Improving Food Safety

Quality, Value, Service & Integrity. www.highfieldqualifications.com

Housekeeping

Please explore the grey panel on the right-hand side of

your browser screen.
(a) Raise a hand to grab our attention if you are
experiencing technical issues.
(b) Submit your questions for the speaker as the webinar
progresses.
(c) You’ll find a help guide and a copy of today’s slides to
download in the handouts section.
If you’re joining us from the Go To Webinar app on a
mobile device, you’ll find these icons and your audio
options in the blue bar at the top of your screen

Please be aware: some images used within this presentation are

NOT owned by Highfield and are only used for educational purposes.
Keep up to date with the latest
food safety news and opinions

The Highfield Food Safety

Forum on LinkedIn
Benefits:
• regular news updates on topics like food
poisoning, fines, recalls and research
• participate in thought-provoking discussions
• being able to grow your social network with
people interested in food safety.

To join:
• search for Highfield Food Safety Forum
on www.linkedin.com
• select the option to request to join the group.
 SME Food Safety
Culture and
Reducing the Risk
of Food Poisoning
Tayo Irawo1
Arthur Tatham2 and Elizabeth Redmond2
1BRCGS approved training partner and PhD student, Cardiff
Metropolitan University; 2Professor and Doctoral
Supervisor, Cardiff Metropolitan University
Tayo Irawo

• BRCGS Approved
Training Partner
• BRCGS Principal Trainer
• Lecture in food science
and technology,
food microbiology
and global food quality
management systems
at Cardiff Metropolitan
University
• PhD student
ZERO2FIVE Food Industry Centre
Professor Elizabeth Redmond
Research Group Lead
eredmond@cardiffmet.ac.uk
• Food safety culture in the food sector.
• Food safety in food service and manufacturing.
• Consumer food safety behaviour and cognitive
influences.
• Targeted food safety intervention development,
implementation and evaluation.
• Novel technologies – artificial intelligence, eye
trackers, stimulus and emotional response testing,
Perceptual Experience Laboratory.
• Knowledge transfer and supply chain; production
efficiency in food manufacturing.
• Pathogen specific research – Listeria.
Presentation Plan

• Background literature - incidence of foodborne disease, SME

food service sector, food safety compliance and food safety
culture
• Research study overview and approaches
• Research findings: Food Hygiene Ratings, Environmental
Health Officer perceptions of food safety culture in food
service, food safety culture and UK food service SMEs
• Research study conclusions
• Further work
• Questions and contact details.
Incidence of Foodborne Disease

• The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that annually

there are 600 million illnesses and 420,000 deaths attributed to
foodborne disease (1).
• UK data suggests 2.4 million cases of foodborne disease, 16,400
hospital admissions and 180 deaths (2).
• Food-service SMEs are common settings for food poisoning
outbreaks in the UK and internationally (3-6).
• The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports “strong
evidence” that 46% of foodborne outbreaks are attributed to the
food service sector, including restaurants, cafes, pubs, street
vendors, takeaway, and institutional caterers (7).
UK Food Service Sector

• Hospitality sector (including restaurants and caterers)

accounts for 73% of food establishments across England,
Wales and Northern Ireland (8) .
• SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) account for >99%,
and micro-business make up most of the sector (9).
• Food safety compliance in food-service SMEs is essential for
minimising the risk of foodborne disease (10).
• Recent data indicates 47% of food establishments subject to
inspections, audit, verification, and surveillance were subject
to at least one type of enforcement action (8).
Food Service Food Safety

• Research findings suggests SMEs are reactive rather than proactive, they
rely on the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to identify non –
compliance, give direction on action to take and provide information on
legislation (11).
• Influences on compliance can include; business size, organisational
structure, physical design, resource availability, skills, nature of
operation inspection frequency and factors associated with food safety
culture (9,12,13).
• Food safety culture (FSC) can be considered a contributory risk factor in
food poisoning outbreaks (14).
• The behaviours and factors in the intervening gap between the
intended and actual practice (15).
What is Food Safety Culture (FSC)?

• Fuzzy academic concept (16).

• "The way we do things round here"! (17)
• The aggregation of the prevailing,
relatively constant, learned, shared
attitudes, values and beliefs contributing
to the hygiene behaviours used within a
particular food handling environment (14).
What is Food Safety Culture (FSC)?

• Prevailing attitudes, values and practices

related to food safety that are taught, directly
and indirectly, to new employees (18).

• FSC is defined as a long-term construct

existing at the organisational level relating to
the deeply rooted beliefs, behaviours and
assumptions that are learned and shared by
all employees, which impact the food safety
performance of the organisation (19).
FSC and the Food Industry

• Diverse industry (20).

Figure 1. Factors influencing food
• Limited FSC research in food service. safety performance
• Research methods in the food industry- mostly (Source: Griffith et al., 2010)
qualitative, single evaluation, e.g. self-
assessment questionnaires or multiple data
sources including questionnaires, surveys,
interviews and observations.
• Triangulation offers comprehensive evaluation of
culture & enrichment of findings for example,
Jespersen and Wallace (2017) (21).
• Potential link between FSC and food safety
performance.
Research Study Overview

Study aims
• To understand factors that influence FSC
in SME food service establishments.
• Develop a sector specific tool to evaluate
FSC in food service SMEs.
• Recommend targeted approaches to
improve FSC in food service. SMEs to
improve food safety compliance and
reduce the risk of foodborne disease.
Research Study Overview

Study aims
• To understand factors that influence FSC
in SME food service establishments.
• Develop a sector specific tool to evaluate
FSC in food service SMEs.
• Recommend targeted approaches to
improve FSC in food service. SMEs to
improve food safety compliance and
reduce the risk of foodborne disease.
Research Study Approaches

• Archive Retrieval (22-24), FHR Inspection Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)
reports (2013-2016) Review of
Food Hygiene compliance
Rating Schemedata
(FHRS)
Review of compliance data
• Focus groups with Environmental Health EHO focus groups
Perceptions EHO
of the factors
focus determining FSC in
groups
Officers (EHOs) from Local Authorities
Perceptions of thefood service
factors determining FSC in
(n=2 groups; n=11 EHOs) food service
SMEs managers’ perceptions of factors
• In-depth, semi-structured interviews with associated
SMEs managers’ with FSC
perceptions of factors
SME food service managers (n=10) associated with FSC
Online survey questionnaire attitudes and
• Quantitative food safety culture online perceptions of FSC in SMEattitudes
food service
Online survey questionnaire and
questionnaire with SME food service perceptions ofestablishments
FSC in SME food service
managers (n=45) establishments
In-depth case studies, evaluate FSC and design
intervention.
In-depth case studies, evaluate FSC and design
intervention.
Research Study: Stage 1

• Archive Retrieval (22-24), FHR Inspection Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)
Review of compliance data
reports (2013-2016) (n=299)
EHO focus groups
Perceptions of the factors determining FSC in
catering

SMEs Managers’ perceptions of factors

associated with FSC

Online survey questionnaire attitudes and

perceptions of FSC in SME food service
establishments

In-depth case studies, evaluate FSC and design

intervention.
FHRS Non-Compliances: Hygiene

Table 1. FHRS Non-Compliances: Hygiene (n=299 FHRS reports).

Contravention Non-compliances Comments

Cross-contamination 24% Lack of segregation raw and cooked,

dirty hand contact surfaces

Stock rotation 22% Labelling issues, out of date stock

Poor temperature control 16% Hot holding - high risk > 63°C

Cleaning 15% Food and hand equipment

Wrong chemical

Personal hygiene 14% Handwashing facilities

FHRS Non-Compliances: Structure

Table 2. FHRS Non compliances: Structure (n=299 FHRS reports).

Contravention Non-compliances Comments
Structural cleaning 34% Floors, walls, ceiling
Worn surfaces/refurbishment 31% Redecoration required
required
Cleaning – hand and food contact 24% Chopping boards,
surfaces fridge/freezer
Damage to structure 17% Flooring, peeling paint
Lack/inadequate/unsuitable 15% Bare plaster boards, MDF
facilities/resources in use
Damage to food equipment/ 12% Chopping boards
utensils/fixtures/fittings
FHRS Non-Compliances: CIM

Table 3. FHRS Non-Compliances: Confidence-in-Management (CIM) (n=299 FHRS reports).

Contravention Non-compliances Comments

Food Safety Management System (FSMS) not
completed
Incomplete monitoring records/records gaps
FSMS not reviewed/not up-to-date
Lack of training
Refresher/higher level of training required
Practices - stock rotation/ contamination/
temperature control
16% No FSMS, partially completed
21% Temperature checks not completed, partially
completed monitoring records
12% Safer food better business (SFBB) out of date
22% No hygiene training or training records
8% Management training not sufficient to manage
risks, refresher training needed
8% No temperature probe, contamination risks
Research Study: Stage 2

• Focus groups with Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)

Review of compliance data
Environmental Health
Officers (EHOs) from EHO focus groups
Local Authorities Perceptions of the factors determining FSC in
(n=2 groups; food service
n=11 EHOs)
SMEs Managers’ perceptions of factors
associated with FSC

Online survey questionnaire attitudes and

perceptions of FSC in SME food service
establishments

In-depth case studies, evaluate FSC and design

intervention.
 EHO Perceptions of FSC
Leadership
Strong, competent;
set values, vision;
ownership–FBO present;
planning, resources;
motivation - money,
passion, safety.
“There has to be a
framework from the top,
which gives the people in the
organisation the rules in
which to act and behave’’
(FG2).
Management Communication Training/knowledge
Proactive, competent; Communication of tasks; Training commensurate
approachable, present; approachability; with role;
responsible; challenges – language time/money: a sign of
fully implemented and barriers. value placed on staff;
effective FSMS; risk awareness;
legislation compliant. barriers – expense, high
“Make sure everyone’s turnover.
“if you’re competent, you aware of their tasks” (FG1).
know exactly what you’ve got “It amazes me how many
to do, what the law says business owners or
about training, about managers lack just basic
“in terms of a really
structure, about awareness of food safety
positive business, it’s
documentation” (FG1). hazards” (FG2).
two-way” (FG2).
 EHO Perceptions of FSC
Ethnic background, culture
and experience
Patterns seen in groups;
language barriers;
nationality plays a part;
culture influenced by
community norms.
“I can’t help but think about the
background of the person as well,
whether that is an ethnic culture
or the background that they’ve
come from” (FG1).
Type of cuisine
Food prep method;
high turnover, lack of
training, poor hygiene;
restaurant focused, not
kitchen focused;
closed communities; temp
control issues.
“The traditional recipes don’t sit
well with our food legislation. As
in, leave it out, marinating
overnight, doesn’t sit nicely with
how we do things … with the law,
not how we do things” (FG2).
Resources/infrastructure
Suitable premises;
equipment;
prerequisites in place.
improvements; empowered
“so there is actually sufficient
staff, money, equipment” (FG1).
"They don’t like spending money
… on structural problems"
(FG1).
Engaged workforce
Understand the vision;
Ownership / responsibility
for role;
good pay, low staff
turnover; new ideas/
to report issues and take
action.
“They’re coming up with good
ideas, you know … they’re making
suggestions for improvements
and that’s listened to and acted
upon” (FG1).
Research Study: Stages 3 and 4

• In-depth, semi-structured Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)

Review of compliance data
interviews with SME food
service managers (n=10) EHO focus groups
Perceptions of the factors determining FSC in
• Quantitative food safety food service
culture online questionnaire
with SME food service SMEs Managers’ perceptions of factors
managers(n=45) associated with FSC

Online survey questionnaire attitudes and

perceptions of FSC in SME food service
establishments

In-depth case studies, evaluate FSC and design

intervention.
FSC Framework: Food Service SMEs

Food safety
Leadership management Communication

Food safety FSC food service Training

commitment SMEs

Resources and
Risk awareness FHRS
environment
Awareness of FSC and Factors
“Food safety is more
about understanding of the law
and how to comply with it. Food safety
culture, I think is more to do with, how
can we achieve that goal in the
best possible way?" (OM9).
“Culture is something that comes
down from senior members of
the team to the ones below and
not learned from books” (OM1).
No prior “Everybody working together to
awareness of the assure that the food is
concept of FSC done correctly and safely…..it's very
much a communal effort into
ensuring that it's done correctly”
(HC4).
Suggestions
“It’s how you produce food safely.
FSC Meaning Obviously, you are storing food so that
Food-service it is cooked, the served before it
SMEs degrades, that is not fit for
consumption. That is part of your job”
(OM2).
FSC Findings: Food Safety Management
“I know that Natasha's Law has come in, it's
essential that …..if we're making sandwiches
to take away or anything, everything needs
to be labelled” (M7).
“So, what I’ve done is I’ve taken the food
better business, okay, and basically rewritten
it for our business, and produce our own
forms based on their forms, but for our
business” (HC3).
• 88% managers agreed food safety procedures
are always available to all staff.
• 63% managers considered that record keeping
is not time consuming.
• 90% managers reported reviewing food safety
paperwork when there are changes to
ingredients or how food is prepared.
• 70% managers reported actively seeking
guidance on changes to food safety legislation
& associated food safety practices.
FSC Findings
Food Safety Management - Responsibility

• 100% managers agreed that the quality of the

“Above anything else is to serve someone food service is the top priority.
something that it's safe for them to
consume in a way that it's, you know, • 58% managers considered that compliance
safe for them to sit in and enjoy” (OM5). with food safety legislation is challenging.
• 86% managers were confident that they knew
all the food safety and hygiene measures
“Obviously cross contamination is a huge required to prepare safe food.
one…. “That’s
that's your food safety
probably one culture,
of oneyouof the
know, if there’s an expectation of the
most key aspects of working in aon • 28% managers thought that it is unnecessary
standard that is expected to be kept
restaurant
a dailyinbasis,
a catering facility.
I don’t see how you Socan
we're to have food safety records, as long as food is
very careful with
ever go that”
wrong.” (OM9).
(OM) prepared safely.
FSC Findings:
Manager perceptions of responsibility

Table 4. Management perceptions of responsibility in food-service SMEs (n=45).

Managers who perceived Managers who perceived

Perceptions of responsibility for ….. themselves to have total or food handlers to have total or
nearly total responsibility nearly total responsibility

…..development of food safety procedures 87% 67%

…..implementation of food safety procedures 91% 80%

…..completion of food safety documentation 91% 77%

…..ensuring provision of safe food for the consumer 93% 89%

FSC Findings: Leadership

“But mainly my mission statement is that I want to • 98% managers agreed that they have clear
serve good food and good price, with great service.
That's me all in in one sentence” (OM9).
expectations regarding food safety and
hygiene practices required of staff.
• 84% managers indicated that they
“So I won't expect someone to do something that I
reprimand staff whenever poor food safety
wouldn't do myself, but I do expect them to do
things that I will do” (OM9). and/or hygiene is observed.
• 47% managers thought that it is difficult to
follow all food safety procedures during
“That’s your food safety culture, you know, if
busy periods.
there’s an expectation of the standard that is
expected to be kept on a daily basis, I don’t see
how you can ever go wrong” (HC3).
FSC Findings: Communication
“It's the communication and the expectation
that you have from the highest level within
your business…. that's what creates a food
safety culture” (OM9).
“It's their working environment, their direct
working environment. So personally, as their
manager, I would always want ….. a member
of staff to feel free to discuss their personal
working environment” (HC4).
• 92% managers indicated their staff are aware of
the communication channels.
• 43% managers reported challenges in
communicating food safety procedures because
of language differences.
• 92% managers believed food safety policies and
procedures are clearly communicated to staff.
• 85% managers considered the EHO to be a
trusted source of food safety information.
• 88% managers indicated staff were encouraged
to discuss any food safety concerns.
FSC Findings: Training

“The only hesitation in my mind is that I haven’t

actually taken food safety training to anything…
higher than a basic level” (OM1).
“..then you'll tell a volunteer, well do it this way
and then I hear them telling another volunteer, do
it this way. That's how we do it, but sometimes,
maybe that's not the right way" (OM8).
“Within my own café… there would be certain
ways that ... storage and hygiene
requirements…that are specific to here that I
would need to obviously point out” (OM2).
• 85% managers thought that all food
handlers should have an appropriate food
safety qualification before starting work.
• 88% managers reported they would
provide additional training regardless of
prior food safety training.
• 68% managers agreed staff learn the food
safety and hygiene procedures from other
team members.
FSC Findings: Commitment to Food Safety
“But I feel like if you if you have to reward
someone for following food, safe hygiene,
then part of me thinking that do I really
want them here” (OM5).
“I took two of my staff to the football on
a Saturday as a reward for all their hard
work that they've put in in the previous
few months” (OM9).
• 95% managers thought that food safety is a ‘top
priority’.
• 95% managers reported that action is taken quickly to
resolve issues affecting food safety and hygiene.
• 98% managers believed their actions influence the
food safety and hygiene behaviours of food handlers
in their business.
• 46% managers thought that there is no need for food
handlers to receive a reward for following food safety
procedures.
FSC Findings: Resources & Work Environment
“What will generally slide will
be deep cleaning” (HC4).
“I’m sure if I had a big walk-in
fridge, I could do a better job of
cooling things” (OM1).
“Two of us who are running
around like a headless
chicken” (HC3).
• 90% managers indicated that utensils and
equipment necessary to prepare food safely and
hygienically are readily available.
• 83% managers considered that affordability is a key
factor in carrying out structural repairs.
• 75% managers reported that staff are encouraged
to discuss their well-being in the workplace.
• 73-78% managers indicated that they have
adequate financial resources and staffing levels
to support the safe and hygienic preparation of food.
 FSC Findings: Risk Awareness
“Within the scope of food we
prepare, I would say it is
actually adequate” (OM1).
“We don't cook that much
fresh meat, we don't cook
that much fish. And if we do
I stick to ways of doing things
that I am comfortable with”
(OM1).
• 97% managers agreed that they clearly understand all of the risks
associated with food safety and hygiene.
• 97% managers are confident that all of the food safety and
hygiene procedures that are implemented in their business will
prevent food-borne illness.
• 97% managers believed consumers are unlikely to get food
poisoning from their establishment.
• 67% managers considered that structural layout / fabrication of
the kitchen does not impact food safety for the consumers.
• 85% agreed enough time is allocated for stock rotation checks in
their business.
 Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)
“Obviously, for peace of mind for customers.
Secondly, to make sure that we are operating
at a level that is safe” (AM7).
"It's a great indication, though, if you can see somebody
who has five stars, you are walking into that place?’.
yeah, they're doing everything correctly. No
cause concern in terms of food safety culture" (HC3).
“We had some minor tears in our flooring , and
because of that we lost a star of the door.....for a
business owner, that's very hard to swallow” (OM9).
• 90% managers thought that food hygiene
inspections help to ensure the business is
following food safety legislation.
• 89% managers thought that the hygiene rating
gives customers peace of mind that they
are eating in a safe place.
• 97% managers are aware of the standards
required to obtain a good FHR
• 53% managers thought that limited financial
resources make it challenging for a small
business to get a good hygiene rating.
Background & Experience

“Because my children , they allergy so many things,

so I know how serious, …. even myself, I cannot eat
peanut, okay, so I bit concern…I read a lot of news…
So I update like now you know Natasha’s law”
(OM8).
“When I was been trained in the kitchen, and we
had the same… protocol they used to buy us, like a
drink and give us like vouchers every now and again
for rewards for hard work. Really worked…, so I’ve
implemented it into my team now and it seems to be
doing wonders” (HC3).
• 84% managers considered that their
previous work experience had influenced
the food safety and hygiene procedures
implemented in their current business.
• 49% managers thought that cultural
influence of staff may effect food
preparation practices.
Conclusions

• Academic literature and study data has informed development

of a FSC framework that has appropriate application to food
service SMEs.

• The assessment of factors influencing FSC may be a useful tool

for improving compliance with food safety practices in food
service SMEs.

• Food safety management play an important role in

shaping and enabling the performance of hygienic behaviours.

• Leadership and management commitment to setting

clear expectations for food safety performance.
Conclusions

• Performance of hygienic behaviours can be influenced by:

- effective training on necessary food safety practices is required
to motivate and engage staff
- effective two-way food safety communication
- provision of resources is required to enable consistent
compliance behaviour
- awareness of food safety risks is required to enable the
implementation of appropriate control measures and food
handling practices
• Management recognition of the benefit of reward and sanctions
may increase motivation towards safe hygienic practices.
Further work in this study

• In-depth FSC case studies with

food service SMEs.

• Recommend targeted
approaches to improve FSC in
food service SMEs to improve
food safety compliance and
reduce the risk of
foodborne disease.
Contact details

Tayo Irawo,
Professor Elizabeth Redmond
ZERO2FIVE Food Industry Centre
Professor of Food Safety, Health and Behaviour,
tairawo@cardiffmet.ac.uk
ZERO2FIVE Food Industry Centre, Research Group Lead,
eredmond@cardiffmet.ac.uk
Twitter:@tayo_IrawoFSC
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/tayo-irawo
Twitter: @Lfoodsafety @ZERO2FIVE_
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-Elizabeth-Redmond/
References

1. World Health Organization. WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: foodborne disease burden epidemiology reference group 2007-2015.
[Internet]. Vol. 44. 2015 Feb. Available from: http://stacks.iop.org/1751-8121/44/i=8/a=085201?key=crossref.abc74c979a75846b3de48a5587bf708f
2. Holland D and Mahmoudzadeh N. Foodborne Disease Estimates for the United Kingdom in 2018. 2020;(January):27. Available from:
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodborne-disease-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-in-2018.pdf
3. Hughes C, Gillespie IA, O’Brien SJ. Foodborne transmission of infectious intestinal disease in England and Wales, 1992-2003. Food Control. 2007;18(7):766–72.
4. Gormley FJ, Rawal N, Little CL. Choose your menu wisely: Cuisine-associated food-poisoning risks in restaurants in England and Wales. Epidemiol Infect.
2012;140(6):997–1007.
5. Ungku Fatimah Zainal Abidin. Measuring food safety culture : Insights from onsite foodservice operations. 2013;
6. Zanin LM, Luning PA, da Cunha DT, Stedefeldt E. Influence of educational actions on transitioning of food safety culture in a food service context: Part 1 –
Triangulation and data interpretation of food safety culture elements. Food Control [Internet]. 2021;119(April 2020):107447. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107447
7. EFSA, European Food Safety Authority, and ECDC EC for DP and C, Authority S. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic
agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J. 2018;16(12).
8. Food Standards Agency. Annual report on UK local authority food law enforcement. 2020;38. Available from:
http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/board/board-papers-2013/lafoodlaw-annual-report-1213.pdf
9. Fairman R, Yapp C. Compliance with food safety legislation in small and micro-businesses : enforcement as an external motivator. J Environ Heal Res [Internet].
2004;3(2):44–52. Available from: http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Food_safety_and_hygiene/JEHR/JEHR-Vol3-Iss2-Compliance with food safety
legislation.pdf
References

10. Ungku Fatimah UZA, Strohbehn CH, Arendt SW. An empirical investigation of food safety culture in onsite foodservice operations. Food Control [Internet]. 2014 Dec
[cited 2014 Sep 26];46:255–63. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0956713514002849
11. Yapp C, Fairman R. Factors affecting food safety compliance within small and medium-sized enterprises: Implications for regulatory and enforcement strategies.
Food Control. 2006;17(1):42–51.
12. Wallace, CA, Sperber, WH, & Mortimore S. Food Safety in Foodservice Operations. In: Food Safety for the 21st Century : Managing HACCP and Food Safety
Throughout the Global Supply Chain. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, Newark.; 2018. p. 371–86.
13. Diogo Thimoteo da Cunha. Improving food safety practices in the foodservice industry. Curr Opin Food Sci [Internet]. 2021;42:127–33. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.05.010
14. Griffith CJ, Livesey KM, Clayton D a. Food safety culture: the evolution of an emerging risk factor? Br Food J [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2014 Feb 4];112(4):426–38.
Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00070701011034439
15. Manning L. The value of food safety culture to the hospitality industry. Worldw Hosp Tour Themes. 2018;10(3):284–96.
16. Clarke S. Safety culture: under-specified and overrated? Int J Manag Rev [Internet]. 2000 Mar [cited 2014 Mar 13];2(1):65–90. Available from:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-2370.00031
17. Yiannas F. Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management System. Vol. 1, Springer. 2009. 1–97 p.
18. Taylor J, Garat JP, Simreen S, Sarieddine G. An industry perspective. Eunice Taylor D, editor. Worldw Hosp Tour Themes [Internet]. 2015 Feb 9 [cited 2015 May
15];7(1):78–89. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.cardiffmet.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1108/WHATT-12-2014-0041
References

19. Sharman N, Wallace CA, Jespersen L. Terminology and the understanding of culture, climate, and behavioural change – Impact of organisational and human factors on
food safety management. Trends Food Sci Technol [Internet]. 2020;96(December 2019):13–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.12.005

20. Griffith C. Food safety in catering establishments. In Safe handling of foods. 2000;(pp. 251-256).

21. Jespersen L, Wallace CA. Triangulation and the importance of establishing valid methods for food safety culture evaluation. Food Res Int [Internet]. 2017;100(June):244–53.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.009
22. Green RM, Kane K. The effective enforcement of HACCP based food safety management systems in the UK. Food Control [Internet]. 2014 Mar [cited 2014 Feb 5];37(1):257–62.
Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0956713513004623

23. Jones TF, Pavlin BI, LaFleur BJ, Ingram LA, Schaffner W. Restaurant inspection scores and foodborne disease. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2004 Apr [cited 2017 Aug 30];10(4):688–
92. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15200861

24. Harris KJ, Murphy KS, DiPietro RB, Rivera GL. Food safety inspections results: A comparison of ethnic-operated restaurants to non-ethnic-operated restaurants. Int J Hosp Manag
[Internet]. 2015;46:190–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.02.004
Comfort break
 NOW IN STOCK

Developing and Maintaining a

Positive Food Safety Culture

From £12.65 per unit

purchase online or call
Highfield on 01302 363277.
Level 3 Award in the Principles of
Developing a Positive Food Safety
Culture Training Presentation

From £239.00 excl. VAT

purchase online or call
Highfield on 01302 363277.
Keep up to date with the latest
food safety news and opinions

The Highfield Food Safety

Forum on LinkedIn
Benefits:
• regular news updates on topics like food
poisoning, fines, recalls and research
• participate in thought-provoking discussions
• being able to grow your social network with
people interested in food safety.

To join:
• search for Highfield Food Safety Forum
on www.linkedin.com
• select the option to request to join the group.
Any questions?

NEXT
???
Future webinars…

The challenges of catering at the FIFA

World Cup 2022
June Steenekamp of Didactix
International Hospitality & Catering
Training Consultants
Tuesday 16 May
10:00 – 11:30 GMT

Book now via our events page

on highfieldqualifications.com
Have your say!

Let Highfield know what hot, topical food

safety subjects or speakers you would
like to see in future Improving Food
Safety webinars by emailing:
events@highfield.co.uk

NEXT
 Thank you for attending

We hope you enjoyed today’s webinar. Remember to download a copy

of the slides from the handouts section now.
Your CPD certificate and a link to today’s recording will be emailed to
you 2 hours after this webinar ends.
Please do complete the short survey which will pop up on your screen
after we have closed the webinar. Your feedback is important to us.
If you have any queries, please email: events@highfield.co.uk.

Quality, Value, Service & Integrity. www.highfieldqualifications.com