EHJ July 2005, pages 20-21

Euan MacAuslan looks at how a bit of lateral thinking could improve food hygiene training and so drive up food safety standards in the country's multi-cultural food industry

We need to be thinking more laterally about food training. The academic Edward De Bono said: "Vertical thinking is digging the same hole deeper. Lateral thinking is trying again elsewhere". In the field of food hygiene training there are plenty of areas where we should be looking to dig elsewhere rather than blindly digging deeper.

Practical food hygiene training

Since the first basic food hygiene certificate examinations were run over 20 years ago little has changed. Students have been taught theories about food hygiene in classrooms in order to receive a certificate. Using De Bono's analogy by focusing on the certificate we are digging a hole for ourselves and falling into the trap of vertical thinking. If we were to think laterally, we would focus on making sure students can practically apply what they have learnt and that their knowledge can be updated when necessary.

The Food Act 1984 and Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 both relied on end-product testing. Times have changed. The Food Safety Act 1990, Regulation 4(3) of the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 and the proposed Food Hygiene (England) (etc) Regulations 2005 placing emphasis on controls from the start.

The same ideas should be being applied in the way we train food hygiene. Practical application of any food safety theory is vital if standards are to improve. For this to happen, enforcers, trainers, food business owners and managers are going to have to form partnerships to enable effective training to take place. We also need to remove barriers to learning and understand that the best way to train the business owner may not be the best way to train the food handler.

There are five myths about food hygiene training: that the law requires every food handler to hold a certificate; that the training room is the best place to learn; that a generic syllabus works; that group training in a classroom changes workplace behaviour and that certificated examinations are the only solution.

Too many employers and enforcers are relying on certificated courses and yet the jury is coming down heavily in favour of practical training. Hand washing practices, for example, do not change forever just because someone has a certificate in food hygiene. Research has shown that without on-going training the theory taught on courses becomes hazy with individuals reverting back to their pre-course habits. Certificates alone will not change food safety cultures unless practical application of the theory taught is encouraged and monitored.

Positive messages

The World Health Organization defines health promotion as "the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health." We must remember that food hygiene training is an important part of health promotion and as trainers and enforcers the best help that we can give an employer and employee is a positive approach to food hygiene. To do this we must understand that failure to put food hygiene theory into practice may not be due to ignorance, or laziness. It could be due to barriers to learning such as the culture of communication, language, financial difficulties or a lack of cultural understanding.

There are still a few local authorities that have taken the view that all businesses break the law and therefore should be prosecuted. Then these authorities are surprised when these businesses fail to attend food forums or to participate in training interventions. Obviously, food businesses want to retain customers and not lose them by selling unfit food. So, education and training delivered in the right way will obtain results. Of course, formal action will be needed when public health is at risk or confidence in management cannot be reversed informally. However, training interventions will save officer time compared to spending hours collecting evidence for a prosecution. This is one area that would benefit from more research.

Crossing cultural boundaries

More than 50 per cent of food handlers in the UK are dyslexic or do not speak English as a first language. Over 300 languages are spoken in the UK. Yet EHPs are rarely trained in how to deal with language barriers. If record keeping is expected, then what language should it be in if the culture of communication is oral or only the manager speaks English? Anyone facing this dilemma may want to look for advice from their local primary care trust, the Plain English Campaign, MIND, the Basic Skills Agency or from the regional language networks.

Training the manager

Advanced and intermediate level food safety courses, although for supervisors and managers, do not train candidates how to properly manage a food safety culture. This can only be done with basic management skills. The Hospitality Training Foundation (2000) and Learn Purple (2003) identified that motivation, evaluation, leadership and training were key management skills missing in small businesses. If a lateral intervention is needed here, it is to introduce a basic management module within the new syllabuses.

Keep it simple

The Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2005 will require food handlers to be supervised, instructed and/or trained in food hygiene related to their work. Also, business owners or managers will need training in Haccp principles if they are to maintain a satisfactory food safety management system. Failure to comply with the existing Regulation 4(3) demonstrates a lack of understanding. In part it is clear that well qualified jargon speaking food safety "experts" have a difficulty in making themselves clearly understood, and that the owner/managers of small businesses would benefit from on-site practical training in a surrounding and language that they are familiar with. Many buck the trend and do tremendous work as trainers. Equally there are, regrettably, some enforcers and policy makers who would rather turn a blind eye to this lateral approach.

Joint working

Any training or promotional interventions originating from the FSA must be done in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders. The FSA's 2002 sickbag mailshot undid the hard work of authorities trying to build better relationships with food outlets. The FSA's Safer Food Better Business (SFBB) pack, aimed at helping small catering businesses with Haccp, may prove useful for some businesses but it must come with stakeholder involvement and the backup of trained EHPs. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's accredited period for the current generation of food hygiene certificate examinations ends in mid-2006. In preparation to replace these, the Sector Skills Council (People 1st), is leading the development of a National Occupational Standard (NOS) in food safety which is closely linked to the FSA's 4 C's (cooking, cleaning, chilling and cross-contamination). These NOS will provide the framework for modules to provide underpinning knowledge of NVQs and vocationally related qualifications.

New agency

The development of a national food safety training and education partnership in the UK would help with nationally co-ordinated approach to training. It could become a centre of expertise for lateral thinking if food hygiene training is to be truly effective.

The views expressed in this article are those of Euan MacAuslan and not necessarily his employer, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.