Food safety vs health and safety

Food Science and TechnologyVolume 35, Issue 4 p. 15-19 OpinionFree Access safety vs health First published: 04 December 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsat.3504_4.xAboutReferencesRelatedInformationPDFSections Strong alignment or clear blue water? ConclusionsReferencesPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessClose modalShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms Conditions of Use check box below share version article.I have read accept the Wiley Online Library UseShareable LinkUse link a this article with your friends colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Denis Treacy, Chris Gilbert-Wood, Andy Kerridge, Louise Manning Rachel Ward compare management systems designed ensure & personnel visitors at food premises those used manage safety. Differences between UK legislation on The Safety Act 19901 General Regulations 20042 (in line EU law Regulation (EC) 178/20023) define responsibilities for all businesses that they only place safe market. (food business operators FBOs) must serve sell is ‘of nature, substance quality which consumers would expect,’ be labelled, advertised presented in way not false misleading. focuses ensuring FBOs address things should do, example: Do include anything recipe there unexpected damaging falsify labelling mislead consumers. requires alert regulators when identified harmful unsafe has been released into supply chain creating threat Depending FBO could real-time largely retrospective activity. Management Health Work 19994 Act5 require an to: Provide maintain equipment work Ensure materials are properly stored, handled, transported information, training, instruction supervision staff aware instructions provided by manufacturers suppliers equipment. also if incident led reportable injuries, but additionally reporting breaches likely cause injury therefore conditions may give rise future injuries. This key difference regulatory requirements provision working environments, detailing how workplaces managed protect workers prevent harm. These include: Adequate clean lighting, heating, ventilation workspace Staff facilities, including toilets, washing facilities refreshment Safe passageways areas i.e. slipping tripping hazards Provision adequate appropriate personal protective Requirements manual handling. functional roles managers many common features. information guidance given Executive focus structure, preparation risk avoidance. There imperatives within reduce risk, will addressed later. hygiene legislation[6-8] follows similar approach, requiring comply ‘conditions’ permit good hygienic practices adopting specific measures putting place, implementing maintaining procedures based hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) principles suitable production, processing distribution. Various addressed, including: Facility layout, design, construction, siting size maintenance Cleaning processes number wash basins hot cold running water Suitable sufficient means natural mechanical and/or artificial lighting etc. Roles operational Managers safety, facilitate practices, support set targets objectives compliance them. Product normally target resources meet specifications defects allowing delivery, identify weaknesses vulnerabilities system implement preventative corrective action necessary. developed incidents responsible location. role manager gaps training equipping site accordingly. provides rationale bringing them together one integrated function under governance (strategic) (operational) umbrella. Many find parallels need demonstrate individual, organisational competencies such as: Risk assessment Developing formal supported Training development programmes Supporting positive cultures workplace Improvement optimisation capital spend infrastructural controls Development performance measures, strategic associated setting Monitoring verification activities auditing, preventive actions follow-up Incident investigation shared learnings. Exploring opportunities combining both functions deliver more robust framework protection prevention harm employees, design system. experience managing demonstrates these different ways driving outcomes each area. growth QUEnSH (Quality, Environment, Health), SHEQu (Safety, Health, Environment Quality) SQSE Quality, Security Environment) organisations testament increasing integration corporate systems. approach When comparisons drawn, regulations governing consider much broader scope responsibilities. Guidance structured greater capabilities competent persons, creation environments. most senior person location, e.g. chair any body committee, appoint persons take lead A persons’ matrix members leadership team direct responsibility adherence policy responses other deficiencies increase risk. matrices relevant location conducted. does supervisor ‘qualified’ identifying determining risks chosen elements, although encouraged some basic place. chairing reviews, audits conducted, gap closure providing legal compliance. Hence embedded as fundamental element operating particular single function. area expert practitioner, who translates legislative actions. It is, however, business's objectives. For HACCP sometimes site, ably technical manager. More often, it technical, multidisciplinary team. If external representatives present organisation's team, group functions, HR procurement, fully appreciate understand impact change people, controls. was applied microbiological chemical hazards, allergens, pest management, physical foreign matter, new product change, assigned competence non-compliance vulnerability actioned. rarely seen. often held two individuals per site; others little no despite being practitioners their areas. Capital investment implementation reactive, driven customer, third party self-audit focused process. Changes drive programmes. directed presenting highest overall where non-compliance. create problem limited. Recording formally report accident involves resulting loss ability work. Businesses required keep book, recording every event employee, contractor visitor kind. requirement ‘dangerous occurrence’ resulted serious injury, did actually occur. equivalent major contamination event, detected so affected leave FBO. No alerting occurrence records purposes. An expertise incidents. Investigations documented, detailed overseen escalating level, reviewed (most committee) before closed out, usually maximum nine days from event. Formal part competency investigating accidents, dangerous occurrences. Such practice management. However applying similarly formalised closeout incidents, accidents occurrences genuine ‘non repeat’ root successful often. measurement tracking events Key Performance Indicators (KPI) improve Examples production – described Table 1 illustrate differing approaches commonly taken potential result. significantly higher category contrasts subsequent investigations. 1. Comparison FOOD SAFETY HEALTH Allergen cross Finger nip flow cross-contamination leads undeclared allergen non-allergen Packer's finger trapped converging conveyors Impact identifiedProduct compliant declarationQC checks wrong flavourProduct controlled impacted. One operator, minor Potential Significant hypersensitive at-risk consumers.Potential 19 Further injuries staffPotential 3 49 Action Clean, verify cleaning, QA sign off restart.Look stock recover costs, re-package, relabel, overstockWorst case scenario organise products sent landfill. retailer branded product, potentially inform Shut down line, lock out service. Effect guarding modificationBrief employees shift incidentCheck safe, FGM HSE practitioner restart Full inspection conveyor Equipment (PUWER) assessment. Stop, service until modified Investigation Follow up Three-stage competent, manager, witness statements, photographs, medical report. Timebound response three daysFollow Area timebound daysFinal Review findings, agree actions, release modifications Close-out Modify process documents needed, Re-train staff. meeting Video reconstruction on-line locations, advise procurement update secondary purchases Lead vs. lag Target failure you fuel negative culture. Experience shown reduction failure, using consumer complaints, rejections, withdrawals recalls, audit non-conformances basis planning. same can said fail total lost time rates, severity assess performance. Setting allow energy assess: accident, whether justified, complaint consumer's own making. Thinking differently about what measured very successfully industry reduction. Don't mice, available generate processes, activities, example, identification trip (health prevention), uncleaned equipment, poorly stored utensils, unlabelled rework material damaged prevention). Targeting problems, removal, drives far transformation behaviour. realised leadership, enabling culture daily behaviours levels organisation collaborative environment. Ensuring behaviour understood repeated Fear capture short term response, never organisation, leader. In order environment controlled, match documented positively promote problems called rectified. understanding completely tangible, consequences clear, just rules penalties (Table 2). raise purpose routines enable recognition hazardous situations. engagement takes further step associating emotional examples individual its impact. 2. Understanding ‘Ensure follow idea eating vulnerable be.’ ‘Failure wear ear defenders result disciplinary action’, ‘Wear years come still able hear grandchildren calling garden.’ Once established, routine disrespecting becomes choice, misunderstanding. ‘I chose put myself go deaf’. then remove outlying performers Another success delivering predictable repeatable engage internal stakeholders mutual risks. committees employee unions, contractors groups represent do viewed rather than accountability. Similar sharing assessments making terms business. Sharing changes circumstances conditions, form contract suppliers. are: inductions condition entering act accordance established specifying criteria plant operator assured intended use. Simply reducing always decrease liabilities disruptions; reliability resilience, reassures customers insurance. Conclusions business-wide activity regulators. true aims introduces avoid occurrence. seeks eliminate fails, proactive approach. distinct separately, whereas overarching learning cross-competencies. objective increased across learn looking managed, regulated UK. Culture Compass email [email protected] CGW Tech Ltd [email protected] Wyvern Solutions Ltd. [email protected] Manning, Royal Agricultural University [email protected] Ward, Exponent International [email protected] References 1990. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/16/contents 2 2004. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3279/introduction/made 3Regulation 178/2002 Law. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2002/178/introduction 4Management 1999. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/contents/made 5Health 1974. https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm 6 Hygiene (England) 2013. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2996/contents/made 7Regulation 852/2004. foodstuffs. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/852/introduction 8Regulation 853/2004. animal origin. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/853/introduction 9UK Sentencing Council. Offences, Corporate Manslaughter Offences Definitive Guideline. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Health-and-Safety-Corporate-Manslaughter-Food-Safety-and-Hygiene-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf Volume35, Issue4December 2021Pages ReferencesRelatedInformation RecommendedAn US technology, GM legislationIoannis S. Arvanitoyannis, Persefoni Tserkezou, Theodoros Varzakas, Journal TechnologyQuality irradiated regarding biogenic amines: Ras cheeseAli R. Shalaby, Mervat M. Anwar, Essam Sallam, Wafaa H. Emam, Pet Treats: Assessment Microbial Quality TreatsJulia Arantes Galvão, Ricardo Seiti Yamatogi, Luiz Carlos Teixeira Souza Junior, Jean Fernandes Joaquim, Marianna Vaz Rodrigues, Eduardo Delbon Baldini, José Paes de Almeida Nogueira Pinto, Processing PreservationFood cultureFood TechnologyFood reputation, regulationJohn Bovay, Applied Economic Perspectives Policy