Hygienie Blog

Cognitive Dissonance

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 10:52:25 GMT

Cognitive dissonance is a term regularly used on social media, particularly during political arguments.

It is a type of internal conflict, caused by holding conflicting beliefs, or acting against our beliefs.

One way to resolve this conflict is to ignore or discredit conflicting information. I’m guessing, that when someone is accused of ‘cognitive dissonance’ this is what they mean.

Politically, any evidence contrary to our beliefs causes us discomfort, and we soothe that discomfort by ignoring or discrediting the evidence.

Last weekend I put a few bets on the Grand National.

I resolved the conflict between my actions (supporting the event with a bet) and my beliefs (cruelty to animals is wrong) by focussing on the horses continuing to run without a jockey, convincing myself how much they must be enjoying the experience.

There could be mental discomfort between my belief in food safety (purchase frozen sauces from a reputable supplier), and my belief in maintaining chefs’ skills (chefs using stock pots to create your own sauces).

We may have strong views on whether purple chopping boards are a useful control in preventing allergen contamination.

As a result, we might dismiss the arguments of anyone with an opposing view. Such counter views might even be seen as a personal insult and the discomfort we feel internally, is projected outwards, resulting in an argument.

Which brings us back to those political arguments on social media.

“When people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties.”

– Social psychologists Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris

This belief can be so powerful some Russian’s refuse to believe Ukrainian family members experiences of the war.

This internal conflict is resolved by the belief images of bombed apartments are fake.

I went down many rabbit holes when writing this, and one comment on Facebook struck me:

“We had so much crap over the years with EHO that didn’t understand the concepts of pickling, fermenting and smoking. They had real issues with vac packing too. Also making all our own sauces and rubs. We were actually told they’d much prefer us to buy everything in.”

It’s also very possible EHO found poor standards during their food inspection. This angry comment could be the business owner justifying a low rating by claiming EHO didn’t understand their processes.

Either way, I think it illustrates how a reaction to cognitive dissonance can be negative, where there could be an opportunity for growth.

There is no way of avoiding cognitive dissonance itself. We will always be presented with evidence or opinions that contradict our current beliefs.

The original source for this post was The Decision Lab.

I run food safety and health & safety courses, and I’m trying to learn about the psychology of safety.

Belief Perseverance

Sat, 04 Apr 2026 09:02:14 GMT

Some thoughts on belief perseverance (original article thedecisionlab.com ).
Believing the Titanic was unsinkable resulted in a lack of lifeboats. Countless contestants on TV’s Dragon’s Den vow to continue with their business, in spite all evidence telling them to stop.
Individuals and businesses stick with original beliefs, even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is belief perseverance
.For example, there is some research that eLearning has advantages over classroom learning. Most research I’ve read states the most effective solution being a mix of eLearning and classroom. Yet, many trainers continue to believe classroom is the gold standard
.Many chefs I speak to distrust using electrolysed water. This is where an electrical current is passed through salt and water solution, producing hypochlorous acid (HOCl). This has been shown to be effective against a wide range of pathogens like E.Coli, Salmonella, and Listeria.
Belief that ‘traditional chemicals’ are best persists
.Amongst the public, there is widespread belief in the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, essentially that we are ‘too clean’. This was proposed in 1989, whilst more recent study suggests it is less contact with commensal (helpful) microbes, rather than pathogens that may contribute to increases in allergens, type 2 diabetes and auto immune diseases.
The belief that we are ‘too clean’ continues
.
Talking of allergies, many stick to their belief that allergies are somehow exaggerated or imagined. This is despite clear evidence that allergies are increasing and life threatening
.In writing this post I refuse the offers of help from AI. I’m ignoring growing evidence that I could be far more productive (and probably produce better writing) if I used AI
.
There are several factors that result in Belief Perseverance, including confirmation bias, where we seek evidence to support our original beliefs. Accepting that our long-held beliefs are wrong can be difficult and damaging to our ego’s, we naturally seek consistency in our views
.Failure to change and adapt can result in missed opportunities, for individuals and businesses. Think of record stores such as HMV (UK) and Tower Records (USA) failing to adapt to musical downloads and online competition
.However
.This post originally started with The Apprentice and how a contestant insisted ‘Chic’ should be spelt ‘Chique’ even when a Frenchman stated she was wrong. She held onto her belief, despite evidence to the contrary. However, when I checked it out, it seems she WAS right.
In 1962, Decca records rejected The Beatles because ‘guitars are on their way out’. Dyson, Air B&B, FedEx (according to a Google search I haven’t fact checked) are examples of success when others advised against
.So, perhaps, it’s not that beliefs and ideas should be dismissed in the wake of contradictory evidence. It’s more that challenging and reflecting on our own beliefs is always worthwhile

Availability Heuristic in Hospitality Safety

Sun, 22 Feb 2026 11:12:48 GMT

This week I’ve read about the Availability Heuristic, with information taken from The Decision Lab.com. I’ve then tried to relate this information to safety.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows us to make choices easier and faster. We base decisions on information that comes easily to mind, rather than objective analysis of facts.

For example, people may overestimate the dangers of plane crashes, shark attacks, and rare diseases if there have been recent events, vividly reported on the news.

In some respects, it’s important that we do easily recall major events associated with safety. Knowledge of these incidents and help change attitudes and improve culture.

The main danger, as I see it, is when memorable events aren’t easily recalled. This can lead us to underestimating the danger.

For example, in food safety, we might not easily recall food poisoning outbreaks related to long, slow cooking. This might lead us to underestimate the danger, take short cuts, and not follow the correct procedures. The effect is increased when we, personally have not experienced such an incident.

Recent, positive, memorable events can also result in overconfidence. For example, a recent Five rating and glowing praise from EHO can can result in overconfidence, and lessen focus on the standards that brought us the reward. This is closely related to over confidence bias, where subjective confidence in our abilities is greater than objective evidence. Often illustrated by the fact around 44% of UK marriages end in divorce, but most newly weds would estimate the likelihood of divorce for them to be around 0%.

The ‘availability short cut’ is deeply ingrained and largely necessary. When starting a car journey, it’s not feasible to analyse every factor of our forthcoming journey to evaluate the risk. Being aware that car accidents do occur is sufficient to focus our attention on driving safely.

As with most bias I’ve read about, it’s difficult to avoid. Even being aware of its existence doesn’t necessary mean we can overcome its dangers.

In addition, as noted above, the knowledge of risks and consequences of mistakes can help drive improvements.

Perhaps as a food safety and health and safety trainer I should use case studies and real-life examples to illustrate route cause failings, rather than specific subjects. For example, if I describe an horrific incident involving a deep fat fryer, learners are likely to easily recall the dangers of hot oil. They’re perhaps less likely to recall the dangers of taking shortcuts (for example not allowing enough time for the oil to cool). However, taking short cuts can equally result in accidents involving chemicals, working at height, or many aspects of food safety.

I’m not in any way an expert in psychology, I’m just interested in how it relates to safety.

Through my company I provide food safety and health and safety training at levels three and four. More information is available on my website Hygienie.org

Authority Bias in Safety

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 17:27:19 GMT

Authority bias is our tendency to be influenced by authority figures.

A 1960’s experiment had members of the public (volunteers) ask questions to people hidden behind a screen. Those answering the questions were played by actors. Under the guidance of authority figures, the volunteers administered an electric shock for every wrong answer. The actors would cry out in pain, and so far as the volunteers were concerned, the pain was real. Under instruction, the current was increased for every wrong answer, some exceeding a level that would be fatal.

I know a city centre restaurant where someone from head office arrived unannounced one weekend to monitor the sites performance. By Monday morning they had gained access to the safe and the takings. At no point did anyone challenge their authority, or check they were from head office.

Many will have experienced the frustration of having their work suggestion dismissed…. Only for later, a senior manager make the same suggestion and having it adopted.

If a group decision is to be made, the decision will usually reflect the opinions of the most senior manager in the room. Our tendency is to focus on the messenger rather than the message.

There are positive aspects to authority bias. During a global pandemic it helps that millions of people will follow the advice of authority figures.

Of course, some people will lean in the opposite direction and have a distrust of all authoritarian advice. This can result in conspiracy theories, particularly is someone with authority, an ‘expert’ encourages the distrust.

Most people would advocate a balance. For example, to follow professional advice, but where possible, to fact check and seek alternative opinions.

Which brings us to safety. Employees must follow safety policies and food safety management systems. Environmental health officers’ documented actions on inspection reports must be completed.

However, when EHO’s recommend soaking cloths (for wiping down surfaces) in a bleach solution, it’s reasonable to consider alternative methods. If EHO’s insist food must be cooled to below 8°C in 90 minutes you might question is this is feasible.

When a safety officer insists you wear a hard hat, they must be worn. Although on one course a delegate, who was ex forces told me that on manoeuvres they camouflaged vehicles with netting. During this task they were made to remove army helmets and replace with construction hard hats. Of course, I’ve no way of fact checking this.

I do recall one company who, for years had been using the wrong chemical to disinfect surfaces.

If an employee identifies such mistakes, it’s good they question rather than blindly follow. Unfortunately, whether these concerns are heard may depend on whether they’re an officer, senior manager, or perceived to be an expert.

(PS, I’m not an expert in any of the above, I’m just interested in the subject)

The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’

Attention Bias in Safety

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 17:25:12 GMT

I’m continuing to read and consider how aspects of psychology might be relevant to safety.

This week, I was reading about Attention bias. This is where our attention might be biased towards certain elements in our environment, whilst ignoring others. It’s like ‘zooming in’ on certain information which renders us blind to other factors.

The implications for safety audits and checks are clear. If we have a pet hate (like, oh, I don’t know, people putting things other than food on chopping boards; car keys, glasses, delivery notes and such) we might focus on this and miss other contraventions.

There are wider concerns for management such as ignoring someone for promotion because we’re focussed on their weaknesses whilst ignoring strengths and potential. Or focussing on one measurement of an employee’s productivity. It’s possible to ruin work and personal relationships by focussing on a specific flaw.

The tendency to focus on the negative can also be detriment to our own mental health.

There are several factors that can bias our attention. External events such as the past performance of an individual, emotional stimuli such as anger, and internal states such as hunger (which can bias our attention towards donuts and chocolate).

Avoiding attention bias is difficult. Our brains have a limited capacity of focus, and a mental shortcut such as this helps maintain cognitive efficiency. In some circumstances it helps to avoid stimuli. So, when giving up smoking, our habit might be linked to a cup of tea. When drinking a cup of tea, the stimulus focuses our attention on cigarettes, and it’s hard to stop thinking about having a smoke.

I’m not sure if this is relevant to safety. And in some ways, attention bias is a useful trait in safety. There are evolutionary reasons for the bias. Those early humans more aware of dangers in their environment were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Being aware of hazards is clearly a good thing in safety.

I also considered this bias in terms of how we can influence others. For example, if a manager is angry or confrontational with an EHO, there may be a strong tendency for the EHO to focus on negative information.

Conversely, if we’re calm, confident and welcoming, others are more likely to focus on positive information about us.

The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’

I claim no expertise in psychology; I am just keen to learn more.

I train food safety and health and safety to levels three and four.

Through my website, Hygienie.org I offer online and live streaming courses to individuals and businesses.

Affect Heuristic in hospitality safety

Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:15:54 GMT

Affect Heuristic

This is relying on our current emotions when making quick decisions. This usually relates to instant decisions, like what to eat for dinner. If this is based on how we feel, it can lead to unhealthy decision making.

The work example given in the original article is delegating a work task because you ‘feel good’ about the person.

You have confidence in the person and assign the task based on emotions, rather than considering their experience or training.

Ramifications for safety are clear; for example ‘the fryer needs cleaning, can I leave that with you?’.

Unfortunately, we’re more likely to rely on emotions and less on concrete information when we’re tired. And hospitality can definitely be tiring.

The affect heuristic may also be relevant to dynamic assessments, assessing the risk of tasks throughout the day. For example, when we cross a road, we carry out a dynamic risk assessment. Affect heuristic states we are more likely to underestimate the risk if we have positive emotions, such as excitement. Crossing the road on the way to a football match, or concert, or a date might lead us to underestimate, or not carefully consider the speed of cars heading towards us.

The article also explains how our emotions can affect the uptake of public policy. For example, positive feelings about a warm, cosy log fire may override concerns about pollution.

This could also relate to the implementation of company policy. For example, a restaurant chain that moves towards standardised menus and controls.

A chef may understandably have positive emotions (such as pride) around the menu they’ve created themselves, the recipes they’ve created.

They may resent moving towards menu specs and menus created at head office.

However, the affect heuristic can bring about positive changes by sharing statistics, information and images.

Take allergens as an example. The chef who’s changed to centralised menu species may be less inclined to alter recipes and ingredients (unhealthy behaviour) if they’re aware of the consequences.

Relying on our emotions can also help in making quick decisions. If a customer is experiencing a reaction to a food allergy, immediate, life saving action is required.

We’ve probably all made decisions based on emotion; sometimes the outcomes are positive, and sometimes not.

Often the decision is trivial, for example purchasing a pack of biscuits based on positive feelings such as nostalgia or happiness.

At other times, such as delegating tasks to work colleagues, the decision is vitally important.

As an auditor, I need to be aware of how my emotions can influence my decisions. If I find out of date food when I’m in a ‘happy place’ will the outcome in terms of audit score be the same as when I’m feeling negative emotions.

Of course, I’d like to think it would be the same outcome.

But perhaps the most important point is to be aware that emotions can influence behaviour, and then to consciously consider whether I’m being objective and using concrete information as I should.

The original source of this information was:

Action Bias - The Decision Lab

Please note: I’m interested in the psychology of safety, and these posts are primarily aimed at developing my own knowledge. I’m not claiming to have expertise in the subject of psychology.

Action Bias in safety

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:45:09 GMT

The danger of doing something rather than nothing

Action bias: a tendency to favour action over inaction.

For example, sitting in a traffic jam and turning off the road to take an alternative route. Even though your Satnav has warned you it will take longer and cover more miles.

In safety, taking action is often a good thing. Cleaning up a slip hazard, reminding a chef to wash their hands after handling raw meat, intervening when a server isn’t following allergen procedures.

However, sometimes it’s best to do nothing, at least in the short term. Chefs, eager to clean a dirty canopy have been known to climb up, slip, and plunge their leg into 175°C oil.

Action bias can lead to micromanagement. Intervention as a corrective action is sometimes necessary. Taking over the entire procedure can result in poorer standards long term.

As an auditor or manager it’s often necessary to give negative feedback, which can result in the recipient becoming angry or upset.

Our natural response is to resolve the issue, to take action.

The most effective strategy would be to stand back, allow for thinking time, and let emotions calm down.

(See also Reeves and Mortimer ‘you wouldn’t let it lie’).

Single-action bias can also be an issue. This is where one solution is applied to a problem that requires several corrective actions. Years ago, I audited a site that had ‘insufficient storage space’. The single-action bias was to buy more fridges and freezers. There seemed to be little consideration of improved stock control, stock checks and relevant staff training.

Unsurprisingly, the amount of stock kept expanding to fill the freezers available.

The original source of this information was:

Action Bias - The Decision Lab

Please note: I’m interested in the psychology of safety, and these posts are primarily aimed at developing my own knowledge. I’m not claiming to have expertise in the subject of psychology.

Infant botulism

Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:36:14 GMT

Clostridium Botulinum

The main picture shows how botulism fits within the structure I use for Level Four Food Safety courses.

Two cases of botulism were reported in Food Safety News this week (WE 24 ^th August)

The first was in Italy in July this year. Traces of the botulinum toxin were found in avocado pulp consumed at a travelling festival.

Some patients were hospitalised.

The second case was a report linking infant botulism to peanut butter in 2024. The child’s father has a peanut allergy, and peanuts were introduced into the child’s diet from 6 months old to help the child’s immune system develop a tolerance to the allergy.

The illness followed a slow progression, starting with lethargy (day one), intubation and ventilation on day six. An antitoxin was administered on day 10, and the patient was discharged on day 44. Severe constipation continued up to day 234.

The guacamole incident was caused by the preformed toxin already on the food.

Infant botulism occurs when botulinum spores are ingested by an infant, germinating and producing a toxin in the gut. The peanuts may have become contaminated with the spores at source, or during processing.

The spores are highly resistant and can survive in the environment for long periods. The spores are harmless to older children and adults, because natural defences like acidity and gut flora have developed to prevent the spores from germinating.

Infant botulism is rare; the FSA reported only 6 cases between 1992 and 2019. It is the reason honey should not be given to children under one years of age, as spores can also survive pasteurisation.

for more information on my Level Four Food Safety courses, please see the 'Level Four Courses' page on this site.

The importance of monitoring and verification

Sun, 03 Aug 2025 12:00:11 GMT

The importance of monitoring and verification

This post originally appeared as a LinkedIn post, you can follow Nick Dore for regular posts and discussions.

My last post was about keeping information simple and straightforward when training food handlers. Comments broadly agreed this was a good thing, as Iain Ferris noted 'these very general and simplified rules … makes it easier on the whole and provides a higher degree of protection'.
However I think it's interesting to note how some generalised rules are more readily accepted than others. Even when they're wrong.
In one course I train, there are two questions in the final, multiple choice revision section which illustrate this.
Both questions ask, 'which of the following is an offence?'
The answer to the first question is 'sell food beyond it's use by date'. I estimate that 98% of delegates choose the correct answer (not all delegates are food handlers so some confusion might be expected).

Now here's the interesting bit. Just 17 slides later, the same question is asked; 'which of the following is an offence?'.
Again, the answer should be 'sell food beyond it's use by date'.
However, a new option is introduced which is 'refreeze food which has been defrosted'.
As a very rough estimate, I'd say only 60% now choose the correct answer. Even though it was confirmed, only minutes before, the answer should be 'beyond use by dates'. We also covered use by dates during the course.
I suspect it's the frequency of the message that results in the false answer.
From childhood, even mothers such as mine, with a somewhat cavalier attitude to food safety would never risk refreezing food, even if only partially defrosted.
The message is regularly reinforced on frozen packaging 'do not refreeze once defrosted'.
Similarly, in another course I run, even experienced food handlers and managers will suggest you CAN identify pathogenic bacteria by smell and texture. (Again, there may be exceptions to this, and it would be great to hear of any specific examples of pathogenic bacteria that can be identified organoleptically).
These delegates have probably taken dozens of courses in which they're told you can't identify pathogenic bacteria by look, smell or touch. And yet, compared to the learned, intuitive action of the 'sniff test' the message is lost.

'High risk food' is another example where, even after explaining the definition, 99% of delegates will say raw chicken is a high-risk food.
This is because in the real world, well, it is. I've even known EHO refer to raw chicken as 'high risk food'.

As a trainer, I believe in the importance of training, but I'm also aware of its limitations. Reinforcement of the correct messages through internal checks and audits is equally, perhaps even more important.

Within my Level 3 and 4 course structure training is a prerequisite and I would suggest audits relate both to Monitoring (instantaneous results achieved on site) and Verification (checking HACCP has been implemented correctly.

The Danger Zone

Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:46:40 GMT

Is the term Danger Zone misleading?

I've been reading comments by Euan MacAuslan and Richard Sprenger from Highfield regarding the 'Danger Zone' and how the term might be misleading.

To explain (as far I understand):

Danger is the possibility that harm could occur. So, from -2°C to 55°C (Listeria to Bacillus Cereus) harm COULD occur. It would therefore be more accurate to call this range the danger zone.

Risk is the likelihood that harm will occur.
So, between 5°C/8°C to 63°C it's more LIKELY harm will occur. This range should, therefore, technically be called the risk zone.

There’s also an argument the risk zone should be narrowed further to 20°C to 50°C, when most pathogenic bacteria multiply (mesophiles are 20°C to 45°C).

The definition of 'Danger Zone' differs from country to country.

Google tells me USA is 4°C to 60°C.
(Although Google also says it's 8°C to 60°C).

Even in Britain, some sources quote 5°C to 63°C and some 8°C to 63°C.
This validates the criticism a ‘Danger Zone’ isn’t based on science. It's the range of temperatures more likely to result in food poisoning and prosecution.

In my opinion (for what it’s worth), I’m not sure the use (or misuse) of the term really matters.

If the focus is on meeting legal requirements and reduce the risk, isn’t that a good thing? And perhaps ‘Danger Zone’ is the most effective term in achieving this compliance and safety.

The term has been around a long time, and it’s broadly understood by most food handlers. To use different terms might add to the confusion.

Everyone understands the word danger, less so the word risk. ‘Danger’ is an emotive word, evoking feelings of fear, and making it a powerful tool for persuasion.

A sign saying 'Danger, keep out' carries more weight than 'Risk, keep out'.

Personally, I prefer to use the range 8°C to 63°C when describing the danger zone as it ties in with legal requirements. Why complicate things by adding additional temperatures?

That said, for in-house courses I can’t see the issue with changing the parameters to suit specific policies. We are clearly emphasising what needs to be done to provide safe food and comply with policy/law.

Perhaps it’s only misleading from an academic stance and not a practical one. Or maybe, because my background is practical and not academic, I’m being influenced by my own experience bias.

Certainly, for my Level Four Food Safety delegates, I think this is an interesting point to consider. The picture illustrates how it fits into the overall structure of my courses, and for those revising right now, this is a useful reminder of temperature ranges for Listeria and Bacillus Cereus.

How EHO calculate your scores on the doors.

Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:30:50 GMT

And how to estimate your EHO score for yourself

Your rating

The following is a brief overview on how EHO work out your scores on doors, officially called the food hygiene rating system.

EHO use the system to rate your premises from 0 to five; with five being ‘very good’, down to zero, which means ‘urgent improvement required’.

You might imagine sites rated 1, or 2, would be dirty, possibly with pest infestation. Poor personal hygiene, mouldy food, lack of hand washing. Perhaps poor structure with dirty, crumbling walls?

They may well be, but not necessarily, as I’ll explain in this blog.

The scheme applies to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is a different scheme in Scotland (Pass or Improvement required).

The standards checked will be similar, but how the score is calculated will be different.

It is a legal requirement to display your rating in Wales, but not, currently in England.

This article will help you understand how scores are calculated. It will explain why many sites receive low ratings, and this knowledge will help ensure your scores remain high.

You could even use this information to develop your own expertise in the food hygiene ratings.

The greater your understanding of how your scores are calculated; the better you can prepare for inspections.

EHO visit

When EHO complete your inspection, they’ll make note of everything that’s wrong. Hopefully, this will be a very short list, or empty page for you!

Typical things they might mention are:

- Out of date food.

- Dirty floor beneath cooking equipment.

- Gaps in temperature records.

They will now put their findings into one of three sections:

1. FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY (out of date food would be scored here)

2. STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE (dirty floor score here)

3. CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT (gaps in temperature records scored here).

Each of these three sections are given a sub score, and these sub scores are added together to calculate your final rating.

The important thing to remember is this:

If any of these sections (hygiene, structure, and confidence in management) have a poor score, your overall rating will be low.

Think of it like you’re MOT. If your brakes are faulty, you wouldn’t expect to pass the MOT, even if everything else was perfect.

Three sub sections

Here’s more detail on those three sections, and some of the issues EHO will group into each one.

1. FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY

Here, EHO score your practices; the things you do.

It will include things like cross contamination, cooling procedures, fridge temperatures, dates, labelling and personal hygiene.

2. STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE

Here, EHO score your structure, your cleaning, and any pest issues.

3. CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT

Here, EHO rate your knowledge, your paperwork, and how confident they are that, moving forward, standards will be maintained or improved.New Paragraph

Calculating a Five Rating

EHO give a sub-score to each of the sections, for example:

FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY = 0

STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE = 0

CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT = 0

The above example is the perfect score. Each section has scored a zero, meaning there is nothing wrong, no issues found..

Roughly speaking, each section is scored as 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25.

There is no 15 in the confidence in management section, and scores in that section go up to 30.

A score of 15 in any of the sections will result in an overall rating of two.

Many people will Google ‘scores on the doors’ to find the rating for a particular site.

The official, more reliable food standards agency website can be found by searching FSA Food hygiene ratings.

Whichever site you use, you enter the name of the site, the area and press ‘search’.

For example, see below. Here, I used the ‘scores on the doors’ site; I searched for ‘Red Lion’ and ‘Norwich’, and found these results:

If I then click on F: White Lion, I can find more details of the visit:

The official Food Standards agency results can be accessed here:

This is a more reliable site, with no annoying adverts

As you can see, numbers are not used for the sub sections, but rather a written description.

The descriptions correspond to our numerical scores, for example:

‘VERY GOOD’ = 0

‘GOOD’ = 5

‘GENERALLY SATISFACTORY’ = 10

‘IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 15

‘MAJOR IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 20

‘URGENT IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY’ = 25

Therefore, the scores for the White Lion example above would be:

FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY = 5 (Good)

STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE = 5 (Good)

CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT = 0 (Very good)

As we can see here, the standards don’t have to be perfect to achieve a five, it allows for non-critical issues.

We don’t know exactly what issues EHO found at the White Lion. However, the following points would have resulted in a Five:

Calculating a Four Rating.

If you score a 10 on any section, your maximum score is four.

Example:

Two tens and a zero would also be a Four rating.

Calculating a Three rating.

Two tens and a five will reduce the overall rating to three.

Example:

For guidance on which score to select, EHO refer to the brand standards.

This is basically a scoring guidance for inspectors.

The criteria for selecting a structure score of 10 (not critical to safety, but could become so), is taken from the brand standards.

If you want to become a real expert, you can download the brand standards yourself.

Calculating a Two rating.

A 15 on any section reduces the overall score to a two:

Calculating a One rating.

CALCULATING A ONE RATING

An overall score of 45 (i.e. 15 on all three sections) will result in a one rating.

However, if you score a 20 on any section, this could also result in a one.

Example:

As you can see, a site could receive a ‘one’ rating simply because they don’t have a written food safety management system. Even though standards were otherwise good.

Now, many EHO will argue this isn’t the case. They wouldn’t award a site a one rating purely on lacking paperwork. It’s great to hear of EHO taking an ‘holistic view’ of standards. However, in my personal experience this isn’t always the case.

And, if it doesn’t, how would they explain the rating below?

This is taken from the official FSA website I discussed above.

Calculating a Zero rating.

An overall score of 50 or more results in a zero rating.

If a site has scored a zero, we can be fairly sure the site DOES have poor standards.

Summary

Many businesses have very low ratings because of one or two major issues.

The following are likely to reduce the overall rating to TWO, even if everything else is perfect:

No hot water

Pest infestation

Some of the controls necessary to prevent cross contamination not in place or implemented.

The following could reduce the overall rating to ONE, even if everything else is perfect:

No documented food safety management system in place.

Please remember this; you can download a FREE food safety management system from the Food standards agency.

There are information packs available for various business types.

Ensure you work through the system, explaining how you keep food safe. You can find more advice in our blog ‘how to get a five rating from EHO.

Additional food safety concerns resulting in a one would include:

Many of the controls necessary to prevent cross contamination not in place.

Hygienie training courses will include advice on maintaining suitable cross contamination controls.

You can also read our blog on achieving a five rating for my information.

Validation and Verification

Sun, 07 Nov 2021 09:31:02 GMT

Understand the difference between validation and verification

Many Level Four Food Safety delegates struggle to understand the difference between Validation and Verification.

This video, part of our Level Four Food Safety course, helps to explain the difference.

Food Poisoning from fish

Mon, 18 Oct 2021 07:31:57 GMT

How fish and shellfish can cause food poisoning

In this article we’ll examine the various types of food poisoning associated with eating fish.

There are essentially three ways in which fish can cause food poisoning:

1. Fish that are naturally poisonous

2. Fish and shellfish which have become contaminated in the environment.

3. Fish and shellfish which cause food poisoning because of poor practices during production.

Ciguatera.

The source of Ciguatera is certain types of algae. Small fish the eat the algae and carnivorous fish consume the smaller species. The toxin is transferred to humans when we consume either the small, or carnivorous fish.

The algae are associated with dead coral, and therefore affected by human activities and climate change. Hence to describe as ‘natural’ may be a mute point.

Example: In June 2020 five people in The Netherlands were taken ill, and the poisoning was likely caused by eating red snapper imported from India.

The onset time is around six hours, and the symptoms last between a few days or weeks. The symptoms are usually nausea, vomiting, and muscle pain. This can be followed by neurological symptoms including headache, dizziness and irregular heartbeat.

Similarly, illness can result from eating muscles which have fed on poisonous plankton, as detailed below.

Puffer fish (also known as Fugu, Globefish and Blowfish).

It has been said the fish contains a toxin one hundred times more poisonous than cyanide, and the liver alone can contain enough poison to kill five men.

The toxin is tetrodotoxin, a neuro toxin which can affect the central nervous system. In pufferfish it is found mainly in the eggs, liver and skin.

Other fish which contain tetrodotoxin include goby, shellfish, blue-ringed octopus and shellfish. In the majority of cases, there is insufficient toxin to cause illness.

Symptoms are usually between 30 minutes and 6 hours after consuming the food. Vomiting, nausea, and diarrhoea are followed by numbness in the face, muscle weakness and slurred speech. Cardiovascular affects include hypertension. If the patient survives the first 24 hours, they usually make a full recovery as the toxin is expelled in urine.

Mistakes in processing and production contribute to food poisoning cases.

It can take up to ten years to become a sushi master; a rigid learning programme to remove the parts of the fish which could contain tetrodotoxin.

In Japan, it is a legal requirement to prepare and detoxify the fish before they are sold.

In 2018 blunt head blowfish were sold at a supermarket with the livers still intact. According to reports this type of blowfish contains only very week or no poison.

Scombrotoxin

Histidine is an amino acid found in dark-fleshed fish such as tuna, mackerel and pilchards.

If the fish is stored above 4C spoilage bacteria convert the histamine to histamine, and when consumed the reactions are similar to those of an allergic reaction.

Refrigerating of fish should prevent toxin formation.

It’s responsible for about 65% of the outbreaks of food poisoning associated with fish in England and Wales.

Shellfish.

As noted above, some shellfish contain toxins having fed on poisonous plankton. Alternatively, pathogens such as Norovirus can be absorbed from sewage.

You may also come across the terms Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) and paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).

This refers to the symptoms;

Diarrhetic (DSP) = diarrhoea and vomiting.

Paralytic (PSP) = tingling and numbness of the mouth almost immediately. This can spread to the arms and legs and potentially death. When death occurs, it is usually caused by respiratory paralysis.

Norovirus

Shellfish such as oysters, clams and mussels are filter feeders, extracting nutrients from water as it passes through. As a result, they may also absorb norovirus which will be present in higher concentrations than the surrounding water.

Potential sources of contamination include faulty waste water plants, failing septic systems, and vomiting overboard near shellfish beds.

Norovirus is destroyed by normal cooking temperatures, and therefore most outbreaks are connected to oysters eaten raw.

In March 2001 several outbreaks were reported in France following the consumption of oysters, with over 164 patients and two hospitalisations.

Heavy rains in February may have led to the contamination of water, with water flushed from the ground.

Chemicals

Whether via land or sea, industrialisation and chemical processing has the potential to enter the food chain.

As an example, the NHS advise pregnant women against eating shark, swordfish or marlin because they contain higher levels of mercury.

Mercury is present in very small quantities in the sea. A number of industrial processes cause this including coal burning, cement production, and smelting.

Fish such as shark are of greatest risk because they are long lived, and at the top of the food chain. Similar to Ciguatera discussed earlier, the mercury may be absorbed by algae, consumed by smaller fish, and transferred through the food chain.

Bioaccumulation is where a substance is absorbed at a faster rate than it’s excreted. Therefore, older fish such as shark may gradually absorb the chemical such as mercury, which builds in their muscle tissue over time.

As an example; herring contains mercury levels at 0.1 parts per million, whilst shark contains 1 part per million. Deposited in the muscle tissue, the mercury is transferred to humans on consumption.

In addition, raw fish should be considered a source of pathogenic bacteria, in the same way as raw meat and poultry. Pathogens detected in raw fish include Listeria, Vibrio, Clostridium and Salmonella.

The usual separation and segregation controls to prevent cross contamination should also be applied to fish. Poor practices during storage and preparation can result in cross contamination.

Standard practices of refrigeration and stock rotation is also required to prevent bacterial multiplication. For dark fish such as tuna, the recommended temperature is 4C or colder to prevent action of spoilage bacteria as discussed above. Storing on ice may therefore be required.

Raw fish may also contain parasites.

The Food Standards Agency identify parasites such as Anisakis larvae (parasite worms) as potentially being present in some wild fish including:

- Salmon

- Herring

- Cod

- Other fish species including monkfish

Their advice states that cooking to 60C for at least one minute will kill most parasites, although trematodes may require more stringent heat treatment to kill them. Trematodes may be parasitic in a molluscan host.

Freezing for the correct time/temperature (eg -20C for at least 24 hours) also kills parasites.

Therefore, under hygiene legislation, certain products including sushi and sashimi intended to be eaten raw must be frozen.

How to get a Five Rating from EHO

Sat, 04 Sep 2021 13:37:31 GMT

A brief guide on passing your next EHO inspection

FREE ADVICE

We hope you’ll find this advice on achieving, or maintaining a Food Hygiene Rating of Five, to be useful. Further information and training courses can be found on our website: Hygienie.org. We use specially prepared animation, and many of the pictures in this article are screen shots from our course.

In this article you’ll discover:

- A basic overview of how to achieve a five

- A detailed explanation of each point

- A brief explanation of how EHO calculate your rating

1. INTRODUCTION

Ensure you make a great first impression!

2. MUST HAVES

· A food safety management system based on HACCP principles

· Allergen information

· Training records

· Hot and cold running water

· Fully stocked wash hand basins

· The correct grade of sanitiser/disinfectant

3. FOOD PRODUCTION

· Separation of raw and cooked food

· Suitable cooling procedures (if applicable)

· Good personal hygiene

4. STRUCTURE, CLEANING, AND PESTS

· Smooth, cleanable surfaces, equipment in good condition

· High cleaning standards

· Pest free

5. STORAGE

· In date

· Correct temperature

· Correct storage practices

THE DETAIL

In this section you’ll gain a greater understanding of these basics. The advice is taken from thousands of hours auditing experience, and the creation of our online courses.

1. FIRST IMPRESSIONS

It’s also possible they are visiting following a complaint, or to investigate a food poisoning outbreak; it’s a good idea to find out the reason for their visit.

2. MUST HAVES

Some EHO also expect you to record temperatures twice per day. It's not strictly a legal requirement to do this; but again, if you’re going above and beyond, it creates a great impression.

Safer Food, Better Business is not the only option available. You may be using a food safety management system developed by a consultant, or by an in-house team. Always make sure staff know where to find these documents.

ADDITIONAL RECORDS

Your EHO may request additional records including:

- Pest control records

- Training records

- Waste transfer notes.

We advise you to keep all these together in your “EHO” container to hand over as requested.

If it's not practical to keep all of these in a covered container; then provide a list so staff dealing with EHO know where to find them.

Remember, even if you’ve completed your Safer Food, Better Business pack, failure to produce on the day could result in a low score.

ALLERGENS

PROVIDING ALLERGEN INFORMATION TO CUSTOMERS.

You’ll need to ensure your allergy information is accurate AND available.

Step One: List all your dishes on the left-hand side.

Step two: Work through all your dishes and tick the relevant allergens. Remember to check all your ingredients and don’t forget ‘hidden’ allergens. For example, curry paste will often contain mustard.

Step three: Keep a copy of your matrix available for customers and a copy in your kitchen.

If you have a website, consider placing the allergen information online. This will present a professional image to customers.

You could also add a QR code for your website information to your allergy sign.

There are various electronic tools and systems available to purchase.

For most small business, the FSA allergen matrix is the most viable option.

Training records

Legally, everyone must be trained to the correct level. (In technical language, this is, “trained to a level commensurate with their workplace activities”).

At Hygienie, we offer a variety of training solutions including competitively priced e-learning.

We can help ensure you're training is legally compliant.

EHO INSPECTION

The duty manager has introduced themselves to EHO, and if you’re not on duty, they’ve called to inform you of the visit. If possible, try and attend the visit yourself.

EHO may examine the paperwork first, or more likely, they’ll head straight into the kitchen.

Ask if you can accompany the EHO. Be courteous and professional.

If possible, always accompany EHO on their visit; take notes, show interest, make a good impression. However, if EHO would rather be left alone, leave them to it!

BASIC CHECKS

Temperature probe.

It's not a legal requirement to use a probe, but it's usually the best way to check cooking temperatures.

If you're using one, ensure the following:

- It's working

- It's clean and in good condition

- You have suitable probe wipes available (EHO heavily penalised sites for using baby wipes and surface cleaners).

A QUESTION FROM OUR LEVEL TWO FOOD SAFETY COURSE:

You can find suitable probes, and probe wipes, at reasonable prices, on Amazon or local catering suppliers.

Ensure probe wipes are clean and moist (some sites keep them in the fridge in a lidded container as this helps to prevent drying out).

If you don't have probe wipes, instruct staff to use paper towels and your disinfectant/ sanitiser. Probe wipes are preferred.

Some EHO also expect you to calibrate your probe on a regular basis (eg weekly).

Place in iced water (ideally in a metal container with plenty of ice). The probe should be zero degrees C. A tolerance of one degree either side is usually permitted (ie -1 to +1).

Place in a pan of water on a boiling water. The probe should be 100 degrees C.

Again, a tolerance of one degree either way is allowed.

You can add probe calibration procedures to your laminated guide.

1. FOOD PRODUCTION

EHO will examine practices. Problems frequently raised include:

- Temperature control. Some food must be below 8C. Do not leave out at ambient temperature for too long. The maximum time this food can be held at ambient temperature is four hours. Therefore, small amounts, during busy periods should not be a problem.

- Cross contamination. Use the correct chopping boards and prepare raw food away from ready to eat food.

4. STRUCTURE, CLEANING AND PESTS

All EHO will thoroughly check your premises, using a torch.

Ensure you do the same on your management checks. When you’re carrying out your own checks use a torch, and look at different angles (look under/look up).

Ideally, task other members of staff to check cleaning too; no-one will see everything.

All areas must be thoroughly clean.

Here are examples of detailed cleaning where EHO often find issues:

- Tin opener blade.

- Wall to floor junctions under and behind equipment.

- Shelving.

- The underside of the soap dispenser.

EHO will be especially concerned with dirty hand contact surfaces such as fridge handles.

Structure:

All areas must be in good condition; smooth and cleanable.

Here is a list of areas where EHO often find issues:

- Damaged walls (e.g. cracks in tiles).

- Damaged floors.

- Damaged fridges such as seals.

- Heavily scored chopping boards.

Pests:

Ensure the site is pest free at all times.

It is not a legal requirement to employ a pest contractor. If you do employ a contractor, keep records in your ‘EHO box’.

If you don’t employ a contractor, carry out your own checks, record the findings and keep your own records.

EHO often score down because there are no fly screens on doors or windows, or because back doors are left open

Other areas:

Ensure bin areas and staff rooms/staff toilets are clean and tidy.

There should be two doors between a toilet and any food storage areas.

5. STORAGE

EHO will carefully examine fridges and other storage area's.

Ensure the following:

- All products stored at the correct temperature (legally chilled food below 8C).

- Storage to prevent cross contamination (ideally raw food in a separate fridge. If not, at the bottom of the fridge). In general, the correct layout will be: raw food on the bottom, raw food which is ready to eat (e.g. carrots used in a salad) on the next shelf up, and all ready to eat foods on the top shelves.

- All food in date. Ideally, all food will be date labelled once opened (e.g. day of opening/preparation plus two days or follow manufacturers instructions). ALWAYS within manufacturers use by dates.

- No food on the floor. This is an issue frequently noted during inspections.

- All food in suitable containers, in good condition, and covered.

CLOSING MEETING

EHO have completed their visit.

Ask them to summarise their findings. Ask them what you need to focus on to improve.

Ask them if they'll give you the rating. Many won’t, but there’s no harm in asking!

Ensure you address any points raised as soon as possible (whilst EHO’s on site if you can).

YOUR RATING

We’ll discuss how your rating is calculated in a separate article. For now, be aware of this:

EHO’s findings are divided into three sections;

1. FOOD HYGIENE AND SAFETY

2. STRUCTURAL COMPLIANCE

3. CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT

The most important thing to remember is that, if one of these sections receives a low rating; the overall score will be low.

Remember the food safety management system we spoke about in the beginning? If you don’t have one, the confidence in management section will have a low score, and therefore, so will your overall score.

THANKS

Thanks for reading this article, and good luck with your next inspection!

A brief history of UK food safety law

Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:52:07 GMT

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

Introduction

So, you are aware that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland EHO officers rate your premises using the food hygiene rating system and provide a score from zero to five (a different system is used in Scotland).

You are also aware the ratings are based on food safety legislation and you may be familiar with some of this legislation, such as the Food Safety Act 1990.

But when did food safety legislation begin? How has it developed over time? How much has it changed over the centuries?

The answer to the last question is ‘massively’, although in some respects ‘not so much’.

This blog charts the development of food legislation in the UK. The information is taken from a variety of resources and a link to those resources is provided at the end for further reading.

The focus is on English Law, however most points relate to the whole of the United Kingdom.

We examine how social, political and economic pressures have contributed to the development of food safety laws and briefly discuss enforcement of laws throughout the centuries ….. including the use of leather trousers.

Current Law

The four principal sources of law in the UK are (at the time of writing); legislation, common law, and European Law.

Following Brexit, the basis of much of UK law continues to be European law, particularly EC 852/2004, although this may change over time.

There is no single body of documents that covers all of UK law.

We focus mainly on Legislation and European Law with a brief nod towards common law.

Common law comes into being when a decision made at the highest level; (senior appellate courts) set a precedent in law which must be followed in future cases to ensure fairness.

The two most senior appellate courts are the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and they only hear appeals from other courts (High Court, Magistrates Court and Crown Court).

In the beginning....

The first English laws

Influence of the industrial revolution

The introduction of labelling

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 repealed the Act of 1860 and further regulations familiar with us today were born. This included categorising adulteration practices into those injurious to health and those which affected the quality of the food (not of the nature, substance and quality).

For the first time the inclusion of ingredients would have to be included on the label which would have to be ‘distinctly and legibly written or printed’.

In the early 20 ^th Century food borne illness became more recognised and statutes relating to specific foods were introduced, including the Milk and Dairies Act 1914. This was the first Act to legislate on the production and sale of milk but was not implemented until 1925.

Additional pieces of legislation were passed relating to labelling: for example, the Food and Drugs Act 1938 introduced penalties misleading or false advertising.

During World War Two, rationing and a general shortage of food increased the opportunity to gain profit through adulteration and 1943 regulations were introduced stating that pre-packed foods should provide the name and address of the packer, the common or usual name of the food, and the ingredients (but not the quantities).

The Food and Drugs Act 1955 consolidated many of the previous Acts and Regulations and provided authorised officers with wide ranging powers including the ability to examine food at all reasonable times and to seize and detain foods.

Whilst so many aspects of food safety law continue to be familiar with us today it wasn’t until 1968 that legislation for food and medicines was divided with the introduction of the Medicines and Pharmacy Act.

The Trade Descriptions Act of the same year also tightened controls on product description, claims and price.

The European Union

The future and article references

At the time of writing and following exit from Brexit there has been no changes to UK legislation.

Natasha's Law will come into force in October 2021. This follows the tragic death of 15 year old Natasha Ednan-Laperouse in 2016.

Previously, there was no legal requirement to label food made on the premises and pre-packaged for display.

For example, a sandwich shop selling pre-prepared sandwiches from a supplier WOULD contain allergen information.

However, sandwiches made on site did NOT have to contain allergen information.

Many businesses (eg Pret and Greggs) would provide a sign advising customers to seek further information from staff if they have any allergen concerns.

From October 2021, such products will have to contain allergen information.

Resources used in the writing of this article are given below (note, links are not provided; copy and paste onto your browser to access this information).

The Legal system of the United Kingdom.

https://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex/about-cilex-lawyers/what-cilex-lawyers-do/the-uk-legal-system

The history of English law is largely taken from two resources:

file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/Blogs/History%20of%20FS%20law/9781849466707sample.pdf

https://fstjournal.org/features/history-uk-food-law

And a third charts the development of the Codex Alimentarius: www.fao.org/3/w9114e/w9114e03.htm

It is illegal to eat wild birds (even Rook Salad): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14631856

The fight against adulteration: https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-fight-against-food-adulteration/2020253.article

Additional resources used:

http://www.artisanfoodlaw.co.uk/introduction/chronology-of-food-law/introduction-chronology-of-food-law

Additional resources used when discussing current legislation:

The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2996/note/made

General Food Law: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/general-food-law

Implementation of 852/2004: https://app.croneri.co.uk/topics/ec-regulation-8522004-general-food-hygiene-requirements-businesses/indepth

National legislation: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/general-food-law

Food Information for consumers: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/labelling_legislation_en

Leaving the EU House of Lords Library Briefing: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2018-0050

CIEH impact on leaving the EU: https://www.cieh.org/media/blog/2018/7-threats-to-food-safety-after-brexit/