4.7 Article

Food hygiene practices in different food establishments

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 34-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.10.035

关键词

Food hygiene rating scores; Food establishments; Managers; Consumers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate three dimensions of food hygiene in three European cities Belgrade, Thessaloniki and Porto. The first dimension of the survey was to evaluate the level of hygiene in different food establishments supplying food direct to consumers. A total of 91 food businesses were included in the survey with 30 food businesses from Belgrade and Porto, and 31 from Thessaloniki. In parallel with scoring the premises, the second dimension of the study was to examine the opinion of managers of these food establishments regarding food hygiene rating. Finally, in order to justify the importance of food hygiene, the research covered consumers' perception regarding food safety and hygiene practices in the three European cities. A total of 600 respondents were interviewed in the survey, 200 respondents per city. This study confirmed that HACCP as a concept is important and major differences in the level of food hygiene in food establishments are based on HACCP status rather than type and size of food establishment. The analysis revealed hygiene and food preparation as the predominant in low ranking of food hygiene and safety procedures, followed by inadequate layout as predominant factor in evaluating structural requirements. Also, the obtained results indicated greater level of hygiene in food establishments in Thessaloniki and Porto, than in Belgrade. Managers' opinion confirms their belief that a transparent food hygiene rating of all food establishments could lead to improved business. Finally, respondents in all cities confirmed their awareness of the importance of food hygiene and indicated kitchen related statements as the most influential. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据