Sanitation doesn't cost, it pays

Is it true and can we prove it?

M. Robbins, D. McSwane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is widespread agreement among public health officials that good sanitation doesn't cost, it pays! This article describes an approach to substantiate that premise and details the results of a research study conducted to measure the cost effectiveness of good sanitation in a retail food store meat department. The study consisted of baseline, training, and post-training periods used to monitor reprocessing and cleaning expenses. Equipment and ground beef samples were collected during the study to monitor sanitation practices. Benefits of improved sanitation management were evident in the lower Aerobic Plate Counts (APCs) recorded during the post-training period and the average daily savings of $14.29 (annual savings of $5,215.85) to the department when labor is included. A 5.3% decrease in product reprocessing loss was calculated. These findings are supported by the Food Marketing Institute's statement that a retail meat department can expect to save about 11% by implementing an effective sanitation management program.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)14-20
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Environmental Health
Volume57
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Sanitation
sanitation
Costs and Cost Analysis
cost
Meats
Costs
meat
Meat
savings
Food
Beef
food
Public health
Cost effectiveness
Marketing
Cost-Benefit Analysis
public health
marketing
Cleaning
Public Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Sanitation doesn't cost, it pays : Is it true and can we prove it? / Robbins, M.; McSwane, D.

In: Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 57, No. 5, 1994, p. 14-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Robbins, M. ; McSwane, D. / Sanitation doesn't cost, it pays : Is it true and can we prove it?. In: Journal of Environmental Health. 1994 ; Vol. 57, No. 5. pp. 14-20.
@article{ea71421fc07a4332a339e66b39fa96f0,
title = "Sanitation doesn't cost, it pays: Is it true and can we prove it?",
abstract = "There is widespread agreement among public health officials that good sanitation doesn't cost, it pays! This article describes an approach to substantiate that premise and details the results of a research study conducted to measure the cost effectiveness of good sanitation in a retail food store meat department. The study consisted of baseline, training, and post-training periods used to monitor reprocessing and cleaning expenses. Equipment and ground beef samples were collected during the study to monitor sanitation practices. Benefits of improved sanitation management were evident in the lower Aerobic Plate Counts (APCs) recorded during the post-training period and the average daily savings of $14.29 (annual savings of $5,215.85) to the department when labor is included. A 5.3{\%} decrease in product reprocessing loss was calculated. These findings are supported by the Food Marketing Institute's statement that a retail meat department can expect to save about 11{\%} by implementing an effective sanitation management program.",
author = "M. Robbins and D. McSwane",
year = "1994",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "14--20",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Health",
issn = "0022-0892",
publisher = "National Environmental Health Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sanitation doesn't cost, it pays

T2 - Is it true and can we prove it?

AU - Robbins, M.

AU - McSwane, D.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - There is widespread agreement among public health officials that good sanitation doesn't cost, it pays! This article describes an approach to substantiate that premise and details the results of a research study conducted to measure the cost effectiveness of good sanitation in a retail food store meat department. The study consisted of baseline, training, and post-training periods used to monitor reprocessing and cleaning expenses. Equipment and ground beef samples were collected during the study to monitor sanitation practices. Benefits of improved sanitation management were evident in the lower Aerobic Plate Counts (APCs) recorded during the post-training period and the average daily savings of $14.29 (annual savings of $5,215.85) to the department when labor is included. A 5.3% decrease in product reprocessing loss was calculated. These findings are supported by the Food Marketing Institute's statement that a retail meat department can expect to save about 11% by implementing an effective sanitation management program.

AB - There is widespread agreement among public health officials that good sanitation doesn't cost, it pays! This article describes an approach to substantiate that premise and details the results of a research study conducted to measure the cost effectiveness of good sanitation in a retail food store meat department. The study consisted of baseline, training, and post-training periods used to monitor reprocessing and cleaning expenses. Equipment and ground beef samples were collected during the study to monitor sanitation practices. Benefits of improved sanitation management were evident in the lower Aerobic Plate Counts (APCs) recorded during the post-training period and the average daily savings of $14.29 (annual savings of $5,215.85) to the department when labor is included. A 5.3% decrease in product reprocessing loss was calculated. These findings are supported by the Food Marketing Institute's statement that a retail meat department can expect to save about 11% by implementing an effective sanitation management program.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028154876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028154876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 14

EP - 20

JO - Journal of Environmental Health

JF - Journal of Environmental Health

SN - 0022-0892

IS - 5

ER -