ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Investigation of food safety perceptions, practices, and workplace policies among employees of pet and animal feed stores that sell and do not sell raw meat-based diets.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pet and animal feed store employees face numerous occupational health hazards, including exposure to pathogens from handling contaminated animal food products. This study aimed to (1) investigate knowledge, sanitation practices, and workplace policies related to handling animal food and treats among employees of pet food and animal feed retailers in the United States (US) and (2) determine whether differences exist between employees of stores that sell raw pet food products and those that do not. Methods: A survey evaluating sanitation practices, training, and knowledge of disease risk related to animal husbandry and food handling was distributed to pet and animal feed store employees across the US by the University of Tennessee Center for Agriculture and Food Security and Preparedness (CAFSP), part of the Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence. Pet and feed stores that were contacted for participation were identified by searching for stores that posted their email addresses online. Student workers and CAFSP contractors helped to identify pet and feed stores in their area and distribute surveys, which were disseminated via email, mail, and hand-delivery. Chi-square tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess differences between employees of stores that sold raw pet food and those that did not. Results: Two hundred and six surveys were completed by employees of pet and animal feed stores in the 15 states, located in the Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and Western US. Overall, just 25.3% (95% CI, 19.7, 31.7%) of respondents had received training on disease risk related to handling animal food. Compared to employees of stores that did not sell raw food, those who worked at raw food retailers had significantly higher perceived risk of illness ( Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate a need for ongoing training and outreach regarding food safety practices and zoonotic and foodborne disease risk among animal feed store employees. Stores should implement clear workplace hygiene policies and expand employee training and customer education to improve food safety standards and minimize disease risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.