Food Safety Resources Reviews

General Information

The positive points of the program: --The index of SOS lessons in the Leader’s Guide includes main concepts and lesson activities at a glance. --A list of contents/materials needed for lessons is included in the Leader’s Guide. --Lesson 4 has an alternate “Bad Germs Yeast” experiment if materials or time constraints are a concern. --The fact sheet of “Why Teach Food Safety in Schools” may help “sell” the curriculum to parents, teachers, etc. --The curriculum is attractively packaged in a three-ring binder, indexed by lesson numbers, and several color posters were included in the front pocket. --A sample form letter introducing the SOS program to parents is included. --Poster contest guidelines are included --Most student activities are likely to stimulate topical interest. --Answer keys for the activities immediately follow the student copy in the curriculum binder. --Curriculum emphasizes “When you’re not sure whether a certain food has to be refrigerated or not, always refrigerate the food. It is better to be safe than sorry.”

The negative points of the program: --Many references for utilized facts and statistics are not included. --Temperatures are not all consistent throughout all materials. --Some inconsistencies in the teacher script from the current Food Code. --The Food Safety Information Contacts listed on page 13 of the Leader’s Guide lists a number of organizations, but does not include information on how to contact these organizations. --There is disagreement between several included publications and/or the Leader’s Guide on a number of topics, including the length of time for adequate handwashing (20 or 30 seconds), refrigeration temperatures (40 degrees or 41 degrees), and meat temperatures (range from 140 degrees to 180 degrees). --The included press releases were particular to Minnesota and “as written” would be of limited use to anyone instructing elsewhere. --Several questions in the pre-and-post test of student knowledge/behavior are poorly written. --One of the listed objectives for Lesson 2 is “The students will be able to describe the symptoms and consequences of food borne illness.” The symptoms contained in the microorganism overhead masters include Hemorrhagic colitis, hemolytic uremic syndrome, meningitis, septicemia, and prostration, which are all terms well beyond the comprehension level and vocabulary of the intended audience, as well as any instructor without a medical background. --The teacher’s glossary for Lesson 2 lists only Listeriosis and Norwalk-like Virus, but the lesson also covers Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Salmonellosis, Staphylococcus, and Toxoplasma gondii. --Although a student glossary is provided, there is not a separate detailed instructor glossary. --Sections of the curriculum tend to over-emphasize the terms diarrhea and vomiting or use crude/slang wording solely for audience titillation. Regarding the Crazy Cooks in the Kitchen video: --A talk show scenario can be an effective and entertaining review format. --A master list of “mistakes” is included for the instructor’s reference, but it does not mention the vomiting on the cloth towel or food preparation surface, placing the dog feces in the refrigerator, or tasting the baby’s feces. --A written script of the video may be more helpful to the instructor than a list of “mistakes.” --The production quality, design, and execution of the video are poor and the set/costumes/props are cheap, scream “low budget,” and tend to distract from the food safety message. --The actors spend too much time talking about things that have nothing to do with food safety or setting the scene such as, Iris spends too much time talking through the magic pie plate and spends over a minute saying hello to 27 different people, and Iris, Becky, and Debbie talk at the end about makeovers and Becky’s lack of a social life. These areas of the script come across as bad adlibs and the actors’ attempts to stretch the video into a full 30 minutes. --The food safety messages mentioned in the video are: the need for handwashing, wash fruit prior to eating, don’t taste food to see if it is bad, throw out leftovers, and avoidance of the temperature danger zone. These messages, as executed, could have been reduced to a five-minute skit. --Although Debbie is obviously ill throughout the entire video, there is no mention that one should not prepare food if feeling ill. The Safe or Sorry Curriculum touts this video as a humorous review/reinforcement of food safety. The idea of a skit allowing viewers to test their observation skills and knowledge is a laudable one, but the execution falls short. Rather than design a script that addresses the students and topics intelligently, this video relies on unrealistic scenarios, shock value, and bathroom humor to deliver their messages on food safety. Examples: --Becky picks up dog feces with cooking spatula, places dog feces in refrigerator, and wipes dog feces off spatula with apron. Debbie smells feces in refrigerator and mistakes it for rancid food. Iris tells Debbie the odor is the residual from the fumigator. --Debbie sneezes a two-foot glob of mucous, blows her nose into a cloth kitchen towel, and then proceeds to wipe the food preparation counter with the towel. --Debbie vomits onto the kitchen towel and onto the kitchen counter. Becky cleans the vomit with the cooking spatula, and then cleans the vomit off the cooking spatula with her apron. --Debbie removes baby’s dirty diaper on the food preparation counter. Debbie states the baby’s bowel movement looks and smells “diarrhea-ish” because of its color and consistency. Iris smelled and tasted the baby’s bowel movement. --Throughout the video, crass referrals to bodily excrements are constantly referred to: Debbie states, “I have a lot of mucous;” “Vomiting just real chunky;” “I’ve got to go to the bathroom, I think I’m getting diarrhea now;” “Uh, oh, it’s (the diarrhea) back;” “Did you make poopies in your pants?” “Looks and smells diarrhea-ish; see the yellow and the consistency.” In their attempt to infuse humor, the producers lathered on so many unrealistic scenarios and inundated the script with so many bathroom references that the tasteless “mistakes” come at you at such a rate that they obscure the real lessons. In this video, the educational values upheld in the previous lessons disappear into crude renderings of kitchen mistakes. The pervasive vulgarity of the situations depicted has no redeeming educational value. And the lessons involved rely on such outrageously gross mistakes that they make a mockery of the whole education process. The dialogue at the end of the video that reveals one character lamenting her failed social life is puzzling as to exactly what lesson the video is trying to teach. Safe or Sorry utilizes this video production as the review for its curriculum and proudly touts it as being shown on Cable TV and performed on stage in the Mall of America without realizing its scatological pervasiveness. The value the producers place on this video in the Safe or Sorry program debases the veracity of the rest of the SOS curriculum package. The producers can restore the credibility of the SOS program by divorcing itself from this version of the Crazy Cooks in the Kitchen video and returning to the original script for a responsible re-write. Observations: --Regarding the Minnesota Department of Health Food Safety Publications listed on page 13, “A Quick Consumer Guide to Safe Food Handling” is no longer being published by the USDA, and the USDA has not published a replacement document. --The National Pork Producers Council food safety Web site listed on page 15 of the Leader’s Guide is no longer available at http:www.nppc.org/CONS/safetymenu.html. --The Food Safety Web Resources reprinted from the Minnesota Department of Health’s Web page is fairly lengthy and difficult to sort through. It would be more beneficial to refer the leader directly to Minnesota’s Web page where the hyperlinks would ease Web page accessibility. --The area codes on the Minnesota Department of Health listings on a number of included publications have changed. The publications should be amended to reflect this. --The binder received by this reviewer was split at the seam. It is unknown if this was from use, transit, or a material defect. --Several lessons include a lot of teacher script. Instructors not well versed in food safety or education may just read the script, which may not maintain the attention of the target audience. --“Jody’s Submarine Sandwich” activity is good for illustrating exponential growth, but could also bring up the question of infectious dose. --“The Chicken Mystery” may reinforce the previous lessons better if all the words to be decoded were directly related to food safety. --The Lesson Five home activity states, “Instruct to try bread in bags on someone at home.” This statement needs to be more specific so that the students don’t try to feed moldy bread to someone. --The recommended golf counters for Lesson 7 may not be as effective as the students making a written list of food safety mistakes. Having the students list what the mistakes are will reinforce the lessons more than having them concentrate on how many mistakes occur. --Student roundtable evaluation of curriculum encourages students to express their opinions on the program. However, verbal responses may not be the most effective way of approaching a summative evaluation since some of the comments may be “lost.” --It would be interesting to review the answers received during roundtable discussions and to find out what alterations (if any) were made to the curriculum as a result. --There is not any mention made of the feedback requested from the instructors. --Most objectives listed in the lesson plans do not address students’ opinions, values, and attitudes on food safety.

Applicability in a Coordinated School Food Safety Program: the material specifically addresses applicability to some parties in a coordinated program, but not others. Following are some thoughts on the probable input and appeal to those involved: Teachers: Food safety is a subject of growing interest in the classroom. Teachers might find this curriculum interesting because of its hands-on footing, but the lesson plans are not as practiced as they could be. Even with a training session, an inexperienced teacher may have problems with program execution. Moderate appeal. Parents/Family: Most parents have no objection to food safety lessons in the school. This program looks to have family involvement in food safety education, but does little more than send home a memo informing parents that the curriculum is being taught. Extending the program to the parents at a PTA meeting or similar school function may encourage more upward learning and parental support. Moderate appeal. Cooperative Extension: This curriculum has a few activities that may enhance a cooperative extension’s holdings, but most of the information provided can be obtained in a better quality format elsewhere. The Cooks in the Kitchen video, while unique, should not be included in an environment where it may be borrowed and viewed without direct supervision of a professional who can counter the video’s shortcomings. Low appeal. Health Department: For food safety education, local health departments have access to resources that will provide the same information as this curriculum in a more user-friendly and applicable format. Low appeal. Health Services (School Nurse): This curriculum does not impart any medical information. Since the school nurse is not directly involved in food preparation, this may have limited use within the school infirmary. Low appeal. Students: Students may find the hands-on nature of this curriculum inviting. Some food safety topics, especially handwashing, are presented in a way that encourages behavioral changes. Students may also enjoy the bathroom humor incorporated into some of the lessons, but that may be the content of the curriculum they most remember. Strong appeal. School Food Services: The experimental design of this curriculum and its aim at children is not the most appropriate focus of training for food service employees. The posters may be helpful, as may the handwashing demonstration, but this nine-day conceptual lesson package is a food safety overview and not intensive enough for professional training. Moderate appeal. Administration: Depending on the administration’s agenda, this program may be embraced or panned. The weak writing of some of the lesson plans, as well as the crudeness of the Crazy Cooks in the Kitchen video may have school administrators uneasy about application and/or parental reaction to the program. Conversely, they may be interested in any program that rouses student comment and overlook the program’s weakness because of it. Moderate appeal.

The Safe or Sorry Curriculum touts this video as a humorous review/reinforcement of food safety. The idea of a skit allowing viewers to test their observation skills and knowledge is a laudable one, but the execution falls short. Rather than design a script that addresses the students and topics intelligently, this video relies on unrealistic scenarios, shock value, and bathroom humor to deliver their messages on food safety. In their attempt to infuse humor, the producers lathered on so many unrealistic scenarios and inundated the script with so many bathroom references that the tasteless “mistakes” come at you at such a rate that they obscure the real lessons. In this video, the educational values upheld in the previous lessons disappear into crude renderings of kitchen mistakes. The pervasive vulgarity of the situations depicted has no redeeming educational value. And the lessons involved rely on such outrageously gross mistakes that they make a mockery of the whole education process. The dialogue at the end of the video that reveals one character lamenting her failed social life is puzzling as to exactly what lesson the video is trying to teach. Safe or Sorry utilizes this video production as the review for its curriculum and proudly touts it as being shown on Cable TV and performed on stage in the Mall of America without realizing its scatological pervasiveness. The value the producers place on this video in the Safe or Sorry program debases the veracity of the rest of the SOS curriculum package. The producers can restore the credibility of the SOS program by divorcing itself from this version of the Crazy Cooks in the Kitchen video and returning to the original script for a responsible re-write.

Recommended with Reservations

Purpose:

Purpose of resource is clearly stated in title or introduction

 Yes

If not, please explain:

Organization:

Resource is well-organized and major points are presented clearly. Resource does not assume that reader has background information.

Yes

If not, please give specific examples:

Although the material provides some background for the topics presented and a small instructor glossary, it assumes that instructors have the background to adequately teach food safety and answer any student questions that may arise as a result of these lessons. To address this, the program does offer three-hour Regional Training Workshops for the SOS Curriculum. However, three hours of instruction on how to teach these lesson plans cannot replace a solid background in teaching, sciences, and food safety that would be needed to competently administer this program to the targeted audience. Classroom preparation for Lesson 1 includes sending a letter to all parents, but does not mention arranging for the speakers on food safety. It is important to know what the speakers will cover prior to the class session. Also, the lesson plan suggests two (or more) speakers and time for questions. All of this in the allotted 45 minutes would be a stretch to include. The lesson plan instructs the teacher to make the last observation of the "balloon blow up" activity in Lesson 4 since the experiment takes over an hour. The class time listed for this lesson plan is 45 minutes. Having the instructor record the final results of the experiment negates the ideal of student experimental discovery. In addition, several lessons are not well planned within the 45-minute lesson time allotted. For instance, the "dirty hands on the bread slice" experiment (Lesson 5) indicates that the students should observe bread slices in five to seven days. Since this is a nine-lesson consecutive day curriculum (as indicated in the script in Lesson One), the Safe or Sorry program will most likely be completed prior to the end of this experiment.

Accuracy:

Information, technical or otherwise, is accurate and recommendations are current.

If not, please give specific examples:

Please see the overall comments section.

Consistency with Current Food Code

The latest version of the Food Code is used and the information is consistent with that code.

No

If not, please give specific examples:

The material has an April 2001 copyright, but has numerous resources dated 1999. Some inconsistencies were noted in the presentation of temperatures in materials provided in the curriculum.

Learning Activities, Questions, Projects, or Interactive Learning Tools:

Resource includes a variety of stimulating and interesting learning experiences, questions, projects, or suggestions for further action that will involve the audience (e.g., an activity where the participant rates their current food safety practices).

Yes

If not, pleae give specific examples:

A variety of learning experiences are part of this program. However, some "needed" materials are not included in this curriculum: SOS Dancing Gorilla, What You Can't See Can Hurt You video, and tag boards. In addition, the tag boards are not listed in the materials needed for the lesson.

Special Interests:

Resource is geared toward special needs and interests of intended target audience(s).

Yes

If not, please explain:

Most of the curriculum seems to be age-appropriate, with some exceptions. Please see the overall comments section for specifics.

Scope:

Scope of information is appropriate for target audience(s) and essential topics are discussed in appropriate detail.

Yes

Please explain:

Most of the information seems to be appropriate for the middle-school target audience with some exceptions. The curriculum occasionally assumes that the audience is knowledgeable on some topics without further explanation. Please see the overall comments section for specifics.

Summary:

All major ideas are summarized or reviewed to reinforce key concepts; summaries are easily identified.

Yes

If not, please give specific examples:

The Lessons 7, 8, and 9 act as summaries/reviews for the previous six lessons.

Objectivity/Sponsor Bias:

Subject matter is presented objectively and fairly. No brand name is mentioned or obvious sponsor bias.

Yes

Positive Role Models:

Positive role models are provided in text and illustrations. Role models are presented as having many roles, traits, and emotions.

Yes

If not, please explain

Yes

If not, please give specific examples:

The included materials do not have any outright negative stereotypes, although multi-cultural representation is missing from the entire curriculum.

Instructional Aids:

If not needed, please explain:

Some printed instructional aids are provided, although the quality of most copies is too poor for classroom utilization. Instructor preparation listed on the lesson plans do not mention that overhead transparencies need to be copied prior to the lesson.

Availability of Aids:

If aids do not exist or are not necessary, please explain:

A handwritten note included with the curriculum mentions that the highlighted items on page five of the Leader’s Guide are included in the SOS Materials Kit. The SOS Materials Kit is not listed on the SOS Food Safety Product Order Form. The SOS Total Curriculum and Leader’s Guide listed on this order form is $25.00. There is not any mention if the Total Curriculum includes the SOS Materials Kit, or if the SOS Materials Kit is available separately, or its cost. Also, the enclosed order form does not include information on how to obtain the SOS dancing gorilla.

Instructor’s Guide:

Instructor’s guide is included with suggestions for enhancing audiovisual presentation, pre-, and post-showing. Suggestions or follow-up learning activities/discussion questions are included.

Yes

If instructor’s guide is not included, is one needed?

Please explain:

The Leader’s Guide includes materials references, food safety fact sheets, and food safety Web resources. Cross-curricular suggestions are included in the lesson binder.

Instructor Resources:

Instructor resources are included and reinforce the information provided in the curriculum.

If instructor resources are not included, should they be included to reinforce the information provided in the curriculum?

Please explain:

Please see the overall comments section.

Student Resources:

Student resources are included and reinforce the information provided in the curriculum.

Yes

If student resources are not included, should they be included to reinforce the information provided in the curriculum?

Please explain:

There are Student Activity Sheets included for some experiments and proceedings.

Credits, References, and Resources (including dates, publishers, etc.):

Complete credits, current references, date produced, and resources listed are up-to-date (credits may be on video package).

Yes

If not, please give specific examples:

Most of the information is included with the exception of some references. Please see the overall comments section.

Vocabulary is appropriate for intended audience(s).Resource minimizes use of technical terms and if used, they are defined.

Yes

If not, please give specific examples:

Most of the vocabulary seems appropriate for the target group. Some concepts are beyond the expected comprehension level of middle-school students. Some technical terms are not defined, although a student glossary is included. Please see the overall comments section.

If not, please give specific examples:

Please see the overall comments section.

Writing approach is positive, personal and involves the reader. Active voice is used most of the time.

Yes

If not, please explain:

Illustrations contribute to the resource and are on the same page as their text references.Tables and graphs are simple, easy-to-read, and in a form requiring no further explanation.

No

If not, please give specific examples:

Most of the supportive illustrations are unclear and of poor quality. Please see the overall comments section.

Illustrations contribute to the material and are on the same page as their text references.Active voice is used most of the time.

No

If not, please give specific examples:

Most of the supportive illustrations are unclear and of poor quality. Please see the overall comments section.

Resource uses a heavy weight paper and print from one side cannot be seen on the other side. Text is written in a font size greater than 11 point type, is not difficult to read, and the main body of print is not written in capital letters.

Yes

Please comment:

Color, design, and layout of resource are attractive and stimulate interest without being too busy. A good balance between print and blank space is on the page.

Yes

Please comment:

There is not any color included in the materials except for one set of posters. The lesson plan layout and design is a good balance between print and blank space on the page. The title and logo are simple and eye-catching, but only done in two colors: red and blue. More color may make the logo more captivating.

Clear headings are provided for each topic area.

Yes

If headings are not provided for each topic area, would they be helpful? Please explain: