RICHARD A SPRENGER
RAS International Food Safety Consultancy

Most people would argue that training is necessary to enable staff to fulfil their potential, to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities and to improve their skills. Effective training increases job satisfaction, improves performance and reduces the amount of instruction and supervision required.

It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the food safety training of food handlers should result in higher standards, improved food safety and a reduction in foodborne illness.

In the last ten years, millions of food handlers employed in the United Kingdom have successfully completed Level 1 training courses provided by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Royal Institute of Public Health, the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, the Society of Food Hygiene Technology and, in Scotland, the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. In addition, many larger companies provide in-house training, which is of a comparable standard.

Over the same period of time, reported levels of foodborne illness have continued to rise. Although some people would suggest that this indicates ineffective food safety training, there could be many other reasons for the continual increasing trend in food poisoning including:-

1. The use of inappropriate statistics. The statistics usually quoted reflect reported levels of gastrointestinal infection, ie. diarrhoea and vomiting, much of which is non-foodborne. It is interesting to note that in 1998, the number of laboratory isolations of Salmonella in England and Wales, which can be equated to the number of Salmonella cases, fell by 25%, whereas the 'notifications of food poisoning' remained at the same level as 1997.
   
2. The more training that is undertaken, the greater awareness of the need to report symptoms of food poisoning.
   
3. More imported food poisoning, due to the increasing number of people taking holidays abroad.
   
4. More sophisticated laboratory methods which enable more cases to be identified.
   
5. Increasing levels of contamination of raw food (recently published data would suggest the reverse is true as far as levels of Salmonella in chickens is concerned).
   
6. Changes in domestic catering and the increasing number of meals consumed away from the home.
   
   

Although I believe that most food safety training is reasonably effective, there is a large body of opinion that suggests it could be significantly improved.

Food poisoning usually results from the ignorance or negligence of food handlers somewhere in the food chain. However, it could be argued that the main cause of food poisoning is management failure. Whether this is a failure to obtain the right type of equipment, the failure to design the premises correctly, a failure to have suitable contingency plans in place for the inevitable late delivery or equipment breakdown or the failure to provide effective instruction, supervision and training of food handlers. If this is the case, it would make more sense to ensure a greater priority was given to the training of supervisors and managers than first-tier workers. Companies with limited training budgets available would be better advised to ensure the satisfactory training of management, who would then be able to effectively supervise and train the food handlers for whom they were responsible.

Although nationally accredited food hygiene courses are an essential part of comprehensive food hygiene training; they should not be considered as being superior to competency based training of food handlers on site. A pass mark of 60% in an examination, that can probably be successfully completed by the majority of food handlers without the benefit of attending a six-hour training session, should not be considered to be anything more than an indication that they may be competent with regard to food safety. It is possible to have a complete lack of understanding of cross-contamination and temperature control, to fail examination questions on these topics, and still achieve in excess of 60%. Furthermore, how relevant is an examination completed five or ten years ago if no additional training has been provided?

From my experience, and following discussions with colleagues, the presence of a satisfactory hazard analysis system does not guarantee staff competence. Furthermore, even when companies send all staff on external accredited courses, it is still necessary to observe and question food handlers to determine their competence.

This is hardly surprising when a large number of staff attending such courses state they are only there because they have been sent to get a certificate, instead of the desirable response that they are there to improve their food safety knowledge.

The Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice (Catering Guide) advises proprietors that:-

"If agency staff cannot provide documentation then the proprietor should assume that they are not trained and deploy or supervise them accordingly."

Once again, this places too much significance on staff having certificates instead of deploying staff based on their knowledge and competence, which may be gleaned from questioning and observation.

Given the emphasis placed on food handlers attending Level 1 formal food hygiene courses, it is an ideal time to reconsider the content, the length of the course and the length of each session.

Should we include terminology such as Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens, binary fission and should we be differentiating between exotoxins, endotoxins and enterotoxins? Is it necessary to argue about whether we control hazards or risks? Are we training microbiologists or scientists, demonstrating the academic ability of the trainer or should we be concentrating on providing sufficient essential knowledge to enable food handlers to produce safe food? How many of us during training sessions apologise for discussing complex or non-relevant items, purely because 'there might be an examination question on them'.

Despite our knowledge of the main contributory factors resulting in food poisoning, there is no universal agreement or practical, consistent, scientific based Government guidance on such important practices as:-

• Where to thaw frozen poultry.
• How to cool food in a warm kitchen.
• Which parts of a food room should be disinfected.
• The core temperature required for cooking/reheating meat (2 minutes at 70°C is not particularly helpful).
  

If we are to ensure effective food safety training, I would suggest consideration of the following recommendations:-

1. We must provide incentives and encouragement to ensure the commitment of owners and managers to the benefits of food safety training and the effective supervision and guidance of trained staff. (The attitude of supervisors and the hygiene culture of an organisation must be positive to give the correct message to staff returning from food safety courses.) Too many food handlers are advised to ignore certain hygiene practices as being too expensive or time consuming.
   
2. Food businesses should implement food safety training programmes, which include standards for induction, awareness, formal, management and refresher training. The knowledge and skills required for each post should be documented. Regular knowledge and competency testing of all staff should be undertaken to ensure satisfactory performance and determine the need for refresher training.
   
3. All accrediting bodies should carefully review their current courses and examination to ensure the relevance of content and the appropriateness of their course regulations.
   
4. Stricter control must be exercised over the quality of registered trainers. A combination of adequate technical knowledge and good training skills is essential.
   
5. All unnecessary jargon and scientific language should be removed from Level 1 courses and examinations.
   
6. Courses should, as far as practicable, be less generic and the content should be of specific relevance to those attending.
   
7. Training and courses should be subsidised by the Government to encourage:-
   (a) Training for short periods over several days or weeks. A six or nine-hour course held over one day does not produce the best results.
   (b) Smaller class sizes so that training can be more specific.
   (c) Competency based training at the work place.
   
8. The examination pass rate should be increased to a minimum of 75% and incorrect answers to essential questions should result in candidates failing the examination. Greater priority should be placed on effective training of managers and supervisors. It should be a legal requirement for high-risk food businesses to have at least one person on site who has the relevant qualification and experience.
   
9. Stricter control is required over the issue and use of certificates.
   
10. Increased emphasis should be placed on the importance of in-house competency based training and supervision.
    
11. During inspections, authorised officers should assess the competence of food handlers by observations and questions, not by the presence of certificates on walls.
    
12. Governments should provide consistent scientifically based guidance on good hygiene practice. (Preferably based on EU advice)

Conclusion

Effective food hygiene training of managers, supervisors and food handlers is essential to reduce the risk of food poisoning. The UK has an enviable record with regard to food hygiene training, but continual improvement is necessary to maintain our position as one of the leaders. The link between existing statistics of reported incidents of diarrhoea and vomiting and the effectiveness of food safety training should be broken. Meaningful performance indicators must be identified, which accurately measure the effectiveness of food safety training and enable an assessment of changes to be made.

Hopefully, this paper will contribute to the ongoing debate regarding food safety training and assist those involved in training to ensure that it is relevant, cost-effective and produces food handlers with the knowledge and competency to produce safe food.

Back to papers <