A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Helsinki has provided suggestions for increasing corrective actions taken by food businesses that repeatedly violate food safety regulations.
To better understand the challenges of controlling repeat food safety violators, the researchers surveyed 95 inspectors at 30 municipal food control units in Finland about their experiences with food businesses that had non-compliances at more than one inspection during the previous five years. Excluding primary production, the questionnaire concerned all food establishment types.
Nearly half of respondents reported having inspected more than five repeat violators during the last five years, and 80 percent of inspectors viewed repeat violators as a fairly or extremely large problem for food safety. The most commonly recurring non-compliances reported by respondents were related to the performance of own-check, which is a Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)-based food safety system used by Finnish food business operators (FBOs); information provided on foods; cleanliness; maintenance of facilities; and food temperature management.
Important challenges in the control of repeat violators as reported by inspectors included FBOs’ lack of knowledge, differences in risk perception between FBOs and inspectors, language barriers, FBOs’ financial situations, and negative attitudes toward food control. The majority of these challenges are most relevant to small food businesses, except for financial difficulties.
Only 21 percent of survey respondents stated that the current methods for controlling repeat violators were sufficient, but most inspectors agreed that increasing the use of existing methods would help FBOs better comply with legislation. Examples of helpful control methods as reported by inspectors include motivating the FBO to correct non-compliances at inspections, higher inspection frequency, and providing more guidance to FBOs. Less than half of respondents reported having sufficient time to inspect businesses or offer guidance to FBOs, however.
For motivating businesses to correct non-compliances, inspectors suggested increasing FBOs’ understanding of hygiene hazards and legislation, as well as providing financial incentives. Many respondents claimed that non-compliances could be prevented by increasing the fee for follow-up inspections.
Regarding the improvement of guidance provided to FBOs, inspectors suggested increasing resources for food control, increasing training for FBOs, providing external advice, and requiring a minimum competence level before starting a food business.
The Finnish Food Authority instructs that if non-compliances are not corrected upon request, coercive measures should be used. However, inspectors frequently reported not using coercive measures because they found them overly burdensome, inefficient, and slow. This suggests a need to remove impediments to the use of coercive measures, because respondents reported that even the mere threat of their implementation is effective at motivating corrective actions.
Additionally, inspectors with more experience considered their ability to control FBOs more sufficient than inspectors with less experience, pointing to the importance of training for early-career inspectors. Mentoring of less experienced inspectors by their more seasoned colleagues could also be helpful. At the same time, inspectors reported frustration and difficulty in their interactions with repeat violators, regardless of experience level.
Based on the survey results, the researchers suggest that, in the future, special attention should be paid to repeat violators when planning legislation (e.g., financial incentives), control organization changes (e.g., enlarging the size of municipal units), and inspector training, as repeat violators present a real risk to food safety. The researchers believe some of the findings of their study could be applicable to other, similarly governed countries with comparable social cultures to Finland.
