Research project

Reusing a chopping board after preparing meat, fish and poultry

Area of research interest: Behaviour and perception

Project status: Completed

Date published: 31 October 2023

Reusing a chopping board after preparing meat, fish and poultry (446.12 KB)

Summary

Kitchen Life 2 explored meal occasions that involved the preparation of both raw and cooked meat, fish and poultry (MFP). Where quantitative data from filming is reported (where video footage has been coded and counted), the results include both cooked and raw MFP. In qualitative elements of the study (case studies, behavioural analysis) the results focus purely on raw MFP. “Raw” or “raw/cooked” are clearly stated throughout this chapter.

In households, 140 meal occasions involved the use of a chopping board to prepare meat, fish and poultry (MFP) (raw/cooked). Of these, a fifth (28) involved the chopping board being washed with detergent during the meal occasion, with the same number (28) involving the chopping board being washed with water only. There was often a considerable time gap (in certain instances overnight) between households preparing MFP (raw/cooked) on a chopping board and washing the chopping board. Consequently, it was not possible to always observe whether or when a chopping board was washed.

For food business operators (FBOs), 131 meal occasions involved the use of a chopping board to prepare MFP (raw/cooked). Of these, a sixth (21) involved the chopping board being washed with detergent during the meal occasion, with a third (38) involving the chopping board being washed with water only. In interviews, FBOs claimed to remove chopping boards from the filming area after use and wash the chopping board in a dishwasher (though this could not be observed).

The reuse of an unclean chopping board that had been used to prepare MFP (raw/cooked) and then to chop any other food group was observed on 25 occasions in FBOs and 25 occasions in households. However, its reuse to prepare foods that do not require cooking (such as salads) was not commonly observed.

Additionally, a range of kitchen items were often placed on unclean chopping boards after their use. This included plates, saucepans and utensils. Cross-contamination risks may result from this contact.

Reusing the same chopping board for raw meat, fish and poultry (MFP) and other foods can present a significant risk of microbiological cross-contamination if the chopping board is not thoroughly washed between uses.

Overall, the key influences affecting whether households reused a chopping board after preparing raw MFP included:

whether the sink was cluttered with other items, preventing the chopping board from being washed. This was an enabler of reusing the chopping board without it being thoroughly cleaned (Physical Opportunity).
having permissive social norms on leaving washing up until a later time, which enabled the reuse of the chopping board (Social Opportunity).

These were reinforced by the following contextual factors^(footnote):

beliefs about the consequences of foodborne illness arising from not washing a chopping board. This was both an enabler and a barrier to reusing a chopping board (Reflective Motivation).
being distracted while cooking or tired when cleaning, which enabled the reuse of a chopping board (Automatic motivation).

Overall, the key influences affecting whether FBOs reused chopping boards after preparing raw MFP included:

the use of chopping boards dedicated solely to the preparation of raw MFP, which enabled their reuse (Physical opportunity).
varied understanding of the need to thoroughly wash and disinfect chopping boards before and after use when preparing raw MFP, which was both a barrier and enabler to reusing a chopping board (Psychological capability).

These were reinforced by the following contextual factors^(footnote):

beliefs about cross-contamination risks associated with chopping boards used only for raw MFP, which were commonly wiped down with cloths rather than washed between uses. This acted to enable the reuse of a chopping board without thorough washing (Reflective motivation).
staff not being conscious of how chopping boards were used after preparing raw MFP. This increased the likelihood of other items being placed upon them and was an enabler of reuse (Automatic motivation).

Behaviours to target for potential interventions

In both households and FBOs, the desired practice (that is, the behaviour that households and FBOs should do to improve food safety) is to immediately and thoroughly wash chopping boards after preparing raw MFP with a detergent.

In households, enabling the washing of a chopping board immediately after handwashing when preparing raw MFP could be an area of focus for future interventions research. Specifically, the intervention could reframe the preparation of raw MFP as a single task, with behaviours for effective handwashing and thoroughly washing a chopping board undertaken immediately after this. Clustering handwashing and chopping board cleaning behaviours make them easier to remember and perform. Immediate cleaning also manages the risk and prevents reuse (by removing the chopping board from the worksurface).

In FBOs, enabling the washing of chopping boards in a dishwasher immediately after use would be an area of focus for behavioural interventions because dishwasher use was a common occurrence in FBOs. The use of the dishwasher is optimal for managing cross-contamination risk, as it prevents reuse (again by removing the chopping board from the worksurface) and promotes prompt washing. Enabling businesses to invest in more than one red or blue board would be needed to ensure chopping boards could be regularly washed. The use of dishwashers could also be considered in households, but as KL2 did not explore the barriers and enablers of dishwasher use in households, further research would be required as households were more likely than FBOs to use wooden chopping boards (which may not be suitable for dishwasher use).

Background

Reusing the same chopping board for raw MFP and other foods can present significant risks for microbiological cross-contamination if the board is not thoroughly washed between uses^(footnote). The literature review conducted as part of the Kitchen Life 2 (KL2) project explored behaviours around the use of chopping boards in households and FBOs.

The literature review found that 50% of households reported that they did not use or rarely used a designated chopping board for the preparation of raw meat^(footnote). Where only one chopping board was used, it frequently was not properly decontaminated, in terms of washing with a detergent and drying^(footnote). In a study on microbial contamination in FBO kitchens, chopping boards were found to have the highest microbial load compared to other surfaces in the kitchen^(footnote). Additionally, this study identified that there was limited separation of chopping boards between meat and vegetable preparation.

In the KL2 study, using the same chopping boards for MFP and other foods was one of the highest risks identified by the FSA risk assessment team. During KL2 observations, chopping boards were used in a variety of ways that could increase the risk of cross-contamination (beyond using them for other foods). Consequently, the reuse of a chopping board without washing after preparing MFP was selected as a priority behaviour to explore in depth.

This chapter uses the KL2 data to understand practices around the reuse of chopping boards after preparing MFP, the factors affecting this and identifies behaviours that could be the focus of future behavioural interventions research.

FSA guidance on using chopping boards

FSA guidance on the safe use of chopping boards for households highlights the need to use different chopping boards for raw and cooked food and to wash chopping boards thoroughly between tasks. Guidance for households on cleaning chopping boards explains the need to wash the board with warm, soapy water; with the lather and physical motion used to detach the bacteria from the surface of the board.

FSA guidance for FBOs on avoiding cross-contamination from chopping boards includes the need to clean and disinfect chopping boards before and after raw food preparation. Additionally, guidance in ‘Safer Food, Better Business’ (separate guidance is available to FBOs in Northern Ireland) highlights the need to use dedicated colour-coded chopping boards and utensils for raw versus other foods. Additionally, it is advised to prepare raw foods in separate areas of the kitchen where possible, and where not possible, to separate them by preparing them at different times.

Kitchen Life 2: Findings for households

This section of the report presents quantitative and qualitative findings from households during the KL2 study. Where “MFP” is referred to in quantitative findings from filming (where behaviours have been coded and counted, based on video footage) this includes both raw and cooked MFP, and this is stated clearly. Qualitative findings, based on reviewing individual sections of footage for behavioural analysis (such as case studies) and interviews are specific to raw MFP only, and “raw” is clearly stated. Findings from a survey conducted with households are also included.

Further information about the coding of raw and cooked MFP is available in the KL2 technical report.

Quantitative observations from filming

In the sample of 70 households, the vast majority (69 households) prepared MFP (raw/cooked) on at least one meal occasion. Specifically, there were 308 meal occasions that involved using MFP (raw/cooked), of which 140 involved a chopping board^(footnote) ^(footnote).

Of the 140 meal occasions that involved the use of a chopping board to prepare MFP (raw/cooked)^(footnote):

20% (28 occasions) involved the board being washed with detergent at some point during the meal occasion^(footnote)
20% (28 occasions) involved the board being washed with water only at some point during the meal occasion
14% (20 occasions) involved no kitchen item (including a chopping board) being washed within 45 minutes from the beginning of the meal occasion^(footnote).

There was often a considerable time gap (in certain instances overnight) between households preparing MFP (raw/cooked) on a chopping board and the chopping board being washed. As analysis of filmed footage was not always undertaken on consecutive days, it was not possible to track whether or when all chopping boards were washed.

While the reuse of the same chopping board for raw and foods that do not require cooking (such as salads) without washing the chopping board was not often observed, placing other items on the board without the chopping board being cleaned was more common – this included kitchen utensils, pots and pans, and plates. This reuse of a chopping board presented a risk of cross-contamination.

A statistical analysis was undertaken of occasions where a chopping board was used but not observed to be washed with or without detergent. In households, this was:

most likely to occur on a Sunday from 2–8 pm, as meat was more likely to be prepared and cooked on this day
correlated^(footnote) with not washing hands after preparing MFP (raw/cooked) (r=0.489). This means that participants who did not wash chopping boards were significantly more likely to also not wash their hands after preparing MFP (raw/cooked).

Factors influencing reusing a chopping board after preparing raw MFP in households

Summary

Overall, the factors that influenced whether households reused a chopping board after prepping raw MFP without washing it included whether the sink was cluttered, being distracted while cooking, or tired when cleaning, and having permissive social norms around leaving washing up until a later time. The behaviour was enabled in a few households by beliefs about the limited consequences of foodborne illness arising from not washing a chopping board. A summary of COM-B factors is shown below.

Figure 1: Summary of COM-B factors influencing the reuse of a chopping board after preparing raw MFP in households

Capability

Physical: Physical capability was not a factor. All participants in the KL2 study said they were physically capable of washing a chopping board. Therefore, the physical capability to perform related cleaning behaviours was not a factor influencing the reuse of a chopping board.

Psychological: Knowledge concerning safe chopping board practices was good and helped to prevent reusing a chopping board. Participants knew that reusing the same chopping board presented a risk of food poisoning. They also knew that they should wash or use separate chopping boards for raw MFP and other foods. Knowledge was an enabler of washing the chopping board and therefore helped to prevent reusing the chopping board without washing it.

Opportunity

Physical: Crowded sinks were a moderate enabler of reusing a chopping board. While households had access to a sink and detergent to wash chopping boards, when cooking, sinks occasionally became cluttered with other items, which enabled the reuse of chopping boards.

Social: Social norms both helped to prevent and enable reuse. There was generally a practice in each household of either washing chopping boards directly after use or leaving the chopping board unwashed for a period after the meal. This was irrespective of the member of the household preparing the meal, suggesting the practice was driven by norms. Chopping boards left unwashed enabled their reuse.

Motivation

Reflective: Beliefs about the risks of re-use both helped to prevent and enable the behaviour. Beliefs about the consequences of reusing a chopping board were an important factor influencing the behaviour. Different risks were associated with different types of raw meat and different chopping board materials, which in turn influenced whether a board was washed or reused.

Automatic: Affective processes and tiredness influenced the behaviour. Disgust, triggered by sensorial cues such as the smell of raw MFP, acted to enable the washing of chopping boards. Being tired enabled chopping boards to be reused without thorough cleaning.

Detailed findings

Physical capability

The physical capability to perform cleaning or related behaviours such as changing a dirty chopping board were not factors influencing the reuse of a chopping board. All participants in the KL2 study said they were physically capable of washing a chopping board or replacing a board. While skin conditions were noted as an issue for certain participants in terms of washing hands with soap, this was not specifically raised as a barrier to washing chopping boards.

Psychological capability

Household participants had a good understanding of the risks of reusing a chopping board after preparing raw MFP, and how to clean a chopping board. Consequently, psychological capability was an enabler of washing chopping boards and therefore helped to prevent reusing the chopping board without washing.

Interview participants noted the need to clean chopping boards using hot water and detergent and to scrub the board. While dishwashers were present in several households (see physical opportunity) most chopping boards were washed by hand.

Physical opportunity

Physical opportunity had a moderate influence on when households washed a chopping board after preparing raw MFP, which in turn enabled their reuse.

All household kitchens had sinks and washing-up liquid and, while many households also had dishwashers, most participants washed chopping boards by hand.

Sinks were observed to become cluttered with pans and utensils during cooking, which may have influenced the ability to wash a chopping board after use, as there was physically less space in the sink to wash the chopping boards effectively. Therefore, unwashed chopping boards were either left in the sink or left on the countertop. For chopping boards left out, it was common for other items (such as saucepans, plates or cutlery) to be placed on the chopping board during the cooking process, presenting a risk of cross-contamination.

While several households reported having more than one chopping board, the practice of using a dedicated board to only prepare raw MFP was very limited. In interviews, one of the main reasons given for not using different chopping boards for specific purposes was related to convenience and ease. In short, it was easier to wash and/or reuse the same board rather than fetch another.

So I try and use, you know, the separate chopping boards. Though if I’m being perfectly honest… Like, I’m chopping a lot of stuff. I used the chopping board… I’ll chop the chicken, you know, and I’ll do it. And I’ll just wash that chopping board. And then just use it again. Say for the vegetables.

Male, 26–40 years, Black, socio-economic group C2DE, lives alone

Social opportunity was both a barrier and an enabler of chopping board reuse. Social norms around cleaning were particularly influential. Households were observed to fall into two groups: those that commonly washed chopping boards after use (either while the meal was cooking or immediately after the meal) and those that would leave the washing up until a later time. This was irrespective of the individual household member preparing the meal, suggesting a social influence. In interviews, the group of households who left washing up until a later time were less concerned about the ‘hygienic look’ of the kitchen.

Despite these broad social norms, participants were not observed to discuss chopping board reuse. Most raw MFP preparation was undertaken by someone alone in the kitchen, limiting the scope for discussion. Where another person was present in the kitchen, such discussions were not observed. Similarly, discussions concerning the washing of a chopping board, or the use of separate chopping boards, were also not observed.

Reflective motivation

Reflective motivation was an important influence on the reuse of chopping boards, acting both as an enabler of the behaviour and also discouraging the reuse of chopping boards.

In the survey, 9 in 10 household participants (62 out of 70) identified a higher-than-average risk of getting a foodborne disease from reusing chopping boards after preparing raw MFP, whilst 4 said there was an ‘average risk’ and 4 said there was a ‘slight’ risk (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Understanding of risks concerning the reuse of a chopping board in households (base size =70)

A bar chart to show the perceived risk from the reuse of a chopping board by households

Overall from the interviews, chopping boards were commonly identified by participants as one of the main kitchen items that posed a risk of microbiological cross-contamination – with chopping boards associated with being a ‘breeding ground for germs’.

Chopping boards are hotbeds of germs if not cleaned.

Male, 41–60 years, White, socio-economic group ABC1, lives alone

However, specifically from the interviews, participants broadly fell into one of 3 groups:

participants who were very concerned about risks arising from not thoroughly cleaning a board after preparing raw MFP.
participants who were moderately concerned, with greater concern expressed about the risk to children rather than themselves.
participants who saw little risk of getting ill from reusing a chopping board without thorough cleaning.

The beliefs about the consequences of not thoroughly cleaning a chopping board were especially influential to the way participants were categorised.

One reason the survey results are notably different from the interview results is that often in self-report questionnaires response bias is present, in which participants have a tendency to answer questions in a way that presents themselves as knowledgeable or sociably acceptable, even if this does not match their behaviour.

In the interviews participants who were very concerned about the consequences of foodborne illness arising from not cleaning a chopping board after preparing raw MFP were a small but notable group in the sample. In interviews, these participants claimed they would very thoroughly clean a board immediately after use. Participants were observed to clean and disinfect the chopping boards, including by using antibacterial sprays and boiling water. This group were not observed to reuse the chopping board. Additionally, a few participants also mentioned avoiding the use of chopping boards altogether when preparing raw meat, due to cross-contamination concerns. Rather, participants would chop MFP in the food packaging or directly in their hand, rather than use a chopping board.

I don’t chop meat on the chopping board. I just kind of hold it and cut it. I’ve only got one board.

Female, 41–60 years, Black, socio-economic group C2DE, lives with friends

Participants who were moderately concerned often expressed beliefs about the likelihood of illness for children (especially) or others in the household arising from the reuse of chopping boards, rather than themselves. This risk was seen to emerge from poor cleaning practices, and in interviews, these participants said they made a conscious effort to wash the board after use (though this was not always observed, due to factors such as tiredness, discussed below). This group would occasionally reuse a chopping board.

Participants who saw less risk of getting ill from not thoroughly cleaning chopping boards were a small but notable group in the sample. Specifically, they believed the risk was minor compared with consuming undercooked meats, meaning it was ‘not vital’ to wash the board. In a few instances, participants believed that they were unlikely to get ill as they had a ‘strong constitution’ or that ‘germs’ on chopping boards were a good way of building immunity. This group would commonly reuse a chopping board.

I would chop the veg on the same chopping board as the meat, I’ve got absolutely no qualms about it. I have an extremely strong constitution.

Female, 26–40 years, White, socio-economic group ABC1, lives with friends

In addition to beliefs about the need to thoroughly wash a chopping board, there were different beliefs about risks resulting from preparing different meats, which influenced the reuse of a chopping board. White meats (especially chicken) were thought to pose the highest risk, followed by red meats and then fish. In a few instances, the perceived need to clean the chopping board was seen as proportionate to this risk from different foods.

Chicken and turkey and pork are the scary meats – if any of them touched a chopping board, I would wash it more vigorously than if it had touched other meat.

Male, 41–60 years, White, socio-economic group C2DE, lives with partner

There were also different beliefs about the consequences of foodborne illness arising from chopping boards made of different materials. Generally, wooden chopping boards were seen as posing a greater risk for cross-contamination (‘as they are porous to meat juices’). Whereas plastic chopping boards were cited by participants as being relatively hygienic compared to wooden chopping boards. One participant mentioned that scratches on the surface of glass chopping boards were a potential area for germs to harbour. Due to limitations in how observational data was coded (which did not include the material of the board), it was not possible to establish the influence of these beliefs on chopping board reuse.

Automatic motivation

Automatic motivation, specifically affective processes such as disgust, encouraged washing and acted as a barrier to the reuse of chopping boards without cleaning. Whereas emotional factors such as tiredness prevented chopping boards from being cleaned immediately or effectively and acted as an enabler of chopping board reuse.

In terms of affective processes such as disgust, visual signs such as blood and gristle or sensorial cues such as the smell of fish on a chopping board were claimed in interviews to prompt the boards to be washed. Visible stains also prevented the reuse of chopping boards. Such sensorial cues were cited less frequently than the ‘ickiness and hand feel’ that prompted handwashing behaviour.

In terms of emotional factors, participants were often tired and ‘running on autopilot’ when doing the cleaning up, and in such instances, participants were observed to wash chopping boards quickly and not very thoroughly, if at all. This implies tiredness is a barrier to washing the chopping board thoroughly with detergent. Tiredness also meant that washing up was left until the following day. Tiredness enabled the reuse of chopping boards without thorough washing.

If I’m rushing with the dishes, sometimes I wash it. But sometimes I don’t. I know I should wash the board when it’s had chicken on it and stuff. But I don’t.

Female, 26–40 years, White, socio-economic group C2DE, lives family

Case Study

Reusing a chopping board after preparing raw MFP in households

Name: Stephen
Age group: 18–25 years
Household composition: Lives with a friend, no children

Stephen lives in London with his flatmate Sam. Stephen has several jobs, is quite busy and doesn’t have many set routines. He describes himself as ‘loyal, entertaining and loud’ and his life as a ‘madness wagon’. Stephen and Sam like to entertain and often have friends around to the house. Stephen likes to have variety in his diet and will generally plan a few different meals. He is particularly fond of a traditional Sunday roast and will try to cook one at least a couple of times a month.

Stephen tries to keep on top of cleaning the kitchen and says both he and Sam are generally ‘pretty good’ at cleaning up quickly after a meal. They also have ‘cleaning days’ where the kitchen is given a more thorough scrub. Stephen has a good understanding of food hygiene and says that it is important to wash hands, as well as to wash chopping boards and knives, when preparing raw meats.

Stephen’s kitchen is small and rectangular. There is easy access to a sink and washing-up liquid, and there is a small area of counter space where food is chopped.

On one occasion, Stephen is entertaining friends and preparing a meal for them. He chops raw chicken on a wooden chopping board. After he finishes chopping the chicken, he puts it into a dish and places the dish in the oven. He then places the chopping board and spatula into the sink but does not clean them. Although others are not in the kitchen, Stephen talks to people through the door. He then washes his hands with hand soap and leaves the kitchen while the chicken cooks in the oven.

About 20 minutes later, he comes back into the kitchen and removes the unwashed board from the sink, placing it onto the drainage area. He then places a clean pan on top of the chopping board. After using the pan to cook, he moves the board across to the other side of the kitchen, putting dinner plates for serving onto the unwashed board.

About 40 minutes after finishing the meal, Sam comes in to do the washing up. He washes the wooden board for less than a minute with hot water, detergent and a sponge (which is also used to clean plates). He first uses a sponge before selecting a small scourer to remove the chicken flesh from the wooden board. The sponge and scourer used to clean the chopping board are also used to wash other items. They are not observed to be cleaned after use.

Analysis of Stephen’s behaviour

The influences on Stephen’s behaviour primarily concern automatic motivation and physical opportunity, with both factors enabling the reuse of the board. While Stephen understands it is very important to clean chopping boards thoroughly after preparing raw meats due to the risk of food poisoning (psychological capability), he is distracted by friends when cooking, does not seem conscious of this risk in the moment, or attentive to the previous uses of the chopping board (automatic motivation). A lack of counter space results in placing items on top of the unwashed chopping board (physical opportunity). Cleaning is undertaken by Stephen’s flatmate (social opportunity), which is a barrier to Stephen washing the board immediately after use.

Identifying behaviours for interventions (households)

In reviewing the KL2 findings, generally, participants were not reusing a board to chop vegetables or other foods that do not require cooking (such as salads) after preparing meat (though this was occasionally observed). Instead, a notable risk of cross-contamination in households was from chopping boards not being cleaned thoroughly after use, and having a variety of other non-food items placed upon them.

After KL2 fieldwork was completed, a workshop was held with experts in food hygiene and the behavioural sciences to discuss the COM-B influences on each of the KL2 priority behaviours. In the workshop, experts discussed the findings from KL2 to explore the ‘problem behaviours’ that occurred in kitchens and then considered the ‘desired practice’; that is, the behaviour that households and FBOs should do to improve food safety. In this case, the desired practice is for individuals in households to immediately and thoroughly wash chopping boards after preparing raw MFP.

Once the ‘desired practice’ was established, the workshop then explored the specific behaviours to target, in order to encourage the desired practice. Each of these specific behaviours is explored in more detail below. It should be noted that the workshop was not designed to explore behavioural interventions, as this was outside of the scope of KL2. These specific target behaviours could be used in future research, for the development of behavioural interventions.

Specific behaviours to target to achieve the desired practice:

Enabling people to immediately and thoroughly wash chopping boards after preparing raw MFP

KL2 observations show participants were commonly distracted when preparing a meal, and (when attentive) were more focused on cooking, rather than cleaning behaviours. These automatic motivation factors make new cleaning behaviours hard to establish.
the potential to reuse an unwashed chopping board results from it not being washed immediately after use. Interventions therefore need to focus on the timing, as well as the practice of washing.
experts in the workshop believed that linking the washing of a chopping board to interventions that enable handwashing behaviours after the preparation of raw MFP could be effective. specifically, undertaking these cleaning behaviours at the same time makes them easier to remember and perform as one task.
the intervention would also benefit from leveraging sensorial cues associated with the need to wash hands after prepping raw MFP, which were motivating and salient for participants.
Consequently, interventions that reframe the preparation of raw MFP as a single task, with behaviours for effective handwashing and thoroughly washing a chopping board undertaken immediately afterwards, should be a focus for the FSA.

Placing chopping boards into a dishwasher immediately after use

due to limitations in how data was coded, it was not possible to verify how frequently households used a dishwasher to wash a chopping board. However, many observations involved the washing of chopping boards by hand, even where dishwashers were present in the household.
while interventions to enable the placing of chopping boards into a dishwasher immediately after use potentially could be effective, there is no evidence from the KL2 data concerning potential barriers to this practice. One hypothesis is that participants may believe wooden chopping boards, which were commonly used by households, may not be seen as suitable to clean in a dishwasher, as the heat and water will damage the board.
it is recommended the FSA undertake more research to understand barriers and enablers to cleaning chopping boards in a dishwasher.

Using different chopping boards for MFP and other foods

while several households in the sample had more than one chopping board, KL2 observations showed that they were seldom used for a dedicated purpose. This was due to participants being busy and distracted, and the convenience of reusing the same board.
moreover, observations showed that cross-contamination risks emerged from participants placing items on an unwashed chopping board, rather than using a chopping board for raw MFP and other foods.
based on this evidence, enabling the use of different boards was not only a challenging behaviour to maintain, but was also ineffective at managing the risk from an unwashed board.
as a result, the FSA should not consider this behaviour as a priority for future interventions research.

Chopping vegetables and foods that do not require cooking (such as salads) before raw MFP

several participants claimed (during KL2 interviews) to prepare vegetables and foods that do not require cooking (such as salads) on a chopping board before preparing raw MFP.
in practice, KL2 evidence showed preparation to be less organised, comprising multiple preparation behaviours, with participants often distracted during these moments. This could occasionally lead to participants chopping other ingredients after raw MFP was prepared.
as noted above, cross-contamination risks also emerged from participants placing items on an unwashed chopping board, rather than using a chopping board for raw MFP and other foods.
based on this evidence, enabling the use of the same chopping board at separate times was a challenging behaviour to maintain, and ineffective at managing the risk from an unwashed chopping board.
as a result, the FSA should not consider this behaviour a priority for future intervention research.

Kitchen Life 2: Findings for FBOs

This section of the report presents quantitative and qualitative findings from filming in FBOs during the KL2 study. Where “MFP” is referred to in quantitative findings from filming (where behaviours have been coded and counted, based on video footage) this includes both raw and cooked MFP, and this is stated clearly. Qualitative findings, based on reviewing individual sections of footage for behavioural analysis (such as case studies) and interviews are specific to raw MFP only, and “raw” is clearly stated. Findings from a survey conducted with FBOs are also included.

Further information about the coding of raw and cooked MFP is available in the KL2 technical report.