Introduction

With the development and progress of society, more attention has been paid to food safety issues, and awareness has been increasing (Jevšnik et al. 2008). Globally, the number of families dining out is growing yearly (Sirichokchatchawan et al. 2021). According to research on Chinese people's eating habits, more than 42.2% of urban workers eat out at least once a week (Zang et al. 2018). In addition to the many changes in the global economy due to the impact of Covid-19 living, habits have changed. During the pandemic, the demand for home cooking has dramatically increased, and consumers have actively lookedvariousty for frozen foods that can be easily preserved and cooked (Chenarides et al. 2021). The biggest impact is on the significant food factories and their upstream and downstream businesses. Consumers' attention prompted food start-ups to continue to join related technology development for improved food safety.

According to recent research, the demand for the frozen food industry increased tremendously during the epidemic in 2021(Chang and Meyerhoefer (Chang and Meyerhoefer 2021)). Food safety is one of a critical global issue, and it also has important implications for public health(Alhashim et al.2022). In recent years, food safety problems have frequently multiplied, according to the food and drug management of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Yu et al. analyzed publicly accessible annual aggregated data on reported foodborne illness outbreaks in Taiwan between 2014 and 2018 and created Surveillance of foodborne diseases in Taiwan (Yu et al. 2021). The investigation validated Taiwan's elevated risk and incidence of foodborne illnesses, food media classifications, bacterial classifications, and naturally occurring toxins (Yu et al. 2021). The policy created by the government health department to promote illness prevention merits consideration. Food workers who lack awareness of food safety fundamentals, such as sanitary procedures, adequate cooking and storage temperatures, and cross-contamination, may contaminate food by unsuitable conduct (Hardstaff et al. 2018). In addition, the rudimentary facilities and unclean handling of meat might contribute to the contamination of the official and informal retail markets by microorganisms along the food supply chain. Several risk factors, such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of washing and disinfection, improper handling of contaminated materials, and absence of temperature control (Borin et al. 2009), lead to bacterial contamination and proliferation in carcasses/meat. These incidents highlight the lack of food safety knowledge of food industry workers, which affects their food safety attitudes toward preventing foodborne illnesses (Stedefeldt et al. 2015).

It is impossible to estimate the human injury caused by all of the incidents, and it also makes people full of doubts about food safety. The connections between Taiwan's food providers' views and the actual application of food safety laws. Taiwan's Legislative Yuan approved the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation in May 2013, and new rules were implemented in June 2014. The amendment examined current food safety legislation and barriers to implementation (Ko 2015). Dudeja et al. reported on the importance of educational intervention programs or programs (Dudeja et al. 2017) and that work experience and educational background of food handlers were associated with food safety measures (Bou-Mitri et al. 2018); Alhashim et al. 2022). Therefore, this article takes Taiwan Frozen Food Company A as an example to explore the differences and influencing factors of food safety knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among food practitioners with different backgrounds.

Materials and methods

Questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed and divided into four parts, namely Basic information, Food Safety Knowledge Scale, Food Safety Attitude Questionnaire, Food Safety Behavior Questionnaire.

Basic information

The first part is basic personal information, including gender, nationality, education level, age, position, seniority, whether to study in food-related departments, and whether engaged in food-related industries. It also collects whether they received HACCP food safety training or information about food safety. The questionnaire was partially modified based on the previous study (Sirichokchatchawan et al. 2021).

Food safety knowledge scale

Ten closed-ended questions with “correct” and “incorrect” answers were in the food safety knowledge questionnaire. The score ranged from 10 to 20 points. The questionnaire content includes food preservation, hygiene, cleaning of equipment and environment, and hygiene regulations.

Food safety attitude questionnaire

The food safety attitude questionnaire comprised ten questions and was evaluated using a five-point Likert Scale, "strongly agree" and "agree", "No opinion", "Disagree", and "Strongly disagree "given 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point for scoring, the questionnaire of reverse-coded items are scored with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 points, respectively. The score ranged from 10 to 50. The questionnaire content includes hygiene and safety operation, hygiene knowledge, food additive labeling, and food safety responsibility, and the other four parts are designed.

Food safety behavior questionnaire

The food safety behavior questionnaire comprised ten questions and was evaluated using a five-point Likert Scale, "always", "occasionally", "normal", "rarely", and "never" given 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point for scoring, the questionnaire of reverse-coded items are scored with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 points, respectively. The score ranged from 10 to 50. The questionnaire content, including personal hygiene, clean equipment environment, cross-contamination, food additive management, hygiene knowledge and the other five parts, are designed.

Data analysis methods

This study's analysis method was carried out through a questionnaire survey. After sorting and coding, the data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 12.0 version (SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). The data were analysed using reliability, multiple regression analysis, and Pearson correlation analysis to understand sample characteristics.

Reliability analysis

Cronbach's alpha value of internal consistency reliability was used to judge whether the questionnaire has good consistency and stability. The higher α value, the better the internal consistency. Generally, a Cronbach's alpha value greater than 0.7 indicates that the questionnaire is acceptable (Taber 2018).

Pearson correlation analysis

The correlation coefficient is standardized to analyze the relationship between two continuous variables. The correlation between two variables is strongest between plus and minus one the closer the value is to plus or minus 1. A positive value indicates a correlation between the two variables, whereas a negative value indicates a negative correlation (Stommel and Katherine 2014). Therefore, this study uses the Pearson correlation analysis method to conduct a correlation analysis on the status of food safety knowledge, attitude and food safety behavior.

Multiple regression analysis

Multiple regression analysis is to study the effect of multiple independent variables on dependent variables or one independent variable (Stommel and Katherine et al. 2014). Therefore, in this study, multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of food safety knowledge on food safety attitudes. If the regression coefficient test is significant, both of the above-mentioned causal relationships have a considerable influence.

Results and discussion

A total of 136 questionnaires were distributed in this study, including 68 pre-test questionnaires and 68 post-test questionnaires. Among the 136 questionnaires that finally recovered, 136 were valid, and the recovery rate was 100%.

Demographics and work-related characteristics of food handlers in Company A

The collected pre-test and post-test 68 valid questionnaires were analyzed by frequency distribution. Primary data of the person were analyzed, and the following Table 1 was compiled. From Table 1, Company A had 68 food employees, including 13 males accounting for 19.1% of the total, and 55 women, accounting for 80.9% of the total employees. The proportion of women in the product industry was much higher than that of men. Regarding the gender of workers, female subjects give more importance to food safety than male subjects. A similar observation was observed by Nevin Sanlier and coworkers (Sanlier and Baser 2020). There were 18 food employees aged ≤ 25 in Company A, accounting for 26.5%. There were 30 people aged 26–40, accounting for 44.1% of the overall percentage. There are 19 people aged 55, accounting for 27.9%; only 1 person > 55 years old, accounting for 1.5%.

Table 1 Demographics and work-related characteristics of food handlers in Company A (n = 68)
Full size table

There were 56 native nationalities, 82.4% of the total, and 12 foreigners, 17.6% of the total. Among 68 food workers, 50 of whom are on-site operators staff, accounting for 73.5% of the total; 6 on-site management positions (group leaders), accounting for 8.8%. There were 4 administrative staff positions, accounting for 5.9%, and 6 administrative management positions, accounting for 8.8%. A total of 2 quality assurance/quality control personnel accounted for 2.9%, and the majority of field operators filled in this questionnaire.

According to the data, there was 1 worker with primary school education, accounting for 1.5%; 2 middle schools, 2.9%; 36 high schools (vocational), accounting for 52.9%; 28 universities (professional), accounting for 41.2%; There was only 1 master’s degree or above, accounting for 1.5%. This information shows that Company A high school (vocational) graduates have the most significant number of food employees, followed by university (professional) graduates. In the seniority distribution of all employees in Company A, 10 people have work experience of less than one year, accounting for 14.7%; 32 people have 1–3 years, accounting for 47.1%; 19 people have 4–6 years, accounting for 27.9%; 6 years More than 7 people, accounting for 10.3%.

The questionnaire includes food nutrition, technology, aquatic food, and catering management. And other related food departments are included. Sixteen individuals, accounting for 23.5%, attended who food safety training, while 52 didn’t receive it, accounting for 76.5%. Food Safety Control System (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point, HACCP) is a management system that manages the acceptance, processing, manufacturing, storage, and transportation of food raw materials and the systematic method of the process to prevent and control food safety hazards (Al-Akash et al. 2022). It recognizes the best food safety control methods, and food professional training is the Department of Food Safety Control System conducts course HACCP basic class (60A) and advanced class (60B). It can be seen from Table 1 that 33 food practitioners received HACCP training, accounting for 48.5% of the total. The number of food professionals without HACCP training was 35, accounting for 51.5%. In Taiwan, similar to other countries, HACCP training is conducted in food sector for improved safety and quality (Weinroth et al. 2018).

The question defined whether food practitioners have received relevant food safety in the company knowledge education and training, such as allergen management, food protection, hygiene knowledge and other related education training. It can be seen from Table 1 that there are 61 food practitioners in the company out of 68 received food safety knowledge accounting for 89.7%. The proportion of employees who have received food safety knowledge education and training was quite high because the company follows the Article 5, Schedule II, Paragraph 1 of good food hygiene educated and trained in food safety, hygiene, and quality management. It can be seen from Table 1 that 38 of the 68 food practitioners have worked in past food-related industries, accounting for 55.9% of the total; 30 people who have never worked in food-related industries in the past, acounting for 44.1%. According to a recent study, workers who were required to get annual food safety training had more relevant knowledge than those who weren't (Ko 2015). In a food comapny in Taiwan after the HACCP system methods were implemented, the organization's food quality and safety steadily increased, and the number of customer complaints gradually reduced (Chen et al. 2022).

Analysis of the current situation of food safety knowledge, food safety attitude, and food safety behavior before and after education and training

Based on questionnaire survey statistics, food safety knowledge, food safety attitude, and food safety behavior, was analysed by calculating mean and standard deviation of each variable.

Analysis of the current situation of food safety knowledge

The questions were answered in the form of true and false questions, and the scoring method will give 2 points to those who answer correctly, and those who answer incorrectly give 1 point so, the higher the score, the better the food safety knowledge. As shown in Table 2, the summary statistics show that in June 2021, all the food employees of Company A have not yet received the food safety knowledge questionnaire before education and training. The second highest was question 3, that the hand has wounds in cross-infection, and the answer rate was 97.1%. Regarding hygiene regulations, detergents, food additives, and chemicals need to be managed by special personnel and special counters, and the answer rate was 97.1%. In the food safety knowledge, the food practitioners with the highest error rate were the hand cleaning steps of food practitioners in personal hygiene and safety, and the wrong answer rate was as high as 76.5%. However, the correct steps should be wet scrubbing and drying. If the correct hand-cleaning steps are not implemented during hand cleaning, the hands are prone to pathogenic bacteria, which contaminate the production line and increase the occurrence of foodborne diseases (Green et al. 2006). The risk of diarrhea and other foodborne infections can be considerably reduced by food workers using proper hand washing techniques (Akabanda et al. 2017).As shown in Table 2, the summary statistics show that in April 2022, after the education and training of all food employees in Company A, the correct answer rate of the hand cleaning steps of food employees in personal hygiene and safety has increased to 91.2%, which is significantly higher than that before the original education and training.

Table 2 Analysis of the current situation of food safety knowledge among food practitioners before and after training and education (n = 68)
Full size table

Analysis of the current situation of food safety attitude and behavior

The questionnaire is based on Likert five-point scale method to design, "strongly agree", "agree", "no opinion", "disagree", "strongly disagree" Score 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point, respectively. The questionnaire of reverse-coded items is designed into 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 points, and the higher the score, the better the food safety attitude or behavior. The higher the score, the better the food safety attitude.

As shown in Table 3, the summary statistics are for all food employees of Company A in June 2021 before all employees received education and training. The highest score is food safety improper storage of food in the preservation of food causes spoilage, and it can be eaten only after heating, with an average score of 4.69. The second highest is personal hygiene habits, wearing a hat, and masks are an important way to reduce the risk of food contamination during personnel operations and the average score is 4.68. The lowest score is on the question of allergen cross infection, allergen origin need to change gloves when changing items and the average score is 3.59. To avoid further food contamination, food workers can wear gloves, but they must be often changed, and hands should be washed whenever gloves are removed or replaced (Abolmaaty et al. 2022). Proper knowledge about handling with gloves is also essential. Table 3 shows the statistics for all food employees of Company A in April 2022 after training and education. machine. But its average score increased to significantly higher than the original score before receiving education and training average.

Table 3 Analysis of the current situation of food safety attitudes and behavior of food practitioners before and after education and training (n = 68)
Full size table

As shown in Table 3, the average food safety behavior score of the food workers was the highest for the cross-contamination question type, and they would continue to touch and handle food when there was a wound on their hands halfway through the operation, which was 4.91. The performance of prevention and control behavior is relatively good; when receiving raw materials in warehouse management, the validity period will be confirmed before use, and the average score is at least 3.97, which shows that its food practitioners implement the first-in, first-out implementation of the validity period of materials received by warehouse administrators behaviour is insufficient. As shown in Table 3, after all the food employees of Company A have received education and training in April 2022, they will first confirm the validity period before using the raw materials in the warehouse management, and the average score of 3.97 was raised to 4.85, shows a significant improvement in this execution behavior. Several studies on the impact of food safety training on employee behavior in food service outlets came to varying findings. Many concluded that food safety education successfully improved the quality of products (Adesokan et al. 2015). In this study, we discovered that food workers' attitudes and actions regarding the safe handling of food might be directly influenced by their degree of expertise. This is consistent with findings from research by Elobeid et al., who discovered a favorable relationship between food knowledge and attitudes (Elobeid et al. 2019). Controversially according to Liu et al., the respondents' food safety behaviors and their food safety knowledge remained unaffected (Liu et al. 2021).

Correlation analysis of food safety knowledge, food safety attitude and food safety behavior

Table 4 shows that food safety knowledge and food safety attitude, food safety attitude and food safety behavior have 0.429 (p < 0.01) and 0.567 (p < 0.0), respectively, which can be regarded as medium to high correlation. However, food safety knowledge and food safety behavior have 0.248 (p < 0.01), which can be regarded as a low correlation. Overall, food safety attitude and food safety behavior have the most significant statistical correlation among the three questionnaires in different categories.

Table 4 Pearson’s correlation of food safety knowledge, attitude and behavior in Company A (n = 68)
Full size table

Practice is how people show their knowledge and attitude via their behaviors, according to Mukherjee et al.2018). According to our study, there is a modest to a weak correlation between food safety knowledge and behavior. Our findings are at odds with those of other research projects carried out in Saudi Arabia (Al-Shabib et al. 2016), Romania (Jianu and Goleţ 2014), and Ethiopia (Tegegne and Phyo 2017). This suggests that establishing excellent food safety measures requires a strong commitment to knowledge and attitudes about food safety. It is crucial to step up education for food handlers to change their attitudes about food safety to enhance food safety measures.

Regression analysis on food safety knowledge, food safety attitude and food safety behavior of food practitioners

A regression analysis of each facet was carried out to understand further the influence of food safety knowledge and attitude on food safety behavior. Table 5 shows that the regression analysis of food safety knowledge and food safety attitudes on food safety behavior has significant explanatory power (F = 15.337, p < 0.0.05), and its R2 is 0.321, which means that food safety behavior can explain food safety knowledge, food safety behavior. The variance in security attitude is 32.1%. Therefore, food safety behavior has more than 30% explanatory power on food safety knowledge and attitude, and food safety behavior has a significant positive impact on food safety knowledge and attitude. Additionally, the analysis results show that food safety attitude (β = 0.388, p < 0.05) has a positive and significant influence on the food safety knowledge of food practitioners, that is, when the average score of food safety attitude is higher, the more positive their food safety behaviors are. More food safety behaviors will be related to their attitudes during food operations. Many studies emphasized the importance of educational intervention programs or food safety awareness training sessions since they have significantly increased food handlers' knowledge following an intervention (Dudeja et al. 2017); Bou-Mitri et al. 2018). Additionally, food handlers' years of experience and educational background were linked to food safety measures (Bou-Mitri et al. 2018).

Table 5 The regression model predicts food safety knowledge, attitude and food safety behavior in Company A (n = 68)
Full size table

In addition, it is worth mentioning that the global impact of the COVID-19 epidemic since 2020 has affected the food industry, especially the animal source food (ASF) retailers' business and consumer livelihoods, and has also changed their understanding of the disease, attitudes and food safety practices to prevent infection. Jainonthee et al. report in-depth information on the impact of COVID-19 on ASF retailers and consumers, as well as their Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAPs) about the outbreak and food safety, which may help develop strategies to improve health and food security policy (Jainonthee et al. 2022). Therefore, the results of this study will be more conducive to planning and applying food safety education in the food industry during the post-COVID-19 epidemic in the future.

Conclusion

This study mainly aims at understanding the current situation of food safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior of food employees and explores the differences and influencing factors among food employees with different backgrounds in their food safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The data of food practitioners, together with statistical analysis, can be used to understand the correlation and influencing factors of food practitioners' attitudes and behaviors toward food safety and to understand the impact of food practitioners ' personal background information on food safety attitudes and behaviors. This study found that after all subjects received food safety knowledge education and training, their overall food safety attitudes and behavior scores significantly improved. This study has potential limitations as the sample size is small and cannot be representative of entire Taiwan or global food industry. This is a cross-sectional survey; therefore, a longitudinal study is recommended to obtain more in-depth information on food practitioners, such as changing their attitudes and practices to train and teach higher food safety behaviors.