Search

Purpose/Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the current practices used in school nutrition programs to prevent intentional acts of food contamination or tampering with food. Methods: A convenience sample of school districts (n=2023) was randomly selected, representing two states from each of the seven USDA regions. School food authorities from 320 districts in 14 states participated in a live structured interview guided by a questionnaire consisting of 31 questions concerning food defense practices. The researchers conducted the interviews with videoconferencing technology or telephone and entered responses directly into an online survey to collect the data. Descriptive statistics included frequencies, percentages, and means. Results: Results suggest that many school nutrition programs have room to improve food defense programs, practices, and understanding about food defense in their districts. Almost 68% of districts and 66% of school nutrition programs reported not having a food defense plan. While the opportunity for improvement was evident in several areas, some practices to prevent an intentional food defense incident were also reported. Training was reported as lacking by 44% of the sample. Application to Child Nutrition Professionals: Results from this study can be used to bring awareness about food defense practices in the school environment, especially where practices may not be evident through existing food safety plans. It is important that school nutrition programs follow recommended standards to reduce risks and develop best practices for overall safety. Stakeholders involved in school nutrition programs can support the prevention of intentional food contamination by advocating for district and staff training and by calling attention to practices that might represent a high risk for the school nutrition program.

Purpose/Objectives: The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) determine commonly used procedures for milk served in locations other than the cafeteria during breakfast service; and (2) examine the effectiveness of these practices in maintaining recommended milk temperatures. Methods: A national sample of 110 school nutrition directions selected using a hybrid sampling strategy (convenience and random) were invited to participate in a survey about milk service procedures. Researchers evaluated the reported service practices for locations other than the cafeteria to determine effectiveness at maintaining fluid milk temperatures below 41°F. Using an incomplete factorial design, researchers packed 30 individual units of milk to examine temperatures with the following variables: milk packaging type (carton, bottle, pouch), transportation container (milk crate, sheet pan, steam table pan, soft-side cooler, hard-side cooler), and cooling method (no ice, loose ice, or ice-sheets). Each combination was exposed to both elevated (89°F) and room (74°F) ambient temperatures for four hours respectively, during which milk temperatures were measured at five-minute intervals. Results: Thirty-two usable surveys were collected in which all districts served breakfast using alternative service models. Common transportation containers identified included insulated coolers (n=25) and non-insulated containers (n=12). The majority of respondents (n=17) reported using a cooling method when transporting milk, with ice sheets/packs (n=15) being the most commonly used. Many reported restocking unserved milk for later use (n=18), with about two-thirds checking the temperature of restocked milk (n=12). Temperature simulations revealed milk temperature varied by transportation container, cooling method, and ambient temperature (p<0.05), but not by milk packaging. The most effective holding methods for maintaining milk temperature were using either hard- and/or soft-side coolers with ice or ice sheets. Application to Child Nutrition Professionals: Effectively packing milk for alternative breakfast models is important to ensure quality and safety. Best practices to maintain low temperatures while serving milk in locations other than the cafeteria include packing milk in hard- or soft-side coolers with ice or ice sheets, and monitoring temperature of unserved milk when it is restocked for future service.

Purpose/Objectives: The purpose of this exploratory, observational study was three-fold: 1) Determine current food safety practices at Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) sites; 2) Identify types of food served at the sites and collect associated temperatures; and 3) Establish recommendations for food safety training in the SFSP. Methods:Twenty-eight SFSP sites in seven states were observed during preparation, service, and clean-up to assess food safety practices. Before the study, researchers participated in a day and half training session which included a pilot test of the observation tools at school kitchens. Individuals completed the forms and in pairs they compared findings; final adjustments to the observation forms were made. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Excel. Results: Twenty-five sites had at least one employee or volunteer who reported having had food safety training. Proper handwashing facilities were available and accessible at most preparation sites (n = 21) and fewer service sites (n = 15). Proper handwashing (n = 14), glove changing (n = 13), and thermometer use (n = 10) were commonly out of compliance among observed sites. Application to Child Nutrition Professionals: As the SFSP expands, assuring food safety is important to the success of the program. Overall improvement is needed in personal hygiene, time/temperature control, and cleaning/sanitizing practices. New program sponsors may benefit from careful planning with food safety in mind and should provide relevant food safety training to employees and volunteers. State agencies may assist sponsors in meeting food safety training needs.