research report
young people
and food safety
About the Scottish Consumer Council
The Scottish Consumer Council (SCC)
was set up by government in 1975. Our
purpose is to promote the interests of
consumers in Scotland, with particular
regard to those people who experience
disadvantage in society. While
producers of goods and services are
The SCC assesses the consumer
perspective in any situation by
analysing the position of consumers
against a set of consumer principles.
These are:
ACCESS
Can consumers actually get the goods or
usually well-organised and articulate
when protecting their own interests,
individual consumers very often are not.
services they need or want?
The people whose interests we
represent are consumers of all kinds:
they may be patients, tenants, parents,
Can consumers affect the way the goods
and services are provided through their
own choice?
solicitors’ clients, public transport users,
or simply shoppers in a supermarket.
INFORMATION
Consumers benefit from efficient and
effective services in the public and
private sectors. Service-providers
benefit from discriminating consumers.
A balanced partnership between the
two is essential and the SCC seeks to
develop this partnership by:
CHOICE
Do consumers have the information
they need, presented in the way they
want, to make informed choices?
REDRESS
If something goes wrong, can it be put
right?
· carrying out research into consumer
SAFETY
·
reasonably be?
issues and concerns;
informing key policy and decisionmakers about consumer concerns and
issues;
Are standards as high as they can
FAIRNESS
· influencing key policy and decision-
Are consumers subject to arbitrary
discrimination for reasons unconnected
with their characteristics as consumers?
· informing and raising awareness among
REPRESENTATION
making processes;
consumers.
The SCC is part of the National
Consumer Council (NCC) and is
sponsored by the Department of Trade
and Industry. The SCC’s Chairman and
Council members are appointed by the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
in consultation with the Secretary of
State for Scotland. Future appointments
will be in consultation with the First
Minister. Martyn Evans, the SCC's
Director, leads the staff team.
Please check our web site at
www.scotconsumer.org.uk for news
about our publications.
Scottish Consumer Council
Royal Exchange House
100 Queen Street
Glasgow
G1 3DN
Telephone 0141 226 5261
Facsimile 0141 221 0731
www.scotconsumer.org.uk
Written by Donna Heaney, Policy
Manager
Published by the Scottish Consumer Council
February 2002
© Scottish Consumer Council
ISBN 0 907067 97 2
If consumers cannot affect what is
provided through their own choices, are
there other effective means for their
views to be represented?
We can often make
our publications
available in braille
or large print, on
audio tape or
computer disk.
Please contact us
for details.
Chairman’s preface
Food safety has become an area of great concern to consumers in
recent years. Such concerns have been fuelled by a number of
outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. The media has covered the
emergence of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD): a
devastating condition. In 1996 there was an E.coli 0157 outbreak
in Central Scotland which led to the deaths of 21 people.
The Government responded to the E.coli outbreak by setting up
the Pennington Group with a remit to investigate the circumstances
which had led to the outbreak and to advise on lessons to be
learned. The Pennington Group found that there is a need for
greater awareness of food safety by those handling food in the
home and in commercial settings. The Pennington report
recognises that consumers do have an important role to play in
ensuring the safety of the food they consume. The point of
consumption constitutes the 'last line of defence against
contamination and infection and consumers have an important role
to play'. Consumer handling of food should be based on 'good
basic awareness of the need for appropriate personal hygiene, food
preparation and storage'.
The Scottish Consumer Council wanted to establish the level of
awareness that the consumer has about basic food safety. A further
aim of the research was to provide baseline data which could
inform future progress in this area. We opted to carry out the
research with a sample of second-year pupils: they make up a
subgroup of the population who cook on a regular basis and
generally will have attended classes on food safety.
The research took the form of a questionnaire survey and the
results show that the majority of pupils could correctly answer half
of the questions relating to hygiene and food safety but only 14%
of pupils could answer over three-quarters of the questions
correctly. We found that some factors did influence pupils’
knowledge of food safety and these include gender, age,
young people and food safety i
whether pupils cook at home and deprivation, although the
differences were not great.
In short, our research demonstrates that there is a good
understanding of some basic food safety and hygiene messages;
however, knowledge falls off significantly on other issues that are
less clear cut.
This gap in essential knowledge needs to be addressed by a range
of organisations and individuals. Our recommendations are aimed
at the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Executive, the Health
Education Board for Scotland and consumers including pupils,
teachers, parents and guardians.
Graeme Millar
Chairman
ii young people and food safety
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those teachers from schools who agreed
to take part in our survey and to the pupils who took the time to
fill in our questionnaire. Thanks also go to the staff and pupils at
Hillhead High School who agreed to pilot the draft questionnaire
for us.
We would also like to thank the environmental health officers who
disseminated the questionnaires to schools on our behalf. We
were grateful for their support, especially as many of them were
coping with heavy demands on their time.
Special thanks go to those individuals who commented on the
draft questionnaire, and confirmed the final results for us. These
include:
Colin Houston, Aberdeenshire Council
Rod House, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health
David Evans, East Lothian Council
Crawford Morgan, West Lothian Council
Ian Young, Health Education Board for Scotland
We would also like to thank the Society of Chief Officers of
Environmental Health in Scotland for endorsing the survey, which
we believe contributed greatly to the success of the research.
Thanks to Paul Bradshaw, Susan Browne, Andrew Pulford and
Felicity Bryers the SCC's researchers, to Mandy Edwards for data
input and to Kirsty Aird for desktop publishing the report. Also, to
all the administrative staff for their help in ensuring the smooth
administration of the research.
young people and food safety iii
The SCC's Food, Diet and Environment Committee oversaw the
work for this research. Its members were:
Lawrie Dewar
Martyn Evans (ex-officio)
Christine Humphries
Graeme Millar (ex-officio)
Andrew Raven (committee chair)
Bill Ure
Alex Wright
iv young people and food safety
Executive summary
This report investigates knowledge about basic food safety and
hygiene principles among a subgroup of the population in
Scotland.
In 1996 there was an E.coli 0157 outbreak in Lanarkshire which led
to the deaths of 21 people. The Government response to the E.coli
outbreak included setting up the Pennington Group. The
Pennington Group's findings stressed a need for greater awareness
of food safety by those handling food, including consumers.
The Scottish Consumer Council wanted to ascertain current levels
of awareness regarding food safety among a subgroup of the
school population in Scotland. A further aim of the research was
to collate information to provide baseline data, which could be
used in the future to determine progress in this area.
The research took the form of a questionnaire survey administered
to second-year pupils in schools throughout Scotland. The
response rate to the questionnaire was high, with 108 (65%) of
schools out of 166 initially approached taking part in the research.
The respondents represent a good cross-section of the population
of Scotland and the results are based on 2210 completed and
useable questionnaires. A slightly higher number of responses
were received from girls than from boys and the majority of
respondents were aged 13 or 14 years. Importantly, just under
80% of the pupils surveyed said they cook at home, with 40% of
these cooking at least once a day.
The findings from the survey show a good knowledge of food
safety and hygiene principles on some issues; however, knowledge
falls off significantly on other issues that are less clear cut.
Good knowledge includes when and how to wash hands properly;
where to store eggs; how to properly cook hamburgers and when
to determine the 'use by' date of milk. Four out of five
respondents answered these questions correctly.
young people and food safety v
There is a reasonable knowledge about other food safety and
hygiene principles. For example, between 64% and 76% know
how to reheat food safely; how to defrost a chicken safely and
how to safely pack a shopping bag to avoid cross-contamination.
There are poor levels of knowledge about certain food safety and
hygiene principles. These include the recommended temperature
of a fridge; avoiding cross-contamination; cooking eggs safely;
cooling food before storing and identifying groups of people who
may be particularly susceptible to food poisoning. The results
indicate that between 12% and 49% of pupils indicated a correct
answer.
A food safety index was developed to examine the aggregate score
of pupils who responded to the food safety questionnaire. Based
on this, it was found that less than 1% of pupils answered all of
the food safety and hygiene questions correctly and the mean score
for pupils was 11.8 out of a possible score of 20.
The majority (65%) of pupils could correctly answer more than half
of the questions relating to food safety and hygiene. However,
only 14% of pupils could answer more than three-quarters of
questions correctly.
A number of factors were examined to determine whether they
influenced the results of the food safety score. It was found that
there is a statistical relationship between both gender and age and
pupils’ knowledge of food safety. Whether pupils cook at home
and deprivation also had an impact on scores; however, the
differences were not great.
It was also found that there was no statistically significant
difference in knowledge on food safety and hygiene between
schools in rural and non-rural locations; between pupils in different
local authority areas; and between independent and state schools.
vi young people and food safety
While these results might initially suggest that there is a need to focus
initiatives on younger pupils, boys and those attending schools with a high
proportion of free school meal eligibility, this would be overly simplistic as the
differences between these groups and others are not great. The overall
analysis of the research points to a number of key findings:
l
l
l
l
the need for better knowledge of food safety and hygiene for all pupils;
the need to raise the average food safety score which was found to be 11.8
out of a possible score of 20;
the need to encourage and make improvements to the positive aspects of
teaching and learning that are taking place;
the need for clarity and a better understanding in some of the more
complex food safety and hygiene issues.
Based on the research carried out for this report the SCC makes the following
recommendations:
1. The Food Standards Agency needs to determine what are the most
significant of the top ten messages in relation to food safety and hygiene.
It is then necessary to determine what the most appropriate methods of
informing the public are and whether there should be a focus on individual
messages or collective messages.
2. The Food Standards Agency need to make food safety and hygiene
messages clear and relevant and understandable to pupils, parents and
guardians, and teachers. To do this, appropriate materials and resources
need to be provided in schools. Out of school clubs and organisations,
which inform young people about food safety issues, should also have
access to appropriate material.
young people and food safety vii
3. The Scottish Executive and the Food Standards Agency should use this study
as baseline data and repeat the research with an adult group. This will have
a number of benefits. It will allow a comparison between the knowledge of
adults in relation to pupils to determine the level of knowledge among the
general population of Scotland as a whole. This will enable the monitoring
of change through time, and the impact or effectiveness of future initiatives
to improve knowledge of food safety and hygiene can be tracked through
time. It will also enable a focusing of the most significant food safety and
hygiene messages and whether there are merits in prioritising these.
Additionally, head teachers can use this study as a Scotland-wide
benchmark with which to review the performance of pupils in their school
and to monitor change in pupils' knowledge over time.
4. Agencies concerned with public health including the Scottish Executive, the
Food Standards Agency and the Health Education Board for Scotland, need
to place greater emphasis on enabling parents and guardians to get across
food safety and hygiene messages at home. Parents and guardians need to
be made aware of the importance of the issue and what good practice
involves. The Food Standards Agency has an important role in determining
the adequacy of the current knowledge among consumers and working to
improve this knowledge.
5. The Food Standards Agency needs to review the clarity of food labels and
decide whether there are clear public health benefits by requiring that key
food safety and hygiene messages form part of the food label.
viii young people and food safety
Contents
CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v
CHAPTER 1
1
INTRODUCTION
Context
Aims of the research
Structure of the report
1
3
4
CHAPTER 2
5
METHODOLOGY
Selection of schools
Involvement of Environmental Health Officers
Development and Dissemination of the Questionnaire
Response
5
6
7
7
CHAPTER 3
8
FINDINGS
Profile of Respondents
Gender of respondents
Age of respondents
Location of schools
Cooking at home
Cooking at home, by gender
Class used to complete questionnaire
8
8
8
10
12
13
14
Food Safety Questionnaire Results
15
1
2
16
17
Personal hygiene
Cross contamination
young people and food safety ix
Safe shopping and cross-contamination
Safe storage and cross-contamination
Fridge food safety analysis
3 Temperature control
Egg storage
4 Defrosting frozen foods
5 Reheating food
6 Undercooked food
Undercooked hamburgers
Undercooked eggs
7 Cooling food safely
8 Recommended storage time
Storage time for cooked meat
Storage time for raw eggs
Storage time for soft cheese
Storage time for fresh mince
9 At risk groups
10 Teaching resource pack Aliens in Our Food
11 Additional comments from pupils
Comments about the questionnaire
18
19
20
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
33
33
34
Summary of the findings
35
CHAPTER 4
36
FOOD SAFETY INDEX
Methodology for food safety index
Results of food safety index
Food safety index and other factors
Safety index by age
x young people and food safety
36
37
38
39
Safety index by gender
Safety index by cooking at home
Safety index by rural and non-rural location
Safety index by local authority
Safety index for state and independent schools
Safety index by eligibility for free school meals
39
40
40
41
43
44
Summary of the Findings
46
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
47
REFERENCES
51
APPENDICES
52
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Detailed research methodology
Schools that took part in the research
The questionnaire
Individual results for fridge question
Food safety index, by school
Supplementary documents
52
61
65
67
69
72
Letter from the Society of Chief Officers of
Environmental Health in Scotland endorsing
the research
Number of schools that environmental health
officers were requested to visit in their area
Note to brief environmental health officers
undertaking school visits
Information sheet for each school to be
completed by environmental health officers
after each school visit
72
73
74
76
young people and food safety xi
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Graph of food poisoning incidents in Scotland
Gender of respondents
Map showing the location of participating
schools
Correct storage in the fridge
Safety analysis for the fridge
Temperature for food in the fridge
Where should you store eggs?
How should you defrost a chicken?
Safe cooking - pink hamburgers
Knowledge of training pack called
Aliens in Our Food
Distribution of food safety index
1
8
Age of respondents
Distribution of respondents by local authority
with comparison against % of school roll
Respondents that cook at home
Frequency of cooking at home
Cross-tabulation of gender and frequency
of cooking at home
Class in which respondents completed the
questionnaire
Food safety after washing hands
Response to how you should wash your hands
Safe shopping
Raw meat and raw fish storage
9
10
19
21
22
23
23
25
33
37
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
xii young people and food safety
11
12
12
14
14
16
17
18
20
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Safely reheating food
Safe cooking - soft-boiled eggs
Cooling food
Action for milk passed its 'use-by' date
Storage time - cooked meat
Storage time - raw eggs
Storage time - soft cheese
Storage time - fresh mince
At-risk groups from food poisoning
Questions where points are awarded
Range of values in food safety index
Safety index by age
Safety index by gender
Safety index by cooking at home
Safety index by rural location
Safety index by Local Authority
Safety index for pupils at state and
independent schools
Percentage of pupils eligible for free school
meals
24
26
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
36
38
39
39
40
41
42
43
45
young people and food safety xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
CONTEXT
In recent years there have been a number of food safety incidents that
have received high levels of media attention, and consumers in Scotland
have witnessed many food-related problems. These have included the
crisis surrounding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and new
variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD). There has also been concern
over salmonella poisoning from bacterium linked to eggs and poultry
and E.coli 0157 infection from cooked meat and dairy products. In
Belgium there have been problems associated with dioxin contamination
in pork, poultry and dairy products. As a result, public confidence in
food standards and safety has been eroded.
The SCC believes concern from consumers is justified. In 1996 notified
cases of food poisoning peaked at 5396 cases1 in Scotland. This had
risen from 2438 in 1986 (see Figure 1), and represents an increase of
45% in ten years.
Figure 1
Graph of food poisoning incidents in Scotland
Food poisoning (excluding campylobacter)
6000
5396
5036
4996
5000
4058
4000
N 3000
2998
2880
2632
3197
3513
3317 3255
3344 3309
3024 2938
2438 2480
2391
1987
2000
1000
0
1982
1983
1984
1985
1 young people and food safety
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
While there has been a reduction in notified cases of food poisoning in
Scotland since the peak year of 1996, the figures for 2000 still provide
cause for concern, consisting of 3309 notified cases for the year.
Furthermore, it is recognised that notified cases underestimate the true
extent of the problem2.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was formed in April 2000 to improve
the quality and safety of food and consumers’ confidence in it. The FSA
has recognised that food safety is a problem and in September 2000
announced targets to cut food poisoning levels by 20% by 2006, and in
particular to reduce salmonella in retail chicken by 50% over the next
five years3.
The largest outbreak of E.coli 0157 infection in the UK occurred in
North Lanarkshire in 1996. This affected 496 people and 21 deaths were
associated with the outbreak4. As part of the Government response to
the outbreak, the Pennington Group5 was established to examine the
circumstances which led to the outbreak and to advise on the
implications for food safety and the lessons to be learned. The
Pennington Group noted “ we are concerned that undue responsibility should
not be placed on the consumer for ensuring the safety of food consumed”, but
went on to suggest “Nonetheless, the point of consumption of food has to be
recognised as the last line of defence against contamination and infection and
consumers have an important role to play in food safety.”
The Pennington Group argued that there is a need for greater awareness
of the potential for foodborne infection and preventative measures
among those handling food in commercial operations and in the home.
The Pennington Group noted that the approach should be founded on
good, basic awareness of the need for appropriate personal hygiene, food
preparation and storage.
young people and food safety 2
Importantly, this included the role of parents and guardians in instructing
children in personal hygiene measures. The Group also suggested that
“Additional measures could include, for example, giving appropriate emphasis to
food safety in teaching in schools, in out of school classes and in other courses”
and went onto recommend “Food hygiene training should be provided
wherever possible within the primary and secondary school curriculum.”
(Recommendation 17)
AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
In light of food poisoning trends over the past few years and the
acknowledgement of the Pennington Group of the important role that
consumers have in food safety the aim of this research was to examine
the knowledge about basic food safety and hygiene principles among a
subgroup of the school population in Scotland.
A secondary objective was to collate information to provide baseline
data, which could be used in the future to determine progress in this
important area.
The SCC opted to target 13 and 14 year olds as a subsection of the
school population. There were a number of reasons for choosing to
focus on this age group - they are likely to have been taught home
economics at school; they are likely to undertake some cooking at
home; they are generally split into classes of mixed ability pupils and, in
practical terms, they are not undergoing any major exams.
3 young people and food safety
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 of the report
presents a brief summary of the methodology used in the research, with
a more detailed methodology being found at Appendix 1. Chapter 3
presents the findings of the questionnaire, split between the profile of the
respondents to the research, and of the main findings of the
questionnaire. Chapter 4 presents the results of the food safety index
which was developed to provide an aggregated picture of the awareness
of respondents to food safety and hygiene issues based on the proportion
of correct answers by respondents. Finally, Chapter 5 presents the
conclusions and recommendations of the research.
young people and food safety 4
Chapter 2
Methodology
There were three main components of the research methodology. These
are summarised below. A full discussion of the research methodology can
be found at Appendix 1.
SELECTION OF SCHOOLS
The first component of the research involved the selection of schools and
pupils to take part in the study. This involved gaining consent from the
32 Directors of Education in Scotland to contact head teachers of
schools in their area. Approval was given by all Directors of Education,
with nine placing conditions for contacting schools which the SCC
complied with.
In order to reach our target sample size of approximately 2000 pupils, the
SCC had to contact 166 head teachers in both local authority and
independent schools throughout Scotland. Schools were selected using
systematic sampling by arranging secondary schools into alphabetical
order and selecting the ratio of schools required in each local authority
area against the total number of secondary schools in each area.
Letters were sent to the 166 head teachers of selected schools in April
2000. A total of 108 head teachers agreed to participate in our research,
giving a response rate of 65%. Pupil confidentiality was assured as pupils
were not asked to put their name on the questionnaire. The final class
selection, and therefore the respondents to the questionnaire, was made
by head teachers, based on guidelines that we made available to them.
Only one class in any school was included. See Appendix 2 for a list of
the schools that took part in the research and the number and percentage
of pupils who completed the questionnaire.
5 young people and food safety
INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS
The second component of the research involved contacting Directors of
Environmental Health in each local authority in Scotland to enlist the
assistance of environmental health officers (EHOs) for each area. All of
the Directors of Environmental Health agreed to assist with the research.
We sought the assistance of EHOs for a number of reasons. Primarily,
we considered it beneficial to have an independent person to disseminate
the questionnaires in the school to the pupils. It was considered, as far as
possible, this would ensure a standard method of dissemination of the
questionnaire. It was also felt that involving EHOs could be useful to
encourage a good response rate from pupils, as it was easier to maintain
confidentiality. We felt that EHOs were likely to be regarded as neutral
by the school pupils, and this could encourage pupils to give a full
response without concern about their teacher assessing their answer.
Additionally, environmental health officers are professionals suitably
qualified to respond to queries from pupils about food safety and
hygiene.
In the majority of cases, EHOs arranged to go into schools across
Scotland to disseminate and collect completed questionnaires from pupils
and answer any queries that pupils had. The number of schools that the
SCC asked EHOs to visit varied for each local authority area and ranged
from one school in Shetland to twelve schools in Glasgow, depending on
the size of the school-aged population in their local authority area. The
Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland endorsed
the opportunity for environmental health officers to work in partnership
with the SCC and local schools in this research.
young people and food safety 6
Environmental health officers were asked to contact each nominated
teacher in the selected schools in their area and arrange a convenient
time to visit and disseminate the questionnaire. We suggested that, if
possible, visits be made before the end of May 2000 to avoid
complications of teachers being involved with exams in June. In four
cases, the school-contact teacher disseminated the questionnaires to
pupils themselves.
DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
The third component of the research involved the development and
dissemination of the questionnaire, which was drafted and then sent to a
number of environmental health officers and other professionals for
comment. It was then piloted at a secondary school in Glasgow with 14
pupils. Discussion groups were conducted after the questionnaire was
completed by pupils, to explore the pupils' understanding and
interpretation of the questions and the format and ease of completion of
the questionnaire. Amendments were made to the questionnaire before
it was distributed. See Appendix 3 for the final questionnaire.
RESPONSE
Returned questionnaires were received from 31 local authority areas.
This amounted to 2210 useable questionnaires. The data was analysed
using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Fifteen
questionnaires from one school were not included in the analysis because
the questionnaires were received after the cut-off date in late August.
7 young people and food safety
Chapter 3
Findings
The chapter on findings is split into two sections. The first presents a
summary of the characteristics or profile of the pupils who responded.
The second presents the results of the questions asked in the
questionnaire.
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
In June 2000 the SCC received completed questionnaires from 2210
school pupils who attend 108 secondary schools across Scotland - a
response rate from schools of 65%. The respondents were from a mix of
local authority and independent schools and both rural and urban areas
were represented.
Gender of respondents
Figure 2
Gender of respondents
Female
54%
Male
46%
The gender split of respondents was slightly biased in favour of girls,
with 54% of respondents being female and 46% being male (see Figure
2). For girls this is slightly higher than the average (49.8%) for
secondary schools in Scotland and for boys slightly lower than the
Scottish average (50.2%) 6.
Age of respondents
The target population for the study was school pupils in the 13-14 year
age range. The majority of respondents (91%) who answered this
question were 13 or 14 years (see Table 1). However, some respondents
fell outside of this range. Seven percent of respondents were under 13
years and 2% were over. All of the pupils who responded, irrespective of
age, were included in the analysis.
young people and food safety 8
Table 1
Age of respondents
Age
Number
%
11
1
0.0
12
160
7.3
13
1375
62.4
14
622
28.2
15
45
2.0
16
2
0.1
n=2205
An explanation for the variation in age could be due to the time that
the research was conducted, towards the end of the summer term. The
summer term is the last term in the school year and in some schools
classes are moved up to the next academic year before the summer
holidays, while in other schools the pupils will remain in the same year
group until after the summer holidays. Another reason why the age
range varied could be due to head teachers selecting a different age
group to the one suggested by the SCC.
9 young people and food safety
Location of schools
The geographical spread of the 108 schools that took part is represented
in Figure 3. The spread of schools in the study extends from Shetland
and Orkney in the north of Scotland, includes the Western Isles,
Aberdeen in the east and throughout Scotland to the Borders.
Figure 3
Map showing the location of
participating schools
young people and food safety 10
By comparing the total respondents with the total secondary school roll,
it is evident that the response rate by local authority area is broadly
representative.
Table 2
Distribution of respondents by local authority with
comparison against % of school roll
Local Authority
Aberdeen City
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll and Bute
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries and Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
City of Edinburgh
Falkirk
Fife
City of Glasgow
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Orkney Islands
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Western Isles/
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar
Total
Number of
respondents in
each area
111
102
41
30
36
88
50
63
87
59
43
105
71
104
208
64
70
30
34
86
134
26
83
67
24
97
99
64
60
29
5.0
4.6
1.9
1.4
1.6
4.0
2.2
2.9
3.9
2.7
1.9
4.8
3.2
4.7
9.4
2.9
3.2
1.4
1.5
3.9
6.1
1.2
3.8
3.0
1.1
4.4
4.5
2.9
2.7
1.3
% of
secondary
school roll*
3.5
4.8
2.3
1.8
0.9
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.8
1.5
2.2
6.0
2.7
7.2
9.4
4.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.9
7.3
0.4
3.8
2.1
0.5
2.5
6.5
1.8
2.2
3.2
45
2.0
0.6
2210
100.0
97.6
% of total
respondents
*Note: The secondary school roll is for September 1998, and comes from
Examination results in Scottish Schools, 1997–99, Scottish Executive.
11 young people and food safety
Cooking at home
The SCC was interested in whether respondents do any cooking in the
home environment, as we had assumed that this age group would. The
questionnaire asked whether any cooking was undertaken at home and,
if so, how frequently this occurred. See Table 3.
Table 3
Respondents that cook at home
Number
Yes
%
1751
79.4
454
20.6
No
n=2205
The majority of respondents indicated that they do cook at home (79%),
with a fifth (21%) responding that they do not. This emphasises the
importance of pupils being aware of the basic food hygiene principles as
just under 80% of pupils indicated they are responsible for food
preparation and cooking at home. The questionnaire did not pursue this
question further: for example it would be useful to know what they
cooked - did this include hot food, or was it confined to sandwiches,
and whether they cooked only for themselves, or whether they cooked
for other people in the home?
The questionnaire went on to explore how often respondents cook at
home. See Table 4.
Table 4
Frequency of cooking at home
Frequency
Number
%
Once a day or more often
622
38.6
Less than once a day and more than once
a week
407
25.2
Once a week
330
20.5
Less than once a week
253
15.7
n=1612
young people and food safety 12
When asked how often they cook at home almost two fifths of pupils
(39%) indicated that they cook at least once a day and therefore could be
described as cooking frequently. A quarter of respondents (25%) cook
occasionally, (responding that they cook less than once a day but more
than once a week). Just over a third of pupils could be described as
infrequent cooks at home (as a fifth indicated they cook once a week
and 16% indicate they cook less than once a week in the home).
Cooking at home, by gender
The SCC was interested in finding out who cooked more often at
home, boys or girls, and cross-tabulated gender and frequency of cooking
at home. The results show that a higher proportion of girls cook at
home (81% of girls) than boys (63% of boys). There are a number of
possible explanations for the difference in the gender split in cooking at
home among the pupils in the study. It could be that stereotypical
gender roles still exist or that girls are considered more mature than boys
at this age and therefore felt to be more responsible in the kitchen. It is
possible that there is a stigma attached to cooking, and boys are less
likely to admit to cooking in the home than girls. None of these
possible scenarios were pursued further.
When the respondents that cook at home was cross-tabulated with
gender, unsurprisingly the results show a similar pattern; that girls cook
more frequently at home than boys. See Table 5.
13 young people and food safety
Table 5
Cross-tabulation of gender and frequency of cooking
at home
How often cook at home
Gender
Total
Less than once a
Less than
Once a day or day and more
Once a week once a
more often
than once a
week
week
Boy
222 (14%)
161 (10%)
152 (9%)
107 (7%)
642 (40%)
Girl
398 (25%)
246 (15%)
178 (11%)
146 (9%)
968 (60%)
n=330
n=253
n=1610
n=620
n=407
When cooking at home is examined more closely by frequency in the
week, the results show that girls cook more often than boys. A quarter
of girls could be classed as frequent cooks (they said they cook at least
once a day), compared to 14% of boys. Fifteen percent of girls are
occasional cooks (responding that they cook less than once a day, but
more than once a week) compared to 10% of boys. Twenty percent of
girls are described as infrequent cooks (indicating they cook once a
week or less) compared with 16% of boys.
Class used to complete questionnaire
The SCC wanted to find out what class pupils were in when they
completed the questionnaire. The results show that a range of classes was
used to disseminate and complete the questionnaires. See Table 6.
Table 6
Class in which respondents completed the
questionnaire
Class
Home Economics
Number
%
1484
67
Personal and Social Development
463
21
Other
263
12
n=2210
young people and food safety 14
As was expected, the majority of respondents (67%) completed the
questionnaire in a Home Economics class. Almost one fifth (21%)
completed the questionnaire in classes which dealt with personal and
social development (such as personal and social education, health
education, social education and social and vocational skills).
Questionnaires were disseminated and completed in a range of other
classes within the school (including biology, English, geography, Latin,
maths, modern studies and music). One class completed the
questionnaires at lunchtime.
FOOD SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
In order to determine pupils' knowledge of basic food hygiene principles
a range of questions relating to food safety and hygiene were asked.
These questions are based on common government guidance and
established measures that can be taken to ensure safe food production7.
These include all the stages of food preparation including personal
hygiene, preparation, cooking, cooling and storage of food.
The order in which the results are presented in this section is different
from the order in which they were asked in the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was randomly set out, whereas the results are structured
broadly according to themes based on the principle messages from the
ten-point-plan used as public advertisements by the Scottish Executive,
(formerly Scottish Office) in 19978 . All questions include a 'don't
know' option.
15 young people and food safety
1
Personal hygiene
The first basic food hygiene message that we examined relates to
personal hygiene and the importance for the need to “wash hands
thoroughly before preparing food, after going to the toilet or handling pets”.
Two questions were asked relating to personal hygiene in the
questionnaire. The first of these questions was asked in the form of a
scenario, which stated “After wiping Johnny's nose Julie washed her hands
with soap and hot water, before slicing apples”. Pupils were asked to indicate
if the food mentioned in the statement is safe to eat or unsafe to eat and
could make you ill. See Table 7.
Table 7
Food safety after washing hands
Number
Safe
Unsafe
Don't know
%
2153
97.5
46
2.1
9
0.4
n=2208
The food in this scenario is considered safe to eat, as good hygiene rules
were observed and almost all of the respondents (98%) answered
correctly. Only 2% answered unsafe and less than 1% of the pupils (9 in
total) answered don't know.
The second question relating to personal hygiene took a different angle
and asked pupils how you should wash your hands. See Table 8.
young people and food safety 16
Table 8
Response to how you should wash your hands
Number
%
By putting them under cold running water
19
0.9
By washing them with soap and cold water
79
3.6
By putting them under hot running water
20
0.9
2064
93.6
22
1.0
By washing them with soap and hot water
Don't know
n=2204
Although the questions were located at different parts of the
questionnaire (one at question 8 and the other at 12) similar responses
were given. The majority of respondents (94%) answered according to
best practice, which is by washing hands with soap and hot water. Four
percent suggested that you should wash your hands by washing them
with soap and cold water, and 1% suggested putting them under cold
running water. One percent answered don't know.
When the response from these two questions are compared it can be
seen that slightly more pupils answered incorrectly when they were
asked how to wash their hands (6.4%) than when asked to indicate
whether the statement was true or false (2.5%).
2
Cross-contamination
The second food hygiene message relates to cross-contamination.
Advice from the Scottish Executive states the need to “prepare and store
all uncooked food separately from cooked food - keep raw meat or fish at the
bottom of your fridge”.
17 young people and food safety
Uncooked food and cooked food should be prepared and stored
separately. This is to avoid raw food touching or dripping onto cooked
food as harmful bacteria (known as pathogens) can be passed this way.
Raw food is particularly likely to contain pathogens and should always
be kept separate from high risk food. High risk foods are usually
considered as those which support the multiplication of harmful bacteria
and are intended for consumption without further treatment, such as
cooking, which would destroy the bacteria.
Two questions were included in the questionnaire with a focus on crosscontamination, one relating to shopping and the other relating to storing
food.
Safe shopping and cross-contamination
To test pupils’ knowledge about cross-contamination a scenario relating
to shopping was presented in the questionnaire. It states “You have been
to the shops and bought some bread, mushrooms and raw chicken. You have two
bags”. It asks, to be safe, what would you pack together? The correct
answer to avoid cross-contamination is to pack chicken in one bag and
bread and mushrooms in the other. See Table 9.
Table 9
Safe shopping
Number
%
Chicken in one bag, bread and mushrooms in the other
1674
76.1
Bread in one bag, chicken and mushrooms in the other
353
16.1
Mushrooms in one bag, bread and chicken in the other
101
4.6
71
3.2
Don’t know
n=2199
young people and food safety 18
The majority of respondents (76%) answered correctly. However, almost
a quarter (24%) of pupils indicated an incorrect response or stated don't
know.
Safe storage and cross-contamination
The questionnaire asked respondents to examine a picture of a fridge
with an open door and seven basic food items (raw meat, raw fish,
cooked meat, milk, a dessert with cream, vegetables and cheese). See
Figure 4. They were asked to draw arrows from each food item to
where they thought it should be safely stored in the fridge.
Figure 4
Correct storage in fridge
Raw fish
Raw meat
Cheese
Cooked meat
Milk
19 young people and food safety
Desserts
with cream
Vegetables
The individual results for the food products are given at Appendix 4
with the exception of raw meat and fish, which are examined in detail.
Due to the potential for cross-contamination, especially to cooked or
ready-to-eat foods which require no further cooking, raw meat and fish
are recommended to be stored at the bottom of the fridge. This is also
the coolest part of the fridge where bacteria increase most slowly. See
Table 10 for the results.
Table 10
Raw meat and fish storage
Number
Raw meat
% Raw
meat
Number
Raw fish
% Raw
fish
Top shelf
439
20.2
485
22.5
Middle shelf
663
30.5
563
26.1
Bottom shelf
617
28.4
587
27.2
Drawers
349
16.1
383
17.8
Door
16
0.7
32
1.5
Freezer
87
4.0
106
4.9
n=2171
n=2156
Just under a third of pupils answered correctly that raw meat (32.4%)
and raw fish (32.1%) should be stored on the bottom shelf of the fridge
(or in the freezer). Conversely, this means that 68% of pupils (n=1467
for raw meat and n=1463 for raw fish) could not correctly identify
where to store these potentially hazardous foodstuffs.
Fridge food safety analysis
There are good practice guidelines on where food items are
recommended to be stored in the fridge. However, it is not unsafe to
store some of them elsewhere in the fridge. What is important in food
safety terms is avoiding cross-contamination. Therefore, cooked or
ready-to-eat foods must be stored separately from raw foods.
young people and food safety 20
The SCC analysed the fridge question in more detail by concentrating
on the position in which the food is stored relative to the other food
items. For example, it would be safe (rather than recommended good
practice) to place raw meat on the top shelf of the fridge, if nothing was
below it. The SCC analysed this question by applying criteria on safety
to the food items. We considered that food stored in the fridge is unsafe
based on the following criteria:
It is unsafe to store raw meat on the same shelf in the fridge as any of
the ready-to-eat foods, excluding the freezer.
l
It is unsafe to store raw fish on the same shelf in the fridge as any of
the ready-to-eat foods, excluding the freezer.
l
It is unsafe to store raw meat on a shelf above any of the ready-to-eat
foods (with the exception of the drawer). For example, raw meat on the
second shelf down with cheese on the third shelf down is unsafe, while
raw meat on the second shelf down with cheese in the drawer is safe,
provided there is nothing else ready-to-eat on the second shelf.
l
It is unsafe to store raw fish on a shelf above any of the ready-to-eat
foods (with the exception of the drawer).
l
The SCC examined the information given for the individual food
items and their relative position in the fridge based on these criteria.
See Figure 5.
Figure 5
Safety analysis for the fridge
Safe
36%
Unsafe
64%
21 young people and food safety
The analysis reveals that just over a third of respondents (36%) suggested
safe storage positions for food in the fridge while just under two thirds
(64%) of respondents suggested storing food in the fridge in a position
that is considered unsafe.
3
Temperature control
Food hygiene advice suggests the need to “keep the coldest part of your
fridge below 5°C”. It also suggests the need to get a fridge thermometer
and to store eggs in the fridge. The need to be aware of the temperature
of the fridge is important because the common food poisoning
organisms are generally considered to be unable to multiply at
temperatures below 5°C.
Figure 6
What temperature should
food be stored at in a fridge?
The questionnaire asked pupils to indicate, from a range of options,
what temperature they thought food should be stored at in the fridge.
See Figure 6.
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
3
4
5
Less than 1°C (11%)
Between 1°C and 5°C (49%)
Between 6°C and 10°C (19%)
Between 11°C and 15°C (4%)
More than 16°C (2%)
Don’t know (22%)
Just under half of respondents (49%) answered correctly, that is between
1°C and 5°C. The next highest response, from 22% of pupils was don't
know.
Thirty percent of pupils answered this question incorrectly. Almost 20%
chose somewhere in the range between 6°C and above 16°C, while just
under 11% indicated below 1°C.
Overall, more than 50% of pupils could not provide the correct answer
to this question. The response to this question could perhaps
demonstrate a lack of understanding of degrees of centigrade by pupils.
young people and food safety 22
Egg storage
Figure 7
Where should you store eggs?
The questionnaire went on to ask where eggs should be stored. See
Figure 7.
2
3
Of the three options given, the majority of respondents (89%) provided
the best practice answer, that is, in the fridge. Nine percent answered
outside the fridge, and 2% said they do not know.
4
Defrosting frozen foods
1
1 In the fridge (89%)
2 Outside the fridge (9%)
3 Don’t know (2%)
Guidance suggests the need to defrost frozen meats and poultry fully (in
the fridge or microwave) or according to manufacturers’ instructions,
before cooking to kill off harmful bacteria.
The SCC was interested in finding out whether respondents know
how to do this, and the questionnaire asked how to defrost a chicken.
A range of options was given for respondents to choose. See Figure 8.
The results reveal that the majority of pupils (64%) chose the option
that was considered best practice - that is by covering it and putting it
on a plate in the fridge to defrost. However, the results also
demonstrate that slightly over a fifth (22%) suggested that the chicken
be near the window to defrost in the sunlight, and 5% suggested it is
defrosted by running it under hot water. Nine percent of respondents
answered don't know.
What these results indicate is while the larger number of pupils
identified the safest way of defrosting the chicken, more than a quarter
chose potentially harmful methods of defrosting and a significant
number did not know which option to choose.
23 young people and food safety
Figure 8
How should you defrost a
chicken?
3
4
2
1
1 By covering it and putting it
on a plate in the fridge (64%)
2 Near the window to defrost
in the sunlight (22%)
3 By running it under hot water
(5%)
4 Don’t know (9%)
5
Reheating food
The guidance relating to cooking food notes “Cook food thoroughly,
following the instructions on the pack. If you reheat food, make sure it is piping
hot”. The SCC was interested in finding out whether pupils know how
often food can be safely reheated.
The questionnaire asked pupils how often it is safe to reheat food once it
is cooked. See Table 11.
Table 11
Safely reheating food
Number
Not at all
%
169
7.7
Once
1665
75.8
Twice
182
8.3
69
3.1
112
5.1
As often as you like
Don't know
n=2197
It is considered safe to reheat food once, and the majority of respondents
(76%) answered correctly. Eight percent of respondents answered it is
not safe to reheat food at all. In food safety terms this would be erring
on the side of caution, and it appears to indicate a lack of knowledge of
best practice.
Eight percent of respondents indicated that it is safe to heat food twice,
and 3% of respondents indicated it is safe to heat food as often as you
like. Both of these could prove harmful. Five percent of respondents
answered don't know.
young people and food safety 24
6
Undercooked food
Bacteria such as salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli may be present in
animals without any adverse affect to the animal and these bacteria may
be transferred to food. Contaminated food usually looks, tastes and
smells completely normal. To minimise the risk to health, guidance
suggests that meat and poultry products, (particularly hamburgers,
sausages and poultry) be cooked thoroughly to reduce the risk of
transferring bacteria. It also advises against eating food that contains
uncooked eggs.
Two questions were asked relating to safe cooking methods, the first
about hamburgers and the second relating to eggs.
Undercooked hamburgers
A statement was given “Jane prepared hamburgers for lunch. She removed
them from the pan when they were getting crusty on the outside and were
slightly pink in the centre” and pupils were asked to indicate whether the
food mentioned in the statement is safe to eat, unsafe to eat and could
make you ill or to indicate they did not know the correct option. The
food in this scenario is considered unsafe to eat, as undercooked meat
can cause illness. See Figure 9.
Figure 9
Safe cooking - pink
hamburgers
2
3
1
Encouragingly, the majority of respondents (87%) answered correctly,
that the food is unsafe to eat. However, 8% answered safe, and 5%
answered don't know.
The high number of correct responses may reflect the experience of this
age group as standardised hamburgers from fast food outlets may be a
commonly consumed food.
25 young people and food safety
1 Unsafe (87%)
2 Safe (8%)
3 Don’t know (5%)
Undercooked eggs
A second statement suggested “Jodie was short of time and the children were
hungry. She needed something quick and easy so she made them soft-boiled
eggs”. Again pupils were asked to indicate whether the food mentioned
in the statement is safe to eat, unsafe to eat and could make you ill or to
indicate they did not know the correct option. The food in this scenario
is considered unsafe to eat, as undercooked or uncooked eggs can cause
illness. See Table 12.
Table 12
Safe cooking - soft-boiled eggs
Number
Safe
%
1050
47.7
Unsafe
770
35.0
Don't know
379
17.2
n=2199
Just over a third of respondents (35%) answered correctly, that is, the food
is unsafe and could make you ill. Just under half (48%) of respondents
indicated that this practice was safe, contrary to advice. A significant
number of respondents (17%) answered don't know.
It is significant that only one in three pupils answered correctly. This
indicates that even though there have been publicity campaigns about
the dangers of eating raw or soft-boiled eggs, it still appears to be
common practice.
young people and food safety 26
7
Cooling food safely
Guidance has emphasised the need to maintain the correct temperature
for food and the need to keep food out of the 'danger zone', that is
between 5°C and 63°C. It suggests the need to “keep hot food hot, and
cold food cold - don't leave them standing around. Take chilled and frozen food
home quickly - then put them in your fridge or freezer at once”.
The SCC wanted to find out whether pupils know how to deal with
food once it has been heated. A statement suggested “Jack cooked a pot of
chilli that morning. He left the chilli to cool on the worktop for two hours. He
then put the pot of chilli in the fridge for tonight's dinner.” Pupils were asked
to indicate whether the food is safe, unsafe or to answer don't know. See
Table 13. The food in this scenario is considered safe to eat as it is
important to let food cool down before putting it into the fridge. Hot
food should never be placed directly into a fridge as it can raise the
temperature and it can also encourage condensation and therefore
contamination.
Table 13
Cooling food
Number
%
Safe
587
26.7
Unsafe
987
44.8
Don't know
628
28.5
n=2202
Twenty-seven percent of respondents answered according to best
practice, that is, the food is safe to eat. A significant number of
respondents (45%) indicated that this practice is unsafe, contrary to good
practice and a significant proportion of pupils (29%) answered don't
know.
27 young people and food safety
Significantly, when this question was shown to Environmental Health
Officers for comment there was debate about the exact time it would
take to cool the food down and would depend on factors such as the
amount of chilli cooked, the conditions of the kitchen and so on. This
demonstrates the complexity of this issue and the need for clarity and
guidance for the public and it is perhaps understandable that less than
27% of pupils could identify the correct answer.
8
Recommended storage time
Government regulations in the form of the 'use by’ date tell consumers
when a product should be eaten by, after which the quality and the
safety of the product will decrease.
In relation to use by dates, the questionnaire asked pupils what to do
with milk that has passed its 'use by' date and gives four options for
action. See Table 14.
Table 14
Action for milk past 'use by' date
Number
Drink it anyway
Drink it if it smells okay
‘Bin’ it
Don't know
Total
%
42
1.9
307
14.0
1824
83.1
22
1.0
2195
100.0
The majority of respondents (83%) answered correctly to 'bin’ it.
Fourteen percent of respondents answered 'drink it if it smells okay'; 2%
responded 'drink it anyway' and 1% answered don't know.
young people and food safety 28
Additionally, the SCC asked a series of questions relating to knowledge
about how long food can be kept and stored safely before it should be
thrown away. Although it was not stated that the food should be stored
in the fridge, the examples given are all highly perishable and therefore
guidance would recommend that they are. An example of an opened
packet of desserts with cream was given in the question along with the
answer that it should be eaten or disposed of in one day. Pupils were
asked to write how many days they thought the food items can be kept
before they are unsafe to eat. The results for the individual food items
are presented below. It should be noted, that if 'use by' dates are on food,
these should be complied with. In some instances, however, food is
available without the presence of 'use by' dates.
Storage time for fresh cooked meat
It is recommended that once opened fresh cooked meat, for example an
opened packet of sliced cooked ham, is used within two days. See Table
15.
Table 15
Storage time - cooked meat
Number
%
Less than 2 days
346
16.5
2 days
648
30.9
1101
52.6
More than 2 days
n=2095
The results show that 31% of pupils identified the correct timescale and a
further 17% suggested less than the recommended time. Both of these
responses would be considered safe, but may demonstrate a lack of
knowledge rather than unsafe practice. However, 53% of pupils
suggested more than two days which is considered unsafe.
29 young people and food safety
Storage time for raw eggs
It is recommended that eggs can be stored for two weeks in the fridge.
See Table 16.
Table 16
Storage time - raw eggs
Number
Less than 2 weeks
%
1340
70.2
2 weeks
342
17.9
More than 2 weeks
228
11.9
n=1910
The results show that 82% of pupils are unaware of the timescale for egg
storage and answered either more than two weeks or less than two
weeks. Less than a fifth (18%) indicated the correct timescale.
Storage time for soft cheese
It is recommended that soft cheese, for example an opened packet of
cottage cheese or Brie, can be stored for between two and three days.
See Table 17.
Table 17
Storage time - soft cheese
Number
%
Less than 2 days
280
13.7
2 – 3 days
743
36.4
1017
49.9
More than 3 days
n=2040
young people and food safety 30
Just over a third of pupils responded correctly, that the food could be
kept for between two to three days. Just under 14% stated less than two
days and the other half suggested the food can be kept for more than
three days which is considered unsafe practice.
Storage time for fresh mince
We wanted to know how long pupils thought it advisable to store mince,
bought fresh from a butcher this morning. It is recommended that fresh
mince should only be kept for a day before use. See Table 18.
Table 18
Storage time - fresh mince
Number
%
Less than 2 days
524
26.1
2 – 3 days
854
42.6
More than 3 days
629
31.3
n=2007
Just over a quarter (26%) of pupils gave the correct answer for this
question, that is less than two days, and the rest answered incorrectly.
The answers to these questions on food storage were consistently poor
with between 18% and 37% of pupils correctly answering these four
questions.
A further question was included in the questionnaire that was not used
in the subsequent analysis. It related to how long you can store fresh
pasteurised milk before it should be used or disposed of. These results
are not given because the question did not state whether it was an
opened or closed container, which would influence the storage times and
therefore the answers from pupils.
31 young people and food safety
9
At-risk groups
It is advised that special care should be taken for certain groups in society
who may be more at risk of foodborne illness than the general
population. The questionnaire asked pupils to name two groups of
people that might be at risk from food poisoning and gave elderly people
as an example. Correct answers also include babies and young children,
people who are already ill and pregnant women. See Table 19.
Table 19
At-risk groups from food poisoning
Number
Babies
%
1044
39.3
Pregnant women
321
12.1
Sick people
358
13.5
Other
933
35.1
n=2656. Note that more than one response is possible.
The results show that almost 40% of pupils correctly identified that
babies were vulnerable to food poisoning. However, few respondents
identified the other two groups considered at risk from food poisoning,
with 13.5% and 12% respectively identifying sick people and pregnant
women. Further analysis revealed that only 301 pupils (14%) identified
two groups correctly.
A range of other groups of people were identified by pupils who were
particularly at risk of food poisoning. These included holiday-makers,
poor people, people who are blind, adults and (specifically) middle-aged
adults, alcoholics/smokers, teenagers, the homeless, and people who eat
takeaways. More surprisingly the answers 'dogs' and 'pets' were also
included. These responses are all quite strange however, the questionnaire
did not pursue any rationale behind these that the pupils might have had.
young people and food safety 32
10
Teaching resource pack 'Aliens in Our Food'
In June 1999 the then Food Safety Minister, Jeff Rooker MP launched a
food hygiene teaching resource pack called Aliens in Our Food. This was
aimed at 11 - 14 year olds and funded by the European Commission as
part of a European Union wide food safety information initiative 9. The
pack was distributed free to all UK secondary schools in September
1999.
The SCC was interested in finding out whether pupils have seen this
pack. See Figure 10.
The majority of pupils said they had not seen the training pack (81%).
Six percent of pupils (n=134) indicated that they had seen the training
pack. Most pupils in four classes had seen the pack and this accounts for
54 of the 134 pupils answering yes. The remaining 80 pupils who said
they had seen the pack are spread over 48 schools. This appears to be
unusual, as one would expect the majority of pupils in a class to have
seen the pack. This perhaps indicates that either more pupils have seen
the pack than can remember or less have seen the pack than have
indicated they have.
11
Additional comments from pupils
Two additional questions were included in the questionnaire where
respondents were asked to comment about food safety issues that
concerned them and on the questionnaire in general. Few comments
were made by pupils.
Those that were made include comments about their perception of the
state of knowledge on food safety issues. For example:
33 young people and food safety
Figure 10
Knowledge of training pack
‘Aliens in Our Food’
3
2
1
1 No (81%)
2 Yes (6%)
3 Don’t know (13%)
“I think people are doing well about food safety, but it should be targeted more at
the elderly” and “People generally don't know enough about food safety and
should be better informed by the government”.
Additionally, a few questions were raised by pupils. For example, about
good practice such as “Do you have to use a plastic chopping board against a
wooden one?”
One comment reaffirmed the lack of understanding by some pupils
relating to food poisoning “Can you ever get food poisoning from raw eggs?”
Two comments related to learning about the subject “How could you make
learning food safety more enjoyable?” and “In school you should get practical tests
to do with food safety and hygiene”.
Comments about the questionnaire
Respondents were also invited to write any comments or note down any
questions they had about the questionnaire. Although they were few in
number, the majority of pupils who commented suggested the
questionnaire made pupils think about the subject seriously and
welcomed taking part. For example:
“This questionnaire made me think more about food and made me more aware of
food poisoning” and “I think this questionnaire should be given to everyone
because everyone should know about food hygiene”.
“I think this questionnaire is good because it tells the government how much
children aged 13-14 know about food safety”.
Also pupils made useful suggestions
young people and food safety 34
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
The response rate to the questionnaire was high, with 65% (n=108) of
schools out of 166 initially approached taking part in the research.
The respondents represent a good cross-section of the population of
Scotland and the results are based on 2210 completed and useable
questionnaires.
A slightly higher number of responses were received from girls than
boys and the majority of respondents were aged 13 or 14 years.
The results show a mixed knowledge of food safety and hygiene
principles.
There is a good knowledge about some issues. This includes when
and how to wash hands properly; where to store eggs; how to properly
cook hamburgers and when to determine the 'use by' date of milk.
Four out of five respondents answered these questions correctly.
There is a reasonable knowledge about other food safety and hygiene
principles. For example between 64% and 76% know how to safely
pack a shopping bag; how to reheat food and how to defrost a chicken
safely.
There are poor levels of knowledge about certain food safety and
hygiene principles. This includes what the temperature of food in the
fridge should be; about cross-contamination in, for example, how to
store raw meat and fish safely; how to cook eggs safely; how to cool
food before storing and in identifying groups of people who may be
susceptible to food poisoning. The results indicate that between 12%
and 49% of pupils indicated a correct answer to these questions.
35 young people and food safety
Chapter 4
Food safety index
The SCC was interested in the proportion of correct and incorrect
answers given by respondents to the questionnaire as a whole. A food
safety index was developed to give an indication of the awareness of
respondents to hygiene and food safety issues based on the proportion of
correct answers in their response.
Methodology for food safety index
A score was allocated to each question that relates to food safety.
Respondents score one point for a correct answer (see Table 20) and zero
for an incorrect answer. The exception is the fridge question (see safe
storage in the fridge at page 9 in Chapter 3 and Appendix 4) which is
accorded a value of four points for a 'safe' fridge and zero otherwise. The
total possible mark, which we have called the food safety index, is 20 and
respondents can score between 0 and 20 depending on their knowledge
of food safety and hygiene. The higher the score, the better the
understanding of safety issues.
Table 20
Questions where points are awarded
Order
in
Report
Number in
questionnaire
1
8b
Food safety after washing hands
1
2
12
How should you wash your hands?
1
3
16
Safe shopping
1
4
11
Storing food in the fridge – safety analysis
4
5
14
Temperature for food in the fridge
1
6
10
Where to store eggs
1
7
7
How to defrost food
1
8
13
Safely reheating food
1
9
8
Safe cooking – pink hamburgers
1
10
8d
Safe cooking – soft boiled eggs
1
Correct answer
Points
young people and food safety 36
11
8c
Cooling food
1
12
17
‘use by’ date
1
13
9a
Storage time - cooked meat
1
14
9b
Storage time - eggs
1
15
9c
Storage time - soft cheese
1
16
9d
Storage time - raw mince
1
17
15
At risk groups – one other identified
1
Total points
20
Results of food safety index
The food safety index is used to aggregate the response by pupils, giving
an indication of their knowledge of food safety issues. Figure 11 shows
the distribution of scores for the food safety index.
Figure 11
Distribution of food safety index
300
200
Frequency
100
0
0
37 young people and food safety
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Scores
The mean value attained by 2210 pupils is 11.8. One pupil answered all
of the questions correctly, scoring a value of 20, and one pupil answered
no questions correctly, scoring a value of 0.
When the results are summarised into range values, it can be seen that
the largest proportion of pupils (51%) scored a value between 11 and 15
correct answers. See Table 21.
Table 21
Value
Range of values in food safety index
Number of pupils
0-5
%
30
1
749
34
11-15
1131
51
16-20
300
14
6-10
The results show that the majority of pupils (65%) could answer at least
half of the food safety questions correctly. However, much smaller
numbers (14%) were able to answer three-quarters of the questions
relating to basic food safety and hygiene principles.
Safety index and other factors
The food safety index was used to examine whether there is any
difference between pupils' knowledge of food safety when other factors
are taken into account. The factors examined include age; gender;
whether respondents undertake cooking in the home environment; their
geographical location - that is whether in a rural or non-rural location;
by local authority; whether the school is funded by the local authority or
independently; and by a measure of deprivation (in this case free school
meals).
young people and food safety 38
Safety index by age
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any significant difference
between knowledge of food safety and hygiene principles when the age
of the pupil was considered. See Table 22.
Table 22
Safety index by age
Age
Mean
Number
12
11.1
160
13
11.8
1375
14
11.9
622
15
12.9
45
12.15
2202
Total
The average score for pupils aged 12 is 11.1 and this increases to an
average of 12.9 at aged 15. This suggests that as pupils get older, their
knowledge of food safety issues increases slightly. However, the
differences are not great, but are statistically significant.
Safety index by gender
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationship between
the gender of the respondent and their knowledge of food safety issues.
See Table 23.
Table 23
Safety index by gender
Gender
Mean
Number
Boy
11.4
1015
Girl
12.2
1193
11.80
2208
Total
39 young people and food safety
The results indicate that girls have a higher average food safety score at
12.2 than boys who average 11.4. This suggests that girls in this study are
slightly more knowledgeable about food safety issues than boys. While
the differences between boys and girls are not great, they are statistically
significant.
Safety index by cooking at home
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationship
between those pupils that undertake cooking at home and their
knowledge of food safety issues. See Table 24.
Table 24
Safety index by cooking at home
Cooking at home
Mean
Number
Yes
12.1
1751
No
10.7
454
11.81
2205
Total
The results indicate that those pupils who do cook at home know more
about food safety, and record higher average food safety scores (12.1) than
those who do not cook at home (10.7). However, the differences are not
great, but are statistically significant.
Safety index by rural and non-rural locations
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationship
between the food safety scores of pupils and whether their schools were
located in urban or rural authorities. See Table 25. The Scottish
Executive 10 defines local authorities as rural if they have a population
density of less than one person per hectare. Using this definition for the
young people and food safety 40
purposes of our research, the following councils are classed as rural Aberdeenshire; Angus; Argyll and Bute; Dumfries and Galloway; East
Ayrshire; Highland; Moray; Orkney Islands; Perth and Kinross; Scottish
Borders; Shetland Islands; South Ayrshire; Stirling and Western Isles.
Schools in these 'rural' authorities were compared with those outside.
Table 25
Food safety index by rural location
Mean
Number
Rural
11.9
745
Non-rural
11.8
1465
11.80
2210
Total
The results show no significant difference between the food safety scores
of pupils in schools in rural and non-rural authorities, with an average
score of 11.9 for rural pupils, and 11.8 for non-rural pupils.
Safety index by local authority
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any difference between
pupils' knowledge of food hygiene and safety and the local authority area
in which they go to school. See Table 26.
41 young people and food safety
Table 26
Safety index by local authority
Local Authority
Number of
respondents
Mean
Dundee City
10.9
50
City of Glasgow
11.1
208
North Lanarkshire
11.5
134
Renfrewshire
11.5
83
Inverclyde
11.5
70
South Ayrshire
11.5
97
East Ayrshire
11.5
63
Highland
11.6
64
City of Edinburgh
11.6
105
Scottish Borders
11.6
67
Aberdeenshire
11.8
102
Fife
11.8
104
Midlothian
11.8
30
East Renfrewshire
11.8
43
Orkney Islands
11.9
26
Moray
11.9
34
West Dunbartonshire
11.9
60
Clackmannanshire
11.9
36
Stirling
11.9
64
East Dunbartonshire
12.0
87
Falkirk
12.1
71
North Ayrshire
12.1
86
Dumfries and Galloway
12.1
88
Western Isles /Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
12.2
45
West Lothian
12.2
29
Angus
12.3
41
Argyll and Bute
12.3
30
Shetland Islands
12.4
24
East Lothian
12.5
59
South Lanarkshire
12.5
99
Aberdeen City
12.5
111
11.80
2210
All Areas
young people and food safety 42
The average scores range from 10.9 (Dundee City) to 12.5 (Aberdeen
City). However, when the data is disaggregated into local authority areas,
it becomes difficult to interpret any conclusions because of the small
sample size of pupils in each authority. The food safety index for
individual schools that took part in the research was also examined (see
Appendix 5); however, as for local authority areas, the results cannot be
meaningfully interpreted because of the very small sample size for each
school.
Safety index for state and independent schools
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any difference in scores
by the type of school that pupils attended, that is funded by local
authorities, or independently. See Table 27.
Table 27
Safety index for pupils at state and independent
schools
Mean
Number
Independent schools
11.7
125
State schools
11.8
2085
Total
11.8
2210
Our results show that there is no significant difference in knowledge
about food safety between pupils at state and independent schools.
Although the mean safety index is slightly higher for pupils at state
schools (11.8) than for those at independent schools (11.7), the difference
is not statistically significant.
43 young people and food safety
Safety index by eligibility for free school meals
The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationship
between the food safety scores of pupils and whether their schools were
in socially deprived areas of Scotland. Pupil eligibility for free school
meals was used as a proxy for deprivation.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 places a duty on education
authorities to provide school meals free of charge to a pupil whose
parents were in receipt of Income Support. This was amended by the
Jobseekers Act 1995, which placed a duty on education authorities to
provide meals free of charge to a pupil whose parents are in receipt of
Income Support or income-based Jobseekers' Allowance (or to pupils
themselves in receipt of that benefit).
The percentage of children eligible for free school meals in each school is
available from the Scottish Executive. When the average safety index for
each school was plotted against the percentage of free school meals the
results appeared to indicate that there was no correlation between the
food safety index scored by the pupils in each school and the percentage
of pupils in the school entitled to free school meals.
However, as discussed above, the pupil numbers for each school is low,
and therefore further analysis was carried out. This examined the
percentage of pupils in a school entitled to a free school meal against the
food safety index. The data are analysed in four bands. These are schools
that have less than 10% of pupils entitled to free school meals; schools
that have more than 10% and less than or exactly 20% of pupils entitled
to free school meals; schools that have over 20% and less than or exactly
30%; and schools that have over 30% of pupils entitled to receive a free
school meal. See Table 28.
young people and food safety 44
Table 28
Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals
% in school entitled to
free school meals
=<10
697
Food safety
index
12.1
>10 and =<20
504
11.7
>20 and =<30
368
11.8
>30
412
11.5
1981
11.8
Total
Number of
pupils
Differences between groups are significant at the 5% level.
This analysis shows that there is a difference in the food safety index of
schools with higher free school meal entitlements than those with low
free school meal entitlements. Schools with 10% or less of pupils entitled
to free school meals have a higher food safety index (12.1) than schools
with over 30% of free school meal entitlement (11.5). Although the
difference is not great, it is statistically significant at the 95% confidence
interval.
Therefore, using pupil eligibility for free school meals as a proxy for
deprivation, the results indicate that the average score is slightly affected
by social deprivation. This was further analysed by gender and cooking at
home to determine whether there was any relationship between these
factors that could explain why there was an apparent difference. While
the differences do not appear to be great they are statistically significant
and there appeared to be no explanatory factors from the data used in this
study, suggesting the need for further exploration of the results.
45 young people and food safety
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
l
l
A food safety index was developed to examine the aggregate scores of
pupils who responded to the food safety questionnaire.
Based on this, it was found that there was one pupil who answered all of the food
safety and hygiene questions correctly and the mean score for pupils was 11.8.
The majority of pupils could correctly answer half of the questions relating to
hygiene and food safety. However, only 14% of pupils could answer
more than three-quarters of questions correctly.
l
l
l
A number of factors were examined to determine whether they influenced the
results of the food safety score. It was found that gender, age, whether pupils cook
at home and the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals do have a
statistical relationship on knowledge about food safety and hygiene, however the
differences are not great.
It was also found that there was no difference in knowledge on food safety and
hygiene between schools in rural and non-rural locations; between pupils in
different local authority areas; and between independent and state schools.
young people and food safety 46
Chapter 5
Conclusions and
recommendations
The response rate to the questionnaire was high, with 108 schools out of 166 initially
approached taking part in the research (65%). The results are based on 2210
completed and useable questionnaires. A slightly higher number of responses were
received from girls than boys and the majority of respondents were aged 13 or 14
years, representing a good cross-section of this age group across Scotland.
Importantly just under 80% of the pupils surveyed cook at home, with 40% of these
cooking at least once a day.
The overall conclusion of the research is clear, there does appear to be a good
knowledge of some issues, however, knowledge falls off significantly on other issues
that are less clear cut. In particular it appears that pupils are not taking up the more
complex messages.
For example, the question that received the greatest number of correct responses
related to how pupils wash their hands. The majority of pupils could answer this
without any difficulty, as 97.5% identified the correct response. What was not
examined was how adults would respond to the same questions - would they know
more than this age group, or less? The research also did not examine behaviour, and
whether pupils actually practice what they know.
Other issues where there is a good knowledge includes where to store eggs, how to
properly cook hamburgers and when to determine the 'use by' date of milk. Four
out of five respondents answered these questions correctly.
There is a reasonable knowledge about other food safety and hygiene principles. For
example between 64% and 76% know how to safely pack a shopping bag, how to
reheat food and how to defrost a chicken safely.
There are, however, poor levels of knowledge about certain food safety and hygiene
principles. This includes what the temperature of food in the fridge should be; how
47 young people and food safety
to store raw meat and fish safely; how to cook eggs safely; and how to cool cooked
food before storing it in a fridge. The results indicate that between 12% and 49% of
pupils indicated a correct answer to these questions.
The question that received the fewest correct answers was identifying people at risk
from foodborne illness. Almost half the pupils were able to identify babies; however,
just over one in ten could identify other 'at-risk' groups.
A food safety index was developed to examine the aggregate scores of pupils who
responded to the food safety questionnaire. Based on this, it was found that the mean
score for pupils was 11.8 out of a possible score of 20. The index indicates that the
majority of pupils could correctly answer half of the questions relating to hygiene and
food safety, however, only 14% of pupils could answer more than three-quarters of
the questions correctly.
A number of factors were examined to determine whether they influenced the results
of the food safety score, and while it was discovered that some factors were
statistically significant, the differences between factors were not great. It was found
that gender, age, whether pupils cook at home and deprivation (with the proportion
of free school meals used as a proxy for deprivation) are statistically significant and
can influence knowledge on food safety and hygiene. Girls, older pupils and those
that cook at home had slightly higher food safety scores, while pupils in those schools
with higher proportion of free school meals had slightly poorer food safety scores.
However, these differences are small.
It was also found that there was no statistically significant difference in knowledge
about food safety and hygiene between pupils in schools of rural and non-rural
locations; between pupils in different local authority areas; and between independent
and state schools.
young people and food safety 48
While these results might initially suggest that there is a need to focus initiatives on
younger pupils, boys and those attending schools with a high proportion of free
school meal eligibility this would be overly simplistic as the differences between these
groups and others are not great. The overall analysis of the research points to a
number of key findings:
l
l
l
l
the need for better knowledge of food safety and hygiene for all pupils;
the need to raise the average food safety score which was found to be 11.8 out of
a possible score of 20;
the need to encourage and make improvements to the positive aspects of teaching
and learning that is taking place;
the need for clarity and a better understanding in some of the more complex
food safety and hygiene issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of recommendations are put forward by the SCC. These are outlined
below:
1. The Food Standards Agency needs to determine what are the most significant of
the top ten messages in relation to food safety and hygiene. It is then necessary to
determine what are the most appropriate methods of informing the public about
these messages and whether there should be a focus on individual messages or
collective messages.
2. The Food Standards Agency needs to make food safety and hygiene messages clear
and relevant and understandable to pupils, parents and guardians, and teachers. To
do this, appropriate materials and resources need to be provided in schools. Out of
school clubs and organisations, which inform young people about food safety issues
should also have access to appropriate material.
49 young people and food safety
3. The Scottish Executive and the Food Standards Agency should use this study as
baseline data and repeat the research with an adult group. This will have a number
of benefits. It will allow a comparison between the knowledge of adults in relation
to pupils to determine the level of knowledge among the general population of
Scotland. This will enable the monitoring of change through time, and the
impact or effectiveness of future initiatives to improve knowledge of food safety
and hygiene can be tracked through time. It will also enable a focusing of the
most significant food safety and hygiene messages and whether there are merits in
prioritising these.
Additionally, head teachers can use this study as a Scotland-wide benchmark with
which to review the performance of pupils in their school and to monitor change
in pupils' knowledge over time.
4. Agencies concerned with public health, including the Scottish Executive, the Food
Standards Agency and the Health Education Board for Scotland need to place
greater emphasis on enabling parents and guardians to get across food safety and
hygiene messages at home. To do this, parents need to be made aware of the
importance of the issue and what good practice involves. The Food Standards
Agency has an important role in determining the adequacy of the current
knowledge among consumers and working to improve this knowledge.
5. The Food Standards Agency needs to review the clarity of food labels and decide
whether there are clear public health benefits by requiring that key food safety and
hygiene messages form part of the food label.
young people and food safety 50
References
1 Source - Information & Statistics Division (ISD), Common Services Agency for
NHS, Edinburgh. EH5 3SQ - Form ISD(D)3
2 Food Standards Agency (2000) Foodborne Disease: Developing a Strategy to
Deliver the Agency's Targets, Paper FSA 00/05/02, Agenda Item 4, October,
Unpublished.
3 Food Standards Agency (2000) Press Release, £1.7 million Boost for Food Safety, 20
September.
4 The Pennington Group (1997) Report on the Circumstances Leading to the 1996
Outbreak of Infection with E.coli 0157 in Central Scotland, the Implications for Food Safety
and Lessons to be Learned, April, the Stationary Office, Edinburgh.
5 On which the SCC was represented.
6 Scottish Executive (2001) Education Department, personal communication, January.
7 For example, see Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1999) Foodsense Food
Facts not Fads, Food Safety, reprinted June. Also Scottish Office Food Safety Publicity
Campaign, Public Advertisements cited in The Pennington Group (1997) Report on
the Circumstances Leading to the 1996 Outbreak of Infection with E.coli 0157 in Central
Scotland, the Implications for Food Safety and Lessons to be Learned, April, the Stationary
Office, Edinburgh. Also Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1998) Ten Tips
for Food Safety, Foodsense, London.
8 The results from these questions have been cross checked against Consumers
Association (1992) Which? Way to Health, pp32-35, February. They were also
discussed with Environmental Health Officers.
9 The SCC and a range of other interests supported the initiative, and the SCC was
represented on the steering group.
10 Scottish Executive (2000) Rural Scotland A New Approach, Rural Affairs
Department, May, Edinburgh.
51 young people and food safety
Appendix 1
Detailed research
methodology
TARGET GROUP
In the main, the 13-14 age group is in second year at secondary school. Although no
statutory national curriculum exists in Scotland, Learning and Teaching Scotland
(formerly the Scottish Curriculum Council) publish curriculum guidelines to provide
advice and support for schools and local authorities to assist with formulating the
curriculum. The teaching of Home Economics is included within these guidelines.
As all local authorities in Scotland subscribe to the curriculum guidelines, they have
an expectation to deliver Home Economics at these levels. Therefore, it is likely that
pupils in this age range in local authority schools are undergoing, or have
experienced, Home Economic lessons. However, the amount of time dedicated to
teaching Home Economics can vary both among local authority areas and also
among schools. Similarly, the subject areas covered within the teaching of Home
Economics can vary between textiles and food, but in most cases there is usually a
greater focus on food-related teaching than textiles .
While one of the questions aimed to investigate the level of cooking undertaken in
the home, it was our opinion that this age group was mature enough to be likely to
be involved in some cooking or preparation activities at home (see Table 4 of the
report for the results of our assumption).
Second-year classes generally consist of mixed ability pupils. That is, they are unlikely
to have been separated into classes based on their educational ability and therefore are
likely to represent different levels of educational ability common in society as a
whole.
In terms of practicalities, second-year pupils were not undertaking major exams and
therefore we felt that there would be greater flexibility in the second-year timetable
to allow for a questionnaire to be undertaken with minimum disruption to the pupils
and staff.
young people and food safety 52
There were three main components of the research methodology; the selection of the
schools to take part in the research, the involvement of environmental health officers
and the development and dissemination of the questionnaire. These are summarised
in Chapter 2.
SCHOOL SELECTION
Prior to undertaking research in schools it is necessary to obtain approval from the
local education authority.
Contact with Directors of Education
The SCC contacted Directors of Education in each local authority area in Scotland
to gain permission to approach schools and to ask for their participation in our
research. Letters were sent to 32 Directors of Education in February 2000, explaining
the background to the research and requesting permission to contact randomly
selected schools in their area. All of the 32 Directors of Education were willing for
us to make contact with schools. However, nine authorities placed conditions on us
contacting schools. Five authorities wanted to approve the questionnaires themselves
before giving us permission to contact schools. Two stipulated that we obtain
permission from parents or guardians before disseminating the questionnaire to pupils.
Two authorities provided a list of schools in their area and asked that we only
approach these. This was because building work was taking place in one local
authority area due to school reorganisations and in the other area the Director of
Education had contacted schools directly and had a list of schools willing to
participate. The SCC complied with all of these conditions.
When consent was required we wrote to the school in advance of the questionnaire
being distributed and asked them to give out parental consent forms (which we
provided) to the pupils who would be taking part.
53 young people and food safety
School sample
The SCC wanted to gather data which was representative of the school population in
Scotland. The Scottish Executive (Education Department) was contacted and
provided a database of the names and addresses of all secondary schools in Scotland.
The number of pupils in each local authority area is available in a number of Scottish
Executive publications and we used Examination Results in Scottish Schools 19971999. This document provided the total school roll for each school in each local
authority area across Scotland. It included both non-denominational and Roman
Catholic schools. While the information we needed, the total numbers of pupils in
second years, was not provided separately, the SCC was satisfied that this document
provided a consistent and useable surrogate. The total roll for each local authority
area was calculated as a percentage of the total roll for Scotland.
We wanted to achieve a sample of 2000 schoolchildren aged 13-14 that was
geographically representative by local authority. The target sample size was increased
to 3000 so that enough respondents could be recruited with the first trawl. This
meant that the research could be completed before the school summer holidays,
when second-year classes would change. In practical terms, this meant that if one in
three of the randomly selected schools refused our request to take part in the
research, the target sample size would still be achieved.
The number of pupils required in each local authority area was calculated by
multiplying the proportion of the total Scottish school roll they constituted by 3000.
This provided us with the number of pupils in each local authority area required to
be geographically representative. This figure was divided by 20 (the average class size)
to give us the number of classes required and then rounded up. Rounding up had
the effect of increasing the total number of classes that we needed to approach for
permission to take part in the research from 150 to 166.
young people and food safety 54
Schools were selected using systematic sampling. The list of Scottish secondary
schools was arranged alphabetically by local authority area. We calculated the ratio of
the schools required in each local authority area against the total number of
secondary schools in each area. The schools to be approached were selected by
choosing the first school on the list and then counting down the list by the
appropriate ratio. For example, if we needed four schools out of 12 (1:3) the first
school was selected and every third after that, therefore, schools 1, 4, 7 and 10 were
chosen.
This method was used in 30 out of 32 local authority areas. For two local authority
areas the Directors of Education had given us lists of specific schools to contact and
we complied with their requests. Schools that had a total roll of less then 100 were
excluded, as we assumed they would be unlikely to have a second-year class of more
than 20 pupils. There were 27 schools that had a total roll of less than 100. The
majority of these were in predominantly rural areas, however six independent schools
were also excluded. When the schools were being selected, if we chose one with less
than 100 it was omitted and the next school on the (alphabetical) list with more than
100 pupils was selected.
Independent schools
Independent schools were selected by the same method as local authority schools.
They were incorporated in the alphabetical list. However, as a result independent
schools are slightly under-represented. The total number of secondary schools in
Scotland is 452, with 42 being independent (9.3%). However, in the survey 12
independent schools (7.2%) were selected out of 166 schools in total. Independent
schools are under-represented in the final response, with seven out of 108 being
independent (6.5%).
55 young people and food safety
Contact with head teachers
The SCC wrote to 166 head teachers of the selected schools in April 2000 asking
whether they would be willing to assist in the research. Following this initial contact,
phone calls were made to some schools in an attempt to increase the number of
schools in areas that were under-represented. A total of 108 schools agreed to
participate in the research out of 166 who were initially contacted, giving a response
rate of 65%. See Appendix 2 for the schools that took part in the research. Pupil
confidentiality was maintained throughout the research, as respondents were not asked
to put their name on the questionnaires.
Pupil selection
The SCC suggested guidelines for head teachers to follow in selecting pupils to take
part in the research - essentially that pupils be in the 13-14 year age range and of
mixed ability. However, the school made the final selection of specific classes and
therefore pupils to include. The SCC wanted information from one class in any one
school. This was to encompass as many schools as resources would permit and for the
practical reason to avoid overburdening both the school and the environmental health
officers. Only the pupils present on the day of the study were included and there was
no follow up visit.
INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
Environmental health officers (EHOs) employed by local authorities assisted in the
research. The SCC sought the assistance of environmental health officers for a
number of reasons. Primarily, it was considered useful to have an independent person
to disseminate the questionnaires in the school to the pupils and, as far as possible, this
could ensure a standard method of dissemination of the questionnaire. It was also felt
that involving EHOs could be useful to encourage a good response rate from pupils,
as it was easier to maintain confidentiality. We felt that EHOs were likely to be
regarded as neutral by the school pupils, and this could encourage
young people and food safety 56
pupils to give a full response without concern about their teacher assessing their
response. Additionally, EHOs are professionals and it was felt that they would be
suitably qualified in responding to queries from pupils about food safety and hygiene.
Contact with Directors of Environmental Health
Permission was sought from the Directors of Environmental Health (or equivalent) in
each local authority area to establish whether EHOs would be willing to assist with
the research. Letters were sent out during the week beginning 10 April 2000 asking
if their area would be willing to become involved and, if so, they were asked to
provide a contact person and telephone number. Attached to this was a letter from
the Honorary Secretary of the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in
Scotland endorsing the opportunity for EHOs to work in partnership with the SCC
and local schools (see Appendix 6.2). Information on the number of schools that
they would be requested to visit in their area was also included and this ranged from
one to twelve schools depending on the size of the school-aged population in their
local authority area (see Appendix 6.3).
DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The SCC developed a draft questionnaire based on key food safety messages. As the
questionnaire was aimed at school pupils, it was necessary to pay particular attention
to the way questions were framed and the language used to avoid confusion and to
ensure that the respondents could easily understand the questions. Preliminary
discussions were held with teachers and a number of individuals experienced in
undertaking research with school pupils to inform the SCC about good practice and
highlight problem areas in undertaking research with this population group.
Additionally, the draft questionnaire was sent to external experts for comments, and
included four EHOs and the schools programme manager at the Health Education
Board for Scotland (HEBS). Helpful comments were received and incorporated into
the draft questionnaire.
57 young people and food safety
Pilot Study
An exploratory pilot survey was conducted with a class of second-year pupils in a
comprehensive school in Glasgow in April 2000. The class and pupils targeted to
complete the draft questionnaire was selected by the head teacher, based on a 'typical'
second-year class with pupils of mixed ability, gender and minority ethnic grouping.
Two teachers were present for the duration of the visit. Before the draft
questionnaires were disseminated to pupils the SCC made a short introduction. This
was to inform them of the purpose of the visit - that we were conducting research
and we wanted to find out whether they understood the questions that we were
planning to ask other pupils across Scotland. We explained what research was and
that the questionnaire was not a test. The pupils were assured that the results were
confidential, and that only the researchers at the SCC would see them. Fourteen
pupils completed the draft questionnaire in a Home Economics class.
Discussion Groups
Following the completion of the draft questionnaire, two concurrent discussion
groups were conducted with the same class by SCC staff. This was to explore the
draft questionnaire in greater detail. This included a discussion on the questions
posed, the pupils’ understanding and interpretation of the questions and the format
and ease of completion of the questionnaire.
In light of the response from the pilot study and discussion groups the draft
questionnaire was further amended to incorporate the comments received.
Dissemination of the Questionnaires
All of the local authority environmental health departments initially agreed to
participate in the research and letters and questionnaires were sent out to nominated
EHOs or members of staff during a three-week period from 8 May 2000.
young people and food safety 58
It was necessary to distribute the letters and questionnaires over a three-week period,
rather than on one specific date, because of the lengthy process involved in gaining
confirmation of permission to go ahead from the parties involved. This included
Directors of Education, Directors of Environmental Health, the individual head
teacher and contact teacher, and liaising with the contact EHOs.
Each letter from the SCC to the EHO contained the following information:
l
l
l
l
l
a briefing note (see Appendix 6.4) which provided instructions for the EHO to
follow for both contacting the school and disseminating and collecting in the
questionnaires;
the name and address of the school or schools in their area that had agreed to
take part, along with a contact teacher and telephone number for each school;
an envelope containing packs of 25 questionnaires (or more if the contact or
local authority had requested more) for each school;
prepaid self-addressed envelopes for each pack of questionnaires to be returned
to the SCC; and
an information sheet for each school to be filled in by the EHO after each
school visit (see Appendix 6.5).
The questionnaire is reproduced at Appendix 3.
Environmental health officers were asked to contact each nominated teacher in the
selected schools in their area and arrange a convenient time to visit and disseminate
the questionnaire. We suggested that, if possible, visits be made before the end of May
to avoid complications of schools starting to wind down for summer holidays in June.
In four cases, the school contact teacher disseminated the questionnaires to pupils
themselves, rather than EHOs. The analysis revealed there were no differences in the
results by method of dissemination.
59 young people and food safety
The school visit
Environmental health officers contacted the nominated teacher in each school and
arranged a convenient time to visit the school. During the visit to the school the
EHO handed out the questionnaires and then waited in class until they were
completed. They were then collected from the pupils. Some EHOs took the
opportunity of talking to pupils about the importance of food safety after they had
undertaken the research. The EHOs then returned the completed questionnaires in
the prepaid, self-addressed envelopes to the SCC along with completed information
sheets. The school visits took place between 12 May and 27 June 2000. The
majority were carried out in May, however 33 school visits took place in June.
Environmental health officers were telephoned in mid August to confirm their
methodology.
young people and food safety 60
Appendix 2
Schools that took part in
the research, by local authority
with the number of pupils who
completed the questionnaire from
each school
Local Authority
School
Aberdeen City
Aberdeen Grammar
Bankhead Academy
Dyce Academy
Northfield Academy
St Machar Academy
Aberdeen City total
Aberdeenshire
Aberdeenshire total
Angus
Angus total
Argyll and Bute
Banchory Academy
Ellon Academy
Inverurie Academy
Mintlaw Academy
Portlethen Academy
Arbroath Academy
Montrose Academy
Campbeltown Grammar
Rothesay Academy
Argyll and Bute total
Clackmannanshire
Alloa Academy
Dollar Academy
Clackmannanshire total
Dumfries and Galloway
Annan Academy
Dalry Secondary
Moffat Academy
Stranraer Academy
Dumfries and Galloway total
Dundee City
Dundee City total
East Ayrshire
Baldragon Academy
Harris Academy
Auchinleck
Doon Academy
James Hamilton Academy
Loudoun Academy
East Ayrshire total
East Dunbartonshire
East Dunbartonshire total
61 young people and food safety
Bearsden Academy
Boclair Academy
Kirkintilloch High
St Ninian’s High
Number of
pupils
25
15
22
24
25
111
20
15
17
16
34
102
16
25
41
15
15
30
21
15
36
23
17
23
25
88
25
25
50
16
15
14
18
63
24
18
22
23
87
%
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.1
5.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.5
4.6
0.7
1.1
1.9
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.0
0.7
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.1
4.0
1.1
1.1
2.2
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
2.9
1.1
0.8
1.0
1.0
3.9
East Lothian
East Lothian total
East Renfrewshire
Knox Academy
North Berwick High
St Luke’s High
Williamwood High
East Renfrewshire total
City of Edinburgh
City of Edinburgh total
Falkirk
Castlebrae Community High
The Edinburgh Academy
Leith Academy
Mary Erskine
Queensferry High
St George’s
Denny High
Grangemouth High
St Mungo’s High
Falkirk total
Fife
Fife total
City of Glasgow
Buckhaven High
Glenrothes High
Kirkcaldy High
Lochgelly High
St Andrew’s RC High
Waid Academy
All Saints Secondary
Bellahouston Academy
Castlemilk High
Craigholme School for Girls
Eastbank Academy
Govan High
Hillpark Secondary
John Paul Academy
Knightswood Secondary
Notre Dame High
City of Glasgow total
Highland
Highland total
Alness Academy
Dingwall Academy
Fortrose Academy
27
32
59
24
19
43
13
19
18
20
16
19
105
24
24
23
71
14
16
14
18
17
25
104
22
30
22
11
19
25
21
16
26
16
208
21
19
24
64
1.2
1.4
2.7
1.1
0.9
1.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.9
4.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
3.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.1
4.7
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.2
0.7
9.4
1.0
0.9
1.1
2.9
young people and food safety 62
Inverclyde
Gourock High
Greenock High
St Columba’s High
Inverclyde total
Midlothian
Newbattle High
Penicuik High
Midlothian total
Moray
Moray total
North Ayrshire
North Ayrshire total
North Lanarkshire
North Lanarkshire total
Orkney Islands
Orkney total
Renfrewshire
Renfrewshire total
Scottish Borders
Aberlour House
Forres Academy
Ardrossan Academy
Auchenharvie Academy
Greenwood Academy
Kilwinning Academy
St Andrew’s Academy
Caldervale High
Chryston High
Coatbridge High
Columba High
Kilsyth Academy
Our Lady’s High
Kirkwall Grammar
Castlehead High
Gryffe High
Linwood High
Merksworth High
Berwickshire High
Galashiels Academy
Kelso High
Scottish Borders total
Shetland Islands
Aith Junior High
Anderson
Shetland total
South Ayrshire
South Ayrshire total
63 young people and food safety
Ayr Academy
Carrick Academy
Kyle Academy
Marr College
25
17
28
70
16
14
30
16
18
34
15
17
18
20
16
86
19
24
19
24
24
24
134
26
26
25
25
13
20
83
24
25
18
67
13
11
24
25
24
25
23
97
1.1
0.8
1.3
3.2
0.7
0.6
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
3.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
6.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.9
3.8
1.1
1.1
0.8
3.0
0.6
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
4.4
South Lanarkshire
South Lanarkshire total
Stirling
Ballerup High
Fernhill School
Hamilton Grammar
Lesmahagow High
St Modan’s High
Balfron High
Dunblane High
Stirling total
West Dunbartonshire
West Dunbartonshire total
West Lothian
Braidfield High
Dumbarton Academy
St Columba’s High
Inveralmond Community High
St Kentigern’s Academy
West Lothian total
Back School
Western Isles/
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Sgoil Lionacleit
Western Isles/Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar total
Grand Total
25
25
24
25
99
18
21
25
64
25
15
20
60
11
18
29
24
21
45
2210
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
4.5
0.8
1.0
1.1
2.9
1.1
0.7
0.9
2.7
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.1
1.0
2.0
100.0
young people and food safety 64
Appendix 3
The questionnaire
INTRODUCTION
QUESTION 1
What is the name of your school?
.
………………………………………………….…………
QUESTION 2
What class are you in now (e.g. maths, home economics)?
.
FOOD SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE
……………………………………………………………
QUESTION 3
Are you a boy or a girl? Tick one box only. 4
Boy……….r
Girl……….r
QUESTION 4
We would appreciate it if you would fill in this questionnaire. This is not a test: it
will help us to find out how much people know about food safety. We want to
know your answers so please don’t look at your classmate’s answers. Your
answers will be kept confidential, and we haven’t asked for your name. Your
answers will only be seen by research staff employed by the Scottish Consumer
Council.
What age are you?
.
……………………………………………………………
QUESTION 5
Do you do any cooking at home?
Yes……….r
4
Tick one box only.
No……….r
QUESTION 6
If you answered Yes to Question 5, please write down how often you cook food
at home (e.g. once a day).
.
……………………………………………………………
QUESTION 9
FOOD SAFETY
How long do you think you can keep the food before it is unsafe to eat and should be
thrown away?
We have answered the first question for you.
QUESTION 7
•
You are asked to take chicken out of the freezer to defrost for tomorrow’s dinner.
How should the chicken be defrosted?
Tick one box only. 4
• By running it under hot water
r
• By covering it and putting it on a plate in the fridge
r
• Near the window to defrost in the sunlight
r
• Don’t know
r
.
•
.
•
.
QUESTION 8
•
Please put a circle around SAFE if you think the food in the statement is safe to
eat and put a circle around UNSAFE if you think it could make you ill or answer
DON’T KNOW. Answer each question.
•
•
Jane prepared hamburgers for
lunch. She removed them from the
pan when they were getting crusty
on the outside and were slightly
pink in the centre.
SAFE
After wiping Johnny’s nose Julie
washed her hands with soap and
hot water, before slicing apples.
SAFE
UNSAFE
DON’T
KNOW
.
•
.
•
UNSAFE
DON’T
KNOW
.
Desserts with cream (opened packet)
…… 1 day…………………………………………………......
Fresh cooked meat (e.g. opened packet of sliced cooked ham)
……………………………..……………..……………….....
Milk (fresh pasteurised)
……………………………………………..…………..........
Raw eggs
………………………………………….....………………....
Soft cheese (opened packet of cottage cheese or Brie)
…………………………………......……..………………....
Raw mince (freshly bought from the butcher’s this morning)
…………………………………......……..………………....
___________________________________________________________________
•
•
Jack cooked a pot of chilli that
morning. He left the chilli to cool on
the worktop for 2 hours. He then
put the pot of chilli in the fridge for
tonight’s dinner.
SAFE
Jodie was short of time and the
children were hungry. She needed
something quick and easy so she
made them soft boiled eggs.
SAFE
65 young people and food safety
UNSAFE
UNSAFE
DON’T
KNOW
DON’T
KNOW
QUESTION 10
Where should you store eggs?
Tick one box only. 4
•
Outside the fridge
r
•
In the fridge
r
r
• Don’t know
___________________________________________________________________
QUESTION 11
QUESTION 12
The food items at the bottom of the page need to be put into the
fridge. Can you draw arrows from each food item to where they
should be safely stored in the fridge?
How should you wash your hands?
Tick one box only. 4
• By putting them under cold running water
r
• By washing them with soap and cold water
r
• By putting them under hot running water
r
• By washing them with soap and hot water
r
• Don’t know
r
QUESTION 13
Once you have cooked food how many times can you safely reheat it?
Tick one box only. 4
• Not at all
r
• Once
r
• Twice
r
• As often as you like
r
• Don’t know
r
Cheese
Raw fish
QUESTION 14
What temperature do you think food should be stored at in a fridge?
Tick one box only. 4
• Less than 1 C (32 F)
r
o
o
o
o
• Between 1 C and 5 C (32 F - 41 F)
r
• Between 6 oC and 10 oC (42 oF - 50 oF)
r
• Between 11 o C and 15 o C (51o F - 59 oF)
r
• More than 16o C (over 60 oF)
r
• Don’t know
r
o
Raw meat
Cooked meat
Milk
Desserts
with cream
Vegetables
o
QUESTION 15
QUESTION 19
Some people are more at risk from food poisoning than others, for example, elderly
people. Please name two other groups of people that might also be at risk from food
poisoning.
Please write any comments or questions you have about this questionnaire.
. ………………………………………...…..……....…………
. .......………………………………..….....………................
.………...…………………………………..………………....
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
QUESTION 16
You have been to the shops and bought some bread, mushrooms and raw chicken.
You have two bags. To be safe, what would you pack together?
Tick one box only. 4
•
Chicken in one bag and bread and mushrooms in the other
r
•
Bread in one bag and chicken and mushrooms in the other
r
•
Mushrooms in one bag and bread and chicken in the other
r
•
Don’t know
r
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
QUESTION 20
Please write any comments or questions you have about food and food safety below.
.……………………………………………..………………...
QUESTION 17
th
It is the 15 of June and you notice that the milk you are about to drink says ‘use by
13th June’. What do you do?
Tick one box only. 4
Drink it anyway
r
•
Drink it if it smells okay
r
•
‘Bin’ it
r
•
Don’t know
r
•
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
………………………………………………..………………..
QUESTION 18
At school, have you seen a training pack about food safety called ‘Aliens in our
Food’?
Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire.
Tick one box only. 4
Yes………. r
No………. r
Don’t know……….r
young people and food safety 66
Appendix 4
Individual results for
fridge question
Table a: Where should you store raw meat in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
439
20.2
Middle shelf
663
30.5
Bottom shelf
617
28.4
Drawers
349
16.1
Door
16
0.7
Freezer
87
4.0
Total
2171
99.9
Table b: Where should you store raw fish in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
485
22.5
Middle shelf
563
26.1
Bottom shelf
587
27.2
Drawers
383
17.8
Door
32
1.5
Freezer
106
4.9
Total
2156
100.0
Table c: Where should you store cooked meat in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
642
29.9
Middle shelf
926
43.1
Bottom shelf
404
18.8
Drawers
122
5.7
Door
43
2.0
Freezer
11
0.5
Total
2148
100.0
Table d: Where should you store milk in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
42
1.9
Middle shelf
22
1.0
Bottom shelf
16
0.7
Drawers
41
1.9
Door
2065
94.5
Total
2186
100.0
67 young people and food safety
Table e: Where should you store desserts with cream in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
970
46.6
Middle shelf
515
24.7
Bottom shelf
236
11.3
Drawers
122
5.9
Door
202
9.7
Freezer
37
1.8
Total
2082
100.0
Table f: Where should you store vegetables in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
108
5.0
Middle shelf
105
4.8
Bottom shelf
171
7.9
Drawers
1617
74.6
Door
166
7.7
Freezer
1
0.0
Total
2168
100.0
Table g: Where should you store cheese in the fridge?
Number
%
Top shelf
246
11.6
Middle shelf
235
11.0
Bottom shelf
69
3.2
Drawers
111
5.2
Door
1468
69.0
Total
2129
100.0
young people and food safety 68
Appendix 5
School name
Eastbank Academy
Arbroath Academy
Leith Academy
Bankhead Academy
Caldervale High
Ellon Academy
Greenwood Academy
Hillpark Secondary
Ayr Academy
John Paul Academy
Balfron High
Ardrossan Academy
Our Lady’s High
Dingwall Academy
Baldragon Academy
Fernhill School
Gourock High
Castlemilk High
Linwood High
Auchinleck Academy
Marr College
Berwickshire High
Stranraer Academy
Merksworth High
Banchory Academy
Glenrothes High
Kirkintilloch High
Braidfield High
Notre Dame High
Alloa Academy
Buckhaven High
Aberlour House
Chryston High
Grangemouth High
The Edinburgh Academy
Harris Academy
St Kentigern’s Academy
James Hamilton Academy
Lochgelly High
Bellahouston Academy
Greenock High
Kelso High
Penicuik High
Castlehead High
Lesmahagow High
69 young people and food safety
Food safety index, by
school
Mean
9.47
9.69
9.72
9.73
9.79
9.80
9.94
10.14
10.24
10.25
10.29
10.33
10.33
10.42
10.44
10.48
10.52
10.55
10.62
10.63
10.70
10.71
10.72
10.75
10.80
10.81
10.82
10.96
11.00
11.05
11.07
11.19
11.21
11.25
11.26
11.28
11.33
11.36
11.44
11.47
11.47
11.50
11.50
11.56
11.60
N
19
16
18
15
19
15
18
21
25
16
21
15
24
19
25
25
25
22
13
16
23
24
25
20
20
16
22
25
16
21
14
16
24
24
19
25
18
14
18
30
17
18
14
25
25
Std. Deviation
2.52
4.03
3.03
3.58
2.02
3.95
2.48
2.59
2.52
3.36
3.41
1.88
3.09
2.71
2.10
2.82
2.54
2.76
2.79
2.94
3.02
2.10
2.79
2.34
3.40
3.02
2.81
2.49
3.60
2.75
2.87
2.83
3.08
2.91
3.31
2.61
2.72
2.17
2.71
2.57
2.87
3.68
2.50
2.83
2.80
Castlebrae Community High
St Andrew’s Academy
Northfield Academy
Campbeltown Grammar
Doon Academy
Anderson High School
St Luke’s High
Williamwood High
St Columba’s High, West
Dunbartonshire
Kirkwall Grammar
Fortrose Academy
Govan High
Annan Academy
Kyle Academy
Coatbridge High
Knightswood Secondary
All Saints Secondary
Craigholme School for Girls
Newbattle High
Dunblane High
St Andrew’s RC High
Kirkcaldy High
Sgoil Lionacleit
Queensferry High
Mary Erskine School
Alness Academy
St Columba’s High, Inverclyde
Denny High
Loudoun Academy
Back School
Bearsden Academy
Boclair Academy
Knox Academy
St George’s School
Portlethen Academy
Gryffe High
Forres Academy
Mintlaw Academy
St Ninian’s High
Galashiels Academy
Columba High
Hamilton Grammar
North Berwick High
Kilsyth Academy
11.62
11.69
11.71
11.80
11.80
11.82
11.83
11.84
13
16
24
15
15
11
24
19
2.47
2.55
2.91
2.73
2.24
2.79
2.90
3.17
11.80
20
2.67
11.85
11.87
11.88
11.91
11.92
11.95
11.96
12.00
12.00
12.06
12.12
12.12
12.14
12.14
12.19
12.20
12.24
12.39
12.25
12.28
12.29
12.29
12.33
12.33
12.42
12.44
12.48
12.50
12.50
12.52
12.56
12.58
12.58
12.59
12.67
26
24
25
23
25
19
26
22
11
16
25
17
14
21
16
20
21
28
24
18
24
24
18
27
19
34
25
18
16
23
25
24
24
32
24
2.52
3.18
2.82
3.13
3.46
2.55
2.54
2.65
2.14
3.13
3.90
3.04
2.91
2.24
2.61
3.58
2.45
2.86
3.60
2.67
3.09
2.71
3.40
2.77
2.48
2.03
2.40
3.01
3.01
2.31
2.89
2.34
2.48
2.53
2.70
young people and food safety 70
Aberdeen Grammar
Waid Academy
Dalry Secondary
St Mungo’s High
Inverurie Academy
Rothesay Academy
Aith Junior High
Dollar Academy
Carrick Academy
St Machar Academy
Moffat Academy
St Modan’s High
Dumbarton Academy
Inveralmond Community High
Kilwinning Academy
Montrose Academy
Auchenharvie Academy
Dyce Academy
Ballerup High
Total
71 young people and food safety
12.68
12.68
12.71
12.74
12.82
12.87
12.92
13.20
13.21
13.28
13.48
13.61
13.67
13.73
13.85
13.92
14.12
14.18
15.32
11.80
25
25
17
23
17
15
13
15
24
25
23
18
15
11
20
25
17
22
25
2210
2.64
3.29
2.91
2.36
2.56
3.44
3.01
2.54
3.56
2.97
3.16
3.16
3.11
2.69
3.34
3.03
2.29
2.36
2.41
2.99
Appendix 6.1 Letter from the Society of
Chief Officers of
Environmental Health
young people and food safety 72
Appendix 6.2 Number of schools that
each environmental
health officer was
requested to visit in their
area
Local Authority
Total roll
LA as % of total
Number of
classes required
5
6
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
3
8
4
9
12
6
3
3
3
4
10
1
4
5
3
1
4
9
3
3
1
Aberdeen City
10944
3.5
Aberdeenshire
15038
4.8
Angus
7274
2.3
Argyll & Bute
5559
1.8
Clackmannanshire
2925
0.9
Dumfries & Galloway
9523
3.1
Dundee City
8801
2.8
East Ayrshire
8003
2.6
East Dunbartonshire
8620
2.8
East Lothian
4829
1.5
East Renfrewshire
6953
2.2
Edinburgh, City of
18863
6.0
Falkirk
8448
2.7
Fife
22491
7.2
Glasgow, City of
29281
9.4
Highland
14702
4.7
Inverclyde
5753
1.8
Midlothian
5284
1.7
Moray
5629
1.8
North Ayrshire
9036
2.9
North Lanarkshire
22871
7.3
Orkney Islands
1368
0.4
Perth and Kinross
7637
2.4
Renfrewshire
11706
3.8
Scottish Borders
6464
2.1
Shetland Islands
1592
0.5
South Ayrshire
7725
2.5
South Lanarkshire
20335
6.5
Stirling
5619
1.8
West Dunbartonshire
6787
2.2
Western Isles/
1971
0.6
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
West Lothian
10061
3.2
4
Note: number of classes required is based on an average class size of 20
73 young people and food safety
Appendix 6.3 Note to brief
environmental health
officers visiting schools
FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
BRIEFING NOTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS
WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED
You should have received the following items from the Scottish Consumer
Council:
1. A list of schools in your area that have agreed to take part in the research,
along with a named contact. We would like you to visit all of the schools on
the list. Some schools have placed certain conditions on the research, these
are highlighted on the list of schools.
2. A pack of questionnaires for each school that has agreed to take part in your
area.
3. A postage paid return envelope for each school, for returning the completed
questionnaires to the SCC.
4. An information sheet which you should complete after each school visit and
return to us in the postage paid return envelope.
Please note that the SCC has contacted the Directors of Education in your
area, and they have given permission for us to undertake this research. We
have also contacted all of the schools on the list and they have agreed to take
part.
If you have not received any of this, please contact Donna Heaney or Susan
Browne.
young people and food safety 74
WHAT TO DO NOW
A.
Liaise with the School
1. Please contact each head teacher, or nominated teacher to arrange to visit
each school on a date which is suitable to both yourself and the teacher.
2. Please note that the schools will be closing in June for the summer holidays
and therefore we suggest contacting the schools before the end of May.
We suggest you allow 30 minutes for each visit. We also suggest that you
are accompanied by a member of staff when you are in the school, this may
also be a requirement of the school.
B.
Classroom visit
When you are in the classroom it might be useful to introduce the research to
the pupils using the following points:
1. Explain what a questionnaire is – that is, a way of gathering information
about a subject. Emphasise that it is not a test.
2. Explain that it is anonymous and that we do not want pupils’ names on it.
No one will read it except the researchers at the Scottish Consumer Council.
3. Explain that we are hoping this same questionnaire is being completed in 140
schools across Scotland with 2500 pupils in the 13–14 age group.
4. Explain that this will help the Scottish Consumer Council, and EHOs to get a
better idea of what young people know about food safety.
Following this, please hand out the questionnaire to the class.
Once all of the pupils have completed the questionnaires, please collect them
in.
FINALLY…
Put the questionnaires in the postage paid return envelope and send
to the SCC – remember to fill in and return the Information Sheet.
75 young people and food safety
Appendix 6.4 Information sheet to be
completed by
environemental health
officers after each school
visit
FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
INFORMATION SHEET
Please complete one sheet for each school visited, then put in the
postage paid return envelope with the completed questionnaires.
•
•
•
Your Name:
Council:
Telephone Number:
DETAILS OF SCHOOL VISIT
•
•
•
Name of School Visited:
Name of Contact Teacher:
Date of Visit:
Please add any comments you have in the space below:
young people and food safety 76
77 young people and food safety
91 public health and the precautionary principle
public health andpublic
the precautionary
health and the
principle
precautionary
91
principle 91
www.scotconsumer.org.uk