Food Safety Education Month 2026: Turn Awareness into a Reliable Safety System

Leadership signal

Treat food safety as enterprise reliability, not a September message.

Food Safety Education Month creates a useful moment for healthcare executives to examine a risk pathway that crosses clinical, operational, workforce, procurement, facilities, public health, and community boundaries. The work reaches far beyond the kitchen. It begins when an organization qualifies a supplier, continues as products are transported and received, and remains active through storage, preparation, service, allergen communication, waste handling, incident reporting, and corrective action.

A reliable system does not depend on a single employee remembering every rule under pressure. It makes the safe action visible, feasible, and expected. It also gives leaders a dependable view of exceptions. That means a temperature deviation, damaged package, missing label, unavailable handwashing resource, unresolved allergy question, or training gap can be identified, owned, escalated, and closed before it disappears into routine work.

Recent healthcare evidence illustrates why executive attention matters. A mixed-method assessment in four public psychiatric hospitals found gaps in formal training, temperature-control understanding, supervision, internal controls, and regulatory certification, even while many employees expressed commitment to food safety.² A hospital-kitchen decision study identified training, environmental cleanliness, and meal quality as important elements within a broader safety system.¹¹ A qualitative study of public-hospital food service managers also placed receiving controls, labels, traceability, transport, supplier education, and infrastructure at the center of procurement reliability.¹³

These studies come from different settings and should not be treated as a single benchmark. Their consistent leadership signal is more useful: knowledge, policy, equipment, supervision, supplier control, and feedback must work together. Training alone cannot compensate for a broken refrigerator, an unapproved vendor, an unclear escalation route, or staffing conditions that make safe practice difficult.

For leaders, the observance should therefore produce an operational result. Choose a real route. Map it with the people who use it. Identify one high-consequence weakness. Assign an executive sponsor and an operational owner. Define how completion will be observed. Then carry the work beyond September.

Start with five questions

Who owns the end-to-end food-safety route, not just individual tasks?
Which receiving, storage, preparation, service, and incident signals are visible today?
Where does the process depend on memory, informal workarounds, or inaccessible instructions?
Can every employee stop work and escalate a concern without ambiguity?
What evidence will show that education changed practice rather than attendance?

Evidence to action

The evidence rejects a one-time training model.

Education can improve knowledge. A 2026 pre-post study of 42 street-food vendors reported a large increase in median knowledge after a three-day program.¹ A small virtual program for low-income home food handlers also reported higher post-program knowledge and self-reported practices.¹⁰ Both studies lacked a control group and did not establish long-term behavior or reduced illness. Their appropriate use is to support education as one component of improvement, not to claim that a course alone produces a safe system.

Larger observational studies add operational detail. Among 2,751 U.S. retail food-service workers, knowledge was stronger for handwashing, illness reporting, and personal hygiene than for temperature control, preparation, sanitation, and storage. More recent education, in-person or blended formats, supervisor support, equipment, practice, and visual reminders were associated with stronger knowledge.⁵ At a military installation, missing employee training was associated with more food-safety risk-factor deficiencies across 716 inspections of 124 facilities.¹² These are associations, not proof that training alone caused better inspection outcomes.

A mixed-method study of 415 handlers found poor practice was associated with limited education, short experience, no training, and poor knowledge, while interviews identified weak enforcement, missing guidelines, risk perception, and inadequate equipment or facilities as barriers.⁴ A facility-based study of 150 hostel-kitchen workers also found that education and socioeconomic status were associated with knowledge, although the study was cross-sectional and used different scales for knowledge, attitude, and practice.⁷ In a separate meat-sector sample of 244 handlers, only about one-third met the study thresholds for good knowledge or good practice. Education, experience, and training were associated with knowledge; education, experience, knowledge, and attitude were associated with practice.⁸

Horizontal comparison chart showing 34.4 percent of 244 meat handlers met the study threshold for good food-safety knowledge and 32.3 percent met the threshold for good practice, with 95 percent confidence intervals. — **How to read this figure:** The points and bars report results from one cross-sectional study of 244 meat handlers in southern Ethiopia. Good knowledge was 34.4% (95% CI, 28.70% to 40.64%); good practice was 32.3% (95% CI, 26.78% to 38.54%). These percentages are not a U.S. or hospital benchmark and do not measure foodborne illness. They illustrate why leaders should verify both knowledge and work practice in their own setting. Source: Biftu et al.⁸

Data used in Figure 1
Measure	Estimate	95% confidence interval	Sample
Good food-safety knowledge	34.4%	28.70% to 40.64%	n = 244
Good food-safety practice	32.3%	26.78% to 38.54%	n = 244

End-to-end control

Build one accountable route from dock to destination.

Healthcare organizations may prepare food for inpatients, employees, visitors, ambulatory programs, behavioral-health settings, residential sites, mobile operations, community events, and contracted services. Different operating models do not remove the need for a shared control structure. Leaders should be able to see what enters the system, what condition it is in, who accepts it, where it goes, which controls apply, and what happens when a deviation appears.

Supplier approval and receiving

Procurement should connect contract language to observable receiving controls. The operational team needs current supplier status, product specifications, delivery conditions, traceability information, and a rejection or quarantine path. Hospital food-service managers have emphasized temperature, label completeness, transport conditions, and traceability at receiving.¹³ Those requirements should be translated into a short workflow that receiving staff can use during a busy delivery, not left only in a policy binder.

Variation in regulatory monitoring of unapproved or unregulated foods suggests another governance need. A U.S. agency survey found differences in monitoring, documentation, staff education, and enforcement approaches.³ The study had a low response rate and did not measure illness. Still, it supports a practical question for organizations operating across jurisdictions: does every location use the same approved-source standard, documentation rule, and escalation route?

Storage, preparation, and service

Once a product is accepted, responsibility must stay visible. Storage zones, date and identity controls, allergen segregation, first-in-first-out methods, temperature monitoring, cleaning, equipment availability, and authorized preparation methods should connect to named roles. Service then adds another handoff. Tray assembly, unit delivery, retail service, catering, mobile operations, and community distribution each need a defined completion signal and a way to hold or recall an item when information changes.

The route should include decision rights. Who can reject a delivery? Who can remove equipment from service? Who decides whether an unlabeled product can be used? Who receives an allergy concern? Who contacts public health or a regulator? Who preserves documentation after a suspected event? Clear answers reduce hesitation when time matters.

Hospital food-service workers checking a delivery with a probe thermometer and receiving checklist in a refrigerated receiving area. — **Receiving is a control point, not a clerical stop.** Make temperature, package integrity, identity, traceability, acceptance, rejection, and escalation visible in the workflow. Evidence informing this editorial illustration includes hospital procurement research and studies of oversight variability.^3,11,13 Image: original editorial illustration created for The Healthcare Executive.

Process flowchart from supplier approval through receiving, storage, preparation, service, incident response, and audit, with decision gates and named operational owners. — This is a proposed executive workflow, not a reported protocol. Each stage needs an accountable owner, required evidence, an exception decision, and a completion signal. Adapt the route to applicable law, organizational policy, qualified professional judgment, and the populations served. Evidence informing the framework includes research on hospital kitchens, procurement, restaurant allergy procedures, inspections, and regulatory monitoring.^{2,3,11,12,13,15}

Learning in the workflow

Design education for use, language, literacy, and reinforcement.

A completion certificate is not a control. Education becomes operational when it helps a person make the right decision in the real setting, with the available tools, during the actual work. The design should begin with the highest-consequence decisions and the errors already visible in local observations, inspection findings, incident reports, near misses, questions, and corrective actions.

Match the format to the task

Use demonstration and return demonstration for observable skills such as thermometer use, handwashing technique, cleaning sequence, separation, and receiving inspection. Use short scenarios for judgment, such as an unlabeled container, a late delivery, a temperature deviation, a product substitution, or an allergy question. Use job aids at the point of work for steps that are infrequent or easily confused.

Evidence from U.S. retail food service supports recency, practice, supervisor reinforcement, and visual reminders as important parts of knowledge retention.⁵ A 2026 training study also suggests that focused instruction can improve knowledge quickly, although the small uncontrolled design does not show long-term behavior.¹ Leaders should therefore pair instruction with direct observation and follow-up.

Build for language access

Language is a safety-system feature. In a study of mobile food units, owners described language and cross-county mobility as barriers to inspection completion, leading the authors to recommend multilingual resources and intercounty coordination.⁶ In independently owned restaurants, food-allergy education was often absent, and some training was available only in English.¹⁵ Organizations should identify the languages used by the workforce and the communities served, then test whether translated materials are understandable and usable.

Use digital tools carefully

Digital education can extend access, but usability determines whether it helps. A mixed-method evaluation of a food-safety application among 419 young adults reported strong perceived usefulness and intended use, along with requests for multilingual access, clearer icons, mobile reliability, accessibility, and shorter evaluation steps.⁹ The findings concern usability and intention, not verified safety outcomes.

A small bilingual virtual program reported improved knowledge and self-reported practice among 60 low-income home food handlers after two sessions and take-home activities.¹⁰ It offers a promising format for engagement, but the design does not establish durable behavior. For healthcare organizations, digital learning should supplement, not replace, observation of high-risk work.

Close the reinforcement loop

Supervisors need protected time and a simple method for observation, coaching, and escalation. A person who cannot answer a question safely should know exactly where to go. A leader who sees repeat confusion should be able to update the job aid or process. Training content should change when equipment, products, menus, vendors, policies, language needs, regulations, or incident patterns change.

The strongest education measure is not the percentage of people who clicked through a module. It is the percentage of defined critical behaviors demonstrated correctly, plus the time required to correct a high-risk exception.

A diverse food-service team practicing thermometer use, surface sanitation, and storage decisions during a hands-on teaching-kitchen session. — **Move from information delivery to demonstrated practice.** Combine accessible instruction, hands-on application, supervisor reinforcement, and point-of-work reminders. Evidence informing this editorial illustration includes studies of training format, mobile-unit barriers, digital usability, bilingual education, and skill development.^1,5,6,9,10 Image: original editorial illustration created for The Healthcare Executive.

Higher-risk environments

Protect patients and communicate allergens through a closed-loop route.

Healthcare food service operates in environments where the consequences of a failure may be amplified by age, illness, treatment, disability, or dependence on others for meal selection and delivery. That reality calls for precision without making unsupported claims about risk in a specific organization. Executives should require the local team to define which populations, products, settings, and decisions need enhanced controls under applicable policy and professional guidance.

Hospital research points to a broad control set. The psychiatric-hospital assessment found knowledge and control gaps that included temperature management, formal education, supervision, internal systems, and certification status.² The hospital-kitchen decision framework ranked training, environmental cleanliness, and meal quality among important criteria, while identifying a set of high-importance items that were not performing well in the study setting.¹¹ Public-hospital food-service managers described receiving, infrastructure, protocols, supplier education, and policy as connected parts of safety.¹³

Food allergy management adds a communication pathway. In a survey of 103 independently owned restaurants, 71 reported that they accommodated food allergies, while written procedures and manager education were inconsistent.¹⁵ The restaurant setting differs from healthcare, and the study used self-report. The executive lesson is still important: willingness to accommodate does not substitute for a written, rehearsed process.

Receive

Capture the concern in an approved field and confirm that the responsible service received it.

Clarify

Route questions to a qualified professional and distinguish verified information from assumptions.

Prepare

Apply the organization’s approved ingredient, substitution, segregation, equipment, and cleaning controls.

Handoff

Keep identity and instructions attached as responsibility moves between preparation, transport, and service.

Verify

Use a defined final check before service and document the required completion signal.

Escalate

Make uncertainty, deviation, and suspected reaction pathways immediate and unmistakable.

Work-system conditions

Remove the conditions that make safe behavior hard.

When leaders respond to every deviation with retraining, they may miss the conditions that produced it. Food-safety behavior occurs inside a work system. Staff may be balancing volume, time pressure, equipment constraints, inconsistent supplies, unclear instructions, language differences, cross-site variation, and supervision gaps. A fair review distinguishes a knowledge need from a design failure.

Mixed-method evidence supports that distinction. Food handlers have described missing training, limited risk perception, inconsistent enforcement, unavailable guidelines, and inadequate equipment or facilities as barriers.⁴ Street vendors interviewed after an education and equipment intervention described improved capability and motivation, but infrastructure, regulation, finances, and cultural expectations continued to constrain practice.¹⁴ The qualitative sample was small and context specific, so the factors should be used as prompts for local investigation rather than assumed causes.

Education, experience, and knowledge were associated with better practice in the meat-handler study, but the cross-sectional design cannot establish cause.⁸ The U.S. retail study similarly linked stronger results to training format, recency, supervisor support, equipment, practice, and reminders.⁵ Together, these studies support an executive approach that improves both people’s capability and the environment in which they work.

Unranked qualitative fishbone diagram organizing possible contributors to unsafe food reaching a patient, employee, or community participant into people, supplier, process, equipment, communication, and governance categories. — This qualitative, unranked fishbone organizes possible contributors for local investigation. The branches do not report frequency, effect size, or causation. Teams should confirm or reject each factor using direct observation, staff listening, process data, and incident review. Evidence-informed prompts were drawn from research on handlers, hospitals, mobile units, training, and implementation conditions.^{2,4,5,6,13,14}

Use the fishbone in a learning review

Define the event narrowly. State what reached whom, where, and when. Separate facts from assumptions.
Invite the people closest to the work. Include food service, receiving, procurement, facilities, quality, infection or public health partners, and affected service representatives.
Test each branch. Look for observable evidence. Do not rank a category because it is easy to blame.
Choose controls at the right level. Fix equipment, policy, staffing, language, supply, or workflow defects when those conditions are the source.
Verify the correction. Define an owner, due date, effectiveness check, and escalation if the action does not hold.

Governance

Run food safety as an operating system.

No single department controls the complete route. Food and nutrition services may operate preparation and service, but procurement qualifies suppliers, facilities maintains equipment and utilities, quality supports measurement and improvement, infection prevention or public health teams support response, education teams support learning design, and community partners may receive or distribute food beyond the campus. Executive sponsorship gives these contributors one forum for decisions that cross departmental boundaries.

The operating system should be small enough to use and strong enough to govern. It needs a named sponsor, a process owner, defined participants, an agreed source of truth, a review cadence, decision rights, and an escalation path. It should also connect oversight to the realities of different sites. Research on public hospitals, hospital kitchens, regulatory agencies, and military facilities shows that training, inspection, policy, infrastructure, internal controls, and oversight can vary even when formal expectations exist.^2,3,11,12

Executive sponsor

Sets the reliability aim, resolves cross-functional barriers, confirms decision rights, and keeps unresolved high-risk exceptions visible.

Operational owner

Maintains the end-to-end map, standard work, data definitions, training triggers, and corrective-action log.

Frontline partners

Test whether controls work in real conditions, surface weak signals, participate in learning reviews, and verify redesigned work.

Oversight forum

Reviews exceptions, aging actions, site variation, supplier or equipment concerns, and evidence that corrective action was effective.

Measurement

Measure completion, not participation.

A September campaign can produce attendance counts, downloads, posters, and social engagement. Those measures describe activity. They do not show whether a delivery was accepted safely, an employee demonstrated a critical skill, an allergen handoff remained intact, a deviation was corrected, or a recurrence was prevented.

Build the scorecard around the route selected for improvement. Define every numerator, denominator, exclusion, source, owner, and review cadence before displaying a percentage. Segment results only when the sample is large enough and the comparison is ethically and operationally appropriate. Annotate missing data, process changes, and small denominators. Do not convert the published studies in this article into local targets because their settings, populations, definitions, and methods differ.

Figure 5. Structured executive food-safety scorecard

Candidate local measures. These are management prompts, not benchmarks.
Signal	Definition	Numerator and denominator	Owner	Cadence	Escalation and limitation
Receiving control completion	Eligible deliveries with every required receiving check documented	Complete eligible delivery records / all eligible deliveries reviewed	Receiving or food-service leader	Weekly, with daily exception review	Escalate high-risk deviations immediately. Documentation does not prove the check was accurate.
Critical skill demonstration	Staff who correctly demonstrate the locally defined critical skill	Staff meeting all observation criteria / staff due for observation	Operational educator and supervisor	After education, then at a defined follow-up	Observe again after correction. Observer consistency must be tested.
Temperature exception closure	Recorded temperature deviations closed within the approved interval	Deviations with verified closure on time / all recorded deviations	Food-service operations	Daily exception review, monthly trend	Escalate any potentially unsafe product per policy. Results depend on complete detection and recording.
Allergen handoff reliability	Eligible orders with all required allergy handoff steps complete	Eligible orders with verified complete handoff / all eligible orders sampled	Clinical nutrition and food service	Weekly sample, immediate event review	Escalate ambiguity before service. Sampling may miss rare failures.
Corrective-action aging	Open food-safety actions beyond the approved due date	Count, with age bands and risk level	Quality and operational owner	Biweekly	Escalate overdue high-risk actions. Counts require consistent closure criteria.
Repeat exception	Verified recurrence of the same defined exception after action	Repeat events / closed actions eligible for effectiveness review	Quality and process owner	Monthly or quarterly	Reopen the analysis when recurrence is verified. Classification drift can distort trends.

The scorecard is a proposed management tool. It intentionally requires definitions, ownership, cadence, escalation, and limitations. Organizations should set local aims after validating data quality and baseline performance. The metric domains are informed by evidence on training, inspection deficiencies, hospital controls, allergy procedures, and regulatory variability.^2,3,5,12,15

Food-service, quality, and operations colleagues reviewing a checklist and an abstract process dashboard during an improvement huddle beside a commercial kitchen. — **Review exceptions where action can be assigned.** A short huddle can connect observation, corrective action, equipment or process barriers, ownership, and follow-up. Evidence informing this editorial illustration includes hospital assessment, mixed-method barrier research, and inspection findings.^2,4,12 Image: original editorial illustration created for The Healthcare Executive.

Coordination and learning

Connect education to incident learning and community coordination.

Education should change when the system learns. A complaint, near miss, suspected event, inspection finding, equipment failure, supplier concern, or recurring question can reveal that current instructions are incomplete or impractical. The response route should preserve facts, protect the people served, notify authorized internal and external partners, and keep corrective action open until effectiveness is checked.

Organizations with multiple campuses, contracted services, mobile units, or community programs should make jurisdiction and coordination responsibilities explicit. The mobile-food-unit study found that cross-county mobility and language barriers could interfere with required inspection completion.⁶ Regulatory agencies also reported variable approaches to monitoring and documenting unapproved or unregulated foods.³ These studies do not establish a national failure rate, but they support a local readiness check: does the organization know which authority, contract owner, or public-health partner receives each type of concern?

Community education tools should also be evaluated for accessibility and use. The food-safety application study showed strong interest among participants while identifying practical requirements for language, icon clarity, mobile performance, and accessibility.⁹ Leaders should ask community members to test materials before broad release, then monitor questions and drop-off points rather than assuming that distribution equals understanding.

Minimum incident-learning loop

Protect people and stabilize the immediate situation.
Preserve product, process, supplier, temperature, and communication information required by policy.
Notify the authorized operational, clinical, regulatory, public-health, legal, risk, and communication roles as applicable.
Define the event and contributing conditions without premature blame.
Assign corrective actions with due dates and effectiveness checks.
Update training, job aids, contracts, equipment, or workflow when the evidence supports a change.

Questions for community-facing work

Is the first action understandable in the languages people use?
Does the guidance work on a mobile phone and with assistive technology?
Can participants distinguish education from individualized medical advice?
Is there a real receiving owner for questions or concerns?
Are partner names, contact details, and operating hours current?
Can the organization see where people become confused or leave the route?

Implementation

A 90-day executive agenda

The schedule below is a starting framework. It assumes the organization chooses one bounded route and uses existing governance. A serious hazard, regulatory requirement, or active incident must be handled immediately under applicable policy and authority, not deferred to this timeline.

Gantt-style 90-day timeline showing governance and baseline work in days 1 through 30, workflow and education pilots in days 31 through 60, and effectiveness review and scaling decisions in days 61 through 90. — This proposed timeline sequences governance, baseline observation, redesign, education, testing, and effectiveness review. It is not a study result or regulatory schedule. Adapt pace and activities to local risk, policy, workforce capacity, and current incidents. The sequence reflects the article’s synthesis of evidence on education, implementation barriers, hospital systems, inspection findings, and reinforcement.^{1,2,4,5,12,14}

Days 1-30

Define and observe

Name the sponsor, process owner, review forum, and decision rights.
Select one route and define its start, finish, sites, populations, and exclusions.
Observe real work across shifts and ask staff where the safe path becomes difficult.
Validate a small baseline using explicit definitions.
Choose one high-consequence barrier for redesign.

Days 31-60

Redesign and test

Update the workflow, tools, language, equipment, or decision support that caused the barrier.
Build role-specific education with practice and an observable completion criterion.
Pilot in a bounded setting and provide rapid escalation.
Review misses, near misses, burden, and unintended consequences with the users.
Correct the design before expanding it.

Days 61-90

Verify and decide

Repeat observation with the same operational definitions.
Review open actions, repeat exceptions, data quality, and site variation.
Decide whether to adopt, adapt, pause, or stop the change.
Assign the next review date and update education or policy as required.
Report results with limitations and no claims beyond the data.

Leadership close

Make the safe path easier to follow and harder to lose.

Food Safety Education Month can be more than a reminder. It can be a disciplined checkpoint for an operating system that reaches suppliers, workers, patients, visitors, and community partners. The executive contribution is to connect the pieces: accountable ownership, accessible education, workable conditions, clear handoffs, visible exceptions, and verified corrective action.

The evidence in this review does not support a universal benchmark or a claim that one intervention prevents illness in every setting. It does support a practical direction. Training performs inside a system. Knowledge and practice are related but not interchangeable. Infrastructure, supervision, equipment, language, regulation, supplier controls, and feedback affect whether safe work is possible. Leaders can use those findings to ask better local questions and require evidence that the route works.

Continue the executive conversation.

Food Allergy Awareness Week 2026 Build a reliable path from awareness to action. National Safety Month 2026 Connect prevention, response, and learning. National Nutrition Month 2025 Integrate nutrition strategy into population health.

Important: This executive brief is educational and does not replace applicable law, regulatory direction, organizational policy, food-safety plans, manufacturer instructions, or individualized advice from qualified clinical, nutrition, infection-prevention, public-health, environmental-health, or food-safety professionals.

Evidence base

Scholarly references

Alawode, O. W., & Tabit, F. T. (2026). The conceptualisation and evaluation of a food safety training programme for street food vendors. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition & Development, 26(6), 30009-30027. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.153.27045
Getyeza, A., Theron, M., & Swart, R. (2026). Assessment of food safety in public psychiatric hospitals in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 39(2), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/16070658.2025.2603821
Warner, C., & Kintziger, K. W. (2026). Regulatory monitoring of unapproved/unregulated foods in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health, 88(10), 16-21.
Wogayehu, B. T. (2026). Food safety practice and associated factors among food handlers working in food and drinking establishments in Debre Birhan City, North Eastern Ethiopia: A convergent parallel mixed-method study. PLoS ONE, 21(4), e0346700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346700
Labbo, R., Unkart, S. D., DeVito, R., Gill, G., Randhawa, M., & Dyjack, D. (2026). Food handler knowledge retention and training effectiveness in the U.S. retail food service: A comprehensive analysis of 2,700 workers. Journal of Environmental Health, 88(8), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.160019
Cruz, S. A., Blackmon, L., & Bailey, E. S. (2026). Mobile food unit operations and regulatory oversight in Johnston County, North Carolina: A cross-sectional evaluation. Journal of Environmental Health, 88(8), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.160020
Roy, A., Mukherjee, J., Mohapatra, I., & Das, S. C. (2026). Factors associated with food safety practices among food-handlers: A facility-based cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Community Health, 38(2), 417-422. https://doi.org/10.47203/IJCH.2026.v38i02.035
Biftu, T. M., Negassa, B., & Soboksa, N. E. (2026). Food safety knowledge, practices, and determinants among meat handlers in abattoirs and retail meat shops in the Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Discover Public Health, 23(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-026-01404-4
Seow, W.-L., Lee, K. W., Haris, R., Md Ariffin, U. K., Ng, S. W., Lim, S. Y., Mohd Saudi, M., Mohamad Gobil, A. R., Mohamed, N. A., Mohd Zulkefli, N. A., Tengku Jamaluddin, T. Z. M., Norowi, N. M., & Amin-Nordin, S. (2025). FOODAlyzer usability: Advances in food safety education. PLoS ONE, 20(10), e0333511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333511
Chen, H., Archila, J., & Feng, Y. (2025). Bridging the food safety gaps for low-income families: An evaluation of virtual dialogue-based food safety education program. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 57(8), S31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2025.05.069
Hsu, T.-K., & Kuo, C.-Y. (2025). Using CFAHP and IPGA method to establish the importance criteria on the HACCP system for hospital kitchens in Taiwan. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 17(4), 30-42.
Smith, S., Arnold, N. L., Knechtges, P., & Richards, S. L. (2025). Relationship between employee food safety training and food safety risk factors at Fort Liberty Military Installation in North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Health, 87(6), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.129538
Mavhutha, L., Ncube, L. J., & Kleynhans, I. C. (2025). Food service managers' views on food safety systems in Gauteng public hospitals. Health SA Gesondheid, 30, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v30i0.3097
Madjdian, D. S., Dankwah Badu, V., Ilboudo, G., Lallogo, V. R., Dione, M., van Asseldonk, M., Knight-Jones, T. J. D., & de Vet, E. (2024). Fast food over safe food? A qualitative evaluation of a food safety training intervention for street vendors applying the COM-B model in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. PLoS ONE, 19(11), e0313635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313635
Placa, N. M., & Naig, A. (2024). Food allergy policies and procedures in independently owned restaurants in the Orlando Metropolitan Area, Florida. Journal of Environmental Health, 87(3), 8-14.