seafood is stored on ice of an unknown

origin?

5.66 3.41 4.07 3.64 0.01

7 - What is the risk of the seafood

causing discomfort (malaise) or illness to

the consumer if the water used to wash

the seafood is at room temperature?

2.84 3.04 2.61 3.33 0.62

8 - What is the risk of seafood

consumption causing discomfort


car or truck in which it is transported is

not clean?

7.46 2.24 7.18 2.67 0.43

Overall perceived risk 5.40 1.60 4.57 1.66 0.01

Low perceived risk (0.00-4.00 cm), average perceived risk (4.10-7.00 cm) and high

perceived risk (7.10-10.00 cm). p- p value determined using Student’s t-test.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Ms. Ref. No.: FOODRES-D-14-02270

Title: Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk

perceptions of seafood workers

Highlights

- Workers who handled fish on boats and in warehouses were interviewed.

- A minority of the workers had participated in a food-safety training session.

- Seafood-safety knowledge and attitude scores of the groups were different.

- Self-reported practice scores did not differ according to the workers’ functions.

- Both groups were classified as having an average level of risk perception.

Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perceptions of seafood...

Documents

Transcript of Seafood safety: Knowledge, attitudes, self-reported practices and risk perceptions of seafood...