Bob Drummond

1
Bob Drummond

• Chartered Environmental Health Officer
• Angus Council

2
What is it that Enforcement Officers expect with
regard to training?

• What the legislation requires.
• Difference between supervision instruction and
  training.
• Assessing compliance.
• Enforcement options.
• Consistency of Enforcement
• Recent developments.

3
Legislation

• Chapter XII Annexe II of EU Directive 852/2004
  covers the training requirement.
• Food business operators are to ensure
• 1. that food handlers are supervised and
  instructed and/ or trained in food hygiene
  matters commensurate with their work activity
• 2. that those responsible for the development
  and maintenance of the procedure referred to in
  Article 5 (1) of this Regulation or for the
  operation of relevant guides have received
  adequate training in the application of HACCP
  principles

4
Legislation (1)

• Chapter XII Annexe II of EU Directive 852/2004
  covers the training requirement.
• Food business operators are to ensure
• 1. that food handlers are supervised and
  instructed and/ or trained in food hygiene
  matters commensurate with their work activity

5
Supervision instruction and/or training.

• Training
• greater level of understanding at the end of the
  process.
• Has a bearing on the subsequent supervision
  required.
• Where training is a requirement, decide on the
  level of initial training for task undertaken,
  followed by refresher training.
• Instruction
• made aware initially and routinely of what needs
  to be done.
• simpler tasks lower risk foods, and where formal
  training is not required.
• instruction with supervision of an intensive kind
  can substitute for training e.g. where there is a
  high staff turnover.
• Instruction may be followed up by more formal
  training at a later date to reduce the level of
  supervision required.

6
Supervision instruction.

• low risk or wrapped food and no supervisory
  responsibilities, minimum level of instruction
  should be equivalent to level 1 food safety
  awareness. Supervision, however, must also be
  given to such staff to ensure they act in
  accordance with food hygiene instructions.
• supervision might be reduced as staff gain
  experience and are proved to be reliable.
• not expected to take on a decision making or
  supervisory role normally allocated to trained
  staff members as a result of absences during
  holidays, lunch breaks etc.
• Supervision arrangements should be reviewed
  regularly. If the food handler concerned cannot
  be supervised adequately on a permanent basis,
  they should undertake sufficient training as
  suggested in a relevant industry guide to allow
  work to continue without compromising food safety.

7
Assessing compliance of the food handler

• Questioning the food business operator.
• Using the new food safety qualifications
  framework as a guide.
• Linking non-compliance to a food safety problem.
• Questioning the food handler.

8
Questioning the food business operator.

• What are the main responsibilities your staff?
• How do you ensure that your staff prepare/handle
  food safely?
• Have the staff been on a recognised training
  course?
• What instruction do you give your staff in
  relation to food hygiene?
• How do you supervise your staff?
• Have food handlers with a supervisory/instruction
  role received training?
• When did you last review the training needs of
  yourself and staff?
• How do you review the effectiveness of
  training/supervision/instruction?

9
Using the food safety qualifications framework as
a guide.

• In England the National Occupational Standards
  underpinning qualifications have been revised for
  food safety and as a result, new qualifications
  are coming on stream that replace the
  traditional hygiene and HACCP courses.
• As updated industry guides become available, it
  will be possible to link the advice they give to
  particular courses and qualifications.

10
(No Transcript)
11
The following do not necessarily demonstrate
non-compliance

• Food handler has not followed a particular level
  of training course recommended in an Industry
  Guide.
• Training course has been followed where no exam
  is taken at the end and/or no certificate is
  provided.
• Training course has been taken, but the exam at
  the end has been failed, e.g. due to the
  candidate having literacy difficulties.
• Food handler is given little or no supervision,
  provided that training has been given which
  should have enable work to continue without
  compromising food safety.
• FBO provides only limited training or instruction
  and supervision on the basis of a particular food
  handlers proven knowledge and competence
  accumulated from previous relevant hygiene
  training work-based experience and personal study.

12
Compliance is not necessarily demonstrated by
passing a recommended course.

• Course might not have been relevant to the food
  handlers specific work activities.
• Food handler may not have passed part or parts of
  the course relevant to their work (even though
  they may have passed the overall exam at the end
  of the course).
• Food handler may have forgotten part or the
  entire course.
• Behaviour of the food handler may not have
  changed following the course.

13
Linking non-compliance to a food safety problem.

• Evidence would need to link the action of food
  handlers to food safety contraventions which are
  within their area of responsibility.
• This would include visual evidence of food
  handlers causing possible contamination, not
  washing hands or showing disregard for other
  personal hygiene matters.
• Microbiological sample evidence of unsatisfactory
  food produced or evidence of a food poisoning
  outbreak caused by poor practices may also be
  relevant.

14
Questioning the food handler (1).

• What are your (food handling) responsibilities?
• What food safety training have you received?
• Did you attend an external course, or were you
  trained in house?
• If in house, who trained you?
• What instruction has the proprietor/supervisor
  given you about preparing/handling food safety?
• What supervision are you given?

15
Questioning the food handler (2).

• The food handler might not react well to
  questioning which puts them in the spotlight.
• Some food handlers might use the opportunity to
  put the proprietor in a bad light.
• It could create an atmosphere of conflict between
  proprietors and the food handler.
• Certain food handlers might feel pressurised and
  unable to think clearly because answering
  questions incorrectly could put their job
  security at risk.
• In such situations the use of a combination of
  techniques to assess compliance will be
  particularly important.

16
Legislation (2)

• Chapter XII Annexe II of EU Directive 852/2004.
• Food business operators are to ensure
• that those responsible for the development and
  maintenance of the procedure referred to in
  Article 5 (1) of this Regulation or for the
  operation of relevant guides have received
  adequate training in the application of HACCP
  principles

17
Training for Food Business Operators in the
application of HACCP principles

• There are three main ways in which compliance
  can be assessed
• Using new the new food safety qualifications
  framework as a guide
• Linking an Article 5 food safety problem to
  non-compliance.
• Questioning the food business operator

18
Using new the new food safety qualifications
framework as a guide

• With updated industry guides you can link the
  advice they give to particular courses and
  qualifications.
• In the meantime the award levels which refer to
  management and supervision provide a good
  indication of appropriate training.
• FSA advice is that training does NOT mean that a
  formal course is the only way to comply.
• FBOs might comply on the basis of proven
  knowledge and competence accumulated from
  previous relevant hygiene training, work-based
  experience and personal study irrespective of
  what training might be suggested in future
  industry guides to be provided.

19
Linking an Article 5 food safety problem to
non-compliance.

• Non compliance with specific food related
  requirements of Annex II will indicate non
  compliance with Article 5 and the training
  requirement.
• Conversely, compliance with Article 5 indicates
  that FBO training have been satisfied for a
  particular business.

20
Questioning the food business operator.

• General Questions
• Q What aspects of your business do you consider
  most important from the point of view of food
  safety (or preventing food poisoning)?
• Q What qualifications, training and/or experience
  do you (or whoever analysed the businesss
  operations and identified safety procedures)
  have?
• More Focused Questions
• Q What should happen to this food item at receipt
  (and/or other operational steps)?
• Q Who undertakes the monitoring, how have they
  been instructed and/or trained in the task and
  who undertakes their duties when they are absent
  (e.g. sickness)?
• Direct Questions
• Q Tell me more about the temperatures at which
  you store/hold/cook the (food) and the
  temperature monitoring that takes place.
• Q What type of instruction and/or training have
  staff received on personal hygiene matters?
• Operational Flow Questions
• Q What do you do when you (receive/store/cook/cool
  /handle/serve) the food?
• Q What temperature do you aim for when you
  cook/reheat/cool the food and why?
• Closed Questions
• Q Where do you thaw frozen meat/poultry?
• Q Do you keep any records of staff training?

21
Enforcement options

• Informal Action -verbal advice/written warning
• Hygiene Improvement Notice
• Prosecution either for non-compliance with a
  hygiene improvement notice or directly for
  non-compliance with Chapter XII

22
Consistency of Enforcement

• Local Authority Enforcement Policy.
• Internal monitoring procedures.
• External monitoring - FSAS
• Liaison Group meetings.
• SFELC (Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison
  Committee).

23
Recent Developments (1)

• Davidson Review on implementation of EU
  Legislation - November 2006
• Some local authorities insist that all food
  handlers attend formal food hygiene training
  courses.
• This constitutes regulatory creep and may impose
  unnecessary costs on food businesses.
• Recommends
• FSA write to LAs clarifying the regulatory
  requirements on training for food handlers.
• FSA should also ensure that all guidance material
  adequately reflects the flexibility in the
  European Regulations.