young people and food safety - uk government web...

young peopleand food safety

research report

About the Scottish Consumer Council

The Scottish Consumer Council (SCC)was set up by government in 1975. Ourpurpose is to promote the interests ofconsumers in Scotland, with particularregard to those people who experiencedisadvantage in society. Whileproducers of goods and services areusually well-organised and articulatewhen protecting their own interests,individual consumers very often are not.The people whose interests werepresent are consumers of all kinds:they may be patients, tenants, parents,solicitors’ clients, public transport users,or simply shoppers in a supermarket.

Consumers benefit from efficient andeffective services in the public andprivate sectors. Service-providersbenefit from discriminating consumers.A balanced partnership between thetwo is essential and the SCC seeks todevelop this partnership by:

· carrying out research into consumerissues and concerns;

· informing key policy and decision-makers about consumer concerns and issues;

· influencing key policy and decision-making processes;

· informing and raising awareness amongconsumers.

The SCC is part of the NationalConsumer Council (NCC) and issponsored by the Department of Tradeand Industry. The SCC’s Chairman andCouncil members are appointed by theSecretary of State for Trade and Industryin consultation with the Secretary ofState for Scotland. Future appointmentswill be in consultation with the FirstMinister. Martyn Evans, the SCC'sDirector, leads the staff team.

Please check our web site atwww.scotconsumer.org.uk for newsabout our publications.

Scottish Consumer CouncilRoyal Exchange House100 Queen StreetGlasgow G1 3DN

Telephone 0141 226 5261Facsimile 0141 221 0731www.scotconsumer.org.uk

Written by Donna Heaney, PolicyManager

Published by the Scottish Consumer CouncilFebruary 2002

© Scottish Consumer CouncilISBN 0 907067 97 2

The SCC assesses the consumerperspective in any situation byanalysing the position of consumersagainst a set of consumer principles.

These are:

ACCESS

Can consumers actually get the goods orservices they need or want?

CHOICE

Can consumers affect the way the goodsand services are provided through theirown choice?

INFORMATION

Do consumers have the informationthey need, presented in the way theywant, to make informed choices?

REDRESS

If something goes wrong, can it be putright?

SAFETY

Are standards as high as they canreasonably be?

FAIRNESS

Are consumers subject to arbitrarydiscrimination for reasons unconnectedwith their characteristics as consumers?

REPRESENTATION

If consumers cannot affect what isprovided through their own choices, arethere other effective means for theirviews to be represented?

We can often makeour publicationsavailable in brailleor large print, onaudio tape orcomputer disk.Please contact usfor details.

young people and food safety i

Food safety has become an area of great concern to consumers inrecent years. Such concerns have been fuelled by a number ofoutbreaks of foodborne illnesses. The media has covered theemergence of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD): adevastating condition. In 1996 there was an E.coli 0157 outbreakin Central Scotland which led to the deaths of 21 people.

The Government responded to the E.coli outbreak by setting upthe Pennington Group with a remit to investigate the circumstanceswhich had led to the outbreak and to advise on lessons to belearned. The Pennington Group found that there is a need forgreater awareness of food safety by those handling food in thehome and in commercial settings. The Pennington reportrecognises that consumers do have an important role to play inensuring the safety of the food they consume. The point ofconsumption constitutes the 'last line of defence againstcontamination and infection and consumers have an important roleto play'. Consumer handling of food should be based on 'goodbasic awareness of the need for appropriate personal hygiene, foodpreparation and storage'.

The Scottish Consumer Council wanted to establish the level ofawareness that the consumer has about basic food safety. A furtheraim of the research was to provide baseline data which couldinform future progress in this area. We opted to carry out theresearch with a sample of second-year pupils: they make up asubgroup of the population who cook on a regular basis andgenerally will have attended classes on food safety.

The research took the form of a questionnaire survey and theresults show that the majority of pupils could correctly answer halfof the questions relating to hygiene and food safety but only 14%of pupils could answer over three-quarters of the questionscorrectly. We found that some factors did influence pupils’knowledge of food safety and these include gender, age,

Chairman’s preface

ii young people and food safety

whether pupils cook at home and deprivation, although thedifferences were not great.

In short, our research demonstrates that there is a goodunderstanding of some basic food safety and hygiene messages;however, knowledge falls off significantly on other issues that areless clear cut.

This gap in essential knowledge needs to be addressed by a rangeof organisations and individuals. Our recommendations are aimedat the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Executive, the HealthEducation Board for Scotland and consumers including pupils,teachers, parents and guardians.

Graeme MillarChairman

young people and food safety iii

We would like to thank all those teachers from schools who agreedto take part in our survey and to the pupils who took the time tofill in our questionnaire. Thanks also go to the staff and pupils atHillhead High School who agreed to pilot the draft questionnairefor us.

We would also like to thank the environmental health officers whodisseminated the questionnaires to schools on our behalf. Wewere grateful for their support, especially as many of them werecoping with heavy demands on their time.

Special thanks go to those individuals who commented on thedraft questionnaire, and confirmed the final results for us. Theseinclude:

Colin Houston, Aberdeenshire CouncilRod House, Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental HealthDavid Evans, East Lothian CouncilCrawford Morgan, West Lothian CouncilIan Young, Health Education Board for Scotland

We would also like to thank the Society of Chief Officers ofEnvironmental Health in Scotland for endorsing the survey, whichwe believe contributed greatly to the success of the research.

Thanks to Paul Bradshaw, Susan Browne, Andrew Pulford andFelicity Bryers the SCC's researchers, to Mandy Edwards for datainput and to Kirsty Aird for desktop publishing the report. Also, toall the administrative staff for their help in ensuring the smoothadministration of the research.

Acknowledgements

iv young people and food safety

The SCC's Food, Diet and Environment Committee oversaw thework for this research. Its members were:

Lawrie DewarMartyn Evans (ex-officio)Christine HumphriesGraeme Millar (ex-officio)Andrew Raven (committee chair)Bill UreAlex Wright

young people and food safety v

This report investigates knowledge about basic food safety andhygiene principles among a subgroup of the population inScotland.

In 1996 there was an E.coli 0157 outbreak in Lanarkshire which ledto the deaths of 21 people. The Government response to the E.colioutbreak included setting up the Pennington Group. ThePennington Group's findings stressed a need for greater awarenessof food safety by those handling food, including consumers.

The Scottish Consumer Council wanted to ascertain current levelsof awareness regarding food safety among a subgroup of theschool population in Scotland. A further aim of the research wasto collate information to provide baseline data, which could beused in the future to determine progress in this area.

The research took the form of a questionnaire survey administeredto second-year pupils in schools throughout Scotland. Theresponse rate to the questionnaire was high, with 108 (65%) ofschools out of 166 initially approached taking part in the research.The respondents represent a good cross-section of the populationof Scotland and the results are based on 2210 completed anduseable questionnaires. A slightly higher number of responseswere received from girls than from boys and the majority ofrespondents were aged 13 or 14 years. Importantly, just under80% of the pupils surveyed said they cook at home, with 40% ofthese cooking at least once a day.

The findings from the survey show a good knowledge of foodsafety and hygiene principles on some issues; however, knowledgefalls 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 whento determine the 'use by' date of milk. Four out of fiverespondents answered these questions correctly.

Executive summary

There is a reasonable knowledge about other food safety andhygiene principles. For example, between 64% and 76% knowhow to reheat food safely; how to defrost a chicken safely andhow to safely pack a shopping bag to avoid cross-contamination.

There are poor levels of knowledge about certain food safety andhygiene principles. These include the recommended temperatureof a fridge; avoiding cross-contamination; cooking eggs safely;cooling food before storing and identifying groups of people whomay be particularly susceptible to food poisoning. The resultsindicate that between 12% and 49% of pupils indicated a correctanswer.

A food safety index was developed to examine the aggregate scoreof pupils who responded to the food safety questionnaire. Basedon this, it was found that less than 1% of pupils answered all ofthe food safety and hygiene questions correctly and the mean scorefor pupils was 11.8 out of a possible score of 20.

The majority (65%) of pupils could correctly answer more than halfof the questions relating to food safety and hygiene. However,only 14% of pupils could answer more than three-quarters ofquestions correctly.

A number of factors were examined to determine whether theyinfluenced the results of the food safety score. It was found thatthere is a statistical relationship between both gender and age andpupils’ knowledge of food safety. Whether pupils cook at homeand deprivation also had an impact on scores; however, thedifferences were not great.

It was also found that there was no statistically significantdifference in knowledge on food safety and hygiene betweenschools in rural and non-rural locations; between pupils in differentlocal authority areas; and between independent and state schools.

vi young people and food safety

young people and food safety vii

While these results might initially suggest that there is a need to focusinitiatives on younger pupils, boys and those attending schools with a highproportion of free school meal eligibility, this would be overly simplistic as thedifferences between these groups and others are not great. The overallanalysis of the research points to a number of key findings:

l the need for better knowledge of food safety and hygiene for all pupils; l the need to raise the average food safety score which was found to be 11.8

out of a possible score of 20;l the need to encourage and make improvements to the positive aspects of

teaching and learning that are taking place;l 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 followingrecommendations:

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 individualmessages 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.

viii young people and food safety

3. The Scottish Executive and the Food Standards Agency should use this studyas baseline data and repeat the research with an adult group. This will havea number of benefits. It will allow a comparison between the knowledge ofadults 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 initiativesto 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 tobe 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 ix

CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Context 1Aims of the research 3Structure of the report 4

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 5

Selection of schools 5Involvement of Environmental Health Officers 6Development and Dissemination of the Questionnaire 7Response 7

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS 8

Profile of Respondents 8Gender of respondents 8Age of respondents 8Location of schools 10Cooking at home 12Cooking at home, by gender 13Class used to complete questionnaire 14

Food Safety Questionnaire Results 15

1 Personal hygiene 162 Cross contamination 17

Contents

x young people and food safety

Safe shopping and cross-contamination 18Safe storage and cross-contamination 19Fridge food safety analysis 20

3 Temperature control 22Egg storage 23

4 Defrosting frozen foods 235 Reheating food 246 Undercooked food 25

Undercooked hamburgers 25Undercooked eggs 26

7 Cooling food safely 278 Recommended storage time 28

Storage time for cooked meat 29Storage time for raw eggs 30Storage time for soft cheese 30Storage time for fresh mince 31

9 At risk groups 3210 Teaching resource pack Aliens in Our Food 3311 Additional comments from pupils 33

Comments about the questionnaire 34

Summary of the findings 35

CHAPTER 4 FOOD SAFETY INDEX 36

Methodology for food safety index 36Results of food safety index 37Food safety index and other factors 38Safety index by age 39

young people and food safety xi

Safety index by gender 39Safety index by cooking at home 40Safety index by rural and non-rural location 40Safety index by local authority 41Safety index for state and independent schools 43Safety index by eligibility for free school meals 44

Summary of the Findings 46

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47

REFERENCES 51

APPENDICES 52

Appendix 1 Detailed research methodology 52Appendix 2 Schools that took part in the research 61Appendix 3 The questionnaire 65Appendix 4 Individual results for fridge question 67Appendix 5 Food safety index, by school 69Appendix 6 Supplementary documents 72

6.1 Letter from the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland endorsingthe research 72

6.2 Number of schools that environmental healthofficers were requested to visit in their area 73

6.3 Note to brief environmental health officersundertaking school visits 74

6.4 Information sheet for each school to becompleted by environmental health officers after each school visit 76

xii young people and food safety

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Graph of food poisoning incidents in Scotland 1Figure 2 Gender of respondents 8Figure 3 Map showing the location of participating

schools 10Figure 4 Correct storage in the fridge 19Figure 5 Safety analysis for the fridge 21Figure 6 Temperature for food in the fridge 22Figure 7 Where should you store eggs? 23Figure 8 How should you defrost a chicken? 23Figure 9 Safe cooking - pink hamburgers 25Figure 10 Knowledge of training pack called

Aliens in Our Food 33Figure 11 Distribution of food safety index 37

TABLES

Table 1 Age of respondents 9Table 2 Distribution of respondents by local authority

with comparison against %of school roll 11Table 3 Respondents that cook at home 12Table 4 Frequency of cooking at home 12Table 5 Cross-tabulation of gender and frequency

of cooking at home 14Table 6 Class in which respondents completed the

questionnaire 14Table 7 Food safety after washing hands 16Table 8 Response to how you should wash your hands 17Table 9 Safe shopping 18Table 10 Raw meat and raw fish storage 20

young people and food safety xiii

Table 11 Safely reheating food 24Table 12 Safe cooking - soft-boiled eggs 26Table 13 Cooling food 27Table 14 Action for milk passed its 'use-by' date 28Table 15 Storage time - cooked meat 29Table 16 Storage time - raw eggs 30Table 17 Storage time - soft cheese 30Table 18 Storage time - fresh mince 31Table 19 At-risk groups from food poisoning 32Table 20 Questions where points are awarded 36Table 21 Range of values in food safety index 38Table 22 Safety index by age 39Table 23 Safety index by gender 39Table 24 Safety index by cooking at home 40Table 25 Safety index by rural location 41Table 26 Safety index by Local Authority 42Table 27 Safety index for pupils at state and

independent schools 43Table 28 Percentage of pupils eligible for free school

meals 45

1 young people and food safety

CONTEXT

In recent years there have been a number of food safety incidents thathave received high levels of media attention, and consumers in Scotlandhave witnessed many food-related problems. These have included thecrisis surrounding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and newvariant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD). There has also been concernover salmonella poisoning from bacterium linked to eggs and poultryand E.coli 0157 infection from cooked meat and dairy products. InBelgium there have been problems associated with dioxin contaminationin pork, poultry and dairy products. As a result, public confidence infood standards and safety has been eroded.

The SCC believes concern from consumers is justified. In 1996 notifiedcases of food poisoning peaked at 5396 cases1 in Scotland. This hadrisen from 2438 in 1986 (see Figure 1), and represents an increase of45% in ten years.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Food poisoning (excluding campylobacter)

28802632

2391

1987

2438 2480

29983197

3024 2938

3317 3255

4058

5036

5396

4996

35133344 3309

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

N

Figure 1Graph of food poisoning incidents in Scotland

young people and food safety 2

While there has been a reduction in notified cases of food poisoning inScotland since the peak year of 1996, the figures for 2000 still providecause for concern, consisting of 3309 notified cases for the year.Furthermore, it is recognised that notified cases underestimate the trueextent of the problem2.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was formed in April 2000 to improvethe quality and safety of food and consumers’ confidence in it. The FSAhas recognised that food safety is a problem and in September 2000announced targets to cut food poisoning levels by 20% by 2006, and inparticular to reduce salmonella in retail chicken by 50% over the nextfive years3.

The largest outbreak of E.coli 0157 infection in the UK occurred inNorth Lanarkshire in 1996. This affected 496 people and 21 deaths wereassociated with the outbreak4. As part of the Government response tothe outbreak, the Pennington Group5 was established to examine thecircumstances which led to the outbreak and to advise on theimplications for food safety and the lessons to be learned. ThePennington Group noted “we are concerned that undue responsibility shouldnot be placed on the consumer for ensuring the safety of food consumed”, butwent on to suggest “Nonetheless, the point of consumption of food has to berecognised as the last line of defence against contamination and infection andconsumers have an important role to play in food safety.”

The Pennington Group argued that there is a need for greater awarenessof the potential for foodborne infection and preventative measuresamong those handling food in commercial operations and in the home.The Pennington Group noted that the approach should be founded ongood, basic awareness of the need for appropriate personal hygiene, foodpreparation and storage.


Importantly, this included the role of parents and guardians in instructingchildren in personal hygiene measures. The Group also suggested that“Additional measures could include, for example, giving appropriate emphasis tofood safety in teaching in schools, in out of school classes and in other courses”and went onto recommend “Food hygiene training should be providedwherever 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 theacknowledgement of the Pennington Group of the important role thatconsumers have in food safety the aim of this research was to examinethe knowledge about basic food safety and hygiene principles among asubgroup of the school population in Scotland.

A secondary objective was to collate information to provide baselinedata, which could be used in the future to determine progress in thisimportant area.

The SCC opted to target 13 and 14 year olds as a subsection of theschool population. There were a number of reasons for choosing tofocus on this age group - they are likely to have been taught homeeconomics at school; they are likely to undertake some cooking athome; they are generally split into classes of mixed ability pupils and, inpractical terms, they are not undergoing any major exams.


STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 of the reportpresents a brief summary of the methodology used in the research, witha more detailed methodology being found at Appendix 1. Chapter 3presents the findings of the questionnaire, split between the profile of therespondents to the research, and of the main findings of thequestionnaire. Chapter 4 presents the results of the food safety indexwhich was developed to provide an aggregated picture of the awarenessof respondents to food safety and hygiene issues based on the proportionof correct answers by respondents. Finally, Chapter 5 presents theconclusions and recommendations of the research.


There were three main components of the research methodology. Theseare summarised below. A full discussion of the research methodology canbe found at Appendix 1.

SELECTION OF SCHOOLS

The first component of the research involved the selection of schools andpupils to take part in the study. This involved gaining consent from the32 Directors of Education in Scotland to contact head teachers ofschools in their area. Approval was given by all Directors of Education,with nine placing conditions for contacting schools which the SCCcomplied with.

In order to reach our target sample size of approximately 2000 pupils, theSCC had to contact 166 head teachers in both local authority andindependent schools throughout Scotland. Schools were selected usingsystematic sampling by arranging secondary schools into alphabeticalorder and selecting the ratio of schools required in each local authorityarea against the total number of secondary schools in each area.

Letters were sent to the 166 head teachers of selected schools in April2000. A total of 108 head teachers agreed to participate in our research,giving a response rate of 65%. Pupil confidentiality was assured as pupilswere not asked to put their name on the questionnaire. The final classselection, and therefore the respondents to the questionnaire, was madeby 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 ofthe schools that took part in the research and the number and percentageof pupils who completed the questionnaire.

Chapter 2 Methodology


INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS

The second component of the research involved contacting Directors ofEnvironmental Health in each local authority in Scotland to enlist theassistance of environmental health officers (EHOs) for each area. All ofthe 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 disseminatethe questionnaires in the school to the pupils. It was considered, as far aspossible, this would ensure a standard method of dissemination of thequestionnaire. It was also felt that involving EHOs could be useful toencourage a good response rate from pupils, as it was easier to maintainconfidentiality. We felt that EHOs were likely to be regarded as neutralby the school pupils, and this could encourage pupils to give a fullresponse without concern about their teacher assessing their answer.Additionally, environmental health officers are professionals suitablyqualified to respond to queries from pupils about food safety andhygiene.

In the majority of cases, EHOs arranged to go into schools acrossScotland to disseminate and collect completed questionnaires from pupilsand answer any queries that pupils had. The number of schools that theSCC asked EHOs to visit varied for each local authority area and rangedfrom one school in Shetland to twelve schools in Glasgow, depending onthe size of the school-aged population in their local authority area. TheSociety of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland endorsedthe opportunity for environmental health officers to work in partnershipwith the SCC and local schools in this research.


Environmental health officers were asked to contact each nominatedteacher in the selected schools in their area and arrange a convenienttime to visit and disseminate the questionnaire. We suggested that, ifpossible, visits be made before the end of May 2000 to avoidcomplications of teachers being involved with exams in June. In fourcases, the school-contact teacher disseminated the questionnaires topupils themselves.

DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF THEQUESTIONNAIRE

The third component of the research involved the development anddissemination of the questionnaire, which was drafted and then sent to anumber of environmental health officers and other professionals forcomment. It was then piloted at a secondary school in Glasgow with 14pupils. Discussion groups were conducted after the questionnaire wascompleted by pupils, to explore the pupils' understanding andinterpretation of the questions and the format and ease of completion ofthe questionnaire. Amendments were made to the questionnaire beforeit 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 analysedusing SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Fifteenquestionnaires from one school were not included in the analysis becausethe questionnaires were received after the cut-off date in late August.


The chapter on findings is split into two sections. The first presents asummary of the characteristics or profile of the pupils who responded.The second presents the results of the questions asked in thequestionnaire.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

In June 2000 the SCC received completed questionnaires from 2210school pupils who attend 108 secondary schools across Scotland - aresponse rate from schools of 65%. The respondents were from a mix oflocal authority and independent schools and both rural and urban areaswere represented.

Gender of respondents

The gender split of respondents was slightly biased in favour of girls,with 54% of respondents being female and 46% being male (see Figure2). For girls this is slightly higher than the average (49.8%) forsecondary schools in Scotland and for boys slightly lower than theScottish average (50.2%)6.

Age of respondents

The target population for the study was school pupils in the 13-14 yearage range. The majority of respondents (91%) who answered thisquestion were 13 or 14 years (see Table 1). However, some respondentsfell outside of this range. Seven percent of respondents were under 13years and 2% were over. All of the pupils who responded, irrespective ofage, were included in the analysis.

Chapter 3 Findings

Male46% Female

54%

Figure 2Gender of respondents


Table 1 Age of respondents

An explanation for the variation in age could be due to the time thatthe research was conducted, towards the end of the summer term. Thesummer term is the last term in the school year and in some schoolsclasses are moved up to the next academic year before the summerholidays, while in other schools the pupils will remain in the same yeargroup until after the summer holidays. Another reason why the agerange varied could be due to head teachers selecting a different agegroup to the one suggested by the SCC.

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


Location of schools

The geographical spread of the 108 schools that took part is representedin Figure 3. The spread of schools in the study extends from Shetlandand Orkney in the north of Scotland, includes the Western Isles,Aberdeen in the east and throughout Scotland to the Borders.

Figure 3Map showing the location ofparticipating schools


By comparing the total respondents with the total secondary school roll,it is evident that the response rate by local authority area is broadlyrepresentative.

Table 2 Distribution of respondents by local authority with comparison against % of school roll

Local Authority Number of

respondents ineach area

% of totalrespondents

% ofsecondary

school roll*

Aberdeen City 111 5.0 3.5 Aberdeenshire 102 4.6 4.8

Angus 41 1.9 2.3

Argyll and Bute 30 1.4 1.8

Clackmannanshire 36 1.6 0.9

Dumfries and Galloway 88 4.0 3.1

Dundee City 50 2.2 2.8

East Ayrshire 63 2.9 2.6

East Dunbartonshire 87 3.9 2.8

East Lothian 59 2.7 1.5

East Renfrewshire 43 1.9 2.2

City of Edinburgh 105 4.8 6.0

Falkirk 71 3.2 2.7

Fife 104 4.7 7.2

City of Glasgow 208 9.4 9.4

Highland 64 2.9 4.7

Inverclyde 70 3.2 1.8

Midlothian 30 1.4 1.7

Moray 34 1.5 1.8

North Ayrshire 86 3.9 2.9

North Lanarkshire 134 6.1 7.3

Orkney Islands 26 1.2 0.4

Renfrewshire 83 3.8 3.8

Scottish Borders 67 3.0 2.1

Shetland Islands 24 1.1 0.5

South Ayrshire 97 4.4 2.5

South Lanarkshire 99 4.5 6.5

Stirling 64 2.9 1.8

West Dunbartonshire 60 2.7 2.2

West Lothian 29 1.3 3.2

Western Isles/ Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar 45 2.0 0.6

Total 2210 100.0 97.6

*Note: The secondary school roll is for September 1998, and comes from Examination results in Scottish Schools, 1997–99, Scottish Executive.


Cooking at home

The SCC was interested in whether respondents do any cooking in thehome environment, as we had assumed that this age group would. Thequestionnaire 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

The majority of respondents indicated that they do cook at home (79%),with a fifth (21%) responding that they do not. This emphasises theimportance of pupils being aware of the basic food hygiene principles asjust under 80% of pupils indicated they are responsible for foodpreparation and cooking at home. The questionnaire did not pursue thisquestion further: for example it would be useful to know what theycooked - did this include hot food, or was it confined to sandwiches,and whether they cooked only for themselves, or whether they cookedfor other people in the home?

The questionnaire went on to explore how often respondents cook athome. See Table 4.

Table 4 Frequency of cooking at home

Number %

Yes 1751 79.4

No 454 20.6

n=2205

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


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 bedescribed as cooking frequently. A quarter of respondents (25%) cookoccasionally, (responding that they cook less than once a day but morethan once a week). Just over a third of pupils could be described asinfrequent cooks at home (as a fifth indicated they cook once a weekand 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 athome, boys or girls, and cross-tabulated gender and frequency of cookingat home. The results show that a higher proportion of girls cook athome (81% of girls) than boys (63% of boys). There are a number ofpossible explanations for the difference in the gender split in cooking athome among the pupils in the study. It could be that stereotypicalgender roles still exist or that girls are considered more mature than boysat this age and therefore felt to be more responsible in the kitchen. It ispossible that there is a stigma attached to cooking, and boys are lesslikely to admit to cooking in the home than girls. None of thesepossible scenarios were pursued further.

When the respondents that cook at home was cross-tabulated withgender, unsurprisingly the results show a similar pattern; that girls cookmore frequently at home than boys. See Table 5.


Table 5 Cross-tabulation of gender and frequency of cooking at home

When cooking at home is examined more closely by frequency in theweek, the results show that girls cook more often than boys. A quarterof girls could be classed as frequent cooks (they said they cook at leastonce a day), compared to 14% of boys. Fifteen percent of girls areoccasional cooks (responding that they cook less than once a day, butmore than once a week) compared to 10% of boys. Twenty percent ofgirls are described as infrequent cooks (indicating they cook once aweek or less) compared with 16% of boys.

Class used to complete questionnaire

The SCC wanted to find out what class pupils were in when theycompleted the questionnaire. The results show that a range of classes wasused to disseminate and complete the questionnaires. See Table 6.

Table 6 Class in which respondents completed the questionnaire

Class Number %

Home Economics 1484 67

Personal and Social Development 463 21

Other 263 12

n=2210

How often cook at home Total

Gender Once a day ormore often

Less than once aday and morethan once a

week

Once a week Less than

once aweek

Boy 222 (14%) 161 (10%) 152 (9%) 107 (7%) 642 (40%)

Girl 398 (25%) 246 (15%) 178 (11%) 146 (9%) 968 (60%)

n=620 n=407 n=330 n=253 n=1610


As was expected, the majority of respondents (67%) completed thequestionnaire in a Home Economics class. Almost one fifth (21%)completed the questionnaire in classes which dealt with personal andsocial development (such as personal and social education, healtheducation, social education and social and vocational skills).Questionnaires were disseminated and completed in a range of otherclasses within the school (including biology, English, geography, Latin,maths, modern studies and music). One class completed thequestionnaires at lunchtime.

FOOD SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

In order to determine pupils' knowledge of basic food hygiene principlesa range of questions relating to food safety and hygiene were asked.These questions are based on common government guidance andestablished measures that can be taken to ensure safe food production7.These include all the stages of food preparation including personalhygiene, preparation, cooking, cooling and storage of food.

The order in which the results are presented in this section is differentfrom the order in which they were asked in the questionnaire. Thequestionnaire was randomly set out, whereas the results are structuredbroadly according to themes based on the principle messages from theten-point-plan used as public advertisements by the Scottish Executive,(formerly Scottish Office) in 19978 . All questions include a 'don'tknow' option.


1 Personal hygiene

The first basic food hygiene message that we examined relates topersonal hygiene and the importance for the need to “wash handsthoroughly before preparing food, after going to the toilet or handling pets”.

Two questions were asked relating to personal hygiene in thequestionnaire. The first of these questions was asked in the form of ascenario, which stated “After wiping Johnny's nose Julie washed her handswith soap and hot water, before slicing apples”. Pupils were asked to indicateif the food mentioned in the statement is safe to eat or unsafe to eat andcould make you ill. See Table 7.

Table 7 Food safety after washing hands

The food in this scenario is considered safe to eat, as good hygiene ruleswere observed and almost all of the respondents (98%) answeredcorrectly. Only 2% answered unsafe and less than 1% of the pupils (9 intotal) answered don't know.

The second question relating to personal hygiene took a different angleand asked pupils how you should wash your hands. See Table 8.

Number %

Safe 2153 97.5

Unsafe 46 2.1

Don't know 9 0.4

n=2208


Table 8 Response to how you should wash your hands

Although the questions were located at different parts of thequestionnaire (one at question 8 and the other at 12) similar responseswere given. The majority of respondents (94%) answered according tobest practice, which is by washing hands with soap and hot water. Fourpercent suggested that you should wash your hands by washing themwith soap and cold water, and 1% suggested putting them under coldrunning water. One percent answered don't know.

When the response from these two questions are compared it can beseen that slightly more pupils answered incorrectly when they wereasked how to wash their hands (6.4%) than when asked to indicatewhether 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 storeall uncooked food separately from cooked food - keep raw meat or fish at thebottom of your fridge”.

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

By washing them with soap and hot water 2064 93.6

Don't know 22 1.0n=2204


Uncooked food and cooked food should be prepared and storedseparately. This is to avoid raw food touching or dripping onto cookedfood as harmful bacteria (known as pathogens) can be passed this way.Raw food is particularly likely to contain pathogens and should alwaysbe kept separate from high risk food. High risk foods are usuallyconsidered as those which support the multiplication of harmful bacteriaand are intended for consumption without further treatment, such ascooking, which would destroy the bacteria.

Two questions were included in the questionnaire with a focus on cross-contamination, one relating to shopping and the other relating to storingfood.

Safe shopping and cross-contamination

To test pupils’ knowledge about cross-contamination a scenario relatingto shopping was presented in the questionnaire. It states “You have beento the shops and bought some bread, mushrooms and raw chicken. You have twobags”. It asks, to be safe, what would you pack together? The correctanswer to avoid cross-contamination is to pack chicken in one bag andbread 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

Don’t know 71 3.2

n=2199


The majority of respondents (76%) answered correctly. However, almosta quarter (24%) of pupils indicated an incorrect response or stated don'tknow.

Safe storage and cross-contamination

The questionnaire asked respondents to examine a picture of a fridgewith an open door and seven basic food items (raw meat, raw fish,cooked meat, milk, a dessert with cream, vegetables and cheese). SeeFigure 4. They were asked to draw arrows from each food item towhere they thought it should be safely stored in the fridge.

Raw fish

Raw meat Cooked meatMilk

Dessertswith cream Vegetables

Cheese

Figure 4Correct storage in fridge


The individual results for the food products are given at Appendix 4with the exception of raw meat and fish, which are examined in detail.Due to the potential for cross-contamination, especially to cooked orready-to-eat foods which require no further cooking, raw meat and fishare recommended to be stored at the bottom of the fridge. This is alsothe coolest part of the fridge where bacteria increase most slowly. SeeTable 10 for the results.

Table 10 Raw meat and fish storage

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=1467for raw meat and n=1463 for raw fish) could not correctly identifywhere to store these potentially hazardous foodstuffs.

Fridge food safety analysis

There are good practice guidelines on where food items arerecommended to be stored in the fridge. However, it is not unsafe tostore some of them elsewhere in the fridge. What is important in foodsafety terms is avoiding cross-contamination. Therefore, cooked orready-to-eat foods must be stored separately from raw foods.

NumberRaw meat

% Rawmeat

NumberRaw fish

% Rawfish

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


The SCC analysed the fridge question in more detail by concentratingon the position in which the food is stored relative to the other fooditems. For example, it would be safe (rather than recommended goodpractice) to place raw meat on the top shelf of the fridge, if nothing wasbelow it. The SCC analysed this question by applying criteria on safetyto the food items. We considered that food stored in the fridge is unsafebased on the following criteria:

l It is unsafe to store raw meat on the same shelf in the fridge as any ofthe ready-to-eat foods, excluding the freezer.

l It is unsafe to store raw fish on the same shelf in the fridge as any ofthe ready-to-eat foods, excluding the freezer.

l It is unsafe to store raw meat on a shelf above any of the ready-to-eatfoods (with the exception of the drawer). For example, raw meat on thesecond shelf down with cheese on the third shelf down is unsafe, whileraw 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-eatfoods (with the exception of the drawer).

The SCC examined the information given for the individual fooditems and their relative position in the fridge based on these criteria.See Figure 5.

Unsafe64%

Safe36%

Figure 5Safety analysis for the fridge


The analysis reveals that just over a third of respondents (36%) suggestedsafe storage positions for food in the fridge while just under two thirds(64%) of respondents suggested storing food in the fridge in a positionthat is considered unsafe.

3 Temperature control

Food hygiene advice suggests the need to “keep the coldest part of yourfridge below 5°C”. It also suggests the need to get a fridge thermometerand to store eggs in the fridge. The need to be aware of the temperatureof the fridge is important because the common food poisoningorganisms are generally considered to be unable to multiply attemperatures below 5°C.

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.

Just under half of respondents (49%) answered correctly, that is between1°C and 5°C. The next highest response, from 22% of pupils was don'tknow.

Thirty percent of pupils answered this question incorrectly. Almost 20%chose somewhere in the range between 6°C and above 16°C, while justunder 11% indicated below 1°C.

Overall, more than 50% of pupils could not provide the correct answerto this question. The response to this question could perhapsdemonstrate a lack of understanding of degrees of centigrade by pupils.

1

2

3

4 5

6

Figure 6What temperature shouldfood be stored at in a fridge?

1 Less than 1°C (11%)2 Between 1°C and 5°C (49%)3 Between 6°C and 10°C (19%)4 Between 11°C and 15°C (4%)5 More than 16°C (2%)6 Don’t know (22%)


Egg storage

The questionnaire went on to ask where eggs should be stored. SeeFigure 7.

Of the three options given, the majority of respondents (89%) providedthe best practice answer, that is, in the fridge. Nine percent answeredoutside the fridge, and 2% said they do not know.

4 Defrosting frozen foods

Guidance suggests the need to defrost frozen meats and poultry fully (inthe fridge or microwave) or according to manufacturers’ instructions,before cooking to kill off harmful bacteria.

The SCC was interested in finding out whether respondents knowhow 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 optionthat was considered best practice - that is by covering it and putting iton a plate in the fridge to defrost. However, the results alsodemonstrate that slightly over a fifth (22%) suggested that the chickenbe near the window to defrost in the sunlight, and 5% suggested it isdefrosted by running it under hot water. Nine percent of respondentsanswered don't know.

What these results indicate is while the larger number of pupilsidentified the safest way of defrosting the chicken, more than a quarterchose potentially harmful methods of defrosting and a significantnumber did not know which option to choose.

1

2 3

Figure 7Where should you store eggs?

1 In the fridge (89%)2 Outside the fridge (9%)3 Don’t know (2%)

1

2

34

Figure 8How should you defrost achicken?

1 By covering it and putting iton a plate in the fridge (64%)2 Near the window to defrostin the sunlight (22%)3 By running it under hot water(5%)4 Don’t know (9%)


Number %

Not at all 169 7.7

Once 1665 75.8

Twice 182 8.3

As often as you like 69 3.1

Don't know 112 5.1n=2197

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 pipinghot”. The SCC was interested in finding out whether pupils know howoften food can be safely reheated.

The questionnaire asked pupils how often it is safe to reheat food once itis cooked. See Table 11.

Table 11 Safely reheating food

It is considered safe to reheat food once, and the majority of respondents(76%) answered correctly. Eight percent of respondents answered it isnot safe to reheat food at all. In food safety terms this would be erringon the side of caution, and it appears to indicate a lack of knowledge ofbest 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 youlike. Both of these could prove harmful. Five percent of respondentsanswered don't know.


6 Undercooked food

Bacteria such as salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli may be present inanimals without any adverse affect to the animal and these bacteria maybe transferred to food. Contaminated food usually looks, tastes andsmells completely normal. To minimise the risk to health, guidancesuggests that meat and poultry products, (particularly hamburgers,sausages and poultry) be cooked thoroughly to reduce the risk oftransferring bacteria. It also advises against eating food that containsuncooked eggs.

Two questions were asked relating to safe cooking methods, the firstabout hamburgers and the second relating to eggs.

Undercooked hamburgers

A statement was given “Jane prepared hamburgers for lunch. She removedthem from the pan when they were getting crusty on the outside and wereslightly pink in the centre” and pupils were asked to indicate whether thefood mentioned in the statement is safe to eat, unsafe to eat and couldmake you ill or to indicate they did not know the correct option. Thefood in this scenario is considered unsafe to eat, as undercooked meatcan cause illness. See Figure 9.

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 thisage group as standardised hamburgers from fast food outlets may be acommonly consumed food.

1

2 3

Figure 9Safe cooking - pinkhamburgers

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 werehungry. She needed something quick and easy so she made them soft-boiledeggs”. Again pupils were asked to indicate whether the food mentionedin the statement is safe to eat, unsafe to eat and could make you ill or toindicate they did not know the correct option. The food in this scenariois considered unsafe to eat, as undercooked or uncooked eggs can causeillness. See Table 12.

Table 12 Safe cooking - soft-boiled eggs

Just over a third of respondents (35%) answered correctly, that is, the foodis unsafe and could make you ill. Just under half (48%) of respondentsindicated that this practice was safe, contrary to advice. A significantnumber of respondents (17%) answered don't know.

It is significant that only one in three pupils answered correctly. Thisindicates that even though there have been publicity campaigns aboutthe dangers of eating raw or soft-boiled eggs, it still appears to becommon practice.

Number %

Safe 1050 47.7

Unsafe 770 35.0

Don't know 379 17.2

n=2199


7 Cooling food safely

Guidance has emphasised the need to maintain the correct temperaturefor food and the need to keep food out of the 'danger zone', that isbetween 5°C and 63°C. It suggests the need to “keep hot food hot, andcold food cold - don't leave them standing around. Take chilled and frozen foodhome quickly - then put them in your fridge or freezer at once”.

The SCC wanted to find out whether pupils know how to deal withfood once it has been heated. A statement suggested “Jack cooked a pot ofchilli that morning. He left the chilli to cool on the worktop for two hours. Hethen put the pot of chilli in the fridge for tonight's dinner.” Pupils were askedto indicate whether the food is safe, unsafe or to answer don't know. SeeTable 13. The food in this scenario is considered safe to eat as it isimportant to let food cool down before putting it into the fridge. Hotfood should never be placed directly into a fridge as it can raise thetemperature and it can also encourage condensation and thereforecontamination.

Table 13 Cooling food

Twenty-seven percent of respondents answered according to bestpractice, that is, the food is safe to eat. A significant number ofrespondents (45%) indicated that this practice is unsafe, contrary to goodpractice and a significant proportion of pupils (29%) answered don'tknow.

Number %

Safe 587 26.7

Unsafe 987 44.8

Don't know 628 28.5

n=2202


Significantly, when this question was shown to Environmental HealthOfficers for comment there was debate about the exact time it wouldtake to cool the food down and would depend on factors such as theamount of chilli cooked, the conditions of the kitchen and so on. Thisdemonstrates the complexity of this issue and the need for clarity andguidance for the public and it is perhaps understandable that less than27% of pupils could identify the correct answer.

8 Recommended storage time

Government regulations in the form of the 'use by’ date tell consumerswhen a product should be eaten by, after which the quality and thesafety of the product will decrease.

In relation to use by dates, the questionnaire asked pupils what to dowith milk that has passed its 'use by' date and gives four options foraction. See Table 14.

Table 14 Action for milk past 'use by' date

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.

Number %

Drink it anyway 42 1.9

Drink it if it smells okay 307 14.0

‘Bin’ it 1824 83.1

Don't know 22 1.0

Total 2195 100.0


Additionally, the SCC asked a series of questions relating to knowledgeabout how long food can be kept and stored safely before it should bethrown away. Although it was not stated that the food should be storedin the fridge, the examples given are all highly perishable and thereforeguidance would recommend that they are. An example of an openedpacket of desserts with cream was given in the question along with theanswer that it should be eaten or disposed of in one day. Pupils wereasked to write how many days they thought the food items can be keptbefore they are unsafe to eat. The results for the individual food itemsare presented below. It should be noted, that if 'use by' dates are on food,these should be complied with. In some instances, however, food isavailable without the presence of 'use by' dates.

Storage time for fresh cooked meat

It is recommended that once opened fresh cooked meat, for example anopened packet of sliced cooked ham, is used within two days. See Table15.

Table 15 Storage time - cooked meat

The results show that 31% of pupils identified the correct timescale and afurther 17% suggested less than the recommended time. Both of theseresponses would be considered safe, but may demonstrate a lack ofknowledge rather than unsafe practice. However, 53% of pupilssuggested more than two days which is considered unsafe.

Number %

Less than 2 days 346 16.5

2 days 648 30.9

More than 2 days 1101 52.6

n=2095


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

The results show that 82% of pupils are unaware of the timescale for eggstorage and answered either more than two weeks or less than twoweeks. 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 ofcottage 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 weeks 1340 70.2

2 weeks 342 17.9

More than 2 weeks 228 11.9n=1910

Number %


2 – 3 days 743 36.4


n=2040


Just over a third of pupils responded correctly, that the food could bekept for between two to three days. Just under 14% stated less than twodays and the other half suggested the food can be kept for more thanthree 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 freshmince should only be kept for a day before use. See Table 18.

Table 18 Storage time - fresh mince

Just over a quarter (26%) of pupils gave the correct answer for thisquestion, that is less than two days, and the rest answered incorrectly.

The answers to these questions on food storage were consistently poorwith between 18% and 37% of pupils correctly answering these fourquestions.

A further question was included in the questionnaire that was not usedin the subsequent analysis. It related to how long you can store freshpasteurised milk before it should be used or disposed of. These resultsare not given because the question did not state whether it was anopened or closed container, which would influence the storage times andtherefore the answers from pupils.

Number %


2 – 3 days 854 42.6


n=2007


9 At-risk groups

It is advised that special care should be taken for certain groups in societywho may be more at risk of foodborne illness than the generalpopulation. The questionnaire asked pupils to name two groups ofpeople that might be at risk from food poisoning and gave elderly peopleas 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

The results show that almost 40% of pupils correctly identified thatbabies were vulnerable to food poisoning. However, few respondentsidentified the other two groups considered at risk from food poisoning,with 13.5% and 12% respectively identifying sick people and pregnantwomen. Further analysis revealed that only 301 pupils (14%) identifiedtwo groups correctly.

A range of other groups of people were identified by pupils who wereparticularly at risk of food poisoning. These included holiday-makers,poor people, people who are blind, adults and (specifically) middle-agedadults, alcoholics/smokers, teenagers, the homeless, and people who eattakeaways. More surprisingly the answers 'dogs' and 'pets' were alsoincluded. These responses are all quite strange however, the questionnairedid not pursue any rationale behind these that the pupils might have had.

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.


10 Teaching resource pack 'Aliens in Our Food'

In June 1999 the then Food Safety Minister, Jeff Rooker MP launched afood hygiene teaching resource pack called Aliens in Our Food. This wasaimed at 11 - 14 year olds and funded by the European Commission aspart of a European Union wide food safety information initiative9. Thepack was distributed free to all UK secondary schools in September1999.

The SCC was interested in finding out whether pupils have seen thispack. 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 trainingpack. Most pupils in four classes had seen the pack and this accounts for54 of the 134 pupils answering yes. The remaining 80 pupils who saidthey had seen the pack are spread over 48 schools. This appears to beunusual, as one would expect the majority of pupils in a class to haveseen the pack. This perhaps indicates that either more pupils have seenthe pack than can remember or less have seen the pack than haveindicated they have.

11 Additional comments from pupils

Two additional questions were included in the questionnaire whererespondents were asked to comment about food safety issues thatconcerned them and on the questionnaire in general. Few commentswere made by pupils.

Those that were made include comments about their perception of thestate of knowledge on food safety issues. For example:

1

2

3

Figure 10Knowledge of training pack‘Aliens in Our Food’

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 atthe elderly” and “People generally don't know enough about food safety andshould be better informed by the government”.

Additionally, a few questions were raised by pupils. For example, aboutgood practice such as “Do you have to use a plastic chopping board against awooden one?”

One comment reaffirmed the lack of understanding by some pupilsrelating to food poisoning “Can you ever get food poisoning from raw eggs?”

Two comments related to learning about the subject “How could you makelearning food safety more enjoyable?” and “In school you should get practical teststo do with food safety and hygiene”.

Comments about the questionnaire

Respondents were also invited to write any comments or note down anyquestions they had about the questionnaire. Although they were few innumber, the majority of pupils who commented suggested thequestionnaire made pupils think about the subject seriously andwelcomed taking part. For example:

“This questionnaire made me think more about food and made me more aware offood poisoning” and “I think this questionnaire should be given to everyonebecause everyone should know about food hygiene”.

“I think this questionnaire is good because it tells the government how muchchildren aged 13-14 know about food safety”.

Also pupils made useful suggestions


SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

l The response rate to the questionnaire was high, with 65% (n=108) ofschools out of 166 initially approached taking part in the research.

l The respondents represent a good cross-section of the population of Scotland and the results are based on 2210 completed and useable questionnaires.

l A slightly higher number of responses were received from girls than boys and the majority of respondents were aged 13 or 14 years.

l The results show a mixed knowledge of food safety and hygiene principles.

l There is a good knowledge about some issues. This includes when and how to wash hands properly; where to store eggs; how to properlycook hamburgers and when to determine the 'use by' date of milk. Four out of five respondents answered these questions correctly.

l 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 chickensafely.

l 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.


The SCC was interested in the proportion of correct and incorrectanswers given by respondents to the questionnaire as a whole. A foodsafety index was developed to give an indication of the awareness ofrespondents to hygiene and food safety issues based on the proportion ofcorrect 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 zerofor an incorrect answer. The exception is the fridge question (see safestorage in the fridge at page 9 in Chapter 3 and Appendix 4) which isaccorded a value of four points for a 'safe' fridge and zero otherwise. Thetotal possible mark, which we have called the food safety index, is 20 andrespondents can score between 0 and 20 depending on their knowledgeof food safety and hygiene. The higher the score, the better theunderstanding of safety issues.

Table 20 Questions where points are awarded

Chapter 4 Food safety index

Orderin

Report Number in

questionnaire Correct answer Points

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


Results of food safety index

The food safety index is used to aggregate the response by pupils, givingan indication of their knowledge of food safety issues. Figure 11 showsthe distribution of scores for the food safety index.

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

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Scores

0

100

200

300

Frequency

Figure 11Distribution of food safety index


The mean value attained by 2210 pupils is 11.8. One pupil answered allof the questions correctly, scoring a value of 20, and one pupil answeredno questions correctly, scoring a value of 0.

When the results are summarised into range values, it can be seen thatthe largest proportion of pupils (51%) scored a value between 11 and 15correct answers. See Table 21.

Table 21 Range of values in food safety index

The results show that the majority of pupils (65%) could answer at leasthalf of the food safety questions correctly. However, much smallernumbers (14%) were able to answer three-quarters of the questionsrelating to basic food safety and hygiene principles.

Safety index and other factors

The food safety index was used to examine whether there is anydifference between pupils' knowledge of food safety when other factorsare taken into account. The factors examined include age; gender;whether respondents undertake cooking in the home environment; theirgeographical location - that is whether in a rural or non-rural location;by local authority; whether the school is funded by the local authority orindependently; and by a measure of deprivation (in this case free schoolmeals).

Value Number of pupils %

0-5 30 1

6-10 749 34

11-15 1131 51

16-20 300 14


Safety index by age

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any significant differencebetween knowledge of food safety and hygiene principles when the ageof the pupil was considered. See Table 22.

Table 22 Safety index by age

The average score for pupils aged 12 is 11.1 and this increases to anaverage of 12.9 at aged 15. This suggests that as pupils get older, theirknowledge of food safety issues increases slightly. However, thedifferences are not great, but are statistically significant.

Safety index by gender

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationship betweenthe gender of the respondent and their knowledge of food safety issues.See Table 23.

Table 23 Safety index by gender

Age Mean Number

12 11.1 160

13 11.8 1375

14 11.9 622

15 12.9 45

Total 12.15 2202

Gender Mean Number

Boy 11.4 1015

Girl 12.2 1193

Total 11.80 2208


The results indicate that girls have a higher average food safety score at12.2 than boys who average 11.4. This suggests that girls in this study areslightly more knowledgeable about food safety issues than boys. Whilethe differences between boys and girls are not great, they are statisticallysignificant.

Safety index by cooking at home

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationshipbetween those pupils that undertake cooking at home and theirknowledge of food safety issues. See Table 24.

Table 24 Safety index by cooking at home

The results indicate that those pupils who do cook at home know moreabout food safety, and record higher average food safety scores (12.1) thanthose who do not cook at home (10.7). However, the differences are notgreat, but are statistically significant.

Safety index by rural and non-rural locations

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationshipbetween the food safety scores of pupils and whether their schools werelocated in urban or rural authorities. See Table 25. The ScottishExecutive10 defines local authorities as rural if they have a populationdensity of less than one person per hectare. Using this definition for the

Cooking at home Mean Number

Yes 12.1 1751

No 10.7 454

Total 11.81 2205


purposes of our research, the following councils are classed as rural -Aberdeenshire; Angus; Argyll and Bute; Dumfries and Galloway; EastAyrshire; Highland; Moray; Orkney Islands; Perth and Kinross; ScottishBorders; 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

The results show no significant difference between the food safety scoresof pupils in schools in rural and non-rural authorities, with an averagescore 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 betweenpupils' knowledge of food hygiene and safety and the local authority areain which they go to school. See Table 26.

Mean Number

Rural 11.9 745

Non-rural 11.8 1465

Total 11.80 2210


Table 26 Safety index by local authority

Local Authority Mean Number ofrespondents

Dundee City 10.9 50City 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

All Areas 11.80 2210


The average scores range from 10.9 (Dundee City) to 12.5 (AberdeenCity). However, when the data is disaggregated into local authority areas,it becomes difficult to interpret any conclusions because of the smallsample size of pupils in each authority. The food safety index forindividual schools that took part in the research was also examined (seeAppendix 5); however, as for local authority areas, the results cannot bemeaningfully interpreted because of the very small sample size for eachschool.

Safety index for state and independent schools

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any difference in scoresby the type of school that pupils attended, that is funded by localauthorities, or independently. See Table 27.

Table 27 Safety index for pupils at state and independent schools

Our results show that there is no significant difference in knowledgeabout food safety between pupils at state and independent schools.Although the mean safety index is slightly higher for pupils at stateschools (11.8) than for those at independent schools (11.7), the differenceis not statistically significant.

Mean NumberIndependent schools 11.7 125

State schools 11.8 2085

Total 11.8 2210


Safety index by eligibility for free school meals

The SCC wanted to find out whether there was any relationshipbetween the food safety scores of pupils and whether their schools werein socially deprived areas of Scotland. Pupil eligibility for free schoolmeals was used as a proxy for deprivation.

The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 places a duty on educationauthorities to provide school meals free of charge to a pupil whoseparents were in receipt of Income Support. This was amended by theJobseekers Act 1995, which placed a duty on education authorities toprovide meals free of charge to a pupil whose parents are in receipt ofIncome Support or income-based Jobseekers' Allowance (or to pupilsthemselves in receipt of that benefit).

The percentage of children eligible for free school meals in each school isavailable from the Scottish Executive. When the average safety index foreach school was plotted against the percentage of free school meals theresults appeared to indicate that there was no correlation between thefood safety index scored by the pupils in each school and the percentageof 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 thepercentage of pupils in a school entitled to a free school meal against thefood safety index. The data are analysed in four bands. These are schoolsthat have less than 10% of pupils entitled to free school meals; schoolsthat have more than 10% and less than or exactly 20% of pupils entitledto free school meals; schools that have over 20% and less than or exactly30%; and schools that have over 30% of pupils entitled to receive a freeschool meal. See Table 28.


Table 28 Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals

This analysis shows that there is a difference in the food safety index ofschools with higher free school meal entitlements than those with lowfree school meal entitlements. Schools with 10% or less of pupils entitledto free school meals have a higher food safety index (12.1) than schoolswith over 30% of free school meal entitlement (11.5). Although thedifference is not great, it is statistically significant at the 95% confidenceinterval.

Therefore, using pupil eligibility for free school meals as a proxy fordeprivation, the results indicate that the average score is slightly affectedby social deprivation. This was further analysed by gender and cooking athome to determine whether there was any relationship between thesefactors that could explain why there was an apparent difference. Whilethe differences do not appear to be great they are statistically significantand there appeared to be no explanatory factors from the data used in thisstudy, suggesting the need for further exploration of the results.

% in school entitled tofree school meals

Number ofpupils

Food safetyindex

=<10 697 12.1>10 and =<20 504 11.7

>20 and =<30 368 11.8

>30 412 11.5

Total 1981 11.8Differences between groups are significant at the 5% level.


SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

l A food safety index was developed to examine the aggregate scores of pupils who responded to the food safety questionnaire.

l 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.

l 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 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 cookat 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.

l 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.


The response rate to the questionnaire was high, with 108 schools out of 166 initiallyapproached taking part in the research (65%). The results are based on 2210completed and useable questionnaires. A slightly higher number of responses werereceived from girls than boys and the majority of respondents were aged 13 or 14years, 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 thesecooking at least once a day.

The overall conclusion of the research is clear, there does appear to be a goodknowledge of some issues, however, knowledge falls off significantly on other issuesthat are less clear cut. In particular it appears that pupils are not taking up the morecomplex messages.

For example, the question that received the greatest number of correct responsesrelated to how pupils wash their hands. The majority of pupils could answer thiswithout any difficulty, as 97.5% identified the correct response. What was notexamined was how adults would respond to the same questions - would they knowmore than this age group, or less? The research also did not examine behaviour, andwhether pupils actually practice what they know.

Other issues where there is a good knowledge includes where to store eggs, how toproperly cook hamburgers and when to determine the 'use by' date of milk. Fourout of five respondents answered these questions correctly.

There is a reasonable knowledge about other food safety and hygiene principles. Forexample between 64% and 76% know how to safely pack a shopping bag, how toreheat food and how to defrost a chicken safely.

There are, however, poor levels of knowledge about certain food safety and hygieneprinciples. This includes what the temperature of food in the fridge should be; how

Chapter 5 Conclusions and recommendations


to store raw meat and fish safely; how to cook eggs safely; and how to cool cookedfood before storing it in a fridge. The results indicate that between 12% and 49% ofpupils indicated a correct answer to these questions.

The question that received the fewest correct answers was identifying people at riskfrom 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 whoresponded to the food safety questionnaire. Based on this, it was found that the meanscore for pupils was 11.8 out of a possible score of 20. The index indicates that themajority of pupils could correctly answer half of the questions relating to hygiene andfood safety, however, only 14% of pupils could answer more than three-quarters ofthe questions correctly.

A number of factors were examined to determine whether they influenced the resultsof the food safety score, and while it was discovered that some factors werestatistically significant, the differences between factors were not great. It was foundthat gender, age, whether pupils cook at home and deprivation (with the proportionof free school meals used as a proxy for deprivation) are statistically significant andcan influence knowledge on food safety and hygiene. Girls, older pupils and thosethat cook at home had slightly higher food safety scores, while pupils in those schoolswith 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 knowledgeabout food safety and hygiene between pupils in schools of rural and non-rurallocations; between pupils in different local authority areas; and between independentand state schools.


While these results might initially suggest that there is a need to focus initiatives onyounger pupils, boys and those attending schools with a high proportion of freeschool meal eligibility this would be overly simplistic as the differences between thesegroups and others are not great. The overall analysis of the research points to anumber of key findings:

l the need for better knowledge of food safety and hygiene for all pupils;l the need to raise the average food safety score which was found to be 11.8 out of

a possible score of 20;l the need to encourage and make improvements to the positive aspects of teaching

and learning that is taking place;l 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 outlinedbelow:

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 clearand relevant and understandable to pupils, parents and guardians, and teachers. To do this, appropriate materials and resources need to be provided in schools. Out ofschool clubs and organisations, which inform young people about food safety issuesshould also have access to appropriate material.


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 relationto 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.


1 Source - Information & Statistics Division (ISD), Common Services Agency forNHS, Edinburgh. EH5 3SQ - Form ISD(D)32 Food Standards Agency (2000) Foodborne Disease: Developing a Strategy toDeliver 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, 20September.4 The Pennington Group (1997) Report on the Circumstances Leading to the 1996Outbreak of Infection with E.coli 0157 in Central Scotland, the Implications for Food Safetyand 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 FoodFacts not Fads, Food Safety, reprinted June. Also Scottish Office Food Safety PublicityCampaign, Public Advertisements cited in The Pennington Group (1997) Report onthe Circumstances Leading to the 1996 Outbreak of Infection with E.coli 0157 in CentralScotland, the Implications for Food Safety and Lessons to be Learned, April, the StationaryOffice, Edinburgh. Also Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1998) Ten Tipsfor Food Safety, Foodsense, London.8 The results from these questions have been cross checked against ConsumersAssociation (1992)Which? Way to Health, pp32-35, February. They were alsodiscussed with Environmental Health Officers.9 The SCC and a range of other interests supported the initiative, and the SCC wasrepresented on the steering group.10 Scottish Executive (2000) Rural Scotland A New Approach, Rural AffairsDepartment, May, Edinburgh.

References


TARGET GROUP

In the main, the 13-14 age group is in second year at secondary school. Although nostatutory national curriculum exists in Scotland, Learning and Teaching Scotland(formerly the Scottish Curriculum Council) publish curriculum guidelines to provideadvice and support for schools and local authorities to assist with formulating thecurriculum. The teaching of Home Economics is included within these guidelines.As all local authorities in Scotland subscribe to the curriculum guidelines, they havean expectation to deliver Home Economics at these levels. Therefore, it is likely thatpupils in this age range in local authority schools are undergoing, or haveexperienced, Home Economic lessons. However, the amount of time dedicated toteaching Home Economics can vary both among local authority areas and alsoamong schools. Similarly, the subject areas covered within the teaching of HomeEconomics can vary between textiles and food, but in most cases there is usually agreater focus on food-related teaching than textiles .

While one of the questions aimed to investigate the level of cooking undertaken inthe home, it was our opinion that this age group was mature enough to be likely tobe involved in some cooking or preparation activities at home (see Table 4 of thereport for the results of our assumption).

Second-year classes generally consist of mixed ability pupils. That is, they are unlikelyto have been separated into classes based on their educational ability and therefore arelikely to represent different levels of educational ability common in society as awhole.

In terms of practicalities, second-year pupils were not undertaking major exams andtherefore we felt that there would be greater flexibility in the second-year timetableto allow for a questionnaire to be undertaken with minimum disruption to the pupilsand staff.

Appendix 1 Detailed research methodology


There were three main components of the research methodology; the selection of theschools to take part in the research, the involvement of environmental health officersand the development and dissemination of the questionnaire. These are summarisedin Chapter 2.

SCHOOL SELECTION

Prior to undertaking research in schools it is necessary to obtain approval from thelocal education authority.

Contact with Directors of Education

The SCC contacted Directors of Education in each local authority area in Scotlandto gain permission to approach schools and to ask for their participation in ourresearch. Letters were sent to 32 Directors of Education in February 2000, explainingthe background to the research and requesting permission to contact randomlyselected schools in their area. All of the 32 Directors of Education were willing forus to make contact with schools. However, nine authorities placed conditions on uscontacting schools. Five authorities wanted to approve the questionnaires themselvesbefore giving us permission to contact schools. Two stipulated that we obtainpermission from parents or guardians before disseminating the questionnaire to pupils.Two authorities provided a list of schools in their area and asked that we onlyapproach these. This was because building work was taking place in one localauthority area due to school reorganisations and in the other area the Director ofEducation had contacted schools directly and had a list of schools willing toparticipate. The SCC complied with all of these conditions.

When consent was required we wrote to the school in advance of the questionnairebeing distributed and asked them to give out parental consent forms (which weprovided) to the pupils who would be taking part.


School sample

The SCC wanted to gather data which was representative of the school population inScotland. The Scottish Executive (Education Department) was contacted andprovided 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 ScottishExecutive publications and we used Examination Results in Scottish Schools 1997-1999. This document provided the total school roll for each school in each localauthority area across Scotland. It included both non-denominational and RomanCatholic schools. While the information we needed, the total numbers of pupils insecond years, was not provided separately, the SCC was satisfied that this documentprovided a consistent and useable surrogate. The total roll for each local authorityarea was calculated as a percentage of the total roll for Scotland.

We wanted to achieve a sample of 2000 schoolchildren aged 13-14 that wasgeographically representative by local authority. The target sample size was increasedto 3000 so that enough respondents could be recruited with the first trawl. Thismeant 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 inthree of the randomly selected schools refused our request to take part in theresearch, the target sample size would still be achieved.

The number of pupils required in each local authority area was calculated bymultiplying 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 tobe 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 hadthe effect of increasing the total number of classes that we needed to approach forpermission to take part in the research from 150 to 166.


Schools were selected using systematic sampling. The list of Scottish secondaryschools was arranged alphabetically by local authority area. We calculated the ratio ofthe schools required in each local authority area against the total number ofsecondary schools in each area. The schools to be approached were selected bychoosing the first school on the list and then counting down the list by theappropriate ratio. For example, if we needed four schools out of 12 (1:3) the firstschool was selected and every third after that, therefore, schools 1, 4, 7 and 10 werechosen.

This method was used in 30 out of 32 local authority areas. For two local authorityareas the Directors of Education had given us lists of specific schools to contact andwe complied with their requests. Schools that had a total roll of less then 100 wereexcluded, as we assumed they would be unlikely to have a second-year class of morethan 20 pupils. There were 27 schools that had a total roll of less than 100. Themajority of these were in predominantly rural areas, however six independent schoolswere also excluded. When the schools were being selected, if we chose one with lessthan 100 it was omitted and the next school on the (alphabetical) list with more than100 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 independentschools are slightly under-represented. The total number of secondary schools inScotland is 452, with 42 being independent (9.3%). However, in the survey 12independent schools (7.2%) were selected out of 166 schools in total. Independentschools are under-represented in the final response, with seven out of 108 beingindependent (6.5%).


Contact with head teachers

The SCC wrote to 166 head teachers of the selected schools in April 2000 askingwhether 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 ofschools in areas that were under-represented. A total of 108 schools agreed toparticipate in the research out of 166 who were initially contacted, giving a responserate of 65%. See Appendix 2 for the schools that took part in the research. Pupilconfidentiality was maintained throughout the research, as respondents were not askedto put their name on the questionnaires.

Pupil selection

The SCC suggested guidelines for head teachers to follow in selecting pupils to takepart in the research - essentially that pupils be in the 13-14 year age range and ofmixed ability. However, the school made the final selection of specific classes andtherefore pupils to include. The SCC wanted information from one class in any oneschool. This was to encompass as many schools as resources would permit and for thepractical reason to avoid overburdening both the school and the environmental healthofficers. Only the pupils present on the day of the study were included and there wasno follow up visit.

INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS

Environmental health officers (EHOs) employed by local authorities assisted in theresearch. The SCC sought the assistance of environmental health officers for anumber of reasons. Primarily, it was considered useful to have an independent personto disseminate the questionnaires in the school to the pupils and, as far as possible, thiscould ensure a standard method of dissemination of the questionnaire. It was also feltthat 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 beregarded as neutral by the school pupils, and this could encourage


pupils to give a full response without concern about their teacher assessing theirresponse. Additionally, EHOs are professionals and it was felt that they would besuitably 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) ineach local authority area to establish whether EHOs would be willing to assist withthe research. Letters were sent out during the week beginning 10 April 2000 askingif their area would be willing to become involved and, if so, they were asked toprovide a contact person and telephone number. Attached to this was a letter fromthe Honorary Secretary of the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health inScotland endorsing the opportunity for EHOs to work in partnership with the SCCand local schools (see Appendix 6.2). Information on the number of schools thatthey would be requested to visit in their area was also included and this ranged fromone to twelve schools depending on the size of the school-aged population in theirlocal authority area (see Appendix 6.3).

DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The SCC developed a draft questionnaire based on key food safety messages. As thequestionnaire was aimed at school pupils, it was necessary to pay particular attentionto the way questions were framed and the language used to avoid confusion and toensure that the respondents could easily understand the questions. Preliminarydiscussions were held with teachers and a number of individuals experienced inundertaking research with school pupils to inform the SCC about good practice andhighlight problem areas in undertaking research with this population group.

Additionally, the draft questionnaire was sent to external experts for comments, andincluded four EHOs and the schools programme manager at the Health EducationBoard for Scotland (HEBS). Helpful comments were received and incorporated intothe draft questionnaire.


Pilot Study

An exploratory pilot survey was conducted with a class of second-year pupils in acomprehensive school in Glasgow in April 2000. The class and pupils targeted tocomplete 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 draftquestionnaires were disseminated to pupils the SCC made a short introduction. Thiswas to inform them of the purpose of the visit - that we were conducting researchand we wanted to find out whether they understood the questions that we wereplanning to ask other pupils across Scotland. We explained what research was andthat the questionnaire was not a test. The pupils were assured that the results wereconfidential, and that only the researchers at the SCC would see them. Fourteenpupils completed the draft questionnaire in a Home Economics class.

Discussion Groups

Following the completion of the draft questionnaire, two concurrent discussiongroups were conducted with the same class by SCC staff. This was to explore thedraft questionnaire in greater detail. This included a discussion on the questionsposed, the pupils’ understanding and interpretation of the questions and the formatand ease of completion of the questionnaire.

In light of the response from the pilot study and discussion groups the draftquestionnaire was further amended to incorporate the comments received.

Dissemination of the Questionnaires

All of the local authority environmental health departments initially agreed toparticipate in the research and letters and questionnaires were sent out to nominatedEHOs or members of staff during a three-week period from 8 May 2000.


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 gainingconfirmation of permission to go ahead from the parties involved. This includedDirectors of Education, Directors of Environmental Health, the individual headteacher and contact teacher, and liaising with the contact EHOs.

Each letter from the SCC to the EHO contained the following information:

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;

l 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;

l an envelope containing packs of 25 questionnaires (or more if the contact or local authority had requested more) for each school;

l prepaid self-addressed envelopes for each pack of questionnaires to be returned to the SCC; and

l 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 theselected schools in their area and arrange a convenient time to visit and disseminatethe questionnaire. We suggested that, if possible, visits be made before the end of Mayto avoid complications of schools starting to wind down for summer holidays in June.

In four cases, the school contact teacher disseminated the questionnaires to pupilsthemselves, rather than EHOs. The analysis revealed there were no differences in theresults by method of dissemination.


The school visit

Environmental health officers contacted the nominated teacher in each school andarranged a convenient time to visit the school. During the visit to the school theEHO handed out the questionnaires and then waited in class until they werecompleted. They were then collected from the pupils. Some EHOs took theopportunity of talking to pupils about the importance of food safety after they hadundertaken the research. The EHOs then returned the completed questionnaires inthe prepaid, self-addressed envelopes to the SCC along with completed informationsheets. The school visits took place between 12 May and 27 June 2000. Themajority were carried out in May, however 33 school visits took place in June.

Environmental health officers were telephoned in mid August to confirm theirmethodology.


Appendix 2 Schools that took part in the research, by local authority with the number of pupils who completed the questionnaire fromeach school

Local Authority School Number ofpupils

%

Aberdeen City Aberdeen Grammar 25 1.1Bankhead Academy 15 0.7Dyce Academy 22 1.0Northfield Academy 24 1.1St Machar Academy 25 1.1

Aberdeen City total 111 5.0Aberdeenshire Banchory Academy 20 0.9

Ellon Academy 15 0.7Inverurie Academy 17 0.8Mintlaw Academy 16 0.7Portlethen Academy 34 1.5

Aberdeenshire total 102 4.6Angus Arbroath Academy 16 0.7

Montrose Academy 25 1.1Angus total 41 1.9Argyll and Bute Campbeltown Grammar 15 0.7

Rothesay Academy 15 0.7Argyll and Bute total 30 1.4Clackmannanshire Alloa Academy 21 1.0

Dollar Academy 15 0.7Clackmannanshire total 36 1.6Dumfries and Galloway Annan Academy 23 1.0

Dalry Secondary 17 0.8Moffat Academy 23 1.0Stranraer Academy 25 1.1

Dumfries and Galloway total 88 4.0Dundee City Baldragon Academy 25 1.1

Harris Academy 25 1.1Dundee City total 50 2.2East Ayrshire Auchinleck 16 0.7

Doon Academy 15 0.7James Hamilton Academy 14 0.6Loudoun Academy 18 0.8

East Ayrshire total 63 2.9East Dunbartonshire Bearsden Academy 24 1.1

Boclair Academy 18 0.8Kirkintilloch High 22 1.0St Ninian’s High 23 1.0

East Dunbartonshire total 87 3.9


East Lothian Knox Academy 27 1.2North Berwick High 32 1.4

East Lothian total 59 2.7East Renfrewshire St Luke’s High 24 1.1

Williamwood High 19 0.9East Renfrewshire total 43 1.9City of Edinburgh Castlebrae Community High 13 0.6

The Edinburgh Academy 19 0.9Leith Academy 18 0.8Mary Erskine 20 0.9Queensferry High 16 0.7St George’s 19 0.9

City of Edinburgh total 105 4.8Falkirk Denny High 24 1.1

Grangemouth High 24 1.1St Mungo’s High 23 1.0

Falkirk total 71 3.2Fife Buckhaven High 14 0.6

Glenrothes High 16 0.7Kirkcaldy High 14 0.6Lochgelly High 18 0.8St Andrew’s RC High 17 0.8Waid Academy 25 1.1

Fife total 104 4.7City of Glasgow All Saints Secondary 22 1.0

Bellahouston Academy 30 1.4Castlemilk High 22 1.0Craigholme School for Girls 11 0.5Eastbank Academy 19 0.9Govan High 25 1.1Hillpark Secondary 21 1.0John Paul Academy 16 0.7Knightswood Secondary 26 1.2Notre Dame High 16 0.7

City of Glasgow total 208 9.4Highland Alness Academy 21 1.0

Dingwall Academy 19 0.9Fortrose Academy 24 1.1

Highland total 64 2.9


Inverclyde Gourock High 25 1.1Greenock High 17 0.8St Columba’s High 28 1.3

Inverclyde total 70 3.2Midlothian Newbattle High 16 0.7

Penicuik High 14 0.6Midlothian total 30 1.4Moray Aberlour House 16 0.7

Forres Academy 18 0.8Moray total 34 1.5North Ayrshire Ardrossan Academy 15 0.7

Auchenharvie Academy 17 0.8Greenwood Academy 18 0.8Kilwinning Academy 20 0.9St Andrew’s Academy 16 0.7

North Ayrshire total 86 3.9North Lanarkshire Caldervale High 19 0.9

Chryston High 24 1.1Coatbridge High 19 0.9Columba High 24 1.1Kilsyth Academy 24 1.1Our Lady’s High 24 1.1

North Lanarkshire total 134 6.1Orkney Islands Kirkwall Grammar 26 1.2Orkney total 26 1.2Renfrewshire Castlehead High 25 1.1

Gryffe High 25 1.1Linwood High 13 0.6Merksworth High 20 0.9

Renfrewshire total 83 3.8Scottish Borders Berwickshire High 24 1.1

Galashiels Academy 25 1.1Kelso High 18 0.8

Scottish Borders total 67 3.0Shetland Islands Aith Junior High 13 0.6

Anderson 11 0.5Shetland total 24 1.1South Ayrshire Ayr Academy 25 1.1

Carrick Academy 24 1.1Kyle Academy 25 1.1Marr College 23 1.0

South Ayrshire total 97 4.4


South Lanarkshire Ballerup High 25 1.1Fernhill School 25 1.1Hamilton Grammar 24 1.1Lesmahagow High 25 1.1

South Lanarkshire total 99 4.5Stirling St Modan’s High 18 0.8

Balfron High 21 1.0Dunblane High 25 1.1

Stirling total 64 2.9West Dunbartonshire Braidfield High 25 1.1

Dumbarton Academy 15 0.7St Columba’s High 20 0.9

West Dunbartonshire total 60 2.7West Lothian Inveralmond Community High 11 0.5

St Kentigern’s Academy 18 0.8West Lothian total 29 1.3Western Isles/ Back School 24 1.1Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Sgoil Lionacleit 21 1.0Western Isles/Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar total 45 2.0Grand Total 2210 100.0


Appendix 3 The questionnaire

FOOD SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

We would appreciate it if you would fill in this questionnaire. This is not a test: itwill 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. Youranswers will be kept confidential, and we haven’t asked for your name. Youranswers will only be seen by research staff employed by the Scottish Consumer

Council.

QUESTION 9

How long do you think you can keep the food before it is unsafe to eat and should bethrown away? We have answered the first question for you.

• 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)

.…………………………………......……..………………....___________________________________________________________________

QUESTION 10

Where should you store eggs? Tick one box only. 4

• Outside the fridge r

• In the fridge r

• Don’t know r

___________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

QUESTION 1

What is the name of your school?.………………………………………………….…………

QUESTION 2

What class are you in now (e.g. maths, home economics)?.……………………………………………………………

QUESTION 3

Are you a boy or a girl? Tick one box only.4

Boy……….r Girl……….r

QUESTION 4

What age are you?.……………………………………………………………

QUESTION 5

Do you do any cooking at home? Tick one box only.4

Yes……….r No……….r

QUESTION 6

If you answered Yes to Question 5, please write down how often you cook foodat home (e.g. once a day)..……………………………………………………………

• Jane prepared hamburgers forlunch. She removed them from thepan when they were getting crustyon the outside and were slightlypink in the centre.

• After wiping Johnny’s nose Juliewashed her hands with soap andhot water, before slicing apples.

• Jack cooked a pot of chilli thatmorning. He left the chilli to cool onthe worktop for 2 hours. He thenput the pot of chilli in the fridge fortonight’s dinner.

• Jodie was short of time and thechildren were hungry. She neededsomething quick and easy so shemade them soft boiled eggs.

SAFE UNSAFE DON’TKNOW



SAFE UNSAFE DON’T KNOW

FOOD SAFETY

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 toeat and put a circle around UNSAFE if you think it could make you ill or answerDON’T KNOW. Answer each question.


QUESTION 19

Please write any comments or questions you have about this questionnaire.

.………...…………………………………..………………....

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

QUESTION 20

Please write any comments or questions you have about food and food safety below.

.……………………………………………..………………...

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

………………………………………………..………………..

Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire.

QUESTION 11

The food items at the bottom of the page need to be put into thefridge. Can you draw arrows from each food item to where theyshould be safely stored in the fridge?

Raw fish

Raw meat Cooked meat Milk Dessertswith cream

Vegetables

Cheese

QUESTION 12

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

QUESTION 14

What temperature do you think food should be stored at in a fridge?


• Less than 1oC (32 oF) r

• Between 1 oC and 5 oC (32 oF - 41 oF) r

• Between 6 oC and 10 oC (42 oF - 50 oF) r

• Between 11 oC and 15 oC (51oF - 59 oF) r

• More than 16 oC (over 60 oF) r

• Don’t know r

QUESTION 15

Some people are more at risk from food poisoning than others, for example, elderlypeople. Please name two other groups of people that might also be at risk from foodpoisoning.

.………………………………………...…..……....…………

........………………………………..….....………................

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?


• 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 17

It is the 15t h of June and you notice that the milk you are about to drink says ‘use by13th 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 ourFood’?


Yes……….r No……….r Don’t know……….r


Appendix 4 Individual results for fridge question

Table a: Where should you store raw meat in the fridge?Number %

Top shelf 439 20.2Middle shelf 663 30.5Bottom shelf 617 28.4Drawers 349 16.1Door 16 0.7Freezer 87 4.0Total 2171 99.9

Table b: Where should you store raw fish in the fridge?Number %


Table c: Where should you store cooked meat in the fridge?Number %


Table d: Where should you store milk in the fridge?Number %

Top shelf 42 1.9Middle shelf 22 1.0Bottom shelf 16 0.7Drawers 41 1.9Door 2065 94.5Total 2186 100.0


Table e: Where should you store desserts with cream in the fridge?Number %


Table f: Where should you store vegetables in the fridge?Number %


Table g: Where should you store cheese in the fridge?Number %

Top shelf 246 11.6Middle shelf 235 11.0Bottom shelf 69 3.2Drawers 111 5.2Door 1468 69.0Total 2129 100.0


Appendix 5 Food safety index, by school

School name Mean N Std. DeviationEastbank Academy 9.47 19 2.52Arbroath Academy 9.69 16 4.03Leith Academy 9.72 18 3.03Bankhead Academy 9.73 15 3.58Caldervale High 9.79 19 2.02Ellon Academy 9.80 15 3.95Greenwood Academy 9.94 18 2.48Hillpark Secondary 10.14 21 2.59Ayr Academy 10.24 25 2.52John Paul Academy 10.25 16 3.36Balfron High 10.29 21 3.41Ardrossan Academy 10.33 15 1.88Our Lady’s High 10.33 24 3.09Dingwall Academy 10.42 19 2.71Baldragon Academy 10.44 25 2.10Fernhill School 10.48 25 2.82Gourock High 10.52 25 2.54Castlemilk High 10.55 22 2.76Linwood High 10.62 13 2.79Auchinleck Academy 10.63 16 2.94Marr College 10.70 23 3.02Berwickshire High 10.71 24 2.10Stranraer Academy 10.72 25 2.79Merksworth High 10.75 20 2.34Banchory Academy 10.80 20 3.40Glenrothes High 10.81 16 3.02Kirkintilloch High 10.82 22 2.81Braidfield High 10.96 25 2.49Notre Dame High 11.00 16 3.60Alloa Academy 11.05 21 2.75Buckhaven High 11.07 14 2.87Aberlour House 11.19 16 2.83Chryston High 11.21 24 3.08Grangemouth High 11.25 24 2.91The Edinburgh Academy 11.26 19 3.31Harris Academy 11.28 25 2.61St Kentigern’s Academy 11.33 18 2.72James Hamilton Academy 11.36 14 2.17Lochgelly High 11.44 18 2.71Bellahouston Academy 11.47 30 2.57Greenock High 11.47 17 2.87Kelso High 11.50 18 3.68Penicuik High 11.50 14 2.50Castlehead High 11.56 25 2.83Lesmahagow High 11.60 25 2.80


Castlebrae Community High 11.62 13 2.47St Andrew’s Academy 11.69 16 2.55Northfield Academy 11.71 24 2.91Campbeltown Grammar 11.80 15 2.73Doon Academy 11.80 15 2.24Anderson High School 11.82 11 2.79St Luke’s High 11.83 24 2.90Williamwood High 11.84 19 3.17St Columba’s High, WestDunbartonshire 11.80 20 2.67

Kirkwall Grammar 11.85 26 2.52Fortrose Academy 11.87 24 3.18Govan High 11.88 25 2.82Annan Academy 11.91 23 3.13Kyle Academy 11.92 25 3.46Coatbridge High 11.95 19 2.55Knightswood Secondary 11.96 26 2.54All Saints Secondary 12.00 22 2.65Craigholme School for Girls 12.00 11 2.14Newbattle High 12.06 16 3.13Dunblane High 12.12 25 3.90St Andrew’s RC High 12.12 17 3.04Kirkcaldy High 12.14 14 2.91Sgoil Lionacleit 12.14 21 2.24Queensferry High 12.19 16 2.61Mary Erskine School 12.20 20 3.58Alness Academy 12.24 21 2.45St Columba’s High, Inverclyde 12.39 28 2.86Denny High 12.25 24 3.60Loudoun Academy 12.28 18 2.67Back School 12.29 24 3.09Bearsden Academy 12.29 24 2.71Boclair Academy 12.33 18 3.40Knox Academy 12.33 27 2.77St George’s School 12.42 19 2.48Portlethen Academy 12.44 34 2.03Gryffe High 12.48 25 2.40Forres Academy 12.50 18 3.01Mintlaw Academy 12.50 16 3.01St Ninian’s High 12.52 23 2.31Galashiels Academy 12.56 25 2.89Columba High 12.58 24 2.34Hamilton Grammar 12.58 24 2.48North Berwick High 12.59 32 2.53Kilsyth Academy 12.67 24 2.70


Aberdeen Grammar 12.68 25 2.64Waid Academy 12.68 25 3.29Dalry Secondary 12.71 17 2.91St Mungo’s High 12.74 23 2.36Inverurie Academy 12.82 17 2.56Rothesay Academy 12.87 15 3.44Aith Junior High 12.92 13 3.01Dollar Academy 13.20 15 2.54Carrick Academy 13.21 24 3.56St Machar Academy 13.28 25 2.97Moffat Academy 13.48 23 3.16St Modan’s High 13.61 18 3.16Dumbarton Academy 13.67 15 3.11Inveralmond Community High 13.73 11 2.69Kilwinning Academy 13.85 20 3.34Montrose Academy 13.92 25 3.03Auchenharvie Academy 14.12 17 2.29Dyce Academy 14.18 22 2.36Ballerup High 15.32 25 2.41Total 11.80 2210 2.99


Appendix 6.1 Letter from the Society ofChief Officers of Environmental Health


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 ofclasses required

Aberdeen City 10944 3.5 5Aberdeenshire 15038 4.8 6Angus 7274 2.3 3Argyll & Bute 5559 1.8 3Clackmannanshire 2925 0.9 2Dumfries & Galloway 9523 3.1 4Dundee City 8801 2.8 4East Ayrshire 8003 2.6 4East Dunbartonshire 8620 2.8 4East Lothian 4829 1.5 2East Renfrewshire 6953 2.2 3Edinburgh, City of 18863 6.0 8Falkirk 8448 2.7 4Fife 22491 7.2 9Glasgow, City of 29281 9.4 12Highland 14702 4.7 6Inverclyde 5753 1.8 3Midlothian 5284 1.7 3Moray 5629 1.8 3North Ayrshire 9036 2.9 4North Lanarkshire 22871 7.3 10Orkney Islands 1368 0.4 1Perth and Kinross 7637 2.4 4Renfrewshire 11706 3.8 5Scottish Borders 6464 2.1 3Shetland Islands 1592 0.5 1South Ayrshire 7725 2.5 4South Lanarkshire 20335 6.5 9Stirling 5619 1.8 3West Dunbartonshire 6787 2.2 3Western Isles/Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

1971 0.6 1

West Lothian 10061 3.2 4Note: number of classes required is based on an average class size of 20


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 ConsumerCouncil:

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 onthe list. Some schools have placed certain conditions on the research, theseare highlighted on the list of schools.

2. A pack of questionnaires for each school that has agreed to take part in yourarea.

3. A postage paid return envelope for each school, for returning the completedquestionnaires to the SCC.

4. An information sheet which you should complete after each school visit andreturn to us in the postage paid return envelope.

Please note that the SCC has contacted the Directors of Education in yourarea, and they have given permission for us to undertake this research. Wehave also contacted all of the schools on the list and they have agreed to takepart.

If you have not received any of this, please contact Donna Heaney or SusanBrowne.


WHAT TO DO NOW

A. Liaise with the School

1. Please contact each head teacher, or nominated teacher to arrange to visiteach 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 holidaysand therefore we suggest contacting the schools before the end of May.

We suggest you allow 30 minutes for each visit. We also suggest that youare accompanied by a member of staff when you are in the school, this mayalso be a requirement of the school.

B. Classroom visit

When you are in the classroom it might be useful to introduce the research tothe pupils using the following points:

1. Explain what a questionnaire is – that is, a way of gathering informationabout 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 140schools 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 abetter 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 themin.

FINALLY…

Put the questionnaires in the postage paid return envelope and sendto the SCC – remember to fill in and return the Information Sheet.


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 thepostage 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:

public health and the precautionary principle 91public health and the precautionary principle 9191 public health and the precautionary principle

www.scotconsumer.org.uk

young people and food safety - uk government web...

Documents