Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Improving food safety practices in the foodservice
industry
Diogo Thimoteo da Cunha
Despite advances in technology and knowledge in recent
years, foodborne illness remains a global issue. With the growth
of food consumed away from home, the foodservice industry
plays a significant role in avoiding foodborne illness and
protecting consumers’ health. However, many recent studies
are contradictory regarding the best strategies for improving
food safety performance in this environment. This study
describes how behavior-based strategies improves food safety
practices in the foodservice industry and the factors for limited
knowledge-based training. This study highlights the role of a
proactive food safety culture and improved environment
promoting behavior changes. Recognizing that organizational
and environmental aspects affect food safety is the first step in
improving food safety.
Address
Multidisciplinary Food and Health Laboratory, School of Applied
Sciences, State University of Campinas, 1300 Pedro Zaccaria St, Jd
Santa Luzia, Limeira, São Paulo, 13484-350, Brazil
Corresponding author:
da Cunha, Diogo Thimoteo (diogo.cunha@fca.unicamp.br)
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
This review comes from a themed issue on Food microbiology
Edited by Anderson de Souza Sant’Ana
For complete overview of the section, please refer to the article col-
lection, “Food Microbiology 2021”
Available online 12th June 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.05.010
2214-7993/ã 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Food safety is a significant issue worldwide despite tech-
nological advancements, local policies, and investments
in recent years. Health managers, researchers, and orga-
nizations are seeking strategies to mitigate the risks and
consequences of foodborne illness (FBI). However, in its
most recent report on the FBI burden, the World Health
Organization (WHO) estimated that 600 million cases and
420 000 deaths each year occur as result of FBI [1]. In
addition to health issues, food safety hazards result in
economic losses due many aspects such lack of business
and health costs [2]. Hence, food safety is of biological,
social, and economic relevance.
www.sciencedirect.com
Most FBI outbreaks occur due to preventable failures by
the food handler [3]. In many countries, studies show that
the most common FBI outbreak-contributing factors are
food handling malpractices, including temperature and
exposure time violations, and personal and environmental
hygiene problems [4–6]. In the past decade, concerns
about FBI have become prominent due to the rapid
increase in eating away from home. According to Nielsen
[7], 8% of the world’s population ate food away from
home at least once a day in 2016. In addition to the natural
and expected growth of the foodservice industry, the
COVID-19 pandemic has changed its dynamics. Because
of the risk of contamination, consumers are less willing to
visit restaurants [8]. Alternatively, food delivery applica-
tions have increased drastically in 2020 [9]. Despite the
change in profile, consumption of food away from home
remained high and with growing trends. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC)
2017 annual report, restaurants were involved in 64%
of the total reported FBI outbreaks, affecting 5533 people
[10]. In emerging economies, such as Brazil, restaurants
are often the second leading site where FBI outbreaks
occur [11].
The importance of the foodservice industry for the econ-
omy and health indicates the need for effective strategies
to improve food safety. In 2006, Professor Christopher J.
Griffith was the first to advocate the necessity for improv-
ing food safety organizational culture based on an appro-
priate food safety management system (FSMS) [12].
FSMS is understood as a systematic approach to control-
ling food safety hazards within foodservice to ensure food
safety. In 2007, Yiannas published an emblematic opin-
ion, citing the need to strengthen food safety culture and
behavioral approaches to improve food safety perfor-
mance [13]. According to them, psychological models
linked to organizational culture would trigger changes
in the behavior of food handlers. Nonetheless, studies
advocating training based on the knowledge-attitudes-
practices (KAP) model are still widespread. While the
behavioral-based approach may be ‘soft’ quality manage-
ment, the latter is considered ‘hard.’ In soft strategies,
employees are treated as individuals, and management is
based on communication and people, whereas hard qual-
ity management reflects an orientation toward the process
and operations [14]. The application of behavior-based
strategies is common in the food industry, coupled with a
solid organizational culture. However, given their char-
acteristics and few available studies on this topic, these
strategies are limited in the foodservice industry.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
128 Food microbiology
Discussing the potential and limitations of these different
models is essential for researchers, professionals, owners,
and managers of food services to apply the best strategies
in food safety, motivating proper behaviors toward food
quality and safety.
This paper provides an overview of the factors affecting
food safety practices in the foodservice industry, focusing
on behavior. First, it is present a review of the caveats of
the KAP approach. Second, it is present a review of
studies published between 2019–2021 describing and
summarizing behavior-based approaches affecting food
safety practices. Finally, future perspectives on food
safety are discussed.
Why is training ineffective?
What is training?
In this text, hard quality management is a commonly used
approach to improve food safety, such as knowledge-
based training, inspection, regulation enforcement, and
process management. Knowledge-based training is the
most commonly used strategy to improve food safety in
the foodservice industry [15], enforced by local regulators
and recommended by the Codex Alimentarius [16]. Knowl-
edge-based training is an educational strategy based on
providing workers with essential safety elements, that is,
scientific knowledge. Studies have shown that operational
violations, which increase the risk of FBI outbreaks, are
associated with low food-safety knowledge [17–19].
Therefore, it is believed that if food handlers were
trained, they will have more knowledge and conse-
quently, better practices. However, the causal relation-
ship between training and appropriate practices is non-
existent or limited in the scientific literature [20,21].
By definition, training suggests a reproduction of techni-
ques using regular practice and scientific knowledge.
Someone with a higher education level shares his/her
knowledge with food handlers, expecting to trigger
Figure 1
Diagnosis
Training
Training needs
Knowledge-attitudes-practices (KAP) theory and rationale.
(+) = positive effect.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
positive changes in those who are less knowledgeable.
Such strategies ignore the experiences, perceptions, and
expectations of food handlers [22]. To evaluate the role of
training in food safety practices, it is necessary to under-
stand the rationale behind the KAP theory.
The KAP theory, rationale, and caveats
The KAP theory assumes that knowledge about a given
subject generates attitudinal changes [23]. A high knowl-
edge level associated with positive attitudes may moti-
vate behavioral intentions and change practices (Figure 1)
[24,25]. However, the relationship between training and
proper practice is complex. While many studies advocate
training to guarantee food safety, an equal amount refutes
it [26–28]. The positive effects of training on food safety
knowledge have been well established in the literature
[27–29]. However, the KAP theory fails to improve food
safety as it relies only on sufficient knowledge to motivate
positive attitudes and appropriate practices [20,25].
The difficulty of translating knowledge into practice is
due to many factors. Attitudinal ambivalence contributes
to caveat of the KAP theory [30]. People tend to express
their degrees of favor and disfavor for a particular prac-
tice simultaneously. Some factors trigger ambivalence in
food handling, such as optimistic bias [31], knowledge
with little practical application [32], external locus of
control [22], inadequate infrastructure [33], lack of moti-
vation [34], and egocentrism [35]. In reality, the food
handler may find it challenging to apply knowledge
because of the barriers motivating incorrect practices
or ‘shortcuts.’ A theoretical limitation in the use of the
KAP theory is the interpretation of self-reported prac-
tices as real practice. Self-reported practice is typically
overstated and influenced by cognitive biases such as
judgmental heuristics [36]. Therefore, self-reported
practices can be confusing and inconclusive because
of self-assessment bias [37].
Knowledge
Food safety
practices
Attitude
Current Opinion in Food Science
www.sciencedirect.com

Despite the criticisms of the KAP theory [20], many
recent studies based on it have been published. The
large number of recent studies endorsing the KAP theory
encourages hard quality management in food services.
Some experiences show that food services with certified
FSMSs may have poor food safety practices [38,39]. For
knowledge to be translated into practice, it is necessary to
improve work organizational, environmental, and com-
municational aspects. To quote John Ruskin, "What we
think or what we know or what we believe is at the end of little
consequence. The only thing of consequence is what we do".
Frank Yiannas interprets this for food safety by defining it
as ‘food safety equals behavior [40].’
Behavior-based approaches
Food safety culture and climate definitions
To overcome the difficulties of improving food safety,
studies have focused on the behavior-based approach
strategies by strengthening the food safety climate and
culture, leadership, and communication aligned with a
FSMS.
Recently, a comprehensive definition of food safety cul-
ture was proposed by Sharman et al. [41], ‘Food safety
culture is defined as a long-term construct existing at the
organizational level relating to the deeply rooted beliefs, beha-
viors, and assumptions that are learned and shared by all
employees, which impact the food safety performance of the
organization.’ Alternatively, the food safety climate is a
temporary construct based on individual perceptions and
their influence on others in an organization [41]. Based
on these definitions, culture and climate are a continuum
that can be measured through many indicators such as
maturity [42], strength [43], or response level (reactive,
active, and proactive) [44]. Food safety culture is gener-
ally measured through six factors: management systems,
styles, processes; leadership; communication; organiza-
tional commitment; environment; and risk perceptions
[45]. Some studies expand the theory by adding other
factors, such as normative beliefs and work pressure
[46,47].
Food safety culture and climatic effects on food safety
Some recent studies in the foodservice industry have
observed positive aspects of food safety culture/climate
on food safety practices [43,46–53]. In studies with a
cross-sectional approach, fewer food safety violations
were observed in services with better food safety culture
indicators [46,48,49,54]. In retail delis in the US, a
stronger food safety culture is negatively correlated with
Listeria monocytogenes contamination risk [49]. In other
words, improving employees’ knowledge, commitment,
communication, and risk perception based on proper
leadership, management style, and environment is favor-
able for food safety.
www.sciencedirect.com
Improving food safety practices in food services da Cunha 129
Longitudinal studies are scarce in the literature pertain-
ing to food safety. Zanin et al. [47] showed that it is
possible to improve the prevailing food safety culture
from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ in an army headquarters
foodservice setting for one year. The study highlighted
several educational actions based on each food safety
culture-indicator. Based on educational needs, the
authors delivered educational actions during the foodser-
vice routine, at specific moments using a strategic plan
and using a messaging app to deliver food safety infor-
mation. This result shows that food services with a reac-
tive culture can be improved to a proactive one in the
mid-term. In another case study in a large hotel in Dubai,
the food safety culture was improved, and its positive
effects were observed in three years [51]. Over the years,
organizational culture and food safety have been con-
stantly evaluated and improved. The presence of an
experienced food safety director aligned with an FSMS
and company values is a strategy for such improvement.
To achieve better results, the managers improved
rewards and incentives, increased visibility and transpar-
ency, and increased the focus on food safety.
Despite great potential to strengthen food safety in
food services, organizational culture does not represent
all the variability in food safety performance. De
Andrade et al. [48] established a reliable food safety
climate-variable for restaurants and hotels using a struc-
tural equation model. An increased food safety climate
directly reduced food safety violations. However, this
and adequate physical structure accounted for 51% of
food safety violations. In another study, managerial
commitment accounted for 10% of the variance in
handwashing in retail food establishments [43]. Based
on those results, several other factors, exploited or not,
affect food safety performance. Other behavioral
aspects, such as motivation and job complexity
[50,55] may directly mediate effects on food safety
culture and performance. Additionally, the role of burn-
out on food safety remains unclear [50,55] as overloaded
employees can continue to do their jobs correctly, even
if it leads to exhaustion, particularly in an environment
with a proactive culture. These aspects should be
investigated further in future studies.
Other social and behavioral theories have already been
investigated in food services. Recently, a systematic
review examined the Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB) and Health Belief Model (HBM) affecting food
safety practices [56]. The TPB proposes that food safety
practices are guided by food handler intention attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The
HBM proposes that action is predicted by risk and benefit
perceptions such as susceptibility, severity benefits, and
barriers. Both theories explained food safety intentions
and behaviors but with considerable variability in the
predictive power (R2). These theories can be
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
130 Food microbiology

Table 1

Review of insights to improve food safety in foodservice industry

Core Insights to improve food safety in food services Reference

Educational needs The food safety culture and climate assessment is an appropriate starting point to identify [46,47,48]
educational needs
Educational strategies Plan educational actions based on educational needs and diagnoses. Knowledge, [47,53]
communication, risk perception should be improved through practical and on-site
education
Management Management, coworker support, and leadership are the strongest factors in a food safety [43,48,51]
climate. This is the major premise on which improvement strategies should be based.
Leaders must convey the company’s mission, values, and objectives to all employees.
Management Apply FSMS aligned with organizational culture. Involve all employees in its implementation. [51,60]
Management Increase the focus on food safety [51]
Management Improve infrastructure and environment as adequate facilities improve practices and [48,49,59,60]
culture
Management Provide financial and non-financial rewards. Praise the employees for good behavior and [58,48]
warn of bad behaviors
Management Be aware of job complexity. With many food preparation steps, a complex job reduces food [55]
safety and increases burnout, dissatisfaction, and amotivation
Employees Increase employees’ self-commitment by involving them in the planning stages and [49]
decisions on food safety

incorporated into the food safety culture framework, both
in the evaluation [48] and in applying education strate-
gies [47], increasing their explanatory power.
Working in an adequate facility also promotes better food
safety practices [27]. There are some basic needs for food
safety such as equipment, utensils, products, and physical
structures. Furthermore, an appropriate facility promotes
job satisfaction and organizational alignment. In this case,
food handlers are more likely to perform proper practices
because they are in a professional environment and
acknowledge strict management policies on food safety.
The ‘broken windows’ theory cites signs of neglect and
disorder that encourage antisocial behavior, and a similar
effect could occur in food services [40]. Therefore,
adequate facilities and infrastructure strengthen food
safety culture and performance [48].
Food safety culture in retail food services (e.g. bars, cafés,
fast food, and restaurants) might be more reactive than
the food manufacturing and processing industry. The
food manufacturing and processing industry is, generally
composed of larger companies with well-defined mis-
sions, visions, and values. Nonetheless, food services have
intrinsic characteristics of small businesses, such as a
reduced physical structure, the lack of resources to apply
management systems, issues related to the food handler’s
work, informality at work, family run, and high turnover
[57]. Despite this, some experiences with smaller food
services indicate that strengthening food safety culture is
feasible and effectively improves food safety performance
[46,48,54]. Strategies such as those proposed by Jesper-
sen et al. [42] to evaluate and strengthen food safety
culture should be adapted to food services and small
businesses.
Improving food safety in food services
Strengthening food safety culture in food services is
feasible and promising. There are some strategies that
managers, owners, and directors can employ to promote a
proactive culture. Table 1 summarizes valuable insights
that emerged from recent literature to improve food
safety.
First, the manager must understand his role in transition-
ing the prevailing culture from reactive to active or
proactive. In many research, it was evidenced that mana-
gerial commitment directly affects the team’s behavior,
intentions, and morale. A committed manager must sup-
ply the foodservice with adequate infrastructure, reliable
FSMS and improve relationships inside the workplace.
To apply behavior-based strategies, it is essential to assess
the prevailing food safety culture and climate. The current
knowledge shows mixed-approach method better to under-
stand the food safety culture, for example, use quantitative
and qualitative approaches, microbiological assessments,
observations, and interviews for a complete diagnosis.
There are several instruments and methods published in
the literature that managers, researchers, and auditors could
use to assess food safety culture and climate.
Finally, it is suggested to avoid education based on the
KAP theory. Improve employee’s knowledge is not suffi-
cient to change practices. Managers must also be aware of
employees’ burnout, job complexity, amotivation, and
dissatisfaction since those factors can affect food safety
and climate.
Figure 2 summarizes management and employees factors
affecting practices based on improvements, promotion,

Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133 www.sciencedirect.com


Figure 2
IMPROVE
PROMOTE
Diagnosis Educational
Educational needs strategies
Management and employees
AVOID
Summary of relevant factors affecting food safety practices.
(+) = positive effect; ( ) = negative effect.
and avoidance. A proactive organizational culture cannot
be considered the ‘silver bullet’ of food safety problems.
The food safety culture should be understood as ‘the glue
that holds everything together’ [58].
Conclusion and future perspectives
Behavior-based approaches are promising for improving
food safety in food services. Studies published in the past
two years highlighted strategies and actions towards a
proactive food safety culture. However, many studies on
the topic are taking place within the food industry.
Studies on food services should be encouraged because
there is a different relationship between service and
consumers in these places. The pandemic demonstrated
the importance of behavior in the prevention of disease
and contamination; and it is a relevant time to implement
behavior-based strategies. Food services owners and man-
agers must be aware that the post-pandemic scenario will
increase consumers’ risk perception about food hazards
and the associated high expectations of food safety.
Although training does not generate changes in practice,
this strategy should not be ignored. Training focused on
practical issues, which promote better communication,
climate, and motivation can strengthen food safety cul-
ture. The problem with training based on the KAP theory
is hoping that knowledge is capable, per se, of stimulating
www.sciencedirect.com
Improving food safety practices in food services da Cunha 131
Management
Leadership and management
style
Organizational culture
FSMS
Coworker support
Infrastructure
Employees
Knowledge
Self-commitiment Food safety
Communication practices
Risk perception
Motivation
Job complexity
Burnout
Amotivation
Dissatisfaction
KAP model
Current Opinion in Food Science
appropriate behaviors. From a scientific perspective,
additional studies focusing on the foodservice industry,
particularly in small businesses are needed. Studies based
on KAP theory should be expanded. Evaluating the KAP
of food handlers is a limited approach to understanding
food safety dynamics, particularly in studies with self-
reported practices. Additionally, the growing number of
studies that recommend training as the best food safety
strategy weakens the development of assertive education
processes, regulations, and public policies.
Although some specialists and advisors assist foodservice
owners and managers to improve the prevailing organiza-
tional culture, businesses should start applying strategies
to improve communication, commitment, and leadership.
Finally, it is vital to clarify that food safety culture is not
an FSMS or a program but rather the state of foodservice
and is a risk factor for FBI when it is not positive. The
transition from a reactive to a proactive food safety culture
should start with leadership. Management attitudes and
values are the most critical components for improving
food safety culture toward a proactive state.
Funding
This study was supported in part by the São Paulo
Research Foundation (FAPESP) grant #2019/10936-0.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
132 Food microbiology
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, Gibb HJ, Hald T, Lake RJ,
Praet N, Bellinger DC, de Silva NR, Gargouri N et al.: World Health
Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of
the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Med 2015, 12:
e1001923.
2. Focker M, van der Fels-Klerx HJ: Economics applied to food
safety. Curr Opin Food Sci 2020:18-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cofs.2020.10.018.
3. World Health Organization: Food Safety. 2020.
4. Angelo KM, Nisler AL, Hall AJ, Brown LG, Gould LH:
Epidemiology of restaurant-associated foodborne disease
outbreaks, United States, 1998-2013. Epidemiol Infect 2017,
145:523-534.
5. Wu Y, Liu X, Chen Q, Liu H, Dai Y, Zhou Y, Wen J, Tang Z, Chen Y:
Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks in China,
2003 to 2008. Food Control 2018, 84:382-388.
6. Hull-Jackson C, Adesiyun AA: Foodborne disease outbreaks in
Barbados (1998-2009): a 12-year review. J Infect Dev Countries
2019, 13.
7. Nielsen: Serving up Simple: Global Consumers Want Transparency
in Ingredients. 2016.
8. Hakim MP, Zanetta LDA, da Cunha DT: Should I stay, or should I
go? Consumers’ perceived risk and intention to visit
restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Food Res
Int 2021, 141:110152.
9. STATISTA: Online Food Delivery Report 2020. 2020.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Surveillance for
Foodborne Disease Outbreaks United States, 2017: Annual
Report. 2019.
11. Finger JAFF, Baroni WSGV, Maffei DF, Bastos DHM, Pinto UM:
Overview of foodborne disease outbreaks in Brazil from
2000 to 2018. Foods 2019, 8.
12. Griffith CJ: Food safety: where from and where to? Br Food J
2006, 108:6-15.
13. Yiannas F: Point of view from your president. Food Prot Trends
2007, 27:164.
14. Escrig-Tena AB, Segarra-Ciprés M, Garcı́a-Juan B, Beltrán-
Martı́n I: The impact of hard and soft quality management and
proactive behaviour in determining innovation performance.
Int J Prod Econ 2018, 200:1-14.
15. Medeiros CO, Cavalli SB, Salay E, Proença RPC: Assessment of
the methodological strategies adopted by food safety training
programmes for food service workers: a systematic review.
Food Control 2011, 22:1136-1144.
16. World Health Organization Food and Agriculture Organization:
Codex alimentarius: food hygiene, basic texts. Codex
Alimentarius: Food Hygiene, Basic Texts. 2009.
17. Al-Shabib NA, Mosilhey SH, Husain FM: Cross-sectional study
on food safety knowledge, attitude and practices of male food
handlers employed in restaurants of King Saud University,
Saudi Arabia. Food Control 2016, 59:212-217.
18. Tiozzo B, Mari S, Ruzza M, Crovato S, Ravarotto L: Consumers’
perceptions of food risks: a snapshot of the Italian Triveneto
area. Appetite 2017, 111:105-115.
19. Woh PY, Thong KL, Behnke JM, Lewis JW, Mohd Zain SN:
Evaluation of basic knowledge on food safety and food
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133
handling practices amongst migrant food handlers in
Peninsular Malaysia. Food Control 2016, 70:64-73.
20. Zanin LM, da Cunha DT, de Rosso VV, Capriles VD, Stedefeldt E:
Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food
safety: an integrative review. Food Res Int 2017, 100:53-62.
21. Lee HK, Abdul Halim H, Thong KL, Chai LC: Assessment of food
safety knowledge, attitude, self-reported practices, and
microbiological hand hygiene of food handlers. Int J Environ
Res Public Heal 2017, 14.
22. de Freitas RSG, da Cunha DT, Stedefeldt E: Food safety
knowledge as gateway to cognitive illusions of food handlers
and the different degrees of risk perception. Food Res Int 2019,
116:126-134.
23. Soon JM, Wahab IRA, Hamdan RH, Jamaludin MH: Structural
equation modelling of food safety knowledge, attitude and
practices among consumers in Malaysia. PLoS One 2020, 15:
e0235870.
24. Ruby GE, Ungku Zainal Abidin UF, Lihan S, Jambari NN, Radu S:
Predicting intention on safe food handling among adult
consumers: a cross sectional study in Sibu district, Malaysia.
Food Control 2019, 106:106696.
25. Kwol VS, Avci T, Eluwole KK, Dalhatu A: Food safety knowledge
and hygienic-sanitary control: a needed company for public
well-being. J Public Aff 2020, 20:e2067.
26. Gruenfeldova J, Domijan K, Walsh C: A study of food safety
knowledge, practice and training among food handlers in
Ireland. Food Control 2019, 105:131-140.
27. da Cunha DT, Stedefeldt E, de Rosso VV: The role of theoretical
food safety training on Brazilian food handlers’ knowledge,
attitude and practice. Food Control 2014, 43:167-174.
28. Elobeid T, Savvaidis I, Ganji V: Impact of food safety training on
the knowledge, practice, and attitudes of food handlers
working in fast-food restaurants. Br Food J 2019, 121:937-949.
29. McIntyre L, Vallaster L, Wilcott L, Henderson SB, Kosatsky T:
Evaluation of food safety knowledge, attitudes and self-
reported hand washing practices in FOODSAFE trained and
untrained food handlers in British Columbia, Canada. Food
Control 2013, 30:150-156.
30. Newby-Clark IR, McGregor I, Zanna MP: Thinking and caring
about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does
attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? J Pers Soc
Psychol 2002, 82:157-166.
31. Rodrigues KL, Eves A, das Neves CP, Souto BK, dos Anjos SJG:
The role of optimistic bias in safe food handling behaviours in
the food service sector. Food Res Int 2020, 130:108732.
32. Pellegrino R, Crandall PG, O’Bryan CA, Seo H-S: A review of
motivational models for improving hand hygiene among an
increasingly diverse food service workforce. Food Control
2015, 50:446-456.
33. Peiró JM, Bayona JA, Caballer A, Di Fabio A: Importance of work
characteristics affects job performance: the mediating role of
individual dispositions on the work design-performance
relationships. Pers Individ Diff 2020, 157:109808.
34. Harris KJ, Murphy KS, DiPietro RB, Line ND: The antecedents
and outcomes of food safety motivators for restaurant
workers: an expectancy framework. Int J Hosp Manag 2017,
63:53-62.
35. Shepperd JA, Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Klein WMP: A primer on
unrealistic optimism. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2015, 24:232-237.
36. Da Cunha DT, De Rosso VV, Pereira MB, Stedefeldt E: The
differences between observed and self-reported food safety
practices: a study with food handlers using structural equation
modeling. Food Res Int 2019, 125:108637.
37. Karpen SC: The social psychology of biased self-assessment.
Am J Pharm Educ 2018, 82:441-448.
38. Fathurrahman RN, Rukayadi Y, Ungku Fatimah UZA, Jinap S,
Abdul-Mutalib NA, Sanny M: The performance of food safety
management system in relation to the microbiological safety
www.sciencedirect.com

of salmon nigiri sushi: a multiple case study in a Japanese
chain restaurant. Food Control 2021, 127:108111.
39. Ngoc TTA, Arturu AM, Ha NC, Miyamoto T: Effective operation of
food quality management system: a case study from fishery
processing. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci 2020, 8:25-40.
40. Yiannas F: Food Safety = Behavior. New York LLC: Springer; 2016
 excellent book with practical strategies to improve food safety. It is an
An
excellent book for students, practitioners and professionals.
41. Sharman N, Wallace CA, Jespersen L: Terminology and the
 understanding of culture, climate, and behavioural change –
impact of organisational and human factors on food safety
management. Trends Food Sci Technol 2020, 96:13-20
A comprehensive review about the terminology and concepts to define
food safety culture and climate. It is a definitive study to understand
different typologies for culture, climate, and behavior on food safety.
42. Jespersen L, Butts J, Holler G, Taylor J, Harlan D, Griffiths M,
Wallace CA: The impact of maturing food safety culture and a
pathway to economic gain. Food Control 2019, 98:367-379.
43. Clark J, Crandall P, Reynolds J: Exploring the influence of food
 safety climate indicators on handwashing practices of
restaurant food handlers. Int J Hosp Manag 2019, 77:187-194
An interesting study observing the relationship of food safety climate and
a specific food safety behavior. The study shows the importance of job
restructuring to improve handwashing.
44. Nyarugwe SP, Linnemann A, Nyanga LK, Fogliano V, Luning PA:
Food safety culture assessment using a comprehensive
mixed-methods approach: a comparative study in dairy
processing organisations in an emerging economy. Food
Control 2018, 84:186-196.
45. Griffith CJ, Livesey KM, Clayton D: The assessment of food
safety culture. Br Food J 2010, 112:439-456.
46. de Andrade ML, Stedefeldt E, Zanin LM, da Cunha DT: Food
safety culture in food services with different degrees of risk for
foodborne diseases in Brazil. Food Control 2020, 112:107152.
47. Zanin LM, Stedefeldt E, da Silva SM, da Cunha DT, Luning PA:
 Influence of educational actions on transitioning of food
safety culture in a food service context: part 2 - effectiveness
of educational actions in a longitudinal study. Food Control
2021, 120:107542
This is the most recent longitudinal study demonstrating how to improve
the prevailing food safety culture in a food service environment. This study
also uses a mixed-method approach to measure food safety culture.
48. de Andrade ML, Stedefeldt E, Zanin LM, Zanetta LD, da Cunha DT:
 Unveiling the food safety climate’s paths to adequate food
handling in the hospitality industry in Brazil. Int J Contemp
Hosp Manag 2021, 33:873-892
An important study of food safety climate effects on food safety practices.
This is the most recent study on the topic using structural equation
modeling. It is measured the strength and direction of food safety climate
factors and the interactions with infrastructure and risk perceptions.
www.sciencedirect.com
Improving food safety practices in food services da Cunha 133
49. Wu ST, Hammons SR, Silver R, Neal JA, Oliver HF: Retail deli
managers and associates have better food safety culture in
stores with lower Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Food Control 2020, 110:106983.
50. De Boeck E, Mortier AV, Jacxsens L, Dequidt L, Vlerick P:
Towards an extended food safety culture model: studying the
moderating role of burnout and jobstress, the mediating role
of food safety knowledge and motivation in the relation
between food safety climate and food safety behavior. Trends
Food Sci Technol 2017, 62:202-214.
51. Caccamo A, Taylor JZ, Daniel D, Bulatovic-Schumer R:
Measuring and improving food safety culture in a five-star
hotel: a case study. Worldw Hosp Tour Themes 2018, 10:345-
357.
52. Fujisaki K, Akamatsu R: Food safety culture assessment scale
development and validation for use in school foodservice. Br
Food J 2019, 122:737-752.
53. Ko W-H, Kang H: Effect of leadership style and organizational
climate on employees’ food safety and hygiene behaviors in
the institutional food service of schools. Food Sci Nutr 2019,
7:2131-2143.
54. Fujisaki K, Akamatsu R: Food safety culture assessment scale
development and validation for use in school foodservice. Br
Food J 2020, 122:737-752.
55. Silva CT, Hakim MP, Zanetta LD, Pinheiro GSDD, Gemma SFB, da
Cunha DT: Burnout and food safety: understanding the role of
job satisfaction and menu complexity in foodservice. Int J
Hosp Manag 2021, 92:102705.
56. Young I, Thaivalappil A, Greig J, Meldrum R, Waddell L: Explaining
the food safety behaviours of food handlers using theories of
behaviour change: a systematic review. Int J Environ Health Res
2018, 28:323-340.
57. Pereira MB, de Freitas RSG, Stedefeldt E, da Cunha DT: Conflicts,
informality and risk perception about foodborne diseases in
small family and non-family run restaurants. J Foodserv Bus
Res 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2021.1883796. in
press.
58. Griffith CJ, Jackson LM, Lues R: The food safety culture in a
large South African food service complex. Br Food J 2017,
119:729-743.
59. de Andrade ML, Stedefeldt E, Zanin LM, da Cunha DT: Food
safety culture in food services with different degrees of risk for
foodborne diseases in Brazil. Food Control 2020, 112.
60. Wi

sniewska M, Czernyszewicz E, Kałuza _ A: The assessment of
food safety culture in small franchise restaurant in Poland: the
case study. Br Food J 2019, 121:2365-2378.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42:127–133