Equipment & Manufacturing Processes
Evaluate the control of foreign objects embedded or hidden within candy such as wooden splinters, glass or otherwise dangerous articles. Processors must take every reasonable precaution to insure that production procedures do not contribute contamination from any source. For example, strategically located magnets and/or metal detectors may be necessary to prevent contamination by metal. (Ibid)
If food is processed according to food handling procedure, the possibility of contamination is greatly reduced. However, when industry lobbyists get their pet legislators to sponsor weakened regulations or enforcement, our food safety is compromised by leaps and bounds. Often times we are more vulnerable to domestic food terrorism than by anything resulting from “internet chatter.”
Any system is only as strong as the weakest link in that system. A single individual or processing plant, which ignores sanitation and processing hygiene, throws sand in the gears of the entire system. Irrespective of the length and depth of testing, food handling, processing, inspection and testing at individual plants all falls back on the human element to make sure products are adequately sampled and tested.
Regardless of type of processing or food handling operation, the number one consideration in food sanitation is people. It is people who set the rules, follow the rules, and also break the rules of sanitation. A sanitation program is as good as the attitude, willingness, and efforts of people. That is why the most important aspect of a sanitation program is ongoing personnel training. (Ronald H. Schnidt, “Basis elements of a Sanitation Program for Food Processing and Food Handling. University of Florida IFAS Extension)
Schnidt goes further to say that the human element must always be considered as a front line defense against contamination and systemic breakdown.
Sanitation Principles and Food Handling Practices
Personnel training should instill and nurture an understanding of the processing steps and technologies for each product manufactured or handled and where potential problems exist, and create a keen desire to satisfy and guard the consumers' interests. (Ibid)
Corporate culture has a massive influence on food safety, so much so that several researchers have devoted research projects to studying how corporate culture affects food safety in different organizations. Susan Arendt, PhD, RD led a team of researchers in a study on how corporate culture influences food safety.
“We found that education, or training, certainly translated into knowledge acquisition regarding food safety, but that didn’t necessarily translate into the practice of safe food behaviors,” says Dr. Arendt, assistant professor in apparel, educational studies, and hospitality management at Iowa State University in Ames (my emphasis). “The bottom line was that just because we trained employees, that didn’t mean that they followed up and implemented their training in food service operations.” Click here.
Bottom line, a fish rots from the head. If government and corporate culture, as determined by their leadership, decide that food sanitation regulations are not important, or that the bottom line is more important than safe food handling, then food safety will be compromised.
The role of administrators and supervisors in the food sanitation process is critical. Dr. Arendt notes that there are motivational areas, which supervisors must address, including:
• establishing policy and standards;
• expecting accountability;
• serving as role models;
• controlling, rewarding, or punishing;
