Do businesses get the food poisoning they deserve?

Abstract

PurposeFood poisoning remains a major public health problem and 2009 has seen major outbreaks with both financial and social implications. The aim of this paper is to examine whether a business gets the food poisoning it deserves and to assess the role of management including food safety culture in outbreaks.Design/methodology/approachFactors influencing the likelihood of a business causing food poisoning are considered and discussed using four categories or variables. These are then applied in a case study of an E coli O157 outbreak.FindingsThe risk of a business causing food poisoning depends on the types of foods produced, the people consuming the food and where the business sources its raw materials. These need to be considered in relation to the hygiene behaviour of the food handlers employed. Food safety does not happen by accident and to produce safe food consistently, especially on a large scale, requires management. Management includes the systems that are used and the organizational food safety culture of compliance with those systems. Food poisoning will never be totally prevented; however, to a considerable extent, a business does get the food poisoning it deserves.Originality/valueThis paper presents a novel approach to understanding the risk of a business causing food poisoning and will be of use to investigators, food safety inspectors, educators and industry.

Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness

“…The cavalier attitude toward food safety was further reinforced by William Tudor's falsifying of documents to deliberately hide potential difficulties. Although foodborne illness may not always be completely preventable, Griffith (2010) concluded that the risk of a business causing foodborne illness is, to a large extent, a consequence of its own activities.…”

“…Evidence provided by employees of John Tudor & Son and EHOs, and documented by photography and video, indicated that cleaning of the facility and its equipment was inadequate; poor maintenance and damaged construction provided physical barriers to proper cleaning; staff were not adequately trained and had poor hygiene habits; and meat with off-odors that indicated spoilage was camouflaged with spices rather than being removed from the food chain (Pennington, 2009). Griffith (2010) told the inquest the food safety culture set by William Tudor raised grave concerns. With the focus set on profit, employees at John Tudor & Son ignored microbiological hazards and undertook actions that increased the potential for cross-contamination from raw meats to cooked.…”

The food safety culture in a large South African food service complex

“…Overall discussion and conclusions Notified or known cases of foodborne disease represent the tip of the iceberg (Griffith, 2010;Tam et al, 2011) and the consequences of failing to provide safe food are becoming more severe for victims, businesses and even countries. Success in food safety must not just be to conform to requirements but to achieve a successful business with satisfied safe customers.…”

Food safety performance and risk of food services from different natures and the role of nutritionist as food safety leader

“…The lack of a full system of food safety management and poor food safety performance associated with several factors (e.g. population growth, growth of highly vulnerable population groups, increased food production and distribution, and changes in consumer behavior towards a preference for high-risk foods) can contribute to the incidence of FBD 10,11 . Therefore, identify the differences between food services, assessing associated factors to food safety performance, can assist the developing of strategies for food safety management.…”