Beef Handling Practices Among Consumers in the U.S. Virgin Islands

S.

A B S T R A C T U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) imports more than 95% of its food.Transportation limitations throughout the territory's supply chain can make temperature control of protein foods challenging for consumers.This study aimed to characterize the beef handling practices used by consumers in USVI to determine any educational needs.Printed and online surveys (n = 620 total) were disseminated in USVI through extension agents and local media sources.Three hundred and thirty-four consumers completed a 30-question food handling questionnaire on consumption patterns and food handling from purchasing to their kitchen.Frequencies and Pearson chisquare tests of independence were performed.Beef ranked second among the different meat types consumed, 92% of consumers bought beef from grocery stores, and 55% removed beef from shelves immediately after entering the store.When shopping, 59.1% of respondents always checked the use-by/freeze-by dates of beef, 46.3% always separated beef from other foods, but only 27.5% always used insulated bags.Eighty-three percent of consumers returned home within 1 h of shopping, 92% took less than 30 min to store groceries in either a freezer or refrigerator (98%) and during power outages, 45.1% maintained cold temperatures of beef.Seventy-two percent of consumers washed their hands for more than 10 s, but 33% of those from households with a vulnerable person did not use soap to wash their hands and dried them with reusable towels.When cooking, 44.6% of consumers thawed beef within the temperature danger zone, 80.1% did not check the temperature of beef for doneness, and 34 respondents cooked hamburgers below 160°F.Future consumer food safety education initiatives in the USVI should address hand hygiene among food preparers in homes with vulnerable persons, temperature control practices by promoting the use of insulated bags, safe meat thawing techniques, and the use of thermometers during cooking.
Due to limited local food production, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) imports more than 95% of its food (Carter, 2020).In 2019, the USVI imported beef and veal that was more than 16 million US dollars' worth from the United States (Virgin, 2020).USVI has a population of 87,146 people across its three Islands of St. John, St. Thomas, and St. Croix (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).USVI has an extensive food supply chain and uses multiple means of transportation to distribute food to people on its three primary islands.This supply chain includes the use of ferries between the islands, the use of refrigerated and nonrefrigerated trucks to transport food throughout the islands, and the use of temporary storage warehouses (Nabwiire et al., 2021).USVI experiences warm temperatures ranging from 70°F to 90°F throughout the year (VInow).Such high temperatures present constraints in the cold supply chain such as the extra energy needed to keep shipping containers at cold temperatures and higher maintenance costs incurred (Redwood Logistics, 2022).During the loading and unloading operations of food trucks, food temperatures can be abused (Mercier et al., 2017), which may allow pathogenic microorganisms to thrive in foods that require temperature control for safety (TCS) such as beef.In 2018, Nabwiire et al. (Nabwiire et al., 2021) reported that temperature abuse ranked second among food safety challenges in USVI restaurants, with some restaurants receiving thawed and refrozen meat from food distribution companies.
Raw beef provides a conducive environment for the survival of pathogenic microorganisms such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Campylobacter (Heiman et al., 2015;Laufer et al., 2014;Vipham et al., 2010) and has been reported in several foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States.Between 2010 and 2017, beef ranked second across all categories of foods as vehicles in Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli outbreaks (n = 26).These outbreaks accounted for 211 illnesses and 57 hospitalizations, and ground beef was the leading implicated beef product (Tack et al., 2010).Additionally, beef prepared in a home was the leading food vehicle for Escherichia coli O157 outbreaks that occurred in the United States between 2003 and 2012 (Heiman et al., 2015).This suggests that consumers' meat handling practices can compromise the safety of food before consumption.
Although last in the farm-to-fork continuum, consumers contribute to the safety of beef, since they are involved in handling from the time beef is purchased, until it is consumed at home.The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), and nonprofit organizations such as the Partnership for Food Safety Education (PFSE) have conducted several food safety campaigns targeted to consumers.Campaigns include "Fight BAC!", "Food Safe Families", and the "Cook it Safe" campaign (Partnership for Food Safety Education, 2020; U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2017Service, , 2022)).Additionally, USDA's guide to federal food labeling requirements for meat, poultry, and egg products requires meat processing companies to include 'safe handling instructions' on labels of packaged meat and meat products (U.S.Department of Agriculture, 2007).Both campaigns and guidelines encourage consumers to keep TCS food out of temperature danger zone (between 40°F and 140°F), to clean hands and food contact surfaces properly, to cook food to the minimum recommended temperature that destroys pathogens, and to separate raw food from cooked food and from food that will not be cooked before consumption.
Despite these efforts, a study conducted in northern California revealed that of the 199 consumers who participated, 18% were confident that they could not get sick from burgers prepared at home, and many consumers thought that it is the responsibility of other stakeholders like meat packers (45%) and government agencies (30%) to ensure that ground beef is safe for consumption (Phang & Bruhn, 2011).This attitude makes consumers less vigilant in using the recommended food safety practices.Given the challenges that can come with extensive supply chains over distance and time for TCS foods in the USVI (Nabwiire et al., 2021), it is important for consumers to handle beef using practices that reduce further contamination and foodborne illnesses.At the time of this study, no research had been reported about USVI consumers' efforts in reducing foodborne illnesses at home.The purpose of this study was to determine the beef handling practices used by consumers in the USVI from shopping of raw beef to consumption, with the goal of providing a basis for developing future food safety intervention programs targeted to consumers in the USVI.

Materials and methods
This cross-sectional study was conducted in USVI including St. John, St. Thomas, and St. Croix Islands, in June and July of 2021 following approval by the Iowa State University Institutional Review Board (IRB ID 21-058).
Questionnaire development.A survey questionnaire was developed using questions modified from previous studies by other researchers (Anderson et al., 2004;Badrie et al., 2006;Jevšnik et al., 2008;Kosa et al., 2011;Lum et al., 2013;Merlino et al., 2017) on consumers' food handling behavior.Additional questions on consumers' frequency of purchasing beef and the location where they buy beef, as well as their consumption frequency of different meat types were included.Questions included multiple-choice questions and openended questions.A draft of the survey questionnaire was reviewed by five food safety and Extension faculty members at Iowa State University and University of the Virgin Islands who provided feedback on the content and organization of the survey.After minimal revision, a second draft of the questionnaire was piloted with nine USVI consumers who self-administered the survey and confirmed that the questions were clear, and that the survey was not burdensome as regards time committed to respond.The final version of the questionnaire had 30 questions, organized into five sections including purchasing practices (seven questions), storage practices (five questions), hygiene and sanitation practices (five questions), cooking practices (four questions), and demographics (nine questions).These survey questions also captured whether consumers follow the food safety principles of "clean", "cook", "chill", and "separate" that are extensively promoted in food safety campaigns in the United States.
Survey distribution.The same survey was used to collect data in this study which were in printed and online versions (Qualtrics Version XM; Qualtrics).To access the online version of the survey, researchers worked with local school administrators and extension agents to send out emails containing a link to the survey to preexisting groups of people such as parents, and farmer groups.An online advertisement containing a link to the online survey was published in a local Virgin Islands online newspaper (The Source U.S. Virgin Islands, Ananta Pancham) for 30 days.Researchers handed out printed versions of the survey questionnaire to potential participants in public places such as churches, grocery stores, restaurants, shopping malls, local events, and public gathering areas, such as ferry docks, with a printed QR code to scan and access the survey online or to fill out the printed version.Some participants completed the survey at that moment while others returned the survey to the researcher at a later time period.
Participants and inclusion criteria.The criteria to participate in this research study were persons who were 18 years or older, residents of USVI, and involvement in either purchasing or preparing beef for home consumption.A consent form with information about the purpose of the study, structure of the questionnaire, and freedom of participation along with the three screening questions was provided in both versions of the survey.Individuals who were not residents of USVI, younger than 18 years, and neither purchased nor prepared beef for home consumption were excluded from the study.
Data analysis.Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and then exported to JMP Pro 16 Statistical software for analysis.Descriptive statistics of percentages and frequencies were calculated and used to summarize participants' responses to questions.Pearson chi-square tests at 0.05 significance level were used to determine whether there were any associations between demographic variables and respondents' self-reported food safety practices.Two researchers read through the responses to each open-ended question of the survey and color-coded the responses that had a similar theme using Microsoft Word.The themes in response to open-ended questions are discussed in this paper.

Results and discussion
Demographic characteristics.A total of 334 respondents (135 from St. John, 136 from St. Thomas, 45 from St. Croix, four from both St. John and St. Thomas, and 14 did not disclose the island) participated in this study.Fifty-nine percent of participants in this study were female, 46% had a college degree, 62% were at least 41 years of age, 57% identified as Black or African American, and 97% spoke English (Table 1).The median age range of survey participants mirrors the median age of the USVI population (42 years) (Mundi, 2021).Similarly, the most dominant race and language spoken by survey participants mirror that of majority of the population of the USVI (Mundi, 2021).
Meat consumption.Different types of meat are consumed in the USVI.Based on consumption of each meat type for at least once a week, chicken was consumed by 80.8% of participants and this was followed by beef (37.0%), pork (25.3%), turkey (21.5%), goat meat (4.8%), and lamb/mutton (4.5%) (Table 2).Similar to this consumption pattern, the National Chicken Council (2021) reports that in 2021, the top four meat types consumed in the United States were chicken (98.1 pounds per person), beef (58.9 pounds person), pork (51.1 pounds per person), and turkey (15.3 pounds per person).
Beef purchasing practices.In the U.S. beef supply chain continuum, consumers' first time to handle raw beef is during shopping and purchasing of beef.This section of the survey tool (Table 3) covers consumers' shopping practices including where they purchase beef, how often they buy beef, how soon they pick up beef from the shelf when shopping, whether they check use-by/freeze-by dates, whether they separate raw beef from other items, whether they use insulated bags, and how long they take to return home after shopping.
Consumers in this study purchased beef from various locations with grocery stores as the leading (92.2%, n = 308) location.The Power of Meat study conducted by the North American Meat Institute also confirmed that in 2022, grocery stores such as clubs and supercenters and ordering online were the main ways of purchasing beef among consumers in the United States (Shaffer, 2022).
Thirty-six percent (n = 121) of respondents in this study purchased beef once a month, and the frequency of purchasing beef was strongly related to gender (p = 0.0042) with men buying beef more frequently than women, and ethnic background (p < 0.0001) with White consumers buying beef more frequently than Black/African Americans and Hispanics.Participants in this study shopped for beef less frequently than those in the Godwin and Coppings (2005)' study in which 44% shopped for TCS food once a week.Godwin and Coppings (2005) conducted their study in the mainland United States, where conditions for purchasing food may have been less restrictive than those of the USVI at the time of this study.Although groceries in the USVI are 83% more expensive than in the mainland United States (My Life Elsewhere, 2023), the low purchase frequency observed in this study could have further been brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.This study was conducted in Summer 2021, in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic that had devastated the economy of the USVI which is mainly dependent on tourism.In 2021, USVI received only 50% of the 2,074,009 tourists that had visited USVI in 2019 before the pandemic (Bureau of Economic Research United States Virgin Islands., 2021).This could have negatively impacted people's jobs and reduced their income available to buy beef whose prices had increased since the pandemic.The Power of Meat study reports that in 2022, consumers in the United States noticed an increase in the prices of meat and shopped for meat less frequently (Shaffer, 2022).
During shopping, 55.3% (n = 177) of respondents selected raw beef from the display shelf straight away when they entered the store, and the stage at which beef was picked up from the display shelf was not related to any demographic variables (gender p = 0.602; age p = 0.785; education p = 0.913; ethnic background p = 0.547).From our observations, we noticed that in the USVI, display cases are typically found closer to the entrance of the store which encourages consumers to pick up protein foods earlier in the shopping experience.When consumers must buy several items on the same trip, selecting beef from the cold shelf early at the start of shopping could expose beef to room temperatures while they continue shopping for other items.This practice of removing beef from the shelf immediately on entering the store was also reported among 86.9% of Slovenian consumers (Jevšnik et al., 2008).Griffing (2017)   beef from the shelf until they check out (pay), and that some consumers can take up to 60 min.Additionally, Griffing (2017) found that it takes 49 min for the internal temperature of ground beef in a shopping cart to exceed 4.4°C when inside a store set at a 21.2°C environmental temperature.Long time lags from picking up beef from the shelf to checking out not only increase the temperature of beef but also negatively impact the color and flavor of fresh beef (Griffing, 2017).FDA urges consumers to keep beef at 40°F or below to maximize safety (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018).At the point of selecting beef from the shelf, 46.3% (n = 149) of respondents always separated raw beef from other items and this practice was not related to any demographic variables (gender p = 0.392; age p = 0.780; education p = 0.216; ethnic background p = 0.198).Separating raw beef from other items is important for preventing the transfer of microorganisms from raw meat to ready-to-eat foods or foods that will not be cooked before consumption, and so the 21.4% (n = 69) of consumers who rarely or never separated raw beef in this study increase the risk of foodborne illnesses at their households.Separation is one of the four food safety principles promoted by the Partnership for Food Safety Education (2020).
Fifty-nine percent (n = 191) of respondents always checked the use-by/freeze-by dates of beef during shopping and the frequency was not related to any demographic variables (gender p = 0.177; age p = 0.922; education p = 0.205; ethnic background p = 0.259).These results are comparable to those from a study conducted among Slovenian consumers in which 83.9% of consumers either always or often checked the use-by/freeze-by date of perishable foods when shopping (Jevšnik et al., 2008).An IT-mediated study that involved tracking consumers' eyes during shopping also revealed that more (70.5%)consumers tend to select perishable foods with the farthest use-by/freeze-by date, while fewer (22.7%) select foods with a closer use-by/freeze-by date (Shah et al., 2016).Due to supply chain issues in the USVI territory and limited employees in grocery stores, the stocking time and removal of expired foods are often overlooked.It is important for consumers in USVI to spend some time checking the use-by/freeze-by dates of beef when shopping because the date may be fast approaching (Nabwiire et al., 2021) and this gives them an indication of how long they can store beef at the specified temperature or how soon they should use beef to maximize eating quality.
Only 27.5% (n = 89) of respondents always used insulated bags when shopping, and this was not influenced by any of the demographic variables (gender p = 0.433; age p = 0.244, education p = 0.113; ethnic background p = 0.942).Similarly, only 15.5% of Slovenian consumers used insulated bags (Jevšnik et al., 2008) when shopping.In the United States, Griffing (2017) found that 8.2% of consumers always used insulated bags when shopping for fresh red meats, while Godwin and Coppings (2005) found that only seven percent of consumers routinely used insulated bags when shopping TCS foods.Using insulated bags when shopping for perishable foods is important as it reduces the rate at which their temperature increases.The use of insulated bags when shopping for TCS foods in the United States continues to be low (<27.5%),which shows a great need for interventions to promote the use of insulated bags or other means of maintaining cold temperatures around TCS foods especially during hot summer seasons, and on tropical islands like the USVI which have all-year-round warm temperatures (VInow).Although 72.5% (n = 235) did not always use insulated bags during shopping, 83.1% (n = 271) of consumers returned home within 1 h of shopping which could reduce the time beef was exposed to the temperature danger zone in the absence of insulated bags.Similar to these results, Godwin and Coppings (2005), and Griffing (2017) found that greater than 75% of consumers took less than 20 min to return home after shopping.Twenty participants in this present study mentioned going to different (multiple) stores on a given shopping trip and shopping from more than one island.The former practice was also reported by Godwin and Coppings (2005) among 63% of consumers in their study.Making multiple stops on the same shopping trip requires additional waiting time when using both road and water transport to move between islands.The amount of time fresh beef stays in the car is critical.Griffing (2017) reports that the internal temperature of fresh beef during transportation in a vehicle increases overtime, with higher rates registered when neither air-conditioning nor ice are used.Kim et al. (2013) found that the temperature of fresh meat and frozen meat placed in the trunk of a car in hot weather can increase up to 38.4°C and 33.5°C, respectively.All respondents in this study who took greater than 2 h to return home had used insulated bags prior to the study, with 65% (n = 13) of them using them either always or often during shopping.
Beef storage practices.After returning home from shopping, 92.2% (n = 295) of respondents took less than 30 min to put away (store or use) groceries (Table 4), and the time taken was not related to any of the demographic variables (gender p = 0.624; age p = 0.838; education p = 0.184; ethnic background p = 0.798).Ninety-eight percent (n = 309) of respondents stored raw beef in either a freezer or refrigerator, just as 90% of American consumers in Godwin and Coppings (2005)'s study and 71% of consumers in Trinidad (Badrie  et al., 2006).Prior to storage, 14 respondents in this study either cut beef into small pieces, used more plastic bags in addition to the original packaging, seasoned beef, or washed beef.Participants stored beef for up to 12 months in a freezer and up to 30 days in a refrigerator, with 46 respondents refrigerating beef for longer than the 5 days recommended by the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018).
Freezers and refrigerators are the main forms of storage used for TCS foods; however, these require electricity to operate.Marx et al. (2006) linked power outages to an increase in diarrheal cases; therefore, precautions must be taken to ensure that perishable food stored in refrigerators and freezers does not cause foodborne illnesses.During power outages, 45.1% (n = 133) of respondents in this study endeavored to maintain cold storage temperatures by turning on generators to power refrigerators and freezers, using ice, moving beef from refrigerators to freezers, and keeping both freezer and refrigerator doors closed.The strategies used by consumers to handle raw beef during power outages in this study are similar to those reported by Kosa et al. (2011) in their national survey, and to the USDA (U.S.Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service., 2021) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) recommendations for handling meat during power outages.
Hygiene and sanitation practices.This study examined consumers' hand-washing behavior and sanitation practices for selected food contact surfaces (cutting knives, kitchen sinks, and serving plates) in the home kitchen.Table 5 shows participants' responses to this portion of the survey.In addition to the water and soap used to wash hands after handling raw beef, 1.86% (n = 6) of respondents used either vinegar, lime, or a hand sanitizer.Hand-washing time was related to ethnic background (p = 0.014) with Asian consumers and those of combined backgrounds more likely to wash their hands for more than 20 s.Altekruse et al. (1996), Scott and Herbold (2010), Carstens et al. (2022), andBadrie et al. (2006) found similar results in which more than 65% of participants in the United States and in Trinidad washed hands with soap and water after handling raw meat.The results of this study contradict with studies (Anderson et al., 2004;Phang & Bruhn, 2011) reporting consumers' videotaped handwashing practices, because many of them are captured not washing hands before handling food, washing hands for less than 8 s, and many others not using soap.
This study occurred, a year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when hand washing was emphasized in campaigns to reduce disease spread.The higher percentage of respondents washing hands in this study could be resulting from consumers' need to protect themselves from COVID-19 since some consumers assumed it could be transmitted through food (Thomas and Feng, 2021).Respondents from 29% (n = 12) of households with children under 5 years, 38% (n = 27) from households with someone above 64 years, and 36% (n = 4) of respondents from households with someone immunocompromised reported rinsing hands with water without soap and using reusable towels to dry hands after washing them, which can lead to crosscontamination and put the vulnerable persons at risk of contracting foodborne illnesses since reusable towels are among the contaminated surfaces in kitchens and can harbor and transfer pathogens between surfaces (Gerba et al., 2014;Sneed et al., 2015).
Fifty-six percent (n = 181) of respondents washed utensils (knives) with water and soap when switching from handling raw meat to handling ready-to-eat food, and eight respondents also used either bleach, Clorox, vinegar, or lime.Seventy-six percent (n = 244) of respondents always cleaned kitchen sinks and counters after handling raw beef, and these surfaces were often (53.8%,n = 171) cleaned using water and soap, and 20 respondents used either vinegar Clorox, Lysol, salt, hot water, and peroxide solution in addition to the materials listed in a The total percentage of some practices are greater than 100% because respondents selected more than one response.a The total percentage of some practices are greater than 100% because respondents selected more than one response.
Table 5.After cooking, 88.3% (n = 272) of respondents served beef using clean plates different from those that had raw beef.Carstens et al. (2022) and Badrie et al. (2006) report greater than 85% of respondents cleaning utensils (cutting boards) with water and soap after handling raw meat.Additionally, the same studies (Carstens et al., 2022;Badrie et al., 2006) report 36.6% and 90% of their food handlers cleaning kitchen counters with a dishcloth or soap and water after handling raw meat, respectively.Beef thawing/defrosting practices.Respondents in this study used more than one method to defrost frozen beef before cooking.Thirty-nine percent (n = 123)of respondents defrost beef in a refrigerator, 24.2% (n = 76) leave beef on the kitchen counter, 20.0% (n = 63) put it in a sink with warm water, 16.1% (n = 51) put beef in a sink with cold water, 3.6% (n = 11) cook beef while it is still frozen, 3.2% (n = 10) use a microwave, while 1.3% (n = 4) use a bowl with water.Three respondents (0.9%) reported adding lemon, vinegar, and salt to beef while defrosting.Many (44.6%, n = 141) respondents used methods that exposed beef to the temperature danger zone where pathogenic microorganisms grow at a higher rate.The percentage (44.6%,n = 141) of respondents using risky defrosting practices in this study is three times that reported by Lum et al. (2013) among home food preparers in families with young children who thawed frozen beef on the counter or at room temperature, but it is similar (42%) to that of consumers in Trinidad who thawed meat on the countertops (Badrie et al., 2006).The percentage of consumers defrosting beef in a refrigerator in this study (39.7%, n = 123) was slightly higher than that (32.6%) reported among low-income parents (Carstens et al., 2022).
Beef cooking practices.When cooking beef products at home, 80.1% of respondents (n = 254) determined doneness using at least one of color, texture, flavor, or cooking for a long time but not checking the temperature of beef using a thermometer.Only 19.9% (n = 63) of respondents determined doneness by checking the temperature of beef using a thermometer either alone or in combination with the above subjective methods.Only 14% (n = 6) of households with children under 5 years, 16.9% (n = 12) of households with someone above 64 years, and 9.1% (n = 1) of households with immunocompromised individuals used a thermometer to determine doneness when cooking beef.When further asked about the temperature at which consumers cooked hamburgers at home, 68.5% (n = 213) confirmed not using a thermometer, 20.9% (n = 65) reported cooking hamburgers at or above 160°F, the minimum recommended temperature for ground meats (US Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2020), while 10.9% (n = 34) reported temperatures below 160°F, and one could not remember.The subjective methods used to determine doneness by 80% of respondents in this study are similar to those used by 39% of restaurant managers in Nabwiire et al. ( 2021)'s study in the USVI, consumers of mechanically tenderized beef products (Yang et al., 2021), and to those consumers in Carstens et al. (2022)'s andBadrie et al. (2006)'s studies in the United States and Trinidad, respectively.The sensory-based means of determining doneness of beef can be influenced by other factors such as those causing premature browning (King and Whyte, 2006) and may not accurately reflect the complete inactivation of pathogens, and therefore, 80.1% of participants (n = 254) in this study are at risk of contracting foodborne illnesses as a result of eating undercooked beef.The 19.9% (n = 63) of thermometer users in this study is even lower than the 33% of respondents who used cooking thermometers in the 2016 FDA food safety survey (Her et al., 2020).Thermometer ownership and usage while cooking TCS has been an ongoing challenge among consumers in the United States (Altekruse et al., 1999;Anderson et al., 2004;Elshahat et al., 2019;Phang & Bruhn, 2011;Scott & Herbold, 2010) and has been linked to foodborne disease outbreaks (Torso et al., 2015).However, in a recent study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, Thomas and Feng (2021) report that consumers' use of thermometers while cooking increased as they hoped to kill the SARS Cov2 virus.
Handling beef leftovers.After cooking and eating beef, respondents in this study handled leftovers in a variety of ways with 50.8% (n = 165) refrigerating leftovers within 1 h of cooking, 13.2% (n = 43), feeding animals, 9.2% (n = 30) discarding them, 1.9% (n = 6) feeding other people, 0.6% (n = 2) freezing them, and 0.3% (n = 1) composting them.Thirty-three percent (n = 107) of respondents left leftovers out for at least 2 h at room temperature exposing beef to the temperature danger zone.In a study about consumers' handling of leftover food in different countries, Koppel et al. (2016) found that in the United States, 44% of their respondents refrigerated leftover food 2 h after a meal.The USDA (U.S.Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service., 2020) recommends that leftover food is cooled as fast as possible and that it is refrigerated within 2 h of cooking in order to minimize microbial growth.
Preferred methods of learning about food safety.Consumers' knowledge about food safety and the availability of necessary resources can greatly influence the choices made when handling food.This study asked about participants' preferred methods of learning about food safety from the list of methods provided in the survey.The top five methods selected by consumers were reading food labels (71.1%; n = 224), reading printed handouts such as brochures, fact sheets or posters (49.5%; n = 156), watching videos about food safety (47.9%;n = 151), attending training workshops (14.3%; n = 45), and checking the USVI Department of Health website (12.4%, n = 39).
In conclusion, this study aimed to determine how consumers in the USVI handle beef from shopping to consumption.Participants used storage practices and sanitation practices that could minimize the contamination of beef and reduce subsequent foodborne illnesses.However, more than 80% of respondents from households with children below 5 years old, someone above 64 years of age or with an immunocompromised individual did not use thermometers to determine doneness of beef when cooking.Additionally, about ∼33% of respondents from households with vulnerable persons reported using improper hand hygiene behavior of washing hands without soap and using reusable towels to dry washed hands, increasing the risk of crosscontamination and foodborne illnesses.There were gaps in consumers' observance of the "cook" and "clean" food safety principles often promoted in food safety campaigns.
Extension educators can design printed materials, develop videos, or prepare training workshops for home food preparers addressing the challenge of cooking beef safely, and that of hand hygiene especially among food preparers living with, infants, elderly, and the immunocompromised individuals in USVI.This could reduce their risk of contracting foodborne illnesses that may arise from consuming beef prepared at home.Future research can determine the barriers to using cooking thermometers among USVI consumers.If the absence of thermometers and their cost are identified as barriers, then further research needs to be conducted on other methods to determine the doneness of the beef.In addition, grocery stores can assist in educating consumers about safe beef handling practices offering meat thermometers for sale and adopting a display plan whereby TCS proteins are located furthest from the entrance so that consumers pick them last.
This study captured self-reported beef handling practices which is a limitation as this may differ from observational studies.Zhang et al. (2022) report that consumers, especially men, respondents of at least 60 years of age, and those with more than 9 years of education are more likely to overestimate their use of safe handling practices in surveys that use self-reported methods of data collection.In this present study, 39.9% (n = 127) of the participants were male, 15.8% (n = 50) were above 64 years old, and 95% (n = 301) were at least high school graduates.There is a chance that they over-reported their beef handling practices.Another limitation to this research study is the distribution of participants from all three islands in USVI.More than 80% of participants were from St. John and St. Thomas Islands and only 13.5% (n = 45) from St. Croix Island.

Table 1
reports that 42.5% of consumers in the United States spend 11-20 min from the time they pick up fresh Demographic characteristics of surveyed beef consumers in the U.S. Virgin Islands z z June and July 2021; participants included persons who were 18 years or older, residents of USVI, and involvement in either purchasing or preparing beef for home consumption.

Table 2
Frequency of consumption of different meat types among surveyed beef consumers in the U.S. Virgin Islands z z June and July 2021; participants included persons who were 18 years or older, residents of USVI, and involvement in either purchasing or preparing beef for home consumption.

Table 3
Percentage of surveyed beef consumers performing different shopping practices in the U.S. Virgin Islands a The total percentage of some practices are greater than 100% because respondents selected more than one response.

Table 4
Percentage of surveyed beef consumers performing different beef storage practices in the U.S. Virgin Islands z

Table 5
Percentage of surveyed beef consumers performing different hygiene and sanitation practices in the U.S. Virgin Islands z