Search results

Directive 93/43/EEC introduced the concept of good hygiene practice, in response to a pan‐European increase in the incidence of food poisoning, to foster a preventive approach to food safety. UK legislation reinforces the EU position that food businesses are responsible for the implementation of good hygiene practices. The response of the food industry has been to develop audited standards of hygiene, higher than explicit legal requirements. Small businesses have, however, been slow to adopt industry hygiene standards. A case study of small manufacturers of ready to eat meat products investigated the reasons for this. Businesses were first audited to the EFSIS[1] standard, to compare current practice with recommended best practice. Second, technical managers or owner‐managers were interviewed, to gain an insight into their knowledge of industry standards in particular, and the process of hygiene management in general. The analysis found significant differences in the knowledge of technical managers and owner‐managers, with the latter often unaware of the existence of audited standards. It is argued, therefore, that, in order to increase the implementation of good hygiene practices, further programmes to inform small food businesses about industry standards are required.

The notion of consumer sovereignty is not a new concept. However to effectively use it as a tool to improve food hygiene standards, proprietors of eating‐places must know what customers look for to assess those standards. It is also important that customers demonstrate their unwillingness to buy from unhygienic premises. This article summarises research, using the “Delphi Technique”, backed up by semi‐structured interviews which has established a body of new knowledge about the subject. Conclusions are drawn about the relevance of food hygiene standards to running an effective business and the need for a public education campaign. The results also challenge current views about the importance of food hygiene standards to customers.

In September this year, the Government issued its draft Regulations on Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) 1995, which acknowledges for the first time the importance of a programme to make food handlers, their supervisors and managers, properly aware of the importance of food hygiene for the protection of the consumer and what they can do to prepare food safely. However, the regulation is specific neither about how training should best be implemented nor on the most important aspect of the policy, its end result. The standards of food hygiene awareness to be achieved through training have not been specified. The Department of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) cannot delegate their responsibility to protect the public health. Therefore, levels of food hygiene awareness, regardless of industrial sector, should be their prime concern. If the departments could set their minimum required standard of food hygiene awareness, the national framework of training which has evolved could naturally regulate the quality of training itself.

The purpose of this case study was to obtain information on the hygiene standards of food premises using the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

Eight local authorities in South Wales were asked to provide the most recent food hygiene inspection of a named food premise in their area. The disclosed reports were assessed to determine whether they conformed to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Food Law Code of Practice and how useful they would be to the consumer seeking information on the hygiene standards of a food premise.

Five of the eight authorities provided full information. Most authorities supplied a risk grading for the premises. Reports ranged from completed comprehensive inspection protocols with full post‐inspection letters to a hand written, barely legible report that failed to adequately differentiate between legal requirements and recommendations. Without some training in food law and food hygiene it would be difficult for most consumers to interpret some of the reports.

The results of this case study have increased confidence that local authorities are now complying with the FOI Act. It raises concerns about the consistency, fairness and robustness of inspections.

If there is to be greater transparency about hygiene standards in food premises, regulators will have to take account of the public in their communications. The public will need to be educated about the inspection and enforcement process and any systems used to disclose inspection results.

The paper shows how FOI can be used to inform the public about food hygiene standards.

Hygiene award schemes are intended to promote excellent food safety standards. They should encourage food premises to raise standards and provide consumers with more information. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is considering a national hygiene award scheme as part of its strategy to improve food safety management in food businesses throughout the UK. This paper seeks to review four hygiene award schemes that are currently operating in the UK.

The schemes were assessed using the preferred components for a national scheme established by the FSA. An attempt was made to gauge consumer and industry interest in the schemes and to identify whether food safety standards had been improved.

In all of the schemes the food safety standards were assessed by enforcement officers during routine inspections to grade the awards. The award schemes appeared to be popular with most award winners, with some of the local authorities and with those members of the public who are aware of them. However, the schemes do little to inform the public of actual standards in food premises. This lack of transparency mainly relates to a lack of information on the scoring mechanism for businesses and the public, limited publicity for the scheme in the media and the evident need to educate the public.

Information on the benefits and limitations of the different schemes that are highlighted may make some contribution to the debate on a national scheme.

The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the benefits and limitations of the new Welsh Hygiene Award Scheme.

The benefits and limitations of the scheme are considered in relation to consumers and the industry.

The Welsh Hygiene Award Scheme appears to be popular with award winners, some of the local authorities and most of the public who are aware of it. It is too early to determine whether the initiative has resulted in an overall improvement in the hygiene standards of businesses. Unfortunately, the initiative does not inform the public of actual standards in food premises. This lack of transparency mainly relates to a lack of information for businesses and the public, limited publicity for the scheme in the media and the evident need to educate the public.

It adds to the limited literature on the evaluation of similar initiatives. Given that the FSA is considering the option of launching a national food hygiene award scheme, there is a need to carefully evaluate this and other schemes before finalising options.

The proposed EC legislation dealing with hygiene in the fish industry is reviewed, the reaction of industry to the proposals examined and the wider policy implications analysed. The EC proposals for fish hygiene, now in their fourth revision, will apply to all sectors of the fish industry from the point of port markets onwards; they will not now apply to the catching sector. The detailed measures specified are intended to ensure adequacy of hygiene standards throughout the marketing chain, including imports. The requirements for the monitoring and control of standards are dealt with. The proposals are considered to be significant to all industry sectors, although their precise impact will necessarily be varied. Much uncertainty still surrounds the exact implications of their adoption. It would seem desirable that further consultation takes place to ensure adoption of an appropriate and coherent programme from the outset.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the utility to consumers of hygiene disclosure schemes for eating places.

A sample of hygiene disclosure schemes operated by local authorities in the UK was examined for features that might be expected to influence consumer awareness and behaviour.

The survey revealed that schemes differed in the interpretation of scores, the extent of information disclosed, the communication channels used to disclose information and the amount of publicity provided for businesses and the public. The majority of schemes provide certificates which businesses are encouraged to display prominently. Hygiene inspection information is posted on the web sites of all the local authorities.

The number of schemes in this study was limited. A comprehensive evaluation of the current UK “Scores on Doors” schemes will have to take into account a large number of schemes with a very large number of variables, making its feasibility questionable.

The “Scores on Doors” schemes will only be successful if the public are fully aware of them and the schemes are well respected. They will have to be well publicised, to operate in an open, transparent manner and be consistent and fair. This study shows that, although the schemes have some features in common, there is considerable lack of consistency, particularly in the representation of scores as symbols.

Published evaluations of hygiene disclosure schemes relate to schemes operating outside the UK. This study examines some of the features of current UK schemes that will require consideration if a consistent nation‐wide scheme is to be developed.

In both their enforcement and training role environmental health officers (EHOs) may influence businesses' attitudes to hygiene training. A survey was conducted to examine EHOs' experience and perceptions of the provision and effectiveness of food hygiene training in small food businesses. The results indicate that officers had concerns about the content and the delivery of hygiene courses and about the quality of other hygiene trainers. Officers use the industry guides to advise on training but receive limited guidance on the assessment of hygiene training in the workplace. The checking of training records was considered to be less important than the use of observation and questioning for assessing hygiene training effectiveness. Environmental factors, such as supervisor support and situational aids were judged by officers to be important factors in the implementation of workplace hygiene training. They reported low levels of formal refresher training and active support of training by management.

Describes a survey of food safety training for staff in the retail, care and catering industry. Training provisions were evaluated against the guidance in the relevant industry guides. Additional information was collected on the managers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards hygiene training. The extent and level of training of the retail butchers, who had to comply with the licensing regulations, was better than care homes and caterers of an equivalent size. Some of the care homes were not compliant with the training requirements of the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations. There was a similar lack of hygiene management systems in most of the catering businesses in this study but senior staff were better trained and were able to provide in‐house training to greater effect. All the businesses carried out on‐the‐job training, although in some this was restricted to induction training, the content of which was often ill defined. There was a lack of documented hygiene procedures, reinforcement strategies and very little refresher training activity. Many managers failed to provide feedback on performance, to test hygiene knowledge or praise good hygienic performance. Half of the managers were not trained to train, and often were untrained in elementary hygiene themselves. Some managers recognised that conditions in the workplace and time pressures could contribute to poor hygiene performances.