Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Food safety culture in food services with different degrees of risk for T
foodborne diseases in Brazil
Marcel Levy de Andradea, Elke Stedefeldtb, Lais Mariano Zaninc, Diogo Thimoteo da Cunhad,∗
a
Departamento de Alimentos e Nutrição, Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Unicamp, Zeferino Vaz, s / n, Campinas, São Paulo,
Mailbox 6121, 13083-862, Brazil
b
Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Unifesp, 740, Botucatu St, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, 04023-900, Brazil
c
Nutrição. Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Unifesp, 740, Botucatu St, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, 04023-900, Brazil
d
Laboratório multidisciplinar em Alimentos e Saúde, Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Unicamp, Rua Pedro Zaccaria, 1300, Limeira,
São Paulo, Caixa postal 1068, 13484-350, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Food safety culture may establish the right environment for adequate food handling and management, reducing
Food safety climate violations of food safety regulation, especially those related to foodborne disease outbreaks. This study aimed to
Food services evaluate differences among elements of food safety culture in food services at low or high-risk for foodborne
Risk assessment diseases. This study was conducted with 63 managers and 333 food handlers from 32 food services located in the
Leadership
metropolitan region of Campinas, State of São Paulo, Brazil. The following elements of food safety culture
Optimistic bias
(considering the technical-managerial and human routes) were evaluated: management systems, style, and
Restaurant
Behavior process; leadership; organizational commitment; food safety climate (communication; self-commitment; man-
agement and coworker support; environment support; risk judgment; normative beliefs and work pressure); and
risk perceptions. In the technical-managerial route, restaurants were categorized as low- or high foodborne
disease risk restaurants. For the evaluation of food safety management systems, a validated checklist was used. In
the human route, food safety climate analysis was performed by evaluating five elements applied exclusively to
food handlers. High-risk restaurants presented a higher percentage of violation in most aspects related to food
safety regulation and physical structure. Leadership and knowledge of low-risk restaurants' managers presented
a higher level when compared to high-risk restaurants’ managers, showing that in the first group managers acted
as mediators of safe practices. Food handlers from low-risk restaurants presented higher scores in food safety
knowledge, organizational commitment, and food safety climate when compared to food handlers from high-risk
restaurants. In restaurants with lower risk for foodborne diseases, the elements of food safety culture were better
evaluated, indicating fewer violations of food safety regulation. In these restaurants, a consistent food safety
climate was perceived within the technical-managerial route. This result shows that fewer violations of food
safety legislation, especially those involving high-risk foodborne disease, were a positive outcome of an im-
proved FS-culture. In this sense, it is possible to improve food safety by applying, evolving and maturing the
concepts of FS-culture in restaurants in Brazil.

1. Introduction improvement, and maintenance of food safety in food services.

In some studies is indicated that knowledge provision is not enough
Inadequate food handling is one of the main causes of foodborne to promote attitudinal change and the adoption of adequate practices
diseases (FBD), directly associated with outbreaks in households and (Zanin, da Cunha, de Rosso, Capriles, & Stedefeldt, 2017) since in-
food services in Brazil (Brasil, 2016) and other countries like the United dividuals present several aspects of attitudinal ambivalence (Newby-
States (Food and Drug Administration, 2010) and China (Wu et al., Clark, McGregor, & Zanna, 2002). In food handling, some hypothetical
2018). Over the years, even with significant technological evolution, factors are described as generators of ambivalence, such as optimistic
outbreak cases are not reducing. As a result, researchers have been bias (Miles, Braxton, & Frewer, 1999), low perception of risk in food
studying the use of innovative strategies for the assessment, handling activities (Da Cunha, Stedefeldt, & De Rosso, 2012; Parry,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.L. de Andrade), [email protected] (D.T. da Cunha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107152
Received 29 November 2019; Received in revised form 23 January 2020; Accepted 30 January 2020
Available online 04 February 2020
0956-7135/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

Miles, Tridente, Palmer, & Gardner, 2004), illusion of control (de companies in a low-income country (Nyarugwe et al., 2018). Probably,
Freitas, da Cunha, & Stedefeldt, 2019), knowledge provision with low even in smaller food services, like restaurants, for example, the ele-
application in a practical context (Egan et al., 2007; Pellegrino, ments of FS-culture can be identified and are likely to affect food safety
Crandall, O'Bryan, & Seo, 2015), lack of willingness to change on the practices, regardless of the country's income.
part of individual (Ajzen, 1991), low motivation to work (Seaman, In this context, FS-culture is not understood as a management
2010), and several cognitive aspects. system or a program, but instead as a risk factor when it is not improved
Based on these assumptions and on the scientific knowledge of or mature (Griffith et al., 2010). The concepts and premises of FS-cul-
human behavior and organizational culture, food safety culture (FS- ture and safety culture have been used in the food industry to reduce
culture) emerges as a new concept to understand food safety (Stedefeldt the risk of accidents, disasters, and FBD outbreaks (Ball, Wilcock, &
et al., 2015; Yiannas, 2009). FS-culture is defined as “shared attitudes, Aung, 2010; Griffith et al., 2010; Taylor, 2011; Yiannas, 2009). The
values and beliefs towards the food safety behaviors that are routinely improvement of FS-culture in restaurants, especially the smaller ones,
demonstrated in food handling” (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010). may be harder than that in the food industry owing to intrinsic char-
Griffith et al. (2010) defined six factors in the assessment of the FS- acteristics of smaller business, such as a reduced physical structure
culture: management systems, style, and process; leadership; commu- (Cunha, Rosso, & Stedefeldt, 2018), lack of resources to apply man-
nication; commitment; environment; and risk perceptions. De Boeck, agerial systems, food handler work-related issues (de Freitas et al.,
Jacxsens, Bollaerts, and Vlerick (2015) proposed a conceptual model of 2019) (e.g. lack of proper training and supervision; low education level;
FS-culture, which defined it as the interaction of the food safety climate work informality), among others. Still, in food services wherein the
(FS-climate) perceived by employees and managers (called the human managers or owners invest in human dimensions and in understanding
route) and the food safety management system (FSMS) in place, which organizational culture, better results should be expected because FS-
would be influenced by the technology available, the company's char- culture is more of a choice than a complex investment (Yiannas, 2009).
acteristics, and the organizational context (called the technical-man- It can be suggested that when restaurants’ FS-culture is enhanced, food
agement route), resulting in a certain level of food safety and hygiene. handlers are likely to make fewer violations, especially those at higher
FS-climate evaluation encompasses the elements of FS-culture that are risk of FBD. This result can show that FS-culture can be stimulated in
associated with (shared) perception of individuals towards leadership, food services of different contexts, sizes, and complexity. Therefore, this
communication, commitment, resources, and safety risk awareness, study aimed to evaluate differences among elements of FS-culture in
which, reflect FS-culture. food services at low or high-risk for FBD.
All the elements of FS-culture, when improved and mature, i.e. food
safety as an integral part of the business (Jespersen, Griffiths, 2. Methods
Maclaurin, Chapman, & Wallace, 2016), can be positively related to a
food service's compliance with food safety regulation (Powell, Jacob, & 2.1. Study design
Chapman, 2011). Jespersen et al. (2016) proposed a model to assess the
maturity of FS-Culture and organizations. FS-Culture's maturity profile This is a cross-sectional and quantitative study conducted with 32
is measured in different capacity areas and in five stages ranging from restaurants located in the metropolitan region of Campinas, State of São
“doubt” (e.g. tasks are done because the regulators/leaders pressure, Paulo, Brazil, to analyze food managers and handlers in relation to six
food safety is not evaluated, etc.) to “internalize” (e.g. all organization indicators of FS-culture described by Griffith et al. (2010): management
is responsible for food safety, the business improvement and growth is systems, styles, and processes; leadership; communication; organiza-
enabled by food safety, etc.). Thus, organizations that perform well in tional commitment; environment; and risk perceptions. This also in-
all areas and stages have improved FS-culture. However, some orga- cluded an analysis of normative beliefs and work pressure described by
nizations can achieve good results by improving some stages within Clayton and Griffith (2008) and Abdin et al., (2014b). The ques-
capacity areas. tionnaires are detailed in section 2.4 Assessment of food safety culture
In addition to FS-culture, normative beliefs from leaders and peers, elements.
which can be an indicator of a company's organizational culture and Therefore, the study included two sections: a) measurement of in-
compliance with recommendations, also emerges as an element of FS- dicator's reliability; b) evaluation of FS-culture elements (considering
culture in some studies. For example, a study with food handlers found the technical-managerial and human routes) and relationship with the
that social pressure (e.g. pressure from managers, peers, and health risk for FBD (considering FBD risk score).
surveillance agents) was positive for better hand hygiene (Clayton &
Griffith, 2008). Abidin, Arendt, and Strohbehn (2013) analyzed another 2.2. Sample
type of pressure called work pressure, which is also characterized as an
important indicator of food safety practices. Since evaluation or mea- First, a pilot test with 10 managers and 10 food handlers from a
surement of organizational culture is complex, other aspects should restaurant were conducted. The pilot test was conducted to check the
additionally be considered when evaluating FS-culture, such as orga- applicability of the questionnaires, the time spent to answer each
nizational and administrative characteristics (vision, communication, questionnaire, the order of questions, any required adaptation due to
commitment, leadership, training), facilities, and technical resources respondent difficulties, as well as to estimate the expected frequency for
(utensils, equipment, and hygiene facilities) and actual performance of sample calculation. The test was conducted by a trained researcher and,
risk-based food safety (Nyarugwe, Linnemann, Hofstede, Fogliano, & all questionnaires were answered directly by the interviewees.
Luning, 2016; Nyarugwe, Linnemann, Nyanga, Fogliano, & Luning, A minimum sample for managers and food handlers was 40 and 300
2018). The combination of different aspects and assessment techniques individuals, respectively, considering the results of the pilot test, with a
may lead to more assertive results. 95% confidence interval and a maximum 10% sampling error (Hair,
Studies about FS-culture are generally conducted in food services Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2009).
with an improved organizational level, for example schools (Fujisaki, The sample was selected by convenience, as the owner or manager
Shimpo, & Akamatsu, 2019), hospital (Abidin, Arendt, & Strohbehn, of the restaurant agreed to participate in the survey. In the final sample,
2014b), food services of a university (De Boeck, Jacxsens, it was included only restaurants with open access to consumers and
Vanoverberghe, & Vlerick, 2019) and butcheries (De Boeck, Jacxsens, serving full meals, i.e. it was not included food services that were part
Bollaerts, Uyttendaele, & Vlerick, 2016). These studies were also con- or inside of an institution (e.g. schools, hospitals, companies, etc.) and
ducted in high-income countries: Japan, the United States and two in serving meals with low complexity (e.g. snack bars, bars, bakeries, etc.).
Belgium, respectively. Only one study was found conducted in dairy For food handlers sample it was invited all those who had direct

2
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

contact with food. For managers sample, it was invited those from the Antongiovanni, & da Cunha, 2019). The risk perceptions and optimistic
lower-level and middle-level management, i.e. only those who have bias assessment were included to understand the role and possible as-
direct contact with the food handlers and identified himself/herself as sociation of these variables with FBD risk when FS-culture variables
the team leader. were also considered. A low-risk perception and the presence of opti-
mistic bias may increase inadequate practices (Da Cunha, Braga, Passos,
2.3. Measurement of internal consistency of food safety culture elements Stedefeldt, and de Rosso (2015)).
Leadership was assessed through seven questions proposed by
The reliability of instruments and methods applied in this study was Abidin et al. (2013), which ask the manager about possible situations
analyzed to ensure consistency in elements for subsequent analysis. that call for a leadership style change, food safety practices, pressure,
This analysis used Cronbach's alpha (CA) (Cronbach, 1951) and shows and work environment. The answers were measured using a five-point
which measured constructs express more consistency in the evaluation Likert scale (1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree, a final score ran-
of the elements at hand. ging from 7 to 45 points). The score has a negative magnitude, that is, a
lower value indicates a better leadership score.
2.4. Assessment of food safety culture elements Communication was analyzed by assessing the training and com-
munication strategies adopted. In the assessment of training strategies,
The second stage of this study evaluated the technical-managerial managers were asked about the application of training to food handlers,
and human routes through the elements of FS-culture. The presence of the training topics, frequency and techniques used, the number of
food safety management systems (FSMS), physical structure analysis, training techniques (e.g. presentations, hands-on classes, in loco prac-
and the food safety practices of the restaurants were considered when tices, case resolution, meetings, lectures, and tests), and training hours.
assessing the technical-managerial route. A checklist based on FBD risk, Also, managers and food handlers were asked if communication among
i.e. criteria and negative magnitude (higher score; higher risk), was and between employees and managers was satisfactory.
applied such that each establishment received a score ranging from 0.0 In the evaluation of the food safety knowledge of managers and food
(zero) to 2,565.95 and was classified into one of five risk groups. handlers, an instrument was applied to verify if the training of man-
The list was based on the current Brazilian food safety regulations agers and strategies used for training of handlers were sufficient to
(Brasil, 2004), validated by Da Cunha, De Oliveira et al. (2014). The improve food safety knowledge. This assessment was made based on
instrument has 50 items, grouped into nine sections: 1) water supply; 2) answers provided in response to a questionnaire with 10 questions
construction, facilities, equipment, furniture, and utensils; 3) sanitiza- aimed at evaluating the knowledge of the participants about tempera-
tion of facilities, equipment, furniture, and utensils; 4) integrated con- ture control, cross contamination, personal hygiene, and food hygiene.
trol of disease vectors and urban pests; 5) food handlers; 6) raw ma- Three possible answers were allowed: yes, no, not sure (the latter was
terials, ingredients, and packaging; 7) food preparation; 8) storage and provided to reduce the randomness bias). The score was calculated
transport of prepared food; and 9) documents. considering 0 as the lowest score and 10 as the highest score (Da Cunha
Each establishment received a final FBD risk score ranging from 0.0 et al. 2014b).
(zero) to 2565.95 and was classified into one of five groups: Group 1 – Organizational commitment was investigated by assessing job sa-
Very good (0.0); Group 2 – Good (0.1–13.2); Group 3 – Average tisfaction, work overload and food handler attitudes towards proper
(13.3–502.6); Group 4 – Bad (502.7–1152.2); Group 5 – Very bad handling. For this reason, a commitment measurement scale (Meyer,
(1152.2–2565.95) (Da Cunha, De Oliveira et al., 2014). Dummy vari- Allen, & Smith, 1993) was applied to the participants. The ques-
ables were created to compare the differences between restaurants at tionnaire consists of 13 statements organized in three sections: 1) af-
high and low-risk of FBD. High-risk restaurants (HRR) were those fective commitment (5 indicators, maximum 25 points); 2) normative
classified as groups 4 and 5 and low-risk restaurants (LRR) belonged to commitment (4 indicators, maximum 20 points) 3) instrumental com-
groups 1, 2, and 3. mitment (4 indicators, maximum 20 points). These statements were
Physical structure analysis was made with an instrument based on measured using a five-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree to 5-
Brazilian food safety regulation (Brasil, 2004) developed by Saccol, strongly agree).
Hecktheuer, Richards, and Stangarlin (2006). It analyzed the physical FS-climate analysis had 7 elements applied exclusively to food
structure, availability, and quantity of equipment to define minimum handlers: 1) communication (6 indicators related to communication
structural standards and their relation to food handling practices. Each between managers and employees and among employees); 2) Self-
of the 57 items was assessed as adequate, inadequate, or not applicable commitment (5 indicators to check employee motivation to perform
(not considered in the calculation), and the percentage of adequate safe food handling practices); 3) Environment support (4 indicators to
items was calculated. assess equipment, utensils, and site structure available for safe handling
Both instruments were applied in all food services by trained eva- practices); 4) Management and coworker support (10 indicators to
luators, who observed and followed food handlers throughout the evaluate actions of managers in their managerial role and in encoura-
process of food handling/preparation during a workday. ging safe food handling); 5) Work pressure (3 indicators); 6) 6) Risk
To assess the human route, self-assessment questionnaires were judgment (3 indicators) Abidin, et al. (2014b). We also included the 7)
provided to managers and food handlers. For managers, questionnaires Normative beliefs (4 indicators). This totaled 35 indicators of the FS-
pertained to sociodemographic characteristics; education/communica- climate. All answers were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1-
tion strategies and training; leadership; food safety knowledge; and strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree).
organizational climate, FS-climate, and risk perceptions. For food The risk perception assessment was measured through a structured
handlers, the questionnaire pertained to sociodemographic character- psychometric scale with seven options of intensity descriptors from −3
istics; participation in training; communication; food safety knowledge; (extremely low) to +3 (extremely high) (Raats, Sparks, Geekie, &
organizational commitment; FS-climate, and normative beliefs, work Shepherd, 1999), which it was developed based on insights obtained
pressure, and risk perceptions. All these questionnaires were delivered from other studies (Abidin, Strohbehn, & Arendt, 2014a; Da Cunha,
personally, inside the restaurant, and were individually filled out by the Stedefeldt, & De Rosso, 2012; Da Cunha et al. 2014a; de Andrade,
interviewees. Rodrigues, Antongiovanni, & da Cunha, 2019; Shepperd, Waters,
Knowledge in food safety was included to help understand FS-cul- Weinstein, & Klein, 2015). Three questions (1a to 3a) assessed the risk
ture since this variable is directly related to participation in training (Da perception of managers and four questions (1b–4b) assessed the risk
Cunha, Stedefeldt & De Rosso, 2014a,b) and is an important aspect for perception of food handlers, as follows:
implementing adequate food safety practices (de Andrade, Rodrigues,

3
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

• Own risk; what is the probability of a consumer to have abdominal high-risk and low-risk restaurants regarding FS-culture elements since
pain and/or vomiting (foodborne disease) after eating a meal most elements did not present a normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test)
cooked at the establishment you manage? [manager – question 1a]; or homoscedasticity (Levene's test). A paired Student's t-test was used to
cooked by you? [food handler – question 1b] identify an optimistic bias in risk perceptions.
• Peer risk; what is the probability of a consumer to have abdominal The analyses were processed in the Statistical Package for the Social
pain and/or vomiting (foodborne disease) after eating a meal Sciences – SPSS Statistics, version 2013.22.0 (International Business
cooked by a food handler from a similar establishment to the one Machines Corporation – IBM, 2013).
you manage (of similar structure, menu, size, and operation)
[manager – question 2a]; who is similar to you (of similar age and
2.6. Ethical aspects
who attended the same training), but who works for another es-
tablishment? [food handler – question 2b]
This study was approved by the research ethics committee of
• Lethality; if a consumer eats contaminated food, what is the risk of a
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil),
foodborne disease being serious or lethal? [manager – question 3a;
process nº 48041715.9.0000.5404.
food handler – question 3b]
All respondents (managers and food handlers) were informed about
• Co-worker risk; what is the probability of a consumer to have ab-
the objectives and procedures of this study, and those who agreed to
dominal pain and/or vomiting (foodborne disease) after eating a
participate in the study signed an informed consent form as well as a
meal cooked by one of your co-workers (food handler working in the
consent form to ensure data privacy in the dissemination of results.
same establishment)? [food handler – question 4b]
Managers did not have access to information/responses from food
handlers, vice versa.
The optimistic bias of managers was analyzed by comparing specific
questions according to the themes and restaurant classification and
subsequently calculated through the value attributed to risk perception 3. Results and discussion
(question 1a versus 2a). The same process was applied to food handlers,
comparing question 1b to questions 2b, 1b–4b and 4b–2b. Positive 3.1. Technical-managerial route of food safety culture
differences indicate a trend towards optimistic bias (de Andrade et al.,
2019; Rossi, Stedefeldt, da Cunha, & de Rosso, 2017). Thirty-two food services were included in the study. Around 63%
were small restaurants selling up to 300 meals per day, and the rest
2.5. Statistical analysis were large restaurants selling 1,001 or more meals per day, with 11.20
employees on average. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of FBD risk of
The internal consistency of the instruments was calculated by restaurants was 467.53; 381.48.
Cronbach's alpha (CA) (Cronbach, 1951). Elements with a Cronbach's For analysis of the FSMS and its relation to FS-culture, the restau-
alpha > 0.60 were considered consistent. In order to maximize con- rants were divided into two groups, low FBD risk (LRR) and high FBD
sistency, some questions were excluded when creating the variables of risk (HRR) food services. Of the total, 21 were low-risk (65.6%) with a
elements, according to Hair et al. (2009) (Table 1). mean score of 238.0; 168.8 and 11 high-risk (34.4%), with a mean score
Descriptive statistical analyses were performed for the FBD risk of 905.6; 269.2 (p < 0.001).
score of food services and sociodemographic data of managers and food Table 2 shows the general characteristics of restaurants presenting
handlers, wherein it was obtained mean values, standard deviation, and low- and high-risk for foodborne disease. The restaurants of both
distribution percentage. The risk perception and optimistic bias as- groups, low- and high-risk, had similar characteristics in terms of the
sessments were not analyzed as elements of the FS-culture but instead number of meals produced and the number of employees. However, it is
as individual variables (not latent variables).
The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between Table 2
General characteristics of restaurants presenting low- and high-risk for food-
borne disease.
Table 1
Analysis of food safety culture elements by Cronbach's alpha. Variable Category Low-risk High-risk
restaurants restaurants
Elements Indicators Sample Cronbach's alpha (n = 21) (n=11)

Leadership n (%) n (%)

Leadership Managers 0.88
Knowledgea Number of up to 300 13 61.9 7 63.7
Questions about food safety Managers 0.61 meals/day 301- 1000 6 28.5 4 36.3
Questions about food safety Food handlers 0.60 1001 - 2500 2 9.6 0 0.0
Organizational commitment Number of From 1 to 4 9 42.9 4 36.3
Affective commitment Managers 0.73 employees From 5 to 9 4 19.0 2 18.2
Normative commitment Managers 0.80 From 10 to 19 3 14.3 3 27.3
Instrumental commitment Managers 0.81 More than 20 5 23.8 2 18.2
Affective commitment Food handlers 0.72 Education level Number of 16 66.6 10 25.7
Normative commitment Food handlers 0.76 managers with
Instrumental commitment Food handlers 0.79 higher education
Food safety climate Number of food 108 60.8 91 58.7
Communication Food handlers 0.83 handlers with
Self-commitment Food handlers 0.69 high school or
Environment support Food handlers 0.90 more
Management and coworkers Food handlers 0.89 Number of food Just one 17 81.0 7 63.6
support safety managers More than one 4 19.0 4 36.4
Work pressure Food handlers 0.63 Manager trained in No 4 16.7 11 28.3
Risk Judgment Food handlers 0.60 food safety Yes 20 83.3 28 71.7
Normative beliefs Food handlers 0.63 Food handlers No 44 24.8 55 35.5
trained in food Yes 134 75.2 100 64.5
a
Analysis by Cronbach's alpha was improved with the exclusion of questions safety
5 and 7 for managers and 3 and 10 for food handlers.

4
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

Table 3
Mean violation percentage of the food services of low- and high-risk for foodborne disease.
Section number Sections of the checklist for food safety Low-risk restaurants high-risk restaurants

Mean percentage of violations (%) Mean percentage of violations (%) pa

Section 1 Water supply 3.4 6.4 0.43

Section 2 Construction, facilities, equipment, furniture, and utensils 9.5 40.9 < 0.01
Section 3 Sanitization of the facilities, equipment, furniture, and utensils 0.8 19.7 < 0.001
Section 4 Integrated control of disease vectors and urban pests 14.3 15.2 0.90
Section 5 Handlers 23.8 48.5 0.02
Section 6 Raw materials, ingredients, and packaging 10.9 48.1 < 0.001
Section 7 Food preparation 20.6 49.2 < 0.001
Section 8 Storage and transport of the prepared food 9.5 48.4 < 0.001
Section 9 Documents 16.6 59.0 < 0.01
- Overall 10.3 33.5 < 0.001

a
Mann-Whitney U test.

possible to observe more positive characteristics, in terms of FS-culture, biomedicine (66.6%), and had received food safety training (83.3%).
in LRR such as: greater number of food handlers and managers with They often provided training to food handlers (87.5%), averaging a
food safety training, and higher educational level of managers. duration of 3 h, wherein safe food handling (57.1%) was addressed
Table 3 shows the mean percentage of violations per section of high through different teaching techniques. Authors report that providing
and low-risk food services. HRR showed a higher percentage of viola- more training sessions to food handlers helps increase their knowledge
tions in sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the overall mean. score. Four-hour sessions have been suggested, in agreement with the
The most serious violations observed while applying the checklist to findings of LRR. Thus, a refresher training every six months to one year
HRR were related to food handlers’ health, absence of hand hygiene, improves learning and minimizes forgetting, in effect favoring the
violations of time and temperature at food reception, storage, pre- maintenance of hygiene knowledge (Choudhury, Mahanta, Goswami, &
paration, and exposure. Mazumder, 2011; Da Cunha, Braga, Passos, Stedefeldt, & de Rosso,
Studies conducted in the United States of America (Food and Drug 2015).
Administration, 2000, 2010), New Zealand (Institute of Environmental Mean scores of food safety knowledge and leadership between LRR
Science and Research, 2016), Hong Kong (Chan & Chan, 2008), Korea and HRR managers showed a significant difference (Table 5).
(Kim, 2010), and Brazil (Brasil, 2016; Lima, Loiko, Casarin, & Tondo, Knowledge about food safety and manager training (formal training
2013) report that the main cause of FBD is linked with inadequate time or higher education degree in health field) likely had a positive impact,
and temperature in food exposure and preparation. Control of time and since the LRR had fewer violations than did HRR. According to another
temperature in food exposure and preparation is one of the main factors study in Brazil, when the food safety leader is a nutritionist, fewer food
of food quality assurance, with recognized importance due to its in- safety violations occur (Da Cunha et al., 2018).
fluence on bacterial growth rate (Koutsoumanis & Gougouli, 2015; Zanin et al. (2017) explain that manager training is an effective way
Roccato, Uyttendaele, & Membré, 2017; Sarter & Sarter, 2012) and to reduce food safety problems, but its effectiveness depends on the
consequently its relation to FBD (European Food Safety Authority, manager's attitude. Managers with specialized training and transfor-
2014; Food and Drug Administration, 2010; Lima et al., 2013). HRR mational characteristics promote change, ensure resources, implement
also presented many other violations that are associated with FBD in systems, encourage staff and provide specific training, thus generating a
other countries (Australian Government Department of Health, 2011; positive culture for the organization. The authors also suggest that
Latronico et al., 2017; Nørrung & Buncic, 2008). manager training may extend their ability to assess food safety risks
The analysis of physical structure and equipment and utensils within their business and assign appropriate hygiene training to their
available in the restaurants showed a mean score; SD of 86%; 12.5% staff. A manager with these characteristics can develop a good FS-cli-
compliance (considering 57 evaluation items) for LRR and 69%; 17.3% mate, with an influence on staff motivation and knowledge enhance-
for HRR, with a significant difference between the two (p = 0.01). This ment. In addition, a positive climate creates reflective environments
result indicates that structural resources for meal preparation in LRR where communication and information about hygiene performance are
may help ensure food safety better than in HRR, making activities less consistently transferred (formally through meetings and training, and
prone to contamination hazards. informally through workplace discussions), resulting in staff desire to
The workplace is one of the predictors of operational failures and respond positively to the actions promoted by the manager and engage
unsafe behaviors within an organization (Clarke, 2006; Cooper & in security habits (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; De
Phillips, 2004), considering that a poorly organized environment and Boeck, Mortier, Jacxsens, Dequidt, & Vlerick, 2017).
equipment and utensils without hygiene procedures may favor food Differences were not observed regarding organizational commit-
contamination even with adequate practices (Stedefeldt et al., 2015). ment (affective, normative, and instrumental) in the managers' sample.
The managers of both types of establishments declared to have a good
3.2. Human route of food safety culture level of commitment regarding these aspects. Managers' commitment
can positively affect the results of food hygiene training, motivating
Table 4 shows sociodemographic variables of managers and food employees to adhere to safe handling practices (Nieto-Montenegro,
handlers of the restaurants analyzed in this study. HRR managers were Brown, & LaBorde, 2008). Several authors have established in their
male (72%), with a mean age of 30 years and had worked in the studies that leadership has an effect on employee commitment and a
company for 6 years. In addition, they completed high school education significant impact on job performance (Ahmad, Ahmad, & Shah, 2010;
(38.4%), have received hygiene training (71.7%) and most do not Almutairi, 2016; Eliyana, Ma'arif, & Muzakki, 2019; Tolentino & Ng
provide training to food handlers (58.9%). On the other hand, LRR Lungsod Ng Maynila, 2013).
managers were mostly female (75%), with a mean age of 37 years old Perception of own risk differed between LRR and HRR managers
and had worked in the company for about 7 years. They had a higher (p = 0.01), revealing that LRR managers believe their team is less likely
education degree in the health field, such as nutrition, nursing, and to contaminate food when compared to HRR managers. This

5
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

Table 4
Sociodemographic variables of managers and food handlers of restaurants.
Variable Category Managers (n=63) Food handlers (n=333)

n (%) n (%)

Sex Male 34 54.0 191 57.4

Female 29 46.0 142 42.6
School education level Primary/secondary - concluded 2 3.2 42 12.6
Primary/secondary - not concluded 1 1.6 26 7.8
High school - concluded 5 7.9 66 19.8
High school - not concluded 18 28.5 142 44.1
Higher education - not concluded 11 17.5 40 12.0
Higher education - concluded 26 41.3 12 3.7
Trained in food hygiene No 15 23.8 99 29.7
Yes 48 76.2 234 70.3
a a
Provides food safety training to food handlers No 26 41.3
a a
Yes 37 58.7
Frequency of food hygiene trainingb Daily 8 21.6 a a

a a
Weekly 7 18.9
a a
Biweekly 1 2.7
a a
Monthly 5 13.5
a a
Quarterly 9 24.3
a a
Semiannually 4 10.8
a a
Annually 3 8.1
Are all themes defined in the Brazilian regulation addressed in trainings to food handlers?c No 28 76.3 a a

a a
Yes 9 23.7

Frequency of techniques used in training to food handlersd One technique only 22 59.5 a a

a a
Two techniques 8 21.6
a a
More than two techniques 7 18.9

a
Not evaluated.
b
Starting in this item, percentages refer to managers who provide training to food handlers (n = 37).
c
Themes defined in the Brazilian legislation for food handler training (Brasil, 2004): food contaminants, foodborne diseases, safe food handling, and good
practices.
d
Techniques applied by managers in training for food handlers: presentations, hands-on classes, in loco practices, case resolution, meetings, lectures, and tests.

Table 5 Table 6
Evaluation of leadership, food safety knowledge, organizational commitment, Assessment of food safety knowledge, organizational commitment, food safety
and risk judgment of managers from restaurants presenting low- and high-risk climate and risk judgment of food handlers from restaurants presenting low-
for foodborne disease. and high-risk for foodborne disease.
Variable Low-risk restaurants High-risk restaurants Variable Low-risk restaurants High-risk
(n=24) (n=39) (n = 178) restaurants
(n = 155)
Mean SD Mean SD pa
Mean SD Mean SD pa
Leadership 7.35 0.84 10.5 4.9 0.02
Food safety 8.42 1.28 7.25 1.81 0.04 Food safety knowledge 5.48 1.97 5.18 1.6 0.04
knowledge Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment Affective 21.0 3.7 19.4 4.2 < 0.01
Affective 20.57 3.54 20.82 3.59 0.79 Normative 14.9 4.2 13.4 4.6 < 0.01
Normative 13.57 3.71 13.78 4.21 0.84 Instrumental 13.3 4.7 11.6 4.6 < 0.01
Instrumental 10.21 4.04 10.50 3.82 1.00 Food safety climate
Risk perception Communication 23.0 2.9 20.7 4.0 < 0.001
Own risk −2.64 0.63 −1.78 1.06 0.01 Self-Commitment 24.3 1.4 23.8 1.9 < 0.001
Peer risk −1.71 1.54 −1.71 1.18 1.00 Environment support 13.7 2.0 11.3 3.6 < 0.001
Lethality 1.21 2.15 0.82 2.16 0.52 Management and 44.9 5.9 40.3 8.5 < 0.001
coworker support
a
Mann-Whitney U test. Work pressure 12.9 2.0 12.3 2.4 0.04
Risk Judgment b 5.8 2.2 6.3 2.1 0.04
Normative belief 19.3 1.5 18.8 2.3 0.07
empowerment reduces risk perception, since the managers understand
Risk perception
why the restaurant is at a low risk for FBD. Therefore, perception is Own risk −2.2 1.4 −1.8 1.4 0.04
based on technical aspects and may be even related to physical struc- Peer risk −1.0 2.0 −1.0 1.6 0.10
ture score, which is higher in LRR. Co-worker risk −1.8 1.5 −1.4 1.3 0.10
Lethality 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.9 0.31
Female food handlers predominated LRR (52.8%), with a mean age
of 33 years, completed high school education (44.9%), food safety a
Mann-Whitney U test.
training (75.2%) and on average 6 years in the same company. Food b
Higher scores mean lower risk perception; SD = Standard deviation.
handlers of HRR had similar education (41.2%) and food safety training
(64.5%); however, most of them were male (69.0%), with a mean age of Table 6 shows the assessment of knowledge about hygiene, orga-
27 years and employment duration in the company of 4.5 years. Food nizational commitment, FS-climate, and risk judgment of LRR and HRR
handlers from both LRR (92.1%) and HRR (89.6%) reported satisfac- food handlers.
tory communication with the manager and between peers (93.2% and Food safety knowledge of LRR food handlers was greater than that
90.3%) to solve operational issues related to food safety. of HRR food handlers. Although significant, the difference was

6
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

Table 7
Optimistic bias of managers and food handlers from LRR and HRR.
Group Variables Low-risk restaurants High-risk restaurants

a
Mean difference p Mean difference pa

Managers Own risk versus peer risk 0.92 0.02 0.07 0.70
Food handlers Own risk versus peer risk 1.13 < 0.001 0.74 < 0.001
Own risk versus co-worker risk 0.35 < 0.001 0.32 < 0.001
Co-worker risk versus peer risk 0.77 < 0.001 0.41 < 0.001

a
Paired Student's t-test.

relatively small. This evidence reinforces that education level (Da suitable for food handling and prevention of FBD (van Dijk, Fischer, &
Cunha et al. 2014b; Osaili, Obeidat, Hajeer, & Al-Nabulsi, 2017) and Frewer, 2011). This skewed perception may occur due to the psycho-
food safety knowledge (de Andrade et al., 2019; Zanin et al., 2017) are logical phenomenon in which people have the belief that they are less
not major predictors of food safety practices by handlers, although they likely to experience negative events than their peers for equally risky
do help promote an effective FSMS implementation and the under- situations (Weinstein, 1989). Hence, an optimistic bias is expressed
standing and interpretation of procedures (Baş, Ersun, & Kivanç, 2006; about their practices, which is shown in Table 7. A food handler with
Gillespie, Little, & Mitchell, 2000). low-risk perception and optimistic bias may have difficulties to un-
A significant difference was observed in organizational commitment derstanding and apply the FS-culture concepts and practices. The risk
(affective, normative, and instrumental commitment) between LRR and perception can directly interfere with the conduct of the individual,
HRR food handlers (p < 0.001). Therefore, it can be inferred that food leading them to not adopt preventive measures, such as good handling
safety behavior of LRR food handlers is related to affective commit- practices (Da Cunha et al., 2015).
ment. According to Meyer et al. (1993), affective commitment gen- In this sense, the optimistic bias can be explained by several cog-
erates a feeling of attachment, involvement, familiarity, identification nitive errors like habitus (i.e. social interactions and environmental in-
with the site and consideration with the organization and its peers. fluences that predict how an individual perceives the social world based
Normative commitment produces a group of moral values that enable on their experiences and social hierarchy, thereby shaping their own
the perception of individuals, supporting them in their activities based way of working) (de Freitas et al., 2019; Miles & Scaife, 2003;
on the company's culture and typical behavior standards. Instrumental Wachinger, Renn, Begg, & Kuhlicke, 2013), illusion of control (Rossi
commitment shows that their engagement is related to the commitment et al., 2017), egocentrism (i.e. belief that their actions are sufficient and
to remain in the company due to the financial benefits. Authors report adequate, ignoring or not giving credit to other practices) (Shepperd
affective commitment as a critical component of the philosophy of or- et al., 2015), and attribution of failures to an external locus of control
ganizational commitment due to the intrinsic role of employees in and success to an internal locus of control (Karpen, 2018).
performing activities (Chordiya, Sabharwal, & Goodman, 2017). When Likewise, LRR managers reported low own risk as they presented
the organization and managers demonstrate importance and con- better hygiene performance than HRR managers, which can be a cause
sideration to employees, as well as provide satisfaction with payment, for concern when considering the significant result of the optimistic
security, autonomy and career development (determinants of job sa- bias of LRR managers and their peers (p = 0.02). A small number of
tisfaction), they tend to respond by ensuring a stronger affective com- violations may represent a high-risk of FBD (de Andrade et al., 2019).
mitment to the company by establishing psychological contracts Therefore, negligence or lack of awareness about FBD risks can make
(Chordiya et al., 2017; West & Berman, 2009; Wikhamn & Hall, 2012). everyone involved in food handling overestimate their food safety
Although HRR food handlers report good affective commitment, a performance due to optimism and illusion of control over an activity.
policy that improves this aspect may favor the achievement of organi- This associated phenomenon may result in a complacency feeling or
zational results, such as reduced staff turnover (on average HRR food self-satisfaction about the environment, which can impair risk com-
handlers stay at their jobs two years less than LRR food handlers), food- munication and risk mitigation actions (Braithwaite, Caves, & Faulkner,
safety-oriented behavior and performance, reduction of stress and 1998; Chris; Griffith, 2000; Rossi et al., 2017; Signore, 2010). The
work-family conflict, all common facets of the sector (De Boeck et al., phenomenon of complacency and overestimation of practices may be
2019; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Stazyk, associated with a feeling of an internal locus of control, wherein con-
Pandey, & Wright, 2011; Wang, Horng, Cheng, & Killman, 2011). fidence in one's abilities and competences results in a self-sufficiency
In terms of FS-climate, food handlers from both LRR and HRR behavior, and any failure will be judged through the external locus of
perceive a good FS-climate in the organizations. Still, a significant control (bad luck or distraction) (de Freitas et al., 2019; Karpen, 2018).
difference (p < 0.001) was observed in six of seven FS-climate ele- This, in turn, minimizes risk perceptions and actions for improvement.
ments, which were higher in LRR than in HRR. Although this is not a Optimistic bias in HRR managers and their peers was not observed
study showing a cause-effect relationship, an improved FS-climate may (p = 0.70). This evidence is relevant, as it demonstrates these managers
be an important factor for reducing FBD risk. This effect is further should be aware of the poor hygiene performance of their establish-
discussed. ment, and that several factors associated with the safety of the internal
Food handlers from both LRR and HRR provided low scores of risk locus of control tied to empowerment must be improved.
perception (own, peer, co-worker, and lethality), with a significant
difference (p = 0.04) for own risk, showing that LRR food handlers 3.3. Discussing the food safety culture
perceive their activities less risky than HRR food handlers. Since risk
perception implies judgment of risks and debate about whether a po- An FS-culture is improved and mature when food safety is accepted
tential risk actually exists (Byrd-Bredbenner, Berning, Martin-Biggers, & as an intrinsic part of the business. Thus, food safety decisions are based
Quick, 2013; Redmond & Griffith, 2003), empirical knowledge becomes on science and data; training is more standardized and applied more
irrelevant to assist HRR's food handlers in realizing that there is a often, communication is passed on clearly, structured and formalized
chance of putting someone in a situation that causes health damage through a standardized system of standards, values are internalized and
(Frewer, Shepherd, & Sparks, 1994). The low-risk perception of food infrastructure investment are readily available as needed by the orga-
handlers from HRR demonstrates that they perceive their practices as nization to ensure food safety (Ades, Leith, & Leith, 2016; De Boeck

7
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

et al., 2019; Jespersen et al., 2016; Jespersen & Wallace, 2017). workloads and less experience in operational failure (in this case, FBD)
When comparing the technical-managerial and human routes for FS- have lower-risk perceptions than do those with higher workloads and
culture, HRR present poor performance of FSMS and high FS-climate, more experience with operational failures or incidents (Oah, Na, &
demonstrating that employees do not know or recognize food safety Moon, 2018).
failures and issues at the site. Similar results were obtained by De Boeck The analysis of optimistic bias with the other variables of FS-climate
et al. (2016) e De Boeck et al. (2019). These authors showed an showed greater organizational commitment and good FS-climate in
alarming scenario involving risks of FBD for consumers due to in- LRR. The feeling of affection is linked to good relationships in the
adequate behaviors while handling and preparing meals. Also, these workplace, creating a heuristic relation of affection and social identity.
behaviors may be associated with complacency in their activities, re- As a result, risk perception is affected and reduced (Finucane,
vealing an optimistic bias regarding their operations (De Boeck et al., Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000; Tiozzo, Mari, Ruzza, Crovato, &
2019). Ravarotto, 2017). Therefore, new information about risk may be dis-
Studies about complacency have been conducted in other areas, regarded because these employees believe they have sufficient in-
showing that effective communication of risks in the organization formation about how they should act while performing their activities,
would be an objective way to mitigate this feeling (Braithwaite et al., with fast judgments that favor practices of risk (Griffin, Dunwoody, &
1998; Eiter, Kosmoski, & Connor, 2016). HRR managers and food Neuwirth, 1999).
handlers were positive about good food safety communication, how- LRR food handlers seem to express the same feeling as their man-
ever empirical evidence was not obtained in this study. De Boeck et al. agers, showing that managers have influence on activities and are seen
(2016), Lin, Huang, Du, and Lin (2012), and Osés et al. (2012) report as a reference person with an effect on employee engagement and a
complacency as a common effect observed in small organizations, with significant impact on how job activities are performed (Almutairi,
employees presenting a low level of knowledge about food safety and 2016; Eliyana et al., 2019), as well as the company's FS-culture (De
restricted formalization and information systems (poorly qualified staff, Boeck et al., 2016). However, as discussed above, the feeling of com-
resources, time, restricted use of procedures, and formal meetings). placency can hide real dangers or deficiencies due to lack of informa-
Although individuals are closer to each other in HRR, companies with tion or knowledge, especially when the organization successfully im-
this profile tend to communicate in a more social manner (ad hoc) than plements food safety systems (Griffith, 2000; Signore, 2010). This
does one with formalized procedures and structure to guide hygiene situation was not observed in HRR, where managers seem to be aware
practices. of hygiene issues and do not overestimate the organization's perfor-
Data show a positive perception of FS-climate by LRR food handlers mance, unlike the employees. Apparently HRR food handlers do not see
(Table 4), suggesting the organization values safety, which is aligned managers as a reference person for food safety. In addition, food
with FSMS performance (both satisfactory). LRR food handlers also handlers are unaware of the policies, standards and risks involved,
reported good communication between their peers and the manager owing to the lack of organizational structure (communication, training,
(about 90%), reinforced by the significant result in communication in resources, and other aspects) that enables them to incorporate stan-
the FS-climate. Authors point out that organizations managed by skilled dards and act as mediators of food safety behaviors. This situation
personnel encourage handlers to assume behaviors that are consistent shows they are not aware that these problems exist (De Boeck et al.,
with the establishment's FS-culture and develop structured and for- 2019) and their attitudes may increase the risks due to optimistic bias
malized ways to improve communication of risks (a critical factor for (Rossi et al., 2017).
safety behaviors) (Luning et al., 2015; Osés et al., 2012; Powell et al., Recent literature has highlighted the importance of FS-culture ele-
2011). ments and their relation to safety performance in organizations of the
A perception of good safety climate (communication, systems, re- food industry and food services (De Boeck et al., 2019; Fujisaki et al.,
sources, and training) positively influences the behavior of profes- 2019; Jespersen, Griffiths, & Wallace, 2017; Nyarugwe, Linnemann, &
sionals (Amponsah-Tawaih & Adu, 2016). Then, they feel more moti- Luning, 2020). In addition, it has been reported that FS-culture involves
vated to perform desirable safety behaviors, complying with rules and more than successful implementations of FSMS (technical and man-
procedures by incorporating standards based on individual belief sys- agerial aspects), as it also has human aspects associated with behaviors,
tems, and not only voluntarily when such perception does not exist commitment, perceptions, knowledge, attitudes and practices of man-
(Cialdini, 2007; Clarke, 2006). Also, workplace, communication, and agers and food handlers to promote food hygiene, all of which directly
safety training are predictive factors of failures and unsafe behaviors in influence the safety performance of the organization (De Boeck et al.,
the organization (Clarke, 2006; Cooper & Phillips, 2004). These argu- 2019; Griffith et al., 2010; Jespersen et al., 2016; Nyarugwe et al.,
ments help explain the poor performance of HRR in food safety, con- 2016). This fact was confirmed in the present study, the restaurants
sidering that predictive factors such as communication, resources, and presented low-risk for FBD when elements of FS-culture were better
training are poorly structured (Amponsah-Tawaih & Adu, 2016; Griffith evaluated, probably as aa. This result indicates that elements of FS-
et al., 2010). culture are linked to fewer violations of food safety legislation, espe-
Normative beliefs and work pressure were not strongly perceived by cially those involving high-risk. Food safety performance of organiza-
HRR food handlers when compared to LRR food handlers, suggesting tions is also associated with their environment (which varies according
that HRR system of standards is probably not well structured and is to company size and safety strategy, among other factors) and the
applied inconsistently. Perhaps due to the inefficient implementation of context where they operate (including regulatory framework and en-
FSMS and the low positivity in FS-culture, HRR employees in- forcement practices of a country) (Abdin et al., 2014a; De Boeck,
corporating such procedures are less effective than in LRR, and thus Mortier, Jacxsens, Dequidt, & Vlerick, 2017; Taylor, 2011).
work pressure is lower (Jespersen & Wallace, 2017). The characteristics of the countries' practices for the enforcement of
Overall safety climate correlates positively with safety behavior and food safety regulation are intended to support organizations in the
negatively with work pressure and management's commitment to food mitigation of FBD risks. It is reported that effective public policies for
safety, influencing the relationship between work pressure and safety food safety can shape an organization's FS-culture (De Boeck et al.,
behavior (Amponsah-Tawaih & Adu, 2016). This indicates that even 2017; Taylor, 2011). However, in countries with economies in transi-
though work pressure is perceived as significant by the LRR food tion, food safety regulation is often applied inconsistently and is not
handler, the role of the LRR manager seems to be relevant to relieving rigorously supervised (Kirezieva et al., 2015; Nanyunja et al., 2015;
work pressure and unsafe behavior in these locations (Nesbitt et al., Nyarugwe et al., 2020). This is the scenario observed in Brazil (Saccol
2014; Wachinger et al., 2013). In addition, employees with low et al., 2015), which can negatively affect the development of FSMS,

8
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

affecting the structuring of a FS-culture in organizations. In Brazil, food Finally, based on the positive results, it is suggested that FS-culture
outbreaks are anecdotal, since only a small number of FBD is officially be considered when drafting or revising Brazilian food safety legislation
registered in the database of the Ministry of Health (Oliveira, Paula, and public policies.
Capalonga, Cardoso, & Tondo, 2010) owing to the lack of a structured
system to report food outbreaks. It highlights the global problem of CRediT authorship contribution statement
underreporting (World Health Organization, 2015), which affects
communication of FBD risks and the adoption of mitigating actions. Marcel Levy de Andrade: Investigation, Writing - original draft,
Regarding managers, only institutional restaurants (hospitals, Formal analysis, Visualization. Elke Stedefeldt: Conceptualization,
schools and others) require professionals trained in this area in Brazil Methodology, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Lais
(Brasil, 1991) to act as a mediator of food safety behaviors among Mariano Zanin: Investigation, Resources, Writing - review & editing.
employees. Specialized managers in this area facilitate communication Diogo Thimoteo da Cunha: Conceptualization, Methodology,
and application of specific knowledge, leading to better hygiene per- Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - review &
formance (Da Cunha et al., 2018), which it was observed in LRR. Most editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
LRR managers were trained in health fields and their training and skills
can alleviate unsafe behaviors and create a favorable environment for Acknowledgments
the development of a FS-culture. Food services should invest in man-
ager training or hire a specialized professional to help improve orga- The authors would like to thank CAPES – Coordenação de
nizational structures, aiming to develop a more positive FS-culture. Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Coordination for the
This study showed the development of FS-culture elements is Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) in Brazil for the scho-
strongly associated with food service hygiene practices, considering larship granted to the first author (process nº 1684391), to CNPQ –
places with higher scores of FS-culture presented lower risks of FBD, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National
fewer violations and robust organizational structures allowing staff to Council for Scientific and Technological Development) in Brazil for the
perform adequate hygiene practices. grant (process nº 403528/2016-0), and Espaço da Escrita – UNICAMP
This study used the data of 32 food services, allowing an under- for the text translation. This study was partially funded by CAPES, fi-
standing FS-culture through a quantitative point of view. However, a nancial code 001.
limitation of this study is the lack of qualitative methods for data tri-
angulation. Recent literature on FS-culture has been using quantitative References
and qualitative triangulated methods, with smaller samples, to explain
the relationship between food safety culture and organizational per- Abidin, U. F. U. Z., Arendt, S. W., & Strohbehn, C. H. (2013). Exploring the culture of food
formance (De Boeck et al., 2019; Jespersen & Wallace, 2017). Quali- safety: The role of organizational influencers in motivating employees' safe food-
handling practices. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 14(4),
tative methods can assist in understanding the behaviors of food service 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2013.802587.
employees by refining and developing theories related to the induction Abidin, U. F. U. Z., Strohbehn, C. H., & Arendt, S. W. (Strohbehn, & Arendt, 2014a). An
and promotion of food safety behaviors (Lin & Roberts, 2020). empirical investigation of food safety culture in onsite foodservice operations. Food
Control, 46, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.029.
Abidin, U. F. U. Z., Strohbehn, C. H., & Arendt, S. W. (2014). Food safety culture in onsite
4. Conclusion foodservices: Development and validation of a measurement scale. The Journal of
Foodservice Management & Education, 8(1), 1–10. Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.
edu/aeshm_pubs.
In restaurants of low-risk for FBD, the elements of FS-culture were Ades, G., Leith, K., & Leith, P. (2016). What is an effective food safety culture? Food safety
better evaluated (i.e. improved). This result shows that fewer violations (pp. 3–8). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-803104-9.00001-6.
of food safety legislation, especially those involving high-risk FBD, were Ahmad, H., Ahmad, K., & Shah, I. A. (2010). Relationship between job satisfaction, job
performance attitude towards work and organizational commitment. European
a positive outcome of an improved FS-culture.
Journal of Social Sciences, 18https://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.
The LRR presented a technical-managerial and human route com- eurojournals.com/ContentPages/140504048.pdf.
patible with a positive FS-culture, presenting fewer violations than the Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
HRR and more adequate physical structure, as well as an FS-culture Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Almutairi, D. O. (2016). The mediating effects of organizational commitment on the re-
congruent with the technical-managerial and human route. In this lationship between transformational leadership style and job performance.
sense, it is possible to improve food safety by applying, evolving and International Journal of Business and Management, 11(1), https://doi.org/10.5539/
maturing the concepts of FS-culture in restaurants in Brazil. ijbm.v11n1p231.
Amponsah-Tawaih, K., & Adu, M. A. (2016). Work pressure and safety behaviors among
In restaurants with better food safety practices, it was also observed health workers in Ghana: The moderating role of management commitment to safety.
better communication, food handler's self-commitment, environment Safety and Health at Work, 7(4), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.05.
support, management and coworker support, food safety knowledge 001.
de Andrade, M. L., Rodrigues, R. R., Antongiovanni, N., & da Cunha, D. T. (2019).
and leadership. The professionals showed more positive food safety Knowledge and risk perceptions of foodborne disease by consumers and food hand-
behavior when the FS-climate was better evaluated. The perception of lers at restaurants with different food safety profiles. Food Research International, 121,
good FS-climate positively influences the behavior of food handlers. 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES.2019.01.006.
Australian Government Department of Health (2011). Monitoring the incidence and
Studies analyzing elements of FS-culture and their relation to safety
causes of diseases potentially transmitted by food in Australia: Annual report of the
performance in organizations have been conducted recently, particu- OzFoodNet network. 2011 http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/
larly in food services. When the elements of safety culture are well content/cda-cdi3902g.htm, Accessed date: 18 November 2017.
Ball, B., Wilcock, A., & Aung, M. (2010). Background factors affecting the implementation
structured in food services, factors such as commitment, job satisfac-
of food safety management systems. Food Protection Trends, 30(2), 78–86. https://
tion, and FS-climate are more satisfactory for proper hygiene practices www.researchgate.net/publication/228682480.
of managers and food handlers. The intrinsic roles of the manager as a Baş, M., Ersun, A.Ş., & Kivanç, G. (2006). Implementation of HACCP and prerequisite
mediator of proper safety practices and as an attenuator of work pres- programs in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control, 17(2), 118–126. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.09.010.
sure should be highlighted. Many of the positive results observed in Braithwaite, G. R., Caves, R. E., & Faulkner, J. P. E. (1998). Australian aviation safety -
LRR are derived from practices and strategies initiated and managed by observations from the “lucky” country. Journal of Air Transport Management, 4(1),
managers. It is essentially an adequate food safety leadership to im- 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(97)00031-8.
Brasil (1991). Lei n° 8.234, de 17 de setembro de 1991. Regulamenta a profissão de
prove FS-culture in restaurants. The manager must have good com- Nutricionista e determina outras providências. http://presrepublica.jusbrasil.com.br/
munication with the team and promote organizational support. In ad- legislacao/127968/lei-8234-91.
dition, the managers must improve themselves as leaders in food Brasil. (2016). Doenças Transmitidas por Alimentos. 2016. Retrieved June 29, 2016
http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2016/marco/10/Apresenta——o-
hygiene, incorporating these concepts into their routine.

9
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

dados-gerais-DTA-2016.pdf. commitment effect in the transformational leadership towards employee perfor-

Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. RDC n°216, de 15 de setembro de 2004. (2004). Dispõe sobre mance. European Research on Management and Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.
Regulamento Técnico de Boas Práticas para Serviços de Alimentação, Diário Oficial 1016/J.IEDEEN.2019.05.001.
da União §. Brasilía, DF, Brazil http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/portal/anvisa/home. European Food Safety Authority. (2014). The European union summary report on trends
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Berning, J., Martin-Biggers, J., & Quick, V. (2013). Food safety in and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2012. EFSA
home kitchens: A synthesis of the literature. International Journal of Environmental Journal, 12(2), 312. 2014 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3547.
Research and Public Health, 10(9), 4060–4085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ htm.
ijerph10094060. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in
Chan, S. F., & Chan, Z. C. Y. (2008). A review of foodborne disease outbreaks from 1996 judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.
to 2005 in Hong Kong and its implications on food safety promotion. Journal of Food https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.
Safety, 28(2), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2008.00120.x. CO;2-S.
Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective organizational commit- Food and Drug Administration (2000). Report of the FDA retail food program program da-
ment and job satisfaction: A cross-national comparative study. Public Administration, tabase of foodborne illness risk factorsPrepared by the FDA Retail Food Program
95(1), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306. Steering Committeehttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/
Choudhury, M., Mahanta, L. B., Goswami, J. S., & Mazumder, M. D. (2011). Will capacity ucm123546.pdf.
building training interventions given to street food vendors give us safer food?: A Food and Drug Administration (2010). Trend analysis report on the occurrence of food-
cross-sectional study from India. Food Control, 22(8), 1233–1239. https://doi.org/10. borne illness risk factors in selected institutional foodservice, restaurant, and retail
1016/j.foodcont.2011.01.023. food store facility types. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170113095247/
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/
meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/UCM369245.pdf.
Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172. de Freitas, R. S. G., da Cunha, D. T., & Stedefeldt, E. (2019). Food safety knowledge as
Cialdini, R. B. R. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social gateway to cognitive illusions of food handlers and the different degrees of risk
control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006- perception. Food Research International, 116, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1560-6. foodres.2018.12.058.
Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects of Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The interrelationship between perceived
work environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents and unsafe knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted
behaviour. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480610670580. at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 14(1), 19–40.
Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2008). Efficacy of an extended theory of planned beha- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.1994.tb00581.x.
viour model for predicting caterers' hand hygiene practices. International Journal of Fujisaki, K., Shimpo, M., & Akamatsu, R. (2019). Factors related to food safety culture
Environmental Health Research, 18(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/ among school food handlers in tokyo, Japan: A qualitative study. Journal of
09603120701358424. Foodservice Business Research, 22(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.
Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and 2018.1546075.
safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497–512. https://doi. Gillespie, I., Little, C., & Mitchell, R. (2000). Microbiological examination of cold ready-
org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.08.004. to-eat sliced meats from catering establishments in the United Kingdom. Journal of
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, Applied Microbiology, 88(3), 467–474. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555. 10747227.
Cunha, D. T. da, Rosso, V. V. de, & Stedefeldt, E. (2018). Food safety performance and risk Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of
of food services from different natures and the role of nutritionist as food safety risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors.
leader. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 23(12), 4033–4042. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413- Environmental Research, 80(2), S230–S245. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940.
812320182312.21042016. Griffith, C. (2000). Food safety in catering establishments. Safe handling of foods (pp. 552).
Da Cunha, D. T., Braga, A. R. C., Passos, E. de C., Stedefeldt, E., & de Rosso, V. V. (2015). New York: Marcel Dekker. https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=
The existence of optimistic bias about foodborne disease by food handlers and its B78FvN7NX34C&oi=fnd&pg=PA235&ots=hFGy7OYf5r&sig=
association with training participation and food safety performance. Food Research ZPxPDwHbOLq8X8HMQnxAlI15zvY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.
International, 75, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES.2015.05.035. Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010a). Food safety culture: The evolution
Da Cunha, D. T., de Oliveira, A. B. A., Saccol, A. L. de F., Tondo, E. C., Silva, E. A., Ginani, of an emerging risk factor? British Food Journal, 112(4), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.
V. C., et al. (2014). Food safety of food services within the destinations of the 2014 1108/00070701011034439.
FIFA World Cup in Brazil: Development and reliability assessment of the official Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K., & Clayton, D. (2010b). The assessment of food safety culture.
evaluation instrument. Food Research International, 57, 95–103. https://doi.org/10. British Food Journal, 112(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/
1016/j.foodres.2014.01.021. 00070701011034448.
Da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & De Rosso, V. V. (2012). Perceived risk of foodborne Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2009). In Bookman (Ed.).
disease by school food handlers and principals: The influence of frequent training. Analise multivariada de Dados(6th ed.). Brazil: Porto Alegre 2009.
Journal of Food Safety, 32(2), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2012. Institute of Environmental Science and Research. (2016). Summary of outbreaks in New
00371.x. Zealand 2015. www.surv.esr.cri.nz.
Da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & de Rosso, V. V. (2014a). He is worse than I am: The Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., Maclaurin, T., Chapman, B., & Wallace, C. A. (2016).
positive outlook of food handlers about foodborne disease. Food Quality and Measurement of food safety culture using survey and maturity profiling tools. Food
Preference, 35, 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.009. Control, 66, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.01.030.
Da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & de Rosso, V. V. (2014b). The role of theoretical food Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., & Wallace, C. A. (2017). Comparative analysis of existing food
safety training on Brazilian food handlers' knowledge, attitude and practice. Food safety culture evaluation systems. Food Control, 79, 371–379. https://doi.org/10.
Control, 43, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.03.012. 1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.037.
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., Uyttendaele, M., & Vlerick, P. (2016). Interplay Jespersen, L., & Wallace, C. A. (2017). Triangulation and the importance of establishing
between food safety climate, food safety management system and microbiological valid methods for food safety culture evaluation. Food Research International, 100,
hygiene in farm butcheries and affiliated butcher shops. Food Control, 65, 78–91. 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2016.01.014. Karpen, S. C. (2018). The social psychology of biased self-assessment. American Journal of
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., & Vlerick, P. (2015). Food safety climate in food Pharmaceutical Education. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6299 American Association
processing organizations: Development and validation of a self-assessment tool, 46 §. of Colleges of Pharmacy.
Elsevierhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224415002150. Kim, S. (2010). Salmonella serovars from foodborne and waterborne diseases in Korea,
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Vanoverberghe, P., & Vlerick, P. (2019). Method triangulation 1998-2007: Total isolates decreasing versus rare serovars emerging. December
to assess different aspects of food safety culture in food service operations. Food Journal of Korean Medical Science. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2010.25.12.1693
Research International, 116, 1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES.2018. Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
09.053. Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Hagelaar, G. J. L. F., van Boekel, Uyttendaele, M., & Luning, P.
De Boeck, E., Mortier, A. V., Jacxsens, L., Dequidt, L., & Vlerick, P. (2017). Towards an A. (2015). Exploring the influence of context on food safety management: Case stu-
extended food safety culture model: Studying the moderating role of burnout and dies of leafy greens production in Europe. Food Policy, 51, 158–170. https://doi.org/
jobstress, the mediating role of food safety knowledge and motivation in the relation 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.01.005.
between food safety climate and food safety behavior. Trends in Food Science & Koutsoumanis, K. P., & Gougouli, M. (2015). Use of time temperature integrators in food
Technology, 62, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2017.01.004. safety management. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 43(2), 236–244. https://doi.
van Dijk, H., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2011). Consumer responses to integrated org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.02.008.
risk-benefit information associated with the consumption of food. Risk Analysis, Latronico, F., Correia, S., Felicio, T. da S., Hempen, M., Messens, W., Ortiz-Pelaez, A.,
31(3), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01505.x. et al. (2017). Challenges and prospects of the European Food Safety Authority bio-
Egan, M. B., Raats, M. M., Grubb, S. M., Eves, A., Lumbers, M. L., Dean, M. S., et al. logical hazards risk assessments for food safety. Current Opinion in Food Science.
(2007). A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.10.013.
sector. Food Control, 18(10), 1180–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006. Lima, G. C., Loiko, M. R., Casarin, L. S., & Tondo, E. C. (2013). Assessing the epidemio-
08.001. logical data of Staphylococcus aureus food poisoning occurred in the State of Rio
Eiter, B. M., Kosmoski, C. L., & Connor, B. P. (2016). Defining hazard from the mine Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 44(3), 759–763.
worker's perspective. Mining Engineering, 68(11), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.19150/ https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822013005000063.
me.6832. Lin, L. S., Huang, I. C., Du, P. L., & Lin, T. F. (2012). Human capital disclosure and
Eliyana, A., Ma’arif, S., & Muzakki (2019). Job satisfaction and organizational organizational performance: The moderating effects of knowledge intensity and

10
M.L. de Andrade, et al. Food Control 112 (2020) 107152

organizational size. Management Decision, 50(10), 1790–1799. https://doi.org/10. reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22(6), 817–822. https://doi.org/10.
1108/00251741211279602. 1016/J.FOODCONT.2010.12.009.
Lin, N., & Roberts, K. R. (2020). The normative beliefs that form individual food safety Raats, M. M., Sparks, P., Geekie, M. A., & Shepherd, R. (1999). The effects of providing
behavioral intention: A qualitative explanatory study. Food Control, 110, 106966. personalized dietary feedback.: A semi-computerized approach. Patient Education and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106966. Counseling, 37(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00114-1.
Luning, P. A. A., Kirezieva, K., Hagelaar, G., Rovira, J., Uyttendaele, M., & Jacxsens, L. Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J. (2003). January 30). Consumer food handling in the
(2015). Performance assessment of food safety management systems in animal-based home: A review of food safety studies. Journal of Food Protection. International
food companies in view of their context characteristics: A European study. Food Association for Food Protection. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-66.1.130.
Control, 49, 11–22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Roccato, A., Uyttendaele, M., & Membré, J. M. (2017). Analysis of domestic refrigerator
S0956713513004556. temperatures and home storage time distributions for shelf-life studies and food
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and oc- safety risk assessment. Food Research International, 96, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.
cupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of 1016/j.foodres.2017.02.017.
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538. Rossi, M. de S. C., Stedefeldt, E., da Cunha, D. T., & de Rosso, V. V. (2017). Food safety
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, con- knowledge, optimistic bias and risk perception among food handlers in institutional
tinuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of ante- food services. Food Control, 73, 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.
cedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. 09.016.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842. Saccol, A. L. F. F., Giacomelli, S. C., Mesquita, M. O., Castro, A. K. F. F., Silva, E. A., &
Miles, S., Braxton, D. S., & Frewer, L. J. (1999). Public perceptions about microbiological Hecktheuer, L. H. R. R. (2015). Sanitary legislation governing food services in Brazil.
hazards in food. British Food Journal, 101(10), 744–762. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Food Control, 52, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.12.004.
00070709910293670. Saccol, A. L. de F., Hecktheuer, L. H., Richards, N. S., & Stangarlin, L. (2006). Lista de
Miles, S., & Scaife, V. (July 2003). Optimistic bias and food optimistic bias: Nutrition: avaliação para boas práticas em serviços de alimentação : RDC 216/2004 - anvisa (1°
Food: Health promotion. Nutrition Research Reviews, 16, 3–19. https://doi.org/10. edição). São Paulo, Brasil: Varela.
1079/NRR200249 2003. Sarter, G., & Sarter, S. (2012). Promoting a culture of food safety to improve hygiene in
Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A. N., Uyttendaele, M., & Luning, P. A. small restaurants in Madagascar. Food Control, 25(1), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.
(2015). Assessing the status of food safety management systems for fresh produce 1016/j.foodcont.2011.10.023.
production in East Africa: Evidence from certified green bean farms in Kenya and Seaman, P. (2010). Food hygiene training: Introducing the food hygiene training model.
noncertified hot pepper farms in Uganda. Journal of Food Protection, 78(6), Food Control, 21(4), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.08.005.
1081–1089. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-364. Shepperd, J. A., Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. P. (2015). A primer on
Nesbitt, A., Thomas, M. K., Marshall, B., Snedeker, K., Meleta, K., Watson, B., et al. unrealistic optimism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 232–237.
(2014). Baseline for consumer food safety knowledge and behaviour in Canada. Food https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568341.
Control, 38, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2013.10.010. Signore, C. (2010). No time for complacency. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116(1), 4–6.
Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e598d4.
cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel un- Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). Understanding affective organiza-
comfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157–166. https:// tional commitment. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603–624.
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011398119.
Nieto-Montenegro, S., Brown, J. L., & LaBorde, L. F. (2008). Development and assessment Stedefeldt, E., Zanin, L. M., da Cunha, D. T., de Rosso, V. V., Capriles, V. D., & de Freitas
of pilot food safety educational materials and training strategies for Hispanic workers Saccol, A. L. (2015). The role of training strategies in food safety performance. Food
in the mushroom industry using the Health Action Model. Food Control, 19(6), safety (pp. 365–394). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800245-2.
616–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.07.005. 00018-6.
Nørrung, B., & Buncic, S. (2008). Microbial safety of meat in the European Union. Meat Taylor, J. (2011). November 15). An exploration of food safety culture in a multi-cultural
Science, 78(1–2), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.032. environment: Next steps? In J. Taylor (Ed.). Worldwide hospitality and tourism the-
Nyarugwe, S. P., Linnemann, A., Hofstede, G. J., Fogliano, V., & Luning, P. A. (2016). meshttps://doi.org/10.1108/17554211111185836.
Determinants for conducting food safety culture research. Trends in Food Science & Tiozzo, B., Mari, S., Ruzza, M., Crovato, S., & Ravarotto, L. (2017). Consumers' percep-
Technology, 56, 77–87. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ tions of food risks: A snapshot of the Italian triveneto area. Appetite, 111, 105–115.
article/pii/S0924224416300747#bib49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2016.12.028.
Nyarugwe, S. P., Linnemann, A. R., & Luning, P. A. (2020). Prevailing food safety culture Tolentino, R. C., & Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila, P. (2013). Organizational commitment and
in companies operating in a transition economy - does product riskiness matter? Food job performance of the academic and administrative personnel. International Journal
Control, 107, 106803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106803. of Information Technology & Business Management, 29(1)www.jitbm.com.
Nyarugwe, S. P., Linnemann, A., Nyanga, L. K., Fogliano, V., & Luning, P. A. (2018). Food Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox-
safety culture assessment using a comprehensive mixed-methods approach: A com- implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis,
parative study in dairy processing organisations in an emerging economy. Food 33(6), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x.
Control, 84, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.07.038. Wang, Y.-F., Horng, J.-S., Cheng, S.-Y.(S.), & Killman, L. (2011). Factors influencing food
Oah, S., Na, R., & Moon, K. (2018). The influence of safety climate, safety leadership, and beverage employees' career success: A contextual perspective. International
workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: A study of Korean manu- Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
facturing workers. Safety and Health at Work, 9(4), 427–433. https://doi.org/10. IJHM.2011.03.005.
1016/j.shaw.2018.01.008. Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246(4935),
Oliveira, A., Paula, C., Capalonga, R., Cardoso, M., & Tondo, E. (2010). Artigo de revisão 1233–1234. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2555922.
doenças transmitidas por alimentos, principais agentes etiológicos e aspectos gerais: West, J. P., & Berman, E. M. (2009). Job satisfaction of public managers in special dis-
uma revisão foodborne diseases, main etiologic agents and general aspects: A review. tricts. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.
Rev HCPA, 30(3), 279–285. https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/157808. 1177/0734371X09337710.
Osaili, T. M., Obeidat, B. A., Hajeer, W. A., & Al-Nabulsi, A. A. (2017). Food safety Wikhamn, W., & Hall, A. (2012). Social exchange in a Swedish work environment.
knowledge among food service staff in hospitals in Jordan. Food Control, 78(4), International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(23)http://ijbssnet.com/journals/
279–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.057. Vol_3_No_23_December_2012/6.pdf.
Osés, S. M., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Santillana, S., Jaime, I., & Rovira, J. (2012). Food World Health Organization (2015). Who estimates of the global burden of foodborne
safety management system performance in the lamb chain. Food Control, 25(2), diseases. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/199350/1/9789241565165_
493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.018. eng.pdf?ua=1.
Parry, S. M., Miles, S., Tridente, A., Palmer, S. R., & Gardner, D. (2004). Differences in Wu, Y. ning, Liu, X. mei, Chen, Q., Liu, H., Dai, Y., Zhou, Y. jing, et al. (2018).
perception of risk between people who have and have not experienced Salmonella Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks in China, 2003 to 2008. Food Control,
food poisoning. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332. 84, 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.08.010.
2004.00429.x. Yiannas, F. (2009). Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management
Pellegrino, R., Crandall, P. G., O'Bryan, C. A., & Seo, H. S. (2015). A review of motiva- system, Vol. 1Springerhttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
tional models for improving hand hygiene among an increasingly diverse food service Zanin, L. M., da Cunha, D. T., de Rosso, V. V., Capriles, V. D., & Stedefeldt, E. (2017).
workforce. April 1 Food Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.09.015 Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food safety: An integrative review.
Elsevier. Food Research International. October 1Elsevierhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.
Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Enhancing food safety culture to 2017.07.042.

11