Could a national quality award for food hygiene and a more discerning public assist in improving the standards of food hygiene in the catering and food retail sectors. Dr Jeremy Leach explores the issues

The drive for maintaining and improving standards of food hygiene in the food retail and catering sectors has traditionally rested with the Government, law enforcement agencies and trade and professional organisations. So often missed out of this equation is the customer, who, it is considered, should be playing a larger part. It can also be argued that the customer has the most powerful role to perform. As Drucker wrote: "It is the customer who determines what a business is. For it is the customer and he alone, who through being willing to pay for a good or for a service, converts economic resources into wealth."1 With an increasing amount of choice available to customers, proprietors and managers of businesses need to be more aware than ever before of the complex pattern of consumer demands including that of supplying a clean and safe product in its broadest sense. As Engel et al expounded: "It all comes down to this essential point, understanding consumer motivation and behaviour is not an option - it is an absolute necessity for competitive survival."2 The power of the customer is a theme of a number of writers on the subject of management and marketing and many come to the same conclusion, that those businesses which can give their customers what they want will continue to succeed and those that do not are likely to fail. It is the customer therefore, who is the only person who can deliver profits to a company and income for its owners and employees.

A QUESTION OF TRUST
Research undertaken by the author suggests that customers take high standards of food hygiene and cleanliness for granted, as part and parcel of eating out.3 Generally, it is only when customers spot things that are wrong do they start looking for other clues to support that view. This begs the question therefore, why many senior and operational managers and supervisors in the catering sector deem food hygiene significant only when something goes wrong.4 It was not considered, according to the research, as making a positive contribution towards quality and was unlikely to be viewed in the same terms by them as other quality variables. The results do raise the question, whether managers in the catering sector might underestimate the significance that the public attaches to food safety. Evidence from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) would indicate that this trust which consumers have in food establishments to get things right, is not well founded.5 According to the FSA, of the 235,969 restaurants and catering establishments inspected by local authority environmental health departments in 2000, 118,555 had broken food safety laws.

LOCAL AUTHORITY REPORTS
Professor Sir John Krebs, chair of the FSA views the possibility of publicly stating the standards of food hygiene in any catering business as attractive, a so-called "scores on the doors" scheme.6 There may be merit in such a scheme as it encourages improvement through commercial advantage rather than the traditional legalistic approach. However, the question as to how this might be achieved is not so straightforward. The idea of local authorities publishing reports on businesses or scoring premises could be fraught with difficulties, especially where businesses believe a report is unfair or disagree with a score given, both of which could ultimately affect their ability to trade effectively. It could also seriously affect the relationship between business and many local authorities; a relationship, and culture of working with business, which recent and successive governments have encouraged. If the scoring system currently specified in code of practice 9: "Food hygiene inspections" were used as a public statement by a local authority of standards in a catering or food retail outlet, then there would be an issue of communication and interpretation of the system to the general public.7 Indeed, when examining the scoring regime in the code, the only meaningful aspects of the scheme, as far as customers are concerned, would be part 2 - level of compliance - and part 3 - confidence in management/control systems. But even the score given under part 2 on the level of compliance relates to compliance with the law and current relevant industry guides. However, the law demands a relatively low standard and the general public may have difficulty in understanding this. Especially as research conducted by the author suggests consumers expect and want to see far higher standards than the law demands.3 A possible solution may lie in two strategies: first to educate the public about what clues to look for in a food business which will give them an accurate picture of the standards set by the management of any food retail or catering business; and second the introduction of a national food hygiene award scheme.

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC
There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the public's knowledge of food hygiene is poor and the results of the author's research generally support that evidence.8,9,10,11,12 It is pleasing to note therefore, that the FSA is launching campaigns aimed at raising the knowledge and awareness of those who work in the food trade and the general public.13 It is hoped that local authorities will feel able to support and assist in those campaigns. The campaign should not only include basic facts about protecting the safety of food, but also the standards of food hygiene the public can expect in any restaurant, take-away or food retail outlet. It is considered that this measure will in turn put pressure on the catering and food retail sectors to respond by raising their standards to match an increased customer expectation. Clearly, this approach would be in-line with the Government's consumer white paper: Modern markets - confident consumers.14 It views confident, knowledgeable and demanding customers as good for business. The white paper goes on to claim: "The most successful businesses are those that anticipate consumer needs, but all will face competitive pressures if they fail to respond." In addition, any education campaign should include strategies and advice on how to complain effectively. This measure should help the consumer and make it a more positive experience for the catering and food retailing industries. Results from the author's research suggests that the public are reluctant to complain, they do not find it easy, and their preferred course of action is to leave and not return.3 This leaves the proprietors of the business uninformed of any perceived shortcomings. It is important therefore, that complaints should be viewed by the trade as a positive issue, rather than a negative one, and a climate should be created where it is easier for customers to express any concerns.

NATIONAL FOOD HYGIENE AWARD SCHEME
Awards and certificates are generally viewed by the public as a positive feature of any catering or food retailing business and do influence many people in their final choice of eating establishment.3 People claim to be reassured by them, especially if the choice is between two establishments and only one has an award. The public do claim however, that they are sceptical when they do not recognise the awarding body and therefore do question the credibility of those awards. In addition, out-of-date or old awards and certificates were claimed to have the opposite effect to their intention, suggesting that they no longer meet requirements and that the knowledge too is out-of-date. Serious thought and debate should be encouraged relating to the creation of a national quality award for food hygiene. This initiative would require benchmarking data, and this should emanate from a consortium of experts. The consortium should include a range of experts including those from the catering and retailing industries, to give the scheme credibility both inside the trade and with the public. The benchmarking data could well include a requirement for a written hazard analysis system as well as monitoring procedures and all the other aspects of running an effective and safe food business that are often desirable but impossible for local authorities to enforce. The criteria on which premises can gain an award should be of a high standard and should be in the public domain; indeed the scheme should be advertised heavily, encouraging the public to support those businesses holding the award. The processes the awarding body has in place to monitor, audit and remove awards must also be transparent. Award certificates should be valid for a fixed period and should contain a contact number or similar for the public to register any complaints relating to the standards experienced. It is considered that an industry body could organise this scheme and issue the awards, which could be self-financing. Businesses would pay a non-returnable fee, on a sliding scale, when applying for an award. The size of the fee would be dependent on the size of the operation. Clearly, there would be many applications to process, especially in the initial stages and as the scheme is advertised and becomes more well-known and accepted. Commenting on a survey which highlighted poor handling practices in shops in Scotland, Professor Hugh Pennington has said : "We have got to get the message across. Whatever method that is being used is not working and it looks as though we need a new approach."15 The time for a new approach to an old problem is now. A more knowledgeable and discerning customer must be created who will refuse to support food businesses which fail to deliver high standards of food hygiene and cleanliness. An award scheme would be a method of publicly stating those food businesses which offer high standards and would by encouragement and commercial advantage, engage and motivate other businesses to join the scheme. These approaches must be amalgamated with a firm, fair and consistent approach to enforcement of food safety laws with a focus on hazard analysis and training. Raising standards of food hygiene following an approach outlined in this article is likely to be seen as a far more attractive and motivating proposition to the trade, when linked as it is to commercial advantage and reward, rather than the traditional legalistic approach which is linked to punishment.

Dr Jeremy Leach is the Public Health Development Manager for Wealden District Council in East Sussex. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Wealden District Council.

REFERENCES
1 Drucker P F (1989) The practice of management. Oxford: Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd.
2 Engel J F, Blackwell R D and Miniard P W (1986) Consumer Behaviour. 5th Edition. Tokyo: The Dryden Press.
3 Leach J C (1999) "Food hygiene in public eating places - A comparative study of public and professional perceptions in the Wealden District of East Sussex". Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy. University of Brighton.
4 Guerrier Y, Kipps M, Lockwood A and Sheppard J (1992) "Perceptions of hygiene and quality in the food service operation". Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management. Eds. Cooper C P and Lockwood A. London: Bellhaven Press. Vol: 4 pp 182-194.
5 Food Standards Agency (2001) "Food Standards Agency to tackle poor hygiene in catering. (Press Release 2001/0129). London: Food Standards Agency.
6 Environmental Health News (2001) "Common Agenda for Food" 16/22. London: Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
7 Food Standards Agency (2000) "Food Safety Act 1990, Code of Practice No. 9: Food Hygiene Inspections (Second Revision October 2000)". London: Food Standards Agency.
8 Jones J L and Weimer J P (1977) "Food safety: Homemakers attitudes and practices". Agriculture Report No: 360. National Economic Analysis Division, Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture.
9 Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1988) Food hygiene - Report on a consumer survey. London: HMSO.
10 Ackerley L M (1990) "Food hygiene and food poisoning - A study of public perceptions". Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy. University of Birmingham.
11 Foodlink (1996) National food safety report 1996. London: The Food and Drink Federation, The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland.
12 Worsfold D and Griffith C (1997) "Food safety behaviour in the home" British Food Journal. 99/3 pp 97-104.
13 Environmental Health News (2001) "New food safety campaign" 16/28. London: Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
14 Department of Trade and Industry (1999) Modern markets - confident consumers CM4410. London: the Stationary Office Limited. 15 Environmental Health News (1999) "Butchers fail on hygiene" 14/28. London: Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.