New Approach to Food Safety Training: A Review of a Six-Step Knowledge-Sharing Model.

Significant resources, including both human and financial capital, have been dedicated to developing and delivering food handler training programs to meet government and organizational mandates. Even with the plethora of food safety-oriented training programs, there is scant empirical evidence documenting effectiveness, suggesting the need to rethink the design and delivery of food safety training for food handlers. One underlying assumption of most training programs is that food handlers engage in unsafe practices because of lack of knowledge. As a result, many training curricula are designed to improve knowledge, assuming behavior will change as knowledge increases. However, food handlers often return to the work environment and try to implement the new knowledge with minimal success. One explanation for this is that the training context and the implementation context often differ, making it difficult for the food handler to transfer what they learned into practice. Understanding the connection between knowledge, the organization, and its environment is critical to knowledge implementation. The focus of this review is to describe a six-step knowledge-sharing model. Here, knowledge sharing is broadly defined as the process of creating and then using knowledge to change a practice or behavior. Our proposed knowledge-sharing model includes six steps: generation, adaptation, dissemination, reception, adoption, and implementation. We have organized this model into two dyads: (i) transfer between researcher (i.e., knowledge generators) and educator and (ii) transfer between educator and food handler (i.e., knowledge implementers). To put into practice this proposed model for developing and delivering effective food safety training for food handlers, we have provided suggested actions that can be performed within each step of the knowledge-sharing process.

Prevalence of Human Noroviruses in Commercial Food Establishment Bathrooms.

Although transmission of human norovirus in food establishments is commonly attributed to consumption of contaminated food, transmission via contaminated environmental surfaces, such as those in bathrooms, may also play a role. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of human norovirus on bathroom surfaces in commercial food establishments in New Jersey, Ohio, and South Carolina under nonoutbreak conditions and to determine characteristics associated with the presence of human norovirus. Food establishments (751) were randomly selected from nine counties in each state. Four surfaces (underside of toilet seat, flush handle of toilet, inner door handle of stall or outer door, and sink faucet handle) were swabbed in male and female bathrooms using premoistened macrofoam swabs. A checklist was used to collect information about the characteristics, materials, and mechanisms of objects in bathrooms. In total, 61 (1.5%) of 4,163 swabs tested were presumptively positive for human norovirus, 9 of which were confirmed by sequencing. Some factors associated with the presence of human norovirus included being from South Carolina (odd ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 4.9; P < 0.05) or New Jersey (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.3; 0.05 < P < 0.10), being a chain establishment (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3; P < 0.05), being a unisex bathroom (versus male: OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.9 to 4.1; 0.05 < P < 0.10; versus female: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.7; P < 0.05), having a touchless outer door handle (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.79 to 13.63; 0.05 < P < 0.10), and having an automatic flush toilet (OR, 2.5, 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.3; 0.05 < P < 0.10). Our findings confirm that the presence of human norovirus on bathroom surfaces in commercial food establishments under nonoutbreak conditions is a rare event. Therefore, routine environmental monitoring for human norovirus contamination during nonoutbreak periods is not an efficient method of monitoring norovirus infection risk.

The survival and inactivation of enteric viruses on soft surfaces: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, enteric viruses are the main cause of acute gastroenteritis. In humans, these viruses spread via person-to-person contact, food, water, and/or the environment. Their survival and inactivation on hard surfaces have been extensively studied; however, nonlaunderable soft surfaces, such as upholstery and carpet, have received little attention. The aim of this systematic review was to determine factors that influence the survival and inactivation of enteric viruses on nonlaunderable soft surfaces. METHODS: EBSCO and Web of Science were searched for experimental studies published between 1965 and 2015 using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methods. Titles and abstracts were screened using 3 eligibility criteria. The quality of all study methods was also assessed. RESULTS: Our search yielded 12 articles. Viruses survived between 0 hours and 140 days depending on surface and environment conditions. Virus survival was influenced by temperature, relative humidity, organic content, and deposition method. A variety of chemistries were tested across studies and were shown to have a varied effect on enteric viruses. Chlorine, glutaraldehyde, vaporous ozone, and hydrogen peroxide were the most efficacious against enteric viruses (> 3-log reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Environmental factors, such as temperature and relative humidity, can influence survival of enteric viruses on nonlaunderable soft surfaces. The efficacy of liquid and vaporous chemistries are associated with surface and virus type.

Recovery and Disinfection of Two Human Norovirus Surrogates, Feline Calicivirus and Murine Norovirus, from Hard Nonporous and Soft Porous Surfaces.

Human norovirus is a leading cause of foodborne disease and can be transmitted through many routes, including environmental exposure to fomites. In this study, both the recovery and inactivation of two human norovirus surrogates, feline calicivirus (FCV) and murine norovirus (MNV), on hard nonporous surfaces (glass) and soft porous surfaces (polyester and cotton) were evaluated by both plaque assay and reverse transcription quantitative PCR method. Two disinfectants, sodium hypochlorite (8.25%) and accelerated hydrogen peroxide (AHP, at 4.25%) were evaluated for disinfection efficacy. Five coupons per surface type were used to evaluate the recovery of FCV and MNV by sonication and stomaching and the disinfection of each surface type by using 5 ml of disinfectant for a contact time of 5 min. FCV at an initial titer of ca. 7 log PFU/ml was recovered from glass, cotton, and polyester at 6.2, 5.4, and 3.8 log PFU/ml, respectively, compared with 5.5, 5.2, and 4.1 log PFU/ml, respectively, for MNV with an initial titer of ca. 6 log PFU/ml. The use of sodium hypochlorite (5,000 ppm) was able to inactivate both FCV and MNV (3.1 to 5.5 log PFU/ml) below the limit of detection on all three surface types. AHP (2,656 ppm) inactivated FCV (3.1 to 5.5 log PFU/ml) below the limit of detection for all three surface types but achieved minimal inactivation of MNV (0.17 to 1.37 log PFU/ml). Reduction of viral RNA by sodium hypochlorite corresponded to 2.72 to 4.06 log reduction for FCV and 2.07 to 3.04 log reduction for MNV on all three surface types. Reduction of viral RNA by AHP corresponded to 1.89 to 3.4 log reduction for FCV and 0.54 to 0.85 log reduction for MNV. Our results clearly indicate that both virus and surface types significantly influence recovery efficiency and disinfection efficacy. Based on the performance of our proposed testing method, an improvement in virus recovery will be needed to effectively validate virus disinfection of soft porous surfaces.