You are on page 1of 14

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at


IJCHM 20,5

HACCP for the hospitality industry: history in the making

Eunice Taylor
The University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the current status of HACCP across the food chain with particular reference to the hospitality industry. It is the rst article in the second Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes issue of the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management presenting a new method of HACCP for the hospitality industry and proof of its utility. Design/methodology/approach An extensive review of HACCP literature is presented with an in-depth analysis of both established and innovative methodologies. It is set in the context of both international efforts to meet the needs of small and less developed businesses (SLDBs) and recent UK Government initiatives. Findings Research conrms anecdotal evidence that whilst HACCP development is widespread in large food manufacturers its use is limited within smaller businesses, with particularly slow progress in the hospitality sector. Recent in-depth psychological methods have led to the identication of 11 implementation barriers that need to be addressed if businesses are to meet the ever-demanding legal requirements. It is suggested that the method of applying HACCP principles, developed for large manufacturing businesses, is inappropriate for the hospitality industry and that a new method is required. Practical implications The paper will be of value to practitioners, researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders involved in the food industry. Originality/value This paper is the most comprehensive review, to date, of HACCP uptake across the food industry and the barriers that businesses are experiencing as they attempt to manage food safety and comply with legal requirements. Keywords Hospitality management, United Kingdom, Hazards, Food safety, Control systems, Small enterprises Paper type General review


International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 20 No. 5, 2008 pp. 480-493 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-6119 DOI 10.1108/09596110810881427

Introduction to HACCP Despite great advances in modern technology, producing safe food and keeping it safe remains a worldwide public health problem with illness caused by the consumption of contaminated food described as the most widespread health problem in the contemporary world (BenEmbarek, 2002). Available data indicate that: . most causes of such illness are of biological origin; . the majority of these are caused by micro-organisms; . that mishandling of food at some stage along the food chain is often responsible; and . food businesses within the hospitality industry are implicated in a disproportionate number of outbreaks (Parliamentary Ofce of Science and Technology, 2003). The implementation and management of safe food handling procedures is, therefore, of crucial importance to both industry and consumers. The on-going debate, that forms

the focus of this paper, is the method by which this can be achieved for food businesses within the hospitality industry. The consensus view today is that the key to the control of operational food safety hazards is the implementation of an appropriate food safety system and its effective management. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) is a system designed for this purpose. It is a risk-based management system, originally designed to assure the microbiological safety of food manufactured for use in the US manned space missions of the 1960s. Since that time, HACCP has become the internationally recognised system of managing food safety and its use has been extended to control the full range of biological, chemical and physical hazards. HACCP is essentially a system based on seven well-dened, theoretical risk management principles. However, during the rst four decades of its development, many opinions were promulgated as to how these principles should be applied in practice. Consequently, in 1993, the Codex Alimentarius Commission established denitive guidelines for the application of HACCP principles to be used in conjunction with the existing Codex guides for pre-requisites (Codex, 2003). This classical method has become the denitive standard for the application of HACCP principles (Figure 1).

History in the making


Figure 1. Summary of the 12-step Classical Codex method of applying HACCP principles

IJCHM 20,5


In many countries across the world HACCP is now a standard for both export and the supply of food to major retailers. However, whilst it also forms part of the legislation in most countries, the scope of the requirements varies in terms of industrial sector, destination of product and size of business. For example, the European Union requires all food businesses, with the exception of primary producers, to implement a system based on HACCP principles (European Union, 2004). To date, Europe remains the rst to adopt such far-reaching legislation that extends the implementation of HACCP to the smallest business, and in particular, the hospitality industry. However, exibility was deliberately built into the regulation with the opportunity for industrial sectors to adapt the classical method and establish new methods of applying the principles.

HACCP uptake across the food industry Success in developing, installing, maintaining and verifying a successful HACCP system is dependent on a complex mix of managerial, organisational and technical hurdles. In coping with this set of interrelating factors, even the largest food businesses conrm the on-going difculty of this challenge; for many others in the food industry HACCP is perceived to be an insurmountable burden. Indeed, research presented in this paper suggests that whilst HACCP development is widespread in large food manufacturers its use is limited within smaller businesses, with particularly slow progress in the hospitality sector. This is not surprising given that the move toward HACCP implementation in many companies has been customer driven. This is very evident in those companies that supply large retailers whose contracts require documented evidence of a HACCP system from their suppliers or are involved in export. Research data that attempt to quantify HACCP uptake is presented in Table I, with levels ranging from 74 per cent for manufactures to 4 per cent for caterers. However, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of these gures as there are methodological weaknesses in many of the studies. In particular, the following issues are of relevance: . Many of the research techniques rely partially or entirely on self-reporting, which assumes the business operator will be completely honest and admit to an unknown third party that they do not comply with the recommended standards. It also assumes that what they perceive to be a fully operational HACCP system is not just a best attempt or unused paperwork to satisfy their auditors. As can be seen from the data, in-depth studies conrm that self-reporting grossly exaggerates HACCP uptake. . The survey response rates are often very low with one study reporting as little as a 6 per cent response from the original sample (Panisello et al., 1999). The kind of businesses that fall into this 6 per cent may well have specic characteristics, such as being more interested in food safety, more compliant, having the luxury of more time or simply having heard of HACCP. It is not possible to state that, for example, 33 per cent of food businesses across the UK have HACCP in place when, in reality, this only represents 33 per cent of the 6 per cent from the sample that responded.

Source Questionnaire and observation Postal questionnaire 134 (of 1,044) food businesses 91 (of 743) SME questionnaire responses, 43 audits Stratied sample. 100 4% of businesses had HACCP catering businesses. 25 records. from each of four sectors 102 SMEs (of 159 contacted) 14.3 per cent of small businesses, 59.4 Self-reporting reliance. Result per cent of medium, and 84 per cent of percentages only from 12 per cent of large have HACCP fully operational original sample 77 per cent of respondents claimed to Result percentages only from 12 per cent and 6 per cent of original sample have HACCP systems and no problems, yet their ability to dene hazard or risk was poor 100% access to random sample selected from Local Authority premise data base 109 catering businesses (from 120) Eight businesses had implemented HACCP (7 per cent) Partial reliance on self-reporting





Bas et al. (2006), Turkey

Herath and Henson (2006), Canada Postal questionnaire and follow up audits

Fielding et al. (2005), England and Wales

Taylor (2004), UK

On-site interview, documentary analysis and observation

Walker et al. (2003), UK On-site questionnaire

65 per cent of respondents could not Result percentages only from 64 per explain what HACCP involved, 35 per cent of original sample cent had no records, and of those that did many had no reasons for them Reliance on self-reporting

Walker et al. (2002), England


70 catering businesses 50% of caterers had documented (No details of original hazard analysis; these had higher food safety scores than 50 per cent sample) without documentation 50 per cent of all local authorities

Food Standards Agency (2001), UK

Local authorities estimations

59 per cent manufacturers, 16 per cent Estimations only. Result percentages from 50 per cent of sample retailers and 19 per cent caterers estimated to have documented HACCP in place

Food Safety Authority, Telephone Ireland (2001) questionnaire

46 per cent of service sector aware of Reliance on self-reporting. Result 710 (of 1,098) food businesses, 60 per cent HACCP and 53 per cent claim to have percentages from 65 per cent of documented food safety management sample service sector system (continued )

History in the making


Table I. HACCP uptake statistics


Source 414 (of 1,169) school food service directors 175 SMEs (of 1,000 contacted)

Youn and Sneed (2000), Postal questionnaire USA Structured interview survey

Panisello et al. (1999), UK

Henson et al. (1999), UK Postal survey 254 (of 1,650) food business managers

Mortlock et al. (1999), UK

Ehiri et al. (1997), Scotland Questionnaire insert in 300 professionally professional journal qualied catering managers

Taylor (1994), UK

Table I. Approach Sample Findings Limitations HACCP implemented in 22 per cent of Self-reporting reliance. Result school districts percentages from 35 per cent of sample 73 per cent of overall respondents (33 Partial self-reporting reliance. Result per cent of caterers) claimed to have percentages overall from 17.5 per cent of sample. Only six of 106 caterers (6 HACCP fully implemented per cent) 74 per cent of respondents claimed to Self-reporting reliance. Result have HACCP percentages only from 16 per cent of original sample Self-reporting reliance. Result 69 per cent of manufacturers were using HACCP based systems, 13 per percentages only from 15 per cent of original sample cent of retailers and 15 per cent of caterers Postal survey 192 dairy plants (of 1,196): 84 per cent SMEs Structured interview survey 14 manufacturing businesses (56 per Partial self-reporting reliance. Result 70 (of 133) food percentages only from 53 per cent of businesses: 45 caterers, cent) had HACCP plans, and two original sample. caterers (4 per cent) 25 manufacturers 13 per cent claimed to have HACCP in Reliance on self-reporting their business questionnaire

IJCHM 20,5

Many of the samples are ill-dened in terms of size or sector. This is compounded by the fact that many of the studies fail to identify representative samples. HACCP is not a product that you simply have or have not. It is a process that may take many months to complete and progress is the important criterion. Very few of the studies designed a research tool sensitive enough to identify stages of HACCP implementation.

History in the making


In summary, despite legislative and commercial pressures, there is research data to conrm anecdotal evidence HACCP uptake is low. Indeed, the levels actually reported are likely to be over-estimates indicating that, despite its theoretical simplicity, there are serious problems with implementation. The situation across the food chain varies considerably, demonstrating a greater problem for smaller businesses in general and for the hospitality industry in particular. Whilst the reasons for these specic disparities are later explored, the following section looks in depth at the general barriers to implementation. HACCP: identifying barriers to successful implementation The low level of HACCP uptake has been consistently blamed on a plethora of resource related problems. These include lack of time, money and HACCP knowledge (Taylor, 1994, Ehiri and Morris, 1995; Panisello et al., 1999; Mortlock et al., 1999), a lack of sufcient general hazard control (Leitenberger and Rocken, 1998), the cost of external consultants, staff training and documentation (Henson et al., 1999) and access to technical expertise (Taylor, 2001a). These reasons for failure have been expounded for at least a decade, despite growing evidence that this is an over-simplication and perhaps inaccurate analysis of the issue. As early as 1999, researchers started to report barriers that were not practical or knowledge based, but primarily psychological in nature, such as lack of risk awareness (Mortlock et al., 1999) and staff motivation (Panisello et al., 1999; Taylor, 2001b). In many of these studies, psychological barriers emerged as a secondary problem, with the practical resource constraints emerging as more important. However, this outcome was to be expected given the nature of the research. After all, admitting a personal failure or negative attitude towards a recommended system or procedure is a lot harder than expressing practical concerns about costs, resources and facilities. In addition to this, the nature of the research limits the barriers that can be discovered. Using a pre-determined research questionnaire or structured interview will only conrm barriers that the researcher has already thought of and included. In 2000, this author led a unique government funded project that used in-depth, psychological research methods to uncover the range and interplay of barriers in small business failure to implement HACCP (see Figures 2 and 3). Two HACCP psychologists (graduates in psychology with postgraduate qualications in HACCP), were employed to conduct a series of non-prescriptive, narrative interviews with the resultant identication of 11 barriers (Taylor and Taylor, 2003, 2004) and the elucidation of a model as shown in Figure 4. The model was validated in further studies (Vela and Fernandez, 2002, Azanza and Zamora-Luna, 2005.) and the role of psychological barriers in the implementation of HACCP was rmly established.

IJCHM 20,5


Figure 2. Gilling-Taylor model of HCCP barriers

HACCP and the small business sector The nature of the small business Whilst it is well accepted that the food industry is a major economic sector, the contribution of small businesses is under-researched and often under-estimated. Indeed, there is not even a common understanding of the term small business with denitions, based on economic measures, varying considerably. For the purposes of this paper the classication small will refer to those food businesses that generally: serve local customers; have a limited share of the available market; are owner managed and independent of ownership by larger groups of companies; often operating with less than ten employees. Recent data from the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), presented in Figure 3, illustrate the nature and economic contribution of small food businesses in relation to larger companies. It can be seen that the majority of businesses employ less than ten people and produce over 30 per cent of food in the marketplace. It is evident that if such a substantial proportion of food is produced, processed and sold by small businesses, then the safety of their operations affects the integrity of the entire food chain. The recognition of this fact has, over the last decade, led many Governments to focus attention on the control of food safety in these smaller businesses.

History in the making


Figure 3. Economic activity and small businesses

Figure 4. The complexity within a typical restaurant

HACCP uptake in small businesses Whilst there is widespread agreement that HACCP principles are applicable to all food operations, there is little evidence of its successful application within the small business sector. The research data presented in Table I suggest levels ranging from 4 to 50 per cent. For most small businesses, their progress is severely hindered by a lack of information as to how to apply the classical method in the context of their own

IJCHM 20,5

businesses. Indeed, attempts to make the method t small businesses usually involve the development of generic templates by trade organisations or Governments, with a crude scaling down of the principles. Most of these do not extend beyond identication of CCPs and offer no help with implementation or management of the system. There is also little peer reviewed, published evidence of their suitability, uptake or validity. HACCP revisited: is the classical method appropriate for small businesses? The principles of assessing and controlling risk are well founded in scientic theory and have been shown to work in practice for the larger food manufacturing businesses using the classical Codex method. As a result of these successes, HACCP has been advocated for small businesses. The results of small business adoption of HACCP, as described previously, have been problematic with little evidence of success and many instances of rejection of the approach as being, overly bureaucratic or unsuitable. It is natural perhaps, when faced with a system that has proved successful elsewhere, to blame lack of success on the failing of the implementer, rather than on weaknesses on the system. Thus, small businesses have stood accused of lacking knowledge, understanding, time, energy or the money necessary to implement HACCP. Is this fair? It is not surprising that a food safety management system, designed originally by large businesses for use in other large businesses, has proved successful in these types of organisation. However, the large business is not the norm in the sense that the majority of businesses are small and, in many ways, it is the larger business that is anomalous in the economy, not the small business. Small businesses cannot exactly copy large company systems for they do not possess the infrastructures, attitudes and culture to do so. They also nd it disproportionally costly and wasteful. This does not mean that small businesses cannot control risks and produce safe food the majority obviously do so on a daily basis. What they cannot do is replicate the procedural and bureaucratic processes large companies have as part of their natural approach to business. Such issues, in relation to the implementation of HACCP, have been the subject of extensive discussions at meetings of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) since the late 1990s. The Codex Guidelines were acknowledged as having been developed from the perspective of large companies and not well adapted to small businesses and that this represented an inherent obstacle to HACCP implementation within the sector. As a consequence, the CCFH initiated the production of a guidance document that would assist small and less developed businesses (SLDBs) to implement HACCP (Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation, 2006). By 2003, in line with research ndings and legislative developments, the CCFH produced an additional guidance document that promotes exibility in the interpretation of the classical method with acknowledgement that new methods may be appropriate for some sectors (Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation, 2006). However, the important proviso for any deviation from the classical method is that it must be rmly based on the seven principles. HACCP and the hospitality industry Nature of the hospitality industry Whilst it is recognised that the hospitality industry extends into areas that do not prepare food, the term is used in this paper to describe premises where food is produced ready for immediate consumption. These include restaurants, cafes,


take-a-ways, hospitals, schools, prisons, residential homes and hotels. For example, in the UK there are approximately 1.9 million employees in the hospitality industry employed in 370,000 premises representing over 60 per cent of all food businesses (Airey, 2002). However, whilst these businesses range from self-employed street vendors to multi-multinational chains, the majority are small, owner-managed outlets. Complexity of production process The production system in a typical hospitality business entails a large number of inputs, processes and outputs that represent a far more complex system than found in a typical manufacturing operation (see Figure 4). In addition, high levels of exibility are required to meet the unpredictable and continually changing customer demand. In short, such businesses attempting to introduce HACCP exhibit all the problems previously identied for small businesses with additional layers of complexity due to product range, time constraints and customer demand. This was convincingly illustrated by a UK government action research study that investigated the feasibility of HACCP for small businesses across the food chain. During the 18 month project, the research team failed to nd a solution as to how the classical HACCP method could be applied effectively in a typical hospitality business. This was despite the fact that businesses from all other sectors demonstrated that, with timely access to appropriate technical and managerial support, they could achieve HACCP (Taylor and Kane, 2005). HACCP uptake in the hospitality industry Food safety research in this industry is limited, as can be seen in Table I. However, a methodologically robust government study in 2001 conrmed anecdotal evidence of extremely low levels of progress with HACCP in the UK hospitality industry (Taylor and Kane, 2005). The study showed that whilst 24 per cent of outlets had some food safety records (i.e. cold storage temperatures), only 3 per cent had documented HACCP plans none of which were implemented in practice. This was conrmed in 2002, when FSA research in the independent restaurant sector demonstrated similarly low levels of engagement with food safety management (Taylor, 2005). The difculties in producing HACCP material or implementing HACCP systems within the industry are further evidenced by the fact that the UK has not been alone in its problems. A wide reaching international study, conducted by the FSA in 2002, concluded that there had been no systematic, effective implementation of HACCP in the hospitality industry anywhere in the world (Airey, 2003). Such evidence stimulated the involvement of the UK Government in a quest for practical solutions to the problem that the hospitality industry was demonstrating with the implementation of classical Codex HACCP methodology. The early stages of this initiative are described below, and explored fully in the following papers within this special theme edition. A UK initiative: paving the way for a bespoke solution for the hospitality industry The FSA is a non-Ministerial Government Department established in 2000 with its main objective being to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, including risks caused by the way in which it is

History in the making


IJCHM 20,5


produced or supplied (Department of Health, 1998). With ambitious targets to reduce food borne disease and increase HACCP uptake, the FSA announced plans to target the well-documented problems of food safety management within the hospitality industry. A dedicated HACCP branch was established to undertake this task, headed by Dr Richard Harding. An immediate initiative was announced. It involved producing a simplied HACCP guidance pack that was to be based on existing material used successfully by large commercial organisations such as McDonalds, Whitbread, Greenhall and others, but scaled down considerably in terms of language and technical content. When the product was completed, it was sent out to 600 caterers with a market-research company. The response that came back from the company was that . . . in the entire history of the company . . . [we] have never before experienced such a bad reaction to any product. The issues raised included problems with structure, language, layout, tone, justication, explanation and support (Forum Qualitative, 2002). One restaurant owners response highlights the general reaction to the pack: It took me [until the] fourth page before you actually nd out what it is and it is repeated several times, what the hell is hazard analysis, critical control points, thats a mouthful for anyone, even intelligent people. Too technical (Forum Qualitative, 2002). Indeed, although the businesses were offered 25 to read and comment on the material, it was reported that upon seeing the title HACCP, some even refused to open it and gave the money back. The experience was summarized by the Chair of the Working Party:
. . . the basic tenants of HACCP are dissonant with many small businesses, which rely on common sense, experience and a modicum of good luck to meet their requirements in relation to food safety. The structured approach . . . [is]. . . alien . . . and can seem like a succession of mountains of which they have no inclination or condence to climb . . . (Miller, 2002).

This was a salutary lesson for the FSA in its attempt to widen HACCP implementation across the industry. Indeed, as the project manager commented . . . this feedback caused everybody involved to take a step back from what they were doing, and look at the big question, what to do next? (Airey, 2002). Within the same year, the FSA announced the start of an intervention study based at the University of Salford. The University had extensive expertise in this area and Professor Eunice Taylor was seconded to the FSA HACCP Branch to lead the Development Team. The team was tasked with rethinking the problem of HACCP for the hospitality industry and developing a practical solution. Conclusion The history of HACCP, as can be gleaned from the previous discussions, has been turbulent with an increasing, but small, number of researchers and stakeholders actively engaged in its development. However, despite widespread problems, there has been a reluctance to challenge the underlying assumption that the classical HACCP methodology, developed and applied in large manufacturing businesses, is appropriate for small manufacturers and other sectors in the food chain (BenEmbarek, 2002). Indeed, it was four decades after its conception, that the UK government began a journey that was to not only challenge this assumption, but would result in an innovative new method of applying HACCP principles for the hospitality industry. The outputs of this project, Menu-Safe and Safer Food Better Business, are fully described in the fourth paper of this special theme issue (Taylor and Taylor, 2008).

References Airey, S. (2002), A new approach from the food standards agency, paper presented at the University of Salford 1st National Conference, HACCP & the Catering Industry: the Way Forward, Salford, October 1. Airey, S. (2003), HACCP and small catering businesses, paper presented at the University of Salford 2nd National Conference, New Approaches to HACCP in Catering, Salford, October 14. Azanza, M.P.V. and Zamora-Luna, M.B.V. (2005), Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline adherence, Food Control, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-22. ksel, M. and C lu, T. (2006), Difculties and barriers for the implementing of Bas, M., Yu avus og HACCP and food safety systems in food businesses in Turkey, Food Control, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 124-30. BenEmbarek, P. (2002), HACCP and the food industry: the international experience, Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference, HACCP for Catering: Preparing for 2006, Salford. Codex (2003a), Recommended international code of practice general principles of food hygiene, Codex Alimentarius Food Hygiene Basic Texts, Joint FAO WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome. Codex (2003b), Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and guidelines for its application, Codex Alimentarius Food Hygiene Basic Texts, Joint FAO WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome. Department of Health (1998), The Food Standards Agency, The Stationery Ofce, London. Ehiri, J.E. and Morris, G.P. (1995), HACCP implementation in food businesses: the need for a exible approach, Journal of the Royal Society of Health, Vol. 115 No. 4, pp. 249-53. Ehiri, J., Morris, G. and McEwen, J. (1997), Implementation of HACCP in food businesses: the way ahead, Food Control, Vol. 6, pp. 341-5. European Union (2004), Council Regulation 852/2004 of 29.4.04 on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs, Ofcial Journal of the European Communities, Vol. L139, Brussels. Fielding, L.M., Ellis, L., Beveridge, C. and Peters, A.C. (2005), An evaluation of HACCP implementation status in UK small and medium enterprises in food manufacturing, International Journal of Environmental Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 117-26. Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation (2006), Guidance to Governments on the Application of HACCP in Small and/or Less Developed Businesses, FAO, London. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2001), Survey of the Implementation of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) and Food Hygiene Training in Irish Food Businesses, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin. Food Standards Agency (2001), Strategy for the Wider Implementation of HACCP, available at: Forum Qualitative (2002), Implementation of HACCP, Qualitative Research , COI Communications, London. Henson, S., Holt, G. and Northen, J. (1999), Costs and benets of implementing HACCP in the UK dairy processing sector, Food Control, Vol. 10, pp. 99-106. Herath, D. and Henson, S. (2006), Does Canada need mandatory HACCP? Evidence from the Ontario food processing sector, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 443-59.

History in the making


IJCHM 20,5


Leitenberger, E. and Rocken, W. (1998), HACCP in small bakeries, Food Control, Vol. 9 Nos 2-3, pp. 151-5. Miller, T (2002), HACCP and the catering industry: the way forward, Proceedings of the University of Salford 1st National Conference, Salford, 1 October. Mortlock, P.M., Peters, A.C. and Grifth, C.J. (1999), Food hygiene and hazard analysis critical control point in the United Kingdom food industry: practices, perceptions, and attitudes, Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 786-92. Panisello, J.P., Quantick, P.C. and Knowles, M.J. (1999), Towards the implementation of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey, Food Control, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 87-98. Parliamentary Ofce of Science and Technology (2003), Food Borne Disease, POST, London. Taylor, E. (1994), Food safety and the UK catering industry, PhD thesis, Food Policy Research Unit, Bradford University, Bradford. Taylor, E.A. (2001a), HACCP in small companies: burden or benet, Food Control, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 217-22. Taylor, E.A. (2001b), HACCP and SMEs: problems and opportunities, Making the Most of HACCP, Chapter 8, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 13-30. Taylor, E.A. (2004), Investigating safe egg use in the catering industry a pilot study to estimate the nature and extent of adherence to government guidance, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 10, pp. 806-18. Taylor, E.A. and Kane, K. (2005), HACCP & SMEs, Food Control, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 833-9. Taylor, E.A. and Taylor, J.Z. (2003), Investigating HACCP implementation barriers through qualitative psychology, International Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 14, pp. 53-63. Taylor, E.A. and Taylor, J.Z. (2008), A new method of HACCP for the hospitality industry: from concept to product, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 5. Taylor, J.F. (2005), Application of HACCP principles to the independent restaurant sector of the UK catering industry, PhD thesis, International Centre for HACCP Innovation, University of Salford, Salford. Vela, A.R. and Fernandez, J.M. (2002), Barriers for the developing and implementation of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey, Food Control, Vol. 14, pp. 333-7. Walker, E., Pritchard, C. and Forsythe, S. (2002), Food handlers knowledge in small food businesses, Food Control, Vol. 14, pp. 339-43. Walker, E., Pritchard, C. and Forsythe, S. (2003), Hazard analysis critical control point and prerequisite programme implementation in small and medium size food businesses, Food Control, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 169-74. Youn, S. and Sneed, J. (2000), Implementation of HACCP and prerequisite programs in food service, American Dietetic Association, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 55-6. Further reading Food Standards Agency (2001), Minutes of the Food Standards Agency Board Meeting, FSA, London, 14 November. Food Standards Agency (2005), Minutes of the Food Standards Agency Board Meeting, FSA, London, 15 September. Forte, J. (2002), HACCP in the catering industry: a benet or curse?, Proceedings of the University of Salford 1st National Conference. HACCP & the Catering Industry: the Way Forward, Salford, 1 October.

Gilling, S.J., Taylor, E.A., Taylor, J.Z. and Kane, K. (2001), Successful HACCP implementation in the UK: understanding the barriers through the use of behavioural adherence model, Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 710-5. Taylor, E.A. and Taylor, J.Z. (2004), Perceptions of the bureaucratic nightmare of HACCP: a case study, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 65-72. World Health Organisation (2000), Strategies for Implementing HACCP in Small and/or Less Developed Businesses, WHO, Geneva. Corresponding author Eunice Taylor can be contacted at:

History in the making


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: Or visit our web site for further details: