Community Size and Retail Risk Factors in Iowa Retail Food Establishments
Sherri Sigwarth
Food Safety Specialist
Investigative Division: Food & Consumer Safety Bureau
Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA)
International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI)
2017 Fellow in Applied Science, Law, and Policy: Fellowship in Food Protection
Author Note
Sherri Sigwarth, Food Safety Specialist, Investigative Division: Food & Consumer Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA).
This research was conducted as part of the International Food Protection Training Institute’s Fellowship in Food Protection, Cohort VI.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sherri Sigwarth, Investigative Division: Food & Consumer Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA), Lucas State Office Building, 321 East 12th Street,
Des Moines, IA 50319-0083; Email: sherri.sigwarth@dia.iowa.gov
Abstract
This study evaluated the perception that rural retail food establishments pose a higher food safety risk than urban establishments; a perception shared by the author and other food safety inspectors employed by the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA), Food and Consumer Safety Bureau. The study analyzed food safety risk violations found in urban, urban cluster, and rural establishment inspections in Iowa as well as risk factor patterns associated with the type of ownership, length of ownership, and presence of a Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM). The U.S. Census Bureau categorizes communities based on population: urban > 50,000, urban cluster > 2,500 and < 50,000, and rural < 2,500. The study found that there was not a significant difference in the type or rate of specific CDC risk factor violations among retail food establishments based on the size of the community. However, this study found a slight difference in the rate of food safety risk violations related to ownership type, with sole proprietorship showing a relatively higher violation rate in risk factors than franchise and corporate ownership. The study concluded that increased reliance on statistical analysis by food safety inspectors would tend to offset erroneous impressions regarding rural food establishments. The study recommended that an annual food safety risk factor statistical report be prepared and made available to all food safety regulators in Iowa.
Background
After initially being trained to perform retail food inspections in an area of the state composed primarily of communities categorized as urban or urban cluster, I was assigned to an area comprised primarily of rural communities. My impression was that there was a significant difference in the prevalence in one type of risk-based violation. There were some retail food establishments in this newly assigned rural area that appeared to have more risk factor violations associated with food from unapproved sources. My perception was that there is a relationship between this type of risk factor violation and the size of the community where the retail food establishment is located.
Further investigation revealed that the perception that rural retail food establishments were associated with a higher number of foodborne illness risks was more widespread. When DIA’s Regulatory Food Safety Specialists were asked about their perceptions of the level of food safety knowledge associated with the food establishment’s location, their responses revealed that the perception of the level of food safety knowledge and practice is lower in retail food businesses located in rural communities. This perception appeared to be based on anecdotal information rather than evidence-based. Whether there is a significant difference in the level of food safety knowledge or practice among retail food establishment operators in rural, urban cluster, and urban communities is unknown. Further, whether there is a difference in food safety knowledge or practice related to other factors, such as type or length of ownership, risk level associated with product or process, or employment of a Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM) is unknown.
Problem Statement
The differences in the type and number of foodborne illness risk factor violations among urban, urban cluster, and rural area food establishments in Iowa is unknown.
Research Questions
1. Are there differences in the prevalence of specific retail risk factors among Iowa retail food establishments in urban, urban cluster, and rural communities?
2. Are there differences in violation rates for specific retail risk factors among Iowa retail food establishments located in urban, urban cluster, and rural communities?
3. Are observed differences in the specific risk factors or the rate of violations observed for specific risk factors related to other non-population related factors tracked in the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals U.S. Food Safety?
Methodology
As a preliminary step, 20 of DIA’ s regulatory Food Safety Specialists, all of whom have experience in inspecting in all of the geographical locations, were polled to determine if they knew or perceived that there are differences in the type and number of retail risk factors among food establishments located in urban, urban cluster, and rural areas. The questions asked were:
· Do you run across stereotypes or myths related to urban, urban cluster, or rural food establishments?
· In your experience, does the restaurant-going public tend to see chain/urban/urban cluster and independent/rural food establishments differing in some way related to food safety?
18 of the 20 regulatory Food Safety Specialists stated that they perceived that rural food establishments have less food safety knowledge than food establishments in urban or urban cluster areas.
Data from the two most recent routine inspections of 100 Iowa retail food establishments in each urban, urban cluster, and rural population categories was examined. A total of 600 inspection reports, completed by standardized food inspectors throughout Iowa were examined and the data gathered included the establishment’s name, location, population category (urban, urban cluster, or rural), type and number of foodborne illness risk factor violations, type of ownership, agency assigned risk level (complexity), and whether the food establishment had a CFPM onsite. This data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet for data analysis.
Data showing length of ownership was also compiled, but preliminary examination of this data set found the length of ownership to be incomplete and inaccurate. For this reason, this data was not analyzed further.
Results
Table 1 compares the percentages of specific risk factor violations among food establishments in the three defined population categories. There is a slight difference in the prevalence of the risk factor food from unsafe source between rural food establishments (12%) and urban (7%) or urban cluster (7%) food establishments. There is also a slight difference in the prevalence of the risk factor improper holding/time and temperature between urban (18%) or urban cluster (21%) and rural food establishments (11%).
Table 1
Comparison of Risk Factor Violations Among Different Sized Communities
Table 2 compares the percentage of observed risk factor violations among ownership types: sole proprietor, corporate LLC, and corporate franchise. This data shows that sole proprietors have a higher level of risk factor violations in the risk categories: food from an unsafe source, contaminated equipment, and improper holding temperature.
Table 2
Comparison of Risk Factor Violations Among Ownership Types
Figure 1 compares the percentage of specific risk factor violations in food establishments with and without a CFPM on staff. The data shows that retail food establishments with a CFPM have a significantly lower violation rate for the risk factor contaminated equipment and a slightly lower rate for the other risk factors. Establishments with a CFPM on staff had a violation rate of 31% while food establishments without a CFPM on staff had a violation rate of 50%.
Figure 1. Comparison of risk factor violations in food establishments with and without CFPM.
Conclusion
The study concluded that the differences in foodborne illness risk factor violations found in Iowa’s retail food establishments among rural, urban cluster, and urban areas are minor and that in fact rural areas are not less safe in terms of foodborne illness risks. Examination of the risk factors and their association of one of the non-population related parameters, ownership type, revealed that retail food establishments that are operated by sole proprietors have more documented risk factor violations than retail food establishments operated under franchise or corporate ownership for 3 categories of risk factors. Though this study did not explore the reason(s) for this relatively higher level of risk factor violations, the data suggests that retail food establishments operated by sole proprietors may have, and apply, less food safety knowledge in the operation of their retail food business.
The study also compared the prevalence between foodborne illness risk factors and having a CFPM on staff. The association between the presence of a CFPM and the prevalence or rate of risk factor violations had a significant difference in the risk factor category contaminated equipment; otherwise it was slightly lower in the other risk factor categories. Establishments with a CFPM on staff had a risk factor violation rate of 31% while food establishments without a CFPM on staff had a risk factor violation rate of 50%.
Recommendations
1. Data concerning risk factor violations should be collected and analyzed annually. This report would evaluate and compare sets of variables similar to those evaluated in this study.
2. The results of this analysis should be shared with DIA staff and local county contracts that perform inspections of retail food establishments on DIA’s behalf. Results would be used to target education and regulatory efforts based on data rather than perception or anecdotal information.
3. Design and conduct research to determine the cause of the relatively higher level of risk factor violations associated with sole proprietorship. Based on the results of this study, develop a strategy to assist sole proprietor-owned food establishments in improving their food safety knowledge and practice.
4. Design and conduct more focused research about the effect of the presence of a CFPM on the prevalence and rate of risk factor violations now and again after the effective date for Iowa’s requirement to employ a CFPM (January 1, 2018).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, Food and Consumer Safety, Steve Mandernach, Bureau Chief; Mark Speltz, Chief Inspector; Richard Spinner, Environmental Specialist; Thao Nguyen, Food Safety Specialist; and all other DIA’s Food Safety Specialists for all of your support. I would also like to thank the International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI) for the opportunity to participate in Cohort VI, and all of the IFPTI staff for their help and guidance with my project. A big thank you goes to Steve Steinhoff, mentor, for his professional guidance and humor to push me through this project, as well as Dr. Paul Dezendorf, who helped develop my scope on my research project. Lastly, I would like to give a huge thank you to the Fellows from Cohort VI (the largest Cohort…almost) for their support and friendship throughout this wonderful journey.
References
Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. (2017). U.S. Food Safety (computer software) database. Retrieved from
https://iowa.usasafeinspect.com/Login.aspx
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Community Facts. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk#
U. S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Food Code 2009. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm2019396.htm