Volume 110/03, March 2002, pages 80-84 Is the UK suffering from a national shortage of suitably qualified trainers to run food hygiene courses in foreign languages? Euan MacAuslan thinks so, and argues for a review of the way training is targeted and delivered

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 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 (from 244 candidates in 1989-1990 to just over 2,300 in 2000-2001) and the failure rate is highest among this group.

The Local Government Act 2000, places a duty on local authorities to promote or improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their areas. Kensington and Chelsea's best value performance plans include the social inclusion of all users of its services - and the provision of quality low-cost food hygiene training is no exception. However, while the directorate of environmental health is committed to work 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, it is restricted by a lack of trainers who are registered to run courses in other languages apart from English.

FOOD HYGIENE TRAINING IN THE UK

Training is a planned and systematic effort to modify or develop knowledge, skills and 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^1. 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."²

The Royal Institute of Public Health (RIPH) defines 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"³. This is a longer version than "any person involved in a food business who handles or prepares food whether open (unwrapped) or packaged", from the Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice⁴. 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.

A range of accredited courses are run by professional bodies, that accredit trainers, who may work in local government, colleges, schools, the hospitality industry, or be independent consultants, subject to meeting their own specific criteria (see page 82 for the new certificate naming regime which came into force at the beginning of this year). The Industry Guide suggests various levels of training depending upon the food handlers competence, experience, and career development. In summary, the levels are:

• essentials of food hygiene (given before starting work);
• hygiene awareness instruction (given within four weeks of employment);
• formal training, level 1 (given within three months); and
• formal training, levels 2/3 (good practice, according to responsibilities).

For this article, "basic level" equates to level 1 and "intermediate level" to level 2 certificates (now foundation certificate and intermediate certificate respectively). Feedback from enforcement officers and hospitality managers still reveals misconceptions about the need for training. These 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.

There is also 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 and Urdu, Kurdish, Punjabi, Somali, Spanish, Tamil and Turkish.

However, the trainers who can run 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 food handlers who speak English as a second language (ESOL). The wording of examination questions prevent these food handlers, who can demonstrate best practice, from attaining suitable qualifications; apparent at both basic and intermediate level. Examination scribes can be expensive and oral examinations for candidates who only understand spoken English are time consuming and not always feasible.

THE LANGUAGE BARRIER

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is a major visitor destination, with around 30,000 visitors staying in the borough each night. Within the borough:

there are 2,000 registered food premises;

• 70 different languages are spoken in schools;
• over 100 languages are spoken among the adult population (1991 Census);
• 14,000 residents (8 per cent of the total population) work in the hotel and catering industry (not borough specific);
• 17,000 people work in the tourism and hospitality industry (50 per cent of these part-time);
• 85 per cent of small businesses employ less than 10 people; and
• 25 per cent of all jobs are filled by local residents.

In 1999, the directorate of environmental health at Kensington and Chelsea undertook a survey of 488 independent restaurants and cafes to establish the most commonly spoken languages among food handlers, apart from English. It established that 47 different languages other than English were commonly spoken. In descending order, the seven most common languages were: Italian (33 per cent of food handlers), French (31 per cent), Spanish (30 per cent), and Portuguese (30 per cent). Others were Arabic, Turkish, Thai, and Tagalog. Since 2000, there has been an increase in candidates speaking an Eastern European language passing through the Council's basic and intermediate courses.

Managers in 358 of the 1999 survey sample had attended basic level training, compared with 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. This 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 per cent of catering staff work in London for a year or two to improve their English⁵. The Caterer and Hotelkeeper reported that the skills shortage in London was so bad that staff are being recruited from Malaysia and Serbia⁶. As a national training organisation, The Hospitality training Foundation (HtF) undertook research in 19987 to update its original high profile report, Training who needs it? which was undertaken in 1995⁸. The survey suggested that the restaurant sector provided the least training, due to high staff turn over, staff shortages, no employees, and a lack of time.

At an HtF network focus group, in July 2001, 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 ESOL. Key concerns centred on the lack of intervention to help ESOL food handlers by the Government and accredited examination bodies, and the attitudes of managers who view overseas food handlers as a source of "cheap labour".

Accredited examination bodies were contacted for lists of registered trainers who could run food hygiene and health and safety courses in other languages, but the advice given generally was unhelpful.

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 work. Examination questions also stress the powers of enforcement officers, rather than emphasising the advice officers can give to businesses.

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. However, there is no further advice on 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.

A CHALLENGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

The hospitality industry is seen as unglamorous, with long hours and poor pay. Such posts within the industry may suit seasonal workers, students, or traveller populations.9 However, it is estimated that the UK's hospitality industry will need to fill 300,000 new jobs before 2009.6 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 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.

THE MEDIA

For ESOL candidates, useful training tools which could be utilised include:

• local radio stations or television channels;
• language and ethnic newspapers;
• audio tapes;
• text channels on national television (Oracle, Ceefax, etc);
• the Open University;
• information technology;
• and with careful planning, cable and satellite television.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Enforcement officers and catering managers alike are continually confronted with food handlers who have gained nationally recognised food hygiene certificates, but do not put into practice what they have been taught. Surfing the internet for information about food hygiene training availability in other languages reveals little in the way of assistance for ESOL food handlers. Some local authorities have sites which provide information about food safety issues, but the majority are in English.

In 1998, the Government produced a Green Paper, The learning age, which set out a vision of "a learning society in which everyone, from whatever background, routinely expects to learn and upgrade their skills throughout life."¹⁰ To make this vision possible, the University for Industry (UFI) was created, and a service called "learndirect" developed, which enables individuals to learn for fun, and gain knowledge and skills to enhance employability.¹¹ 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 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 candidates may absorb a greater understanding of food hygiene, rather than attending a theoretical six 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 provide an alternative venue for food hygiene training on-line.

As schools also use IT as a learning medium - within secondary schools CD-ROM packages are available to help teach children about food hygiene - children can pass on the theory in their own first language to their parents. This is obviously advantageous in family-run businesses.

Those using on-line learning have to use IT skills in order to receive and gather information, and then 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, there are still some of the adult population who are regarded as computer illiterate, and/or do not 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 during July and August last year was organised by Kensington and Chelsea's directorate of environmental health.

The attendees were from West London Business Link, Portobello Business Service, the council's Adult and Community Education unit, the Learning and Skills Council, trainers from local authority environmental health departments, and hospitality industry managers. The points raised by these groups were then put to the CIEH, the RIPH, the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, and the Food Standards Agency.

In summary, the groups suggested the following actions 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 the 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;
• organise 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;
• re-vamp the wording of examinations and syllabuses of the basic level courses and change the current one-day certificate course to a half-day one, with an expiry date on the certificate. Emphasis on personal hygiene and non-technical hazard analysis is required;
• introduce critical questions which have to be marked correct for the candidate to pass, or raise the pass mark to 80 per cent;
• for basic and intermediate level examinations, change the questions so that they are relevant to the candidates. Asking questions about management responsibilities and the help given by EHOs, rather than emphasis on statutory powers, may press home what owners need to do to improve food safety;
• produce food hygiene booklets for candidates and businesses in plain English and a wide range of languages;
• 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, to reinforce the proposed half-day level 1 courses. Planned CBT would be the responsibility of proprietors of food businesses;
• change the current legislation to require the owner of a food premises to undergo at least intermediate level training; and
• set up a "food safety education alliance" through the FSA. 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.

It was suggested that funding initiatives such as the ESF, could be 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 courses in other languages. It was suggested that their own industry could do more to seek out potential trainers to help themselves.

It was felt that course syllabuses and the examination questions did not always reflect the legislation. For example, questions testing the candidates' knowledge on 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.

Questions at basic and intermediate level need to reflect the type of business a food handler works in and 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, providing it is backed up with practical training. The issues discussed at the meetings were put to the accredited examination bodies and the FSA. However, while the issue of language trainers and the difficulties some food handlers faced with attending courses was accepted, all agreed that some training was better than no training. It was considered important to remember why training took place - namely to improve standards.

To date, there are still no evaluations which determine the effectiveness of food hygiene education in the UK. However, the FSA appears to be taking a small step in the right direction with its forthcoming catering campaign. Perhaps it is time for the accredited examination bodies, along with the FSA, NHS Primary Health Care Trusts, and the hospitality industry to review this and to open-mindedly review the current food hygiene training strategy for the UK.

Euan MacAuslan, FRSH, FRIPHH, MCIPD,
Environmental Health Training Co-ordinator,
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,
tel: 020 7341 5606, e-mail: euan.macauslan@rbkc.gov.uk.
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. Reproduced from an article originally published in the Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, December 2001, 121 (4), page 213 - 219.

References

1. Buckley, R and Caple, J (1992), The theory and practice of training. London: Kogan Page.
2. Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations (1995). Statutory Instrument Number 1763. London: The Stationary Office.
3. The Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene (1995), First certificate in food safety syllabus. London: The Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene.
4. Industry Guide to Good Hygiene Practice: Catering Guide (Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations (1995), Chadwick House Group Ltd (1997), 9.
5. Freeman, C (2201). "Casual staff threaten the reputation of the city's hotels". Evening Standard, 12 June 2001, 21.
6. Mutch F (2001) "Another answer to the skills shortage" (series of 10,000). Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 5 July 2001, 17.
7. HtF (Hospitality training Foundation) (1998) Look who is training now. London: Hospitality training Foundation.
8. HtF (Hospitality training Foundation) (1995) Training, who needs it? London: Hospitality training Foundation.
9. HtF (Hospitality training Foundation) (2000) Labour Market Review 2000 for the hospitality industry. London: Hospitality training Foundation.
10. Cabinet Office, HM Government (1998), Green Paper, "The Learning Age".
11. www.learndirect.co.uk/home/whylearndirect.

The CIEH publishes a range of translated training materials and handbooks. For front-line workers and those undertaking level 2 food safety qualifications, the Food Safety First Principles workbook is available in numerous languages. Available for only £3.50 each or £2.40 to registered trainers. Contact Judith McGrane or Sonia Beckford, finance department, for futher information or to place an order. Tel: 020 7928 6000 or e-mail: j.mcgrane@chgl.com