��������������������������
niors over 65 in Canada increased by 14.1 % and now comprise around 5 million people , while the 60 – 64 age group grew by 29.1 % over the same time period ( Statistics Canada , 2013 ). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ( CFIA ) identifies adults over 60 as an at-risk population for foodborne disease ( Canadian Food Inspection Agency , 2013 ). Additionally , pregnant women , young children , and immunocompromised people are more prone to foodborne illness ( Gerba , Rose , & Haas , 1996 ). As populations age , the incidence of diseases that accompany age , such as cancer and diabetes , are likely to increase . Individuals who suffer from these illnesses are also more prone to foodborne illness . Additionally , advancements in medical technology such as chemotherapy will lead to greater numbers of immunocompromised individuals living longer , with associated implications for foodborne illness incidence and severity . These interconnected elements of the food system contribute to the uncertainty of managing risks related to food .
��������� ������������ ��� ���������� �������� ����
Particularly in the absence of a recent food illness catastrophe , focus group research shows that safety is just one attribute that influences food purchasing decisions . People report generally feeling competent at making food decisions ( Green , Draper , & Dowler , 2003 ). But is this feeling correct ? Although pronounced uncertainty remains as to the overall incidence and sources of foodborne illness ( Jacob & Powell , 2009 ), estimates indicate that up to 70 % of foodborne illnesses can be linked to foodservice establishments ( as cited by Filion & Powell , 2009 , p . 287 ). In turn , Canadians are spending an increasing amount of money on restaurant meals ( GE
Capital Franchise Finance , 2013 ; Statistics Canada , 2006 ). Due to these issues , the remainder of this article will focus specifically on foodborne illness risks associated with eating food prepared by others in a restaurant environment .
Although restaurant inspection systems seek to lower the incidence of foodborne disease , evidence is mixed on how well inspection scores predict future illness outbreaks ( Simon et al ., 2005 ). In fact , the uncertainty in data on restaurant-related outbreaks makes it difficult to structure an effective study in this area ( Filion & Powell , 2009 , p . 293-294 ). There are also inconsistencies between jurisdictions as to what constitutes a critical violation as well as the frequency of inspections ( Filion & Powell , 2009 ). The complexity of the food chain implies that a systems-level perspective on restaurant food safety is required to fully understand what is happening . But often the final responsibility for such decisions is simply shifted to the consumer , leaving it up to the individual to make sound choices with the ( often incomplete ) food safety information available . In this regard , some scholars have advocated for a great-er level of transparency to encourage trust in food systems affected by contemporary risks , such as genetically modified products ( Clark , 2013 ; Goncalves , 2004 ). This raises the question — will improved transparency in the restaurant inspection system help consumers stay safe ?
Some jurisdictions employ methods for giving consumers better access to inspection scores . In some areas , consumers must formally request a copy of inspection results ( Filion & Powell , 2009 ), a situation presenting a strong “ default ” barrier for accessing appropriate information ( Thaler & Sunstein , 2008 ). Other jurisdictions , including the Canadian province of Saskatchewan , make restaurant inspection re-
141