Does Food Safety Knowledge Influence Customer Expectation and Perception on Restaurant’s Quality Attributes?

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Does Food Safety Knowledge Influence Customer Expectation and Perception on Restaurant’s Quality Attributes? © Authors 2023 Published version Padmaningrum, Dwiningtyas; Fauza, Gusti; Karunia, Aulia Rahma; Juego, Bonn; Nursiwi, Asri; Ariviani, Setyaningrum; Prasetyo, Hari Padmaningrum, D., Fauza, G., Karunia, A. R., Juego, B., Nursiwi, A., Ariviani, S., & Prasetyo, H. (2023). Does Food Safety Knowledge Influence Customer Expectation and Perception on Restaurant’s Quality Attributes?. Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, 16(2), 144-159. https://doi.org/10.20961/jthp.v16i2.74733 2023 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 144 ISSN 1979-0309 (Online) 2614-7920 (Print) Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian. 16(2), 144-159 URL: https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/ilmupangan/article/view/74733 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/jthp.v16i2.74733 Does Food Safety Knowledge Influence Customer Expectation and Perception on Restaurant’s Quality Attributes? Dwiningtyas Padmaningrum1*, Gusti Fauza2, Aulia Rahma Karunia2, Bonn Juego3, Asri Nursiwi2, Setyaningrum Ariviani2, & Hari Prasetyo4 1) Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Ir Sutami Street No.36, Jebres, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia 57126 2) Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Ir Sutami Street No.36, Jebres, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia 57126 3) Corporate Environmental Management Unit, Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, Mattilanniemi Street No.2, Building Agora, Finland FI-40014 4)Department of Industrial Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah, A. Yani Street, Pabelan, Kartasura, Sukoharjo, Central Java 57162 email: dwiningtyas_[email protected] Submitted [09 June 2023]; Accepted [03 October 2023]; Published [27 October 2023] ABSTRACT The number of restaurants has increased recently and leads to a pierce competition in this business. To be more competitive, restaurant owners need to pay more attention on customer satisfaction. This study is aimed to examine customer satisfaction on restaurant using three variables, namely food quality, services, and environment facilities in a restaurant. Unlike studies in this area the variables were evaluated using food safety criteria where the customers’s knowledge about food safety issues were measured to analyze whether it affects the customer perception and satisfaction. The importance-performance analysis (IPA) is used to explain which attributes that need to be improved after mapping the customer expectation and perceptions. Implementing IPA to could help restaurant owners to concentrate on improving the priority quality attributes, i.e., the attributes that are importance for customers but have relatively low performance. A questionnaire with food safety perspective question were distributed to 400 customers and 395 quesioner were completed. The IPA Diagram reveals that the higher the consumers knowledge the more attributes were suggested to be improved. Keywords: food safety; IPA; knowledge; restaurant Cite this as: Padmaningrum D., Fauza, G., Karunia, A. R., Nursiwi, A., Ariviani, S., & Prasetyo, H. 2023. Does Food Safety Knowledge Influence Customer Expectation and Perception on Restaurant’s Quality Attributes? Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, 16(2), 144-159. https://doi.org/10.20961/jthp.v16i2.74733 INTRODUCTION Restaurants are one of the small and medium food industries that continues to grow. According to the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy of Indonesia No.11 2014, a restaurant/restaurant is a food and beverage service provider equipped with tools and equipment for the process of making, storing and serving in a fixed place with the aim of making a profit. Requirement of more practical way of life including consuming food has caused an increase in the number of people eating outside the household (Ufrida and Harianto, 2022). It lifts the number of restaurants as well as competition between them (Ronitawati and Simangunsong, 2016). Hence, it is crucial for a restaurant to give more attention on customer satisfaction since it affects repeat order and maintains customer loyalty (Wulansari et al., 2014). A careful supervision needs to be carried out by both the government and restaurant management since the restaurants 145 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 are required not only to provide delicious food but also ensure safety. According to PP No. 86 of 2019, food safety is a condition and effort needed to prevent food from possible contaminants/dangers that can harm human health. Unsafety food is potential to cause harm that affects consumer health usually called as the foodborne disease (Jiastuti, 2018). Based on the BPOM Annual Report, in 2019 there were 50 KLB KP (Extraordinary Incidents of Food Poisoning) reported with a total of 2,569 victims and 1,783 of them experiencing symptoms of illness (attack rate of 69.40%). Then from this incident there were 10 victims who died (fatality rate of 0.56%). BPOM divides the cause of poisoning into several sources, e.g., animals, drinks, medicine, food, chemical substances, pesticide, where poisoning food and drinks contribute around 20% of all reported cases (BPOM, 2019). Knowledge of food safety makes a person more aware of the importance of food safety. Consumer understanding of food safety also plays an important role in customer satisfaction. This is because food safety is the most basic standard for consumers with knowledge of food safety in evaluating food quality related to customer satisfaction (Liu and Jang, 2009). Consumers with limited food information have more attention about food safety of the products they consume compared to consumers who process their own food. Even though if the aspects of food safety from harvest to ready for consumption are not considered, still there is a risk of causing food poisoning (Ha et al., 2019). According to Low et al. (2016), food safety knowledge of students at leading universities in the city of Kuala Lumpur is not evenly distributed, thus making it necessary to have education about food safety so that students are more aware of the importance of food safety. From this study, differences in knowledge may cause consumers having different perspectives in assessing a food product. Lack of understanding of food safety will lead to feelings of security in consumers in consuming food products (Redmond and Griffith, 2004). Meanwhile, consumers with food safety knowledge have higher concerns regarding the consumption of food products due to an understanding of the causes of food contamination (Verbeke and Viaene, 2000). This leads to an increase in demand for safe and qualified food, meaning that consumers will be more critical in assessing satisfaction, especially with regard to food safety (Mergenthaler et al., 2009). Customer satisfaction can be the first step to take corrective action in restaurant management. Improving performance is important to do because it provides benefits, such as consumer loyalty and it is hoped that food safety will be given more attention and guaranteed so that cases of foodborne disease can be avoided (Arfifahani, 2018). Customer satisfaction has a significant effect on the intention to return or not to buy a product. Satisfied customers/consumers will reuse the product at a later opportunity. According to Petzer and Mackay (2014), the importance level of each attribute is not the same. Hence, knowing the level of customer satisfaction and measuring the performance of the attributes is not enough. It is also important to know the level of importance of attribute from the customer's perspective. There are several methods used to analyze the customer expectation and perception such as Servqual analysis, customer satisfaction index (CSI) and importance performance analysis (IPA). Servqual focuses on analyze customer perceptions and expectations based on multiple dimensions where CSI measures overall customer satisfaction with a product or service. Unlike Servqual and CSI, IPA can identify and prioritize attributes that are important to customers and assessing how well an organization is performing on those attributes. Information from IPA diagram can be used to define the appropriate improvement strategy (Pai et al., 2016). IPA is able to show improvement priorities based on the level of importance and performance (Martilla and James, 1997). The results of the IPA are in the form of a Cartesian diagram containing four quadrants based on the rating of the average score of service performance and consumer interests. A restaurant can provide quality products and Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 146 services with the information obtained about consumer needs and desires (Ivkov et al., 2014). Later the results of this study can be useful for the food industry, especially restaurants as a guide in increasing customer satisfaction with the services provided (food quality, service quality, and environmental conditions and facilities). In addition, the results of this study can also provide an overview to the government of the condition of food safety in restaurants. Coordination and cooperation between all stakeholders (government, food service providers, and consumers) will lead to a conducive situation in creating food safety guarantees in this industry (Pudjirahaju, 2018). Hence, consumers' rights to consume food products that are safe for health can be fulfilled and the sustainability of restaurants can be maintained because they gain the trust of consumers (Putro, 2014). According to KAP (knowledge, attitude, practice) knowledge model, eating behavior develops on a positive attitude, and a positive attitude is derived from knowledge on nutrition and food safety (Shen M, et al 2015). However, to improve food safety practices in restaurants, it not only comes from the awareness and responsibility of the restaurant but also from the need to increase consumer knowledge about food safety. Consumer who are aware of the potential risk of food contamination also can be a good mechanism for alerting other consumer, policymaker and supplier for the potential problem. METHODOLOGY Respondent Respondents in this study were consumers of Restaurant X who were eating at the restaurant and at least 15 years old. This research was conducted through a survey method with data collection techniques using two types of questionnaires, i.e., (i) customer satisfaction (ii) food safety knowledge questionnaires. Those questionnaires were distributed to customer that were dinning in the observed restaurants (i.e., on the spot survey). A discount voucher was given to appreciate the customers that agreed to fill the questionnaires. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire in this study consisted of two types. First, a customer satisfaction questionnaire with the IPA method consisting of 3 three dimensions i.e., food quality (6 attributes), service quality (9 attributes), and environmental conditions and facilities (10 attributes). This questionnaire used a Likert scale with 7 scale options as can be seen in Appendix 1. Second, a consumer food safety knowledge questionnaire consisting of four variables, namely knowledge on personal food safety (11 questions), knowledge of causes of foodborne disease (9 questions), symptoms of foodborne disease (12 questions), and knowledge on food handling practices (12 questions). There are three options for responding those questions, namely "Yes", "No", and "Don't Know". Based on the total number of correct answers, consumers are grouped into 3 categories of knowledge. Consumers are included in the category of good knowledge if they have a total percentage of correct answers more than or equal to 75%, the knowledge category is quite good between 56% -74%, and is said to have poor knowledge if it is less than or equal to 55%. The questions to measure the customer satisfaction questionnaire were referred to Fauza et al. (2022) while instrument to measure the food safety knowledge is sourced from Low et al. (2016). The existing instruments were then tested for validity and reliability. Statistic analysis The validity of the criteria in the consumer knowledge questionnaire and customer satisfaction were tested using the Pearson Correlation method. While the reliability test used the calculation of Cronbach's alpha value. Testing was carried out with the help of SPSS 25 software. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic profile of respondents and consumer categorization based on their level 147 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 of knowledge. ANOVA is used in the analysis of the effect of consumer food safety knowledge on customer satisfaction. As for the mapping of attributes into four quadrants based on their level of importance and performance, the Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method is used so that attributes with improvement priorities are identified. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Validity and Reliability Test. Professional judgment with Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a method for testing the validity of the contents of the consumer food safety knowledge questionnaire (Heryanto et al., 2019). The FGD was carried out by the multicross disciplinary team, consist of one lecturer from agriculture communication field, two lecturers expert in food quality management, one lecturer from microbiology field, and one lecture from center study for food, nutrition and public health. FGDs were aimed to check the suitability of the contents in the questionnaire, whether the questions were relevant to consumers in Indonesia and whether the editorial translations could be easily understood by the respondents. The instrument is declared valid if a professional agreement has been reached regarding the contents of the instrument and the choice of words in the instrument is correct (Heryanto et al., 2019). As for the results of the FGD, out of the 44 questions, 41 were declared valid and 3 others were declared invalid. The three questions were declared invalid based on the agreement of experts who assessed the existing attributes causing confusion in understanding the content and the possibility of major misinterpretation. The validity of the criteria for the consumer food safety knowledge questionnaire, it is known that 40 questions are valid and 1 question is Q10 "Is the best way to avoid food poisoning from fruits and vegetables is to wash them under running water?" declared invalid because it has a value of r count< r table (0.078 < 0.0989). Hence, Q10 was removed from the research instrument. Whereas in the customer satisfaction questionnaire all attributes at the level of importance and satisfaction have an r count greater than 0.0989 and p value less than 0.05. Therefore, data from all attributes were declared valid and can be used for further analysis. Demographic Profiles. Based on the survey data, the demographic profile of the 395 respondents is summarized and presented in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, the majority respondents were female (59%) and 80% respondents have visited the restaurant at least twice. 70% respondents were in 20-40 years old, 37% were college students and majority have income below 5 million IDR per month. Furthermore, in terms of educational characteristics, it is dominated by consumers with the last educational status taken, namely high school with a rate of 50%. This is consistent with the characteristics of the job, where most of the respondents at Restaurant X are students (37%). The location factor of Rumah Makan X, which is relatively close to the campus environment, may be one of the causes. As for the characteristics of income, it is dominated by consumers with income between IDR 1,000,000 - IDR 3,000,000. In the data reliability test, consumer food safety knowledge has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.789. Whereas the variables in the customer satisfaction questionnaire have a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.860 (M); 0.873 (P); and 0.909 (L). So that all variables on consumer knowledge and customer satisfaction are declared reliable because they have a Cronbach's alpha value > 0.70 (Taber, 2018). Overall, based on Table 2, the average percentage of correct answers for all questions answered by all respondents was 64%. The variable with the largest average percentage of correct answers is knowledge on food handling practice with a value of 74.7%. While symptoms of foodborne disease is the variable with the lowest average value (52.4%). This is in line with the research of Low et al. (2016), Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 148 Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents No Characteristics of Respondents Percentage 1. Gender Male 41% Female 59% 2. Age < 20 years 15% 20-40 years 70% > 40 years 15% 3. Eating frequency (last 6 months) Once 20% 2-4 times 53% Times 12% 8-10 times 9% >10 times 6% 4. Education level Nonformal education 0% Elementary school 0% Junior high school 3% Senior high school 50% Diploma 12% Graduate 32% Post graduate 3% 5. Occupation Highschool student 6% College student 37% Government employee 4% Employee of private sectors 25% Entrepreneur 9% Housewife 5% Lecturer/teacher 6% Police/military 0% 6. Income <Rp1.000.000 25% Rp1.000.001 – Rp3.000.000 31% Rp3.000.001 – Rp5.000.000 14% >Rp5.000.000 11% others 19% where symptoms of foodborne disease are the variable with the lowest average. Knowledge of the symptoms of foodborne disease is related to a person's sensitivity when experiencing foodborne illness. According to WHO, from 1 reported case of food poisoning there are still 99 other cases that are not reported. A low level of knowledge about the symptoms of foodborne disease can lead to misinterpretation of the pain experienced and result in delayed treatment (Lim et al., 2016). The knowledge of respondents in Restaurant X about food safety shows that consumers have good knowledge of the variable knowledge on food handling practice, quite good on the variable knowledge of personal food safety, and not good enough on the other 2 variables (symptoms of foodborne disease and knowledge of cause foodborne diseases). This means that consumer knowledge is only good on certain variables. Unlike the respondents in Low et al. (2016) who came from Malaysia, knowledge of all variables has an average percentage of correct answers of 62.1%; 70.7%; 71.9%; and 73%. All of these values fall into the category of fairly good knowledge, namely between 56%-74% (Budiman and Riyanto, 2013). Hence that the knowledge of respondents in Malaysia about food safety can be said to be equal/even in all questions/variables of existing knowledge. Food poisoning incidents in Malaysia were much lower, namely 21 cases compared to events in Indonesia, where there were 56 outbreaks of food poisoning in 2018. Consumer knowledge in Indonesia regarding food safety is still low. This low knowledge causes consumer concern for the food safety of the products they consume is also low. So that only a few consumers demand food service producers/providers to produce food products that are of good quality and safe for the health of consumers. Things like this have led to many cases of food poisoning (BPOM, 2019). In the Personal Food Safety variable shown in Table 3, the question with a low percentage of correct answers, namely "don't put raw chicken, fish and meat in the same place/location in the fridge/freezer" was proven by only 32% of consumers who answered correctly. In addition, only 55% of consumers know that "pasteurization of milk 149 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 and fruit juice can help prevent the occurrence of diseases that may be caused by consuming the milk or fruit juice". In contrast to the study of Low et al. (2016), the question regarding pasteurization which can help prevent foodborne illness (Q11) received a good response. This question can be answered correctly as much as 82.5% of the correct answers. In terms of knowledge on the Cause Foodborne Disease variable according to Table 4, the question that cannot be answered properly is "dry food stored in a cupboard near the oven will increase the risk of the food causing illness/health problems if consumed (foodborne illness)" as only 23% customers who answered correctly. In addition, there is a question with only 19% correct answers, namely "canned vegetables consumed without heating first will increase the risk of these foods causing health problems/disease if consumed". Relatively low knowledge of questions 13 and 14 is the same with Low et al. (2016). For knowledge on the Symptoms of Foodborne Disease variable which can be seen in Table 5, the question with the lowest correct answer with only 37% answering correctly is "is fatigue (fatique) a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms present in the food (foodborne disease)?” and "Is low blood pressure (hypotension) a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)?". As for Table 6 which contains the variable Food Handling Practice, the questions that were answered poorly were "food that has been cooked before is safe for consumption without needing to be reheated" with only 32% correct answers and "before processing food, food processors can clean hands by rub it on a cloth/rag” with only 31% correct answers. Table 2. The percentage of correct answers Type of knowledge Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation Knowledge on personal food safety (10) 20,0 100,0 71,4 16,5 Knowledge of cause foodborne diseases (9) 0,0 100,0 53,0 23,0 Symptoms of foodborne disease (9) 0,0 100,0 52,4 24,4 Knowledge on food handling practice (12) 0,0 100,0 74,7 16,1 Overall knowledge (40) 17,5 97,5 64,0 14,0 Table 3. Percentage of correct answers on Personal Food Safety knowledge No Knowledge on Personal Food Safety Correct answer n % 1. Does good personal safety of the people/employees who prepare/clean ingredients, process and serve food guarantee the food safety of a product? Yes 362 92% 2. To your knowledge, should we always wash our hands after coughing and sneezing? Yes 362 92% 3. To your knowledge, can physical hazards (eg hair) in food products cause health problems if the food product is consumed? Yes 258 65% 4. Will contamination occur when raw and cooked food are stored together in the same place/room? Yes 253 64% 5. Is it necessary to avoid touching ready-to-eat food with hands? Yes 295 75% 6. Do not put raw chicken, fish and meat in the same place/location in the fridge/freezer? No 126 32% 7. Is it enough to just wash your hands under running water to remove bacteria before touching food? No 292 74% 8. To ensure food safety, should you taste/smell the food/check the expiration date before eating? Yes 345 87% 9. Should the kitchen sink be cleaned after every use to avoid food poisoning? Yes 312 79% 11. Does heating treatment at a certain temperature and time (pasteurization) on milk and fruit juice help prevent the occurrence of diseases that may be caused by consuming the milk or fruit juice? Yes 216 55% Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 150 Table 4. Percentage of correct answers on cause foodborne disease knowledge No Knowledge on Cause Foodborne Disease Correct answers n % 12. Does raw or undercooked seafood increase a person's risk of food poisoning? Yes 259 66% 13. Will dry food stored in a cupboard near the oven increase the risk of the food causing illness/health problems if consumed (foodborne illness)? Yes 89 23% 14. Will canned vegetables consumed without heating first increase the risk of these foods causing health problems/disease if consumed? Not 77 19% 15. Salmonella bacteria can cause food poisoning? Yes 225 57% 16. Will chicken eaten when it's cold cause illness/health problems arising from consumption of that food (foodborne illness)? Not 201 51% 17. Will food that is left open without a cover cause illness/health problems arising from consumption of the food (foodborne illness)? Yes 290 73% 18. Will rice that is left overnight in an open condition in the kitchen cause disease/health problems arising from the consumption of these foods (foodborne illness)? Yes 259 66% 19. Will a chocolate cake left overnight in an open condition in the kitchen cause illness/health problems arising from the consumption of these foods (foodborne illness)? Yes 190 48% 20. Will canned food with inflated cans cause health problems/illness (foodborne illness) if consumed? Yes 295 75% Table 5. Percentage of correct answers on symptoms of foodborne disease knowledge No Symptoms of Foodborne Disease Correct answers n % 21. Are acute stomach cramps a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms found in these foods? (Foodborne disease)? Yes 202 51% 22. Is fatigue a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Not 148 37% 23. Is headache a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Yes 269 68% 24. Is low blood pressure (hypotension) a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Not 145 37% 25. Is fever a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Yes 254 64% 26. Is a stiff neck a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Not 156 39% 27. Is diarrhea a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Yes 371 94% 28. Is bone pain a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Not 168 43% 29. Is coughing or sneezing a symptom of food poisoning caused by microorganisms in the food (foodborne disease)? Not 150 38% Even though cleaning hands before preparing food by wiping it on a cloth/rag can spread the bacteria. Measuring the Level of Consumer Satisfaction. Consumers are grouped into 3 categories of knowledge based on the total correct answers, i.e., (i) correct answers more than or equal to 75% is considered as good knowledge customers, (ii) 56% -74% correct answers mean quite good customers, while (iii) less than 55% correct answers is categorized into poor knowledge customers. From a total of 395 respondents, 97 respondents obtained consumers with good knowledge of food safety (24.5%), 184 respondents with fairly good knowledge (46.6%), and 114 respondents with poor knowledge (28.9%). Further, 25 attributes were assessed to measure the level of consumer satisfaction namely food quality, 151 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 service quality, environmental conditions and facilities (Appendix 1) The result is shown in Appendix 2 while the summary of customer satisfaction based on knowledge can be seen in Table 7. Based on Table 7 it is known that consumers with good knowledge of food safety have significant differences with consumers with poor knowledge in assessing service quality. Consumers with good knowledge rate higher (more satisfied) (6.33) on the quality of service provided by Restaurant X compared to consumers with poor knowledge (6.05). The biggest difference in value is in the attribute "Employees are not allowed to wear jewelry or accessories, except watches" with the average difference in value between consumers with good and poor food safety knowledge of 0.54. Consumers with good knowledge give an average satisfaction value of 6.16 (satisfied) while consumers with poor knowledge only 5.62 (somewhat satisfied). The level of consumer knowledge and KAP level of food handlers influences the assessment of satisfaction with the services provided by Restaurant X. Consumers with good knowledge of food safety have higher average satisfaction scores in service quality dimension than consumers with poor knowledge. Based on Cahyani, 2022, the KAP level of food handlers at Restaurant X is said to be good with a percentage value of 86.99%. Table 6. Percentage of correct answers on food handling practice knowledge No Knowledge on Food Handling Practice correct answers n % 30. Should smoking be prohibited in food processing establishments? Yes 382 97% 31. Cleaning equipment should be stored separately? Yes 380 96% 32. Is food that has been cooked before safe to eat without needing to be reheated? Not 125 32% 33. Does the surface of the container/equipment that comes into contact with food have to be cleaned with a cleaning agent? Yes 351 89% 34. Isn't it important to clean the knife after use? Not 284 72% 35. Before processing food, can food processors clean their hands by wiping them on a cloth/rag? Not 122 31% 36. Do people who work in preparing food have to wear a uniform while working? Yes 280 71% 37. Does the person/employee in charge of preparing food need to wash their hands with soap and warm water before carrying out their duties? Yes 363 92% 38. Should raw food be stored separately from cooked food? Yes 345 87% 39. To prevent food poisoning, is it necessary to wash fruits and vegetables under running water? Yes 373 94% 40. Can't raw vegetables and meat be cut with the same knife and cutting board? Yes 262 66% 41. Do people/employees who prepare/clean ingredients, process and serve food have to carry out a medical examination at least every six months? Yes 275 70% Table 7. Customer Satisfaction Variabel* Food safety knowledge level Good Moderate Low Food quality (M) 6,50a 6,42a 6,30a Food service (P) 6,30a 6,19ab 6,05b Environment and facility (L) 6,22a 6,20a 6,15a Overall Satisfaction (O) 6,21a 6,19a 6,11a Note: * Abbreviation of food quality (M= makanan), (Food service (P= pelayanan), environment and facility (L= lingkungan) in Bahasa ** Different superscript letter show a difference at significance level alpha=5% Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 158 DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2013.04.00 5 Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1997). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41, 77. Mergenthaler, M., Weinberger, K., & Qaim, M. (2009). Consumer Evaluation of Food Quality and Food Safety Attributes in Vietnam. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 266– 283. DOI:doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9353.2009.01437 Naderi, I., Paswan, A. K., & Guzman, F. (2018). Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt : The Effect of Consumer Knowledge on Restaurant Evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45(4), 221–229. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.201 8.09.004 Ovai, B., Kunadu, A. P.-H., Gake, N., Doku, C., & Otwey, R. Y. (2022). Food Safety Risk Factors Associated with Chicken Consumption and Chicken Handling Practices in Accra, Ghana. Scientific African, 16, 1-10. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01 263 Pai, F.Y., Yeh, T.M. and Tang, C.Y., (2018). Classifying restaurant service quality attributes by using Kano model and IPA approach. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(3-4), pp.301-328. Petzer, D., & Mackay, N. (2014). Dining Atmospherics and Food and Service Quality as Predictors of Customer Satisfaction at Sit-down Restaurants. Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 3(2), 1–14. Pudjirahaju, Astutik. (2018). Pengawasan Mutu Pangan. BPP-SDM Kesehatan. Jakarta. Putro, S. W. (2014). Pengaruh Kualitas Layanan dan Kualitas Produk Terhadap Kepuasan Pelanggan dan Loyalitas Konsumen Restoran Happy Garden Surabaya. Jurnal Manajemen Pemasaran, 2(1), 1–9. Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J., (2004). Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control and responsibility. Appetite, 43(3), pp.309-313. Roccato, Anna., Uyttendaele, Mieke., Cibin, Veronica., Barrucci, Federica., Cappa, Veronica., Zavagnin, Paola., Longo, A., & Ricci, Antonia. (2015). Survival of Salmonella typhimurium in Poultry-Based Meat Preparations During Grilling, Frying and Baking. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 197, 1–8. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.20 14.12.007 Ronitawati, Putri., & Simangunsong, Desi W.T. (2016). Analisis Kualitas Makanan dan Kualitas Pelayanan Terhadap Tingkat Kepuasan Konsumen Pada Penyelenggaraan Makanan di Kantin Universitas Unggul. Nutrire Diaita, 8(2), 65-70. Shen, M., Hu, M., Sun, Z. (2015). Assessment of School-Based Quasi- Experimental Nutrition and Food Safety Health Education for Primary School Students in Two Poverty- Stricken Counties of West China. PLoS ONE, 10(12), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145090 Singal, P. J. (2015). Tanggungjawab Pelaku Usaha Rumah Makan Terhadap Konsumen Berdasarkan Undang- Undang Perlindungan Konsumen Nomor 8 Tahun 1999. Lex et Societatis, 3(6), 70–78. Soares, K., García-Díez, J., Esteves, A., Oliveira, I., Saraiva, C. (2013). Evaluation of Food Safety Training on Hygienic Conditions in Food Establishments. Food Control, 34, 613–618. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013. 06.006 Sofwan, R. D. (2019). Analisis Kepuasan Konsumen Menggunakan Metode Modified Servqual (Studi Kasus di 159 Jurnal Teknologi Hasil Pertanian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Agustus 2023 Waroeng Spesial Sambal SS). 3(2), 21–30. Ufrida, Khudhriyatul., & Harianto, Sugeng (2022). Konsumerisme Makanan Siap Saji Sebagai Gaya Hidup Remaja di Kota Surabaya: Studi kasus Siswi SMA Muhammadiyah 4 Kota Surabaya. Jurnal Analisa Sosiologi, 11(1), 137-156. Uhlig, E., Kjellström, A., Oscarsson, E., Nurminen, N., Nabila, Y., Paulsson, J., Lupan, T., Velpuri, N. S. B. P., Molin, G., & Håkansson. (2022). The Live Bacterial Load and Microbiota Composition of Prepacked “Ready-to- Eat” Leafy Greens During Household Conditions, with Special Reference to E. coli. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 377, 1-11. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.20 22.109786 Verbeke, W.A. and Viaene, J., 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animalwelfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, pp.141-151. Wulansari, A., Setiawan, B., & Sinaga, T. (2014). Penyelenggaraan Makanan dan Tingkat Kepuasan Konsumen di Kantin Zea mays Institut Pertanian Bogor. Jurnal Gizi dan Pangan, 8(2), 151-158. DOI:doi.org/10.25182/jgp.2013.8.2 Yansah, R. A., Hartono, B., & Hariyono, M. (2013). Analisis Kualitas Pelayanan (Service Quality) Terhadap Kepuasan Konsumen Pada Rumah Makan Sop Ayam Pak Min Klaten di Malang. Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan, 23(1), 30– 34