ANÁLISIS INTERPRETATIVO Y DE INTERRELACIÓN DE CATEGORÍAS

An important feature of risk–based decision making is taking seriously the uncertainty inherent in any analysis of data. The estimates presented in the following tables and graphs should be regarded, therefore, as a starting point in an ongoing process to identify risks to food safety and associated CCPs, as well as for modelling food safety risk assessment in the home, in attempt to help public health authorities to undertake

more effective efforts to reduce food poisoning in the home. The average score (S) and

risk estimate (Re) across various CCPs, as well as the aggregate score (As) and the

aggregate risk estimate (Are) (Figure 12), resulting from the consumer food handling in

the home in Brazil and in New Zealand, can be found in Table 29.

Table 29: Risk estimate across CCPs in the home – Brazil and New Zealand

Process Steps of The Consumer Food Handling

(CCPs in the Home)

Score Range (Smin–Smax)

Score and Risk Estimate(a) _Risk Mitigation(a)

(Control)

Brazil New Zealand

(n = 2,775; p < .01) (n = 658; p < .01)

(S) (Re) (S) (Re) (S) (Re)

Choosing and purchasing food (CPF) 0 – 225 51 23% 81 36% 75 33% Food safety knowledge and concerns (FSK) 0 – 1,513 450 30% 510 34% 504 33%

Food transportation (FT) 0 – 108 44 41% 35 32% 36 33%

The storage and preservation of food (SPF) 0 – 630 182 29% 214 34% 210 33% Food preparation and cooking (FPC) 0 – 756 286 38% 275 36% 252 33%

Handling of leftovers (HL) 0 – 243 111 46% 111 46% 81 33%

Kitchen facilities and the use of kitchen appliances

(KFA) 0 – 213 72 34% 69 32% 71 33%

Personal hygiene and health status (PH) 0 – 313 90 29% 105 34% 104 33%

Aggregate – Score and Risk Estimate (As – Are) 0 – 4,001 1,286 32% 1,400 35% 1,333 33%

(S) = Score; (Re) = Risk estimate; (Are) = Aggregate risk estimate (a) Decimals rounded.

As previously discussed, the consumer has a pivotal role in food safety since the efforts of companies and government to ensure food safety ends with the purchase of food by the consumer. In addition, the food handler, especially those responsible for cooking domestic meals in Brazil and in New Zealand, expose food to risks at various steps of food handling in the home (Table 29).

Overall consumers in Br 32%), and New Zealand 35%) (Table 29; Figure most concern were "Ha (S = 44; Re = 41%) and Zealand they were "Han Cooking" (S = 275; Re = in descending order of investigation. For New preservation of food (SP Brazil kitchen facilities concern (Table 29).

Figure 17: R

In the Brazil survey, ma status, family income, e food poisoning, learnin

razil exposed food to a low risk in the home ers were ranked at moderate aggregate risk 17). In Brazil the steps of food handling in t ndling of Leftovers" (S = 111; Re = 46%), "Fo "Food Preparation and Cooking" (S = 286; ndling of Leftovers" (S = 111; Re = 46%), "Foo

36%) and "Choosing and Purchasing Food" concern (Table 29), being the areas that w Zealand, food safety knowledge (FSK),

PF), as well as personal hygiene and health s and the use of kitchen appliances (KFA) w

Risk map across CCPs in the home – Brazil and New Ze

arital status, an at-risk person living in the h ethnicity, first-aid in response for some symp ng how to cook and the kitchen layout we

100 e (As = 1,286; Are = k (As = 1,400; Are = the home (CCPs) of ood Transportation" Re = 38%). In New od Preparation and (S = 81; Re = 36%), most need further the storage and status (PH), and for were also of some

aland.

home, occupational ptoms indicative of ere variables most

101

associated with overall food handling practices of consumers with the potential to lead to food poisoning (Table 30). In the New Zealand survey, variables significantly influencing the consumer behaviour concerning food safety in the home were gender, the awareness of responsibility for food safety, learning how to cook and the kitchen layout (Table 30). Detailed analysis across CCPs are needed to identify which groups are of greater concern at each CCP, trends and similarities between both countries.

Brazil results – Aggregate risk estimate

Overall in Brazil, the exposure of food to contamination, pathogen growth or survival by the widowed was ranked at moderate risk (Are = 34.1%), with a significant difference to other groups ranked within the low risk range (F(3, 2718) = 4.93; p < 0.01) (Appendix III; Table 30). There was a significant difference between the married or partnership/de facto (2) and the widowed (4) (p < 0.01; difference 2 vs. 4 = -101.5) (Appendix V). In addition, the single and separated/divorced groups were ranked at overall low risk (Are = 32.2% and Are = 31.6%, respectively) (Appendix III).

Table 30: Significant variables – Aggregate Risk Estimate – Brazil and New Zealand (Appendix IV)

Although there was a difference in food handling practices between families in Brazil with a child under 5 (1) (Are = 32.8%) and those without an at-risk person living in the home (4), ranked at 31.2% (F(3, 2708) = 6.01; p < 0.01) (Appendix III; Table 30), the effect is weak (p < 0.01; difference 1 vs. 4 = 61.5) (Appendix V) and all groups were ranked within the low risk range (Appendix III).

Brazil New Zealand Brazil New Zealand Brazil New Zealand Brazil New Zealand Brazil b New Zealandb

Marital status 4.9321 3, 2718 2.04E-03 5.08E-02 1.41E-05

Gender 13.104 1, 635 3.18E-04 1.89E-01 6.96E-01

At-risk persons living in the home 6.0125 3, 2708 4.44E-04 2.46E-01 1.20E-06

Occupational status 10.984 7, 2705 9.47E-14 2.60E-01 1.69E-05

Family income 20.351 5, 2635 < 2.2E-16 1.00E-02 3.22E-06

Ethnicity 11.971 4, 2747 1.21E-09 7.25E-01 1.05E-06

First-aid in response for some symptoms

indicative of food poisoning 86.778 3, 2739 < 2.2E-16 4.14E-02 2.13E-05

Responsibility for food safety 4.252 6, 630 3.29E-04 6.41E-01 2.80E-01

Learn how to cook 18.275 4.598 4, 2722 4, 639 7.93E-15 1.15E-03 5.73E-01 6.59E-01 2.65E-06 6.71E-01

Kitchen layout 43.574 9.5803 1, 2570 1, 640 4.94E-11 2.05E-03 3.16E-02 3.08E-01 1.49E-05 7.18E-01

(a) Lilliefors Significance Correction

(b) Histogram graph was used to verify normality of data distribution in case of K-S test violation (Appendix VI)

AGGREGATE RISK ESTIMATE (Are) (Brazil: n = 2,775; New Zealand: n = 658; cut-off p < .01)

ANOVA Normality Test

F test Df p (aov) p (Levene) p (Kolmogorov-Smirnov)a

102

In Brazil, according to article 93 of the labour law number 8,213 of 24 July 1991, all companies must reserve from 2% to 5% of their total working force to permanently disabled people, starting at 2% for companies with more than 200 employees and

reaching 5% for big companies (more than 1,001 employees)40. The occupational

status was linked to food safety in the home (F(7, 2705) = 10.98; p < 0.01) (Table 30). The permanently disabled unemployed category (7) (n = 8) was ranked at moderate risk (Are = 37.7%) and the permanently disabled employed (8) (n = 33) was ranked at the lowest risk (Are = 30.8%) (Appendix III). There was a significant difference between people employed full–time (1) ranked at low risk (Are = 31.0%) and those in charge of home–duties (6) ranked in the beginning of the moderate risk scale (Are = 33.9%) (p < 0.01; difference 1 vs. 6 = -117.8) (Appendix III; Appendix V).

The total income of everyone in a household was associated with risks to food safety in the home in Brazil (F(5, 2635) = 20.35; p < 0.01) (Table 30). Although almost all groups were ranked at the low risk range (Appendix III) there was a trend for a reduced risk with increasing income (Appendix VI) and a significant difference in food safety behaviour between lower income families (1) and the high income families (5) (p < 0.01; difference 1 vs. 5 = 208.1) (Appendix V).

The ethnic groups investigated in the Brazil survey were: indigenous, browns, blacks, whites and yellows (Asian descent). This is the Brazil official classification for ethnicity (skin colour or race) (Censo Brasil, 2010). Overall, ethnicity had a weak influence in the aggregate risk estimate F(4, 2747) = 11.97; p < 0.01) (Table 30), with almost all groups ranked within the low risk range, except for the indigenous group (1) ranked at moderate risk (Are = 35.9%) (Appendix III). There was a significant difference between the food safety behaviour of the indigenous (1) and whites (4) (p < 0.01; difference 1 vs. 4 = 201.6) (Appendix V).

The first-aid attitude of Brazilian consumers in response for a health problem had a significant influence in food safety in the home (F(3, 2739) = 86.78; p < 0.01) (Table

40

103

30). People that do nothing (4) or self–medicate (1) when experiencing some symptoms indicative of food poisoning had a higher aggregate risk estimate (Are = 34.6%; Are = 37.5%, respectively), ranked at the moderate risk range (Appendix III). Furthermore, those groups (1) and (4) had significant differences in behaviour when compared with those who visit a GP/health clinic (2) or take oral rehydration as first– care and then later visit a GP (3) (p < 0.01; difference 1 vs. 2 = 179.2; difference 2 vs. 4 = -294.5; difference 3 vs. 4 = -246.3) (Appendix V).

The way the Brazilian consumer learns to cook seems to be associated with food safety in the home (F(4, 2722) = 18.28; p < 0.01) (Table 30). Those who attended a training course (5) were ranked at a low aggregate risk estimate (Are = 29.5%) (Appendix III) and had a significant difference in practices when compared with people that usually follow TV programmes or cookery books (2) (p < 0.01; difference 5 vs. 2 = -157.84) (Appendix V). Interestingly, people that follow other relatives (mum and grandparents) advice (4) were ranked at a similar low risk (Are = 31.1%) as those who attended a training course (Appendix III).

The kitchen layout seems to play an important role in the food safety behaviour of consumers in Brazilian households (F(1, 2570) = 43.57; p < 0.01) (Table 30). However, those who use a one wall/straight line kitchen design (2) and people that use a triangle design in the home kitchen (1) had a similar low risk estimate (Are = 32.8%; Are = 30.9%, respectively) (Appendix III). Tukey HSD tests were not performed because there were fewer than three groups (Appendix V).

New Zealand results – Aggregate risk estimate

In New Zealand gender seems to influence consumer behaviour concerning food safety (F(1, 635) = 13.10; p < 0.01) (Table 30). Although both groups were ranked at moderate risk, women had a lower risk estimate (Are = 34.3%) than men (Are = 36.3%) (Appendix III).

The awareness that food can become contaminated at any stage from production to consumption plays an important role in consumer behaviour concerning food safety in

104

New Zealand' households (F(6, 630) = 4.25; p < 0.01) (Table 30). People that were aware of the consumers' responsibility (1) had the lowest aggregate risk estimate (Are = 33.9%), similar to those who consider food safety as a shared responsibility (7) (Are = 34.1%), both ranked at the bottom of the moderate risk scale (Appendix III). The group that consider farmers (2) as the most responsible for food safety had the higher risk estimate (Are = 39.6%) (Appendix III). However, there was no significant difference between groups (Appendix V).

Similar to Brazil, the way a person learns to cook in New Zealand seems to be associated with food safety in the home (F(4, 639) = 4.59; p < 0.01) (Table 30) and those who attended a training course (5) had the lowest aggregate risk estimate (Are = 33.0%), ranked at the control. All other groups were ranked at the moderate risk range (Appendix III). However, there was no significant difference between groups (Appendix V).

The kitchen layout was associated with consumer behaviour concerning food safety in New Zealand (F(1, 640) = 9.58; p < 0.01) (Table 30). However, both investigated groups one wall/straight line kitchen design (2) and triangle design (1) had similar moderate risk estimates (Are = 36.7%; Are = 34.6%, respectively) (Appendix III). Tukey HSD tests were not performed because there were fewer than three groups (Appendix V).