Food safety in the home consumption of meat in Turkey

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327

Food safety in the home consumption of meat in Turkey

Efsun Karabudak *, Murat Bas, Gul Kiziltan

Baskent University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 06530 Etimesgut, Ankara, Turkey

Received 24 January 2007; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 24 April 2007

Abstract

In this study, we investigated consumer meat-handling practices in Turkey. We conducted face-to-face interviews with 1090 consum-ers who included meat in their diet and were the primary shopper and food handler in their home. The subjects also completed a ques-tionnaire about their meat-handling practices. We found that many of those individuals failed to store meat at the correct temperature ordid not correctly defrost meat. Food-handling practices varied according to the socioeconomic group and level of education of therespondent, and gaps in food safety knowledge were noted. Turkish meat consumers must be informed about the safe handling of meatproducts to prevent foodborne illness and ensure optimal food safety.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Food safety; Meat; Home; Consumer

1. Introduction

Each year, millions of people worldwide suffer fromfoodborne diseases (WHO, 2000), and illness resultingfrom the consumption of contaminated food has becomeone of the most widespread public health problems in con-temporary society (Notermans, Gallhoff, Zweitering, &Mead, 1995). Because of new pathogens such as Esche-richia coli O157:H7, the incidence of foodborne illnesshas increased, and fluctuations in the number of outbreaksand sporadic cases have been reported (Riordan, Cowan, &McCarthy, 2002; WHO, 2000).

Choices in foods consumed at home and methods offood preparation are changing because of several factors:an increased demand for meals that are convenient to pre-pare and food that requires minimal processing, an increas-ing number of women in the workplace and a limitedcommitment to food preparation (Collins, 1997). All thoseinvolved in the handling and preparation of food have asignificant role in the effort to reduce the prevalence offoodborne diseases (Redmond & Griffith, 2003).

0956-7135/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.04.018

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 2341054.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Karabudak).

WHO (2002) reported that some 40% of foodborne ill-nesses resulted from the consumption of food prepared inthe home (WHO, 2002). Studies have suggested that casesof foodborne illness originating in the home are less likelyto be reported (Day, 2001; Redmond & Griffith, 2003).Redmond and Griffith (2003) estimated that between 50%and 87% of reported outbreaks of foodborne illness havebeen associated with food prepared at home. Rusin andcolleagues (Rusin, Orosz-Coughlin, & Gerba, 1998) identi-fied the kitchen as an area highly contaminated by variousstrains of bacteria. It is clear, therefore, that the privatehome is a crucial location in which foodborne illnessesare engendered.

Food can be mishandled at any number of stages duringits preparation, handling, and storage. Studies show thatmany consumers are inadequately informed about mea-sures needed to prevent foodborne illness in the home(Medeiros, Hillers, Kendall, & Mason, 2001). Accordingto Bean and Griffin (1990), foodborne illness has been asso-ciated with improper storage or reheating (in 50% of cases),with food stored inappropriately (45%) and with cross-con-tamination (39%) (Bean & Griffin, 1990). Some foodborneillnesses acquired in the home were resulted from eatingundercooked food of animal origin or from engaging in

E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327 321

unsafe food preparation practices (Klontz, Timbo, Fein, &Levy, 1995). Earlier studies in adults have shown thatknowledge about food safety tends to increase with age,the level of education, and experience in food preparation(Bruhn & Schutz, 1999; Rimal, Fletcher, McWatters,Misra, & Deodhar, 2001; Unusan, 2007). In many societies,women are more informed about appropriate methods offood-handling and storage than are men. Better educatedindividuals often recognize the importance of food safety,and younger respondents have shown the greatest needfor additional education about that topic (Bruhn & Schutz,1999; Rimal et al., 2001).

The prevention of foodborne disease requires the coop-eration of all those who interact in the food chain (WHO,2000). No single stage of that process can be identified asthe most critical (Advisory Committee on the Microbiolog-ical Safety of Food, 1991), although the consumer has beendescribed as the ‘‘final line of defence’’ (Gilbert, 1983).There are, however, no enforceable regulations for thepreparation, handling, and storage of food in the home,where food safety requires an educated consumer. Severalstudies have identified the need for continued consumereducation about the hazards of improper food-handling(Finch & Daniel, 2005; Li-Cohen & Bruhn, 2002; Mitaka-kis et al., 2004; WHO, 2000).

In Turkey, 84,340 and 77,515 cases of foodborne diseasewere identified in 1999 and 2000, respectively (WHO,2004). Because the reporting of foodborne illnesses to aspecified agency is not obligatory in Turkey, data on food-borne infections and intoxications are inaccurate (WHO,2004). The association of food poisoning outbreaks andthe consumption of contaminated meat are significant inmany countries (Sockett, 1995). The aim of our studywas to investigate Turkish consumers’ knowledge aboutmeat purchase, storage, preparation, cooking, and servingin the domestic kitchen. We suggest that awareness of thebaseline knowledge and behaviors in such a target groupis essential for the development of effective health educa-tion programs in Turkey.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. The survey used

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Ankara, Tur-key, from September to December 2004. The study sampleconsisted of 1090 voluntary subjects who were selected ran-domly from households in that city. All study subjects were18 years of age or older, had the sole responsibility for thepreparation of a homemade meal at least once per day, andserved as the primary shopper and food handler in theirfamily. No subject was a professional food handler. Allrespondents were interviewed face-to-face by 1 of 4 trainedinterviewers. In the respondent’s home, a structured ques-tionnaire was completed by 1 of the interviewers. Simpleinstructions explaining the purpose of the study were

printed on the front of the questionnaire. The average com-pletion time for each questionnaire was 25 min.

Socioeconomic data were collected in this study. House-hold income was calculated on the basis of the respondent’sestimate of the total income from all sources (before taxes)of all household members for the calendar year before theinterview. The poverty level was determined by expressinghousehold income as a percentage of the federal povertythreshold (Turkish Statistical Institute, 1993–2004).

2.2. The questionnaire

The 32-item written questionnaire used in this study wasa modified version of a questionnaire from the US Foodand Drug Administration (FDA) about food safety, nutri-tion, and cosmetics (FDA, 2002a). The purpose of ourquestionnaire was to correlate information from variousdemographic sections of an urban adult Turkish popula-tion and food-handling practices (the purchasing, trans-port, storage, handling, preparation, and cooking ofmeat). In a pilot study, the questionnaire was administeredto 50 consumers matched for age, main shoppers, and foodhandlers in their home. The results of that pilot study werenot assessed other than to determine the clarity of the ques-tions that would be administered to a larger population.

2.3. Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed with SPSS software (StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences, version 11.5, SSPS Inc,Chicago, IL, USA). Mean responses as well as the percent-ages of responses in each category were computed. Cross-tabulation and the v2 test were used to examine the rela-tionships among and between the variables. Statistical sig-nificance was set at a P value of <.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Consumer characteristics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 1090 consumersby sex, age, educational background, marital status, andsocioeconomic group. Of all consumers interviewed,33.2% were men and 66.8% were women. Most (46.2%)of the consumers were between 35 and 55 years of age,36.3% had been educated to the junior high school level,and 80.0% were married.

3.2. Purchasing and bringing home meat

Most respondents (62.1%) claimed to purchase at least 2types of meat: minced meat or meatballs (33.2%) or meatwith a bone (4.0%) (Table 2). The consumers judged thequality of the meat they purchased by color, texture, andodor (McSwane, Rue, & Linton, 1998). Quality and price,which were the most critical criteria in purchasing meat,were followed in order of importance by cholesterol con-

Table 1Characteristics of the study subjects

Demographic characteristics Category Percent (%) Subjects (No.)

Sex Male 33.2 362Female 66.8 728

Age (y) 18–34 41.7 45435–55 46.2 504P56 12.1 132

Level of education Primary school 2.9 32Junior high school 36.3 396High school 35.4 386University 25.3 276

Marital status Married 80.0 872Single 14.3 156Separated or divorced 5.7 62

Socioeconomic group First quintile 9.5 104Second quintile 29.9 326Third quintile 28.1 306Fourth quintile 18.5 202Fifth quintile 13.9 152

Table 2Methods of purchasing, conveying, and handling raw meat

Questions Answers Percent of subjects (n)

Which type of meat do you buy? Only minced meat or meatballs 33.2 (360)Only meat with a bone 4.0 (44)Only meat without bone (roasts, etc.) 0.7 (8)At least 2 of the forms listed above 62.1 (678)

Which factors are important in selecting meat to prepare at home? Quality 72.5 (790)Fat content 5.7 (62)Cholesterol content 14.5 (158)Price 15.4 (168)Expiration date 9.5 (103)Trademark 1.1 (12)Packaging 4.9 (54)Grade stamp or quality standard certificate 12.8 (140)None 0.7 (8)

When do you return home after having purchased raw meat? Immediately after purchase 65.0 (709)Within 1–2 h after purchase 31.5 (344)More than 2 h after purchase 3.4 (37)

By which method do you transport just-purchased raw meat? A normal grocery bag 80.0 (872)A cooler bag 4.8 (52)A separate grocery bag for meat 15.2 (166)

322 E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327

tent (14.5%) and the presence of a grade stamp or qualitystandard certificate (12.8%). Some consumers interviewedprovided multiple responses about those criteria.

Most consumers (65.0%) immediately returned homeafter having purchased meat, and 31.5% usually returnedhome within 1–2 h after having purchased meat, thusreducing the risk of a temperature increase in chilled or fro-zen meat purchases. Perishable foods should be refriger-ated within 2 h after purchase or preparation (FDA/CFSAN, 2001). Of all the consumers interviewed, 4.8%used a cooler bag and 15.2% used a separate grocery bagto contain meat purchases. The food safety and inspectionservice (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agricul-

ture has advised separating raw meat, poultry, and seafoodfrom other food in the grocery bag to prevent meat juicesfrom dripping onto other food (FSIS/CFSAN, 2002a).

The results of a chi-square test revealed that educationand socioeconomic group were significantly related to theattention that consumers paid to their meat purchases(P < .01). University graduates were more aware of thecholesterol content in meat than were their less-educatedcounterparts. Those educated only to the primary schoollevel (whose socioeconomic standard was usually lowerthan that of better educated consumers) paid moreattention to the price of meat. No significant relationship,however, was found between consumers’ education or

E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327 323

socioeconomic status and food safety behavior regardingthe transport of meat or the travel time to home after meatpurchase (P > .05).

3.3. Storage practices

Table 3 shows the attitudes of consumers toward thestorage of meat in their home. Consumer responses toquestions about the temperature of their home refrigeratorshowed that 60.6% either did not know or had never mea-sured the temperature at which their meat was stored.Almost half (45.8%) of the consumers stored their meatin a freezer (temperature, �18 �C), 41.7% stored it in thefreezer of their refrigerator (temperature, zero degrees cen-tigrade), 7.3% stored it in the refrigerator (temperature,

Table 3Methods of storing raw meat

Questions Answer

At which temperature do you store raw meat? (n = 1090) 21 �C (75 �C (40Zero de�18 �C

For how long do you store raw meat at refrigerator temperature(5 �C)? (n = 80)

Less thaMore th

For how long do you store raw meat at refrigerator freezertemperature (zero degrees centigrade; 32 �F)? (n = 455)

Less thaMore th

For how long do you store raw meat at freezer temperature(�18 �C)? (n = 499)

Less thaFrom 1

How do you store raw meat at refrigerator temperature? (n = 80) In the rRemoveplate orRemoveplateRemovecoveredRemoveuncover

How do you prepare raw meat to be stored frozen? (n = 954) Put it inRemoveplate orRemoveplateRemovecoveredRemoveuncover

Do you separate raw meat from other foods in the refrigerator?(n = 80)

YesNo

How do you thaw frozen raw meat? (n = 954) No thawThaw inThaw inPlace thThaw oThaw inThaw in

Do you refreeze thawed raw meat? (n = 954) YesSometimNo

5 �C), and the remaining consumers stored it in theirkitchen at room temperature (20 �C). Most of those whostored meat in the refrigerator (89%) prepared it within2 h after storage. Food spoilage is usually the result ofchemical reactions that are mediated by microbial andendogenous enzymes. The storage life of many foods canbe increased by storing perishable items at a low tempera-ture (Adams & Moss, 2000). The temperature of a refriger-ator should be kept at 5 �C (40 �F) or lower and that of afreezer at �18 �C (zero degrees Fahrenheit) or lower(FDA/CFSAN, 2001). Bacteria grow most rapidly between5 �C and 60 �C (40 �F and 140 �F, respectively), at whichtemperature the bacterial generation time can be as briefas 20 min (FDA/CFSAN, 2001). Thus, consumer foodsafety education programs must emphasize the action of

s Percent (n)

0 �F) or higher (room temperature in the kitchen) 5.1 (56)�F) (refrigerator temperature) 7.3 (80)

grees centigrade (32 �F) (refrigerator freezer temperature) 41.7 (455)(0 �F) or lower (freezer temperature) 45.8 (499)

n 2 days 70.0 (56)an 3 days 30.0 (24)

n 2 days 9.0 (41)an 3 days 91.0 (414)

n 1 month 99.1 (495)–3 months 0.9 (4)

efrigerator as bought 38.8 (31)meat from its package and place it uncut on a coveredwrap it

27.5 (22)

meat from its package and place it uncut on an uncovered 21.3 (17)

meat from its package, slice it, and place the slices on aplate or wrap them

10.0 (8)

meat from its package, slice it, and place the slices on aned plate

2.4 (2)

the freezer as bought 14.8 (141)meat from its package and place it uncut on a coveredwrap it

12.9 (123)

meat from its package and place it uncut on an uncovered 1.4 (13)

meat from its package, slice it, and place the slices on aplate or wrap them

65.9 (629)

meat from its package, slice it, and place the slices on aned plate

5.0 (48)

77.5 (62)22.5 (18)

ing 9.4 (89)hot water 2.9 (28)cold water 2.0 (19)

e frozen meat in the sun or in the stove 1.9 (18)n the kitchen counter 66.9 (639)

the oven or microwave 2.2 (21)the refrigerator 14.7 (140)

4.8 (46)es 5.5 (52)

89.7 (856)

324 E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327

temperature control in reducing microbial growth and sur-vival and the concept that storing perishable foods at thecorrect temperature helps to ensure food safety at home(Bryan, 1988).

Most (70.0%) of the consumers studied stored meat at acontrolled temperature. Of those individuals, the subjectswho stored meat in the refrigerator (7.3%) used it within2 days of having first refrigerated it, thereby reducing thelikelihood of food poisoning. Others, however, leftuncooked meat in the refrigerator for 3 or more days.When asked to define the longest length of time for whichraw meat would be refrigerated before its use, 10% said 3–4days and 20% said longer than 4 days.

Some consumers in the first and second socioeconomicgroups had an old-fashioned refrigerator in which the free-zer was set at zero degrees centigrade. Of the 91.0% of con-sumers who stored raw meat in the refrigerator freezer,41.7% stored it for longer than 3 days. Consumers mustbe aware of the importance of storing food at a tempera-ture that inhibits bacterial growth. Some pathogenic bacte-ria can grow at a temperature of zero degrees centigrade(32 �F), which is the temperature at which water freezes(FDA/CFSAN, 2001). Of the 99.1% who stored meat inthe freezer, 45.8% stored it there for less than 1 month.

Of those who kept raw meat in the refrigerator, 38.8%stored it as bought. Ten percent said that they usuallyremove the meat from its original packaging, cut it intosmaller pieces, and store those pieces on a wrapped orunwrapped plate. Almost 28% said that they place an uncutpiece of meat on an unwrapped plate for storage; thisincreases the risk of cross-contamination. Meat and poul-try stored in the refrigerator can be refrigerated as pur-chased in plastic wrap for 1 or 2 days (FDA, 2002a).Table 3 shows that 77.5% of the consumers intervieweddid separate raw meat from other foods before storage.

Table 4Methods of handling and preparing raw meat

Questions

Do you wash your hands before you prepare meat? (n = 1090)

After you have handled raw meat, how do you wash your hands? (n = 1090)

Before you use a cutting board on which raw meat was just sliced, how do yoclean it before you use it to chop vegetables, etc? (n = 501)

What do you use to clean kitchen counters and other surfaces that comeinto contact with raw meat? (n = 1090)

The study subjects described the following practices ofthawing raw frozen meat: setting the frozen meat on acounter top to thaw (66.9%), thawing it in the refrigerator(14.7%), thawing it in hot water (2.9%), thawing it in coldwater (2.0%), and thawing it in the oven or microwave(2.2%). Foods should never be thawed or stored on a coun-ter top or defrosted in hot water (FSIS, 2005). Food that isbeing thawed, heated, or cooled should be kept for theshortest possible time in the middle temperature zone(21–52 �C; 70–120 �F) because microorganisms grow mostrapidly in that temperature range. Raw frozen meat thatmust be thawed quickly should be submerged in cold waterin airtight packaging or thawed in the microwave andcooked immediately (FSIS/CFSAN, 2002b). Most con-sumers (89.7%) did not defrost and then refreeze the samepiece of raw meat. The FSIS (2003) has advised thatdefrosted raw meat can be safely stored in the refrigeratorfor 3–5 days before it is cooked. If the defrosted meat is notthen cooked within 5 days, it can be safely refrozen withouthaving been cooked.

There was a significant relationship between meat stor-age malpractice and the consumers’ level of educationand socioeconomic background (P < .05). Those in the firstand second socioeconomic groups and those educated onlyto the primary school level were most likely to store meatincorrectly.

3.4. Food-handling and preparation

The meat-handling and preparation practices of the con-sumers studied are listed in Table 4. Most malpracticesoccurred before the raw meat was cooked. When askedwhether they washed their hands before they preparedmeat, 85% of the subjects said that they always did so,12.0% said that they sometimes did so, and 3.0% said that

Answers Percent (n)

Yes 85.0 (927)Sometimes 12.0 (131)No 3.0 (32)

Wipe them with a towel 5.0 (55)Rinse them under cold or warm tapwater

25.9 (282)

Wash them with soap and warmwater

69.1 (753)

u No washing 5.8 (29)Wipe with a damp cloth 9.0 (45)Wash with cold water 25.7 (129)Wash with soap and hot water 54.5 (273)Wash with soap and hot water andthen sanitized

5.0 (25)

Water at room temperature 46.1 (502)Hot water and soap 48.8 (532)Hot water and soap, then bleachsolution

5.1 (56)

E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327 325

they rarely or never did so. There was significant relation-ship between handwashing before preparing meat andsocioeconomic group and level of education (P < .05). Afew consumers (5.0%) wiped their hands on a towel afterhaving handled meat, but 69.1% washed their hands withsoap and warm water. The safe practice of washing handswith soap and water before preparing food makes foodpoisoning less likely to occur (Altekruse, Street, Fein, &Levy, 1996). There was a significant relationship betweeneducation level and the propensity to use soap for hand-washing (P < .05). Subjects educated to the high schoolor university level were more likely to use soap than werethose educated to the primary or secondary level. TheFDA (2002b) has recommended that hands be washed withwarm water and soap for at least 20 s before and after han-dling food, especially raw meat.

Fifty-four percent of the consumers stated that theyused two chopping boards, one to prepare meat and theother to prepare vegetables. Those who had only one chop-ping board were asked whether they washed it between thepreparation of meat and vegetables. Some consumers dem-onstrated poor sanitation procedures that can result in thecross-contamination of foods by chopping ready-to-eatfoods on an unwashed cutting board previously used toslice meat (5.8%), wiping the cutting board with a dampcloth before use (9%), or washing the cutting board withcold water (25.7%). Preventing the cross-contaminationof foods involves washing cutting boards with soap andhot water or a sanitizer before their next use. Cuttingboards can be sanitized if they are washed with a solutionof 5 mL (one teaspoon) of chlorine bleach in one quart ofwater (FDA/CFSAN, 2003). There was significant differ-ence between the consumers’ education level and thepropensity to wash a chopping board between the prepara-tion of raw meat and vegetables (P < .05).

Table 5Methods of cooking and serving meat (n = 1090)

Questions

When you prepare a dish that contains meat, how do you determinewhether the meat has been adequately cooked before it is consumed?

When you prepare large portions of meat, how do you determinewhether the meat has been adequately cooked?

To which degree of doneness do you cook meat?

How do you handle leftover cooked meat?

To what degree do you reheat leftovers?

Table 4 shows the various practices used to cleankitchen counters and other surfaces that are in contact withmeat. Almost half (46.1%) of the consumers studiedcleaned their kitchen counters and other surfaces withwater at room temperature, 48.8% used hot water andsoap, and 5.1% used hot water and soap and then applieda bleach solution. There was no significant relationshipbetween education level and the propensity to clean kitchencounters or other surfaces that contact raw meat (P > .05).

3.5. Cooking and serving meat

Table 5 shows the ways in which the consumers inter-viewed cooked meat. When asked how they determinedwhether a meat dish was adequately cooked, 83.3% said thatthey timed the cooking of raw meat, 47.8% stated that theyjudged cooked meat by its color, and 4.3% used a thermom-eter (multiple responses were given to that question). Mostconsumers (84.7%) never used a thermometer to check theinternal temperature of a large piece of meat during itscooking. Unfortunately, many consumers were unsure ofhow long they cooked raw meat. Turkish meat consumerstend to prefer medium or well-done meatballs. It is a com-mon practice to judge of the safety of a cooked hamburgerby its appearance (Badrie, Joseph, & Chen, 2004).Although, most consumers feel that a ground meat pattyis sufficiently cooked when the interior of the patty is nolonger red (Killinger, Hunt, Campbell, & Kropf, 2000;FDA/CFSAN, 1999), the denaturation of metmyoglobinthat occurs when meat is heated causes some ground beefto lose its pink color before it has been fully cooked (War-ren, Hunt, & Krof, 1996). Research has shown that coloris not a reliable indicator of the thorough cooking of groundbeef patties, because premature browning or a persistentpink color can occur (FSIS, 2003; Killinger et al., 2000).

Answers Percent (n)

Use a thermometer 4.3 (47)Look at its color 47.8 (521)Monitor the duration of cooking 83.3 (908)

Use a thermometer 15.3 (167)Look at the internal color of the meat, whichshould be brown

76.8 (837)

Monitor the duration of cooking 87.9 (959)

Rare 1.5 (16)Medium 49.4 (538)Well-done 49.2 (536)

Cool it to room temperature, then store it in therefrigerator

39.7 (433)

Put it into the refrigerator immediately after themeal

54.0 (589)

Leave it at room temperature overnight or longer 6.3 (68)

Until they are hot and steamy 62.5 (681)Until they are sufficiently warm 32.3 (352)No reheating; eaten cold 5.2 (57)

326 E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327

Premature browning is a food safety issue. Prematurelybrown patties can appear to be fully cooked, even thoughthe highest internal temperature reached during their heat-ing was insufficient to kill pathogens (Hague et al., 1994).The FSIS, the FDA, and the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention now recommend that consumers use a ther-mometer to cook hamburgers to a temperature of 71 �C(160 �F) (FSIS, 2003) and make no reference to the internalcolor of cooked meat.

When consumers were asked whether they ate cookedmeat immediately, 39.7% said that they usually cooledthe food to room temperature then put in the refrigerator,54.0% refrigerated cooked meat immediately, and 6.3% leftcooked meat at room temperature overnight or longer.

Table 5 shows that 5.2% of the subjects reheated cookedleftovers before serving. Most respondents (60.5%) haveserved leftover cooked foods that had been left at roomtemperature (29–32 �C; 84–90 �F) for more than 2 h. Anycooked food left at room temperature for more than 2 h(1 h if the temperature was higher than 32 �C [90 �F])should be discarded (FDA/CFSAN, 2001). There was nosignificant correlation between education level and meat-handling practices (P > .05).

4. Conclusions

The results of this study identified a gap in food safetypractices that occurs from the time at which meat is pur-chased until it is served. We found that food-handling prac-tices differed according to the socioeconomic group andeducation level of the consumer. Those with a higher levelof education and those from the fourth or fifth socioeco-nomic group adhered to safer food-handling practices thandid consumers who had been educated to the primary levelor were from the first, second, or third socioeconomicgroup.

The education of meat consumers is an effective strategyfor reducing the incidence of foodborne illness and mini-mizing the economic losses associated with their treatment.Effective public education programs targeted at themicrobiologic, chemical, and physical sources of foodbornediseases are essential to eliminating poor food hygienepractices and to ensuring the safety of foods prepared athome. However, because the population of this study con-sisted only of consumers in Ankara, Turkey, the resultsmay not reflect the meat-handling practices of the Turkishpopulation as a whole.

References

Adams, M. R., & Moss, M. O. (2000). Food microbiology. Cambridge,UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.

Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF).(1991). The Microbiological Safety of Food, Part 2. London: HMSO.

Altekruse, S. F., Street, D. A., Fein, S. B., & Levy, A. S. (1996). Consumerknowledge of foodborne microbial hazards and food-handling prac-tices. Journal of Food Protection, 59(3), 287–294.

Badrie, N., Joseph, A., & Chen, A. (2004). An observational study of foodsafety practices by street vendors and microbiological quality of street-purchased hamburger beef patties in Trinidad, West Indies. Internet

Journal of Food Safety, 3, 25–31.Bean, N. H., & Griffin, P. M. (1990). Foodborne disease outbreaks in the

United States, 1973–1987: pathogens, vehicles, and trends. Journal of

Food Protection, 53, 804–817.Bruhn, C. M., & Schutz, H. G. (1999). Consumer food safety knowledge

and practices. Journal of Food Safety, 19, 73–87.Bryan, F. L. (1988). Risks of practices, procedures and processes that lead

to out-breaks of foodborne diseases. Journal of Food Protection, 51,663–673.

Collins, J. E. (1997). Impact of changing consumer lifestyles on theemergence/reemergence of foodborne pathogens. Emerging Infectious

Diseases, 3(4), 471–479.Day, C. (2001). Gastrointestinal disease in the domestic setting: what

can we deduce from surveillance data? Journal of Infection, 43(1),30–35.

Finch, C., & Daniel, E. (2005). Food safety knowledge and behavior ofemergency food relief organization workers: effects of food safetytraining intervention. Journal of Environmental Health, 67(9), 30–34.

Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department ofAgriculture. (2003). FSIS Fact Sheet. Meat Preparation: Beef . . . from

Farm to Table. Washington, DC: Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS) United States Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp(accessed 22.11.2006).

Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department ofAgriculture. (2005). FSIS Fact Sheet. Safe food handling: The Big

Thaw-safe Defrosting Methods for Consumers. Washington, DC: FoodSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS) United States Department ofAgriculture. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Big_Thaw/index.asp (accessed 12.11.2006).

Gilbert, R. J. (1983). Foodborne infections and intoxications: recenttrends and prospects for the future. In T. A. Roberts & F. A. Skinner(Eds.), Food Microbiology Advances and Prospects for the Future.London: Academic Press.

Hague, M. A., Warren, K. E., Hunt, M. C., Kropf, D. H., Kastner, C. L.,Stroda, S. L., et al. (1994). End point temperature, internal cookedcolor, and expressible juice colour relationships in ground beef patties.Journal of Food Science, 59, 465–470.

Killinger, K. M., Hunt, M. C., Campbell, R. E., & Kropf, D. H. (2000).Factors affecting premature browning during cooking of store-purchased ground beef. Journal of Food Science, 65(4), 585–587.

Klontz, K. C., Timbo, B., Fein, S., & Levy, A. (1995). Prevalence ofselected food consumption and preparation behaviours in the UnitedStates. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 1405–1411.

Li-Cohen, A. E., & Bruhn, C. M. (2002). Safety of consumer handling offresh produce from the time of purchase to the plate: A comprehensiveconsumer survey. Journal of Food Protection, 65(8), 1287–1296.

McSwane, D., Rue, N., & Linton, R. (1998). Following the food product

flow. Essentials of Food Safety and Sanitation. USA: Prentice-Hall, pp.102–144.

Medeiros, L., Hillers, V., Kendall, P., & Mason, A. (2001). Evaluation offood safety education for consumers. Journal of Nutrition Education,

33(Suppl 1), S27–S34.Mitakakis, T. Z., Sinclair, M. I., Fairley, C. K., Lightbody, P. K., Leder,

K., & Hellard, M. E. (2004). Food safety in family homes inMelbourne Australia. Journal of Food Protection, 67(4), 818–822.

Notermans, S., Gallhoff, G., Zweitering, M., & Mead, G. (1995).Identification of critical control points in the HACCP system with aquantitative effect on the safety of food products. Food Microbiology,

12, 93–98.Redmond, E. C., & Griffith, C. J. (2003). Consumer food handling in the

home: a review of food safety studies. Journal of Food Protection,

66(1), 130–161.Rimal, A., Fletcher, S. M., McWatters, K. H., Misra, S. K., & Deodhar, S.

(2001). Perception of food safety and changes in food consumption

E. Karabudak et al. / Food Control 19 (2008) 320–327 327

habits: A consumer analysis. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 25(1), 43–52.Riordan, N., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2002). Safety of Irish beef-

concerns, awareness and knowledge of Irish consumers. Journal of

Food Safety, 22, 1–15.Rusin, P., Orosz-Coughlin, P., & Gerba, C. (1998). Reduction of faecal

coliform, coliform and heterotrophic plate count bacteria in thehousehold kitchen and bathroom by disinfection with hypochloritecleaners. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 85(5), 810–828.

Sockett, P. N. (1995). The epidemiology and costs of disease of publichealth significance in relation to meat products. Journal of Food Safety,

15, 91–112.Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT). (1993–2004). Republic of

Turkey, Prime Ministry, statistical indicators 1993-2004, Ankara.

Available at: http://www.die.gov.tr/ENGLISH (accessed 27.11.2006).Unusan, N. (2007). Consumer food safety knowledge and practices in the

home in Turkey. Food Control, 18, 45–51.US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition. (1999). Seniors and food safety. Preventing foodborne illness.

What’s cooking? Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/senior-se.html (accessed 28.11.2006).

US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition. (2001). Food safety for you! Available at: http://www/cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fttextra.html (accessed 28.11.2006).

US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition (FDA/CFSAN). (2003). How can I prevent foodborne illness?

Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb1.html (accessed24.11.2006).

US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition. (2002a). Consumer advice and publications on food safety,

nutrition, and cosmetics, comments and questions. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~Ird/advice.html (accessed 16.11.2006).

US Food and Drug Administration. (2002b). Can your kitchen pass the

food safety test? Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdkitchn.html (accessed 11.12.2006).

US Food Safety and Inspection Service/Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition. (2002a). Be smart. Keep foods apart. Don’t cross-

contaminate. Available at: http://www/cfsan.fda.gov/~fsg/fs-apart.html (accessed 27.11.2006).

US Food Safety and Inspection Service/Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition. (2002b). National food safety education month,

September promotion emphasizes ‘‘four steps to food safety.’’ Availableat: http://www/cfsan.fda.gov/~fsg/f02press.html (accessed 27.11.2006).

Warren, K. E., Hunt, M. C., & Krof, D. H. (1996). Myoglobin oxidativestate affects internal cooked color development in ground beef patties.Journal of Food Science, 61, 513–515, 519.

World Health Organization. (2000). Food safety: Resolution of theExecutive Board of the WHO. 105th session, EB105.R16 28 January,2000.

World Health Organisation. (2002). Statistical information on food-bornedisease in Europe: microbiological and chemical hazards. Paperpresented at: FAO–WHO Pan-European Conference on Food Safetyand Quality; February 25–28, 2002; Budapest, Hungary.

World Health Organisation. (2004). Surveillance programme for controlof foodborne infections and toxications in Europe, 8th report, 1999–2000, Country reports: Turkey.