Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
[page 20] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716]
Evaluating food safety knowl-
edge and practices among
Saudi women in Al-Ahsa
Region, Saudi Arabia
Fahad Al-Asmari,1 Ahmed I.H. Ismail2,3
1Department of Food Science and
Nutrition, College of Agriculture and
Food Sciences, King Faisal University,
Al-Hofuf, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of
Agribusiness and Consumer Sciences,
College of Agriculture and Food
Sciences, King Faisal University, Al-
Hofuf, Saudi Arabia; 3Rural Community
and Agric. Extension Department,
College of Agriculture, Ain Shams
University, Egypt
Abstract
Foodborne illnesses are responsible for
about half a million deaths annually, of
which 30% occur among kids. This study
aimed to assess the current food safety
knowledge and practice level of Saudi
women in Al-Ahsa region, Saudi Arabia. A
cross-sectional study was conducted through
personal interviews among 239 Saudi
women. The questionnaire consisted of
close-ended questions covering different
aspects of food safety knowledge and prac-
tices at home and during shopping.
Descriptive analyses were used to identify
the level of participant’s awareness, and the
scores were shown in three categories (good
– fair – poor) based on their food safety
knowledge and practice awareness. The
effect of socio-demographic characteristics
and their correlation to food safety knowl-
edge and practices was conducted using Chi-
square analysis. The results about food safety
knowledge showed that around 50% of par-
ticipants achieved a good score, and 37.5%
achieved a fair score, while 12.5% achieved
a poor score. In comparison, the participants
achieved 75% good score, whereas 12.5%
achieved both fair and poor in food safety
practices. The results also highlighted a sig-
nificant correlation (P<0.05) between level
of food safety knowledge, practices of partic-
ipants and their age, marital status, work sta-
tus, and educational level, while there’s no
correlation with their family size and total
income. Although, the overall result showed
good level in food safety knowledge and
slightly less in food safety practices among
Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa region, con-
tinuous education, training, awareness, and
motivation are highly recommended to
improve women’s knowledge and practices
to higher levels.
Introduction
Food safety is a major concern for con-
sumers, food service suppliers, and govern-
mental authorities. Foodborne illnesses,
also known as food poisoning, are a global
health issue that affects people in developed
and underdeveloped countries. It has been
recognized by the World Health
Organization (WHO) as a globally foremost
public health threat in the 21st century. The
WHO states that foodborne illnesses are
responsible for over 600 million cases and
420,000 deaths annually (WHO, 2017).
About 30% of deaths occur among kids due
to their immature immune system and lower
body weight. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated
that foodborne illnesses strike an estimated
48 million Americans, of which 3000 die
annually. The prevalence of food-related ill-
nesses has also become one of the most sig-
nificant factors affecting the global econo-
my. The global productivity loss caused by
foodborne illnesses is estimated to be
around US$ 95.2 billion annually (Bank,
2018) . In the United States the estimated
cost of food safety outbreaks on food busi-
nesses or companies is about US$15.5 bil-
lion every year (Hoffman et al. 2015).
Salmonellosis caused by Salmonella
species was found to be responsible for
31% of all reported outbreaks, 18.8% due to
bacterial toxins, 10.1%, and 27.1% caused
by unknown agents (Jevšnik et al., 2013).
The previous figures may not reflect the
mass of global unreported household out-
breaks that occur daily (Farahat et al.,
2015). Improper handling of food at home
can lead to various foodborne illnesses such
as diarrhea, fever, sore throat or flu (Usfar
et al., 2010). In 2010, the CDC reported that
about 21% of the foodborne illness cases
they investigated were caused by food con-
sumed in a private home (Parra et al.,
2014). In Europe, most of the foodborne
outbreaks are caused by improper handling
of food at home, followed by restaurants,
cafes, hotels, and schools (EFSA, 2011).
Housewives play a vital role in reducing the
toll of foodborne illness (Fischer et al.,
2007). Several reports measuring con-
sumers’ food safety knowledge, attitudes,
and personal hygiene practices showed the
role of households in reducing foodborne
illness outbreaks (Angelillo et al., 2001;
Ayaz et al., 2018; Hillers et al., 2003;
Kagan et al., 2002; Redmond & Griffith,
2003; Unusan, 2007). Previous studies have
shown that the increasing number of food-
borne illnesses is linked to the lack of
hygienic food handling practices at home
(Ahmed, 2015; Hassan et al., 2018; Young
& Waddell, 2016). Also, it has been indicat-
ed that about 50 to 87% of reported food
poisoning incidents happened at home due
to lack of education and food safety aware-
ness (Ayaz et al., 2018). Therefore, educa-
tion and hands-on training for housewives,
who are mainly responsible for preparing
food at home, is crucial.
In 2018, the ministry of health in Saudi
Arabia, reported that 176 foodborne illness
cases occurred at home, mostly between
children. The report pointed out the increase
in foodborne incidents at home by 65%
Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; volume 12:10716
Correspondence: Fahad Al-Asmari,
Department of Food Science and Nutrition,
College of Agriculture and Food Sciences,
King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Ahsa
31982, Al-Hofuf, Saudi Arabia.
Tel.: +966135895747.
E-mail: falasmari@kfu.edu.sa
Key words: Food safety; Foodborne illnesses;
Food knowledge; Food practices; Saudi
women; Al-Ahsa region.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like
to thank King Faisal University for supporting
this research.
Contributions: FA, AI, conceptualization; AI,
methodology; FA, AI, formal analysis; FA, AI,
investigation; AI, writing - original draft pre-
paration; FA, writing - review and editing. All
authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no
potential conflict of interest.
Funding: This research was funded by the
Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at
King Faisal University under (Ambitious
Researcher) track with project No.
GRANT258.
Received for publication: 4 July 2022.
Revision received: 14 January 2023.
Accepted for publication: 16 January 2023.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
©Copyright: the Author(s), 2023
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716
doi:10.4081/ijfs.2023.10716
Publisher's note: All claims expressed in this arti-
cle are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the edi-
tors and the reviewers. Any product that may be
evaluated in this article or claim that may be
made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Non-commercial use only
[Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716] [page 21]
between 2014 and 2018. The main cause of
foodborne illnesses was Salmonellosis
(61.11%) followed by Escherichia coli
(28.5%), Staphylococcus aureus (6.1%) and
lastly Shigellosis (5.1%) (MOH, 2018).
Similar studies were carried out all over
the cities in Saudi Arabia to assess food
safety knowledge, practices, and behaviors
of women (Arfaoui et al., 2021; Ayad et al.,
2022; Ayaz et al., 2018; Farahat et al.,
2015). However, there was no study con-
ducted on Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa
region. This research evaluates the current
food safety knowledge and practices among
Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa region, and
the factors affecting food safety handling.
Materials and Methods
Questionnaire design
Close-ended questionnaire with multi-
ple-choice questions was performed on 239
Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa region
(Eastern province, Saudi Arabia). The ques-
tionnaire survey was adopted by validated
questionnaire used in previous studies with
modification (Arfaoui et al., 2021; Farahat
et al., 2015; Naeem et al., 2018; Unusan,
2007). Each questionnaire took about 25
minutes to complete. The original question-
naire version was written in Arabic, then it
was carefully translated into English. All
participants were informed that no names or
any other identifier would be collected or
used in the reports. The questionnaire con-
sisted of three distinctive domains: socio-
demographic, food safety knowledge, and
food safety practices. All questions were
designed to assess the level of food safety
knowledge and practices and to identify the
factors affecting food safety handling
behaviors of participants. The themes of
questions were personal hygiene, storage
temperature, reheating leftover food, shop-
ping behavior, cross-contamination, thaw-
ing raw meat. Irrelevant and unclear ques-
tions were not included. The results were
categorized into three levels (good – fair –
poor) based on the value of each question.
Data collection
This survey was carried out on Saudi
women living in Al-Ahsa region.
Approximately 300 Saudi women were
questioned, only 239 women (about 80%)
fully responded to all given questions, while
the rest was excluded. The survey was con-
ducted between 2021 and early 2022
through personal interviews by three mas-
ter’s students from King Faisal University.
The interviews were conducted at different
shopping malls.
Data analysis
The socio-demographic characteristics
(independent variable) of participants,
including age, marital status, educational
level, work status, family size and total
income, were collected. A variable data was
created on SPSS (version 28) and descrip-
tive statistic was used to calculate the mean
and the percentages of the responses. Non-
parametric analysis (Chi-square) was used
to identify the correlation between food
safety knowledge, practice level and the
socio-demographic characteristics. The sig-
nificance level (α) was set at P-value <0.05
for descriptive analyses. Sixteen questions
distributed on seven domains including per-
sonal hygiene, food storage, thawing raw
meat, preserving leftover food, food reheat-
ing, shopping behavior, cross-contamina-
tion were analyzed. Each question was
given a value; always 3 points, sometimes 2
points, and never 1 point, based on answer
accuracy. For each section, mean score and
standard deviation were analyzed, and the
overall results were presented in this way: i)
the score good was given for the questions
with a mean ranging between ≥2.3–3; ii) the
score fair was given for the questions with a
mean ranging between ≥1.6–˂2.3; iii) the
score poor was given for the questions with
a mean ranging between ≥1.0–˂1.6.
Results and discussion
Participants profile
The socio-demographic profile of the
239 female participants is illustrated in
Table 1. None of them were professional
food handlers or had attended food safety
training. The results revealed that the mean
age of participants was 47.8 years old. The
majority of participants (82%) were mar-
ried, and 13% were single. Most partici-
pants (55%) were unemployed and 47.2%
had a bachelor’s degree. The biggest family
size (55.2%) was six members and above.
The income ranged from 4.999 to 9.999
Saudi Arabian Riyals (SAR) (equivalent to
1,333–2,666 US$) in the majority of partic-
ipants.
Food safety knowledge among par-
ticipants
Results of overall food safety knowl-
edge level are illustrated in Table 2. Eight
questions covering personal hygiene, food
storage, preserving leftover food, and
reheating food were analyzed. In personal
hygiene questions, 82.4% of participants
answered question 1 saying that they
always wash their hands before preparing
food, while the rest do not frequently wash
their hands before preparing food. In ques-
Article
Table 1. The socio-demographic characteristics of Saudi women.
Socio-demographic characteristics Category No. participants %
Age group 19–29 66 27.6
30–39 51 21.3
40–49 89 37.2
50–59 26 10.9
60–69 7 2.9
Total 239 100
Marital Status Single 31 13
Married 196 82
Separated 7 2.9
Widowed 5 2.1
Total 239 100
Work status Employee 106 44.4
Unemployed 131 54.8
Retired 2 0.8
Total 239 100
Educational level Primary 27 11.3
Secondary 91 38.1
Bachelor 113 47.2
Postgraduate 8 3.4
Total 239 100
Family size ≤6 people 107 44.8
>6 people 132 55.2
Total 239 100
Total income (SAR) ≤4999 SAR 27 11.3
5000–9999 SAR 131 54.3
10,000–19,999 SAR 66 27.6
>20,000 SAR 15 6.3
Total 239 100
Non-commercial use only
[page 22] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716]
tion 2, about 76% of women always use
soap for washing their hands before prepar-
ing food and about 14% only use water. In
question 3, as the contact time between
hands and soap is crucial, 55.6% of them
replied that they wash their hands for less
than or equal to 10 seconds, while 36.8%
for 11 to 20 seconds. In fact, washing hands
thoroughly before preparing food or eating
for at least 15 seconds can kill approximate-
ly 99% of all living germs in our hands
(Curtis, 2008). The lack of personal hygiene
that may occur during food preparation can
lead to the transfer of food-based ailments.
A potential number of foodborne illnesses
such as diarrhea could be averted by proper
handwashing (Curtis & Cairncross, 2003).
The overall result for the knowledge of per-
sonal hygiene level was good for questions
1 and 2 with means of 2.82±5.32 and
2.65±4.84, respectively, and fair for ques-
tion 3 with a mean of 1.81±2.37.
Questions 4 and 5 were about food stor-
age behavior. In question 4, about 57% stat-
ed they always preserve meat, including
beef, lamb, chicken, and fish, under freez-
ing condition, whereas 37.2% prefer the
refrigerator. Both answers are correct (with
different point values); however, keeping
meat under freezer temperature (-18C˚)
would extend the shelf-life of meat by sup-
pressing microbial growth and maintain the
freshness of meat comparing to storing
under refrigerator temperature (Hui, 2012).
Similarly, in question 5, the majority
(65.3%) of participants prefer keeping raw
meat inside the refrigerator for more than 7
days, while 25.9% do not keep the meat
under refrigerating conditions beyond 7
days. Although, keeping raw meat in the
refrigerator could preserve it for a short
period of time, spoilage microorganism and
some pathogens will grow slowly under
refrigerating condition, resulting in serious
health risk. A study conducted on beef sam-
ples under different storage conditions
revealed that the samples stored in the
refrigerator for 14 days presented objective
sings of spoilage and were sensorially unac-
ceptable. In addition, the microbial load of
psychotropic and mesophilic bacteria was
increased from 1 log CFU/g to 5.96 and
5.30 log CFU/g respectively after 7 days of
storage under refrigerating condition
(Ercolini et al. 2006). The responses of
question 4 and 5 achieved good and fair
scores, respectively, with a mean of
2.52±4.20 and 2.17±2.87, respectively.
Question 5 was about thawing frozen
meat. More than half (53.5%) of partici-
pants leave frozen meat at room tempera-
ture until thoroughly thawed. About 35%
put the meat in warm or hot water before
cooking it. Only 12.1% of participants use
either refrigerator or microwave to thaw
frozen meat. Therefore, the score of this
response was poor with a mean of
1.59±1.43. Despite the potential risks asso-
ciated with room temperature thawing,
almost 50% of consumers still prefer to use
this method due to its simplicity. Such
behavior allows bacteria and spores to mul-
tiply and reach unacceptable level resulting
in serious health risk (Akhtar et al., 2013).
Question 7 was about preserving extra
or leftover food. Nearly 73% of participants
keep the leftover food under refrigerating or
freezing conditions, while only 9.6% keep
the remaining food at room temperature
until the next meal. Indeed, keeping cooked
food in a cold place (out of the dangerous
zone. 5-60˚C) not only maintain food qual-
ity but also prevents or reduces foodborne
illnesses. The USDA Food and Poultry Hot
Line recommendation is that leftovers or
other foods should not be left out for more
than 2 hours at room temperature (Parra et
al., 2014).The overall response in this ques-
tion scored good with a mean (2.64±4.76)
as the majority of participants follow the
ideal practice. A study carried out on two
groups of Mexican Americans living in the
U.S. assessing their food safety knowledge
and practices, revealed that most partici-
pants (74.6%) wash their hands with soap
every time before handling food. The study
also showed that 48.7% of participants thaw
the frozen meat at room temperature for 2
hours or less, and 64.3% place leftover food
at room temperature for 2 hours or less
(Parra et al., 2014).
Question 8 was about reheating food.
More than three-quarters (66.1%) reheat
food until it becomes warm (not hot). In
turn, 28.9% reheat food until it becomes
steaming hot throughout. Failure to reach
the correct temperatures could result in food
poisoning. This may be attributed to the fact
that all food contains microbes, and once
these organisms find the optimum tempera-
ture, they will rapidly grow and producing
toxins. Many microorganisms are able to
secrete toxins during improper storing, such
as Clostridium botulinum, Bacillus cereus,
and Staphylococcus aureus. Therefore, high
temperatures (steaming hot) used to reheat
food could destroy or reduce the microbial
load. Also, although some bacterial toxins
are heat-stable, exposing leftover food to
high temperature during reheating could
destroy or reduce the risk of these toxins
(Osaili et al., 2011). Thus, the question’s
response scored fair with a mean of
2.24±3.07.
Food safety practices among partici-
pants
The participants’ responses are illustrat-
ed in Table 3. There are eight questions cov-
Article
Table 2. The scores of Saudi women's responses to food safety knowledge questions.
No. Questions Response Mean Food safety
Always % Sometimes % Never % knowledge
(No.) (No.) (No.) level
1 Personal hygiene 197 82.4 42 17.6 0 0.0 2.82 (5.32) Good
2 Personal hygiene 181 75.7 33 13.8 25 10.5 2.65 (4.84) Good
3 Personal hygiene 88 36.8 18 7.5 133 55.6 1.81 (2.37) Fair
4 Food storage 137 57.3 89 37.2 13 5.4 2.52 (4.20) Good
5 Food storage 62 25.9 156 65.3 21 8.8 2.17 (2.87) Fair
6 Food thawing 29 12.1 83 34.7 128 53.6 1.59 (1.43) Poor
7 Leftover food 175 73.2 42 17.6 23 9.6 2.64 (4.76) Good
8 Reheating food 69 28.9 158 66.1 12 5.0 2.24 (3.07) Fair
Total of response 938 621 355
Total percentage 49.1% 32.5% 18.6%
Mean 3-≥ 2.3 is considered good level; Mean ˂2.3-≥1.6 is considered fair level; Mean ˂1.6-≥1.0 is considered poor level. Standard deviation is indicated between the bracket ( ).
Non-commercial use only
ering two domains; shopping behavior and
cross-contamination were analyzed.
Questions 1 to 5 were about the food safety
practices during shopping and preparing
food at home.
In question 1, about three-quarters
(80.8%) of the participants always check
food expiration dates, dented, leaking,
cracked, or bulging lid of the canned food
before purchasing the products. Whereas
the rest of them do not check for these
defects. Food containers (metal, plastic, car-
ton) observation is essential and gives a per-
ception of the food condition inside. A sim-
ilar study conducted in Kolkata, India, on
teenagers found that most participants were
concerned only about the shelf-life or safety
of the products by reading the expiration
date (Saha et al., 2013). Actually, other
studies carried out by St Everald (2002);
Verbeke, Frewer, Scholderer, and De
Brabander (2007) reported that most partic-
ipants had paid attention to the products’
brand name rather than expiration dates.
In question 2, the majority (75.7%) of
studied women always buy meat from
butchers who follow personal hygiene prac-
tices such as wearing clean clothes, gloves,
face masks, and hair cover, compared to
20.5% who do not care about the butcher’s
practices.
A report carried out by Hall, Wikswo,
Pringle, Gould, and Parashar (2014) found
that among 520 outbreaks, food handlers
were responsible for 70% of the cases. The
responsibility of controlling food handlers
usually lies with government agencies to
ensure that food sector workers follow food
safety practices. Both previous questions
scored good with means of 2.75±5.14 and
2.72±4.97, respectively.
Question 3 was about the use of insulat-
ed cooler bag while shopping. The majority
of participants (63.2%) never use a cooler
bag while shopping, and only about 18%
always use it when buying frozen items.
This option could not be essential in all
parts of the world, where it depends on the
ambient temperature. In Saudi Arabia, the
temperature could reach 50˚C during sum-
mer. Thus, a cooler bag could be essential to
keep the quality of the frozen items and pre-
vent multiplying microbes during shopping
and transferring home. The participants’
response scored poor with a mean of
1.55±1.46.
The following questions, 4 and 5, were
about proper frozen product handling dur-
ing shopping. In question 4, most partici-
pants (70%) do not care about the time of
buying frozen products during shopping,
compared to 16.7% who always buy frozen
products just before leaving the supermar-
ket. Such behavior may cause the thawing
of frozen products, especially in hot places,
resulting in food spoilage. Thus, the ques-
tion scored fair with a mean of 2.03±2.40.
In question 5, nearly 62% of partici-
pants take ≤2 hours to transport frozen
products from the supermarket until reach-
ing home. 22.2% take longer (2 to 4 hours).
The time spent transporting home frozen
products from the supermarket should be
minimized, depending on the ambient tem-
perature, time (day or night), and season
(winter or summer) to keep frozen products
safe. Thus, the responses scored good with
a mean of 2.46±4.18.
The following two questions, 6 and 7
were about cross-contamination occurring
during food preparation. Cross-contamina-
tion can occur between raw meat and
cooked or ready-to-eat food. This could
happen when contaminated hands, knives,
cutting board are used for raw and cooked
food without washing. The majority of the
participants (60.2% and 52.7%) always use
the same knives and cutting board respec-
tively, for raw meats and cooked or ready-
to-eat food and wash them thoroughly
(using a diluted bleach solution) between
uses. In comparison, 36% and 42.7% of
them always use different knives and cut-
ting boards respectively, for raw meats and
cooked food. Therefore, the highest score
was given to those who used different
knives and cutting boards of raw and
cooked food. A study carried out by Parra et
al. (2014) reported that about 58% of partic-
ipants sanitized countertops and cutting
boards with soap or bleach, while about
40% of them used a different cutting board.
Nearly 12% did not properly sanitize coun-
tertops or cutting boards.
Despite washing food preparation uten-
sils, using detergent or sanitizer during
washing could eliminate some microorgan-
isms. Some types of microbes can form a
biofilm which is quite hard to remove,
resulting in many problems in food prepar-
ing places (Wirtanen & Salo, 2016).
Generally, two sets of cutting boards and
knives should be kept in the kitchen to pre-
pare ready-to-eat and non-ready-to-eat food
products. Cross-contamination can be pre-
vented by separating the utensils used for
both types of food. If only one set of cutting
boards and knives is available, the ready-to-
eat food should be handled first, while the
non-ready-to-eat food should be thoroughly
cleaned. Both questions scored good with
means of 2.32±3.38 and 2.38±3.63, respec-
tively.
Question 8 was about cleaning the
countertops, including, sinks, taps, and
drainers, after each use. Three-quarters
(75.3%) of participants always wash the
countertop area after each use, while 7.9%
do not wash it frequently after using it. This
Article
Table 3. The scores of Saudi women's responses to food safety practices questions.
No. Questions Response Mean Food safety
Always % Sometimes % Never % knowledge
(No.) (No.) (No.) level
1 Shopping behavior 193 80.8 33 13.8 13 5.4 2.75 (5.14) Good
2 Shopping behavior 181 75.7 49 20.5 9 3.8 2.72 (4.97) Good
3 Shopping behavior 43 18.0 45 18.8 151 63.2 1.55 (1.46) Poor
4 Shopping behavior 40 16.7 166 69.5 33 13.8 2.03 (2.40) Fair
5 Shopping behavior 148 61.9 53 22.2 38 15.9 2.46 (4.18) Good
6 Cross-contamination 86 36.0 144 60.3 9 3.8 2.32 (3.38) Good
7 Cross-contamination 102 42.7 126 52.7 11 4.6 2.38 (3.63) Good
8 Cross-contamination 180 75.3 19 7.9 40 16.7 2.59 (4.70) Good
Total of response 973 635 304 - -
Total percentage 50.9% 33.2% 15.9%
Mean 3-≥ 2.3 is considered good level; Mean 2.3-≥1.6 is considered fair level; Mean 1.6-≥1.0 is considered poor level. Standard deviation is indicated between the bracket ( ).
[Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716] [page 23]
Non-commercial use only
[page 24] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716]
area can be a source of microbial infection,
causing cross-contamination to ready-to-eat
food. This question scored good with a
mean of 2.59±4.70.
Overall, most participants were aware
of the importance of personal hygiene, pre-
vention of cross-contamination, shopping
behavior and handling of leftover food.
However, although participants appeared to
realize the importance of the most signifi-
cant food safety practices, including hand
washing, they did not always implement
them during food preparation. Although
some participants knew how to avoid cross-
contamination by washing hands, knives, or
cutting board, they did not take the extra
effort to apply these relevant hygiene meas-
ures (Fischer et al., 2007).
The impact of socio-demographic
characteristics on the level of food
safety knowledge and practices
The effect of socio-demographic char-
acteristics on the level of food safety
knowledge and practices among Saudi
women living in Al-Ahsa region, using non-
parametric tests (Chi-square), is summa-
rized in Table 4. A positive and significant
correlation between age and food safety
knowledge and practices level was
observed (P<0.039). The responses of the
age group (40–49) achieved the highest
scores (good) and fair). This may be attrib-
uted to their experience compared to
younger women. A similar study carried out
on Saudi mothers revealed that women in
the age group 36–50 achieved the highest
score in food safety knowledge and prac-
tices (Ayaz et al., 2018). The correlation
between marital status, food safety knowl-
edge and practice level were significant
(P<0.001). Married women achieved the
highest level (good and fair) scores com-
pared to singles, separated, and widowed.
Moreover, work status is significantly cor-
related with food safety knowledge and
practices (P<0.037). Unemployed partici-
pants achieved the highest score (good)
because most participants (54.8%) were
unemployed. In addition, the educational
level of participants correlated significantly
with the level of food safety knowledge and
practices (P<0.001). The highest score
(good) was achieved by women who held a
bachelor’s degree (undergraduate); as most
participants (47.2%) had bachelor’s degree.
Evidently, higher food safety knowledge
and practices scores were found more in
highly educated women than in less educat-
ed ones. Education may create appositive
knowledge, practicing and awareness
among household women and protect
household members. Similar study were
conducted on household women in Pakistan
and Italy and they revealed a strong correla-
tion between high education level and posi-
tive food safety knowledge and practicing
behavior (Angelillo et al., 2001; Naeem et
al., 2018). On the other hand, no significant
correlation was observed between family
size and total income (P<0.910 and P<0.418
respectively).
Conclusion
This is the first representative survey of
the food safety knowledge and practices
among Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa
region, Saudi Arabia. This study highlight-
ed the food safety knowledge and practice
level of the women who are generally
responsible for preparing food at home.
Although participants had never attended
food safety training, the overall findings
were satisfactory in most domains. The high
knowledge of participants may be attributed
to their practical experience and educational
level since most were 47.8 years old and
held bachelor’s degrees. Nevertheless,
improper food preparation practices have
been noticed, such as using the same cutting
boards and utensils for raw and cooked
food. These tools may carry serious
pathogens causing foodborne illnesses
through cross-contamination incidents.
Also, thawing frozen meat at room temper-
ature may have a possible risk of bacterial
growth. In addition, mishandling leftover
food may lead to serious health risks. The
study concludes that there is a need for fur-
ther research to determine the possible dan-
gers that might happen during food prepara-
tion by women as they are generally the pri-
mary food preparers at home. Although the
findings showed good scores in many
domains, introducing food safety courses is
recommended for each woman. These
courses have to be free of charge to reach all
women. This can be done by establishing
effective and professional programs.
Further research may be needed to cover
more households in Al-Ahsa region to
understand in depth food safety knowledge,
practice, and behavior of household’s
women to improve food handling at home.
References
Ahmed WAM, 2015. Mothers’ Knowledge
Regarding Preventive Measures of
Food Poisoning in Yemen. Food and
Nutrition Sciences 6:49.
Akhtar S, Khan MI, Faiz F, 2013. Effect of
thawing on frozen meat quality: A com-
prehensive review. Pakistan Journal of
Food Sciences 23: 198-211.
Angelillo IF, Foresta MR, Scozzafava C,
Pavia M, 2001. Consumers and food-
borne diseases: knowledge, attitudes
and reported behavior in one region of
Italy. International journal of food
microbiology, 64:161-166.
Arfaoui L, Mortada M, Ghandourah H,
Alghafari W, 2021. Food Safety
Knowledge and Self-reported Practices
among Saudi Women. Current Nutrition
& Food Science, 17(8), 891-901.
Ayad AA, Abdulsalam NM, Khateeb NA,
Hijazi MA, Williams LL, 2022. Saudi
Arabia household awareness and
knowledge of food safety. Foods, 11(7),
935.
Ayaz WO, Priyadarshini A, Jaiswal AK,
2018. Food safety knowledge and prac-
tices among Saudi mothers. Foods,
7(12), 193.
Article
Table 4. The correlation between socio-demographic characteristics of Saudi women living in Al-Ahsa region and their food safety
knowledge and practice level.
Variables Chi-square P-value Decision
Age 16.282 0.039 Significant
Marital status 39.553 0.001 Significant
Work status 10.212 0.037 Significant
Educational level 25.937 0.001 Significant
Family size 0.209 0.901 Insignificant
Total income 6.051 0.418 Insignificant
Significant at α=.05 as P value <.05.
Non-commercial use only
[Italian Journal of Food Safety 2023; 12:10716] [page 25]
Bank W, 2018. Food-Borne Illnesses Cost
US $110 Billion Per Year in Low-and
Middle-Income Countries. In:
WorldBank Washington, DC, USA.
Curtis L, 2008. Prevention of hospital-
acquired infections: review of non-
pharmacological interventions. Journal
of Hospital Infection, 69(3), 204-219.
Curtis V, Cairncross S, 2003. Effect of
washing hands with soap on diarrhoea
risk in the community: a systematic
review. The Lancet infectious diseases,
3(5), 275-281.
EFSA, 2011. The European Union summa-
ry report on trends and sources of
zoonoses, zoonotic agents and
foodborne outbreaks in 2009. EFSA
Journal, 9(3), 2090.
Ercolini D, Russo F, Torrieri E, Masi P,
Villani F, 2006. Changes in the
spoilage-related microbiota of beef dur-
ing refrigerated storage under different
packaging conditions. Applied and
environmental microbiology, 72(7),
4663-4671.
Farahat MF, El-Shafie MM, Waly MI, 2015.
Food safety knowledge and practices
among Saudi women. Food Control, 47,
427-435.
Fischer AR, De Jong AE, Van Asselt ED,
De Jonge R, Frewer LJ, Nauta MJ,
2007. Food safety in the domestic envi-
ronment: an interdisciplinary investiga-
tion of microbial hazards during food
preparation. Risk Analysis: An
International Journal, 27(4), 1065-1082.
Hall AJ, Wikswo ME, Pringle K, Gould LH,
Parashar UD, 2014. Vital signs: food-
borne norovirus outbreaks—United
States, 2009–2012. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 63(22), 491.
Hassan HF, Dimassi H, Karam ZN, 2018.
Self-reported food safety knowledge
and practices of Lebanese food handlers
in Lebanese households. British Food
Journal.
Hillers VN, Medeiros L, Kendall P, Chen G,
Dimascola S, 2003. Consumer food-
handling behaviors associated with pre-
vention of 13 foodborne illnesses.
Journal of food protection, 66(10),
1893-1899.
Hoffman S, Maculloch B, Batz M, 2015.
Economic burden of major foodborne
illnesses acquired in the United States.
Retrieved from
Hui H, 2012. Handbook of meat and meat
processing: CRC press.
Jevšnik M, Ovca A, Bauer M, Fink R, Oder
M, Sevšek F. 2013. Food safety knowl-
edge and practices among elderly in
Slovenia. Food Control, 31(2), 284-
290.
Kagan LJ, Aiello AE, Larson E, 2002. The
role of the home environment in the
transmission of infectious diseases.
Journal of community health, 27(4),
247-267.
Naeem N, Raza S, Mubeen H, Siddiqui SA,
Khokhar R, 2018. Food safety knowl-
edge, attitude, and food handling prac-
tices of household women in Lahore.
Journal of Food Safety, 38(5), e12513.
Osaili TM, Obeidat BA, Jamous DOA,
Bawadi HA, 2011. Food safety knowl-
edge and practices among college
female students in north of Jordan.
Food Control, 22(2), 269-276.
Parra PA, Kim H, Shapiro MA, Gravani
RB, Bradley SD, 2014. Home food
safety knowledge, risk perception, and
practices among Mexican-Americans.
Food Control, 37, 115-125.
Redmond EC, Griffith CJ, 2003. Consumer
food handling in the home: a review of
food safety studies. Journal of food pro-
tection, 66(1), 130-161.
Saha S, Vemula SR, Mendu VVR,
Gavaravarapu SM, 2013. Knowledge
and practices of using food label infor-
mation among adolescents attending
schools in Kolkata, India. Journal of
nutrition education and behavior, 45(6),
773-779.
StEverald AM, 2002. Analysis of Consumer
Perceptions Toward Biotechnology and
Their Preferences for Biotech Food
Labels: Louisiana State University and
Agricultural & Mechanical College.
Unusan N, 2007. Consumer food safety
knowledge and practices in the home in
Turkey. Food Control, 18(1), 45-51.
Usfar AA, Iswarawanti DN, Davelyna D,
Dillon D, 2010. Food and personal
hygiene perceptions and practices
among caregivers whose children have
diarrhea: a qualitative study of urban
mothers in Tangerang, Indonesia.
Journal of nutrition education and
behavior, 42(1), 33-40.
Verbeke W, Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, De
Brabander HF, 2007. Why consumers
behave as they do with respect to food
safety and risk information. Analytica
chimica acta, 586(1-2), 2-7.
WHO, 2017. The burden of foodborne dis-
eases in the WHO European region.
Wirtanen G, Salo S, 2016. Biofilm risks. In
Handbook of hygiene control in the
food industry (pp. 55-79): Elsevier.
Young I, Waddell L, 2016. Barriers and
facilitators to safe food handling among
consumers: a systematic review and
thematic synthesis of qualitative
research studies. PloS one, 11(12),
e0167695.
Article
Non-commercial use only
