<%BANNER%>

Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024029/00001

Material Information

Title: Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices
Physical Description: 1 online resource (141 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Prevatt, Kalin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: contamination, foodborne, fresh, handling, herb, illness, safety, spice
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: From 1998 to 2005, 30 outbreaks with a total of 1,958 cases of foodborne illness related to herbs and spices have been reported in the United States. Furthermore, the FDA has instituted 16 recalls, withdrawals, or consumer alerts on herbs and spices from 1999 to 2007 due to potential harm to consumers. Many foodborne illness cases go unreported so the true burden of foodborne illness associated with herbs and spices is probably much larger. Epidemiological investigation of these outbreaks revealed that, to a certain extent, the outbreaks were attributed to improper handling. Since fresh herbs and spices are increasingly popular in the US, the goal of this research was to investigate current consumer handling practices of fresh herbs and spices to find out if there are any gaps in safe handling. Objectives were to 1) determine the association between demographic characteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior, 2) establish the relationship between fresh herb and spice usage habits and handling behavior, 3) determine the relationship between basic food safety knowledge and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. A survey was targeted to the North Florida population (n = 426) because of the high demographic diversity in this area. However, the pilot test with an undergraduate student sample at the University of Florida had an overwhelming response (n = 1001) and was used as a comparison to the North Florida population. Results show that the general population appears to have better basic food safety knowledge as well as fresh herb and spice handling behavior than the college student population which is consistent with earlier findings. The college student population was more likely to receive food safety information from friends or family members, while the general population was more likely to receive the information from newspapers. Meal preparation involvement (p = 0.000), gender (p = 0.001), race (p = 0.000), and purchasing of fresh herbs (p = 0.005) had profound impacts on a fresh herb and spice handling behavior in the college student population, but age (p = 0.009) and use of fresh herbs in food preparation (p = 0.000) had profound impacts on fresh herb and spice handling behavior among general population. Overall, basic food safety knowledge did not appear to be a large influential factor in fresh herb and spice handling behavior among the college student or general populations, a finding similar in past food safety research.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kalin Prevatt.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Simonne, Amarat H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024029:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024029/00001

Material Information

Title: Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices
Physical Description: 1 online resource (141 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Prevatt, Kalin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: contamination, foodborne, fresh, handling, herb, illness, safety, spice
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: From 1998 to 2005, 30 outbreaks with a total of 1,958 cases of foodborne illness related to herbs and spices have been reported in the United States. Furthermore, the FDA has instituted 16 recalls, withdrawals, or consumer alerts on herbs and spices from 1999 to 2007 due to potential harm to consumers. Many foodborne illness cases go unreported so the true burden of foodborne illness associated with herbs and spices is probably much larger. Epidemiological investigation of these outbreaks revealed that, to a certain extent, the outbreaks were attributed to improper handling. Since fresh herbs and spices are increasingly popular in the US, the goal of this research was to investigate current consumer handling practices of fresh herbs and spices to find out if there are any gaps in safe handling. Objectives were to 1) determine the association between demographic characteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior, 2) establish the relationship between fresh herb and spice usage habits and handling behavior, 3) determine the relationship between basic food safety knowledge and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. A survey was targeted to the North Florida population (n = 426) because of the high demographic diversity in this area. However, the pilot test with an undergraduate student sample at the University of Florida had an overwhelming response (n = 1001) and was used as a comparison to the North Florida population. Results show that the general population appears to have better basic food safety knowledge as well as fresh herb and spice handling behavior than the college student population which is consistent with earlier findings. The college student population was more likely to receive food safety information from friends or family members, while the general population was more likely to receive the information from newspapers. Meal preparation involvement (p = 0.000), gender (p = 0.001), race (p = 0.000), and purchasing of fresh herbs (p = 0.005) had profound impacts on a fresh herb and spice handling behavior in the college student population, but age (p = 0.009) and use of fresh herbs in food preparation (p = 0.000) had profound impacts on fresh herb and spice handling behavior among general population. Overall, basic food safety knowledge did not appear to be a large influential factor in fresh herb and spice handling behavior among the college student or general populations, a finding similar in past food safety research.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kalin Prevatt.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Simonne, Amarat H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024029:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CONSUMER HANDLING OF FRESH HERBS AND SPICES By KALIN PREVATT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Kalin Prevatt

PAGE 3

3 To my family who has supported me from th e beginning and encouraged me to pursue my dreams.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my great appreciation to my co mm ittee chair and mentor Dr. Amarat Simonne. Her enthusiasm, guidance and support enriched my academic experience. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Mark Brennan and Dr. Maurice Marshall, for their invaluable input and advice. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciati on to all my friends for providing my emotional rock. Their inspirati on and motivation greatly contributed to my graduate school experience. I w ould also like to thank my fam ily for their love and patience. Without their support through my educational car eer, I would not be where I am today. They allowed me to realize the possibilities are endless.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................18LIST OF TERMS...........................................................................................................................19ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................20CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................22Purpose and Significance of Study.........................................................................................25Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....26Research Hypothesis............................................................................................................ ...262 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................27Herbs and Spices............................................................................................................... ......27Definition of Herbs and Spices........................................................................................27The History of Herbs and Spices..................................................................................... 27Herbs and Spices: Potential Source of Harmful Agents......................................................... 29Fungi and Fungal Metabolite Contamination.................................................................. 29Bacterial Contamination.................................................................................................. 30Contamination through Production................................................................................. 30Factors Influencing Handling Behavi or of Fresh Herbs and Spices....................................... 33Demographics..................................................................................................................33Basic Food Safety Knowledge........................................................................................343 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 38Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....38Unit of Analysis............................................................................................................... .......38Questionnaire Development...................................................................................................39Concept: Demographic Characteristics........................................................................... 42Concept: Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits................................................................. 42Concept: Basic Food Safety Knowledge.........................................................................42Concept: Fresh Herb and Spice Handli ng Behavior (Dependent Variable)....................42Reliability and Validity....................................................................................................... ....43Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................44

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS........................................................................................... 51Summary Statistics.................................................................................................................51Demographics.........................................................................................................................52College Student Population.............................................................................................52General Population..........................................................................................................52Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits.......................................................................................53Basic Food Safety Knowledge................................................................................................53Fresh Herb and Spice Handling Behavior.............................................................................. 55Additional Descriptives........................................................................................................ ..56Bivariate Analyses............................................................................................................. .....58College Student Population.............................................................................................58Gender Population...........................................................................................................59Multivariate Analysis.......................................................................................................... ....61College Population..........................................................................................................61Model 1.................................................................................................................... 61Model 2.................................................................................................................... 62Model 3.................................................................................................................... 62Model 4.................................................................................................................... 62Reduced model......................................................................................................... 63General Population..........................................................................................................64Model 1.................................................................................................................... 64Model 2.................................................................................................................... 65Model 3.................................................................................................................... 65Model 4.................................................................................................................... 65Reduced Model........................................................................................................ 65Conclusions.............................................................................................................................66Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................................ 68Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........68APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION..........................................................................................................85Informed Consent Letter for Interview Questions.................................................................. 85Interview Questions................................................................................................................86Informed Consent Letter for Questionnaire............................................................................ 87Questionnaire Cover Letter..................................................................................................... 88Questionnaire..........................................................................................................................89B BIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED VARIABLES ................................................... 94C MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED VARIABLES ......................................... 124REFERENCES............................................................................................................................134BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................141

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Scientific literature related to contamin ation of herbs and spi ces by fungi and fungal m etabolites, 1998 to 2007..................................................................................................362-2 Scientific literature related to contamin ation of herbs and spi ces by bacteria, 1998 to 2007....................................................................................................................................373-1 Comparison of demographic characteristics between the USA, the state of Florida, and Alachua, Marion, and Lafayette counties*................................................................. 453-2 Demographic questions for th e college student population...............................................463-3 Demographic questions for the general population........................................................... 473-4 Fresh herb and spice usage questions................................................................................ 493-5 Basic food safety knowledge questions.............................................................................493-6 Fresh herb and spice handling behavior questions............................................................ 504-1 Demographic characteristics of the college student population........................................ 704-2 Demographic characteristics of the general population..................................................... 714-3 Basic food safety knowledge means comp arison between the college student and general population..............................................................................................................764-4 Fresh herb and spice handling behavi or means comparison between the college student and general population.......................................................................................... 774-5 Level of interest for food safety mean s comparison between the college student and general population..............................................................................................................824-6 Comparison of multivariate models on fresh herb and spice handling behavior (college student population)...............................................................................................834-7 Comparison of multivariate models on fresh herb and spice handling behavior (general population)...........................................................................................................84B-1 Descriptives for meal pr eparation involvement by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................94B-2 Test of homogeneity of variances for meal preparation involvement by dependent variable in the college population...................................................................................... 94

PAGE 8

8 B-3 ANOVA for meal preparati on involvem ent by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................94B-4 Post hoc comparisons for meal preparation involvement by depende nt variable in the college population..............................................................................................................95B-6 Test of homogeneity of variances for gender by dependent variab le in the college population..........................................................................................................................95B-7 ANOVA for gender by dependent vari able in the college population............................... 96B-8 Descriptives for geographic location by depe ndent variable in the college population.... 96B-9 Test of homogeneity of variances for geographic location by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................ 96B-10 ANOVA for geographic locati on by dependent variable in the college population..........96B-11 Post hoc comparisons for geographic loca tion by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................97B-12 Descriptives for race by dependent variable in the college population............................. 97B-13 Test of homogeneity of variances for race by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................97B-14 ANOVA for race by dependent variable in the college population................................... 98B-15 Descriptives for purchase of fresh he rbs by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................98B-16 Test of homogeneity of variances for pur chase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................................... 98B-17 ANOVA for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population.... 98B-18 Post hoc comparison for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................99B-19 Descriptives for purchase of fresh spi ces by dependent variable in the college population..........................................................................................................................99B-20 Test of homogeneity of variances for purch ase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................................... 99B-21 ANOVA for purchase of fresh spices by de pendent variable in the college population. 100B-22 Post hoc comparisons for purchase of fr esh spices by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................100

PAGE 9

9 B-23 Descriptives for fresh herb use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population ............................................................................................................101B-24 Test of homogeneity of variances for fresh herb use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................... 101B-25 ANOVA for fresh herb use in food prepara tion by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................101B-26 Descriptives for fresh spice use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................101B-27 Test of homogeneity of variances fo r fresh spice use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population................................................................... 101B-28 ANOVA for fresh spice use in food prepara tion by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................102B-29 Post hoc comparisons for fresh spice use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................................. 102B-30 Descriptives for variable 1 (hand washi ng before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................103B-31 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 1 (hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................... 103B-32 ANOVA for variable 1 (ha nd washing before handling f ood can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................103B-33 Descriptives for variable 2 (raw meat shoul d always be kept separated from ready-toeat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................103B-34 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 2 (raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................... 104B-35 ANOVA for variable 2 (raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population.... 104B-36 Descriptives for variable 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential for food safety) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the college population... 104

PAGE 10

10 B-37 Test of homogeneity of variances variable 3 (proper cooking tem peratures are essential for food safety) for basic food sa fety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population...................................................................................................... 104B-38 ANOVA for variable 3 (proper cooking te mperatures are essential for food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population...............104B-39 Descriptives for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the college population........................ 105B-40 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................105B-41 ANOVA for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the college population................................ 105B-42 Descriptives for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................105B-43 Test of homogeneity of vari ances variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) for basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population...................................................................................................... 105B-44 ANOVA for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................106B-45 Descriptives for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................106B-46 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population................................................................... 106B-47 ANOVA for variable 6 (c ountertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................106B-48 Descriptives for variable 7 (leftovers should be dis carded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the college population................................ 107B-49 Test of homogeneity of vari ances for variable 7 (leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population..... 107

PAGE 11

11 B-50 ANOVA for variable 7 (leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population ........................................... 107B-51 Descriptives for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost m eat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................107B-52 Test of homogeneity of vari ances for variable 8 (it is sa fe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safe ty knowledge by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................107B-53 ANOVA for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................108B-54 Descriptives for meal pr eparation involvement by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................108B-55 Test of homogeneity of variances for meal preparation involvement by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................108B-56 ANOVA for meal preparati on involvement by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................108B-57 Descriptives for gender by dependent variable in the general population....................... 108B-58 Test of homogeneity of variances for gender by dependent variab le in the general population........................................................................................................................109B-59 ANOVA for gender by dependent vari able in the gene ral population............................109B-60 Descriptives for age by dependent variable in the ge neral population............................109B-61 Test of homogeneity of variances for age by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................109B-62 ANOVA for age by dependent vari able in the general population.................................. 109B-63 Descriptives for geographic location by de pendent variable in the general population.. 109B-64 Test of homogeneity of variances for geographic location by dependent variable in the general population...................................................................................................... 110B-65 ANOVA for geographic locati on by dependent variable in the general population........110B-66 Descriptives for race by dependent variable in the general population........................... 110B-67 Test of homogeneity of variances for ra ce by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................110

PAGE 12

12 B-68 ANOVA for race by dependent variable in the general popu lation................................. 110B-69 Descriptives for education by depende nt variable in the general population..................110B-70 Test of homogeneity of variances for educ ation by dependent vari able in the general population........................................................................................................................111B-71 ANOVA for education by dependent variable in the general population........................ 111B-72 Descriptives for income by dependent variable in the general population...................... 111B-73 Test of homogeneity of variances for income by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................111B-74 ANOVA for income by dependent vari able in the gene ral population...........................111B-75 Descriptives for purchase of fresh he rbs by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................111B-76 Test of homogeneity of variances for pur chase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................................................112B-77 ANOVA for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the general population.. 112B-78 Descriptives for purchase of fresh spi ces by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................112B-79 Test of homogeneity of variances for purch ase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................................................112B-80 ANOVA for purchase of fresh spices by de pendent variable in the general population. 112B-81 Post hoc comparisons for purchase of fr esh spices by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................113B-82 Descriptives for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by depende nt variable in the general population............................................................................................................113B-83 Test of homogeneity of variances for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................113B-84 ANOVA for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................114B-85 Post hoc comparisons for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................114B-86 Descriptives for use of fresh spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................115

PAGE 13

13 B-87 Test of homogeneity of variances for use of fresh spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population ..................................................................115B-88 ANOVA for use of fresh spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................115B-89 Descriptives for variable 1 (hand washi ng before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................115B-90 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 1 (hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................115B-91 ANOVA for variable 1 (ha nd washing before handling f ood can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................116B-92 Post hoc comparison for variable 1 (h and washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food sa fety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................116B-93 Descriptives for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the general population... 117B-94 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................117B-95 ANOVA for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the general population... 117B-96 Post hoc comparison for variable 2 (ra w meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic f ood safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................117B-97 Descriptives for variable 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............... 118B-98 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................118B-99 ANOVA for variable 3 (proper cooking te mperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............... 118B-100 Descriptives for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent va riable in the general population........................ 118

PAGE 14

14 B-101 Test of homogeneity of variances for va riable 4 (im proper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................119B-102 ANOVA for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the general population................................ 119B-103 Descriptives for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................119B-104 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................119B-105 ANOVA for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................119B-106 Post hoc comparisons for variable 5 (peris hable foods should be re frigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................120B-107 Descriptives for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................120B-108 Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................121B-109 ANOVA for variable 6 (c ountertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................121B-110 Descriptives for variable 7 (leftovers should be dis carded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the general population................................ 121B-111 Test of homogeneity of vari ances for variable 7 (leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population..... 121B-112 ANOVA for variable 7 (leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................... 121B-113 Post hoc comparisons for variable 7 (left overs should be discarde d after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent va riable in the general population........................ 122

PAGE 15

15 B-114 Descriptives for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost m eat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................122B-115 Test of homogeneity of vari ances for variable 8 (it is sa fe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safe ty knowledge by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................122B-116 ANOVA for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................123B-117 Post hoc comparisons for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................123C-1 Model summary for multivariate regre ssion model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................... 124C-2 ANOVA for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................................. 124C-3 Coefficients for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population.................................................................................... 124C-4 Model summary for multivariate regression model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population.................................................. 124C-5 ANOVA for multivariate regression model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population................................................................... 125C-6 Coefficients for multivariate regression model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population.............................................................. 125C-7 Model summary for multivariate regre ssion model 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population.............................................................. 125C-8 ANOVA for multivariate regression mode l 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population................................................................... 125C-9 Coefficients for multivariate regressi on model 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population................................................................... 126C-10 Model summary for multivariate regression model 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................126

PAGE 16

16 C-11 ANOVA for multivariate regression model 4 (de mographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................127C-12 Coefficients for multivariate regression model 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the college population........................................................................................................................127C-13 Model summary for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the college population...................................................................................................... 128C-14 ANOVA for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................128C-15 Coefficients for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the college population............................................................................................................128C-16 Model summary for multivariate regre ssion model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................128C-17 ANOVA for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................................................129C-18 Coefficients for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the ge neral population....................................................................................129C-19 Model Summary for multivariate regressi on model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population................................................. 129C-20 ANOVA for multivariate regression model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................130C-21 Coefficients for multivariate regression model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population............................................................. 130C-22 Model summary for multivariate regre ssion mode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population............................................................. 130C-23 ANOVA for multivariate regression m ode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................130C-24 Coefficients for multivariate regressi on mode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population..................................................................131C-25 Model summary for multivariate regression mode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................131

PAGE 17

17 C-26 ANOVA for multivariate regression mode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................131C-27 Coefficients for multivariate regression mode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the general population........................................................................................................................132C-28 Model summary for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the general population...................................................................................................... 132C-29 ANOVA for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................133C-30 Coefficients for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the general population............................................................................................................133

PAGE 18

18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Fresh herb purchasing habits in the college student and general population (%) .............. 724-2 Fresh herb use in food preparation in the college student and general population (%)..... 724-3 Fresh spice purchasing habits in the college student and general population (%)............. 734-4 Fresh herb use in food preparation in the college student and general population (%)..... 734-5 Variable 1* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%)...................................................................................................................744-6 Variable 2* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%)...................................................................................................................744-7 Variable 3*basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%) *................................................................................................................754-8 Variable 4* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%)...................................................................................................................754-9 Purchase location of fresh herbs in the college student and general population............... 784-10 Purchase location of fresh spices in the college student and general population.............. 794-11 Information received on the safe handling of herbs and spices in the college student and general population....................................................................................................... 804-12 Distribution of the information on the sa fe handling of herbs and spices in the college student and th e general population........................................................................ 81A-1 Informed consent letter for interview questions................................................................ 85A-2 Interview questions........................................................................................................ ....86A-3 Informed consent letter for questionnaire.......................................................................... 87A-4 Questionnaire cover letter..................................................................................................88A-5 Questionnaire.............................................................................................................. .......89

PAGE 19

19 LIST OF TERMS Aflatoxin Naturally occurring toxin produced by many species of the fungus Aspergillus. Aflatoxins are toxic and one of the most carcinogenic substances known ( 33) Defect actio n level Maximum levels of natural or unavoi dable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard established by the Food and Drug Administration ( 75) Foodborne illness Any illness resulting from the consumption of food. Also known as foodborne disease or food poisoning ( 14) Infective dose Amount of pathogenic organisms that will cause infection in susceptible subjects ( 74 )

PAGE 20

20 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science CONSUMER HANDLING OF FRESH HERBS AND SPICES By Kalin Prevatt December 2008 Chair: Amarat Simonne Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition From 1998 to 2005, 30 outbreaks with a total of 1,958 cases of foodborne illness related to herbs and spices have been reported in the United States. Furthermore, the FDA has instituted 16 recalls, withdrawals, or consumer alerts on he rbs and spices from 1999 to 2007 due to potential harm to consumers. Many foodborne illness case s go unreported so the true burden of foodborne illness associated with herbs and spices is probably much larger. Epidemiological investigation of these outbreaks revealed that, to a certain ex tent, the outbreaks were attributed to improper handling. Since fresh herbs and spices are in creasingly popular in the US, the goal of this research was to investigate curre nt consumer handling practices of fresh herbs and spices to find out if there are any gaps in safe handling. Ob jectives were to 1) determine the association between demographic characteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior, 2) establish the relationship between fresh herb and spice usage habits and handling behavior, 3) determine the relationship between basic food safety knowledge a nd fresh herb and spice handling behavior. A survey was targeted to the North Florida populat ion (n = 426) because of the high demographic diversity in this area. Howeve r, the pilot test with an underg raduate student sample at the University of Florida had an overwhelming respons e (n = 1001) and was used as a comparison to the North Florida population.

PAGE 21

21 Results show that the general population ap pears to have better basic food safety knowledge as well as fresh herb and spice handli ng behavior than the co llege student population which is consistent with earlier findings. The college student population was more likely to receive food safety information from friends or family members, while the general population was more likely to receive the information from newspapers. Meal prepar ation involvement (p = 0.000), gender (p = 0.001), race (p = 0.000), a nd purchasing of fresh herbs (p = 0.005) had profound impacts on a fresh herb and spice handli ng behavior in the colle ge student population, but age (p = 0.009) and use of fresh herbs in food preparation (p = 0.000) had profound impacts on fresh herb and spice handling behavior among general population. Overal l, basic food safety knowledge did not appear to be a la rge influential factor in fresh herb and spice handling behavior among the college student or general populations, a finding similar in past food safety research.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Food safety continues to be a prominent issue in the United States. It is estimated that every year 76 million people in th e United States become ill from pathogens in food; of these, about 5,000 die ( 47). Despite efforts from the government to reduce foodborne illnesses, the CDCs Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillanc e Network acknowledges the amount of progress made to improve food safety in the United States is not tremendous ( 18). Based on the foodborne illness data, ethnic foods contribute a considerable amount of the total outbreaks each year. From 1990 to 2000, total foodborne illness out breaks associated with ethnic foods rose from 3% to 11% ( 63). The largest number of outbreaks we re reported by Florida (n = 136) and California (n = 74) (63). With regard to location of the incidence, private homes accounted for 21% of all foodborne outbreaks related to ethnic foods ( 63). Despite their increasing popularity and their risky history, information that exists on all types of ethnic foods is lacking which creates a major limitation in being able to reduce and prevent th e number of foodborne outbreaks. A major factor for the increas ing popularity of ethnic foods in America is the changing demographic profile. America is becoming increasin gly diverse in its raci al and ethnic makeup. As of 2007, African Americans account for appr oximately 13% of the population followed by Hispanics, Asian and Pacific Islanders, American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleuts ( 16). By 2050, 90% of the 30 million population increase in the US is projected to be from minority populations ( 71). This diverse population profile in the US has an important implication on the food market, causing cultural diversity to arise as a major issue in Am erican eating. Consumers are continually demanding more availab ility and selection of ethnic foods It is estimated that the

PAGE 23

23 US ethnic food market will have an nual sales of $75 billion over the next decade; this means $1 out of every $7 will be spent on ethnic foods wh ich is a 50% increase from current ethnic food sales ( 28, 32 ). Because of this popula tion trend and increase in demand, the ethnic food market is turning it into a multibillion-dollar industry. In a recent survey, US food safety profe ssionals were asked various questions to determine the extent of safety in formation they had on ethnic foods ( 46). It found that 67.7% of respondents listed one or more ethnic food concer ns for which they lacked adequate safety information. Results of the study concluded food sa fety professionals lack the safety resources for many ethnic foods they encounter. This limits the amount of information that is conveyed to consumers for the safe handling of ethnic foods. Because the US population is exploring diffe rent cuisines, spices and new flavor combinations are steadil y growing in popularity ( 30). The increase in demand for herbs and spices is not only reflecting the heightened popular ity of ethnic foods in the US, but also the trend toward the use of herbs and spices to compensate for less sa lt and lower fat levels in food which is being promoted by the US government ( 72). The American Spice Trade Association, a trade association that represents the U.S. spi ce industry, has reported a su bstantial rise in the consumption of spices in the US (30). The primary agencies responsible for regulati ng the herb and spice industry in the US include the Food and Drug Ad ministration, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies have established clea nliness specifications for herbs and spices imported in the US. This includes specific limits for numerous contaminants such as pesticide residues, afla toxins, and other foreign matter. Despite the precautions taken by these government agencies to ensure a safe product, many foodborne illness

PAGE 24

24 outbreaks and product recalls associated with herbs and spices have occurred in recent years. From 1990 to 2005, 30 outbreaks with a total of 1,958 cases of foodborne illness related to herbs and spcies have been report ed in the United States (15); these outbreaks were strictly associated with herbs and spices, without counting outbreaks in other foods with contaminated herbs or spices. Florida was the location for 57% of these cases. Furthermore, the FDA has instituted 16 recalls, withdrawals, or consumer alerts on he rbs and spices from 1999 to 2007 due to potential harm to consumers ( 73). Second to California, Florida was responsible for the majority of these recalls. Because of their low moisture content and la ck of published data, herbs and spices were once thought to be free from worry of microbial growth or survival. The foodborne illness outbreak and product recall data suggests otherwise. The outbreaks and r ecalls associated with herbs and spices in the United States continue to occur. However, herbs and spices are being consumed in greater quantities than ever be fore. From 1980 to 2000, the annual per capita consumption of spices in the US increased by 60% ( 25). Most of the herbs and spices available for consumption in the US are being importe d from countries around the world. In 2003, 278 million tons of spices were imported by the US from 129 nations ( 77). It has also been reported that many of the developing countries that produ ce herbs and spices find it difficult to meet sanitation and cleanliness leve ls on a consistent basis ( 25 ). This may mean herbs and spices imported into the United States are contaminated with harmful substances. Efforts aimed to reduce herb and spice contam ination are needed by growers, processors, retailers and consumers to reduce the number of recalls and outbreaks. It is important that research on herb and spice safety be conducted due their increasing popula rity in the US and

PAGE 25

25 their potential to contain harmful microorganism s. Surveys directed toward consumers would help shed light on current handling practices of herbs and spices. Purpose and Significance of Study Many of the existing research on herbs and sp ices have focused on proving that harm ful microorganisms can exist in herbs and spices. This research shif ted the focus on to the consumer and used a survey to examine consumer handling pr actices of fresh herbs and spices. It provided a better understanding of what influences consumer handling behavior of fresh herbs and spices. Results of this research helped identify wea knesses in consumer food safety knowledge and will contribute to the development of educationa l materials and programs aimed at improving consumer safety in the future. To gain a better understanding of consumer ha ndling behavior of fresh herbs and spices, several research que stions were posed. The first research question related to the demographic factors that may impact fresh herb and spice ha ndling behavior. The hypothesis of the researcher was that demographic factors directly shape fres h herb and spice handling behavior. Previous literature indicates that demographic characteristics such as ge nder, race, education level and economic status have influential factors on consumer attitudes, knowledge and practices. The second research question attempted determin ed if fresh herb and spice usage habits affect fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Fr esh herb and spice usage referred to how often fresh herbs and spices were purchased as well as how often fresh herbs and spices were used in food preparation. It was the hypothesis of the re searcher that those who purchase or use fresh herbs and spices in food prepara tion more often are not likely to practices safer fresh herb and spice handling behaviors. The third research question es tablished if basic food safety knowledge influences fresh herb and spice handling behavior. It was hypothesized that those who have a better

PAGE 26

26 understanding of basic food safety knowledge are not likely to practice safer fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Numerous research stud ies have found food safety knowledge does not necessarily translate into safer food handling pr actices. This research study served as a foundation to examine the factors that may influence fresh herb and spice handling behaviors among consumers. Research Questions 1. How do dem ographic factors (gender, age, geog raphic location, race, edu cation, income) if at all, have an impact on fresh herb and spice handling behavior? 2. How do fresh herb and spice usage habits affect handling behavior? 3. How does basic food safety knowledge influence fresh herb and spice handling behavior? Research Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: A. De mographic factors directly influen ce fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Hypothesis 2: A. Those that purchase fresh herbs and spices more often are not likely to practice safer handling behaviors. B. Those that use fresh herbs and spices in food preparation more often are not likely to practice safer handling behaviors. Hypothesis 3: A. Those that have a better understanding of basic food safety knowledge are not likely to practice safer fresh herb a nd spice handling behavior.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study was to examine th e influences of consumer handling behavior of fresh herbs and spices. Three parts comprise the review of literature. Part 1 provides a brief history of the use of herbs and spices. The intent of the section was to show that herbs and spice have had profound impact on societies throughout the world. Part 2 provides a summary of existing data that implicates herbs and spices as a source of potentially harmful substances (1998 2007). It provides a reason why handling behavior can be the end factor between safe and unsafe herbs and spices. Part 3 focuses on factor s that influence fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Herbs and Spices Definition of Herbs and Spices Herbs and s pices are plants valued for their medicinal and aromatic properties and are often grown and harvested for these unique properties ( 53, 54 ). More specifically, herbs refer to the leaves of the plants (66). Examples would include thyme, parsley, dill, and mint. On the other hand, spices encompass ma ny other parts of the plant ( 66). Spices include the buds (cloves), bark (cinnamon), roots (ginger), berries (peppercorns), aromatic seeds (cumin), and even the stigma of a flower (saffron). The History of Herbs and Spices Herbs and spices have been an im portant co mponent in the lives of many people around the world for centuries. They have had many purposes throughout history such as for food preservation, medicinal remedies perfumes and as currency ( 66) More recently, herbs and spices are being used as flavor substitutions fo r fat and salt in food produc ts to help achieve a healthier lifestyle which is bei ng promoted by the US government ( 72).

PAGE 28

28 There is evidence that herbs and spices we re being used by humans as early as 3000 BC ( 66). The Sumerians used thyme for its health properties, and the Mesopotamians cultivated garlic for flavoring. The ancient Egyptians us ed spices in tombs because of their strong preservation quality ideal for embalming. Egypt, China, India, Greece and other Eastern countries also used herbs and spices in disease prevention and treatment ( 66). With the fall of the Roman Empire, the early middle ages saw a return to rituals and superstitions that surroun ded herbs and spices ( 51). During this period, paradise was believed to be a physical place on Earth where spices such as cinnamon and pepper were grown in close proximity, making them important status symbols on the medieval table ( 51) As the renaissance emerged from the Middl e Ages, trade with other civilizations intensified as did the knowledge of the medicinal herbs and spices ( 51 ). The discovery of the New World by Columbus was fueled in part by a pursuit for herbs and spices. Colonists brought much of their herbs and spices with them to America (51). In 1652, Nicholas Culpeper publis hed The English Physitian ( 51). It systematically cataloged all the known herbal remedies of E ngland and showed the common people how they could rely on their own herbal remedies rather than the expensive medicines of doctors. Western medicine ultimately abandoned herbalism in favor of chemical treatments. Today, herbalism and ancient medicines are be ing used around the world. Scientists are finding that a lot of the old remedies have mer it. With the increasingly health conscience society, herbs and spices are mostly being used for flavoring purposes ( 66 ). Because fat and salt add flavor to dishes, herbs and spices can be us ed as substitutes for these food products due to their strong flavori ng characteristics (66). Given the long history of use of herbs and spices, they have been considered one of the fi rst ever recorded functional foods ( 66).

PAGE 29

29 Herbs and Spices: Potential Source of Harmful Agents Through review of recent literature from around the world, herbs and spices have been found to contain a variety of contaminants whic h have the potential to induce human illness. The contaminants include fungi and fungal metabo lites, as well as certain bacteria such as Bacillus cereus Clostridium perfringens Staphylococcus aureus Escherichia coli and Salmonella Fungi and Fungal Metabolite Contamination Fungi and fungal m etabolite contamination was the most prevalent t ype of contamination studied from 1998 to 2007 and appears to be the biggest problem associated with herbs and spices around the world. Table 2 1 displays th e recent literature on fungi and fungal metabolite contamination of herbs and spices. The most common fungal genus found in herb and spice samples were Aspergillus and Penicillium The most predominant fungal species found were A. flavus and A. niger, both of which can produce aflatoxins a nd cause specific diseases or health problems, such as kidney damage or cancer if consumed in sufficient quantities ( 6, 10, 19, 20, 24, 27, 44). The spice that was most frequently found to be contaminated with fungal species and its metabolites was chilli or red pepper and its varie ties including paprika and cayenne pepper. In terms of concentration, the highest level of total aflatoxins wa s found in paprika samples from Turkey at 124.6 g/kg ( 11 ). Red pepper and chilli sample s were found to contain similar concentrations of total aflatoxins between 0.7 to 97.5 g/kg and 0.1 to 96.2 g/kg, respectively ( 1, 11, 17, 20, 52, 59). Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) concentration was highest in chilli pepper samples from India at 283 g/kg ( 56). Other spice and herb samples th at contained significant levels of AFB1 were fennel, paprika, nutmeg, red pepper, cayenne, and cumin ( 6, 11, 17, 45, 59, 82). Ochratoxin A was found in turmeric samples from India ranging from 11 to 102 g/kg followed

PAGE 30

30 by ginger samples ranging from 23 to 80 g/kg ( 67). Black pepper, red pepper, and coriander samples were also found to contain significant levels of ochratoxin A (21, 67 ). It is important to note here that the US defect action level set by the FDA for total aflatoxins in food products is 20 g/kg ( 75). The herbs and spices in the studies reviewed contain levels considerably exceedin g this defect action level. Bacterial Contamination Bacterial contam ination of herb s and spices is also recognize d as a threat to consumer health. Table 2 2 displays the recent literatu re on bacterial contamination of herbs and spices. The review of recent research found Bacillus spp. in several herb and spice samples at levels above 102 CFU/g with red pepper, black cumin, and white pepper samples containing the highest concentrations of over 103 CFU/g ( 8, 9, 13, 37). Clostridium perfringens was found at the highest concentrations of great er than 400 CFU/g or MPN 1100 in garlic powder, cumin, white pepper, red pepper, and sage ( 3, 9, 13, 58 ). Banerjee and Sarkar (2003) found small cardamom, garlic and asafetida samples to contain S. aureus at levels larger than 102 CFU/g ( 8). E. coli and Salmonella were found only in low concentrations in very few spice and herb samples ( 8, 13, 29, 38). These studies show herbs and spices provid e a common source for bacterial contamination. The FDA has established infective doses for pathogenic bacteria which usually vary with age and health of host as well as strain characteristics (74). While this review found many herbs and spices to be contaminated wi th pathogenic bacteria, the levels of contamination appear to be lower than the infective doses established by the FDA. Contamination through Production Contamination of herbs and spices with microorganisms and extraneous materials can result throughout the entire pr oduction process as well as after the production process such as during transportation, retail sa le, and consumer handling ( 3, 19, 38, 44, 48, 57, 58, 62, 78).

PAGE 31

31 A 1998 outbreak in the United States and Cana da illustrates that the production process of herbs and spices can be the cause of serious health risks ( 50 ). Chopped, uncooked, curly parsley was implicated as the vehicle of several outbreaks of Shigellla sonei infections. Preliminary trace back investigation identified a farm in Baja California, Mexico as a possible source of parsley served in the majority of the outbreaks. Field investigations found that municipal water, which was used in hydrocoolers for chilling the pars ley immediately after harvest and for making ice for parsley transport, was unchl orinateed and vulnerable to contamination. The water in the hydrocooler wa s also recirculated th roughout the day, exposing numerous boxes of parsley to identical contamin ants. The workers at the farm were found to have limited hygiene education and limited sanitary facilities available on th e farm at the time of the outbreak. Furthermore, aniseed was found to be the source of contaminati on in a 2003 nationwide outbreak of Salmonella agona in Germany ( 41). An investigation trac ed the source back to a single importing company. The company declared the source of cont amination of the raw product resulted from a batch of aniseed that had been fertilized with ma nure. This shows how certain practices known to be risky to most agricultura l product producers are still being used in parts of the world. Past research also indicates contamination levels of herbs and spices are dependent on preand post-production handling methods. Banerjee and Sarkar (2003) tested 27 kinds of spices from retail shops in Indi a for their microbial status ( 8). When investigators compared microbial counts of the different retail shops the most unhygienic shops showed the highest counts of total aerobic mesophilic bacteria and enterobacteriaceae. The counts decreased proportionally with an increase in hygienic conditions of the retail shop. These results show that

PAGE 32

32 the handling of herbs and spices at the retail level can also affect microbial load status and health risk. Research has also found nonpackaged herbs and spices to contain a higher level of contamination than polyethylene or glass packaged spice and herbs ( 8, 11, 58 ). Garcia et al. (2001) found samples packaged in polyethylene containers containe d a higher level of microorganisms than the glass containers (26 ). These results suggest the level of microbial growth for herbs and spices is dependent on the type of packaging. One study attributed this higher level of contamination in nonpackaged herbs or spices to sanitary deficiencies during collection, storage, transpor tation, packaging, and sale ( 58 ). While not all contamination can be comple tely eliminated, certain practices by the manufacturer, retailer, and cons umer can be employed to reduce the occurrence of such contamination. Since sanitation issues seems to be the most common factor in herb and spice contamination, specific sanitation regulations should be strictly enforced for all manufacturers and retailers. Guidelines on proper handling of herbs and spices should also be available to consumers. Based on the literature review, herbs and spi ces can serve as a vehicle for contamination of bacteria and fungi which have the potential to cause foodborne illn ess. This is of particular importance because herbs and spices are often added to foods without further heat treatment ( 38, 64) which creates the potential for cross-contamination and foodborne illness. Also, if herbs or spices become contaminated with spore forming bacteria, this pr esents a hazard because spores are often able to surviv e cooking temperatures ( 64 ). Because herbs and spices available for purchase by consumers have been known to contai n harmful microorganisms, it is important to learn more about how consumers may use and ha ndle herbs and spices in the home. Knowing

PAGE 33

33 how consumers are handling them can help identify areas which are supporting or promoting the risk of foodborne illness. Factors Influencing Handling Behavior of Fresh Herbs and Spices Demographics Demographic characteristics affect consumer attitudes toward food safety. The literature indicates that demographics including gender, race, education leve l and economic status influences consumer attitudes. One multi-state survey found that gender, education level and income impacted food handling practices and food consumption practices ( 5). Men were more likely to report risky practices than women, and the most risky behavi ors were associated with higher education and income levels. Unklesbay et al. (1998) asse ssed the attitudes, practices, and knowledge of food safety among college students ( 76). The survey results revealed that women who completed a college course that included food safety information ha d significantly better food safety practices than males. Both males and females who had enrolled in these courses had significantly greater food safety knowledge than those wit hout the opportunity to take cour ses that discussed food safety information. Klontz et al. (1995) conducte d survey to determine the pr evalence of selected selfreported food consumption and preparation beha viors associated with increased risks of foodborne illness and the demographic charact eristics related to such behaviors ( 40). They found that safer consumption and pr eparation patterns, such as eati ng raw foods of animal origin or engaging in unsafe food preparation practices, were consistently reported by females, at least 40 years old, or with a high school education or less.

PAGE 34

34 Lin (1995) examined how demographics infl uence how a households main meal planner felt towards food safety ( 43). Results suggest females, older, and more educated main meal planners generally were more likel y to believe that food safety is very important. There was no significant difference in importance of food safety between main meal planners who were white and non-white. Fein et al. (1995) found that people 18 to 39 y ears of age were more likely than those in other age groups to believe they had experi enced a foodborne illness in both surveys ( 22 ). They also found that people with at least some college education were more likely to believe they had experienced foodborne illness than we re people with less education. From the review of literature, it appears that demographic characteristics are important to understanding what influences food safety attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and behaviors. Basic Food Safety Knowledge The US governm ent has designated specific ag encies to educate consumers on how to reduce the risks associated with foodborne illness. Nevertheless, research shows consumer food safety knowledge does not always refl ect safer food handling practices ( 4, 31, 80 ). Woodburn and Raab (1997) conducted a survey to determine if recent foodborne illness outbreaks increase consumer awarene ss and knowledge of food safety (80 ). It was found that even though knowledge about foodborne illness was greater than in previous studies, 20% of respondents reported unsafe practices in their food preparation. In addition, a survey found knowledge about food safety did not predict actual practices ( 4). Results revealed that even though the majority of respondents knew proper food handling behaviors, they did not necessa rily practice them. For example, 86% of respondents knew that hand washing reduced the risk of food poisoning, but only 66 % washed their hands after handling raw meat or poultry.

PAGE 35

35 Hertzman and Barrash (2007) conducted a su rvey to assess the food safety knowledge and practices of catering employees ( 31). It was found that regardless of their food safety and sanitation knowledge, employees failed to follow proper procedures during the execution of an event. Thus in conclusion, more food safety knowledge does not always translate into safer food handling practices.

PAGE 36

36 Table 2-1. Scientific literature related to contamination of herbs and spices by fungi and fungal metabolites, 1998 to 2007 Year Location Microbiological agent Spice/Herb(s) Reference 1998 Egypt1 Mold, mycotoxin Cumin, fennel, lime tree, absinthium, ginger, cinnamon, pepper mint, carbo tree, chamomile, saffron, curcuma, worm wood, rose, lesser galangel Aziz et al. 2000 Brazil Mycoflora and mycotoxin Black pepper, white peppe r Freire et al. 2001 Scotland Aflatoxin Nutmeg, whit e pepper, chilli pepper, curry powder, paprika, garlic powder, ginger powder, black pepper, clove, bay leaf Candlish et al. 2001 India Ochratoxin A Black pepper, coriander, ginger, turmeric Thirumala-Devi et al. 2001 Portugal Aflatoxin Cardamom, cayenne pepper, paprika, chilli, clove, cumin, curry powder, ginger, mustard, nutmeg, saffron, white pepper Martins et al. 2001 India Aflatoxin Chilli pod/powder Reddy et al. 2002 Sultanate of Oman Mycoflora, aflatoxin Cumin, cinnamon, clove, black pepper, cardamom, ginger, coriander Elshafie et al. 2003 Brazil Aflatoxin, ochratoxin A Black pepper Gatti et al. 2003 India Yeast, mold Turmeric, coriander, black pepper, mustard seed, fenugreek, aniseed, cinnam on, clove, cumin, red chilli powder, bishop's weed, poppy seed, ginger, Asefoetida, cardamom, Ajmud, allspice, tejpat, caraway, garlic Banerjee and Sarkar 2004 Turkey Aflatoxin Red-scaled pepper, red powder pepper Erdogan 2004 Qatar Aflatoxin, ochratoxin, zearolenone, deoxynivalenol Chilli powder, mixed spice powder Abdulkadar et al. 2005 Kingdom of Bahrain2 Fungal mycoflora Cardamom, black pepper, red chilli, lemon, turmeric, ginger, cinnamon, clove, fennel, nutmeg, coriander, caraway, bay leaf, cumin, galangale Mandeel 2005 Hungry Aflatoxin, ochratoxin A Red pepp er, black pepper, white pepper, chilli, spice mix Fazekas et al. 2005 Turkey Aflatoxin Paprika, chilli powder, black pepper, cumin Bircan 2006 Morocco Mycotoxin Paprika, ginger, cumin, pepper Zinedine et al. 2006 Turkey Aflatoxin Red-scaled pepper, red pepper, black pepper Colak et al. 2007 Portugal3 Aflatoxin Chilli Paterson 2007 Italy Aflatoxin Basil, coriander, cumin, fennel, garlic, laural leaf, marjoram, parsely, poppy seed, rosemary, thyme, sage, sesame seed, black pepper, spice mix, cinnamon, hot pepp er, nutmeg, turmeric Romagnoli et al. 1 Samples imported from India. 2 Samples imported from India, Pakistan, Iran and US. 3 Samples imported from Pakistan.

PAGE 37

37 Table 2-2. Scientific literature related to contamination of herbs and spices by bacteria, 1998 to 2007 Year Location Microbiological agent Spice/Herb(s) Reference 1998 Mexico C. perfringens Cumin seed, black pepper, oregano, garlic powder, bay leaves Rodriguez-Romo et al. 2001 Scotland Total viable counts (TVC) of aerobic bacteria, Salmonella spp., Bacillus spp., Listeria spp., Campylobacter spp., E. coli O157:H7, S. aureus C. perfringens Nutmeg, white pepper, chilli pepper, curry powder, paprika, garlic powder, ginger powder, black pepper, cloves, bay leaf Candlish et al. 2003 India Total aerobic mesophilic bacteria (TAMB), Enterobacteriaceae, B cereus C. perfringens S aureus, Salmonella, Shigella Turmeric, coriander, black pepper, mustard seed, fenugreek, aniseed, cinnamon, clove, cumin, red chilli powder, bishop's weed, poppy seed, ginger, Asefoetida, cardamom, Ajmud, allspice, tejpat, caraway, garlic Banerjee and Sarkar 2004 India B cereus C. perfringens Turmeric, coriander, black pepper, mustard, fenugreek, aniseed, cinnamon, clove, cumin, red chilli powder, bis hop's weed, poppy seed, ginger, Asefoetida, cardamom, Ajmud, allspice, tejpat Banerjee and Sarkar 2005 Argentina C. perfringens Garlic powder, black pepper, white pepper, oregano, bay leaf, ground red pepper, paprika, thyme, nutmeg, sage, rosemary Aguilera et al. 2006 Argentina Bacillus spp. Origanum, black pepper, paprika, bay leaves, milled red pepper Iurlina et al. 2006 Japan1 Salmonella Red pepper, black pepper, white pepper, cumin, curry powder, coriander, fennel, paprika, cinnamon, ga rlic, garam masala, clove, anise, star anise, caraway, turmeric, fenugreek, allspice, nutmeg, bay leaf, mustard, basil, sage, dill weed, oregano, parsley, celery, mandarin, spices mixes Hara-kudo et al. 2006 US2 Total aerobic bacteria (APC), total coliforms, m E coli, Enterococcus Cilantro, parsley, dill Johnston et al. 2007 Brazil Salmonella Rubislaw Ground black pepper Ristori et al. 1 Samples imported from mostly Asian countries such as Ch ina, India, and Malaysia. 2 Samples from US and imported from Mexico.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purpose of the Study A Web-based questionnaire using a mi xed methods framework was designed to investigate consumer food safety knowledge and handling practices of fresh herbs and spices. The study had three major objectives as established in chapter 1: 1. Determine the association between demographi c characteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. 2. Establish the relationship between fresh herb and spice usage habits and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. 3. Determine the relationship between basic food safety knowledge and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Included in this study were reviews of sec ondary data, key informant interviews, and questionnaires targeted to college students a nd the general po pulation. All materials were submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval before using in the actual re search (Appendix A). Unit of Analysis Individuals served as the un it of analysis for this study. Basic food safety knowledge, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and dem ographi cs were used to determine association with fresh herb and spice handling behaviors. Concen trating on the individual as the unit of analysis was used in this study because individual ac tions and characteristics are important in understanding the trend in fresh herb and spice handling behavior among the college and general populations ( 7). Using the individual as the unit of anal ysis helped to ensure that the collected

PAGE 39

39 data is representative of college and general population so the findings can be universal to similar communities. Questionnaire Development Questionnaire development was a 4 stage process. The first stage involved a literature review (Pubmed, Cab, Web of Science, Google Schol ar, Biosis, Agricola and Toxline) of current scientific literature related to the food safety and hazards of herbs and spices. A series of key informant interviews were in cluded in section 2. These consisted of ten interviews with general citizens, food safety professionals, food industr y workers, and college students. These interviews helped provide a s ource of information which aided in understanding the context of attitudes and actions, as well as pr ovided information that might not have become evident in the literature search ( 7, 42, 61 ). Six questions were asked to each key informant and responses helped to improve the content, clarity, readability, and quality of the questionnaire (Appendix A). In the third stage, a questionnaire was developed. The first section of the questionnaire assessed the knowledge of basic food handli ng practices. The second section of the questionnaire measured the usage of fresh herbs a nd spices within the home. The third section of the questionnaire determined the different percep tions people may have on the safety of fresh herbs and spices. The fourth section of the questionnaire asse ssed handling practices of fresh herbs and spices within the home. Questions to determine the level of interest for learning about food safety was also included in this secti on. The fifth section evaluated demographic characteristics such as gender, age, race, education as well as other demographics. A pretest was administered to assess the fo rmat of the questionna ire, clarity of the instructions, item appropriateness, ease of administration, comp letion speed, and frequency of answered and non-answered questions. The pretest (65 items) was given to a group of

PAGE 40

40 undergraduate, non-food science or nutrition majors from the University of Florida (n = 1001) during spring semester 2008. The pretest was created on SurveyMonkey.com and a link to the survey was sent out to the listserv for Mans F ood taught by Dr. Maurice Marshall. Results were analyzed using SPSS to examine frequency of answered and nonanswered questions. Any question with a high frequency of nonanswers would be eliminated. Results were also analyzed to determine if any answer choices were not sel ected by any pretest participant. If a question choice was not selected by any participants, the answer choi ce would be eliminated. The average time it took to take the su rvey was analyzed to determine if the survey was timely to take. In an open section at the end of the pretest, respondents were allowed to make any comments on the questionnaire they wanted. The questionnaire was revised on the basis of pretest results and ot her recommendations. Because we found no frequency problems w ith the pretest questionnaire, the same questionnaire was used in the fourth stage, with the exception of two mo dified questions and one additional question relating to demogra phics. Survey changes included: Revising the answer choices for the questi on How many times have you become ill from consuming fresh herbs or spices? from Never ; 1 time; 2 times; 3 5 times; 5 or more times to Never; 1 time; 2 times; 3 4 times; 5 or more times Adding Job Training to the answer choices for the question Where did you receive this information? Adding Please select the age range you fall under: 18 24; 25 29; 30 39; 40 49; 50 59; 60 69; 70 or over For the actual questionn aire test, the Florida population was used as the target population because Florida has been implicated in a large number of recalls and foodborne illness cases associated with ethnic foods, including herbs and spices ( 15, 63, 73). The layout was the same as that of the pretest questionna ire. The 66 item questionnaire (Appendix A) was sent out to

PAGE 41

41 the general public via e-mail using a sampling firm, World Wide Panel. The URL to the questionnaire and letter of inform ed consent was attached to the e-mail. The hosting site of the questionnaire was SurveyMonkey.com The questionnaire was availa ble to participants from May 2nd 2008 to May 5th 2008. Participants were instructed to complete the letter of consent. If consent was given, participants woul d be directed to the actual que stionnaire. In the event that the participant does not give consent, he/she woul d not be allowed to continue and would have to exit the questionnaire. A web questionnaire was developed because they have several advantages compared with conventional mail surveys including short response time, reduced errors in transcription, and reduced research costs ( 35, 69, 81 ). On the other hand, web questionnaires may be unsuitable for people who are uncomfortable using a computer, and they exclude those who do not have access to a computer ( 35). The questionnaire link was first e-mailed out to 5,000 potential respondents in Northeast and North Central Florida (Mari on, Alachua, and Lafayette Counties) These areas were chosen due to their demographic diversity ( 70). Table 3 1 presents a demographic comparison between the United States as a whole, the state of Florida, and Marion, Alachua an d Lafayette Counties in Florida. Twenty-four hours after the initial em ailing of the questionnaire, the link was emailed out to the rest of the Florida population to fu lfill the sample size determined above. Once the quota of completed questionnaires was achie ved, the questionnaire link was closed. The combined population number for Marion, Alachua, and Lafayette Counties (552,348) was used to determine the minimum number of completed questionnaires (n = 384) necessary to be statistically representativ e of the general population ( 36). This sample size would be sufficient to limit the sampling error and be stat istically representative of the population at a

PAGE 42

42 level of 0.05 ( 36). The sample size was determined based on random sampling; however, this research used non-probability sampling which has been deemed reasonable in certain social science research (68 ). Concepts and Variables This study focused on four concepts: basic f ood safety knowledge, fresh herb and spices usage habits, fresh herb and spices handling be havior and demographic characteristics. The following are details of the concept, the variables used to measure the concept, and the process of how each concept was measured. Concept: Demographic Characteristics There were several variables used as demogr aphic characteristics in cluding: gender, age, geographic location, race, education, income, and meal preparation involvement. These characteristics were measured through su rvey data (Table 3 2, Table 3 3). Concept: Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits Multiple variables were used to assess the level of fresh herb and spice usage among the college and general populations The variables included fres h herb purchasing, fresh spice purchasing, food preparation with fresh herbs, and food preparation with fresh spices (Table 3 4). Concept: Basic Food Safety Knowledge Eight statements were used to measure basic food safety knowledge in the college and general populations. Like the ot her concepts mentioned above, these variables were measured through the collection of surv ey data (Table 3 5) Concept: Fresh Herb and Spice Handling Behavior (Dependent Variable) A series of 19 statem ents were used to de termine fresh herb or spice handling behavior among the college and general populations (Table 3 6). These statements/variables were

PAGE 43

43 grouped to form a single collective index. If the question was negatively worded, it was recorded into 1 = Always, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Neve r. The data was first run through a bivriate correlation testing for the pearsons correlation coefficient. The next step was to run a reliability analysis testing for the Conbrach s alpha statistic. Conbrachs Alpha of 0.890 was reported. The purpose of these tests was to ensure all items co rrelated to each other an d represented the same thing so that one single score could be formed for each respondent to represent fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Reliability and Validity Validity was established by using several steps to develop the ques tionnaire. A number of sources can be used to generate questionnaire items, including consultations with experts in the field, proposed respondents and review of recen t literature ( 55). Outside research and key informant interviews were used to examine di fferent perceptions and knowledge that exist on fresh herb and spices safety. Many steps were also taken during the development of the questionnaire to ensure validity. In this questionnaire, th e researcher decided to use close-ended questions. This type of question was used because it is easier to code for and analyze, as well as being much less demanding for the respondent ( 60). A few partially close-ended que stions were also added to the questionnaire such as other, please specify. By doing this, it allowed the respondents the opportunity of creating their own choices. The researcher took gr eat care in iden tifying answer choices to help ensure that the respondent would chose from one of the offered categories. The placement of the questions on the questionnaire was also done carefully. Th e initial questions in the survey started out with general food safety knowledge then worked their way to more specific food safety questions on fresh herbs and spices. The point of this was to get participants to start thinking about food safe ty issues from the beginning.

PAGE 44

44 Reliability was establis hed using the Cronbachs statistic ( 55). Cronbachs uses inter-item correlations to determine whether constituent items are measuring the same domain ( 55). It measures consistency among individual items in a scale. For social sciences, a Cronbachs of .60 or higher is considered acceptable ( 39). Data Analysis The questionnaire responses were analy zed using SPSS version 16.0 software. All statistical tests were perform ed at the 0.05 signifi cance level. Each survey question was assigned a numeric code for data entry. This data was exported from an online SurveyMonkey.com (www.surveymonkey.com) database into an SPSS package through Excel format. Several statistical analytic methods were us e to answer each of the research questions. Bivariate correlations were used to determin e the relationships between among independent variables and fresh herb and spice handling behavior (dependent variable) ( 7, 65). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare means between groups. A series of five multiple linear regression models were also conducted. Multiple linear regression shows how the independent concep tual groupings simultaneously account for variation in fresh herb a nd spice handling behavior (7, 35, 65 ). Regression models were run for each independent variable (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, basic food safety knowledge). Race was recorded into dummy code va riables with Caucasians as the reference. The fourth regression model consisted of all in dependent variables together. A fifth reduced model was developed to reveal which independent variables were most significantly related to fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Finally, independent-sample t tests were used to compare means between populations for basic food safety knowledge, fresh herb and spice ha ndling behavior, and level of interest in food safety.

PAGE 45

45 Table 3-1. Comparison of demographic characteris tics between the USA, the state of Florida, and Alachua, Marion, and Lafayette counties* USA Florida Alachua County Marion County Lafayette County Population, 2006 estimate 299,398,48418,089,888227,120 316,183 8,045 Persons under 18 years old, 2006 24.6% 22.2% 19.1% 19.2% 19.4% Persons over 65 years old and over, 2006 12.4% 16.8% 10.4% 23.7% 11.7% Female persons, 2006 50.7% 50.9% 50.9% 51.5% 37.9% White persons, 2006 80.1% 80.2% 73.2% 85.6% 81.4% Black persons, 2006 12.8% 15.8% 20.3% 11.6% 16.8% Asian persons, 2006 4.4% 2.2% 4.5% 1.2% 0.2% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 2006 14.4% 20.2% 6.7% 8.5% 11.6% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 80.4% 79.9% 88.1% 78.2% 68.2% Statistics were identified from the U.S. Census Bureau (2008).

PAGE 46

46 Table 3-2. Demographic questions fo r the college student population Item Question and responses Label 9 When thinking about preparing meals in your household, how would you describe yourself? Meal Preparation Involvement 1. I do not assist in food preparation. 2. I rarely, but sometimes help prepare meals. 3. I usually help prepare meals, but I am not the primary food preparer. 4. I prepare most meals. I am the primary food preparer. 60 Are you: Gender 1. Male 2. Female 62 Do you live in a: Geographic Location 1. City 2. Suburb of a City 3. Small Town 4. Rural Area 64 Which best describes your ra cial or ethnic background? Race 1. African American 2. Asian 3. Hispanic 4. Native American 5. Caucasian

PAGE 47

47 Table 3-3. Demographic questions for the general population Item Question and responses Label 9 When thinking about preparing meals in your household, how would you describe yourself? Meal Preparation Involvement 1. I do not assist in food preparation. 2. I rarely, but sometimes help prepare meals. 3. I usually help prepare meals, but I am not the primary food preparer. 4. I prepare most meals. I am the primary food preparer. 60 Are you: Gender 1. Male 2. Female 61 Please select which age range you fall under: Age 1. 18 24 2. 25 29 3. 30 39 4. 40 49 5. 50 59 6. 60 69 7. 70 or over 62 Do you live in a: Geographic Location 1. City 2. Suburb of a City 3. Small Town 4. Rural Area 64 Which best describes your ra cial or ethnic background? Race 1. African American 2. Asian 3. Hispanic 4. Native American 5. Caucasian 65 What is the highest level of education you completed? Education 1. Did not complete high school 2. Completed high school 3. Some college or post high school training 4. Completed an associate/2 year degree 5. Completed a college/4 year degree 6. Completed graduate or pr ofessional training beyond a bachelors degree

PAGE 48

48 Table 3-3 Contd. Item Question and responses Label 66 Which of the following categories best describes total household income in 2007? Income 1. Under $30,000 2. $30,000 $39,000 3. $40,000 $49,000 4. $50,000 $59,000 5. $60,000 $69,000 6. $70-000 $79,000 7. $80,000 $89,000 8. $90,000 $99,000 9. $100,000 $125,000 10. $125,000 $149,000 11. $150,000 or more

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-4. Fresh herb and spice usage questions Item Question and responses Label In the past month, please i ndicate how often you did the following: (1 Never, 2 Once per month, 3 Once per week, 4 2 to 3 times per week, 5 4 to 7 days per week) 11 Purchase fresh herbs Fresh Herb Purchasing 12 Purchase fresh spices Fresh Spice Purchasing 13 Use fresh herbs in food preparation Food Prep with Herbs 14 Use fresh spices in food preparation Food Prep with Spices Table 3-5. Basic food safety knowledge questions Item Question and responses The following statements explore your cu rrent knowledge on basic food practices. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: (1 Strongly Disagree, 3 Neutral, 5 Strongly Agree) 1 Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination. 2 Raw meats should always be kept se parated from ready-to eat foods. 3 Proper cooking temperatures ar e essential for food safety. 4 Improper food storage may cause a health hazard. 5 Perishable foods should be refriger ated within 2 hours of purchase. 6 Countertops should always be washed af ter coming in contact with raw meat. 7 Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days. 8 It is safe to defrost meat, poultr y or fish at room temperature.

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-6. Fresh herb and spi ce handling behavior questions Item Question and responses People handle fresh herbs and spices in a variety of ways. Plea se indicate how often you do the following: (1 Never, 3 Sometimes, 5 Always) 37 Wash fresh herbs and spices im mediately upon bringing them home. 38 Use dried herbs and spices in place of fresh herbs and spices. 39 Inspect fresh herbs and spices for dirt before purchasing. 40 Wash your hands after handling fresh herbs and spices. 41 Store fresh herbs in the refrigerator. 42 Wash fresh herbs and spices immediatel y before using them in food preparation. 43 Wash surfaces that come in contact with fresh herbs and spices. 44 Use fresh herbs that have not been washed in food preparation. 45 Use fresh herbs directly onto pr epared food without further cooking. 46 Keep track of how old the fresh herbs and spices you buy are. 47 Store fresh spices in the refrigerator. 48 Use fresh spices directly onto pr epared food without further cooking. 49 Store fresh herbs at room temperature. 50 Discard visibly dirty fresh herbs. 51 Use fresh spices that have not been washed in food preparation. 52 Read the instructions on th e packaging of fresh herbs and spices before using them. 53 Store fresh spices at room temperature. 54 Use fresh herbs and spices in food prepar ation more than a week after purchasing. 55 Purchase fresh herbs and spices that ha ve been sitting out at room temperature.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS This study was designed to investigate current consumer knowledge and practices on the handling behavior of fresh herbs and spices. In light of the increase in food safety issues associated with fresh herbs and spices, the follo wing questions thus arise: Are consumers aware fresh herbs and spices have been implicated in foodborne illness? Are th ey aware of specific practices they can employ to reduce foodborne il lness risk associated with fresh herbs and spices? What influences a consumer to practice certain handling techniques when it comes to fresh herbs and spices? How can information on the safety of fresh herbs and spices be disseminated to consumers in the most efficient way? A survey instrument was designed and de veloped to answer these questions. The instrument included sixty-six que stions that recorded current knowledge of basic food handling, fresh herb and spice usage habits, demographic ch aracteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Objective 1: Determine the association between demogr aphic characteristics and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Objective 2: Establish the relationship between fresh herb and spice usage habits and handling behavior. Objective 3: Determine the relationship between basi c food safety knowledge and fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Summary Statistics The questionnaire was pilot-tested on a group of college students (ref er to m aterials and method section, chapter 3). Initia lly, participation was expected to be fewer than 30, but when the survey was launched many students (n = 1001) responded to the pilot su rvey. Because this phenomenally high response rate and the fact that the pilot survey was almost identical to the general population survey, the two survey data sets will be analyzed and compared to each other.

PAGE 52

52 Demographics College Student Population Out of 1001 subm itted surveys, 956 (95.5%) we re fully completed, and 45 (4.5%) were partially completed (Table 4 1). Only fully completed surveys from the pilot survey were included in the analysis. Most of the 956 respondents were female (60.5%), and most (56.6%) reported living in a city. Caucasian was the predominant race (58.3%) of respondents in our study. Most of the respondents (34%) reported being the primary food preparer in their household, and few (6.1%) reported not assisting in food prep aration in their household at all. Age, education and income were not included in the data analysis of the college student population due to the low variability of each of these variable s within this population. General Population A total of 426 respondents returned the questionnaire. Out the 426, 385 (90.4%) were fully com pleted, and the other 41 (9.6%) were part ially completed (Table 4 2). Only fully completed surveys from the pilot surv ey were included in the analysis. Most of respondents (71.1%) reported being females. Most of the respondents (46.7%) also reported being between 40 to 59 years of age. Only 5.2% of participants reported being in the age range of 18 to 24 years, which would most likely be the age range of the college population used in the pilot surv ey. Most of the respondents ( 50.1%) reported living in a suburb of a city. In addition, most re spondents (45.6%) reported being co llege graduates and had a total household income between $50,000 and $79,000 in 2007 (33.0%). Finally, most respondents (81.7%) reported being the primary food preparer in their household.

PAGE 53

53 Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits Fresh herb and spices usage habits (pur chasing and use in f ood preparation) were compared between the college students and the ge neral population (Fig. 4 1, 4 2, 4 3, 4 4). The majority of college students reported neve r buying fresh herbs (47.5%) or spices (50.5%). However, the majority of the general population reported purchasing fresh herbs and spices once per month (herbs: 33.2%; spices: 39.2%). The majority of college students reported never using fresh herbs or spices in food preparation (herbs: 36.3%; spices: 38.3%). The majority of the general population reported using fresh herbs in food preparation 2 to 3 days per week (25.8%). Howe ver, the majority of general population respondents also reported never using fresh spices in food preparation (26.0%). It appears that the general population purchases fresh herb s and spices more than the college students. In addition, it appears that the ge neral population uses fresh herbs in food preparation more than the college students. An obvious explanation for these findings is that college students do not cook as much as the ge neral population due to meal plan options and demanding schedules. Basic Food Safety Knowledge Several basic food safety knowledge variable s (1 through 4) were compared between the college students and the general population (Fig. 4 5, 4 6, 4 7, 4 8). Among the 8 variables included in this section, variables 1 though 4 were chosen to be presented because they best represent the four st eps (clean: variable 1, sepa rate: variable 2, cook: variable 3, chill: variable 4) to safe food handling as described by the Fight Bac! campaign established by the Partnership for Food Safety Education ( 23).

PAGE 54

54 The majority of the college students a nd the general population responded strongly agree to variables 1 though 7 which make it appear both populations are knowledgeable on basic food safety. Review of responses for va riable 8, which was nega tively worded, showed that the majority of the genera l population strongly disagreed and the majority of the college students were between neutral and strongly agree. It appears coll ege students feel it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish on the counter at ro om temperature which is explained as an unsafe practice in the chill step of the Fight Bac! campaign ( 23). In addition, means for basic food safety knowledge between the college student and general populations were compared using Independent-Sample T Test. Table 4 3 presents the means for the eight variables used to assess ba sic food safety knowledge. The T test revealed significant differences with variables 1, 3, 5, 7 a nd 8 which represent Figh t Bac! steps clean, cook, and chill, respectively ( 23 ). The mean for variable 1 (Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) wa s significantly higher in the general population than the college student population (F = 14.471, p = 0.014). The mean was significantly higher for variable 3 (Proper cooking temperatures are e ssential to food safety) in the general population (F = 9.769, p = 0.030). Means were also significantly higher in the general population than the college student population for variables 5 (Perishabl e foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) and 7 (Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) (F = 2.080, p = 0.012; F = 1.277, p=0.000, respectively). Finally, th e general population had a si gnificantly lower mean for variable 8 (It is safe to defros t meat, poultry or fish on the counter at room temperature) (F = 107.673, p = 0.000). These results appear to show that the general population had better basic food safety knowledge than college students.

PAGE 55

55 Fresh Herb and Spice Handling Behavior Fresh herb and spice handling behavior wa s compared between the college students and the general population. Independent-Sample T Test s were used to compare means between the two populations. Table 4 4 displays the means for the 19 variables used to assess fresh herb and spice handling behavior. A significant difference was found in vari able 1 (Wash fresh herbs and spices immediately upon bringing them home) between the college student and ge neral population (F = 5.687, p = 0.000). The general population had a si gnificantly higher mean than the college student population. Means for variables 2 (Use dr ied herbs and spices in place of fresh herbs and spices), 3 (Inspect fresh herbs and spices for dirty before purchasing) and 4 (Wash your hands after handling fresh herbs and spices) were signifi cantly higher in the general population than the college student population (F = 5.514, p = 0.000; F = 0.001, p = 0.001, F = 23.152, p = 0.000, respectively). The general population also had a significantly higher mean for variables 5 (Store fresh herbs in the refrigerator), 6 (Wash fresh herb s and spices immediately before using them in food preparation), and 7 (Wash surfaces that come in contact with fresh herbs and spices) (F = 6.767, p = 0.000; F = 18.383, p = 0.000; F = 7.159, p = 0.000, respectively). Means for variables 9 (Use fresh herbs directly onto prepared food without further cooking), 10 (Keep track of how old the fresh herbs and spices you buy are), 11 (S tore fresh spices in the refrigerator) were significantly higher in th e general population than the coll ege student population (F = 0.958, p = 0.000; F = 3.246, p = 0.000; F = 1.760, p = 0.000, respectively. Lastly, the mean was significantly higher in th e general population for variable 16 (Read the instructions on the packaging of fresh herbs and spices before using them) (F = 0.919, p = 0.000) The general population had a sign ificantly lower mean for va riables 8 (Use fresh herbs and spices immediately before usin g them in food preparation), 13 (Store fresh herbs at room

PAGE 56

56 temperature), 15 (Use fresh spices that have not been washed in food preparation), and 17 (Store fresh spices at room temperature), (F = 2.824, p = .000; F = 31.248, p = 0.000; F = 3.001, p = 0.000; F = 24.209, p = 0.000, respectively). Based on these results, it appears the general population practices safer fresh herb and spice handling than the college student population. Additional Descriptives This sec tion includes items from the survey that are important for the overall picture of fresh herb and spice food safety. First, partic ipants were asked where they buy fresh herbs and spices (Fig. 4 9, 4 10). The top location for the purchase of fresh herbs for both the college student population (87.1%, n = 833) and general population (76.9%, n = 296) was the supermarket. The general population also had a significant number (28.3%, n = 109) who reported growing their own herbs. The top locati on for the purchase of fresh spices for both the college student population (83.3%, n = 796) an d the general population (73.5%, n = 283) was also the supermarket. The reason for supermarke ts to be the top choice for both populations is likely due to the fact that supermarkets, such as Publix and Winn Dixie, are common in many geographic areas (city, suburbs a nd rural areas) and have fresh he rbs and spices available on a daily basis. Participants were also aske d how many times they had become ill from consuming fresh herbs or spices. The overwhelming majority or both the college stude nts (93.6%, n = 954) and general population (93.5%, n = 382) reported never. These results may be due to the fact that many foodborne illness cases go unreported ( 47). In addition, herbs and spices are often added to other food which makes it harder to distinguish which ingredient was the cause of the foodborne illness. Next, participants were asked if they had ev er received information on the safe handling of fresh herbs and spices (Fig. 4 11). The ma jority of both the coll ege students (88%) and

PAGE 57

57 general population (84%) re ported yes. If the participants clicked yes, they were asked where they had received the information; they we re allowed to check more than one answer. If the participants clicked no, th ey were directed to the next question. For the college population, the top three places where students received inform ation on the safe handling of fresh herbs and spices were friend or family member (7%, n = 67 ), internet (3.9%, n = 37), and television (3.5%, n = 33) (Fig. 4 12). The general population had slightly different results. The top there places where people received information on the safe handling of fresh herbs and spices were newspaper (11.4%, n = 44), internet (6.5%, n = 25), and television (5.2%, n = 20) (Fig. 4 12). These results are interesting because the participating college students attend the University of Florida, a land grant university which provides funds for the cooperative extension education including food safety. The results may be due to the fact that college students are unaware of the resources they have at their unive rsity, particularly the co operative extension. In contrast, the majority of the general population reported receivi ng fresh herb and spice handling information from the newspaper. This finding is confirmed by Adu-Nyako, et al. (2003) who found sources of food safety information were more commonly reported as coming from newspapers rather than mass media ( 2) Finally, participants were asked four questi ons to determine their level of interest for learning about food safety (Table 4 5). Mean scores for the genera l population were higher than the means scores for the college student popul ation. This is consistent with a current study which found older and more educated meal planners were more likely to believe food safety is very important ( 43). Independent-Sample T Tests reveal ed a significant diffe rence between the college students and the general population for all four variables: I want to learn more about general food safety (F = 0.407, p = 0.000); I want to know more about where I can get food

PAGE 58

58 safety information (F = 1.381, p = 0.000); I would like to know more about food safety issues related to fresh herbs and spices (F = 7.018, p = 0.000); and I think it is important to communicate to other about the importan ce of food safety (F = 1.607, p = 0.000). Bivariate Analyses Bivariate analyses (compari son of two mean values) were used to determine the relationship between the independe nt variables and the dependent variable using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA test assumes th at variances are e qual across groups or samples. Levenes Test was used to see if th e assumption of equal variances was valid for each ANOVA conducted. First, a collective score was calculated for each respondent based on the 19 variables on fresh herb and spice handling behavior (refer to materials and methods, chapter 3). College Student Population The collective score for fresh herb and spi ce handling behavior for the college student population ranged from 27 to 95 (mean = 61). ANOVA tests found a significant difference between meal preparation involvement and fres h herb and spice handli ng behavior (F = 10.484, p = 0.000). Mean separation tests revealed that mean score co ntinued to increase as meal preparation involvement increased. A significant difference was found between ge nder and fresh herb and spice handling behavior (F = 35.239, p = 0.000). Race was also f ound to be statistically significant (F = 3.871, p = 0.002). However, the difference between th e groups cannot be determined because the Levenes Test for equality of variance was vi olated for both gender and race, meaning the null hypothesis that the groups have eq ual variances was rejected. ANOVA tests also found a significant difference with the purchase of fresh herbs or spices and fresh herbs and spice handling behavior (F = 8.653, p = 0.000; F = 6.191, p = 0.000, respectively). Tests revealed t hose that never purchased fresh he rbs or spices had a significantly

PAGE 59

59 lower mean score than those that purchased fres h herbs or spices once per month, once per week, or 2 to 3 days per week. Tests al so revealed those that purchased herbs or spices 4 to 7 days per week had a significantly lower mean score than those that purchase d herbs or spices 2 to 3 days per week. A significant difference was found between how often fresh herbs are used in food preparation and fresh herb and spice handling be havior (F = 5.629, p = 0.000). Levenes statistic rejected the null hypothesis that the groups have equal variances; differences between groups cannot be determined. Use of fresh spices in food preparation was f ound to be statistically significant in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (F = 3.778, p = 0.005) Mean separation tests revealed that the mean score for those that never used fresh herbs or spices in food prepar ation was significantly lower than those that use fresh herb s and spices at least once per week. ANOVA tests found a significant difference be tween variables 1 th rough 7 (refer to methods and materials, chapter 3) and fresh he rb and spice handling behavior. However, the difference between the groups cannot be determined because the Levenes statistic rejected the null hypothesis; the groups did not have equal variances. Gender Population The collective score for fresh herb and spi ce handling behavior for the general population ranged from 5 to 95. However, only one person sc ored a 5, and it was found they did not answer multiple qu estions in the section. If the score of 5 was removed, the range for the score would be 43 to 95 (mean = 69). ANOVA tests found a significant difference be tween gender and fresh herb and spice handling behavior (F = 5.794, p = 0.017). Females we re more likely to practice safer fresh herb and spice handling behavior than males. Age wa s also found to be statistically significant (F =

PAGE 60

60 2.930, p = 0.034). However, the difference between the groups (college student and general population) cannot be determined because the Levene s statistic rejected the null hypothesis that the groups have equal variances. No other demogr aphic variables were found to be significant. ANOVA tests also found a signifi cant difference with the purc hase of fresh spices and fresh herbs and spice handling behavior (F = 5.799, p = 0.000). Tests rev ealed those purchased fresh spices once per week had a significantly hi gher mean score than those that purchased fresh spices once per month, 2 to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week and those that never purchased spices. A significant difference was found between the purchase of fresh herbs and fresh herb and spice handling behavior (F = 5.170, p = 0.000), but the Levenes statis tic rejected the null hypothesis that the groups have equal varian ces; differences betw een groups cannot be determined. Use of fresh herbs in food preparation was f ound to be statistically significant (F = 3.647, p = 0.006). Mean separation tests re vealed that the mean score fo r those that never used fresh herbs in food preparation was significantly lower th an those that use fresh herbs at least once per month. For basic food safety knowledge, variables 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 (refer to methods and materials, chapter 3) were statistically significan t. Based on a mean range of 1 to 5, with indicating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree, those that strongly agreed ( ) that hand washing before hand ling food can reduce the risk of contamination had a significantly higher mean sc ore than those that choose (F = 2.473, p = 0.044). Respondents who strongly agreed () that raw meat shoul d always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods had a si gnificantly higher mean score than all others ( to ; F = 8.178, p = 0.000). Those that strongly agreed () that perishable food should be refrigerated

PAGE 61

61 within 2 hours of purchase had a significantly hi gher mean score than those that were neutral () or choose (F = 9.248, p = 0.000). Those that strongly agreed () that leftovers should be discarded after 4 days had a significantly higher mean score than those that choose or who were neutral (; F = 4.574, p = 0.001). Lastly, respondents who strongly disagreed () that it is safe to defrost mean, poultry, or fish on the counter at room temperature had a significantly higher mean score than those that choose strong ly agreed (), and those that were neutral(; F = 5.559, p = 0.000). The other 3 variables included in basic food safety knowledge section were also found to be si gnificant. However, the difference between the groups cannot be determined because the Levenes Test for equality of variance was violated meaning the null hypothesis was rejected. The results are reported in this section and al so appear in the Appendix B. The Levenes Test and Post hoc comparisons (mean sepa ration) also appear in the Appendix B. Multivariate Analysis College Population Model 1. The m odel was found to be statistically signi ficant (F = 10.753, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 6). It accounted for approximately 7% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behaviors (Adjusted R2 = 0.069). Meal preparation involveme nt, gender, and race were found to be statistically significant. This model showed that as meal preparation involvement increased, fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased or improved. It also showed that female respondents were more likely to have better fresh herb and spice handling behavior than males. Race was also revealed to be significant in this m odel. It showed that participants who identified as African American or Hispanic were more positiv ely correlated with better fresh herb and spice handling behavior than those th at identified as Caucasian.

PAGE 62

62 Model 2. The m odel was found to be statistically signi ficant (F = 6.255, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 6) and accounted for approximately 2% of th e variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.022). The model revealed that as the purchase of fresh herbs increased, fresh spice handling behavior improved. Model 3. The eight variables that were used to determ ine basic food safety knowledge were entered into this model and were statistically significant (F = 7.113, p = 0.000) and accounted for approximately 5% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.049; refer to Table 4 6). Variable 7 was found to be statistically signifi cant in this model. It showed that as participants agreed more that leftovers should be discarded after 4 days, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved. Model 4. This m odel was found statistica lly significant (F = 7.049, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 6). It accounted for 11% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.110). This model showed that as meal preparat ion involvement increased, fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased or improved. Gender was found to be statistically significant; female respondents were more likely to have bette r fresh herb and spice handling behavior than males. Race was also revealed to be significant in this model. It showed that participants who identified as African American or Hispanic were more positively correlated with better fresh herb and spice handling behavior than those that identified as Caucasian. Finally, model 4 showed that as participan ts agreed more that leftover should be discarded after 4 days, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved.

PAGE 63

63 Reduced model. This final model was statistically significan t (F = 18.460, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 6). It accounted for approxim ately 11% of the varian ce in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.116). Seven variables were found to be statistically significant. Meal preparation involvement continued to be significant in the re duced model; as meal preparation involvement increased, fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased or improved. Gender revealed that female responde nts had better fresh herb and spice handling behaviors than males. This finding is similar to current literature that found women tend to practice safer food handling practices than men ( 5, 40, 76). The literature also revealed that women have higher attitudes and percep tions toward food safety than men ( 12, 76). Race also continued to be statistically significant in fresh herb and spice handling behavior in the reduced model. African Americ ans and Hispanics had better fresh herb and spice handling behavior than Caucasians. These findi ngs are supported by Alte kruse et al. (1999) who also found African Americans to practice safer food handling pr actices than Caucasians (5). Meal preparation involvement, gender, and race were significant in influencing fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Thus, the null hypothesis, demographic variables do not influence fresh herb and spice hand ling behavior, was rejected. The reduced model revealed that as the purch ase of fresh herbs increased, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved. The null hypoth esis, those that purchase fresh herbs and spices more often are not likely to practice safe r fresh herb and spice handling behaviors, was rejected. In addition, the nu ll hypothesis, those that use fr esh herbs and spices in food preparation more often are not lik ely to practice safer fresh herb and spice handling behaviors, was accepted; the results did not show the use of fr esh spices in food preparation had an effect on fresh herb and spice handling behavior. The current literature on fresh herb and spice usage

PAGE 64

64 habits and fresh herb and spice handling behavior does not support or reject this finding because it continues to be a topic that has not been researched or studied. Finally, two out of eight basi c (25%) food safety knowledge variables were found to be statistically significant with the reduce model. The model showed that as participants agreed more perishable food should be refrigerated with in two hours of purchase, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved. It also showed that as participants disagreed more that it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperatur e, respondents practiced safer fresh herb and spice handling behavior. These findings reveal that 75% of the basi c food safety knowledge variables had no impact on handling behavior of fresh herbs and spice. Based on these findings, the null hypothesis, those who ha ve a better understanding of basic food safety knowledge are not more likely to practice safer fresh herb a nd spice handling behavior, was accepted. Past research supports this finding that food safety knowledge does not necessarily equate into better handling practices ( 4, 31, 80 ). General Population Model 1. The m odel was found to be statistically signi ficant (F = 2.437, p = 0.008; refer to Table 4 7) and accounted for approximately 4% of the variance associated with fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.037). Gender and age were found to be statistically significant in this model. The model revealed th at female respondents were more likely to have better fresh herb and spice handling behavior than males. It also showed that as age increased, so did handling behavior.

PAGE 65

65 Model 2. The m odel was found to be statistically signi ficant (F = 3.681, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 7). It accounted for approximately 3% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.027). No variables within model 2 were found to be significant. Model 3. The m odel was found statistica lly significant (F = 4.659, p = 0.072; refer to Table 4 7). It accounted for 7% of the variance of fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.072). The model revealed that as participants disagreed more th at it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperature, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved. Model 4. This m odel was also found statistically significant (F = 3.033, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 7) and accounted for approximately 10% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.106). Age was found to be significan t within model 4; fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased as age increased. The model also revealed that as participants disagreed more that it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperature, fresh herb and spice handling behavior improved. Reduced Model. The reduced m odel was also found to be st atistically significant (F = 13.760, p = 0.000; refer to Table 4 7) and accounted for approximately 12% of the variance in fresh herb and spice handling behavior (Adjusted R2 = 0.118). The reduced model revealed age continued to be the significant factor associated with fresh herb and spice handling be havior. This reinforces the finding that the general population has better food safety knowle dge and safer fresh herb and spices handling behavior than college student s, who tend to be young adults. Several recent studies also found that the ol der a person is, his/her food sa fety knowledge and behavior

PAGE 66

66 increases ( 40, 43 ). Thus, the null hypothesis, demographi c variables do not influence fresh herb and spice handling behavior, was rejected. The model showed that the more often fresh spices were used in food preparation, fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased. Thus, the null hypothesi s, those that use fresh herbs and spices in food preparation more often are not likely to practice safer fresh herb and spice handling behaviors, was rejected. However, the null hypothesis, those th at purchase fresh herbs and spices more often are not lik ely to practice safer fresh herb and spice handling behaviors, was accepted as the results for the general populati on did not reveal that fresh herb and spice purchasing behavior to be important to fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Like the college student population, two out of eight basic (25 %) food safety knowledge variables were found to be statis tically significant with the gene ral populations reduced model. The model showed that as participants agreed mo re perishable food should be refrigerated within two hours of purchase, fresh herb and spice handli ng behavior improved. It also showed that as respondents disagreed more that it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperature, fresh herb and spice handling behavior increased Based on these findings, the null hypothesis, those who have a better understanding of basic food safety knowledge are not more likely to practice safer fresh herb and spice ha ndling behavior, was accepted. Conclusions The findings of this study adde d to the literature of herbs a nd spices in several ways. It pioneered the research on fresh herb and spi ce handling behavior because before this study, no research had been conducted on the topic. This research reveals college students as le ss knowledgeable about food safety than the general population. These results ar e consistent with the findings of an earlier research study. In a survey to assess food safety behavior among undergraduate students at a major university,

PAGE 67

67 Morrone, and Ratbun (2003) found students were engaging in risky food consumption and handling behaviors (49). As mentioned above, college students reporte d receiving food safety information about fresh herbs and spices mainly from friends and fam ily members. It can be inferred that if they are receiving information on fresh herbs and spices from these people, they are probably receiving general food safety knowledge from thes e people. Cooperative ex tension is a reputable resource for not only food safety information but information on many other areas such as nutrition, financial management, and disaster prep aration and response. However, many may not know about it or how to take advantage of it. T hus, it is necessary to in crease the promotion of the cooperative extension among college students to bridge the gap in food safety knowledge between this group and the general population. When it comes to what influences fresh herb and spice handling behavior, this research suggests that the college populat ion and the general population differ. Meal preparation involvement, gender, race and purchase of fresh herbs were the factors found to impact the college population when it came to fresh herb a nd spice handling behavior. Educational efforts on the safe handling of fresh herbs and spices shou ld be directed toward males, Caucasians, and less frequent purchasers of fresh herbs. On the other hand, age and use of fresh herbs in food preparation were the factors that affect the general population wh en it came to fresh herb and spice handling behavior. Educational efforts should be directed toward yo unger, less frequent users of fresh herbs. Overall, basic food safety knowledge did not ap pear to be a large in fluential factor in fresh herb and spice handling behavior among the college and general popul ation. Wilcock et al. (2004) partly attributes the disparity between food safety knowledge and food handling behavior

PAGE 68

68 to optimistic bias effects (79). The optimistic bias effect is when people believe they are less at risk from a hazard than other people ( 79). People may ignore food safety educational efforts because they assume that these messages are aime d at more vulnerable individuals or that they are in control of the potential hazards ( 79). Potential ways to combat this issue is to focus on educating not only about behavior but the seriou s risks associated with unsafe behavior. Suggestions for Future Research The findings of this research can provid e important information to researchers and educators. Previous research on food handli ng behavior has not focu sed on handling herbs and spices despite the evidence they can be a sour ce of potentially harmful substances and the promotion by the US Government to use them as fat and salt substitutions. It is evident that fresh herb and spice handling beha vior is not an independent i ssue. Rather, it is linked to consumers demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge. More research on fresh herb and spice handling behavior should be conducted, specifically what other factors influence fresh herb and spice hand ling behavior. This will help provide a thorough picture to educators and researchers. Limitations This study had several limitations. First, the biggest limitation was th at a cross-sectional design was used. Cross-sectiona l designs allow the researcher to sample a population at one period in time. The problem with this is that at the time of th e research, unique conditions may exist which may not reflect usual conditions The college populat ion questionnaire was distributed to students in a popular undergraduate cla ss in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. The class also may have al ready touched on the topic of food safety; therefore, the results may not re flect the college population as a whole. The general population questionnaire used sampling firm to gain partic ipants. While it was a random sample, it may be

PAGE 69

69 somewhat biased toward people who have inte rnet access, and it may not completely reflect those who do not. Another limitation included the use of self-reported behaviors. This may or may not reflect actual behaviors of th e participants. One way to co mbat this problem is to do observational studies on fresh herb and spice handling.

PAGE 70

70 Table 4-1. Demographic characteristics of the college student population Demographics na Valid % Meal Preparation Involvement (n = 935) I do not assist in food preparation. 56 6.0 I rarely, but sometimes help prepare meals. 277 29.6 I usually help prepare meals, but I am not the primary food preparer. 282 30.2 I prepare most meals. I am the primary food preparer. 320 34.2 Gender (n = 948) Male 374 39.5 Female 574 60.5 Geographic location (n = 953) City 539 56.6 Suburb of city 219 23.0 Small town 179 18.8 Rural Area 16 1.7 Race (n = 952) African American 134 14.1 Asian 98 10.3 Hispanic 119 12.5 Caucasian 555 58.3 Other 46 4.8 a Number of respondents Note: The number of completed survey s was 956; the number that completed each question will differ.

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-2. Demographic characteristics of the general population Demographics na Valid % Meal Preparation Involvement (n = 382) I do not assist in food preparation. 11 2.9 I rarely, but sometimes help prepare meals. 15 3.9 I usually help prepare meals, but I am not the primary food preparer. 44 11.5 I prepare most meals. I am the primary food preparer. 312 81.7 Gender (n = 381) Male 110 28.9 Female 271 71.1 Age group (n = 383) 18 24 20 5.2 25 39 99 25.9 40 59 179 46.7 60 85 22.2 Geographic location (n = 385) City 94 24.4 Suburb of city 193 50.1 Small town 50 13.0 Rural Area 48 12.5 Race (n = 385) African American 13 3.4 Asian 9 2.3 Hispanic 25 6.5 Caucasian 327 84.9 Other 11 2.9 Education (n = 382) Completed high school or less 88 23.0 Some college 120 31.4 College graduate or more 174 45.6 Income (n = 385) <$30,000 81 21.0 $30,000-$49,999 112 29.1 $50,000 79,999 127 33.0 $80,000 65 16.9 a Number of respondents Note: The number of completed surveys was 385; the number that completed each question will differ.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4-1. Fresh herb purchasing habits in the college student and general population (%) Figure 4-2. Fresh herb use in food preparation in the college student and general population (%)

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4-3. Fresh spice purchasing habits in the college student and general population (%) Figure 4-4. Fresh herb use in food preparation in the college student and general population (%)

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4-5. Variable 1* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%) *Variable 1 refe rs to Hand washing befo re handling food can reduce risk of contamination Note. indi cating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree Figure 4-6. Variable 2* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%) *Variable 2 refers to Raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods Note. indicating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4-7. Variable 3*basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%) *Variable 3 refers to Proper cooking te mperatures are essential for food safety Note. indicating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree Figure 4-8. Variable 4* basic food safety knowledge in the college student and general population (%) *Variable 4 refers to Im proper food storage may cause a health hazard Note. indicating Strongly Disa gree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-3. Basic food safety knowledge means comparison between the college student and general population Variable College Student Population General Population 1. Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination. 4.64* 4.76* 2. Raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods. 4.62 4.68 3. Proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety. 4.61* 4.72* 4. Improper food storage may cause a health hazard. 4.61 4.69 5. Perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase. 4.37* 4.52* 6. Countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat. 4.66 4.73 7. Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days. 3.95* 4.26* 8. It is safe to defrost meat, poultry and fish on the counter at room temperature. 3.66* 2.75* Independent Sample T Test (Alpha level of 0.05) Note. means ranged from to with indicating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-4. Fresh herb and spice handling beha vior means comparison between the college student and general population Independent Sample T Test (Alpha level of 0.05) Note. means ranged from to with indicating Never, indicating Sometimes, and indicating AlwaysVariable College Student Population General Population 1. Wash fresh herbs and spices immediately upon bringing them home. 2.83* 3.38* 2. Use dried herbs and spices in place of fresh herbs and spices. 3.21* 3.56* 3. Inspect fresh herbs and spices for dirty before purchasing. 3.32* 3.57* 4. Wash your hands after handling fresh herbs and spices. 3.42* 3.99* 5. Store fresh herbs in the refrigerator. 3.64* 4.15* 6. Wash fresh herbs and spices immediately before using them in food preparation. 3.78* 4.22* 7. Wash surfaces that come in contact with fresh herbs and spices. 3.30* 3.98* 8. Use fresh herbs that have not been washed in food preparation. 2.31* 2.03* 9. Use fresh herbs directly onto prepared food without further cooking. 2.69* 2.94* 10. Keep track of how old the fresh herbs and spices you buy are. 3.23* 3.55* 11. Store fresh spices in the refrigerator. 3.25* 3.78* 12. Use fresh spices directly onto prepared food without further cooking. 2.84 2.94 13. Store fresh herbs at room temperature. 2.80* 2.43* 14. Discard visibly dirty fresh herbs. 3.55 3.54 15. Use fresh spices that have not been washed in food preparation. 2.39* 2.07* 16. Read the instructions on the packaging of fresh herbs and spices before using them. 3.12* 3.80* 17. Store fresh spices at room temperature. 2.94* 2.67* 18. Use fresh herbs and spices in food preparation more than a week after purchasing. 2.83 2.75 19. Purchase fresh herbs and spices that have been sitting out at room temperature. 2.71 2.60

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4-9. Purchase location of fresh herbs in the college student and general population. A) College Student Population. B) General Population. A B

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4-10. Purchase location of fresh spices in the college student and general population. A) College Student Population. B) General Population. A B

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4-11. Information received on the safe hand ling of herbs and spices in the college student and general population

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4-12. Distribution of the information on th e safe handling of herbs and spices in the college student and the ge neral population. A) College Student Population. B) General Population. A B

PAGE 82

82 Table 4-5. Level of interest for food safety m eans comparison between the college student and general population Variable College Student Population General Population 1. I want learn more about general food safety. 3.73* 4.06* 2. I want to know more about where I can get food safety information. 3.52* 3.96* 3. I would like to know more about food safety issues related to fresh herbs and spices. 3.45* 3.96* 4. I think it is important to communicate to others about the importance of food safety. 3.97* 4.27* Independent Sample T Test (Alpha level of 0.05) Note. means ranged from to with indicating Strongly Disagree, indicating Neutral, and indicating Strongly Agree

PAGE 83

83 Table 4-6. Comparison of multivariate models on fresh herb and spice handling behavior (college student population) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Reduced Demographic Variables Meal Preparation Involvement 0.000 (0 .149)* 0.002 (0.107)* 0.000 (0.110)* Gender (males=0, females=1) 0.000 (0.171)* 0.000 (0.146)* 0.001 (0.146)* Geographic Location 0.649 (-0.015) 0.849 (-0.006) Race African American 0.000 (0 .115)* 0.000 (0.120)* 0.000 (0.110)* Asian 0.371 (0.029) 0.436 (0.025) Hispanic 0.006 (0.090) 0.015 (0.079)* 0.027 (0.069)* Other 0.187 (0.042) 0.237 (0.038) Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits Purchase Fresh Herbs 0.038 (0 .132)* 0.175 (0.085) 0.005 (0.093)* Purchase Fresh Spices 0.580 (-0.034) 0.574 (-0.034) Use Fresh Herbs in Food Preparation 0.457 (0.054) 0.439 (0.055) Use Fresh Spices in Food Preparation 0.820 (0.015) 0.884 (-0.010) Basic Food Safety Knowledge Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination. 0.731 (0.021) 0.904 (0.007) Raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-toeat foods. 0.907 (-0.007) 0.970 (0.002) Proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety. 0.527 (-0.041) 0.312 (-0.064) Improper food storage may cause a health hazard. 0.727 (0.022) 0.671 (0.026) Perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase. 0.094 (0.077) 0.051 (0.089) 0.024 (0.081)* Countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat. 0.706 (0.026) 0.695 (0.026) Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days. 0.000 (0.183)* 0.000 (0 .155)* 0.000 (0.149)* It is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperature. 0.281 (0.036) 0.264 (0.037) Cases 927 948 949 927 927 Adjusted R 0.069 0.022 0 .049 0 .110 0 .116 F-Value 10.753 6.255 7.113 7.049 18.460 The p-value is reported in the columns (signifi cant at the 0.05 level). In parenthesis is the beta coefficient which represents the estimated aver age change in standard deviation units. For example, if the beta coefficient is 0.5, every time the independent variable changes by one standard deviation, the estimated outcome vari able changes half a standard deviation, on average.

PAGE 84

84 Table 4-7. Comparison of multivariate models on fresh herb and spice handling behavior (general population) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Reduced Demographic Variables Meal Preparation Involvement 0.052 (0.104) 0.528 (0.034) Gender (males=0, females=1) 0.049 (0.108)* 0.379 (0.048) Age 0.007 (0.147)* 0.007 (0.145)* 0.009 (0.131)* Geographic Location 0.096 (0.088) 0.147 (0.075) Race African American 0.338 (-0.050) 0.518 (-0.033) Asian 0.767 (-0.016) 0.982 (-0.001) Hispanic 0.611 (0.027) 0.394 (0.045) Other 0.640 (-0.024) 0.724 (-0.018) Education 0.917 (0.006) 0.655 (0.024) Income 0.316 (0.054) 0.671 (-0.023) Fresh Herb and Spice Usage Habits Purchase Fresh Herbs 0.837 (0.023) 0.778 (0.031) Purchase Fresh Spices 0.176 (-0.143) 0.374 (-0.093) Use Fresh Herbs in Food Preparation 0.060 (0.193) 0.133 (0.152) 0.000 (0.206)* Use Fresh Spices in Food Preparation 0.450 (0.071) 0.271 (0.103) Basic Food Safety Knowledge Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination. 0.320 (-0.122) 0.298 (-0.127) Raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-toeat foods. 0.459 (0.076) 0.608 (0.053) Proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety. 0.936 (0.014) 0.711 (0.064) Improper food storage may cause a health hazard. 0.662 (0.050) 0.631 (0.056) Perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase. 0.280 (0.091) 0.139 (0.127) 0.024 (0.202)* Countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat. 0.800 (0.035) 0.818 (-0.032) Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days. 0.109 (0.101) 0.136 (0.095) It is safe to defrost meat, poultry, and fish at room temperature. 0.000 (0.205)* 0.003 (0 .159)* 0.000 (0.183)* Cases 377 381 379 377 377 Adjusted R 0.037 0.027 0.072 0.106 0.118 F-Value 2.437 3.681 4.659 3.033 13.760 The p-value is reported in the columns (signifi cant at the 0.05 level). In parenthesis is the beta coefficient which represents the estimated aver age change in standard deviation units. For example, if the beta coefficient is 0.5, every time the independent variable changes by one standard deviation, the estimated outcome vari able changes half a standard deviation, on average.

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION Informed Consent Letter for Interview Questions Title of Project: Improving Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices 1. Purpose of the Study: To identify common consumer ha ndling practices of herbs and spices that will help to uncover weaknesses in consumer food safety knowledge. 2. Procedures to be followed: You will be asked to answ er approximately 6 questions in an interview. You will be asked to answer the questions in relation to your opinions, attitudes, experiences, and familiarity with health issues associat ed with herbs and spices. You can choose to take part or decline participation. 3. Discomforts and Risks: There are no risks in particip ating in this research beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the questions may appear pe rsonal but answers are held in strict confidentiality. 4. Benefits: This project will help f ood safety professionals, and the like, develop educational materials and programs that are aimed at improving consumer food safety of herbs and spices. 5. Duration: It will take about 30-45 minutes to complete the interview. 6. Compensation: There will be no compensation for participating in this study. 7. Statement of Confidentiality: Only the person in char ge (Kalin Prevatt) will know your identity. You may be assured of complete confidentiality Your name will never be associated with your answers, nor will any quotations of your statements be presented. Only the overall results of all interviews together will be used. If this research is published, no info rmation that would identify you will be written. 8. Security of Data, Interview Notes, and Tape Recordings : The project investigator (Kalin Prevatt) will be the only people who have access to interview notes, tapes, and other interview materials. These materials will be secured in locked file cabinets in room 3038 McCarty D at the University of Florida, when not being analyzed. All materials will be destroye d upon completion of the project in late 2008. 9. Right to Ask Questions: You can ask questions about th e research. The person in charge will answer your questions. Contact Kalin Prevatt at 770-265-3994 or via email at kprevatt@ufl.edu with questions. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433. 10. Voluntary Participation: You do not have to participate in this research. You can end your participation at any time by telling the person in charge. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. You must be 18 years of age or older to consent to participat e in this research study. If you consent to participate in this research study and to the terms above, please sign your name and indicate the date below. The informed consent procedure has been followed. ______________________________________ _____________________ Participant Signature Date ____________________________________ _____________________ Kalin Prevatt Date Project Investigator Figure A-1. Informed consent letter for interview questions

PAGE 86

86 Interview Questions 1. Over 30 percent of the suspected cases of foodborne illness occur at home. Several factors affect home food safety, but today we are interested in herbs and sp ices. Are you aware of any safety issues associated with the use of spices and herbs in food preparation or cooki ng within the home? a. What other safety issues can you think of that ar e associated with the use of spices and herbs in food preparation or cooking within the home? 2. What food handling and preparation methods do you thin k play a role in the safety of spices and herbs within the home? 3. Do you use specific safety precautions when handling spices and herbs? a. What are they? b. What other safety precautions can you think of that would help reduce or eliminate the health risk from spice and herb use within the home? c. What would you consider to be a prop er place to store spices and herbs? d. What would you consider to be a proper temperature to store spices and herbs? 4. In the past five years, have you personally ever ha d any health issues arise w ith spices or herbs? a. Can you please tell me about your experience? 5. Do you believe consumers have appropriate knowledge of how to handle spices and herbs within the home in a manner that reduces or eliminates health risk? a. Where do consumers get the knowledge about safe food handling of spices and herbs? (Internet, news, extension services, etc.) 6. How can the safety of spice and herb use within the home be improved? a. What information about the proper handling of spices and herbs would consumers benefit from knowing? b. What other information would help reduce the health risks associated with spices and herbs? c. Where would you like to receive information on the safe handling practices of spices and herbs? (Internet, news, extens ion services, etc.) Figure A-2. Interview questions

PAGE 87

87 Informed Consent Letter for Questionnaire Title of Project: Improving Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices 1. Purpose of the Study: To identify common consumer ha ndling practices of fresh herbs and spices that will help to uncover weaknesses in consumer food safety knowledge. 2. Procedures to be Followed: You will be asked to co mplete a questionnaire according to your opinions, attitudes, experiences, and familiarity with health issu es associated with fresh herbs and spices. You can choose to take part or decline participation. 3. Discomforts and Risks: There are no risks in particip ating in this research beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the questions may appear pe rsonal but answers are held in strict confidentiality. 4. Benefits: This project will help f ood safety professionals, and the like, develop educational materials and programs that are aimed at improving consumer food safety of fresh herbs and spices. 5. Duration: It will take approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. 6. Compensation: There will be no compensation for participating in this study. 7. Statement of Confidentiality: This survey will be completely anonymous. 8. Security of Data, Interview Notes, and Tape Recordings: The project investigator (K alin Prevatt) will be the only people who have access to interview notes, tapes, and other interview materials. These materials will be secured in locked file cabinets in room 3038 McCa rty D at the University of Florida, when not being analyzed. All materials will be destroyed upon completion of the project in late 2008. 9. Right to Ask Questions: You can ask questions about th e research. The person in charge will answer your questions. Contact Kalin Prevatt at 770-265-3994 or via email at kprevatt@ufl.edu with questions. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433. 10. Voluntary Participation: You do not have to participate in this research. You can end your participation at any time. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. You must be 18 years of age or older to consent to participat e in this research study. If you consent to participate in this research study and to the terms above, please sign your name and indicate the date below. The informed consent procedure has been followed. ______________________________________ _____________________ Participant Signature Date ______________________________________ _____________________ Kalin Prevatt Date Project Investigator Figure A-3. Informed consent letter for questionnaire

PAGE 88

88 Questionnaire Cover Letter Dear Respondent, Fresh herbs and spices are becoming increasingly popular in the United States. With this growth in use come potential food safety concerns. Our goal in this questionna ire is to understand consumer handling practices of fresh herbs and spices so that we can identify ways to help you decrease possible food safety risks. For this survey, fresh herbs will be referred to as the leaves of plants. Examples of this include thyme, sage, oregano, parsley, basil, chives, tarragon, dill, rosemary, and mint. Fr esh spices will be referred to as the roots, flowers, fruits, seeds or bark of plants. Examples of this include cinnamon, ginger, cloves, saffron, nutmeg, vanilla, cumin, pepper, turmeric, coriander and caraway. The term fresh means the herb or spice has not been altered by processing such as drying or extraction. If you never use fresh spices, but use fresh herbs, answer the questions in terms of fresh herbs. If you never use fresh herbs, but use fresh sp ices, answer the questions in terms of fresh spices. Just 15 minutes of your time will be needed to complete this timely and important research effort. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. Your name will never be placed on the questionnai re or associat ed with your answers. Only overall aggregate results will be reported. The research will be used to develop educational materials and programs aimed at improving consumer handling practices of fresh herbs and spices. By responding to this questionnaire, you are helping us to accomplish the goal of improving food safety of fresh herbs and spices. We would be most happy to answer any questions you might have, and talk personally with you about any aspect of the study. Please feel free to contact us at kprevatt@ufl.edu or 770-265-3994. Thank you in advance for your assistance. All the best, Kalin Prevatt Graduate Research Assistant Figure A-4. Questionnaire cover letter

PAGE 89

89 Questionnaire Improving Consumer Handling of Fresh Herbs and Spices The following statements explore your current knowledge on basic food handling practices. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination. Raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods. Proper cooking temperatures are essential for food safety. Improper food storage may cause a health hazard. Perishable food should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase. Countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat. Leftovers should be discarded after 4 days. It is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature. When thinking about preparing meals in your household, how would you best describe yourself? I do not assist in food preparation. I rarely, but sometimes help prepare meals. I usually help prepare meals, but I am not the primary food preparer. I prepare most meals. I am the primary food preparer. In the past month, please indica te how often you did the following: Never Once per month Once per week 2-3 day per week 4-7 days per week Prepare or help prepare meals in your household Purchase fresh herbs Purchase fresh spices Use fresh herbs in food preparation Use fresh spices in food preparation Where do you buy fresh herbs? (check all that apply) Supermarket Family-owned grocery store Specialty shop, including ethnic grocery stores Farmers Market Internet I grow my own Other _________________ Figure A-5. Questionnaire

PAGE 90

90 Where do you buy fresh spices ? (check all that apply) Supermarket Family-owned grocery store Specialty shop, including ethnic grocery stores Farmers Market Internet I grow my own Other _________________ How many times have you become ill from consuming fresh herbs or spices? Never 1 time 2 times 3 4 5 or more Have you received information on the safe handling of fresh herbs and spices before? No Yes If YE S, where? (check all that apply) Job training Friend or family member Television Newspaper or magazine Radio (public, commercial or talk radio) Internet or World Wide Web sites Newsletters from food organizations/journals Brochures, flyers, or fact sheets from organizations County Cooperative Extension agents Department of Health and Human Se rvices and other government agencies Nutrition professionals Other _______________________ Figure A-5. Questionnaire, Page 2

PAGE 91

91 People have different perceptions about the safety of fresh herbs and spices. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Fresh herbs and spices are free from microorganisms. Buying fresh herbs and spices from the supermarket means they are ready to use without further washing. Rinsing fresh herbs and spi ces with water immediately before using in food preparation will help reduce harmful germs. Domestically grown herbs and spices are safer than imported herbs and spices. It is safe to purchase fresh herbs that have not been refrigerated. The safest way to store fresh spices is in the refrigerator. Fresh herbs have the potential to spread germs. If it is organically grown, it is 100% safe. It is safe to store fresh herbs at room temperature. I do not see myself at risk of food related illness when eating fresh herbs or spices. I do not think about food safety when I eat fresh herbs or spices. Fresh spices have the potential to spread germs. Dried herbs and spices are safer than fresh herbs and spices. It is safe to purchase fresh spices that have not been refrigerated. It is safe to store fresh spices at room temperature. Rinsing fresh herbs and spi ces with water immediately upon bringing them home will help reduce harmful germs. The safest way to store fresh herbs is in the refrigerator. Fresh herbs and spices have an unlimited shelf life. Figure A-5. Questionnaire, Page 3

PAGE 92

92 People handle fresh herbs and spices in a variety of w ays. Please indicate how often you do the following: Never Sometimes Always Wash fresh herbs and spices immediately upon bringing them home. Use dried herbs and spices in place of fresh herbs and spices. Inspect fresh herbs and spices for dirt before purchasing. Wash your hands after handling fresh herbs or spices. Store fresh herbs in the refrigerator. Wash fresh herbs and spices immediately before using them in food preparation. Wash surfaces that come in contact with fresh herbs and spices. Use fresh herbs that have not been washed in food preparation. Use fresh herbs directly onto prepared food without further cooking. Keep track of how old the fresh herbs and spices you buy are. Store fresh spices in the refrigerator. Use fresh spices directly on to prepared food without further cooking. Store fresh herbs at room temperature. Discard visibly dirty fresh herbs. Use fresh spices that have not been washed in food preparation. Read the instructions on th e packaging of fresh herbs and spices before using them. Store fresh spices at room temperature. Use fresh herbs and spices in food preparation more than a week after purchasing. Purchase fresh herbs and spices that have been sitting out at room temperature. People have different levels of interest for learning about food safety. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree I want to know more about food safety in general. I want to know more about where I can get food safety information. I would like to know more about food safety issues related to fresh herbs and spices. I think it is important to communicate to others about the importance of food safety. Figure A-5. Questionnaire, Page 4

PAGE 93

93 Finally we want to ask you a few questions about yourse lf. You can be assured of complete confidentiality Your responses will be included only together with all other responses. Your name will never be associated with your answers. Are you? Male Female Please select which age range you fall under? 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 or over Do you live in a: City Suburb of a City Small Town Rural Area Do you have the following people in yo ur household? (check all that apply) Children under age 5 Elderly over age 65 A person who has had an organ transplant A person who has an immune disorder A person who has diabetes Which of best describes your racial or ethnic background? African American Asian Hispanic Native American Caucasian Other __________________________ What is the highest level of education you completed? Did not complete high school Completed high school Some college or post high school training Completed an associates/2 year degree Completed a college/4 year degree Completed graduate or professional training beyond a bachelors degree Which of the following categories best de scribes total household income in 2007? Under $29,999 $80,000 $89,999 $30,000 $39,999 $90,000 $99,999 $40,000 $49,999 $100,000 $125,000 $50,000 $59,999 $125,000 $150,000 $60,000 $69,999 $70,000 $79,999 $150,000 or more Figure A-5. Questionnaire, Page 5

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX B BIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED VARIABLES Table B-1. Descriptives for m eal preparation involvement by depe ndent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum I do not assist in food prep 56 57.3571 8.57147 1.14541 55.0617 59.6526 39.00 81.00 Rarely assist in food prep 277 61.8087 9.49692 .57061 60.6854 62.9320 29.00 88.00 Usually help with food prep 282 63.5816 8.92568 .53152 62.5353 64.6278 27.00 91.00 I prepare most meals 320 64.2688 9.85552 .55094 63.1848 65.3527 33.00 95.00 Total 935 62.9187 9.54454 .31214 62.3061 63.5313 27.00 95.00 Table B-2. Test of homogeneity of variances for meal prepar ation involvement by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.460 3 931 .061 Table B-3. ANOVA for meal preparation involvement by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2780.594 3 926.865 10.484 .000 Within Groups 82305.228 931 88.405 Total 85085.822 934

PAGE 95

95 Table B-4. Post hoc comparisons for meal prepar ation involvement by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval (I) q9 (J) q9 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Rarely assist in food prep -4.45152* 1.37761 .001 -7.1551 -1.7479 Usually help with food prep -6.22442* 1.37556 .000 -8.9240 -3.5249 I do not assist in food prep I prepare most meals -6.91161* 1.36196 .000 -9.5845 -4.2387 I do not assist in food prep 4.45152* 1.37761 .001 1.7479 7.1551 Usually help with food prep -1.77290* .79539 .026 -3.3339 -.2119 Rarely assist in food prep I prepare most meals -2.46009* .77163 .001 -3.9744 -.9457 I do not assist in food prep 6.22442* 1.37556 .000 3.5249 8.9240 Rarely assist in food prep 1.77290* .79539 .026 .2119 3.3339 Usually help with food prep I prepare most meals -.68719 .76796 .371 -2.1943 .8199 I do not assist in food prep 6.91161* 1.36196 .000 4.2387 9.5845 Rarely assist in food prep 2.46009* .77163 .001 .9457 3.9744 I prepare most meals Usually help with food prep .68719 .76796 .371 -.8199 2.1943 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level. Table B-5. Descriptives for gender by depende nt variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum male 374 60.6765 8.96192 .46341 59.7652 61.5877 29.00 93.00 female 574 64.3589 9.56981 .39944 63.5743 65.1434 27.00 95.00 Total 948 62.9061 9.50211 .30861 62.3005 63.5118 27.00 95.00 Table B-6. Test of homogeneity of variances for gender by depende nt variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 4.240 1 946 .040

PAGE 96

96 Table B-7. ANOVA for gender by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3070.722 1 3070.722 35.239 .000 Within Groups 82433.923 946 87.139 Total 85504.645 947 Table B-8. Descriptives for geogr aphic location by dependent variab le in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum city 539 63.2059 9.54875 .41129 62.3980 64.0139 27.00 95.00 suburb 219 61.9909 9.48973 .64126 60.7270 63.2547 29.00 88.00 small town 179 63.0279 9.36191 .69974 61.6471 64.4088 29.00 87.00 rural area 16 63.1875 10.53387 2.63347 57.5744 68.8006 39.00 80.00 Total 953 62.8930 9.51486 .30822 62.2881 63.4978 27.00 95.00 Table B-9. Test of homogeneity of variances for geographic locat ion by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .160 3 949 .923 Table B-10. ANOVA for geographic location by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 235.662 3 78.554 .867 .458 Within Groups 85951.421 949 90.571 Total 86187.083 952

PAGE 97

97 Table B-11. Post hoc comparisons for geographic lo cation by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval (I) q62 (J) q62 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound suburb 1.21507 .76263 .111 -.2816 2.7117 small town .17800 .82098 .828 -1.4332 1.7892 city rural area .01844 2.41427 .994 -4.7195 4.7564 city -1.21507 .76263 .111 -2.7117 .2816 small town -1.03707 .95893 .280 -2.9189 .8448 suburb rural area -1.19663 2.46459 .627 -6.0333 3.6401 city -.17800 .82098 .828 -1.7892 1.4332 suburb 1.03707 .95893 .280 -.8448 2.9189 small town rural area -.15957 2.48327 .949 -5.0329 4.7138 city -.01844 2.41427 .994 -4.7564 4.7195 suburb 1.19663 2.46459 .627 -3.6401 6.0333 rural area small town .15957 2.48327 .949 -4.7138 5.0329 Table B-12. Descriptives for race by depende nt variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum other 43 64.0000 9.74679 1.48637 61.0004 66.9996 39.00 83.00 African American 134 65.3284 10.63953 .91912 63.5104 67.1463 29.00 90.00 Asian 98 62.7143 8.63462 .87223 60.9832 64.4454 29.00 87.00 Hispanic 119 64.3782 9.82990 .90111 62.5937 66.1626 46.00 95.00 Native American 3 59.3333 2.88675 1.66667 52.1622 66.5044 56.00 61.00 Caucasian 555 61.8775 9.15645 .38867 61.1140 62.6409 27.00 91.00 Total 952 62.8498 9.50209 .30796 62.2454 63.4542 27.00 95.00 Table B-13. Test of homogeneity of variances for race by depende nt variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.683 5 946 .020

PAGE 98

98 Table B-14. ANOVA for race by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1721.649 5 344.330 3.871 .002 Within Groups 84143.871 946 88.947 Total 85865.520 951 Table B-15. Descriptives for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 435 61.4897 9.74262 .46712 60.5716 62.4078 27.00 91.00 Once per month 305 63.0033 8.84609 .50653 62.0065 64.0000 29.00 85.00 Once per week 148 65.2297 9.30518 .76488 63.7181 66.7413 46.00 87.00 2-3 days per week 45 68.3333 10.13993 1.51157 65.2870 71.3797 52.00 95.00 4-7 days per week 18 61.3333 7.49902 1.76754 57.6042 65.0625 51.00 74.00 Total 951 62.8780 9.52757 .30895 62.2717 63.4843 27.00 95.00 Table B-16. Test of homogeneity of variances for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .285 4 946 .888 Table B-17. ANOVA for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variab le in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3043.961 4 760.990 8.653 .000 Within Groups 83191.889 946 87.941 Total 86235.851 950

PAGE 99

99 Table B-18. Post hoc comparison for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval (I) q11 (J) q11 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Once per month -1.51362* .70035 .031 -2.8880 -.1392 Once per week -3.74007* .89239 .000 -5.4914 -1.9888 2-3 days per week -6.84368* 1.46847 .000 -9.7255 -3.9618 Never 4-7 days per week .15632 2.25561 .945 -4.2702 4.5829 Never 1.51362* .70035 .031 .1392 2.8880 Once per week -2.22645* .93943 .018 -4.0701 -.3828 2-3 days per week -5.33005* 1.49752 .000 -8.2689 -2.3912 Once per month 4-7 days per week 1.66995 2.27463 .463 -2.7940 6.1338 Never 3.74007* .89239 .000 1.9888 5.4914 Once per month 2.22645* .93943 .018 .3828 4.0701 2-3 days per week -3.10360 1.59638 .052 -6.2365 .0293 Once per week 4-7 days per week 3.89640 2.34089 .096 -.6976 8.4903 Never 6.84368* 1.46847 .000 3.9618 9.7255 Once per month 5.33005* 1.49752 .000 2.3912 8.2689 Once per week 3.10360 1.59638 .052 -.0293 6.2365 2-3 days per week 4-7 days per week 7.00000* 2.61531 .008 1.8675 12.1325 Never -.15632 2.25561 .945 -4.5829 4.2702 Once per month -1.66995 2.27463 .463 -6.1338 2.7940 Once per week -3.89640 2.34089 .096 -8.4903 .6976 4-7 days per week 2-3 days per week -7.00000* 2.61531 .008 -12.1325 -1.8675 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level. Table B-19. Descriptives for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 481 61.7963 9.79839 .44677 60.9184 62.6741 27.00 91.00 Once per month 331 63.5619 8.81347 .48443 62.6090 64.5149 29.00 86.00 Once per week 101 64.3960 9.26291 .92169 62.5674 66.2247 46.00 86.00 2-3 days per week 26 69.6538 11.29581 2.21529 65.0914 74.2163 52.00 95.00 4-7 days per week 13 60.8462 6.78044 1.88056 56.7488 64.9435 51.00 74.00 Total 952 62.8876 9.52262 .30863 62.2819 63.4933 27.00 95.00 Table B-20. Test of homogeneity of variances for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .703 4 947 .590

PAGE 100

100 Table B-21. ANOVA for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2197.725 4 549.431 6.191 .000 Within Groups 84039.249 947 88.743 Total 86236.974 951 Table B-22. Post hoc comparisons for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval (I) q12 (J) q12 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Once per month -1.76568* .67276 .009 -3.0859 -.4454 Once per week -2.59978* 1.03108 .012 -4.6233 -.5763 2-3 days per week -7.85759* 1.89675 .000 -11.5799 -4.1353 Never 4-7 days per week .95010 2.64780 .720 -4.2461 6.1463 Never 1.76568* .67276 .009 .4454 3.0859 Once per week -.83411 1.07086 .436 -2.9356 1.2674 2-3 days per week -6.09191* 1.91867 .002 -9.8572 -2.3266 Once per month 4-7 days per week 2.71578 2.66354 .308 -2.5113 7.9429 Never 2.59978* 1.03108 .012 .5763 4.6233 Once per month .83411 1.07086 .436 -1.2674 2.9356 2-3 days per week -5.25781* 2.07167 .011 -9.3234 -1.1922 Once per week 4-7 days per week 3.54989 2.77579 .201 -1.8975 8.9973 Never 7.85759* 1.89675 .000 4.1353 11.5799 Once per month 6.09191* 1.91867 .002 2.3266 9.8572 Once per week 5.25781* 2.07167 .011 1.1922 9.3234 2-3 days per week 4-7 days per week 8.80769* 3.19993 .006 2.5279 15.0875 Never -.95010 2.64780 .720 -6.1463 4.2461 Once per month -2.71578 2.66354 .308 -7.9429 2.5113 Once per week -3.54989 2.77579 .201 -8.9973 1.8975 4-7 days per week 2-3 days per week -8.80769* 3.19993 .006 -15.0875 -2.5279 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 101

101 Table B-23. Descriptives for fresh herb use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 346 61.4827 10.14309 .54530 60.4101 62.5552 27.00 90.00 Once per month 263 62.6882 8.29201 .51131 61.6814 63.6950 29.00 85.00 Once per week 172 63.3837 9.01872 .68767 62.0263 64.7411 44.00 91.00 2-3 days per week 120 65.9417 9.99941 .91282 64.1342 67.7491 29.00 95.00 4-7 days per week 52 64.5577 9.79278 1.35801 61.8314 67.2840 46.00 87.00 Total 953 62.8877 9.51596 .30825 62.2828 63.4927 27.00 95.00 Table B-24. Test of homogeneity of variances for fresh herb use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.468 4 948 .043 Table B-25. ANOVA for fresh herb use in food prepar ation by dependent vari able in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2000.064 4 500.016 5.629 .000 Within Groups 84206.922 948 88.826 Total 86206.986 952 Table B-26. Descriptives for fresh spice use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 365 61.5918 9.83129 .51459 60.5798 62.6037 33.00 90.00 Once per month 246 63.0122 8.82551 .56269 61.9039 64.1205 27.00 85.00 Once per week 162 63.4938 8.85792 .69594 62.1195 64.8682 44.00 91.00 2-3 days per week 118 64.8305 10.27844 .94621 62.9566 66.7044 29.00 95.00 4-7 days per week 61 64.8361 9.60760 1.23013 62.3754 67.2967 46.00 87.00 Total 952 62.8918 9.51781 .30847 62.2864 63.4972 27.00 95.00 Table B-27. Test of homogeneity of variances for fresh spi ce use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.316 4 947 .262

PAGE 102

102 Table B-28. ANOVA for fresh spice us e in food preparation by depende nt variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1353.253 4 338.313 3.778 .005 Within Groups 84796.603 947 89.542 Total 86149.856 951 Table B-29. Post hoc comparisons for fresh spice use in food preparation by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval (I) q14 (J) q14 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Once per month -1.42041 .78059 .069 -2.9523 .1115 Once per week -1.90205* .89334 .033 -3.6552 -.1489 2-3 days per week -3.23873* 1.00208 .001 -5.2053 -1.2722 Never 4-7 days per week -3.24428* 1.30890 .013 -5.8130 -.6756 Never 1.42041 .78059 .069 -.1115 2.9523 Once per week -.48163 .95746 .615 -2.3606 1.3974 2-3 days per week -1.81831 1.05964 .086 -3.8978 .2612 Once per month 4-7 days per week -1.82387 1.35348 .178 -4.4800 .8323 Never 1.90205* .89334 .033 .1489 3.6552 Once per month .48163 .95746 .615 -1.3974 2.3606 2-3 days per week -1.33668 1.14524 .243 -3.5842 .9108 Once per week 4-7 days per week -1.34224 1.42149 .345 -4.1319 1.4474 Never 3.23873* 1.00208 .001 1.2722 5.2053 Once per month 1.81831 1.05964 .086 -.2612 3.8978 Once per week 1.33668 1.14524 .243 -.9108 3.5842 2-3 days per week 4-7 days per week -.00556 1.49223 .997 -2.9340 2.9229 Never 3.24428* 1.30890 .013 .6756 5.8130 Once per month 1.82387 1.35348 .178 -.8323 4.4800 Once per week 1.34224 1.42149 .345 -1.4474 4.1319 4-7 days per week 2-3 days per week .00556 1.49223 .997 -2.9229 2.9340 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 103

103 Table B-30. Descriptives for vari able 1 (hand washing before ha ndling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 31 60.5161 8.40980 1.51044 57.4314 63.6009 50.00 85.00 2 15 59.6000 7.17934 1.85370 55.6242 63.5758 48.00 74.00 Neutral 20 58.7500 6.94243 1.55238 55.5008 61.9992 51.00 76.00 4 138 59.0652 7.76780 .66124 57.7577 60.3728 33.00 79.00 Strongly Agree 752 63.8404 9.71942 .35443 63.1446 64.5362 27.00 95.00 Total 956 62.8703 9.50877 .30754 62.2668 63.4738 27.00 95.00 Table B-31. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 1 (ha nd washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 4.766 4 951 .001 Table B-32. ANOVA for variable 1 (hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3377.560 4 844.390 9.678 .000 Within Groups 82970.356 951 87.245 Total 86347.916 955 Table B-33. Descriptives for vari able 2 (raw meat should always be kept separated from readyto-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 38 61.8947 8.65804 1.40452 59.0489 64.7406 50.00 85.00 2 10 57.5000 6.31137 1.99583 52.9851 62.0149 48.00 71.00 Neutral 38 55.8947 7.91437 1.28388 53.2933 58.4961 29.00 69.00 4 106 60.1415 7.85759 .76320 58.6282 61.6548 36.00 81.00 Strongly Agree 764 63.7147 9.64017 .34877 63.0300 64.3993 27.00 95.00 Total 956 62.8703 9.50877 .30754 62.2668 63.4738 27.00 95.00

PAGE 104

104 Table B-34. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 2 (raw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 4.003 4 951 .003 Table B-35. ANOVA for variable 2 (r aw meat should always be kept separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3507.585 4 876.896 10.067 .000 Within Groups 82840.331 951 87.109 Total 86347.916 955 Table B-36. Descriptives for va riable 3 (proper cooking temper atures are essential for food safety) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 32 60.9062 8.62614 1.52490 57.7962 64.0163 50.00 85.00 2 7 60.0000 5.22813 1.97605 55.1648 64.8352 53.00 67.00 Neutral 40 58.5750 8.40905 1.32959 55.8857 61.2643 29.00 79.00 4 148 59.8243 8.53382 .70148 58.4380 61.2106 36.00 82.00 Strongly Agree 728 63.8434 9.63032 .35692 63.1427 64.5441 27.00 95.00 Total 955 62.8733 9.51330 .30784 62.2692 63.4774 27.00 95.00 Table B-37. Test of homogeneity of variances variab le 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential for food safety) for basic food sa fety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.864 4 950 .022 Table B-38. ANOVA for variable 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential for food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in th e college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2981.595 4 745.399 8.495 .000 Within Groups 83358.075 950 87.745 Total 86339.669 954

PAGE 105

105 Table B-39. Descriptives for vari able 4 (improper food storage ma y cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent va riable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 32 60.5938 8.91486 1.57594 57.3796 63.8079 48.00 85.00 2 14 55.4286 8.69761 2.32453 50.4067 60.4504 29.00 66.00 Neutral 24 58.4167 7.97778 1.62846 55.0479 61.7854 46.00 75.00 4 152 60.2566 8.45361 .68568 58.9018 61.6113 36.00 87.00 Strongly Agree 732 63.8019 9.59439 .35462 63.1057 64.4981 27.00 95.00 Total 954 62.8711 9.50414 .30771 62.2672 63.4749 27.00 95.00 Table B-40. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 4 (imp roper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.409 4 949 .048 Table B-41. ANOVA for variable 4 (improper food storage may ca use a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent va riable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3090.890 4 772.723 8.836 .000 Within Groups 82992.251 949 87.452 Total 86083.142 953 Table B-42. Descriptives for variab le 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 29 60.3103 11.07153 2.05593 56.0990 64.5217 27.00 85.00 2 29 59.3448 9.39329 1.74429 55.7718 62.9178 29.00 76.00 Neutral 75 58.4667 7.21173 .83274 56.8074 60.1259 39.00 85.00 4 246 61.7602 8.74884 .55781 60.6615 62.8589 33.00 87.00 Strongly Agree 577 64.2218 9.72554 .40488 63.4266 65.0171 29.00 95.00 Total 956 62.8703 9.50877 .30754 62.2668 63.4738 27.00 95.00 Table B-43. Test of homogeneity of variances variable 5 (perishabl e foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) for basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 4.101 4 951 .003

PAGE 106

106 Table B-44. ANOVA for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3362.037 4 840.509 9.632 .000 Within Groups 82985.880 951 87.262 Total 86347.916 955 Table B-45. Descriptives for vari able 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 31 61.2258 8.37341 1.50391 58.1544 64.2972 50.00 85.00 2 15 58.2667 6.20445 1.60198 54.8308 61.7026 48.00 72.00 Neutral 27 56.0000 6.82191 1.31288 53.3013 58.6987 36.00 69.00 4 102 58.0588 7.64280 .75675 56.5576 59.5600 29.00 81.00 Strongly Agree 780 63.8769 9.59007 .34338 63.2029 64.5510 27.00 95.00 Total 955 62.8586 9.50692 .30764 62.2549 63.4624 27.00 95.00 Table B-46. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 5.749 4 950 .000 Table B-47. ANOVA for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4827.732 4 1206.933 14.086 .000 Within Groups 81396.184 950 85.680 Total 86223.916 954

PAGE 107

107 Table B-48. Descriptives for vari able 7 (leftovers should be di scarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 33 56.8485 10.79387 1.87897 53.0211 60.6758 27.00 85.00 2 73 59.5890 8.92692 1.04482 57.5062 61.6718 36.00 77.00 Neutral 196 61.0000 8.82014 .63001 59.7575 62.2425 29.00 82.00 4 257 62.8288 8.27705 .51631 61.8120 63.8455 42.00 87.00 Strongly Agree 393 64.9313 10.06473 .50770 63.9331 65.9295 33.00 95.00 Total 952 62.8645 9.52177 .30860 62.2589 63.4701 27.00 95.00 Table B-49. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 7 (left overs should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by depe ndent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.749 4 947 .005 Table B-50. ANOVA for variable 7 (l eftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4337.994 4 1084.499 12.542 .000 Within Groups 81883.526 947 86.466 Total 86221.520 951 Table B-51. Descriptives for variab le 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1 237 62.6962 10.07012 .65412 61.4075 63.9849 29.00 95.00 2 345 63.3275 9.36750 .50433 62.3356 64.3195 27.00 91.00 3 239 62.8912 9.04916 .58534 61.7381 64.0443 39.00 87.00 4 79 63.1899 10.61213 1.19396 60.8129 65.5669 29.00 87.00 5 54 60.2778 8.07843 1.09933 58.0728 62.4828 44.00 84.00 Total 954 62.8774 9.51613 .30810 62.2727 63.4820 27.00 95.00 Table B-52. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safe ty knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.052 4 949 .379

PAGE 108

108 Table B-53. ANOVA for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the college population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 450.379 4 112.595 1.245 .290 Within Groups 85850.272 949 90.464 Total 86300.651 953 Table B-54. Descriptives for meal preparation involvement by depe ndent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum I do not assit in food prep 11 63.5455 9.87283 2.97677 56.9128 70.1781 51.00 79.00 Rarely assist in food prep 15 63.6000 10.47991 2.70590 57.7964 69.4036 49.00 86.00 Usually help with food prep 44 67.5455 9.62181 1.45054 64.6202 70.4708 53.00 87.00 I prepare most meals 311 68.8071 10.89901 .61803 67.5910 70.0231 5.00 95.00 Total 381 68.3045 10.76088 .55130 67.2205 69.3884 5.00 95.00 Table B-55. Test of homogeneity of variances for meal prepar ation involvement by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .257 3 377 .857 Table B-56. ANOVA for meal preparation involvement by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 685.022 3 228.341 1.987 .115 Within Groups 43317.661 377 114.901 Total 44002.682 380 Table B-57. Descriptives for gender by depe ndent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum male 110 66.3000 10.22279 .97471 64.3682 68.2318 46.00 89.00 female 270 69.2185 10.91367 .66418 67.9109 70.5262 5.00 95.00 Total 380 68.3737 10.78660 .55334 67.2857 69.4617 5.00 95.00

PAGE 109

109 Table B-58. Test of homogeneity of variances for gender by depende nt variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .239 1 378 .625 Table B-59. ANOVA for gender by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 665.729 1 665.729 5.794 .017 Within Groups 43431.207 378 114.897 Total 44096.937 379 Table B-60. Descriptives for age by depende nt variable in th e general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 18-24 20 62.9000 6.92744 1.54902 59.6579 66.1421 53.00 77.00 25-39 98 67.2449 11.13373 1.12468 65.0127 69.4771 5.00 95.00 40-59 179 68.6872 10.87479 .81282 67.0831 70.2912 43.00 93.00 60 or over 85 70.1176 10.35146 1.12277 67.8849 72.3504 50.00 93.00 Total 382 68.3325 10.74481 .54975 67.2515 69.4134 5.00 95.00 Table B-61. Test of homogeneity of variances for age by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.948 3 378 .033 Table B-62. ANOVA for age by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 999.551 3 333.184 2.930 .034 Within Groups 42987.226 378 113.723 Total 43986.777 381 Table B-63. Descriptives for geographic location by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum city 94 66.8830 10.26200 1.05844 64.7811 68.9848 49.00 91.00 suburb 192 68.0938 11.12431 .80283 66.5102 69.6773 5.00 95.00 small town 50 69.9000 10.40457 1.47143 66.9431 72.8569 48.00 93.00 rural area 48 70.5417 10.31619 1.48901 67.5462 73.5372 51.00 93.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00

PAGE 110

110 Table B-64. Test of homogeneity of variances for geographic locat ion by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .244 3 380 .866 Table B-65. ANOVA for geographic location by dependent variable in the gene ral population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 565.548 3 188.516 1.638 .180 Within Groups 43736.442 380 115.096 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-66. Descriptives for race by depende nt variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 'other' 11 67.9091 12.91863 3.89511 59.2302 76.5879 54.00 89.00 African American 13 64.3846 10.06262 2.79087 58.3038 70.4654 50.00 79.00 Asian 9 65.1111 8.40304 2.80101 58.6520 71.5703 56.00 81.00 Hispanic 25 67.9200 9.10549 1.82110 64.1614 71.6786 54.00 89.00 Caucasian 326 68.6319 10.88850 .60306 67.4455 69.8183 5.00 95.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-67. Test of homogeneity of variances for race by depende nt variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .854 4 379 .491 Table B-68. ANOVA for race by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 331.446 4 82.862 .714 .583 Within Groups 43970.543 379 116.017 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-69. Descriptives for education by de pendent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum High School or less 88 67.8295 10.79082 1.15031 65.5432 70.1159 43.00 87.00 Some College 119 69.6050 12.05371 1.10496 67.4169 71.7932 5.00 95.00 College Graduate or more 174 67.8276 9.78108 .74150 66.3640 69.2911 46.00 89.00 Total 381 68.3832 10.77082 .55181 67.2982 69.4682 5.00 95.00

PAGE 111

111 Table B-70. Test of homogeneity of variances for education by depe ndent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.647 2 378 .194 Table B-71. ANOVA for educati on by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 258.345 2 129.172 1.114 .329 Within Groups 43825.708 378 115.941 Total 44084.052 380 Table B-72. Descriptives for income by depe ndent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1 81 67.5679 10.87766 1.20863 65.1627 69.9731 49.00 93.00 2 112 68.5893 12.13554 1.14670 66.3170 70.8615 5.00 95.00 3 126 68.2381 9.78115 .87137 66.5135 69.9627 43.00 89.00 4 65 69.0615 10.03101 1.24419 66.5760 71.5471 48.00 91.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-73. Test of homogeneity of variances for income by depende nt variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.030 3 380 .379 Table B-74. ANOVA for income by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 90.395 3 30.132 .259 .855 Within Groups 44211.595 380 116.346 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-75. Descriptives for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 84 65.1667 13.18344 1.43843 62.3057 68.0276 5.00 95.00 Once per month 127 67.9134 9.70029 .86076 66.2100 69.6168 43.00 93.00 Once per week 102 72.0000 9.54614 .94521 70.1250 73.8750 54.00 93.00 2-3 days per week 31 67.2258 10.56002 1.89664 63.3524 71.0993 46.00 88.00 4-7 days per week 38 67.5263 9.11114 1.47802 64.5316 70.5211 54.00 89.00 Total 382 68.3063 10.77096 .55109 67.2227 69.3898 5.00 95.00

PAGE 112

112 Table B-76. Test of homogeneity of variances for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.701 4 377 .030 Table B-77. ANOVA for purchase of fresh herbs by dependent variab le in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2298.558 4 574.639 5.170 .000 Within Groups 41902.607 377 111.147 Total 44201.165 381 Table B-78. Descriptives for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 107 67.0374 12.50579 1.20898 64.6405 69.4343 5.00 95.00 Once per month 151 67.5762 9.49206 .77245 66.0499 69.1025 43.00 87.00 Once per week 74 73.2703 10.11346 1.17567 70.9272 75.6134 54.00 93.00 2-3 days per week 19 63.3158 8.67341 1.98982 59.1353 67.4962 46.00 80.00 4-7 days per week 33 67.8788 9.40996 1.63806 64.5422 71.2154 54.00 89.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-79. Test of homogeneity of variances for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.322 4 379 .056 Table B-80. ANOVA for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2555.050 4 638.762 5.799 .000 Within Groups 41746.940 379 110.150 Total 44301.990 383

PAGE 113

113 Table B-81. Post hoc comparisons for purchase of fresh spices by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q12 (J) Q12 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Once per month -.53878 1.32624 .685 -3.1465 2.0689 Once per week -6.23289* 1.58681 .000 -9.3529 -3.1128 2-3 days per week 3.72159 2.61282 .155 -1.4158 8.8590 Never 4-7 days per week -.84140 2.08982 .687 -4.9505 3.2677 Never .53878 1.32624 .685 -2.0689 3.1465 Once per week -5.69411* 1.48929 .000 -8.6224 -2.7658 2-3 days per week 4.26037 2.55477 .096 -.7629 9.2837 Once per month 4-7 days per week -.30263 2.01677 .881 -4.2681 3.6628 Never 6.23289* 1.58681 .000 3.1128 9.3529 Once per month 5.69411* 1.48929 .000 2.7658 8.6224 2-3 days per week 9.95448* 2.69924 .000 4.6471 15.2618 Once per week 4-7 days per week 5.39148* 2.19691 .015 1.0718 9.7111 Never -3.72159 2.61282 .155 -8.8590 1.4158 Once per month -4.26037 2.55477 .096 -9.2837 .7629 Once per week -9.95448* 2.69924 .000 -15.2618 -4.6471 2-3 days per week 4-7 days per week -4.56300 3.02246 .132 -10.5059 1.3799 Never .84140 2.08982 .687 -3.2677 4.9505 Once per month .30263 2.01677 .881 -3.6628 4.2681 Once per week -5.39148* 2.19691 .015 -9.7111 -1.0718 4-7 days per week 2-3 days per week 4.56300 3.02246 .132 -1.3799 10.5059 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level. Table B-82. Descriptives for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 75 64.7200 13.23341 1.52806 61.6753 67.7647 5.00 95.00 Once per month 73 67.9589 10.20136 1.19398 65.5788 70.3391 49.00 93.00 Once per week 64 69.5000 9.50522 1.18815 67.1257 71.8743 54.00 93.00 2-3 days per week 99 68.6768 10.17282 1.02241 66.6478 70.7057 43.00 91.00 4-7 days per week 72 71.1111 9.42211 1.11041 68.8970 73.3252 56.00 89.00 Total 383 68.3603 10.76064 .54984 67.2792 69.4414 5.00 95.00 Table B-83. Test of homogeneity of variances for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.808 4 378 .127

PAGE 114

114 Table B-84. ANOVA for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1643.512 4 410.878 3.647 .006 Within Groups 42588.764 378 112.669 Total 44232.277 382 Table B-85. Post hoc comparisons for use of fresh herbs in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q13 (J) Q13 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Once per month -3.23890 1.74518 .064 -6.6704 .1926 Once per week -4.78000* 1.80629 .008 -8.3316 -1.2284 2-3 days per week -3.95677* 1.62491 .015 -7.1518 -.7618 Never 4-7 days per week -6.39111* 1.75131 .000 -9.8346 -2.9476 Never 3.23890 1.74518 .064 -.1926 6.6704 Once per week -1.54110 1.81765 .397 -5.1151 2.0329 2-3 days per week -.71786 1.63752 .661 -3.9377 2.5019 Once per month 4-7 days per week -3.15221 1.76302 .075 -6.6188 .3144 Never 4.78000* 1.80629 .008 1.2284 8.3316 Once per month 1.54110 1.81765 .397 -2.0329 5.1151 2-3 days per week .82323 1.70250 .629 -2.5243 4.1708 Once per week 4-7 days per week -1.61111 1.82354 .378 -5.1967 1.9744 Never 3.95677* 1.62491 .015 .7618 7.1518 Once per month .71786 1.63752 .661 -2.5019 3.9377 Once per week -.82323 1.70250 .629 -4.1708 2.5243 2-3 days per week 4-7 days per week -2.43434 1.64405 .140 -5.6670 .7983 Never 6.39111* 1.75131 .000 2.9476 9.8346 Once per month 3.15221 1.76302 .075 -.3144 6.6188 Once per week 1.61111 1.82354 .378 -1.9744 5.1967 4-7 days per week 2-3 days per week 2.43434 1.64405 .140 -.7983 5.6670 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 115

115 Table B-86. Descriptives for use of fresh spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Never 99 66.8283 12.54221 1.26054 64.3268 69.3298 5.00 95.00 Once per month 68 66.2353 9.77374 1.18524 63.8695 68.6010 43.00 87.00 Once per week 59 69.5593 9.15625 1.19204 67.1732 71.9455 54.00 93.00 2-3 days per week 81 68.8148 10.90196 1.21133 66.4042 71.2254 46.00 91.00 4-7 days per week 77 70.7013 9.63282 1.09776 68.5149 72.8877 53.00 89.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-87. Test of homogeneity of variances for use of fresh spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.831 4 379 .122 Table B-88. ANOVA for use of fres h spices in food preparation by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1062.779 4 265.695 2.329 .056 Within Groups 43239.211 379 114.088 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-89. Descriptives for vari able 1 (hand washing before ha ndling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 13 63.6923 9.02205 2.50227 58.2403 69.1443 46.00 79.00 2 2 67.0000 12.72792 9.00000 -47.3558 181.3558 58.00 76.00 Neutral 4 59.2500 10.53170 5.26585 42.4917 76.0083 49.00 74.00 4 25 64.3600 7.49378 1.49876 61.2667 67.4533 55.00 83.00 Strongly Agree 340 68.9235 10.91074 .59172 67.7596 70.0874 5.00 95.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-90. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 1 (ha nd washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.698 4 379 .150

PAGE 116

116 Table B-91. ANOVA for variable 1 (hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1126.699 4 281.675 2.473 .044 Within Groups 43175.291 379 113.919 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-92. Post hoc comparison for variable 1 (hand washing before handling food can reduce the risk of contamination) basic food sa fety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q1 (J) Q1 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -3.30769 8.10694 .683 -19.2479 12.6325 Neutral 4.44231 6.10268 .467 -7.5571 16.4417 4 -.66769 3.64962 .855 -7.8437 6.5084 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree -5.23122 3.01630 .084 -11.1620 .6996 Strongly Disagree 3.30769 8.10694 .683 -12.6325 19.2479 Neutral 7.75000 9.24333 .402 -10.4246 25.9246 4 2.64000 7.84323 .737 -12.7817 18.0617 2 Strongly Agree -1.92353 7.56932 .800 -16.8066 12.9596 Strongly Disagree -4.44231 6.10268 .467 -16.4417 7.5571 2 -7.75000 9.24333 .402 -25.9246 10.4246 4 -5.11000 5.74774 .375 -16.4115 6.1915 Neutral Strongly Agree -9.67353 5.36794 .072 -20.2282 .8811 Strongly Disagree .66769 3.64962 .855 -6.5084 7.8437 2 -2.64000 7.84323 .737 -18.0617 12.7817 Neutral 5.11000 5.74774 .375 -6.1915 16.4115 4 Strongly Agree -4.56353* 2.21174 .040 -8.9124 -.2147 Strongly Disagree 5.23122 3.01630 .084 -.6996 11.1620 2 1.92353 7.56932 .800 -12.9596 16.8066 Neutral 9.67353 5.36794 .072 -.8811 20.2282 Strongly Agree 4 4.56353* 2.21174 .040 .2147 8.9124 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 117

117 Table B-93. Descriptives for variab le 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1 14 63.3571 8.90641 2.38034 58.2147 68.4996 46.00 79.00 2 20 64.2500 8.78321 1.96398 60.1393 68.3607 51.00 81.00 3 27 60.6296 7.78632 1.49848 57.5495 63.7098 46.00 81.00 4 323 69.4520 10.79769 .60080 68.2700 70.6340 5.00 95.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-94. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.171 3 380 .091 Table B-95. ANOVA for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic food safety knowledge by depende nt variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2686.723 3 895.574 8.178 .000 Within Groups 41615.267 380 109.514 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-96. Post hoc comparison for variable 2 (raw meat should always be separated from ready-to-eat foods) basic f ood safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q2RECODE (J) Q2RECODE Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.89286 3.64666 .807 -8.0630 6.2773 3 2.72751 3.44652 .429 -4.0491 9.5041 1 4 -6.09487* 2.85683 .034 -11.7120 -.4777 1 .89286 3.64666 .807 -6.2773 8.0630 3 3.62037 3.08736 .242 -2.4501 9.6908 2 4 -5.20201* 2.41138 .032 -9.9433 -.4607 1 -2.72751 3.44652 .429 -9.5041 4.0491 2 -3.62037 3.08736 .242 -9.6908 2.4501 3 4 -8.82238* 2.09645 .000 -12.9445 -4.7003 1 6.09487* 2.85683 .034 .4777 11.7120 2 5.20201* 2.41138 .032 .4607 9.9433 4 3 8.82238* 2.09645 .000 4.7003 12.9445 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 118

118 Table B-97. Descriptives for variab le 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in th e general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 14 64.2143 9.43136 2.52064 58.7688 69.6598 46.00 79.00 2 1 63.0000 . 63.00 63.00 Neutral 7 59.2857 5.61885 2.12372 54.0891 64.4823 51.00 69.00 4 35 63.0857 7.10994 1.20180 60.6434 65.5281 49.00 83.00 Strongly Agree 326 69.2638 10.96530 .60731 68.0690 70.4586 5.00 95.00 Total 383 68.3159 10.75997 .54981 67.2349 69.3970 5.00 95.00 Table B-98. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 3 (pr oper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 4.589a 3 378 .004 a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the test of homogeneity of variance for Behavior. Table B-99. ANOVA for variable 3 (proper cooking temperatures are essential to food safety) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in th e general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2084.931 4 521.233 4.675 .001 Within Groups 42141.841 378 111.486 Total 44226.773 382 Table B-100. Descriptives for variable 4 (imp roper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in th e general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 13 64.3846 9.94601 2.75853 58.3743 70.3949 46.00 79.00 2 3 62.3333 2.08167 1.20185 57.1622 67.5045 60.00 64.00 Neutral 11 62.6364 9.26577 2.79374 56.4115 68.8612 54.00 81.00 4 36 62.7778 6.83734 1.13956 60.4644 65.0912 49.00 80.00 Strongly Agree 321 69.3738 10.96659 .61210 68.1696 70.5781 5.00 95.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00

PAGE 119

119 Table B-101. Test of homogeneity of variances fo r variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.859 4 379 .004 Table B-102. ANOVA for variable 4 (improper food storage may cause a health hazard) basic food safety knowledge by dependent va riable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2126.338 4 531.585 4.777 .001 Within Groups 42175.651 379 111.281 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-103. Descriptives for variable 5 (peris hable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 18 66.3889 11.03011 2.59982 60.9037 71.8740 46.00 89.00 2 5 63.2000 5.44977 2.43721 56.4332 69.9668 56.00 69.00 Neutral 17 65.0588 8.31016 2.01551 60.7861 69.3315 51.00 78.00 4 62 61.8548 10.90773 1.38528 59.0848 64.6249 5.00 84.00 Strongly Agree 280 70.1750 10.29048 .61497 68.9644 71.3856 43.00 95.00 Total 382 68.3272 10.74985 .55001 67.2458 69.4087 5.00 95.00 Table B-104. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.740 4 377 .140 Table B-105. ANOVA for variable 5 (perishable foods should be re frigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3933.959 4 983.490 9.248 .000 Within Groups 40094.138 377 106.350 Total 44028.097 381

PAGE 120

120 Table B-106. Post hoc comparisons for variable 5 (perishable foods should be refrigerated within 2 hours of purchase) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q5 (J) Q5 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 3.18889 5.21330 .541 -7.0619 13.4397 Neutral 1.33007 3.48773 .703 -5.5278 8.1879 4 4.53405 2.76110 .101 -.8950 9.9631 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree -3.78611 2.50763 .132 -8.7168 1.1446 Strongly Disagree -3.18889 5.21330 .541 -13.4397 7.0619 Neutral -1.85882 5.24652 .723 -12.1749 8.4573 4 1.34516 4.79431 .779 -8.0818 10.7721 2 Strongly Agree -6.97500 4.65295 .135 -16.1240 2.1740 Strongly Disagree -1.33007 3.48773 .703 -8.1879 5.5278 2 1.85882 5.24652 .723 -8.4573 12.1749 4 3.20398 2.82334 .257 -2.3475 8.7554 Neutral Strongly Agree -5.11618* 2.57599 .048 -10.1813 -.0511 Strongly Disagree -4.53405 2.76110 .101 -9.9631 .8950 2 -1.34516 4.79431 .779 -10.7721 8.0818 Neutral -3.20398 2.82334 .257 -8.7554 2.3475 4 Strongly Agree -8.32016* 1.44746 .000 -11.1663 -5.4740 Strongly Disagree 3.78611 2.50763 .132 -1.1446 8.7168 2 6.97500 4.65295 .135 -2.1740 16.1240 Neutral 5.11618* 2.57599 .048 .0511 10.1813 Strongly Agree 4 8.32016* 1.44746 .000 5.4740 11.1663 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level. Table B-107. Descriptives for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 15 64.1333 9.09369 2.34798 59.0974 69.1693 46.00 79.00 2 2 60.0000 .00000 .00000 60.0000 60.0000 60.00 60.00 Neutral 8 60.1250 6.55608 2.31792 54.6440 65.6060 51.00 71.00 4 21 60.8095 5.98848 1.30679 58.0836 63.5354 51.00 72.00 Strongly Agree 335 69.2537 10.88556 .59474 68.0838 70.4236 5.00 95.00 Total 381 68.3465 10.78111 .55233 67.2604 69.4325 5.00 95.00

PAGE 121

121 Table B-108. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.729 4 376 .005 Table B-109. ANOVA for variable 6 (countertops should always be washed after coming in contact with raw meat) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2414.988 4 603.747 5.437 .000 Within Groups 41753.279 376 111.046 Total 44168.268 380 Table B-110. Descriptives for variable 7 (leftove rs should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 8 66.6250 12.11773 4.28426 56.4943 76.7557 53.00 89.00 2 20 64.3000 6.76757 1.51327 61.1327 67.4673 51.00 79.00 Neutral 57 65.7544 9.12078 1.20808 63.3343 68.1745 50.00 84.00 4 79 65.9367 11.84011 1.33212 63.2847 68.5887 5.00 86.00 Strongly Agree 218 70.3211 10.64845 .72120 68.8996 71.7426 43.00 95.00 Total 382 68.3403 10.76347 .55071 67.2575 69.4231 5.00 95.00 Table B-111. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 7 (leftovers s hould be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by depe ndent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.293 4 377 .059 Table B-112. ANOVA for variable 7 (leftovers should be discar ded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent vari able in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2042.916 4 510.729 4.574 .001 Within Groups 42096.843 377 111.663 Total 44139.759 381

PAGE 122

122 Table B-113. Post hoc comparisons for variable 7 (leftovers should be discarded after 4 days) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in th e general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q7 (J) Q7 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 2.32500 4.42052 .599 -6.3670 11.0170 Neutral .87061 3.98959 .827 -6.9740 8.7153 4 .68829 3.92062 .861 -7.0207 8.3973 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree -3.69610 3.80395 .332 -11.1757 3.7835 Strongly Disagree -2.32500 4.42052 .599 -11.0170 6.3670 Neutral -1.45439 2.74629 .597 -6.8544 3.9456 4 -1.63671 2.64511 .536 -6.8377 3.5643 2 Strongly Agree -6.02110* 2.46888 .015 -10.8756 -1.1666 Strongly Disagree -.87061 3.98959 .827 -8.7153 6.9740 2 1.45439 2.74629 .597 -3.9456 6.8544 4 -.18232 1.83642 .921 -3.7932 3.4286 Neutral Strongly Agree -4.56671* 1.57201 .004 -7.6577 -1.4757 Strongly Disagree -.68829 3.92062 .861 -8.3973 7.0207 2 1.63671 2.64511 .536 -3.5643 6.8377 Neutral .18232 1.83642 .921 -3.4286 3.7932 4 Strongly Agree -4.38439* 1.38768 .002 -7.1130 -1.6558 Strongly Disagree 3.69610 3.80395 .332 -3.7835 11.1757 2 6.02110* 2.46888 .015 1.1666 10.8756 Neutral 4.56671* 1.57201 .004 1.4757 7.6577 Strongly Agree 4 4.38439* 1.38768 .002 1.6558 7.1130 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level. Table B-114. Descriptives for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Strongly Disagree 118 71.8051 11.07647 1.01967 69.7857 73.8245 43.00 93.00 2 61 68.7377 9.32542 1.19400 66.3494 71.1261 51.00 86.00 Neutral 74 66.5270 11.57018 1.34501 63.8464 69.2076 5.00 91.00 4 60 65.1000 8.90953 1.15021 62.7984 67.4016 46.00 86.00 Strongly Agree 71 66.8592 10.56855 1.25426 64.3576 69.3607 49.00 95.00 Total 384 68.3385 10.75504 .54884 67.2594 69.4177 5.00 95.00 Table B-115. Test of homogeneity of variances for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .971 4 379 .423

PAGE 123

123 Table B-116. ANOVA for variable 8 (it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowledge by dependent variable in the general population Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2455.232 4 613.808 5.559 .000 Within Groups 41846.758 379 110.414 Total 44301.990 383 Table B-117. Post hoc comparisons for variable 8 ( it is safe to defrost meat, poultry, or fish at room temperature) basic food safety knowle dge by dependent variable in the general population 95% Confidence Interval (I) Q8 (J) Q8 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 3.06738 1.65704 .065 -.1908 6.3255 Neutral 5.27806* 1.55813 .001 2.2144 8.3417 4 6.70508* 1.66611 .000 3.4291 9.9811 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 4.94593* 1.57824 .002 1.8427 8.0491 Strongly Disagree -3.06738 1.65704 .065 -6.3255 .1908 Neutral 2.21068 1.81718 .225 -1.3623 5.7837 4 3.63770 1.91057 .058 -.1189 7.3944 2 Strongly Agree 1.87855 1.83444 .306 -1.7284 5.4855 Strongly Disagree -5.27806* 1.55813 .001 -8.3417 -2.2144 2 -2.21068 1.81718 .225 -5.7837 1.3623 4 1.42703 1.82546 .435 -2.1623 5.0163 Neutral Strongly Agree -.33213 1.74562 .849 -3.7644 3.1002 Strongly Disagree -6.70508* 1.66611 .000 -9.9811 -3.4291 2 -3.63770 1.91057 .058 -7.3944 .1189 Neutral -1.42703 1.82546 .435 -5.0163 2.1623 4 Strongly Agree -1.75915 1.84265 .340 -5.3822 1.8639 Strongly Disagree -4.94593* 1.57824 .002 -8.0491 -1.8427 2 -1.87855 1.83444 .306 -5.4855 1.7284 Neutral .33213 1.74562 .849 -3.1002 3.7644 Strongly Agree 4 1.75915 1.84265 .340 -1.8639 5.3822 *. The mean difference is si gnificant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX C MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED VARIABLES Table C-1. Model summ ary for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .275a .076 .069 9.17685 a. Predictors: (Constant), q9, asian, q62, other, q6 0recode, hispanic, African Table C-2. ANOVA for multivariate regression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 6338.760 7 905.537 10.753 .000a Residual 77477.490 920 84.215 1 Total 83816.250 927 a. Predictors: (Constant), q9, asian, q62, other, q6 0recode, hispanic, african b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-3. Coefficients for multivariate re gression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the college population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 55.730 1.235 45.115 .000 q60recode 3.332 .622 .171 5.360 .000 q62 -.165 .363 -.015 -.455 .649 african 3.134 .897 .115 3.493 .000 asian .911 1.017 .029 .895 .371 hispanic 2.576 .939 .090 2.745 .006 other 1.942 1.471 .042 1.320 .187 1 q9 1.520 .324 .149 4.687 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-4. Model summary for multivariate regr ession model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .161a .026 .022 9.40508 a. Predictors: (Constant), q14, q11, q12, q13

PAGE 125

125 Table C-5. ANOVA for multivariate regression mode l 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 2213.035 4 553.259 6.255 .000a Residual 83501.964 944 88.455 1 Total 85715.000 948 a. Predictors: (Constant), q14, q11, q12, q13 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-6. Coefficients for multivariate regressi on model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the college population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 59.913 .710 84.380 .000 q11 1.287 .621 .132 2.073 .038 q12 -.371 .670 -.034 -.554 .580 q13 .423 .569 .054 .744 .457 1 q14 .117 .514 .015 .228 .820 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-7. Model summary for multivariate regression model 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .239a .057 .049 9.27284 a. Predictors: (Constant), q8recode, q7, q2, q5, q1, q4, q3, q6 Table C-8. ANOVA for multivariate regression model 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 4893.077 8 611.635 7.113 .000a Residual 80912.339 941 85.985 1 Total 85805.416 949 a. Predictors: (Constant), q8recode, q7, q2, q5, q1, q4, q3, q6 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior

PAGE 126

126 Table C-9. Coefficients for multivariate regr ession model 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 51.575 2.191 23.538 .000 q1 .229 .665 .021 .345 .731 q2 -.070 .602 -.007 -.117 .907 q3 -.441 .696 -.041 -.633 .527 q4 .232 .665 .022 .349 .727 q5 .759 .453 .077 1.676 .094 q6 .278 .737 .026 .377 .706 q7 1.564 .332 .183 4.719 .000 1 q8recode .311 .288 .036 1.078 .281 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-10. Model summary for multivariate regression model 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .359a .129 .110 8.96905 a. Predictors: (Constant), q8recode, q62, other, q9, asian, q60recode, hispanic, african, q7, q12, q1, q5, q13, q2, q4, q11, q3, q14, q6

PAGE 127

127 Table C-11. ANOVA for multivariate regression m odel 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the college population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10773.249 19 567.013 7.049 .000a Residual 73043.001 908 80.444 1 Total 83816.250 927 a. Predictors: (Constant), q8recode, q62, other, q9, asian, q60recode, hispanic, african, q7, q12, q1, q5, q13, q2, q4, q11, q3, q14, q6 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-12. Coefficients for multivariate regr ession model 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the college population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 45.819 2.396 19.120 .000 q9 1.084 .347 .107 3.124 .002 q60recode 2.831 .618 .146 4.583 .000 q62 -.068 .358 -.006 -.190 .849 african 3.284 .886 .120 3.705 .000 asian .789 1.013 .025 .779 .436 hispanic 2.276 .938 .079 2.426 .015 other 1.714 1.449 .038 1.183 .237 q11 .826 .608 .085 1.358 .175 q12 -.369 .655 -.034 -.562 .574 q13 .429 .554 .055 .775 .439 q14 -.073 .503 -.010 -.146 .884 q1 .079 .654 .007 .121 .904 q2 .023 .595 .002 .038 .970 q3 -.694 .687 -.064 -1.011 .312 q4 .278 .655 .026 .425 .671 q5 .871 .446 .089 1.954 .051 q6 .285 .726 .026 .392 .695 q7 1.326 .332 .155 3.997 .000 1 q8recode .318 .285 .037 1.118 .264 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior

PAGE 128

128 Table C-13. Model summary for multivariate regre ssion reduced model by dependent variable in the college population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .351a .123 .116 8.93780 a. Predictors: (Constant ), q7, african, q9, hi spanic, q60recode, q11, q5 Table C-14. ANOVA for multivariate regr ession reduced model by dependent variable in the college population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10322.768 7 1474.681 18.460 .000a Residual 73493.482 920 79.884 1 Total 83816.250 927 a. Predictors: (Constant), q11, african, q5, q60recode, hispanic, q9, q7 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-15. Coefficients for multivariate regressi on reduced model by depende nt variable in the college population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 47.006 1.682 27.940 .000 q9 1.121 .338 .110 3.314 .001 q60recode 2.830 .610 .146 4.639 .000 african 2.990 .854 .110 3.500 .000 hispanic 1.989 .901 .069 2.208 .027 q11 .905 .324 .093 2.793 .005 q5 .797 .351 .081 2.269 .024 1 q7 1.276 .309 .149 4.127 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-16. Model summary for multivariate re gression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the general population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .250a .062 .037 10.55576 a. Predictors: (Constant), q66recode, hisp anic, other, asian, Q9, african, Q62, q65recode, q61ecode, Q60RECODE

PAGE 129

129 Table C-17. ANOVA for multivariate regression m odel 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the general population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 2715.321 10 271.532 2.437 .008a Residual 40892.642 367 111.424 1 Total 43607.964 377 a. Predictors: (Constant), q66recode hispanic, other, asian, Q9, african, Q62, q65recode, q61ecode, Q60RECODE b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-18. Coefficients for multivariate re gression model 1 (demographics) by dependent variable in the general population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 51.157 4.520 11.319 .000 Q9 1.657 .850 .104 1.949 .052 Q60RECODE 2.562 1.296 .108 1.977 .049 q61ecode 1.928 .705 .147 2.734 .007 Q62 1.022 .612 .088 1.670 .096 African -2.969 3.097 -.050 -.959 .338 asian -1.103 3.718 -.016 -.297 .767 Hispanic 1.179 2.317 .027 .509 .611 other -1.535 3.282 -.024 -.468 .640 q65recode .074 .718 .006 .104 .917 1 q66recode .582 .579 .054 1.005 .316 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-19. Model Summary for multivariate regr ession model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .194a .038 .027 10.60682 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q14, Q11, Q13, Q12

PAGE 130

130 Table C-20. ANOVA for multivariate regression mode l 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 1656.391 4 414.098 3.681 .006a Residual 42414.257 377 112.505 1 Total 44070.648 381 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q14, Q11, Q13, Q12 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-21. Coefficients for multivariate regressi on model 2 (fresh herb and spice usage habits) by dependent variable in the general population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 64.807 1.356 47.793 .000 Q11 .206 1.000 .023 .205 .837 Q12 -1.308 .965 -.143 -1.356 .176 Q13 1.470 .778 .193 1.890 .060 1 Q14 .515 .682 .071 .756 .450 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-22. Model summary for multivariate regr ession mode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .302a .091 .072 10.36228 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8REC ODE, Q3, Q7, Q5, Q2, Q4, Q1, Q6 Table C-23. ANOVA for multivariate regression mode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 4002.474 8 500.309 4.659 .000a Residual 39836.831 371 107.377 1 Total 43839.306 379 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8REC ODE, Q3, Q7, Q5, Q2, Q4, Q1, Q6 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior

PAGE 131

131 Table C-24. Coefficients for multivariate regr ession mode 3 (basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 52.074 3.578 14.553 .000 Q1 -1.638 1.646 -.122 -.995 .320 Q2 .946 1.275 .076 .742 .459 Q3 .175 2.163 .014 .081 .936 Q4 .635 1.450 .050 .438 .662 Q5 .985 .911 .091 1.082 .280 Q6 .434 1.709 .035 .254 .800 Q7 1.062 .661 .101 1.607 .109 1 Q8RECODE 1.477 .360 .205 4.102 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-25. Model summary for multivariate regression mode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge) by dependent variable in the general population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .398a .158 .106 10.16866 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8RECODE, Q14, Q7, asian, african, other, q65recode, hispanic, Q9, Q62, q66recode, q61ecode, Q60RECODE, Q1, Q11, Q5, Q2, Q4, Q13, Q12, Q6, Q3 Table C-26. ANOVA for multivariate regression m ode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the general population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 6900.374 22 313.653 3.033 .000a Residual 36707.589 355 103.402 1 Total 43607.964 377 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8REC ODE, Q14, Q7, asian, african, ot her, q65recode, hispanic, Q9, Q62, q66recode, q61ecode, Q60RECODE, Q1, Q11, Q5, Q2, Q4, Q13, Q12, Q6, Q3 b. Dependent Variable: Behavior

PAGE 132

132 Table C-27. Coefficients for multivariate regressi on mode 4 (demographics, fresh herb and spice usage habits, and basic food safety knowledge ) by dependent variable in the general population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 39.218 5.460 7.182 .000 Q9 .535 .847 .034 .632 .528 Q60RECODE 1.140 1.294 .048 .881 .379 q61ecode 1.900 .706 .145 2.690 .007 Q62 .876 .603 .075 1.454 .147 african -1.966 3.036 -.033 -.647 .518 asian -.082 3.724 -.001 -.022 .982 hispanic 1.973 2.310 .045 .854 .394 other -1.152 3.260 -.018 -.353 .724 q65recode .318 .712 .024 .447 .655 q66recode -.248 .583 -.023 -.426 .671 Q11 .278 .985 .031 .282 .778 Q12 -.856 .961 -.093 -.891 .374 Q13 1.155 .767 .152 1.507 .133 Q14 .739 .671 .103 1.102 .271 Q1 -1.703 1.634 -.127 -1.042 .298 Q2 .660 1.285 .053 .513 .608 Q3 .820 2.213 .064 .371 .711 Q4 .705 1.464 .056 .481 .631 Q5 1.381 .932 .127 1.482 .139 Q6 -.401 1.744 -.032 -.230 .818 Q7 .998 .667 .095 1.495 .136 1 Q8RECODE 1.143 .377 .159 3.034 .003 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-28. Model summary for multivariate regre ssion reduced model by dependent variable in the general population Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .357a .127 .118 10.09981 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8RECODE, Q13, Q5, q61ecode

PAGE 133

133 Table C-29. ANOVA for multivariate regression reduced model by dependent variable in the general population Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 5614.319 4 1403.580 13.760 .000a Residual 38456.329 377 102.006 1 Total 44070.648 381 a. Predictors: (Constant), Q8RECODE, Q13, Q5, q61ecode b. Dependent Variable: Behavior Table C-30. Coefficients for multivariate regressi on reduced model by depende nt variable in the general population Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 44.479 3.476 12.797 .000 q61ecode 1.717 .652 .131 2.633 .009 Q13 1.566 .373 .206 4.202 .000 Q5 2.188 .525 .202 4.169 .000 1 Q8RECODE 1.318 .354 .183 3.723 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Behavior

PAGE 134

134 REFERENCES 1. Abdulkadar, A. H. W., A. A. Al-Ali, A. M. Al-Kildi, and J. H. Al-Jedah. 2004. Mycotoxins in food products available in Qatar. Food Control 15:543-548. 2. Adu-Nyako K, D. Kunda and K. Ralston. 2003. Safe handling labels and consumer behavior in the southern US. American Agricultu ral Economics Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. 3. Aguilera, M. O., P. V. Stagnitta, B. Mica lizzi, and A. M. Stefanini de Guzmn. 2005. Prevalence and characterization of Clostridium perfringens from spices in Argentina. International Journal of Food Microbiology 11:327-334. 4. Altekruse. S. F., D. A. Street, S. B. Fein, and A. S. Levy. 1996. Cons umer knowledge of food borne microbial hazards a nd food-handling practices. Journal of Food Protection. 59:287294. 5. Altekruse, S. F., S. Yang, B. B. Timbo, a nd F. J. Angulo. 1999. A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 16:216-221. 6. Aziz, N. H., Y. A. Youssef, M. Z. El-Fouly, and L. A. Moussa. 1998. Contamination of some common medicinal plant samples and sp ices by fungi and their mycotoxins. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica. 39:279-285. 7. Babbie, E. (ed.). 1998. The practice of so cial research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 8. Banerjee, M., and P. K. Sarkar. 2003. Microbiological qu ality of some retail spices in India. Food Research International. 36:469-474. 9. Banerjee, M., and P. K. Sarkar. 2004. Growth and enterotoxin production by sporeforming bacterial pathogens from spices. Food Control 15:491-496. 10. Bennett, J. W., and M. Klich. 2003. Mycotoxins. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 16(3):497516. 11. Bircan, C. 2005. The determination of afla toxins in spices by immunoaffinity column extraction using HPLC. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 40:929-934. 12. Burger, J. 1998. Gender differences in attitudes about fish safety in a coastal population. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 53:181-192. 13. Candlish, A. A. G., S. M. Pearson, K. E. Aidoo, J. E. Smith, B. Kelly, and H. Irvine. 2001. A survey of ethnic foods for microbi al quality and alfatoxin content. Food Additives and Contaminants 18(2):129-136.

PAGE 135

135 14. Center for Disease and Control and Preventi on. 2005. Foodborne Illness. CDC, Atlanta, GA. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/dis easeinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm Accessed 22 July 2007. 15. Center for Disease and Control and Preven tion. 2007. Outbreak Surveillance Data. C DC, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/outbreak_data.htm Accessed 22 July 2007. 16. Cheesem an Day, J. 2007. National Population Proj ections. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.htm l Accessed 23 August 2007. 17. Colak, H., E. B. Bingol, H. Hampikyan, and B. Nazli. 2006. Determination of aflatoxin contamination in red-scaled, red an d black pepper by ELISA and HPLC. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 14(3):292-296. 18. DeNoon, D. 2008. U.S. food safety hasnt improved. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/20 08/04/10/health/webm d/main4007944.shtml Accessed 23 August 2008. 19. Elshafie, A. E., T. A. Al-Rashdi, S. N. Al-Bahry, and C. S. Bakheit. 2002. Fungi and alflatoxins associated with spic es in the Sultanate of Oman. Mycopathologia 155:155-160. 20. Erdogan, A. 2004. The aflatoxin contamination of some pepper types sold in Turkey. Chemosphere. 56:321-325. 21. Fazekas, B., A. Tar, and M. Kovcs. 2005. Aflat oxin and ochratoxin A content of spices in Hungary. Food Additives and Contaminants 22(9):856-863. 22. Fein, S. B., C.-T. J. Lin, and A. S. Levy. 1995. Food borne illness: perceptions, experience, and preventive behaviours in the United States. Journal of Food Protection. 58:1405-1411. 23. Fight Bac! 2006. Safe food hand ling. Partnership for Safe Fo od Handling, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.fightbac .org/content/view/6/11/ Accessed 10 Septem ber 2008. 24. Freire, F. C. O., Z. Kozakiewicz, and R. R. M. Paterson. 2000. Mycoflora and mycotoxins in Brazilian black pepper, white pepper, and Brazil nuts. Mycopathologia 149:13-19. 25. Furth, P. 2001. Summary of market trends and he rbs consumption in the United States. FFA, Inc., Stamford, CT. Available at: http://www. fffassociates.com/links_paper1.html. Accessed 27 April 2007. 26. Garcia, E., C. Cabrera, M. L. Lorenzo, and M. C. Lpez. 2001. Chromium levels in spices and aromatic herbs. The Science of the Total Environment 247:51-56.

PAGE 136

136 27. Gatti, M. J., M. E. Fraga, C. Magnoli, A. M. Dalcero, and C. A. da Rocha Rosa. 2003. Mycological survey for potential aflatoxin and ochratoxin producers a nd their toxicological properties in harvested Brazilian black pepper. Food Additives and Contaminants 20(12):1120-1126. 28. Greisler, M. 2006. Ethnic foods ma rket profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, Ames, IA. Available at: http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/market s/Food/ethnicfoods marketprofile.htm Accessed 9 January 2007. 29. Hara-kudo, Y., K. Ohtsuka, Y. Onoue, Y. Otom o, I. Furukawa, A. Yamaji, Y. Segawa, and K. Takatori. 2006. Salmonella prevalence and total microbial a nd spore populations in spices imported to Japan Journal of Food Protection. 69(10):2519-2523. 30. Hazen, C. 2005. Formulation magic with sa uces and marinades. Virgo Publishing, Northbrook, IL. Available at: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/463/463_0105ELE.html Ac cessed 26 February 2007. 31. Hertzman, J., and D. Barrash. 2007. An assessm ent of food safety knowledge and practices of catering employees. British Food Journal. 109(7):562-576. 32. Howell, D. 2005. Retailers must keep pace with evolving palates. Gale Group, Stamford, CT. Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/m i_m0FNP/is_14_44/ai_n14868156 Accessed 10 January 2007. 33. Hudler, G (ed.). 1998. Magical mushrooms, misc hievous molds. University Press, NJ, Princeton. 34. Huck, S. and W. Cormier (ed.). 1996. Reading statistics and research. Harper Collins, New York, NY. 35. Ilieva, J., S. Baron, and N. Healy. 2002. Online su rveys in marketing res earch: pros and cons. International Journal of Marketing Research 44(3):361-376. 36. Isaac, S., and W. Michael (ed.). 1997. Handbook in research and evaluation. Edits Publishers, San Diego, CA. 37. Iurlina, M., A. I. Saiz, S. R. Fu selli, and R. Fritz. 2006. Prevalence of Bacillus spp. in different food products collected in Argentina. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 39:105-110. 38. Johnston, L. M., L. Jaykus, D. Moll, J. Anci so, B. Mora, and C. L Moe. 2006. A field study of the microbiological quality of fresh produce of domestic and Mexican origin. International Journal of Food Microbiology 112:83-95. 39. Kim, J. and C. Mueller (ed.). 1978. Factor analys is: statistical methods and practical issues. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

PAGE 137

137 40. Klontz, K. C., B. Timbo, S. Fein, and A. Levy. 1995. Prevalence of selected food consumption and preparation behaviours associ ated with increased risks of food-borne disease. Journal of Food Protection. 58:927-930. 41. Koch, J., A. Schrauder, K. Alpers, D. Werber, C. Frank, R. Prager, W. Rabsch, S. Broll, F. Feil, P. Roggentin, J. Bockemhl, H. Tschpe, A. Ammon, and K. Stark. 2005. Salmonella Agona outbreak from contaminated aniseed, Germany. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11(7):1124-1126. 42. Krannich, R. S., and C. R. Humphrey. 1986. Using key informant data in comparative community research: an empirical assessment. Sociological Methods and Research 14(4):473-493. 43. Lin, C. J. 1995. Demographic and socioeconomic influences on the importance of food safety in food shopping. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 2:190-198. 44. Mandeel, Q. A. 2005. Fungal contamination of some imported spices. Mycopathologia 159:291-298. 45. Martins, M. L., H. M. Martins, and F. Be rnardo. 2001. Aflatoxins in spices marketed in Portugal. Food Additives and Contaminants 18(4):315-319. 46. Mauer, W. A., J. B. Kaneene, V. T. DeArma n, C. A. Roberts, R. Miller, L. Pong, T. E. Dickey. 2006. Ethnic-food safety concerns: an onlin e survey of food safety professionals. Journal of Environmental Health 68(10):32-38. 47. Mead, P. S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L. F. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P. M. Griffin and R. V. Tauxe. 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5(5):607-625. 48. Modi, V. K., G. S. Sidde Gowda, P. Z. Sakha re, N. S. Mahendrakar, and D. Narasimha Rao. 2006. Pre-processed spice mix formulation and changes in its quality during storage. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 39:613-620. 49. Morrone, M. and A. Rathbun. 2003. Health educ ation and food safety behaviors in the university setting. Journal of Environmental Health 65(7):9-15. 50. Naimi, T. S., J. H. Wicklund, S. J. Olsen, G. Krause, J. G. Wells, J. M. Bartkus, D. J. Boxrud, M. Sullivan, H. Kassenborg, J. M. Besser, E. D. Mintz, M. T. Osterholm, and C. W. Hedberg. 2003. Concurrent outbreaks of Shigella sonnei and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli infections associated with parsley: implicat ions for surveillance and control of foodborne illness. Journal of Food Protection 66(4):535-541. 51. National Center for the Preser vation of Medicinal Herbs. 199 8. History of herbs. Greenbush Natural Products, Fountain Hills, AZ. 52. Paterson, R. R. M. 2007. Afltatoxins contam in ation in chilli samples from Pakistan. Food Control 18:817-820.

PAGE 138

138 53. Peter, K. V. (ed.). 2001. Handbook of herbs a nd spices. CRC Press, Boca Raton, F.L. 54. Peter, K. V. (ed.). 2004. Handbook of herbs and sp ices. Vol. 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, F.L. 55. Rattray, J., and M. Jones. 2007. E ssential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 16:234-243. 56. Reddy, S. V., D. Kiran Mayi, M. Uma Reddy, K. Thirumala-Devi, and D. V. R. Reddy. 2001. Aflatoxin B1 in different grades of chillies ( Capsicum annum L.) in India as determined by indirect competitive-ELISA. Food Additives and Contaminants 18(6):553558. 57. Ristori, C. A., M. A. S. Pereira, and D. S. Gelli. 2007. Behavior of Salmonella Rubislaw on ground black pepper (Piper nigrum L.). Food Control 18:268-272. 58. Rodrguez-Romo, L. A., N. L. Heredia, R. G. Labb, and J. S. Garca-Alvarado. 1998. Detection of enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens in spices used in Mexico by dot blotting using a DNA probe. Journal of Food Protection 61(2):201-204. 59. Romagnoli, B., V. Menna, N. Gruppioni, and C. Bergamini. 2007. Aflatoxins in spices, aromatic herbs, herb-teas and medicinal plants marketed in Italy. Food Control 18:697-701. 60. Salant, P., and D. A. Dillman (ed.). 1994. How to conduct your own survey. Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. 61. Schwartz, M., J. Bridger, and D. Hyma n. 2001. A validity assessment of aggregation methods for multiple key informant survey data. Journal of the Community Development Society. 32(2):226-237. 62. Schweiggert, U., R. Carle, and A. Schieber. 2007. Conventional and alte rnative processes for spice production a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology 18:260-268. 63. Simonne, A. H., A. Nille, K. Evans, and M. R. Marshall, Jr. 2004. Ethnic food safety trends in the United States based on CDC foodborne illness data. Food Protection Trends. 24(8):590-604. 64. Sterigenics Food Safety. 2007. Irradiation of herbs, spices and dry ingredients. Sterigenics Food Safety, Oak Brook, IL. Available at: http://www.sterigenics.com/services/food_safet y/product_applications /food/irradiation_of_h erbs_spices_and_dry_ingredients__white_paper.pdf Accessed 27 April 2007. 65. Tabachnick, B. and L. Fidell (ed.). 1996. Usi ng multivariate statistics. Harper-Collins Publishers, New York, NY. 66. Tapsell, L. C., I. Hemphill, L. Cobiac, D. R. Sullivan, M. Fenech, C. S. Patch, S. Roodenrys, J. B. Keogh, P. M. Clifton, P. G. Williams, V. A. Fazio, and K. E. Inge. 2006. Health Benefits of herbs and spices: the past, the present, the future. The Medical Journal of Australia. 185(Suppl. 4):S1-S24.

PAGE 139

139 67. Thirumala-Dev, K., M. A. Mayo, G. Reddy, K. E. Emmanuel, Y. Larondelle, and D. V. R. Reddy. 2001. Occurrence of ochratoxin A in black pe pper, coriander, ginger and turmeric in India. Food Additives and Contaminants 18(9):830-835. 68. Trochim, W. M. K. (ed.). 2006. Research me thods knowledge base, 2nd Edition. Atomic Dog Publishing, Mason, OH. 69. Truell, A., and P. Goss. 2002. Business educa tion leaders compare email and regular mail survey research. Journal of Technology Studies 28:81-85. 70. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State and county qui ckfacts. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at http://quickfacts.cen sus.gov/gfd/index.htm l Accessed 22 July 2008. 71. U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency. 1999. Dynamic diversity: projected changes in U.S. race and ethnic composition 1995 to 2050. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.mbda.gov/documents/unpubtext.pdf Accessed 29 April 2007 72. U.S. Departm ent of Health and Huma n Services. 2005. Healthy People 2010. DHHS, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/default.htm Accessed 1 0 September 2007. 73. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Recalls market withdrawals and safety alerts. FDA, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html Accessed 22 July 2007. 74. U.S. Food a nd Drug Administration. 2006. Th e bad bug book. FDA, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/intro.html Accessed 10 Septem ber 2007. 75. U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Industry Activities Staff Booklet. 2000. Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed. FDA, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fdaact.html Accessed 23 October 2007. 76. Unklesbay, N., J. Sneed, and R. Toma. 1998. Co llege students attit udes, practices, and knowledge of food safet y. Journal of Food Protection. 61:1175-1180. 77. Vij, V., E. Ailes, C. Wolyniak, F. J. Angulo, and K. C. Klontz. 2006. Recalls of spices due to bacterial contamination monitored by th e U.S. Food and Drug Administration: the predominance of Salmonellae. Journal of Food Protection 69(1):233-237. 78. White, R. 2002. The perils of processed herbs and spices. British Food Journal. 104(9):724729. 79. Wilcock, A., M. Pun, J. Khanona, and M. Aung. 2004. Consumer attitudes, knowledge, and behavior: a review of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15:56-66.

PAGE 140

140 80. Woodburn, M. J., and C. A. Rabb. 1997. Househol d food preparers food-safety knowledge and practices following widely publicized outbreaks of f ood borne illness. Journal of Food Protection. 60:1105-1109. 81. Zhang, Y. 2000. Using the internet fo r survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences 51(1):57-68. 82. Zinedine, A., C. Brera, S. Ela khdari, C. Catano, F. Debegnach, S. Angelini, B. De Santis, M. Faid, M. Benlemlih, V. Minardi, and M. Mira glia. 2006. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins in cereals and spices commercialized in Morocco. Food Control 17:868-874.

PAGE 141

141 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kalin Marie Prevatt was born in New Port Rich ey Florida and raised in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia. In 2000, she moved to Athens, Georgia to at tend the University of Georgia. She graduated with a B.B.A. in mana gement in May 2005 and a B.S. in dietetics in May 2006. She entered the Master of Science/Dietet ic Internship Program at the University of Florida in August 2006. In 2007, she switched her de gree to the Master of Science program in nutritional sciences. Her resear ch interests are focused on food safety programs and policy.