TY - JOUR
T1 - Local food protection and safety infrastructure and capacity
T2 - A Maryland case study
AU - Kufel, Joanna Zablotsky
AU - Resnick, Beth A.
AU - Fox, Mary
AU - Frattaroli, Shannon
AU - Gielen, Andrea
AU - Burke, Thomas A.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011/11
Y1 - 2011/11
N2 - INTRODUCTION:: In Maryland, county Food Protection Programs (FPP), housed within Environmental Public Health (EPH) Divisions, maintain responsibility for regular inspection of all food service facilities (FSF). With growing concerns about how our food supply is protected, it is important to determine the state and effectiveness of our food safety systems. This research elucidates the roles, responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses of Food Safety and Protection Programs in Maryland. Methods: A 16-question survey tool, which addressed facets of the local food protection infrastructure, including FSF inspections, staffing, budget, and foodborne illness surveillance, was distributed to all 24 county FPP. Results: The number of FSF in Maryland increased 97% from 2001 to 2006 and counties had an average inspection completion rate of 73%, with a 4% increase over the time period. Statewide, there were 4.1 EPH full-time employees (FTE) per 10 000 population and 1.6 FPP FTE per 10 000 population. EPH Division budgets increased 63% statewide, from $19.5 million in 2000 to $31.9 million in 2007. FPP budgets also increased 59% over the period, from $6.2 million in 2000 to $9.8 million in 2007. Conclusions: This study offers new quantitative measures of the demands, capacities, and performance of Food Protection and Safety Programs in Maryland. This assessment of local EPH and FPP capacity also offers insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the local food protection and safety infrastructure. Importantly, it reveals an infrastructure and dedicated food protection workforce that inspects the food supply and responds to foodborne illness outbreaks. Yet, resources vary substantially from county to county, impacting which services can be provided and how well they can be performed. This can, in turn, impact the potential risk of foodborne illness and the public's overall health.
AB - INTRODUCTION:: In Maryland, county Food Protection Programs (FPP), housed within Environmental Public Health (EPH) Divisions, maintain responsibility for regular inspection of all food service facilities (FSF). With growing concerns about how our food supply is protected, it is important to determine the state and effectiveness of our food safety systems. This research elucidates the roles, responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses of Food Safety and Protection Programs in Maryland. Methods: A 16-question survey tool, which addressed facets of the local food protection infrastructure, including FSF inspections, staffing, budget, and foodborne illness surveillance, was distributed to all 24 county FPP. Results: The number of FSF in Maryland increased 97% from 2001 to 2006 and counties had an average inspection completion rate of 73%, with a 4% increase over the time period. Statewide, there were 4.1 EPH full-time employees (FTE) per 10 000 population and 1.6 FPP FTE per 10 000 population. EPH Division budgets increased 63% statewide, from $19.5 million in 2000 to $31.9 million in 2007. FPP budgets also increased 59% over the period, from $6.2 million in 2000 to $9.8 million in 2007. Conclusions: This study offers new quantitative measures of the demands, capacities, and performance of Food Protection and Safety Programs in Maryland. This assessment of local EPH and FPP capacity also offers insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the local food protection and safety infrastructure. Importantly, it reveals an infrastructure and dedicated food protection workforce that inspects the food supply and responds to foodborne illness outbreaks. Yet, resources vary substantially from county to county, impacting which services can be provided and how well they can be performed. This can, in turn, impact the potential risk of foodborne illness and the public's overall health.
KW - environmental public health
KW - food safety and protection
KW - infrastructure
KW - local capacity
KW - public health services and systems research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053636219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053636219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318211b47b
DO - 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318211b47b
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21964366
AN - SCOPUS:80053636219
SN - 1078-4659
VL - 17
SP - 534
EP - 541
JO - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
JF - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
IS - 6
ER -