The original version
of this article first appeared in the
Journal of the Royal Society for the
Promotion of Health, December 2001,
Vol 121, No 4, page 213 to 219.
Euan
MacAuslan, FRSH, FRIPHH, MCIPD,
Environmental Health Training Co-ordinator,
The Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea,
Council Offices,
37 Pembroke Road,
London, W8 6PW
Telephone: 020 7341 5606
e-mail: euan.macauslan@rbkc.gov.uk
Key Words
Second language; social inclusion;
food handler; food hygiene training;
trainers; legislation
Abstract
Training food handlers in the hospitality
industry has been recommended by various
organisations as a means of improving
food handling practices and thus the
safety of food for consumers. It is
nearly 20 years since the first examinations
for basic level food hygiene certificates
were made available to food handlers
in the UK. Since then little has changed
in the syllabuses and the way the questions
are worded. However, the range of languages
spoken by food handlers working in the
UK has increased substantially since
more employers are recruiting those
who speak English as a second language.
Training can be an unwelcome expense
for managers where there is a high turn
over of employees, especially amongst
those for whom English is not a first
language. To improve practical implementation
of food hygiene theory it is time to
develop a radical strategy concerning
the way training is targeted and delivered
in the United Kingdom, and perhaps Europe.
Introduction
The Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea's (RBK&C) Directorate of
Environmental Health has been running
food hygiene and health and safety courses
since 1989. Since then there has been
an increase in the number of candidates
whose first languages are not English.
These have risen from 244 candidates
in 1989/90 to just over 2300 in 2000/01.The
largest percentage increase amongst
employment groups who attempt both basic
and intermediate course examinations
has been particularly noticeable at
supervisory and managerial level. The
failure rate is highest among candidates
who do not speak or read English as
a first language.
The Local Government Act 2000 places
a duty on local authorities to "
prepare community strategies for promoting
or improving the economic, social and
environmental well being of their areas,
and contributing to the achievement
of sustainable development in the UK".
The Royal Borough's Best Value Performance
Plans include the social inclusion of
all users of the RBK&C's services.
The provision of quality low cost food
hygiene training is no exception. The
Directorate of Environmental Health
is committed to work in partnership
with community groups and to actively
promote the possibility of training
food handlers, who do not speak English
as a first language, to become food
hygiene trainers. However, the Council
is currently restricted by a lack of
trainers who are registered to run courses
in other languages apart from English.
There is a national shortage of registered
trainers to help non-English speaking
food handlers. The problematical wording
of the questions in basic and intermediate
level food hygiene examinations for
non-English speaking food handlers,
together with the lack of language trainers
has prompted the RBK&C's Environmental
Health Training Co-ordinator to consider
how national help could be given to
non-English speaking food handlers.
Back
to top
Food Hygiene
training in the UK
Training is a planned and systematic
effort to modify or develop knowledge/
skills/ attitudes through learning experience
, to achieve effective performance in
an activity or range of activities.
Its purpose, in the work situation,
is to enable an individual to acquire
abilities in order that he or she can
perform adequately a given task (Buckley
et al, 1992). A food handler must be
able to understand the theory of good
food hygiene practice and given the
encouragement and supervision to put
that theory into practice if he or she
is able to perform a given task adequately.
The legal requirement in England and
Wales is that "The proprietor of
a food business shall ensure that food
handlers engaged in the food business
are supervised and instructed and/or
trained in food hygiene matters commensurate
with their work activities."(Food
Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations
1995). The Royal Institute of Public
Health and Hygiene define the term "food
handler" as: A food handler who,
by virtue of his or her activities within
a food business, comes into contact
with foodstuffs for human consumption
whether intended for sale or not, who
could by his or her actions cause food
poisoning organisms or other contamination
to come in contact with such food, or
who controls the activities of such
persons (RIPHH, 1995). This is a longer
version than "Any person involved
in a food business who handles who handles
or prepares food whether open (unwrapped)
or packaged" which is in the Industry
Guides to Good Hygiene Practice (Industry
Guide, 1997). It leaves out managers
and supervisors who may not have a direct
hands on role with food, although they
may be ultimately responsible for the
actions of subordinate food handlers.
The Industry Guides give advice to catering
and hospitality businesses on how to
comply with the Food Safety (General
Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 . They
have been developed in accordance with
article 5 of the EC Directive on the
hygiene of food stuffs (93/43/EEC).
A range of accredited courses are run
by The Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health, The Royal Institute of Public
Health and Hygiene, The Royal Society
for the Promotion of Health , The Royal
Environmental Health Institute of Scotland,
and the Society of Food Hygiene Technology.
The certificate courses are on the Department
of Education and Employment's List of
Qualifications (Schedule 2a, Further
Education and Higher Education Act 1992).
The professional bodies accredit trainers
subject to meeting their own specific
criteria. The trainers may work in local
government, colleges, schools, the hospitality
industry, or be independent consultants.
The Industry Guide suggests various
levels of training depending upon the
food handlers competence, experience,
and career development. In summary,
the levels are:
- "The Essentials of Food Hygiene"
(given before starting work)
- "Hygiene Awareness Instruction"
(given within four weeks of employment)
- "Formal Training, Level 1"
(given within 3 months)
- "Formal Training, Levels 2/3"
(good practice [according to responsibilities]).
Level 1 courses last for about 6 hours.
They lead to qualifications such as
the Basic Food Hygiene Certificate (The
Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health), the First Certificate in Food
Safety (The Royal Institute of Public
Health and Hygiene), or the Essentials
of Food Safety (The Royal Society for
the Promotion of Health). The same goes
for level 2 and 3. Each of the accredited
examination bodies have different titles
for each of the various levels. This
is confusing to employees and employers
in the UK and overseas. For the purposes
of this paper the basic level food hygiene
equates to Level 1,and the intermediate
level to Level 2 certificates. A range
of level 1 papers are available in other
languages apart from English.
Feedback from enforcement officers returning
from small businesses and discussions
with hospitality managers who make course
bookings for their staff still reveals
misconceptions about the need for training.
The misconceptions concern the requirement
to have or not to have a certificate,
expiry dates on certificates, and duration
of courses. Certificates are not needed
and currently, in UK legislation, there
is no mandatory expiry date on any food
hygiene training certificate. Managers
of small businesses may fail to practically
implement the theory . This may be because
they themselves may not have received
a level of training commensurate with
their work activity. In addition, if
a manager speaks English as a second
language his/her assessment of an employee's
level of English may not be a true reflection
of the level required for basic or intermediate
training. Certificates may provide a
false sense of security, as candidates
on basic level courses may have difficulty
turning the theory into practice. Their
managers may have disregard for the
candidates practical application of
knowledge by assuming the certificate
course provides theoretical and practical
training. The managers may instead pass
this responsibility on to the course
trainer who only delivers the theory
of food safety.
There is a national shortage of suitably
qualified trainers to run courses in
other languages apart from English.
The accredited examination bodies have
lists of trainers available to run certificate
level food safety courses in:
Arabic Bengali Cantonese/Mandarin French
Gujarati Hindi & Urdu Kurdish Punjabi
Somali Spanish Tamil Turkish
The trainers who can run the food hygiene
courses in the above languages are spread
very thinly throughout England. With
no other provision available training
in the UK currently socially excludes
English as a Second Language (ESOL)
speaking food handlers. Using various
search engines on the Internet to find
suitable food hygiene trainers and centres
offering courses in other languages
apart from English revealed no information.
The wording of examination questions
prevent ESOL food handlers who can demonstrate
best practice from attaining suitable
qualifications. This is apparent at
basic and intermediate food hygiene
level. Examination scribes can be expensive.
Oral examinations for candidates who
just understand spoken English are time
consuming and not always feasible. A
minimum level of English for Intermediate
candidates would be the Cambridge First
Certificate in English.
Back
to top
A recipe
for disaster
"A field somewhere in Europe.
A heifer is drinking water that contains
toxic strains of the bacteria Campylobacter,
Escherichia and Listeria. Cut to a fast-food
joint, where Alf, the cook's apprentice,
starts his day by mincing the meat from
our unfortunate heifer, thus ensuring
that the bacteria are evenly spread
throughout the resultant tub of hamburger
meat.
Coffee break. Alf hastily puts the
meat down beside some soft cheese. About
a hundred of the Listeria abandon the
meat for the more succulent cheese.
Meanwhile a fly lands on the meat, picks
up a few Campylobacter…" (Maurice,
1994)
The problem with Alf is that, although
he came to the UK to improve his English,
his skills are limited and catering
was the only type of work that he could
find. He attended a basic level food
hygiene course and sat an examination.
The trainer could not speak his first
language, and few leaflets were made
available to him. He failed the examination.
He and his manager (who had received
no training, and could not communicate
effectively in English to help Alf)
had difficulty in applying the theory
to demonstrate good hygiene practice.
A far fetched scenario? Not if the
language barriers present in the hospitality
industry are anything to go by.
Back
to top
The language
barrier
The Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea is a major visitor destination
being home to three of the most visited
museums/galleries in the UK, and hosts
the largest carnival in Europe in Notting
Hill. Around 30,000 visitors stay in
the borough each night. Amongst the
first migrant workers to settle in the
Royal Borough during the 1950's were
Moroccans. They were recruited to work
in London's hotels and restaurants.
Within The Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea there are approximately
2000 registered food premises. In the
schools 70 different languages are spoken,
and the 1991 Census revealed over 100
languages spoken amongst the adult population.
14,000 residents (8% of the total population)
in the Royal Borough work in the hotel
and catering industry (not borough specific).
17,000 people work in the Royal Borough's
tourism and hospitality industry, 50%
of these are part-time. 85% of the small
businesses in the Royal Borough employ
less than 10 people. 25% of all jobs
in the Royal Borough are filled by local
residents.
In 1999, the RBK&C's The Directorate
of Environmental Health undertook a
survey of 488 independent restaurants
and cafes to establish the most commonly
spoken languages amongst food handlers
apart from English. The survey established
that 47 different languages other than
English were spoken by food handlers
in the premises. In descending order,
the seven most common languages were:
Italian (33% of food handlers), French
(31%), Spanish (30%), and Portuguese
(30%). Others were Arabic, Turkish,
Thai , and Tagalog. Since 2000, there
has been an increase in Eastern European
language speaking candidates passing
through the Council's basic and intermediate
courses. Businesses have a high turnover
of hourly paid staff.
The only food handlers guaranteed to
receive refresher training in The Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are
the 300 plus owners of food stalls who
wish to apply for a trading licence
at the Notting Hill Carnival. They have
to undergo food hygiene training as
part of their licence conditions. Perhaps
there are lessons to be learned from
this form of half day training.
Between 1999 and 2000 the RBK&C
was awarded European Social Funding-
Objective 4 (ESF) to help employees
in small and medium sized hotel and
catering businesses (SMEs). The ability
to offer low cost high quality training
attracted considerably more candidates
than in previous years. In 2001 the
Council was again awarded ESF- Objective
3 money. The purpose of the funding
is to help employees in SMEs with improving
skills. Some of the money will also
be used to help teach potential food
hygiene trainers (who speak English
as a second language) to deliver food
hygiene courses for ESOL candidates.
Discussion with other training organisations,
and representatives from the Hospitality
Industry, has shown similarities. Managers
in 358 of the 1999 survey sample had
attended basic level training compared
to 70 who had attended intermediate
level training. The London-wide availability
of suitably qualified trainers to run
basic and intermediate level courses
in the languages identified in the 1999
survey is minimal if not non-existent.
It penalises non-English speaking students
and their employers. Intermediate level
examination candidates have shown an
increase in failure rates. Feedback
from managers and candidates has indicated
that the course materials and examination
papers were not available in their own
languages, nor were they entirely relevant
to improving food hygiene in their premises.
In addition, some of the questions could
not be translated easily. Candidates
are reported as having difficulty turning
the theory into practice. The external
examiners' reports back up these comments.
Most commonly reported back to The Directorate
of Environmental Health is that the
level of written English by certain
candidates is not sufficient to pass
the examinations.
In June 2001, the Evening Standard
reported that 50-80% of catering staff
work in London for a year or two to
improve their English (Evening Standard,
2001). The Caterer and Hotelkeeper magazine
reported that the skills shortage in
London was so bad that staff are being
recruited from Malaysia and Serbia (Caterer
and Hotelkeeper, 2001). As a National
Training Organisation, The Hospitality
training Foundation (HtF) undertook
research in 1998 to update its original
high profile report, Training who needs
it? which was undertaken in 1995 (HtF,
1998) . The survey suggested that restaurant
sector provided the least training.
The reasons why training was not undertaken
included high staff turn over, staff
shortages, no employees, and a lack
of time.
At an HtF Network focus group, in July
2001, attended by the Environmental
Health Training Co-ordinator together
with training managers from colleges
and the industry, training issues affecting
the hospitality industry were discussed
. The HtF has anecdotal evidence to
suggest that student numbers on all
hospitality courses are falling. The
focus group was asked to discuss this
evidence. It was agreed that the key
skills shortages which face the hospitality
industry, especially small businesses,
included numeracy, literacy, and English
as a second language (ESOL). All in
the group were concerned about the lack
of intervention to help ESOL food handlers
by Government, accredited examination
bodies and attitudes of managers who
view overseas food handlers as a source
of "cheap labour". Other focus
groups met during the remainder of 2001.
The HtF is due to publish the results
of these meetings and a major training
survey in a report for March 2002.
Accredited examination bodies were
contacted for lists of registered trainers
who could run food hygiene and health
and safety courses in other languages.
The advice given was unhelpful. This
ranged from the nearest Italian trainer
based in Milan, to suggested uses of
interpreters during training in a room
full of other candidates! Registered
trainers could run food hygiene courses
in Hindi, Gujarati, Bengali, and Punjabi.
In the centre of a major conurbation,
such as London, there is an acute shortage
of suitably qualified trainers who can
run the courses in languages for food
handlers who come from places other
than the sub-continent.
In basic and intermediate level papers
examination questions are not geared
towards family or small businesses where
supervisors do not exist. Also there
is the use of the word "hazard"
instead of food safety management, and
emphasis on design and construction
questions. These last two subjects are
ones which many candidates know they
will have no ability to improve on return
to their employers' places of work.
Examination questions stress the powers
of enforcement officers - rather than
emphasising the advice officers can
give to businesses. A further difficulty
arises with translation. For example,
"elderly" where in some languages
there is no direct translation. Other
examples include "gravy",
and some languages have no word for
"spore".
The Industry Guide gives unhelpful
advice to managers who need to train
ESOL food hygiene candidates. It suggests
that special arrangements may have to
be made for problems of foreign language.
There is no further advice about how
to go about making these special arrangements.
Central Government , enforcement agencies,
examination bodies, and trainers can
no longer continue to expect commercial
and institutional food hygiene standards
to improve if language barriers cannot
be broken down, and managers do not
receive the food hygiene training they
deserve. Nor can they expect trainers
to fill the gaps for them if the help
and resources are not available.
A challenge
for the 21st Century
In 1999, London employed 5.8% of the
UK's hospitality industry workforce
(Labour Force Survey, 1999). In July
1999, London had the highest percentage
of vacancies (14%) compared to any other
region in the UK. The hospitality industry
is seen as unglamorous, with long hours
and poor pay. More than half of all
males in non-manual hospitality industry
jobs earned less than £350 per
week. These posts with in the industry
may suit seasonal workers, students,
or traveller populations (HtF, 2000).
Hotels and restaurants account for
almost 6.1% of employment in London.
The number of jobs has grown by 25%
(42,500) between 1991 and 1997 (DTZ
Pieda Consulting, 1999). Employment
in this sector is expected to grow.
Cambridge Econometrics forecast growth
of 7% (17,000 jobs) to 2010. These posts
will consist of part-time and temporary
and flexible working patterns (DTZ Pieda
Consulting, 1999) . It is estimated
that the UK's hospitality industry will
need to fill 300,000 new jobs before
2009 (Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 2001).
One of the key skill requirements for
this group will be food hygiene training.
However, it is highly likely, that the
posts will be filled by considerably
more ESOL employees than in recent years,
the greater percentage coming from Eastern
Europe.
The current ESF Object 3 Programme
for London 2000-2006 has five policy
fields. These include: active labour
market policies, equal opportunities
for all and promoting social inclusion,
and lifelong learning. The RBK&C
will continue to apply for further ESF
funding and similar initiatives to help
employees within the hospitality industry
gain food hygiene and health & safety
qualifications for skill improvement
purposes. If successful, some of the
funding will be used to encourage potential
ESOL candidates to undergo training
to become registered food hygiene trainers
to run courses in their own languages.
The challenge for this century is to
provide food hygiene training for an
ever growing number of food handlers
who are expected to take up the increasing
number of new posts no matter what their
level of English. This will fit in with
the Government's Adult Learning Strategy,
Best Value, Better Government, Equal
Opportunities and Social Inclusion policies.
As part of planning to meet this challenge
the RBK&C will continue to seek
ways to reduce social exclusion, and
to make its food hygiene courses available
to all. This cannot be done in isolation.
Networking with enforcement, educational,
business agencies and the hospitality
industry will be vital. A co-ordinated
approach to resolving the problem of
food hygiene training which will benefit
all food handlers and their managers
alike will need careful planning.
Back
to top
The Media
Learning may be via the media. For
ESOL candidates listening to local radios
stations or television channels may
prove a useful training tool. In addition
use of language and ethnic newspapers
with are another source which is readily
accessible to food business employees.
Audio tapes can be used by individuals
or groups. Food hygiene messages need
to be translated into a range of languages.
The use of the text channels on national
television (Oracle, Ceefax, etc) provides
a visual source, as does the Open University
on BBC2. Unfortunately, the current
range of cookery programmes on UK television
which are aimed at a domestic audience
do little to promote good food hygiene
practice. Cable and satellite television
may , after careful planning, be utilised
to help individuals. A learning medium
which is a growth industry and becoming
accessible to increasing numbers of
individuals is information technology.
Back
to top
The use of information
technology
"I can educate people, but I cannot
make them learn", or to misquote
Socrates, "I can train people,
but I cannot make them learn."
Enforcement officers and catering managers
alike are confronted with food handlers
who have gained nationally recognised
food hygiene certificates but do not
put into practice what they have been
taught. It may be a case of "passing
a food hygiene exam still gives you
a licence to kill" (anon).
Surfing the net for information about
food hygiene training availability in
other languages reveals little in the
way of assistance for ESOL food handlers.
The range of websites do not give much
information. The Department of Education
and Employment, and the Food Standards
Agency seem to have missed an opportunity
by providing information and courses
on-line in other languages apart from
English - a sense of discrimination
by information technology (IT). Some
local authorities have sites which give
information about food safety issues.
However, the vast majority are in English.
A Cabinet Office report on "Ethnic
Minorities and the People's Panel"
(H.M. Government Cabinet Office, 2000)
describes the results of a survey of
840 people from different ethnic backgrounds.
The panel is basically a national Residents
Panel. The majority of those questioned
said that IT was a growing source of
information for them and that it is
becoming more accessible to under 21's.
In 1998, the Government produced a Green
Paper, "The Learning Age".
The Government set out a vision of "a
learning society in which everyone,
from whatever background, routinely
expects to learn and upgraded their
skills throughout life." (H.M.
Government, 1998). The make this vision
possible the University for Industry
(Ufi) was created. The Ufi developed
a service called learndirect . This
service enables individuals to learn
for fun, and gain knowledge and skills
to enhance employability (learndirect,
2001). It offers high quality learning
at a time, a place and at a pace to
suit individuals. This seems particularly
advantageous for food handlers who may
have difficulty with English, or seem
intimidated by a traditional training
room environment. The National Institute
for Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)
support the use of IT as a learning
tool. Over a longer period of time the
candidates may absorb a greater understanding
of food hygiene, rather than attending
a theoretical 6 to 18 hour course, such
as the basic and intermediate level
courses.
The other advantages of learndirect,
and other computer based training (CBT)
programmes are that they can be accessed
at work, in colleges, at home, or in
public access buildings where there
is an on-line facility (such as libraries).
CBT reduces the cost of training, but
helps to contribute to a food safety
culture through a proven ability to
raise awareness and long term working
practices. The manager can also track
the learning progress of an employee.
The growth of internet cafes may also
be another place were food hygiene training
on-line can take place.
Schools also use IT as a learning medium.
Within secondary schools cd-rom packages
are available to help teach children
about food hygiene. This was the result
of a co-ordinated initiative involving
the Departments of Education and Skills,
the Department of Health, and the Health
Development Agency, and food hygiene
examination bodies. For family run food
businesses this presents an obvious
advantage especially where the parents
do not speak good English. The children
can pass on the theory in their own
first language to their parents.
The difference between those using
on-line learning and traditional learners
(who attend training room based sessions)
is that the former have to respond and
interact differently to a learning programme
by using IT skills in order to receive
and gather information. The on-line
learners have to offer evidence of their
learning. With food hygiene CBT there
has to be a proper evaluation of its
effectiveness as regards change in practices
within a food business.
However, at the beginning of the 21st
Century, there are still some of the
adult population who are regarded as
computer illiterate. Through no fault
of their own they may not have received
any IT training or have easy access
to computers. It will therefore be necessary
to consider a way forward which takes
into account a range of abilities and
learning methods.
A Way Forward
To gain a wider picture of the concerns
of organisations and businesses affected
by training requirements, and the problems
ESOL candidates appear to face with
basic and intermediate level food hygiene
examination questions, a series of meetings
was organised by RBK&C's Directorate
of Environmental Health . The attendees
were from West London Business Link,
Portobello Business Service, RBK&C
Adult and Community Education, the Learning
and Skills Council, trainers from local
authority environmental health departments,
and hospitality industry managers. A
way forward was discussed at each of
the meetings. The points raised by these
groups were then put to The Chartered
Institute of Environmental Health, The
Royal Institute of Public Health and
Hygiene, The Royal Society for the Promotion
of Health , and the Food Standards Agency.
The meetings took place between July
and October 2001.
In summary, the groups commonly suggested
the following actions are to be taken
if food hygiene training is to be effective
in its aim of improving food safety,
is to be available to food handlers
who otherwise may feel socially excluded,
and is to address the problems managers
face with high turnovers of ESOL candidates:
- Encourage the examination bodies,
training organisations and Central
Government to increase the number
of trainers to run courses in other
languages apart from English.
- Encourage food hygiene trainers
and other agencies to work with English
language trainers. This will help
ESOL candidates develop a better understanding
of English to pass basic and intermediate
level courses.
- Run a conference to attract national
debate on how best to resolve the
problem about the lack of food hygiene
trainers who can run courses in other
languages apart from English.
- Totally re-vamp the wording of examinations
and syllabuses of the basic level
courses. The current one day certificate
course need to be changed to a half
day one, with an expiry date on the
certificate. Emphasis on personal
hygiene and non-technical hazard analysis
is required. Food handlers cannot
do much about the fabric of a building
and do not need to know about signs
and symptoms of pathogens in any great
detail.
- Perhaps introduce critical questions
which have to be marked correct for
the candidate to pass, or raise the
pass mark to 80%. Another problem
with the current basic level examinations
is that it is possible to pass without
any prior knowledge or attendance
of a course. The greatest difficulty
is for a candidate to demonstrate
practical implementation of the theory.
How this is to be resolved is still
open for discussion.
- For basic and intermediate level
examinations change the questions
so that they are relevant to the candidates.
Questions with photographs or pictures
would be helpful. Asking questions
about management responsibilities
and the help (rather than emphasis
on statutory powers) given by EHOs
may press home what owners need to
do to improve food safety.
- Produce food hygiene booklets of
candidates and businesses in plain
in English and a wide range of languages.
The use of pictures and tables, rather
than long paragraphs of jargon are
not conducive to learning or applying
theory to practice.
- Do not fail candidates because they
do not speak English (well). Their
food hygiene practices, when observed
in the workplace, may be more than
adequate.
- Promote wider use of computer based
training (CBT) for all candidates
once to reinforce the proposed half
day level 1 courses. Planned CBT would
be the responsibility of proprietors
of food businesses. The advantages
of this type of training may include
absorption of information over a longer
period of time, and does not remove
the candidate from the work place
for long periods of time.
- Change the current legislation to
require the owner of a food premises
to under go at least intermediate
level training. Produce non-technical
syllabuses, examination questions
and materials in other languages apart
from English which are relevant to
every day catering operations. Food
handlers should attend a half day
examined food hygiene course, and
the onus of further training placed
upon the managers of premises.
- The Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health, The Royal Society for the
Promotion of Health, The Royal Institute
of Public Health and Hygiene all have
different titles for the level 1,
2, and 3 courses which the hospitality
industry in Europe apparently finds
confusing. Internationally recognised
uniform titles are required.
- Through the Food Standards Agency
set up a Food Safety Education Alliance.
Members of the alliance would be trainers
from a range of public and private
sectors, plus any examination body
or government agency which has an
interest in food safety training.
The Food and Drugs Administration
in the USA funds the Food Safety Training
and Education Alliance. Free membership
gives members access to a range of
relevant websites, training material
production news, and considerable
information about how to training
non-English speaking food handlers.
The group consisting of businesses
advisors, and adult education service
providers suggested that funding initiatives
such as European Social Funding were
made more widely available to help with
the cost of training potential trainers.
Also closer links could be made with
colleges to organise special courses
for ESOL candidates.
Managers from the hospitality industry
who attended the meetings were not aware
of the shortage of trainers to run the
courses in other languages. It was suggested
that their own industry could do more
to seek out potential trainers to help
themselves. The examinations at basic
and intermediate level were in need
of change. Words could not always be
easily translated, terminology such
as "Hazard Analysis" is easily
misunderstood, the questions in the
papers are not a fair representation
of every day catering situations. More
pictures would help. Training sessions
for managers may be useful if local
authorities were to organise food safety
forums. This would allow for two way
feed back on subjects concerning food
safety management, training, addressing
language barriers, and compliance with
food safety law.
Representatives from central London
local authority environmental health
departments met to discuss their concerns
about the training on offer, the lack
of adequate explanation about training
requirements in the Industry Guides,
and the concern about the relevance
of some examination questions to food
handlers dealing with different menus
(eg vegetarian, pizza, coffee shop menus).
Language barriers were encountered on
courses, and many candidates from ethnic
backgrounds had literacy difficulties.
Syllabuses and the examination questions
did not reflect the legislation. Both
need complete overhauls. For example
questions testing knowledge of candidates
about storage of cold food at room temperature
must take into account the four hour
rule (detailed in the Food Safety (Temperature
Control) Regulations 1995) which permits
cold food to be prepared displayed and
sold at room temperature within four
hours. The feasibility of defrosting
a chicken at room temperature for 12
hours compared to in a refrigerator
to prevent the growth of spoilage organisms
is not taken into account in certain
examination questions. Questions at
basic and intermediate level need to
reflect the advantages businesses can
gain from speaking to their local authority
environmental health departments. Half
day courses for all food handlers culminating
in a short tick test with critical questions
relating to time and temperature control
might be a more suitable form of training
than the current courses on offer at
Level 1. Simple jargon free hazard analysis
and personal hygiene were seen as more
important than design and construction
of businesses or details about the characteristics
of specific food poisoning organisms.
Managers should undergo some training
to help them manage food safety rather
than just learn about food hygiene theory
to help them pass an examination. The
local authority officers decided it
would be beneficial for them to meet
quarterly or six-monthly to discuss
current training issues . This will
enable representation to be made with
views and concerns to the appropriate
agencies or organisations.
Issues discussed at the meetings were
put to the accredited examination bodies
and the Food Standards Agency. There
was general interest in this whole area.
Questions were raised such as: "Are
we training or testing?", "Are
there clear distinctions between training
and qualifications?", and "Training,
testing , or implementation - which
is the most important?". Some of
the points provided discussion and generated
ideas for long term changes . However,
all agreed some training was better
than no training. The issue of language
trainers and difficulties some food
handlers faced with attending courses
was accepted. It was considered important
to remember why training took place
- namely to improve standards. The content
and style of course delivery was important.
There was a view that any new course
should be delivered in English first.
Once any creases had been ironed out
then the course could be adapted to
meet ethnic needs. Race relations and
discrimination legislation may influence
the future of any legally required food
hygiene training. This area is to be
explored. Mandatory training was for
the moment ruled out. Any change will
have to be carefully considered. Some
training is better than no training
at all.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) , at
the time of writing, is planning a food
hygiene campaign aimed at catering premises
to raise awareness of food hygiene issues
(EHN, 2001). There may also be plans
to a national website with links to
sources of hygiene information. This
will only benefit ESOL food handlers
and businesses if the information is
translated in to a sufficient number
of languages.
The RBK&C is to continue to find
ways forward to help ESOL food handlers.
These include networking with the Hospitality
training Foundation, the Learning and
Skills Council, West London Business
Link, Portobello Business Centre, accredited
examination bodies, the Food Standards
Agency, other local authorities, NHS
Primary Care Groups, adult education
providers, employment agencies, charitable
and voluntary organisations, community
and welfare groups, and trade associations.
It is committed to improving skills
and education standards, maximising
European funding, assisting local businesses,
and seeking new partnerships to improve
employability and business stability.
Rennie cited that "although no
training programme is complete without
an evaluation of its effectiveness,
there are relatively few reported evaluations
of the effectiveness of food hygiene
education in the UK. Those which have
been identified do not make the case
convincingly for food hygiene education
in its current form" (Rennie,1994).
To date there are still no evaluations
which determine the effectiveness of
food hygiene education. However, the
Food Standards Agency appears to be
taking a small step in the right direction
with its forthcoming Catering Campaign.
May be it is time for the accredited
examination bodies, along with the Food
Standards Agency, NHS Primary Health
Care Trusts, and the Hospitality Industry
to review the few evaluations which
Rennie identified, and to open-mindedly
review the current food hygiene training
strategy for the UK?
Back
to top
Conclusion
A radical co-ordinated re-think and
shake up of basic and intermediate level
food hygiene courses and examinations
are required if ESOL food handlers,
and ultimately their customers, are
to benefit from improved practical implementation
of food hygiene matters commensurate
with their work activities. A clearer
explanation of training requirements
and recommendations is required in the
Industry Guides.
The RBK&C cannot work alone in
trying to resolve the issue at hand.
Central Government, the National Training
Organisation, the hospitality industry,
business advisory agencies, and trainers
will have to work together with a common
goal. That goal is to help food handlers,
whatever their language, receive appropriate
accessible theoretical training which
can be turned in to practice. This must
done with input from local authorities
and the accredited examination bodies.
If, of all words of
tongue and pen.
The saddest are, "It might have
been,"
More sad are these we daily see:
"It is, but hadn't ought to be!"
Bret Harte (1839-1902)
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in
this article are those of Euan MacAuslan,
and do not necessarily reflect the policies
of The Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea.
References:
Buckley, R and Caple, J (1992)The Theory
and Practice of Training. Kogan Page.
Cabinet Office, H.M. Government (1998),
Green Paper, "The Learning Age"
Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 5 July 2001,
17.
DTZ PIEDA Consulting, Regional Development
Plan - ESF Objective 3 Programme for
London 2000-2006, A First Draft Report,
12 November 1999.
Environmental Health News, New Food
Safety Campaign, Volume 16, Number 28,
27 July 2001, 1.
Evening Standard, 12 June 2001, 21.
Hospitality training Foundation, Look
who is training now, 1998
Hospitality training Foundation, Labour
Market Review 2000 for the hospitality
industry, Htf (2000), 1 to 60
Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice:
Catering Guide (Food Safety (General
Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 ), Chadwick
House Group Ltd (1997), 9
Labour Force Survey (1999), Office
for National Statistics
Maurice, J. The Rise and rise of food
poisoning. The New Scientist, 17 December
1994, 28-33
NOMIS (1999), Office for National Statistics
Rennie, DM (1994) Evaluation of Food
Hygiene Education, British Food Journal
96, 11, 20-25
The Royal Institute of Public Health
and Hygiene (1995), First Certificate
in Food Safety Syllabus
Schedule 1 Chapter X [Reg 4 (2) (d)},
Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations
1995
www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/2000/panel/embooster/report.pdf
www.learndirect.co.uk/home/whylearndirect
FOOD HYGIENE TRAINING IN THE UK: TIME FOR A RADICAL RE-THINK?
