Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Food safety awareness, knowledge and practices among students

in Slovenia
Andrej Ovca a, Mojca Jev
snik a, Peter Raspor b, *
a
b

Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Chair of Biotechnology, Microbiology and Food Safety, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 13 September 2013
Received in revised form
21 January 2014
Accepted 28 January 2014
Available online 12 February 2014

It is critical for children to understand food-related risks to preserve their health and the health of others,
particularly because their food preparation responsibilities will increase in adulthood. The purpose of
this study (n 1272) was to explore the inclusion of 10- to 12-year-old students in food preparation
activities and to determine their understanding of food-related risks, food safety knowledge and selfreported practices in their domestic environment prior to systematic involvement in these activities
during regular schooling. This study highlighted their inclusion in food preparation activities with
limited experiences. For food-related risks, a high level of perceived severity and a low level of perceived
vulnerability were observed. Particular lack of knowledge was identied regarding the impact of temperature on microorganisms. Additionally, self-reported practices indicated risky behaviours for the
prevention of cross-contamination, preservation of leftovers, re-heating of food in a potentially unsafe
manner and food preparation activities with unprotected wounds on their hands. These results
demonstrate that the systematic teaching of basic food safety principles as early as primary school remains necessary.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Food safety
Risk perception
Knowledge
Food handling
Children

1. Introduction
A study of children regarding food safety awareness, knowledge
and practices is addressed on two levels: food preparation at their
current stage of development and food preparation responsibilities
in the future. Understanding food-related risks is critical for the
preservation of the food preparers own health and the health of
others. Children, in addition to the elderly, pregnant women and
immune-compromised persons, are the most vulnerable category
to foodborne illness, and as adults, they will continue to practice
food-related behaviours at home as caregivers for family members
or as employees in the food business sector. After habits are
established, they tend to be long lasting and difcult to alter at later
life stages (Wills, Backett-Milburn, Gregory, & Lawton, 2005).
European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] reports 5648 (1.1/
100,000) food-borne outbreaks affecting 69,553 people, with the
household/domestic kitchen as the second most commonly (32.7%)
reported setting for outbreaks (EFSA, 2013), indicating the weakness

* Corresponding author. University of Primorska, Faculty of Health Sciences, Polje

42, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia. Tel.: 386 5 662 64 63; fax: 386 5 662 64 80.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Raspor).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.036
0956-7135/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of consumers as a last link in the food supply chain. However, these

numbers do not reect the actual epidemiology because in the
ofcial reports, only the reported outbreaks are recorded. Therefore,
the importance of unreported cases should not be ignored because
people with mild clinical symptoms often do not seek medical
assistance and are therefore not counted in the ofcial reports.
Although childhood is a crucial time for developing food safety
knowledge and skills (Mullan, Wong, & Kothe, 2013), more studies
are devoted to adult consumers than children and their foodhandling practises. There is evidence that children either collaborate with their parents to prepare food (Byrd-Bredbenner, Abbot, &
Quick, 2010) or prepare food at home by themselves (Haapala &
Probart, 2004). A previous study of Slovenian adults reports that
respondents learnt their cooking practices primarily from their
parents (Jev
snik, Hlebec, & Raspor, 2008). Furthermore, studies of
children, adolescents and young adults report that parents are a
primary source of information or the rst introduction to food
safety concepts (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010; Coulson, 2002; Eves
et al., 2006). According to the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,
1991), an individual is more likely to perform a specic behaviour if
he or she believes that parents (as important others) also think this
behaviour is essential. This presents a risk that deciencies in food
handling may be passed on to children, and previous studies

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

identied these deciencies as a lack of responsibility, lack of

knowledge and bad practices. Although Caraher, Baker, and Burns
(2004) considered mothers to be the primary person to pass on
cooking skills, they also report that as the child matures, parental
power may be reduced by inuence from teachers, peers and celebrity chefs. Whereas malpractice is often related to health damage or the risk of death, risk perception is a factor that inuences
motivation and is an important aspect when investigating food
safety knowledge and practices (Mullan et al., 2013). Furthermore,
self-efcacy in safe food handling by children, as demonstrated by
their condence to perform a specic behaviour, was also evaluated
(Haapala & Probart, 2004; Mullan et al., 2013).
Research of children and adolescents primarily focuses on
dening baseline data to serve as a starting point for educational
interventions (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2010; Haapala & Probart,
2004), the evaluation of educational interventions (Faccio et al.,
2013) and social marketing campaigns (Byrd-Bredbenner et al.,
2007). However, the systematic delivery of these contents to all
children during regular schooling should not be neglected. As reported by others (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2007; Grifth &
Redmond, 2001; Mullan et al., 2013), because of changes in the
educational system, food safety information has been restricted in
national curriculums, which indicates that food safety issues are
not high-priority topics in schools.
Previous studies of the general Slovenian population and its
sub-groups revealed misunderstanding of responsibility towards
food safety and gaps in knowledge and practices (Jev
snik, Hlebec,
et al., 2008; Jev
snik, Hoyer, & Raspor, 2008; Jev
snik et al., 2013),
prompting continued research with children. The purpose of this
study was to gain insight into the experiences of children with food,
their understanding of food-related risks, food safety knowledge
and self-reported practices in the domestic environment prior to
systematic involvement in these activities during regular schooling.
The results of this study will provide a starting point for the later
evaluation of existing regular schooling contributions to overall
food safety.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Design
This study was conducted at the beginning of school year (2012/
13). The participants were recruited by an e-mail invitation sent to
52 primary schools in the municipality of Ljubljana, capital of
Slovenia, and its surroundings, addressed to home economics
teachers. Half the schools (26) responded to the invitation, representing 5.8% of all primary schools in Slovenia (450). After ofcial
permission by the school principal for the proposed study was
granted, the home economics teacher collected the parental
permission. All respondents were anonymised and participated
voluntarily. The National Medical Ethics Committee approved the
study design.
The questionnaires and survey instructions were sent by post to
the home economics teachers. The teachers were expected to be
present when the respondents were answering the questionnaire
and were instructed with written guidelines to explain the questions/content when necessary. The teachers were also instructed to
emphasise to the respondents the importance of honesty in the responses, particularly when reporting their practices. The goal of
these instructions was to prevent respondents from reporting always to practices they recognised as necessary, but do not always
perform. After the questionnaires were answered, home economics
teachers sent them back by post. As a reward for participation in the
survey, a special workshop related to cleaning, cross-contamination,
heat treatment, temperature control and hand hygiene mistakes,

145

with the necessary measures to prevent foodborne illness at home,

was offered. The workshop was held approximately two weeks after
the survey. The students were involved in the workshop and their
teachers were present as observers.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed by authors considering preventive measures identied by the World Health Organization
(2012) as crucial for food safety (keep clean, separate raw and
cooked, cook thoroughly, keep food at safe temperatures, use safe
water and raw materials), and previous studies (Byrd-Bredbenner
et al., 2010; Haapala & Probart, 2004). The questionnaire was
divided into four sections. The 1st section was composed of ve
questions and ascertained the experiences of the children with food.
The 2nd section evaluated their personal understanding of foodrelated risk and was assessed with six statements. Food safety
knowledge was tested in the 3rd section using 18 true-and-false
questions divided into six categories, including cleanliness of
kitchen surfaces and kitchen utensils, prevention of crosscontamination, heat treatment, temperature control, checking food
before use/eating, hand hygiene and one uncategorised question
related to food safety responsibility after purchase. Self-reported
food safety practices were investigated in the 4th section,
composed of the 15 previously described actions. Using a 5-point
scale (never, almost never, sometimes, almost always, always) the
respondents reported how often they performed the described action. There was an additional option for those not involved in the
described situation. The questionnaire was tested by 42 students
(two classes in one primary school not included in dataset) to
determine the question clarity, identify additional response options,
and gauge the length of time necessary to answer the survey. The
questionnaire was revised on the basis of the pre-test.
2.3. Data analysis
The results were evaluated and analysed using the SPSS 20.0
software package. To examine the relationships among and between the variables, cross tabulations and the c2 test, Pearson
correlation coefcient and an independent sample t-test were used
according to the question type. In addition to gender and place of
living, self-reported prior knowledge about the prevention of food
poisoning was also used as an independent variable. The respondents who did not prepare food, help their parents during food
preparation, or selected the option other, were not included in the
analysis of self-reported food safety practices when appropriate
(self-reported practices including food preparation operations).
3. Results
A total of 1272 respondents participated in the study of which
50.9% were boys and 49.1% were girls. The respondents lived in the
city (72.7%) or in the suburb (27.3%) and were between 10 and 12
years of age with majority (93.8%) being 11 years old.
3.1. Experiences with food
The majority of respondents are already included in food preparation operations at home, and 84.2% report that they enjoy preparing food, with girls responding more favourably than boys
(p .000). Consequently, participation (Table 1) was also gender
related, with girls more frequently involved in these activities
(p .000). However, when asked to list the three most frequent
food items they prepare, the respondents answered primarily
snacks and simple dishes, which are not classied as potentially

146

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

Table 1
Experiences with food preparation and food poisoning.
Query

Response

Boys (%)

Girls (%)

Total (%)

c2 test

p value
How often do you prepare food at home on your own or collaborate
with other family members when preparing food?

Have you ever been poisoned by food?

Has anyone ever tell you how you can prevent food poisoning?
If yes, who did?b

I do not prepare food neither help

my parents during preparation
Daily
Several times a week
Several times a month
Occasionally
Othera
Yes
No
I do not know
Yes
No
Father
Mother
Both parents
Other family members
Family member/s and school
Teacher and/or school
Physician
Otherc

2.0

0.7

2.6

8.9
13.9
4.9
18.2
1.5
6.1
29.8
13.0
21.4
27.5
2.3
9.1
13.8
4.1
4.8
8.7
1.9
1.0

12.6
16.4
5.4
13.9
1.7
6.2
32.7
12.0
24.7
26.3
0.6
12.2
19.0
2.5
9.1
8.7
0.8
1.4

21.5
30.3
10.3
32.0
3.2
12.4
62.5
25.1
46.2
53.8
2.9
21.3
32.8
6.6
14.0
17.4
2.7
2.3

0.000

1212

0.447

1220

0.101

1213

0.006

516

n e Number of respondents.
a
Weekend only, during holidays, If asked, in case of parents lateness/tiredness/illness, do not cook at home.
b
Respondents answered in free text and their answers were ordered in categories.
c
Farmer, neighbour, peers and friends, TV, journals.

hazardous (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2001; Institute of

Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia [IVZ], 2011). However,
21.5% deal with potentially hazardous dishes, including meat, sh
and leafy greens.
Almost half the respondents report that they have been
instructed how to prevent food poisoning (Table 1), and of these, a
signicantly greater number reported experiences with food
poisoning (p .001). Among those who reported that they have
been taught how to prevent food poisoning, parents (especially
mothers) have a particularly signicant impact (Table 1). Among
the other family members, grandmothers and siblings are the main
examples. Only 22.4% of respondents did not mention family
members in this context. The impact of physicians is also evident.
He/she is more frequently listed (p .021) by those who experienced food poisoning (8.1%) then by those who did not (1.6%).
Gender related differences were observed because girls quote their
mother more often and other family members and physicians less
often than boys (Table 1).
3.2. Susceptibility towards food related risk
The majority (91.3%) of respondents agree that food poisoning
can be fatal, indicating high-perceived risk severity, particularly
among girls (Table 2). The degree of agreement is higher among
those who report that they have been taught how to prevent food

poisoning (p .026). Closer examination of the perceived vulnerability to food poisoning reveals that opinions in this matter are
divided, particularly among boys, who think that food poisoning is
more unlikely compared to girls (Table 2). The majority understand
that food poisoning occurs in developed countries, including their
own. However, they do not recognise the domestic environment as
place where food poisoning occurs, particularly girls (p .000).
Regardless of gender, the majority of respondents already feel
condent that they know how to handle food safely (Table 2),
indicating high perceived self-efcacy. The degree of agreement is
higher among those who report that they have already been taught
how to prevent food poisoning (p .000). By contrast, the respondents, particularly the girls (Table 2), believe that their level of
knowledge is not nal and can be further improved, indicating their
readiness to learn.
3.3. Knowledge of safe food handling
The respondents scored an average of 12.5 (SD 2.5), which
represents a correctness rate of 65.8%. There is a small but signicant difference (p .000) in the average scores of the girls (12.8;
SD 2.5) and boys (12.3; SD 2.4). A larger difference (p .000)
was observed between those who report that they have been
taught how to prevent food poisoning (13.0, SD 2.8) and those
who were not (12.1, SD 2.5).

Table 2
Susceptibility towards food poisoning and condence in current skills.
Item

Food poisoning can be fatal.

I think it is very unlikely to be poisoned by food.
There is a bigger probability of being poisoned by food in a restaurant than at home.
I know how to handle food so that I wont get sick.
Food poisoning is possible only in developing countries (in Africa) while in developed
countries (like Slovenia) it is not.
I believe my knowledge in the eld of food preparation can be further improved.
n e Number of respondents.
A e I agree.
NA e I do not agree.

Boys (%)

Girls (%)

c2 test

Total (%)

NA

NA

NA

p value

43.9
21.6
34.5
41.3
5.0

5.1
30.6
15.4
8.3
45.0

47.5
15.9
39.9
41.9
3.4

3.6
31.9
10.2
8.4
46.5

91.3
37.5
74.3
83.2
8.5

8.7
62.5
25.7
16.8
91.5

0.051
0.013
0.000
0.988
0.061

1062
904
908
973
1053

46.6

2.2

50.4

0.8

97.0

3.0

0.005

1114

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

For the individual categories, signicant differences with regard

to gender were identied in the following categories: B e preventing cross-contamination, E  checking food before use/eating
and F e hand hygiene (Table 3). The scores were always better for
the girls. For the individual categories with regard to previous
knowledge, signicant differences were identied in categories E
and F (p .000). The least correct answers to all items in a single
category were in the following categories: A e cleanness of kitchen
surfaces and kitchen utensils, C e heat treatment and D e temperature control (Table 3). The correctness rate of these categories
is lower than the rest, in which approximately half the respondents
(48.8e52.2%) answered all items in a single category correctly.
For the single items, the least correct answers (less than 50%
correctness rate) were for dish washing procedure, manner of
checking whether the food is properly cooked and refrigerator
temperatures, with no signicant differences with regard to gender
or previous knowledge. Furthermore, a greater than 85% correctness rate was observed for cleanness of the surfaces coming into
contact with food, understanding the effect of cleaning, separating
raw and cooked foods and the importance of removing jewellery
before working with food. The last two items are related to gender
(p .006 and .002), with better scores for the girls (90.8% and 92.3%
correct answers, respectively), whereas the impact of previous
knowledge was not detected.
The place where they live (city or its surrounding) or whether
they had been previously food poisoned (Table 2) did not signicantly impact the average test scores or correctness rate of a single
category or item.
3.4. Self-reported food safety practices
The majority of respondents, particularly those who were taught
how to prevent food poisoning (p .000), report always checking
kitchen surfaces and utensils for cleanliness before use and also
cleaning immediately after use (Fig. 1). However, a signicant
number of respondents, particularly the boys (p .000), sometimes

147

or even often display risky behaviour with regard to crosscontamination prevention (Fig. 1), using an unwashed chopping
board/knife (24.8%) and using kitchen cloths for drying both wet
hands dishes (25.5%). Comparing the distribution of answers of
both practices reveals that whether the utensils were previously
used by their parents have no signicant impact. This type of
behaviour is even more risky because 66.1% of the respondents
report washing dishes with warm water only (Fig. 1).
The lack of knowledge of the impact of temperature on microorganisms (Table 3) is also reected in the reported practices
(Fig. 1). The majority of respondents are never (40.2%) or almost
never (17.0%) attentive to this factor. They were specically asked
not to answer if temperature monitoring in their domestic refrigerator is not possible. Furthermore, when preserving leftovers,
only half the respondents (48.8%) always or almost always preserve
the leftovers in the refrigerator. Moreover, re-heating leftovers on
the kitchen range is far from ideal, whereas a considerable number
of respondents never (15.4%), almost never (10.8%) or only
sometimes (21.8%) reheat food to the boiling point. By contrast,
they, particularly girls who were taught how to prevent food
poisoning, reject food when there is a suspicious smell/look/taste
(p .005), expired shelf-life (p .002) and/or damaged packaging
(p .004).
Based on their report, hand washing before food preparation is
the most highly followed, particularly by girls (p .008). However,
the respondents are not that consistent always to remove jewellery
before food preparation, although the majority, particularly those
who were taught how to prevent food poisoning (p .004) report
always to follow this rule. It is worrisome that only 25.6% report not
working with food when they have an unprotected wound.
Although the respondents mostly agree (83.2%) that they know
how to handle food safely (Table 2), only 39.4% warn their parents
(Fig. 1) if they notice mistakes, and these tend to be those who were
taught how to prevent food poisoning (p .000). Whether they had
already been poisoned by food (Table 2) had no signicant impact
on any of their self-reported practices.

Table 3
Distribution of food handling knowledge by correctness rate of a single item and relevant category.
Category

Correctness rate
3/3
%

N.C.
A

19.0

52.5

Item

1/3
n

1235

74.6
98.9

1242
1253

22.1

1255

88.0
87.8

1249
1235

78.8

1245

71.2
67.0
60.1

1242
1174
1227

22.4
62.7
63.2
32.5
75.6
82.2
72.1
89.5
68.2
75.3

1221
1234
1150
1154
1229
1237
1214
1241
1236
1238

1205

9.2

1133

13.4

1114

52.3

1176

48.8

1211

The consumer is responsible for food safety from the purchase onward.
Before we start preparing food, it is necessary to ensure that all surfaces and utensils that come in contact with food
are clean.
If we do not use a dishwasher, dishes can be effectively washed only with warm water, if uneaten food is previously
removed and dishes then wiped with a clean cloth.
Cleaning the surfaces removes visible dirt, food residues and the vast majority of microbes.
Roasted meat (e.g. burger) and unclean vegetables (e.g. lettuce), can be together in the same container if stored in the
refrigerator, since the storage in the refrigerator prevents microbial growth.
If you prepare vegetables with the same chopping board and knife you already used for preparing raw meat, the board and
knife rst have to be washed well with warm water and detergent (if the dishwasher in not used).
It is enough to use only one cloth during food preparation for drying wet hands, wiping the dishes and work bench.
If we want that raw meat (e.g. chicken wings) be suitable for consumption, it has to be treated at least at 37  C or above.
When we reheat food, we have to do it very quickly. Soups, sauces and other pot meals have to be boiled for a few
minutes.
Tasting is the most reliable check way to check whether cooking or roasting was sufcient.
If we (after purchasing food) visit a friend, this does not pose a threat that food (e.g. minced meat) would be spoiled.
The most suitable temperature for growth of microbes that cause food poisoning is between 20 and 40  C
The temperature that prevents growth of microbes in the refrigerator is 10  C or less.
Damaged food packaging does not present any threat that food would be spoiled.
Food that has an unpleasant odour, suspect appearance or taste is not suitable for consumption.
If the can is bulging, it does not present any risk if its contents are eaten.
Before we wash our hands prior to food preparation, it is necessary to remove jewellery (bracelets, rings, watches).
Washing our hands with clean, running water prior to food preparation is enough to remove germs from them.
If we have an unprotected scab on our hands, we can still prepare food if this does not hinder us.

N.C. e Not categorised, 3/3 e correctness rate at relevant category, 1/3 e correctness rate at single item, n e number of respondents, A e cleanness of kitchen surfaces and
kitchen utensils, B e preventing cross-contamination, C e heat treatment, D e temperature control, E e checking food before use/eating; F e hand hygiene.

148

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

Fig. 1. Self-reported food handling practices.

n e number of respondents; * The respondents who did not prepare food, help their parents during food preparation, or selected the option other (Table 1), were not included in
the analysis.

4. Discussion
The number of respondents represents 7.2% of all students
(17,666) enrolled in the 6th grade on the national level and their
gender ratio is almost entirely representative to the national ratio
(51.5% boys and 48.5% girls) in this particular school year (Statistical
Ofce of the Republic of Slovenia, 2012). For their age, cognitive
development at this stage allows children to proceed from concrete
to abstract thoughts. They can consider several dimensions at once
and relate them in a thoughtful and relatively abstract manner
(Roedder, 1999). Therefore, teaching food safety concepts at this
level is critical.
4.1. Experiences with food
The number of respondents who prepare food at home is comparable to a previous study (Haapala & Probart, 2004). Gender
related differences for frequency of food preparation indicates role
sharing for this type of activity. Although they primarily prepare

simple dishes and snacks regardless of their gender, the majority

regularly deal with eggs, presenting a risk for the crosscontamination of kitchen utensils and surfaces when hand hygiene
is not adequate (Humphrey, Martin, & Whitehead, 1994; IVZ, 2011).
Almost half the respondents report to know how to prevent
food poisoning before this topic is taught during primary school.
Respondents of the same age most likely obtain this information
from various sources; therefore, these results indicate who is more
inuential. The teachers and school at this stage seem to have
minor impacts, whereas, the role of parents, particularly mothers, is
dominant. Although as reported by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010),
children do not always follow the advice of parents when parents
are not present. Parental inuence may be reduced in the future by
teachers, peers and celebrity chefs (Caraher et al., 2004); however,
it is difcult to change basic concepts as children age. The listing of
physicians as a source of information may be related to food
poisoning experiences because mentioning a physician is more
frequent among those who report previous experiences with food
poisoning.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

For previous food poisoning experience, the results are different

than those reported by Haapala and Probart, (2004) in which respondents report being sick by something they ate in 21% and are
not sure in 45%. Notably, those who are not sure of this question
may increase the actual number because of the unreported cases.
However, those with food poisoning may consider digestive problems related to other causes as food poisoning.
4.2. Susceptibility towards food related risk
Faccio et al. (2013) report that children aged 9e11 are already
aware that microorganisms can cause illnesses in the context of
food safety, and can also distinguish between harmful and benecial microorganisms for human health. Gender related differences
of perceived risk severity revealed in this study are consistent with
the general population, in which higher food safety awareness
among women compared to men was identied (Jev
snik, Hlebec,
et al., 2008; Jev
snik, Hoyer, et al., 2008). Although perceived risk
severity can be powerful motivation for food-handling practices
(Redmond & Grifth, 2004), the use of fear-arousing communication for food safety is not always effective (Mullan et al., 2013),
particularly in situations similar to this study in which the respondents are persuaded that there is a greater probability of being
poisoned by food outside the domestic environment than at home.
This may be because the perceived vulnerability to risk is low
(Chow & Mullan, 2010), and they believe there is a little risk associated with the food prepared at home. These results are consistent
with a previous Slovenian study of the general population, which
showed that adults believe they are not responsible for food safety
to the same degree as other links in the food supply chain (Jev
snik,
Hlebec, et al., 2008). Haapala and Probart (2004) also reported high
perceived risk severity and low personal vulnerability. However,
when the perceived risks are not considered serious, then, as reported by Chow and Mullan (2010), the implementation of proper
food safety practices decreases.
Although self-efcacy may be a powerful initiator of safe foodhandling behaviour, we must not be misled with possible optimism bias, in which respondents can underestimate the likelihood
for negative consequences because of their actual practices (Mullan
et al., 2013). Despite the high perceived self-efcacy, also shown in
a previous study (Haapala & Probart, 2004), the respondents are
inuenced by their sources of this knowledge, whereas those who
report that they have been taught how to prevent food poisoning
feel more condent in their practices. Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010)
also report that respondents of a similar age feel they are not at risk
for food poisoning from foods they prepare because they either do
not cook or prepare only simple foods.
Their joy for food preparation and their readiness to pay
attention to these topics is advantageous, whereas knowledge affects beliefs related to perceived susceptibility and severity of foodrelated risks (Champion & Skinner, 2008).
4.3. Knowledge of safe food handling
The correctness rate of this study (65.8%) is lower compared to
previous studies (Eves et al., 2006; Haapala & Probart, 2004) and
higher compared to a recent study (Mullan et al., 2013), in which
the correctness rates were 69%, 72% and 42%, respectively, for
comparable age groups. The differences between the respondents
who were taught how to prevent food poisoning and those who
were not indicate a positive but selective effect of past notication,
primarily by their parents. The positive impact of previous notication is in cautiousness before food use and knowledge of hand
hygiene. For categories with low correctness rates, no signicant
differences were observed.

149

For the single items, the least correct answers were observed for
dish washing, method of checking whether the food was properly
cooked and refrigerator temperatures, which are comparable to
that reported by Eves et al. (2006) for similar age group. Each of the
three items may be related to the lack of knowledge of the impact of
temperature on microorganisms. During the workshops (after the
questionnaire was answered), the children frequently stated that
moderately warm water kills microorganisms, which explains their
incorrect answers for dish washing and hand washing without soap
(Table 3). Answers for the refrigerator storage temperatures are
consistent with ndings of adult Slovenian consumers, of which
43.7% do not know the temperature of their home refrigerator
(Jev
snik, Hlebec, et al., 2008). The knowledge of keeping raw and
cooked foods separate to prevent cross-contamination is comparable to previous studies (Eves et al., 2006; Haapala & Probart,
2004), whereas knowledge of the correct refrigerator temperature, manner of checking whether cooking/roasting is sufcient
and washing hands with water only is worse. As observed during
the workshops (after the questionnaire was answered), students
are not familiar with the phrase from farm to fork; however, the
majority agree with the responsibility of an individual for food
safety after purchase (Table 3).
Gender related differences may occur because girls are already
more frequently involved in food activities (Table 1), are more
interested in improving knowledge (Table 2) and enjoy preparing
food more than boys. The differences in removing jewellery before
working with food may occur also because girls wear jewellery
more often than boys. Although a recent study (Faccio et al., 2013)
identied differences in knowledge between urban and rural areas,
the difference between respondents living in the city and its surrounding was not revealed, most likely because the city surrounding is a suburb and not a traditional rural area. Additionally,
previous food poisoning (Table 2) had no signicant impact on the
average test scores, most likely because this was not related to any
directed educational intervention. Findings based on focus groups
performed by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010) indicate that knowledge of safe food handling reported by children of this age is primarily at the knowledge recall level with limited comprehension as
to why safe food handling is essential, although the knowledge is
often correct.
There is evidence that knowledge is (Abbot, Byrd-Bredbenner,
Schaffner, Bruhn, & Blalocket, 2009) and is not (Mullan et al.,
2013) a signicant predictor of safe food-handling practices. In
this study, the total scores of safe food-handling knowledge
correlate with self-reported food handling practices in 8 of 15 reported practices (p < .01), although the correlation is weak (r  0.2).
This is consistent with the general belief that knowledge is essential but sufcient for safe food-handling practices (Fishbein & Ajzen,
2010).
4.4. Self-reported food safety practices
Potential malpractices were identied in cross-contamination
prevention, control of microorganisms with temperature, dealing
with leftovers and activities with unprotected wounds on their
hands. By contrast, rules related to checking kitchen utensils and
their cleanliness before preparing food, cases when the rejection of
food is necessary, taking off jewellery before hand washing and
hand washing before food preparation are reported to be followed
by the majority.
Although the respondents demonstrate relatively adequate
knowledge of cross-contamination prevention (Table 3), their selfreported practices (Fig. 1) do not conrm it completely. It seems
that they are aware of the importance of kitchen-ware cleanliness
before use and cleaning immediately when nished only for its

150

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

single use, but not when sequential use is applied. The unintentional usage of kitchen-were and kitchen cloths can lead to faster
growth and reproduction of microorganisms (United States
Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2008). This risk increases
when washing dishes with warm water only (Fig. 1).
When preserving leftovers, only half the respondents always or
almost always preserve the leftovers in the refrigerator (Fig. 1),
which is signicantly less than in previous studies (Haapala &
Probart, 2004) in which 81% report practicing this almost always
or always. The way of re-heating leftovers on the kitchen range may
be related to impatience. During the workshops (after the questionnaire was answered), the explanation for this specic practice
was that they usually re-heat food only for immediate consumption
and therefore not too hot. Insufcient temperature control in domestic refrigerators combined with improper reheating enables
suitable conditions for the growth of potentially harmful bacteria
and toxins, such as staphylococcal enterotoxins (Jay, Loessner, &
Golden, 2005).
Respondents report strict rejection of food with suspicious
organoleptic properties, reecting a belief that food poisoning
bacteria changes the sensory characteristics of food. When respondents and/or their parents do not distinguish between bestbefore and use by dates (Directive 2000/13/EC), the strict rejection of food with expired shelf-life can result in unnecessary food
waste because of lower food quality for labels with best-before
dates.
Although the respondents, comparable to a previous study (Eves
et al., 2006), report washing their hands regularly before food
handling, efciency is important. There is evidence that despite
knowledge and positive attitudes for implementing safe practices,
consumer hand-washing and hand-drying actions are not always
consistent with the observational data (Redmond & Grifth, 2003).
The hand washing technique of the respondents was not systematically investigated in this study, although coincidental observations during workshops (after the questionnaire was answered)
revealed deciencies in hand washing technique. Additionally, the
correctness rate with regards to the efciency of washing hands
with running water only (Table 3) conrms a knowledge gap. Eves
et al. (2006) identied discrepancies among 10e11-year-old students who reported washing hands more frequently at home than
at school. Through interviews, they clarify that they wash hands
before working with food at school because the class teacher
insisted, whereas at home, opportunities to talk about food hygiene
with adults are created more frequently. This explanation conrms
a need for specialised subjects, such as home economics, in which
opportunities for explanations of particular behaviours are created.
It is worrisome that only 25.6% report not working with food when
they have an unprotected wound. This concern is related to the fact
that some food poisoning bacteria are commonly found on ulcerous
wounds (IVZ, 2011).
Although the respondents mostly report to know how to handle
food safely (Table 2), less than half warned their parents (Fig. 1)
when they noticed mistakes. Although the reasons for this were not
investigated, it may be explained by the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), in which the parents are considered as important
others and role models.
As reported by Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2010), many children of
this age were previously taught how to prevent food poisoning,
although they do not always practice safe food handling because of
hunger (too hungry to spend time on precautionary steps) and
other priorities. A signicant barrier for implementing food safety
practices is also peer pressure (wanting to be like their peers).
Although others (Millman, Rigby, Edward-Jones, Lighton, & Jones,
2014) report differences between the people who had suffered
campylobacteriosis and those who had not, previous food

poisoning had no signicant impact on self-reported food safety

practices in this study.
5. Conclusions
Based on these results, it is evident that children are included in
food preparation at home; however, because of the dishes they
prepare, childrens experiences are limited. For food-related risks, a
high level of perceived severity and a low level of perceived
vulnerability are observed. The latter combined with condence in
their skills may diminish their performance of appropriate food
safety practices during food preparation, even in situations in
which their knowledge is appropriate. The results of the food
handling knowledge demonstrate familiarity with single items;
however, the children often do not master the entire relevant
category. Particular lack of knowledge was identied regarding the
impact of temperature on microorganisms. Self-reported practices
indicate risky behaviour for cross-contamination, when preserving
leftovers, re-heating food in a potentially unsafe manner, and hand
hygiene in relation to unprotected hand wounds.
Although previous experience with food poisoning had no signicant impact on food safety knowledge and practices, differences
in gender and previous notication were identied. Previous
notication at this stage, primarily by parents, has a selective
impact on knowledge and behaviour, and the results demonstrate
that systematic learning of basic food safety principles as early as in
primary school is necessary to ll the gaps. Further restrictions or
even withdrawal of these topics in schools may lead to extreme
situations in which children will not be included or are included in
an incorrect manner in food preparation activities at home or
school. Therefore, these topics will not be important in the future
when their food preparation activities will increase together with
risk for foodborne illness.
6. Research limitations
A questionnaire is an appropriate tool for performing studies on
larger samples, but it has its weak points, particularly for selfreported practices. Despite our clear statement regarding the
importance of honesty, the risk that respondents will over-report
desired practices cannot be eliminated. However, a recent study
by Milton and Mullan (2012) demonstrates that self-reporting
signicantly correlates with observed food hygiene behaviour.
However, the authors believe it is crucial to perform observations of
food-safety practices on smaller samples to verify the reported
outcomes.
Acknowledgements
This survey was a part of the project What can I do for safe food?,
nancially supported by the Municipality of Ljubljana, Capital of
Slovenia. The authors would also like to acknowledge Zala


star
si

Schmautz and Katja Su
c for technical support, and thank the
participating primary schools for making this study possible.
References
Abbot, J. M., Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C. M., & Blalock, L. (2009).
Comparison of food safety cognitions and self-reported food-handling behaviors with observed food safety behaviors of young adults. European Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 63, 572e579.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179e211.
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Abbot, J. M., & Quick, V. (2010). Food safety knowledge and
beliefs of middle school children: implications for food safety educators. Journal
of Food Science Education, 9, 19e30.

A. Ovca et al. / Food Control 42 (2014) 144e151

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Maurer, J., Wheatley, V., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C., & Blalock, L.
(2007). Food safety self-reported behaviors and cognitions of young adults:
results of a national study. Journal of Food Protection, 70, 1917e1926.
Caraher, M., Baker, H., & Burns, M. (2004). Childrens views of cooking and food
preparation. British Food Journal, 106(4), 255e273.
Champion, V., & Skinner, C. (2008). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. Rimer, &
K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education. Theory, research, and
practice (4th ed.) (pp. 45e65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chow, S., & Mullan, B. (2010). Predicting food hygiene: an investigation of social
factors and past behaviour in an extended model of the health action process
approach. Appetite, 54, 126e133.
Coulson, N. S. (2002). Source of food safety information: whom do adolescents
trust? Appetite, 38, 199e200.
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March
2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.
EFSA e European Food Safety Authority. (2013). The European Union summary report
on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in
2011. Scientic report of EFSA and ECDC. Retrieved from http://www.efsa.
europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3129.htm.
Eves, A., Bielby, G., Egan, B., Lumbers, M., Raats, M., & Adams, M. (2006). Food hygiene knowledge and self-reported behaviours of UK school children (4e14
years). British Food Journal, 108, 706e720.
Faccio, E., Costa, N., Losasso, C., Cappa, V., Mantovani, C., Cibin, V., et al. (2013). What
programs work to promote health for children? Exploring beliefs on microorganisms and on food safety control behaviour in primary schools. Food Control,
33(2), 320e329.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
FDA e Food and Drug Administration. (2001). Evaluation & denition of potentially
hazardous foods. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/
SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094141.htm.
Grifth, C., & Redmond, E. (2001). Evaluating hygiene behaviour in the domestic
setting and the impact of food hygiene education. Journal of Infection, 43, 70e74.
Haapala, I., & Probart, C. (2004). Food safety, perceptions and behaviours among
middle school students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 36, 71e76.
Humphrey, T. J., Martin, K. W., & Whitehead, A. (1994). Contamination of hands and
work surfaces with Salmonella enteritidis PT4 during the preparation of egg
dishes. Epidemiology & Infection, 113, 403e409.
IVZ e Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia. (2011). Higienska priporo
cila za varnost
zivil za potro
snike [Hygienic recommendations to consumers
regarding
food
safety].
Retrieved
from
http://www.ivz.si/Mp.aspx?

151

ni23&pi5&_5_Filename4561.pdf&_5_MediaId4561&_5_
AutoResizefalse&pl23-5.3.
Jay, J. M., Loessner, M. J., & Golden, D. A. (2005). Modern food microbiology (7th ed.).
New York: Springer.
Jev
snik, M., Hlebec, V., & Raspor, P. (2008). Consumers awareness of food safety
from shopping to eating. Food Control, 19(8), 737e745.
Jev
snik, M., Hoyer, S., & Raspor, P. (2008). Food safety knowledge and practices
among pregnant and non-pregnant women in Slovenia. Food Control, 19(5),
526e534.
Jev
snik, M., Ovca, A., Bauer, M., Fink, R., Oder, M., & Sev
sek, F. (2013). Food
safety knowledge and practices among elderly in Slovenia. Food Control, 31(2),
284e290.
Millman, C, Rigby, D, Edward-Jones, G, Lighton, L, & Jones, D (2014). Perceptions,
behaviours and kitchen hygiene of people who have and have not suffered
campylobacteriosis: a case control study. Food Control, 41, 82e90.
Milton, A. C., & Mullan, B. A. (2012). An application of the theory of planned
behavior e a randomized controlled food safety pilot. Health Psychology, 31(2),
250e259.
Mullan, B. A., Wong, C., & Kothe, E. J. (2013). Predicting adolescents safe food
handling using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Food Control, 31(2),
454e460.
Redmond, C., & Grifth, E. (2003). A comparison and evaluation of research
methods used in consumer food safety studies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(1), 17e33.
Redmond, C., & Grifth, E. (2004). Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control
and responsibility. Appetite, 43(3), 309e313.
Roedder, J. D. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at
twenty-ve years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183e213.
Statistical Ofce of the Republic of Slovenia. (2012). Pupils in the 9-year elementary
school program by the municipality of the school, type of school, class, gender and
age, the start of the school year, Slovenia. Retrieved from http://pxweb.stat.si/
pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma0952706S&ti&path../Database/Dem_soc/09_
izobrazevanje/04_osnovnosol_izobraz/01_09527_zac_sol_leta/&lang2.
USDA e United States Department of Agriculture. (2008). Kitchen companion. Your
safe food handbook. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Kitchen_
Companion_Single.pdf.
Wills, W., Backett-Milburn, K., Gregory, S., & Lawton, J. (2005). The inuence of
the secondary school setting on the food practices of young teenagers
from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland. Health Education Research, 20(4),
458e465.
WHO. (2012). Five keys to safer food. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
foodsafety/publications/consumer/5keys/en/.