Food Hygiene and the Caterer (Conference July 1991): Training Staff in Food Hygiene Eunice Taylor, BSc (Hons), Cert Ed, FRSH, MHCIMA, MIFST, MCFA Grassendale, Green Lane, Preesall, Knot End on Sea, Lancashire FY6 0NS
INTRODUCTION
Off-the-Job Hygiene Training
This paper looks at the topic of training from a range of perspectives but concentrates primarily upon the staff who operate within the environment of a professional kitchen.
The majority of craftsmen and women in the catering industry have attended college on a full or part time basis to gain City & Guilds qualifications. Close scrutiny of the syllabus of any of these courses reveals a substantial hygiene content. There are, however, major flaws in the system: a. The level of qualification of tutors is not set - so in reality anyone can be timetabled to teach the subject. A recent investigation into nutrition education revealed that 64% of students in catering colleges did not have access to qualified staff. The picture would be mirrored in hygiene education as the two subjects are usually taught by the same person. b. The examination does not reflect the emphasis in the syllabus. For example, a typical exam may have only a few multiple choice questions. In true City & Guilds tradition these often have either no incorrect answers, or have been used so many times students have learnt the
What do we Mean
by Training?
Despite the philosophical distinction between training and education, in practical terms - and in this context - good trainers are good educators. The goal is the same - a raised awareness which brings about changes in attitude and behaviour. If a course in hygiene does not make people think, feel and behave differently in their work environment then surely it has failed? There may be companies who see training as a paper exercise to keep enforcement officers happy or a method of raising staff morale. No matter how valid these points are, neither is directly related to the production of safer food. Training programmes must be firmly fixed on the premise that work practices must change if safer food is the goal.
Why Do We Need Mandatory Training? Recent research commissioned by Mintel, a large market research organisation, depicts a grim picture of an estimated 8 million lost working days due to the effects of food
poisoning, at a cost to British industry of about £3 5 million year. This, of course, is not solely a caterers’ problem as highlighted by a MAFF report suggesting over 7 5 % of food is caused in the home, and Audit Commission Tigures which implicate all sectors of the industry - including food manufacturers. Caterers however do have special problems which must be addressed if full commitment to the aims of training are a
poisoning
to
be achieved. These include: . large number and diversity of premises . large workforce . high staff turnover . high proportion of the workforce with no professional
training off-the-job hygiene training marginalised on-the-job hygiene training inadequate. Whilst the first 4 are apparent to any one working in the industry, the latter points are not always appreciated. . .
answers.
Students quickly see this slot on the timetable as a waste of time - they can pass their exams without it! Of course there are dedicated teachers who put their life and soul into teaching hygiene and making it relevant to the industry. There are also students who will respond and learn. However, when those same students go back to the kitchen they will follow the work practices established there. The role model for kitchen hygiene is not the specialist in a laboratory - but the
head chef. The thousand dollar question must be ... does the head chefhave sufficient hygiene awareness? The chances are that he or she came
through the same system and has the knowledge to match! On-the-Job Training The Caterbase scheme is
available
training problems.
of on-the-job and is beset with similar worrying aspect of this particular a
typical example
to caterers
The most scheme is that the qualifications/experience of assessors (ie those people who tick the boxes) is of no importance. Assessors are rated according to their trainer skills qualifications which may involve a 1, 2, 3 or 4 day course of instruction on the basics of assessment! Anyone who wants proof of the lack of hygiene knowledge of this organisation need only look at the questions on
189
the assessment sheets - not only are they often irrelevant to the main problems .... but the answers are incorrect as well! All this depicts a grim picture of hygiene awareness within the industry. It would not be so bad if managers were any better equipped to deal with the problem, but their training is
similarly flawed. It must be accepted that there is a work force which needs hygiene training. It is a sad story that the only way to bring this about is through legislation.
THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND As early as July 1989 the government ear-marked training as a priority in the White Paper ’Food Safety - Protecting the Consumer’. It was stated that provision would be made for the compulsory training of ’those people who handle food directly’. In June 1989 a consultation document was issued and in June 1990 this period of consultation ended. In the meantime the Food Safety Act came into force and Food Authorities are ’authorised’ to provide training courses in food hygiene and Ministers are ‘empowered’ to make regulations ’securing the observance of hygienic ... practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations’.
Draft
regulations still awaited. From the detail of the consultation document and discussions held at every level of government and industry it has been assumed by many that there will be a basic training requirement. This will probably be equivalent to the 6 hour courses run by nationally recognised examining bodies. These can only be run by registered trainers, have astandard syllabus, a set examination and certificates for successful candidates. The 3 courses available are: ~ Institution of Environmental Health Officers Basic Food Hygiene ~ Royal Society of Health Essential Food Hygiene ~ Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene Primary Certificate in Essential Food Hygiene. This certainly is a good starting point in the struggle to improve standards. However, there are those who say that 6 hours is too long, the content too difficult and indeed inappropriate. Such sceptics need to attend courses themselves. They will find that they cover very basic knowledge that should be taught in our schools - the safe handling of food is in effect a life skill which is relevant to everyone. The delay in drafting final requirements hinges on problems such as the status of the many in-house courses that operate at the moment. It is most unlikely that courses without national recognition and certificates will be accepted. There is no reason at all why companies cannot seek national recognition for their own courses through the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) ... it just takes a long time. Another, as yet unresolved problem is the definition of a food handler. It is likely that the regulations will follow the government’s own recommendations from the consultation 190
are
document that excludes ’those who handle only wrapped, canned or bottled food, packaged confectionery, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and wet fish’. It is clear that the implementation period will be protracted to give the industry time for such radical training proposals. In the catering industry alone there are an estimated 1.4 million food handlers. Many of these will have undergone professional training incorporating food hygiene but only a few 1,000 have a nationally recognised Food Hygiene Certificate. At the present time the industry is divided into 2 camps. Those who have taken the bull by the horns and invested in training programmes for all their staff - and those who wait. For the latter it is worth emphasising that under the Food Safety Act, enforcement officers may at any time issue Improvement Notices requiring training to be carried out in a stated period. More importantly it is certain that training records will be crucial in the event of a company trying to prove the due diligence defence in a Magistrates’ or Crown court.
Who Should Train? It follows logically that anyone attempting to change the attitude and behaviour of catering staff should have the range of skills outlined below.
Catering Background Putting hygiene theory into practice requires first hand knowledge of the language, hierarchy and pressures of a professional kitchen. This is a major hurdle environmental health officers have yet to face - and perhaps why they have failed to improve standards over the years. The practices and procedures operated in aprofessional kitchen need to be understood before they can be changed. Even kitchens with cracked tiles and cobwebs can produce safe food! Trainer Skills The training market is saturated with people who see their role as issuing the maximum number of certificates at discount rates. These people are not trainers they are cowboys! Whilst some people may be naturally good communicators requires a great deal of skill. Trainers should have formal
training
qualifications.
Hygiene Knowledge already been discussed, but can never be overAn advanced qualification, such as the RSH emphasised. Diploma in Food Hygiene Management is a minimum standard of competence in the subject. This issue has
Where to Find Good Trainers? This is not an easy problem to solve. run excellent courses using a range of of these are additionally supported health officers.
Certainly many colleges expertise on hand. Many by local environmental ’
However, an option for many companies may well be to train their own trainers. This has numerous benefits: . the investment in ’advanced level’ knowledge is kept in. house rather than bought in on a daily basis . it is cost effective in the long term, as cascade training is then possible . the individual business operation is fully understood and therefore in-house training can be appropriate to the work place.
The
training
flow chart clearly identifies the part such could have in this process.
following
THE FOOD SAFETY ACT This year has seen the introduction of legislation designed to make management take responsibility for food hygiene. We have yet to see if caterers can rise to this challenge.
Can Training Produce Safer Food? It would
be a mistake for anyone - including delude themselves that the training of basic level will solve the industry’s prob-
certainly
government -
food-handlers
to to
lems ! One
only has to read documented case histories of food poisoning outbreaks to realise that the onus of food safety cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of kitchen staff. For example: Is it the kitchen porters’ fault that the food premises are so poorly maintained that rats have free access? Is it the commis chefs’ duty to buy colour coded chopping boards and order the correct cleaning fluids to keep them free of pathogens ? Is it even the head chefs’ fault that food is left out for too long at ambient temperatures because of lack of refrigeration ?
,
I
Food hygiene is a management issue and it is managewho should be first on the agenda for advanced hygiene training ... whatever the regulations may eventument
ally say! 191
INTRODUCTION
Off-the-Job Hygiene Training
This paper looks at the topic of training from a range of perspectives but concentrates primarily upon the staff who operate within the environment of a professional kitchen.
The majority of craftsmen and women in the catering industry have attended college on a full or part time basis to gain City & Guilds qualifications. Close scrutiny of the syllabus of any of these courses reveals a substantial hygiene content. There are, however, major flaws in the system: a. The level of qualification of tutors is not set - so in reality anyone can be timetabled to teach the subject. A recent investigation into nutrition education revealed that 64% of students in catering colleges did not have access to qualified staff. The picture would be mirrored in hygiene education as the two subjects are usually taught by the same person. b. The examination does not reflect the emphasis in the syllabus. For example, a typical exam may have only a few multiple choice questions. In true City & Guilds tradition these often have either no incorrect answers, or have been used so many times students have learnt the
What do we Mean
by Training?
Despite the philosophical distinction between training and education, in practical terms - and in this context - good trainers are good educators. The goal is the same - a raised awareness which brings about changes in attitude and behaviour. If a course in hygiene does not make people think, feel and behave differently in their work environment then surely it has failed? There may be companies who see training as a paper exercise to keep enforcement officers happy or a method of raising staff morale. No matter how valid these points are, neither is directly related to the production of safer food. Training programmes must be firmly fixed on the premise that work practices must change if safer food is the goal.
Why Do We Need Mandatory Training? Recent research commissioned by Mintel, a large market research organisation, depicts a grim picture of an estimated 8 million lost working days due to the effects of food
poisoning, at a cost to British industry of about £3 5 million year. This, of course, is not solely a caterers’ problem as highlighted by a MAFF report suggesting over 7 5 % of food is caused in the home, and Audit Commission Tigures which implicate all sectors of the industry - including food manufacturers. Caterers however do have special problems which must be addressed if full commitment to the aims of training are a
poisoning
to
be achieved. These include: . large number and diversity of premises . large workforce . high staff turnover . high proportion of the workforce with no professional
training off-the-job hygiene training marginalised on-the-job hygiene training inadequate. Whilst the first 4 are apparent to any one working in the industry, the latter points are not always appreciated. . .
answers.
Students quickly see this slot on the timetable as a waste of time - they can pass their exams without it! Of course there are dedicated teachers who put their life and soul into teaching hygiene and making it relevant to the industry. There are also students who will respond and learn. However, when those same students go back to the kitchen they will follow the work practices established there. The role model for kitchen hygiene is not the specialist in a laboratory - but the
head chef. The thousand dollar question must be ... does the head chefhave sufficient hygiene awareness? The chances are that he or she came
through the same system and has the knowledge to match! On-the-Job Training The Caterbase scheme is
available
training problems.
of on-the-job and is beset with similar worrying aspect of this particular a
typical example
to caterers
The most scheme is that the qualifications/experience of assessors (ie those people who tick the boxes) is of no importance. Assessors are rated according to their trainer skills qualifications which may involve a 1, 2, 3 or 4 day course of instruction on the basics of assessment! Anyone who wants proof of the lack of hygiene knowledge of this organisation need only look at the questions on
189
the assessment sheets - not only are they often irrelevant to the main problems .... but the answers are incorrect as well! All this depicts a grim picture of hygiene awareness within the industry. It would not be so bad if managers were any better equipped to deal with the problem, but their training is
similarly flawed. It must be accepted that there is a work force which needs hygiene training. It is a sad story that the only way to bring this about is through legislation.
THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND As early as July 1989 the government ear-marked training as a priority in the White Paper ’Food Safety - Protecting the Consumer’. It was stated that provision would be made for the compulsory training of ’those people who handle food directly’. In June 1989 a consultation document was issued and in June 1990 this period of consultation ended. In the meantime the Food Safety Act came into force and Food Authorities are ’authorised’ to provide training courses in food hygiene and Ministers are ‘empowered’ to make regulations ’securing the observance of hygienic ... practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations’.
Draft
regulations still awaited. From the detail of the consultation document and discussions held at every level of government and industry it has been assumed by many that there will be a basic training requirement. This will probably be equivalent to the 6 hour courses run by nationally recognised examining bodies. These can only be run by registered trainers, have astandard syllabus, a set examination and certificates for successful candidates. The 3 courses available are: ~ Institution of Environmental Health Officers Basic Food Hygiene ~ Royal Society of Health Essential Food Hygiene ~ Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene Primary Certificate in Essential Food Hygiene. This certainly is a good starting point in the struggle to improve standards. However, there are those who say that 6 hours is too long, the content too difficult and indeed inappropriate. Such sceptics need to attend courses themselves. They will find that they cover very basic knowledge that should be taught in our schools - the safe handling of food is in effect a life skill which is relevant to everyone. The delay in drafting final requirements hinges on problems such as the status of the many in-house courses that operate at the moment. It is most unlikely that courses without national recognition and certificates will be accepted. There is no reason at all why companies cannot seek national recognition for their own courses through the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) ... it just takes a long time. Another, as yet unresolved problem is the definition of a food handler. It is likely that the regulations will follow the government’s own recommendations from the consultation 190
are
document that excludes ’those who handle only wrapped, canned or bottled food, packaged confectionery, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and wet fish’. It is clear that the implementation period will be protracted to give the industry time for such radical training proposals. In the catering industry alone there are an estimated 1.4 million food handlers. Many of these will have undergone professional training incorporating food hygiene but only a few 1,000 have a nationally recognised Food Hygiene Certificate. At the present time the industry is divided into 2 camps. Those who have taken the bull by the horns and invested in training programmes for all their staff - and those who wait. For the latter it is worth emphasising that under the Food Safety Act, enforcement officers may at any time issue Improvement Notices requiring training to be carried out in a stated period. More importantly it is certain that training records will be crucial in the event of a company trying to prove the due diligence defence in a Magistrates’ or Crown court.
Who Should Train? It follows logically that anyone attempting to change the attitude and behaviour of catering staff should have the range of skills outlined below.
Catering Background Putting hygiene theory into practice requires first hand knowledge of the language, hierarchy and pressures of a professional kitchen. This is a major hurdle environmental health officers have yet to face - and perhaps why they have failed to improve standards over the years. The practices and procedures operated in aprofessional kitchen need to be understood before they can be changed. Even kitchens with cracked tiles and cobwebs can produce safe food! Trainer Skills The training market is saturated with people who see their role as issuing the maximum number of certificates at discount rates. These people are not trainers they are cowboys! Whilst some people may be naturally good communicators requires a great deal of skill. Trainers should have formal
training
qualifications.
Hygiene Knowledge already been discussed, but can never be overAn advanced qualification, such as the RSH emphasised. Diploma in Food Hygiene Management is a minimum standard of competence in the subject. This issue has
Where to Find Good Trainers? This is not an easy problem to solve. run excellent courses using a range of of these are additionally supported health officers.
Certainly many colleges expertise on hand. Many by local environmental ’
However, an option for many companies may well be to train their own trainers. This has numerous benefits: . the investment in ’advanced level’ knowledge is kept in. house rather than bought in on a daily basis . it is cost effective in the long term, as cascade training is then possible . the individual business operation is fully understood and therefore in-house training can be appropriate to the work place.
The
training
flow chart clearly identifies the part such could have in this process.
following
THE FOOD SAFETY ACT This year has seen the introduction of legislation designed to make management take responsibility for food hygiene. We have yet to see if caterers can rise to this challenge.
Can Training Produce Safer Food? It would
be a mistake for anyone - including delude themselves that the training of basic level will solve the industry’s prob-
certainly
government -
food-handlers
to to
lems ! One
only has to read documented case histories of food poisoning outbreaks to realise that the onus of food safety cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of kitchen staff. For example: Is it the kitchen porters’ fault that the food premises are so poorly maintained that rats have free access? Is it the commis chefs’ duty to buy colour coded chopping boards and order the correct cleaning fluids to keep them free of pathogens ? Is it even the head chefs’ fault that food is left out for too long at ambient temperatures because of lack of refrigeration ?
,
I
Food hygiene is a management issue and it is managewho should be first on the agenda for advanced hygiene training ... whatever the regulations may eventument
ally say! 191
