Review article: Food safety culture from the perspective of the Australian horticulture industry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.07.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Good food safety culture could reduce fresh produce food safety incidents.

  • Food safety culture should be considered in food safety management systems.

  • A whole-of-supply chain approach to culture improvement would be more successful.

  • Monitoring and measurement drive continual improvement of food handler behaviour.

  • Development of horticulture-specific mixed-method measurements is necessary.

Abstract

Background

Foodborne illness outbreaks associated with fresh produce suggest a focus on food safety culture within food safety management systems throughout supply chains would benefit the horticulture industry. The recent inclusion of food safety culture in horticulture standards will drive the need for better understanding, integration into business activities, and monitoring, to help mitigate foodborne incidents in horticulture.

Scope and approach

The purpose of this review was to identify definitions of food safety culture and methods of measuring its performance in the context of the Australian horticulture industry. Investigation of how to better apply and integrate a positive food safety culture into existing food safety management systems was conducted. A roadmap for food safety culture improvement in Australian horticulture is presented, highlighting the challenges and opportunities.

Key findings and conclusions

To guide the development of a mature culture of food safety, mixed-method approaches to performance assessment were found to be the most comprehensive, valid, and offer the most potential for use by horticulture businesses. Food safety culture can be developed by using feedback from regular culture assessments that identify weaknesses and opportunities for improvement, leading to increased knowledge, alignment of attitudes, and better food safety and hygiene behaviour. To this end, the development of measurement tools specific to horticulture operations would be beneficial. Despite unforeseen challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian horticulture industry continues to investigate the efficacy of its food safety management.

Introduction

One in ten people suffers a foodborne illness annually (World HealthOrganisation WHO, 2015). This global burden of foodborne disease warrants improved efficacy of food safety management systems (FSMS) throughout the supply chain. While the main contributors to foodborne illness are contaminated raw materials, poor personal hygiene, contaminated equipment, and process failures (World HealthOrganisation WHO, 2006), they are influenced directly or indirectly by people behaviours. According to Yiannas (2009), attention to factors that result in changed behaviours in food safety management can lead to the continuous improvement of food safety. The emergence of foodborne illness outbreaks from Australian fresh produce (FSANZ, 2020) with repeated outbreaks in rockmelons (Munnoch et al., 2009; NSW DPI, 2018; OzFoodNet, 2015) and leafy vegetables (OzFoodNet, 2015, 2017) suggests the early stages of horticulture supply chains (growing and packing) could benefit from increased attention to food safety culture (FS-culture) throughout their management and operational systems.

Inadequate pre- and post-harvest water quality, faecal contamination from wildlife (FSANZ, 2020; Ilic et al., 2012), and poor hygienic practices throughout the supply chain (FSANZ, 2020), have been identified as the main risk factors for the primary production and processing of fresh horticultural produce. Controlling these risk factors evolved into FSMS that incorporated good agricultural practices, good hygienic practices, good manufacturing practices, and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) plans as part of safety and quality management systems in Australian horticulture (Premier & Ledger, 2006). While these process control programs are in principle effective (Gilling et al., 2001), they have only recently considered the human factor in food safety management. The performance of FSMS is also dependent on an organisation's overall culture (Jespersen et al., 2018), thereby relying on how people apply company policies and implement procedures in practice (Luning, Marcelis, et al., 2011). The most recent Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Benchmarking Requirements (2020) incorporated FS-culture, driving its development in horticulture standards internationally e.g., Global GAP, Canada GAP, Freshcare.

The study of FS-culture as a condition for effective FSMS is a relatively new area of research and is yet to be systematically applied to fresh fruit and vegetable operations in Australia and New Zealand. It requires scientifically based, quantitative measurement of process management and the qualitative measurement of human behaviour. Various tools have been developed to measure FS-culture, to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to guide its improvement (e.g., De Boeck et al., 2015; Fatimah et al., 2014; Jespersen et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2012; Nyarugwe et al., 2018). Various other tools have been successfully applied for analysing adherence to medical guidelines and HACCP (Azanza & Zamora-Luna, 2005; Gilling et al., 2001).

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has fostered an increased interest in compliance with FSMS requirements because of initial concern that food might be a potential transmission route of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Benkeblia, 2021; Duda-Chodak et al., 2020; Yetka et al., 2021). Although it is now known food is not a transmission route (ICMSF, 2020), in Australia increased attention to hygiene practices for worker safety (PMA Australia and New Zealand, 2020a) delivered broader food safety benefits to the horticulture industry, identifying how culture influences all safety aspects of food production. The purpose of this study is to (i) define food safety culture, (ii) determine monitoring and measurement tools of most relevance to horticulture, (iii) identify how food safety culture relates to Australian horticulture FSMS, and (iv) highlight the barriers to improvement of FS-culture. In so doing, this study presents a roadmap for the fresh produce industry to apply ‘good food safety culture’ and suggests opportunities for the industry to holistically embrace a culture that ensures safe food production.

Section snippets

Study approach

A literature review was conducted using databases Scopus and Google Scholar, and grey literature such as industry reports and webinars. The search used the keywords food AND safety AND culture AND/OR culture measurement. Inclusion criteria were: (i) articles published in English, (ii) scope was considered relevant to the purpose of this study, and (iii) article includes food safety culture and climate definitions, culture management, culture performance measurement. Titles and abstracts of 224

Defining food safety culture

Definitions of FS-culture (Jespersen et al., 2016; Nyarugwe et al., 2016; Sharman et al., 2020)) originate from the framework of organisational culture, expressed by Schein (2004) as “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems. The group found these assumptions to work well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel about those problems.”

FS-culture is a complex

Food safety culture in quality assurance standards

Quality assurance (QA) standards recognised for certification of Australian fresh produce operations (BRCGS, 2018; Freshcare, 2019; HARPS, 2016; GlobalGap, 2019; SQFInstitute, 2019) were assessed for requirements and how these relate to the FS-culture dimensions as described by Zanin, Luning, et al. (2021) based on Griffith et al. (2010a) (Table 1). All QA standards have requirements related to the elements recognised as important to FS-culture described in section 2, but we examined these

Culture in horticulture food safety management

The importance of FS-culture is highlighted when companies with certification and seemingly mature FSMS cause outbreaks (Powell et al., 2011). Indeed, Griffith et al. (2010b) argue that poor FS-culture is an emerging risk factor for outbreaks. Attitudes of ‘we've never had a problem so why should we change?’ (Ades et al., 2014) could be changed with effective communication of root causes of outbreaks, where known, thus increasing knowledge about risks and how they are best minimised. Building

Challenges to improving food safety culture in the horticulture industry

The complexity and variability of operations and produce types in the horticulture industry, position in the supply chain, and the itinerant nature of much of the workforce, influence each business's pathway to FS-culture improvement and dictate that there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Translation of complex food safety science into best practice food safety management is challenging (Powell et al., 2011). Improving FS-culture is time-, and resource-intensive (Ades et al., 2014),

Measuring food safety culture

Performance measurement of FS-culture is a means of defining its effectiveness (Jespersen et al., 2016), and measurement models must be reliable to produce consistent and repeatable results (Jespersen, Griffiths, & Wallace, 2017). Measurements that assess compliance with FSMS provide a baseline from which to drive improvement. They raise risk awareness, help evaluate risk, promote commitment to food safety, identify weaknesses, inform decision-making, and help avoid foodborne illness incidents

A roadmap for improving food safety culture in Australian horticulture

Table 1 outlines the integration of FS-culture with FSMS in an organisation. The type of fruit or vegetable produced may influence an organisation's development of FS-culture because more advanced FS-culture is needed for high-risk produce to ensure food safety (Nyarugwe, Linneman, & Luning, 2020). High-risk products such as leafy greens, berries and melons require more advanced FSMS to prevent food safety incidents (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al., 2013), thus the FS-culture should also be more

Future directions and opportunities

While coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is not a food safety hazard (ICMSF, 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened awareness of food hygiene controls (Djekic et al., 2021) and presented opportunities for developing FS-culture. It has emphasised the need for leadership (e.g., are the right people leading teams?), resulted in enhanced cleaning processes (higher frequency using appropriate chemicals), lead to a greater understanding of the risks of cross-contamination (between people and product), and

Conclusion

FS-culture is considered to be integral to achieving sustainable improvements in food safety. To satisfy the needs of ever-changing, complex, national, and international food supply chains facing the challenges of emerging pathogens and increasing frequency of immunocompromised consumers, improved food safety control strategies are required. Promoting FS-culture offers a real and significant opportunity to nurture and improve food safety in the horticulture industry.

Competent, knowledgeable

Funding

This research did not receive any financial support from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Authors’ contribution

Elizabeth Frankish: conceptualisation, methodology, literature review, writing-original draft, writing – review and editing.

Graham McAlpine: writing – review and editing.

Deon Mahoney writing – review and editing.

Bisi Oladele: writing – review and editing.

Pieternel A. Luning: conceptualisation, formal analysis, writing – review and editing.

Thomas Ross: formal analysis, writing – review and editing, supervision, resources, project administration.

John Bowman: conceptualisation, methodology, formal

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References (96)

  • L. Jespersen et al.

    The impact of maturing food safety culture and a pathway to economic gain

    Food Control

    (2019)
  • L. Jespersen et al.

    Measurement of food safety culture using survey and maturity profiling tools

    Food Control

    (2016)
  • L. Jespersen et al.

    Comparative analysis of existing food safety culture evaluation systems

    Food Control

    (2017)
  • L. Jespersen et al.

    Development and validation of a scale to capture social desirability in food safety culture

    Food Control

    (2017)
  • L. Jespersen et al.

    Triangulation and the importance of establishing valid methods for food safety culture evaluation

    Food Research International

    (2017)
  • K. Kirezieva et al.

    Assessment of Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain

    Food Research International

    (2013)
  • K. Kirezieva et al.

    Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2013)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2008)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    A concurrent diagnosis of microbiological food safety output and food safety management system performance: Cases from meat processing industries

    Food Control

    (2011)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    A techno-managerial approach in food quality management research

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2006)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    A food quality management research methodology. Integrating technological and managerial theories

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2009)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    A tool to diagnose context riskiness in view of food safety activities and microbiological safety output

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2011)
  • P.A. Luning et al.

    Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in a company specific food safety management system

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2009)
  • R. Nayak et al.

    The Assessment of Food Safety Culture: An investigation of current challenges, barriers and future opportunities within the food industry

    Food Control

    (2017)
  • S.P. Nyarugwe et al.

    Review: Determinants for conducting food safety culture research

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2016)
  • S.P. Nyarugwe et al.

    Prevailing food safety culture in companies operating in a transition economy – Does product riskiness matter?

    Food Control

    (2020)
  • S.P. Nyarugwe et al.

    Food safety culture assessment using a comprehensive mixed-methods approach: A comparative study in dairy processing organisations in an emerging economy

    Food Control

    (2018)
  • S.P. Nyarugwe et al.

    An intercontinental analysis of food safety culture in view of food safety governance and national values

    Food Control

    (2020)
  • S. Park et al.

    Risk Factors for Microbial Contamination in Fruits and Vegetables at the Preharvest Level: A Systematic Review

    Journal of Food Protection

    (2012)
  • D.A. Powell et al.

    Review: Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness

    Food Control

    (2011)
  • I. Sampers et al.

    Semi-quantitative study to evaluate the performance of a HACCP-based food safety management system in Japanese milk processing plants

    Food Control

    (2012)
  • N. Sharman et al.

    Terminology and the understanding of culture, climate and behavioural change – Impact of organisational and human factors on food safety management

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2020)
  • L.M. Zanin et al.

    Influence of educational actions on tranistioning food safety culture in a foodservice context: Part 1-Triangulation and data interpretation of food safety culture elements

    Food Control

    (2021)
  • L.M. Zanin et al.

    Influence of educational actions on transitioning of food safety culture in a food service context: Part 2-ness of educational actions in a longitudinal study

    Food Control

    (2021)
  • G. Ades et al.

    Food safety culture: Insurance against catastrophe

  • B. Ball et al.

    Factors influencing workers to follow food safety management systems in meat plants in Ontario, Canada

    International Journal of Environmental Health Research

    (2009)
  • P. Baur et al.

    Contradictions, consequences and the human toll of food safety culture

    Agriculture and Human Values

    (2017)
  • C. Behnke et al.

    Assessing food safety practices in farmers' markets

    Food Protection Trends

    (2012)
  • N. Benkeblia

    In the landscape of SARS-CoV-2 and fresh fruits and vegetables: The fake and hidden transmission risks

    Journal of Food Safety

    (2021)
  • (2018)
  • Culture excellence

  • Pathway to improving food security: A guide for local government

  • L. Dunn Nelson et al.

    Building strong food safety cultures with effective training programs

  • European Commission

    Amending the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs As Regards Food Allergen Management, Redistribution of Food and Food Safety Culture

    European commission, health and consumers directorate-general

    (2004)
  • C163/01 Commission notice on guidance document on addressing microbiolgical risks in fresh fruits and vegetables at primary production through food hygiene

    Official Journal of the European Union

    (2017)
  • U. Fatimah et al.

    Food safety culture in onsite foodservices: Development and validation of a measurement scale

    Journal of Foodservice Management and Education

    (2014)
  • Guide to minimise microbial food safety hazards for fresh fruits and vegetables. Retrieved from accessed 1st september 2020"

  • New Era of Smarter Food Safety FDA's Blueprint for the Future. U.S.A.: FDA

  • Cited by (8)

    • Towards a food safety culture improvement roadmap: diagnosis and gap analysis through a conceptual framework as the first steps

      2023, Food Control
      Citation Excerpt :

      A mixed-method assessment approach was designed. It combined objective assessments with subjective self-assessments, as this provides a more reliable measure and better information for improvements (Frankish et al., 2021), and qualitative and quantitative data as recommended by Jespersen et al. (2019). The described methodology allows to assess the different building blocks, dimensions and layers distinguished in the conceptual framework (Fig. 1).

    • Assessment of food integrity culture in food businesses through method triangulation

      2022, Food Control
      Citation Excerpt :

      A triangulation of different methods also increases the reliability of the overall responses by confirming (or denying) and enriching the questionnaire scores with new insights collected from the company as well as minimizing bias (Kelle, 2006; Casey & Murphy, 2009; Santos et al., 2020), since the weaknesses of a single method can be mitigated by the strengths of other complementary methods (De Boeck et al., 2019). The added value of triangulating research methods and applying different subjective and objective tools or qualitative and quantitative measurements within the food industry has been recommended and shown empirically in the context of food safety culture assessment in food companies by Jespersen and Wallace (2017), Nyarugwe et al. (2018), De Boeck et al. (2016), De Boeck et al. (2019), Frankish et al. (2021), Zanin, Stedefeldt, and Luning (2021), Zanin, Luning, et al. (2021), and seems to be a promising avenue for research regarding also food integrity. In the proposed method triangulation, food integrity culture is examined considering human, operational, technical and managerial aspects of a food organization, through both subjective and objective measurement tools aimed to assess the three main aspects that characterize a company's food integrity culture as conceptualized and detailed in this paper.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, Faculty of Science, University of Adelaide, SA, 5074, Australia.

    View full text