ANC-2021-Go-Beyond-Food-Safety-with-Food-Defense

Go Beyond Food Safety with Food Defense Kevin Sauer, PhD, RDN, LD, FAND Kevin Roberts, PhD Paola Paez, PhD Affiliation & Disclosure • K Sauer & K Roberts – Co-Directors, Professors, Kansas State University – Center for Food Safety in Child Nutrition Programs • P Paez – Research Associate Professor, Kansas State University – Center for Food Safety in Child Nutrition Programs • Disclosure – The Center has been funded, in part, with Federal funds from the U.S Department of Agriculture The contents of this presentation not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S Department of Agriculture nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S Government or the Center Mission To conduct food safety research that meets the needs of Food and Nutrition Service’s nutrition assistance programs using an interdisciplinary team approach and to disseminate results to a variety of targeted audiences Vision The vision of the center is to provide leadership in advancing food safety research and practices within Food & Nutrition Service’s nutrition assistance programs Food Defense vs Food Safety Research Purpose ● Identify current practices ● Provide recommendations Methods Literature Review Structured Interview Guide Development & Research Approval Sample Selection & Recruitment Data Analysis (SPSS, Qualitative Analysis) Data Collection: Interviews Pilot Test Preparation ● Phone interview questionnaire ○ ○ Collaborative development and other instruments Designed with considerations for both qualitative and quantitative data • Responses entered directly into online survey Preparation Pilot test Second pilot test Final Instrument Final Phone Questionnaire ● Final version contained 10 sections ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● General facilities and personnel security Foodservice areas Food and supplies External vendors Internal systems Water and ice supply Personnel training Food defense plan Suppliers General information – program/contact demographics Results: Food Defense Plan • More than half of the districts (51%) had a well documented crisis management plan • Majority programs not have a food defense plan (66%) and have not conducted an audit (86.3%) – 30% have a plan and 4% are unsure Results: General Facilities & Personnel Security • After-hour deliveries – 61% never allow vendor access after hours, common items for those who allow deliveries include: • • • • Dairy (23.8%) Bread 9.7%) Broadline or grocery orders (7.2%) Produce (3.1%) • School district grounds and buildings were always secured, most of the time during the day and after hours or weekends Results: General Facilities & Personnel Security Practice Mean ±SD a Facility access (entry codes, keys) 4.8 ± 0.6 Terminated employees lose means of access 4.8 ± 0.4 Identify & respond to unauthorized individuals in restricted areas 4.7± 0.6 Keys marked as ‘Do Not Duplicate’ 4.6 ± 1.0 Restrict access to chemicals 4.4 ± 1.0 a Percentages and totals may not equal 320 or 100% due to non-responses Responses were coded as never = 1, rarely =2, sometimes =3, often =4, always =5 Not sure and not applicable responses were not included in the overall mean and standard deviation calculation Results: Foodservice Area Security • Compliance for practices in this area >67% – Exception of securing foodservice area during school day (58.4% compliant) – Majority of restrictive measures performed by physically locking foodservice area (50%) Practice Secures the foodservice area after hours/weekends Mean ±SD a 4.8 ± 0.6 Has a secured entrance for employees 4.8 ± 0.8 Prohibits personal items (purse, phone, etc.) outside foods, & medications in production area 4.5 ± 1.1 Has an emergency lighting system in foodservice area 4.4 ± 1.2 Secures foodservice area during the day to prevent entry 4.3 ± 1.1 a Percentages and totals may not equal 320 or 100% due to non-responses Responses were coded as never = 1, rarely =2, sometimes =3, often =4, always =5 Not sure and not applicable responses were not included in the overall mean and standard deviation calculation b Results: Monitoring of Foodservice Areas • The following areas were monitored often or always: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Main service line Food preparation area Equipment Inside storage Student dining area Self-service bar Outside storage Receiving docks Results: Monitoring of Foodservice Areas • Camera monitoring done by 255 respondents – Actively monitored 56.1% – Footage recorded 92.5% • Most common location for cameras: – Outside Docks – Dining Areas – Serving Lines Results: Food & Supplies Food & Supplies (N=320) Frequency (%) a Not Applicable Mean ±SD b Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Not Sure (0) (0.3) (1.9) 10 (3.1) 100 (31.3) (0.3) 201 (62.8) 4.8 ± 0.6 Restrict access to internal cold storage areas to designated employees only (0.9) (0.9) 12 (3.8) 23 (7.2) 277 (86.6) (0) (0.6) 4.8 ± 0.6 Restrict access to dry storage areas to designated employees only (0.9) (0) 10 (3.1) 30 (9.4) 269 (84.1) (0) (1.3) 4.8 ± 0.6 Monitor water supply that is transported or provided in cafeteria (2.5) (1.6) 13 (4.1) 19 (5.9) 207 (64.7) 12 (3.8) 56 (17.5) 4.6 ± 0.9 13 (4.1) (1.6) 25 (7.8) 35 (10.9) 157 (49.1) (0.3) 82 (25.6) 4.4 ± 1.1 (2.5) (0.6) 23 (7.2) (1.9) 92 (28.8) 26 (8.1) 163 (50.9) 4.3 ± 1.2 Restrict access to external storage areas to designated employees only Restrict access to ice machines Monitor water supply transported or provided for field trips Results: Food & Supplies Who has Access to Food Storage Areas (N=320) Frequency (%) a External cold/frozen food storage Internal cold/frozen food storage Dry storage Principals (0) (0.9) (2.5) Teachers (0.3) (0.9) (0.6) Custodians (1.9) 12 (3.8) 23 (7.2) Maintenance Volunteers 10 (3.1) 100 (31.3) 23 (7.2) 277 (86.6) (1.9) 92 (28.8) Visitors (0.3) (0) 26 (8.1) Other School Personnel 201 (62.8) (0.6) 163 (50.9) Results: External Purchases Purchases from Vendors (N=320) Frequency (%) a Purchase all food product, packaging, and other foodservice supplies from approved vendors Address recall within 12 hours Verify external deliveries against purchase orders Reject products opened or compromised Inspect food packages for evidence of tampering upon delivery Reject unscheduled deliveries Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Not Sure Not Applicable (0) (0.3) (0) (0.9) 313 (97.8) (0.3) (0.6) 5.0 ± 0.2 (0) (0) (0) 16 (5.0) 297 (92.8) (0.6) (1.6) 5.0 ± 0.2 (0) (0.3) (2.2) 26 (8.1) 285 (89.1) (0) (0.3) 4.9 ± 0.4 (0) (0) (1.6) 30 (9.4) 280 (87.5) (0) (0.6) 4.9 ± 0.4 (0.3) (0.3) 13 (4.1) 47 (14.7) 255 (79.7) (0.6) (0.3) 4.7 ± 0.6 (1.3) 15 (4.7) 36 (11.3) 31 (9.7) 180 (56.3) 14 (4.4) 40 (12.5) 4.4 ± 1.0 Mean ±SD b Results: Intra-School Deliveries • 46.3% did not track delivery trucks – Represents 70% of schools who handle intra-school deliveries Intra-School Deliveries (N=320) Frequency (%) a Inspect food packages for evidence of tampering Verify inter-school deliveries against order Secure school delivery trucks when not in use Reject unscheduled deliveries Designate employee trained on food defense to deliver food Track school delivery trucks in real time while en route Not Applicable Mean ±SD b Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Not Sure (0.3) (0.6) (2.5) 28 (8.8) 192 (60.0) (1.6) 84 (26.3) 4.8 ± 0.6 (1.9) (1.3) (2.5) 25 (7.8) 187 (58.4) (0.9) 87 (27.2) 4.7 ± 0.8 (2.5) (1.9) 10 (3.1) 27 (8.4) 152 (47.5) 20 (6.3) 97 (30.3) 4.5 ± 1.0 (1.9) 48 (15.0) 148 (46.3) 21 (6.6) 30 (9.4) 25 (7.8) 105 (32.8) (1.9) 127 (39.7) 4.1 ± 1.2 10 (3.1) 20 (6.3) 14 (4.4) 132 (41.3) 14 (4.4) 82 (25.6) 3.8 ± 1.7 (1.3) (1.9) (2.8) 43 (13.4) 12 (3.8) 98 (30.6) 2.0 ± 1.7 Results: Personnel Training Personnel Training (N=320) Frequency (%) a Never Train all foodservice employees on food 96 (30.0) defense Provide information about the importance 200 (62.5) of food defense to non-foodservice staff Not Applicable Mean ±SD b Rarely Sometimes Often Always Not Sure 46 (14.4) 40 (12.5) 23 (7.2) 106 (33.1) (2.5) (0.3) 3.0 ± 1.7 46 (14.4) 40 (12.5) 14 (4.4) 13 (4.0) (2.2) (0) 1.7 ± 1.1 Results: Level of Confidence Respondents’ Level of Confidence in their Food Defense Program Frequency (%) b Somewhat Confident Confident Very Confident Extremely Mean ± Confident SDc (11.1) (14.8) (22.2) 14 (51.9) 4.2 ± 1.1 (9.4) 14 (14.6) 23 (24.0) (0.6) 15 (4.8) 61 (19.4) 135 (42.9) 102 (32.4) 4.0 ± 0.9 (2.8) 69 (21.6) 37 (11.6) 101 (31.7) 103 (32.3) 3.9 ± 1.1 (0.9) 46 (14.4) 52 (16.3) 91 (28.5) 127 (39.8) 3.7 ± 1.2 Item a Not Confident …your school district’s food defense plan would prevent an (0) intentional contamination incident (n=27) …your school nutrition program’s food defense plan would prevent (2.1) an intentional contamination incident (n=96) …you can address a recall due to intentional contamination (n=15) …your school district as a whole can effectively respond to an intentional contamination incident (n=319) …your school nutrition program can effectively respond to an intentional contamination incident (n=320) 48 (50) 4.1 ± 1.1 Conclusions • Programs can improve food defense programs – Some not have one – Some have one as part of their food safety program – Large reliance on HACCP-based food safety guidelines • Schools need to access FSIS standards to reduce risk • Food defense training is lacking among foodservice & non-foodservice staff Recommendations • On-site observations/audits • Behavior assessment on food defense practices • Conjoining food defense practices with food safety training strategies for enhanced training efficiency • On-site simulations • Delineation of food safety & food defense in trainings Thank you! Center for Food Safety in Child Nutrition Programs Kansas State University 152 Justin Hall 1324 Lovers Lane Manhattan, KS 66506 cnsafefood.k-state.edu/ @CNSAFEFOOD 785-532-2211 cnsafefood@k-state.edu @CNSAFEFOOD