Food defense preparedness in small and very small meat and poultry establishments

dc.contributor.authorSobering, Lisa A.
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-12T17:03:15Z
dc.date.available2009-01-12T17:03:15Z
dc.date.graduationmonthDecemberen_US
dc.date.issued2008-12-01en_US
dc.date.published2008en_US
dc.description.abstractSince the attacks of September 11, 2001, a heightened awareness to the threat of terrorism, particularly directed towards components of critical infrastructure, has permeated the nation. In May 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service issued general guidelines to assist meat and poultry establishments in strengthening their food defense efforts. The guidelines are voluntary; therefore, the extent of the industry’s implementation of these protective measures is mostly unknown. Furthermore, some have expressed concern that small and very small establishments may not be adequately prepared for an incident of intentional contamination of their products due to limited resources and other factors. A web-based survey was developed to gain insight into the opinions of establishments of varying size and geographic location within the United States on the importance of different food defense areas. The survey was circulated through four industry trade organizations: the North American Meat Processors Association, the American Association of Meat Processors, the American Meat Institute, and the Kansas Meat Processors Association. Members of these organizations represent various processing sectors and facility sizes. Employees (n=121) with knowledge of food defense preparedness activities of individual plants responded to the survey which was comprised of multiple choice, ranking, and yes or no questions. Questions ranged from demographic (e.g., size of establishment, geographic location) to ranking the likelihood of an intentional contamination event occurring in the U.S. Preliminary results showed that the majority of respondents represented federally inspected establishments (86%), establishments that were small in size (52%), and establishments that had some type of a food defense plan (74%). Fifty-one percent of respondents responded an intentional contamination event in the U.S. was somewhat likely; however, 66% of respondents indicated such an event was not likely to occur in their particular establishment. Additional data from this survey will be used to better understand the needs of small and very small processing establishments and to help guide development and delivery of effective food defense planning materials in the future.en
dc.description.advisorAbbey L. Nutschen
dc.description.degreeMaster of Public Healthen
dc.description.departmentFood Science Instituteen
dc.description.levelMastersen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2097/1137
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.rightsThis Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).en
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectFood defenseen
dc.subjectFood safetyen
dc.subjectFood terrorismen
dc.subjectMeaten
dc.subjectPoultryen
dc.subjectFood contaminationen
dc.subject.umiAgriculture, Food Science and Technology (0359)en
dc.titleFood defense preparedness in small and very small meat and poultry establishmentsen
dc.typeReporten

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
L Sobering Field Experience.pdf
Size:
844.01 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Main article
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
L Sobering MPH Slides.pdf
Size:
1.92 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Slides

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.69 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: