Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014 - 148

data would suggest, and perhaps reflective of the greater
representation from workers in educational settings or a
desire to portray a positive image. The topics identified as
covered in the trainings were linked to the top five identified
causes of foodborne illness: employee handwashing, cross
contamination, time-temperature abuse, glove use, and
allergens. Allergen training was identified as a topic by
almost 75% of respondents, which may reflect the emphasis
on allergen training for line staff in recent Food Code
guidance (44) and increasing numbers of Americans with
food allergies, particularly children. With close to 70% of the
respondents working in K-12 school settings, inclusion of this
topic in training is not surprising. In addition, respondents
working in school settings may be more aware of food safety
because of required Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) plans as a result of the 2004 Child Nutrition
Program reauthorization, and that awareness may have
contributed to the inclination to respond.
Similarily, the mean ratings reported for frequency of
following food safety practices are higher than those reported
in previous observational research. Prior observation-based
studies of handwashing behaviors in various sectors of retail
foodservices, including schools (18, 36, 41, 42, 45), found
low compliance with handwashing frequency as identified in
the Food Code, yet the respondents in this study indicated
that their hands were washed almost always (4.93 mean
rating on a 5.0 scale, with 5 = Always). One limitation
of self-reported data is the tendency to portray positive
attributes; thus positive reporting of food safety practices
was expected. As past research has found (19, 29, 33), those
working in retail foodservices often know what should be
done; however, for a variety of reasons, these practices are
not implemented (14). The high self-reporting of correct
behaviors in this study indicates that respondents have
knowledge of safe food handling practices. This is illustrated
in the reportedly low occurrence of respondents who came
to work when sick (mean rating of 2.33 with 1 = Never).
Because lack of health benefits and sick days is fairly common
in the foodservice industry, particularly for those employed
on a part-time basis (as over 65% of respondents in this study
were), it is expected that actual observations would dispute
this finding. Thus, the challenge in motivating staff to practice
what they know, and ensuring sufficient resources and
support to allow them to do so, continues.
Respondents' identification of the barriers that confront
them in following safe food handling practices were highly
informative. Respondents were aware of what barriers
prevented them from following safe food practices.
Interestingly, the barriers identified as most important were
related to time and organization-hectic work pace, lack
of time, and lack of workplace organization. These findings
suggest a need to improve work productivity, perhaps
through organization of work process (such as planning
more efficient ways to accomplish tasks or reconfiguring

148

Food Protection Trends

May/June

work duties) or work areas (e.g., relocating supply items
so they are closer to the work location). The mean rating
of importance of 4.02 (on the 5-point scale, with 5 = Very
Important) for "can't find supplies at work" as an explanation
why food wasn't handled safely suggests the need to focus
training on how to improve the organization of employees'
work environments rather than only on specific behaviors.
In addition, findings indicate managers can aid in improving
the practice of safe food behaviors by making supplies readily
available so employees have convenient access and know
where to find them.
It is interesting that the stated barriers of "don't think I need
to follow safe handling practices" or "no rules at work" were
rated as highly important, with mean ratings of 4.19 and
4.11, respectively. This finding suggests management could
improve safe food behaviors if expectations were clearly
communicated to staff. Management has the responsibility
to ensure employees are aware of food safety practices and
must instill a positive work culture, through established
standard operating procedures and other infrastructure that
communicates this message to employees. Previous work has
identified that organizational infrastructure is considered by
employees to be a motivator for following safe food handling
practices (14). Emerging research is assessing the impact of
work culture on food safety (37).
Management is positioned to design job descriptions,
develop workplace procedures in accordance with the Food
Code, and establish recognition and discipline policies for
the organization. Management must also communicate
this information to employees. Compliance is more likely
if employees are aware that there will be consequences if
they fail to follow workplace procedures. Policies guide
actions and influence the workplace culture. In addition,
infrastructure can temper the impact of an employee with
a strong negative personality within the workforce and
empower individual employees' sense of accountability and
their own intrinsic motivation to practice safe food handling
(14). Further work regarding social dynamics within the
foodservice environment is needed, particularly as these
relate to safe food behaviors. One indicative finding from
this study is that the importance of the role played by peers
(the items of "afraid of co-workers' reactions," with mean of
2.78, and "an unsupportive work group," with mean of 3.39)
both were listed last either as a barrier or as a motivator to
practicing safe food handling. This suggests respondents'
ambivalence regarding the role of coworkers and peers.
Behnke's (7) examination of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and hospitality students' attitudes
toward e-learning found support for the hypothesis that
students who rated "average high" in emotional-social
intelligence would have more positive attitudes toward this
learning method than students categorized as "low average."
Ellis et al. (14) found intrinsic attributes of employees to
be one of four motivational factors that influenced safe
Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2014
