Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective ...€¦ · practices for overcoming them. This...

Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective Training Programs

Results from the Global Food Safety Training Survey

Global Food Safety Training Survey Sponsors:

3 |

Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective Training Programs

This research report is based on analysis of the 5th annual

Global Food Safety Training Survey. The survey is sponsored

by Intertek Alchemy, Campden BRI, Safe Quality Food Institute,

British Retail Consortium, Grocery Manufacturer’s Association

Science & Education Foundation, NSF Latin America, SGS, and

TSI. The analysis and conclusions reflect the perspective of

Intertek Alchemy and not necessarily the other study sponsors.

4 |

ContentsExecutive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5

Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety .......................................... 6

Training Budgets & Resources Steady or Rising ............................................................8

Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior ..........12

Why Employees Don’t Follow Food Safety Programs .............................................16

Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges ...................................................18

Overcoming the “Scheduling Time for Training” Challenge ..................................20

Overcoming the “Verifying Effective Training” Challenge ....................................21

Overcoming the “Organizing Refresher Training” Challenge ...............................26

Audit Deficiencies Corroborate the Top Training Challenges .............................28

Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement ...............................................30

Focus Efforts Where They Have the Most Impact ....................................................32

Include Employees in Assessing Training Needs to Drive Accountability ..32

Drive Employee Interaction with Better Training Tools .........................................34

Conclusion & Methodology ....................................................................................................36

AlchemySystems.com© 2019 Intertek Alchemy

https://www.alchemysystems.com/

5 | Executive Summary

However, food safety professionals continue

to struggle translating that commitment to

driving actual food safety behavior change

on the facility floor. For example, 67%

responded that despite their best efforts, they

still have employees not consistently

following their food safety procedures.

The key reasons for non-compliance are: bad

habits, prefer old ways of doing things, and

following another employee’s behaviors.

It takes just one unfortunate food incident

to cause irreparable damage to people,

profits, and brands. Leading companies are

tackling the top three food safety training

challenges, which the survey found to be:

Scheduling time for training

Verifying effective training

Organizing refresher training

Intertek Alchemy’s food safety research

team conducted expert analysis of the

Global Food Safety Training Survey research

data to better understand the challenges

and gaps, and identify actionable best

practices for overcoming them. This report

also shows how leading companies are

using innovative training programs to

engage today’s frontline workforce and

drive positive behavior change on the floor.

Executive Summary

The annual Global Food Safety Training

Survey is an industry benchmarking tool

for companies to assess their food safety

training programs compared to their industry

peers. Intertek Alchemy and its research

partners have conducted the survey for

five consecutive years. This year, over

1,400 food safety professionals in 20 food

industry sectors from across the globe

responded to the survey. (See page 25 for

survey demographics and methodology.)

Survey responses indicate that companies

are highly committed to building strong food

safety cultures and are investing to continually

improve their programs. Specifically:

believe they have a

clear vision for

improving food safety

responded that their

company is a “leader”

in food safety

believe they are able

to provide the food

safety training

needed to drive

positive behaviors

74%

55%

83%

6 | Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety

I.Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety


FIGURE 1:

Company Commitment to Food Safety

Food companies have made significant investments over the

past decade in their food safety programs and are committed to

developing strong food safety cultures. After all, just one food

safety incident can significantly impact their business and brand.

The survey posed several questions around management’s

commitment to food safety programs. The responses clearly

show confidence in their vision, leadership, and ability to drive

behaviors. For example, 74% responded that their company has

a clear vision for improving food safety, and 55% responded that

their company is an “industry leader” in food safety (FIGURE 1).

Our company has a clear vision

for improving food safety in

the next 12 months.

Our company is an industry leader

in food safety standards.

74%

55%


Training Budgets & Resources Steady or Rising

Food safety training budgets also reflect the

commitment to food safety. Training budgets

are mostly holding steady or rising compared

to previous years. In fact, four times more

companies are increasing their training

budgets than decreasing them (FIGURE 2).

In previous years of the study, lack of

resources (time and money) was the top

challenge to developing a strong food

safety culture. In fact, the 2017 survey

marks the first time this was not the #1

challenge, with only 31% of respondents

citing “lack of resources” as a top challenge.

That’s down from 48% in 2016 (FIGURE 3).

The demonstrated management

commitment and steady resources are

providing much needed support. In fact,

83% of food safety professionals surveyed

said they are able to provide the training

necessary to drive appropriate, consistent

food safety behaviors (FIGURE 4).

FIGURE 2:

How does your budget for food safety training compare to last year?

Less

6%

Same

71%

More

23%


FIGURE 4:

Are you able to provide the needed food safety training to drive appropriate, consistent food safety behaviors?

Yes

83%

FIGURE 3:

Lack of Resources (Time & Money) as a Challenge to Food Safety Culture

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

201720162015

44% 48%

31%

No

17%


Companies also feel that their frontline workforce is motivated to

do their jobs well. Only 7% of respondents disagreed or strongly

disagreed that their employees are not motivated (FIGURE 5).

Yet another positive sign is that management recognizes a

link between following food safety procedures and increasing

yields. Indeed, 79% of survey respondents believe their company

could be more productive if employees consistently followed

the food safety program (FIGURE 6). This is important because

food safety programs (including training) are often viewed as a

drain on productivity due to time off the floor. But, due to the

nature of food safety breaches, any non-adherence to food

safety protocols results in wasted product, lost time, or both.


FIGURE 6:

Our company could be more productive if our employees consistently adhered to our food safety programs.

True

79%

False

21%

FIGURE 5:

Are people in your company highly motivated to do their job well?

Strongly agree

16%

Strongly disagree

2%

Neutral

26%

Agree

51%

Disagree

5%

12 | Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior

II.Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior


FIGURE 7:

Despite your efforts in employee food safety training, do you still have employees not following your

food safety program on the floor?

Yes

67%

No

33%

It’s important to remember: commitment

to food safety isn’t the same as execution.

Even though 83% of companies report

positively on their ability to drive consistent

food safety behaviors, 67% responded

that despite their best efforts, they still

have employees not following the food

safety program on the floor (FIGURE 7).

Perception versus on-the-floor follow-

through of frontline employees wasn’t the

only disconnect uncovered. There also seems

to be overconfidence of some training system

elements out of frontline workers’ control.


For example (FIGURE 8), the survey found that 55% believe their

company is an industry leader in food safety standards — and yet:

• Only 36% measure employee performance or behaviors

• Only 46% verify training is applied correctly on the floor

• Only two thirds give a quiz or assessment

associated with training

This disconnect between commitment and on-the-

floor execution raises key questions like:

• Why don’t employees consistently follow their

company’s food safety programs?

• What challenges do companies face in building a food

safety culture and providing effective training?

• Are leaders too reliant on the onboarding training and have

blind spots around continual training and engagement?

• Is the training complete, consistent, and effective?

• How is the training validated by team leads

and supervisors on the floor?

This report will delve into these questions and provide

best practices from industry leaders in food safety.


FIGURE 8:

46%

verify training is applied

correctly on the floor

66%

give a quiz or assessment

associated with training

36%measure employee

performance or behaviors

55%

believe their company

is an industry leader in

food safety standards

Perception

Reality


Why Employees Don’t Follow

Food Safety Programs

Survey respondents cited a variety of reasons for why employees

don’t consistently follow food safety programs (FIGURE 9).

The top 3 reasons (bad habits, prefer old ways, following

another employee) are all symptoms of a “one and done” training

regimen that considers training a one-time event and a one-way

conversation. In Intertek Alchemy’s work with over a thousand

food companies, we have seen the positive impact of an

integrated program of onboarding training, supervisory coaching,

reinforcement/refresher training, and ongoing communications.

Beyond the top three, the next two reasons employees

don’t follow food safety programs (not engaged and

training not remembered) are symptoms of poorly designed

training content that simply fails to engage the learner.

A frontline employee’s learning needs are very different from a

corporate or professional employee. Frontline employees may

face language barriers, have lower educational attainment levels,

or simply have less interest in learning due to the high turnover

nature of their employment. It’s critical to develop training content

and deliver the training in an engaging, easy-to-digest way.

Leading companies are switching from long, boring classroom

training to shorter, fast-paced training that uses games and

class competition to create engaging learning environments.


FIGURE 9:

Why do employees not follow your food safety program consistently?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Did Not Understand the Training

Not Sure Why

Training Was Not Remembered

Not Engaged

Followed Other Employees' Direction

Prefer Doing Things the Old Way

Bad Habits 62%54%

34%30%

27%19%19%

8%

18 | Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges

III.Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges


FIGURE 10:

What are your organization’s biggest food safety training challenges?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Finding Competent Trainers

Training Documentation

Resources for Training Delivery

Retraining or Remediation

Cost of Training

Developing Current Training Curriculum

Identifying Competencies for Specific Roles

Management Commitment

Delivering Training in Appropriate Languages

Organizing Refresher Training

Verifying E�ective Training

Scheduling Time for Training 66%41%

27%22%21%20%20%19%19%

16%14%

10%

According to this year’s survey respondents, the top

three food safety training challenges are (FIGURE 10):

Scheduling time for training

Verifying effective training

Organizing refresher training

These key challenges can be overcome by

implementing training best practices that have

already been proven at leading food companies.


Overcoming the “Scheduling Time for Training” Challenge

Food production is a fast-paced, yield-

focused environment where time off the

floor means lost production — especially

in facilities that are running lean or have

high seasonality in their production.

So it’s not surprising that scheduling the

time needed to get frontline employees the

necessary food safety training has remained

the biggest training challenge every year

of this study. In fact, it is by far the most

critical challenge for most companies.

Leading companies have developed many

best practices to weave training into the

production cycle — so rather than collide

with production, they have figured out

ways to align with production. For example,

many companies are turning away from

2-3 days of intense “drink from a fire hose”

onboarding training to a more spread out

onboarding effort over two to three weeks.

This enables the employee to get the

critical safety basics down and get on the

production floor quickly. Then the employee

continues the training on the more advanced

topics with a much better understanding

of the production floor and is far more

engaged in the learning. This approach

clearly requires more coordination between

operations and training, but the impact on

engagement and, ultimately, compliance to

food safety standards, is worth the effort.

Companies are also taking advantage

of scheduled (and unscheduled) down-

time by providing employees with access

to e-learning through training kiosks in

breakrooms and HR offices. Studies show

that short bursts of training (about 5-15

minutes) improve engagement and learning

retention. A leading Canadian food processor

experienced a 20% increase in passing

rates when complementing instructor-

led onboarding with training kiosks.

The length of training sessions factors

into effectiveness as well. Today’s workers

are more easily distracted due to rapidly

changing technologies and constant

connectivity. Holding shorter training

sessions can help sharpen focus and

increase retention of important messages

while minimizing time off the floor.


Overcoming the “Verifying Effective Training” Challenge

Verifying effective training is essentially

a two-part challenge, encompassing both

verification that training even took place,

as well as effectiveness of that training.

Companies overwhelmingly rely on

paper-based documentation and/or Excel

spreadsheets to verify training (FIGURE 11).

These manual systems are not only subject

to human error, they can be a headache when

documenting training compliance for auditors.

FIGURE 11:

How does your organization document and manage training records?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Internally Developed Software

Commercial LMS Software

Excel Spreadsheet

Paper-based documentation 66%56%

20%13%

3%


When asked how companies assess training comprehension

(FIGURE 12), 66% report they use a quiz or exam. This is strong,

but also means 34% of companies are potentially sending workers

to the floor without verification they comprehend important food

safety measures. Similarly, more than half of companies consider

attendance as a sign of comprehension. And less than half use

on-the-job reviews or questioning to assess understanding.

Some companies have overcome these verification challenges by

implementing robust learning management systems (LMS) that

automate training documentation and reporting. By combining

digital sign-ins with a clear verification process, companies can

also quickly identify the workers who need more attention.

This is especially helpful at facilities with large workforces

or companies with multiple facilities. Which is likely a factor

why the adoption of an LMS is higher for larger companies

(FIGURE 13). Yet even 35% of the largest companies (over

1,000 employees) are still operating without automated

reporting and as much as 80% of smaller companies are not.


FIGURE 12:

How does your organization assess the understanding of any training undertaken?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

No Measurement Currently Utilized

Post-course Assignment

Measure Performance/Behaviors

On-the-job Review/Questioning

Record of Attendence

Quiz Assessment/Examination 66%55%

46%36%

10%5%

2%

FIGURE 13:

% of Companies Using LMS by Company Size

# of Employees

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

> 1,000501-1,000251-500100-250< 100

20%30%

37%43%

65%


The second part of the “verifying effective

training” challenge is effectiveness.

Companies are incorporating adult learning best

practices like “active learning” and facility-

specific content to drive training effectiveness.

Active learning requires the trainee to do

something every few minutes to demonstrate

his or her understanding throughout the

learning process. This method is more

conducive to knowledge retention than

passive learning, where the learner receives,

rather than engages with, the training

material. For example, compare watching a

30-minute video on slips/trips/falls to taking

a quick pre-test, watching several short

videos with knowledge checks every few

minutes, and then a post-test — all within

20 minutes. Which method is likely to create

deeper learning and knowledge retention?

Implementing a structured program of

on-the floor coaching and corrective actions

is another proven method to verify training

effectiveness. A separate study shows

that a structured observation program can

lead to as much as 38% improvement in

correct application of training1 (FIGURE 14).

This method of one-on-one observation

also helps in reinforcement, ensuring

employees retain information. Increased

interaction also leads to a greater dialogue

between supervisors and frontline workers,

addressing safety issues before they arise.

The need for on-the-floor coaching is greatest

among the largest food companies. When

asked how their companies measure sustained

positive food safety behaviors, only 20% of

respondents at the largest companies report

utilizing supervisor observations (FIGURE 15).

The drop-off in supervisor interaction begins

at companies with 500-1,000 employees,

and becomes dramatic at over 1,000

employees. This could be due to increased

span of control. Regardless of causation, it’s

clear that meaningful interaction between

supervisors and frontline workers gets

harder as companies grow. But knowing and

acknowledging this can help these larger

companies overcome the additional challenges.


FIGURE 15:

% of Companies Using Supervisor Observations to Measure Food Safety Behaviors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

> 1,000501-1,000251-500100-250< 100

55% 52% 53%46%

20%

# of Employees

FIGURE 14:

Successful Application of Training On the Floor1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

After 3 ObservationsPost-trainingPre-training

94%82%

68%

38% Improvement


Overcoming the “Organizing Refresher Training” Challenge

Organizing refresher training is the third

biggest food safety training challenge,

cited by 27% of respondents overall.

Once again, larger companies face a

greater challenge. 46% of the largest

companies identifying “organizing refresher

training” as a top challenge, which is 13-

18 percentage points higher than other

companies (FIGURE 16). Regardless of size,

refresher training has historically been

considered a “nice to have” training with little

attention paid to the content or timing.

However, with increasingly complex

regulatory and compliance requirements,

and the limited attention spans, forward-

thinking companies are focusing on refresher

training as a critical part of the learning

plan. These companies typically use multiple

methods like team huddles, e-learning,

digital signs, and posters to reinforce key

safety messages. For example, a large pecan

processing company deployed a structured

refresher training program and experienced

a 17% increase in knowledge retention

across its workforce (FIGURE 17). Even more

impressive, the company also had a 36%

increase in knowledge retention among the

workers needing it most (those who had

scored lower in the onboarding training tests).

These new communication tools create so much engagement and discussion because we’re actually doing the things as we’re learning them.

—Ricardo P., supervisor at leading pecan processing company


FIGURE 17:

Impact of Refresher Training

knowledge retention

across ALL workers

knowledge retention among

workers needing it MOST

increase increase17% 36%

FIGURE 16:

Lack of/Late Refresher Training Cited Deficient in Audits

# of Employees

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

> 1,000501-1,000251-500100-250< 100

31% 33% 31% 28%

46%


Audit Deficiencies Corroborate

the Top Training Challenges

Interestingly, the top training challenges identified by the

survey respondents align closely with the two most frequent

training deficiencies identified in audits: lack of understanding

by employee and late/lack of refresher training (FIGURE 18).

Each of the top audit deficiencies has increased year-over-

year according to food safety professionals (FIGURE 19). “Lack

of/late refresher training” increased just over 50% (twelve

percentage points) since 2013 while “lack of understanding

by employee” increased 62% (16 percentage points).


FIGURE 18:

Type of Deficiencies in Training Program Identified During Audits

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Training is Not Current

Lack of Training Records

Other

No Training Given in Specific Areas

Incomplete Employee Training Records

Inadequate Training of Visitors/Subcontractors

Lack of/Late Refresher Training

Lack of Understanding by Employee 42%

33%

30%

27%

18%

14%

12%

11%

FIGURE 19:

Year-to-Year Comparison of Top Audit Deficiencies

Lack of Understanding by Employee

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

201720152013

26%32%

42%

Lack of/Late Refresher Training

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

201720152013

21%

34% 33%

30 | Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement

IV.Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement


The food industry has come a long way in recognizing

the importance of employee engagement when it comes

to food safety training. But fostering that engagement

isn’t always easy. Some best practices to drive employee

engagement and on-the-floor behaviors include:

• Focus efforts where they have the most impact

• Include employees in assessing training

needs to drive accountability

• Drive employee interaction with

better communication tool


Include Employees in Assessing Training Needs to Drive Accountability

Currently 78% of companies adopt a formal

annual food safety training plan to identify

training needs and activities (FIGURE 21).

This is a good thing. But the dramatic drop

for any other method utilized to assess

training needs means this top-down approach

is often the only method utilized. In this

scenario, the most important component

of a food safety plan — the frontline

employees doing the work — are largely left

out of the process in identifying gaps.

Methods that include employees in the

process scored low across the board: only

26% of food companies use a formal

training needs analysis, while 35% utilize

employee development reviews, and

32% use knowledge/skills matrices of

employees. Improvements in these areas

could not only help identify gaps that lead

to training not being applied on the floor,

but also build employee engagement.

This concept is supported by a separate

study that finds 68% of workers want to be

included in training development.2 It fosters

a strong safety culture and encourages

greater accountability. After all, if frontline

workers helped develop food safety training

plans and priorities, they have a much

more personal interest in its success.

Focus Efforts Where They Have the Most Impact

It makes sense to focus employee engagement

efforts around food safety where they will

have the most impact. The survey indicates

that supervisor communications and team

meetings are the most effective ways of

keeping food safety training “top of mind”

(FIGURE 20). Supervisors have tremendous

implicit and explicit power and interact

with their frontline employees every day.

So they can have a profound influence

with on-the-floor safety behaviors.

Since supervisors have the strongest

interaction with frontline employees,

it is imperative to provide them with

communication tools they need to

succeed. For example, rather than just

scheduling pre-shift meetings, leading

companies arm their supervisors with

pre-built “huddle guides” with scripts that

reinforce key training concepts. These

guides provide questions to pose to help

create two-way dialogue on important

safety issues. The structured discussions

increase engagement and consistency by

alleviating the issue of some supervisors

being better at training than others.


FIGURE 21:

How Companies Identify Safety Training Needs & Activities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Succession Planning

Just-in-time Training

Formal Training Needs Analysis

Continuing Professional Development

Knowledge & Skills Matrices

Regular Employee Development Review

Formal Annual Training Plan 78%35%

32%28%

26%16%

9%3%

FIGURE 20:

How does your organization keep training “top of mind” on a daily basis for hourly employees?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Paycheck Stu�ers

Digital Messaging

Newsletters

TV Monitors for Messages & Images

Email Communication

Posters

Bulletin Boards

Team Meetings

Supervisor Communications 65%63%

44%41%

26%20%

11%7%

4%4%


Drive Employee Interaction

with Better Training Tools

According to the survey, 76% of companies rely on reading

materials and on-the-job instruction to deliver food safety training

(FIGURE 22). While reading policy and procedure manuals may

have been standard practice in the past, it’s simply not the way

today’s workforce is accustomed to learning. For many employees,

reading complex work procedures and SOPs can be a challenge.

On-the-job instruction is an easy and fast training method for

operations, but when it comes to food safety, much can be

“lost in translation” and bad habits or short-cuts can be handed

down to the new employee. While on-the-job instruction

is a great reinforcement tool, it may not be the best way

to introduce new employees to food safety practices.

But there are effective means of communication that

encourage interaction. The survey showed that coaching

and interactive tools are generally underutilized (40% and

10% respectively). But leading companies are tapping into

mobile technologies to successfully combine the two.


FIGURE 22:

How is Food Safety Training Delivered?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Interactive Technology Capturing Audience Response

O�site External Training

Online Training (eLearning)

Videos, Webinars

Coaching

Classroom Training with Instructor or Facilitator

On-the-job Training

Read & Understand (Policies, Procedures, etc.) 72%72%

66%40%

35%32%

29%10%

36 | Conclusion & Methodology

V.Conclusion & Methodology


Conclusion

The 5th annual Global Food Safety Training Survey results

show that management is deeply committed to food safety.

Despite this commitment, there are several challenges to ensuring

the commitment turns into consistent, on-the-floor safety

behaviors. Over two-thirds of respondents said they still have

employees not consistently following their food safety program.

The top challenges to food safety training are shifting. It is less

about budgets and resources and more about finding the time

to train, verifying effective training was delivered, and providing

ongoing refresher training that keeps important safety topics

top-of-mind.

The old ways of training (reading manuals, on-the-job) are

not as effective due to changing demographics and learning

styles. Best practice companies are using interactive

training, redesigned onboarding, e-learning kiosks, supervisor

huddles, digital signage, and other tools to engage today’s

frontline employees and ensure knowledge retention.


Research Methodology

The Global Food Safety Training Survey

was designed in partnership with the study

sponsors: Intertek Alchemy, Campden

BRI, Safe Quality Food Institute, British

Retail Consortium, Grocery Manufacturer’s

Association Science & Education Foundation,

NSF Latin America, SGS, and TSI. The

survey was administered electronically.

1,422 respondents completed the survey.

Below are details on survey respondents by

company size, location, and industry sector.

Survey Respondent by Industry Sector

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Other

Sandwiches

Feed

Fats & Oils

Retail

Sugar Confectionary

Catering/Restaurants/Hospitality

Ready Meals

Sauces & Dressings

Snacks

Dairy

Beverages

Packaging

Meats Fish & Poultry

Fruits & Vegetables

Warehouse, Distribution

Processed Fruits & Vegetables

Processed Meats, Fish & Poultry

Ingredients/Flavors/Colors

Cereal & Bakery 18%

16%

15%

13%

13%

12%

12%

11%

11%

11%

10%

7%

7%

7%

6%

6%

6%

5%

3%

2%


1. Meyer, R. “The Positive Impact of Behavioral Change on Food Safety & Productivity”

2. Shah, R. “The Mind of the Food Worker: Behaviors and Perceptions that Impact Safety and Operations.”

Number of Full-time Equivalent Staff

Survey Respondent by Location

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Europe - NON European Union

Mexico

Australia/Oceania

Central/South America

Africa/Middle East

UK

Asia (Including China & India)

Canada

Europe - European Union

USA 56%16%

12%12%

9%9%9%

7%6%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

> 5,000

1,001-5,000

501-1,000

251-500

100-250

< 100 41%

24%

14%

8%

7%

6%


About Intertek Alchemy

Intertek Alchemy in the industry leader of innovative solutions

that help food industry companies, engage with their workforces

to increase safety and productivity. Over 3 million frontline

workers at 50,000 locations worldwide use Alchemy’s learning,

communications, and performance programs to safeguard food,

reduce workplace incidents, and improve operations. Intertek

Alchemy works across all industry sectors, food growers,

manufacturers, processors, packagers, distributors, restaurant,

and retailers to build positive safety and operations cultures.

Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective ...€¦ · practices for overcoming them. This...

Documents

Transcript of Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective ...€¦ · practices for overcoming them. This...