- Email: [email protected]
Barriers for the developing and implementation of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey
Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont
Barriers for the developing and implementation of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey A. Ramırez Vela *, J. Martın Fern andez Centro de Salud P ublica Area VIII, Consejerıa de Sanidad Comunidad de Madrid, Avda, Legan es 25, 28925 Alcorc on, Spain Received 11 January 2002; received in revised form 4 August 2002; accepted 6 August 2002
Abstract Despite the fact of compulsory HACCP plan in the regulations, their development and implementation is being difficult and slow. This paper present a survey in an area of Madrid to identify the barriers which are obstructing the implementation of HACCP programs in food companies, following the model of eleven potential barriers organised around three levels proposed by Gillings et al. [J. Food Protect. 64(5) (2001) 710]. The results suggested that lack of understanding and negative guideline factors conduce to inadequate hazard analysis, and this is not solved contacting external advisers. There are also problems at attitude level which obstruct the change of behaviour. It is suggested that regulatory agencies should work to publish clear and detailed HACCP guides in Spanish and to promote activities aimed to external consultants and industry managers and directives. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: HACCP; Barriers
1. Introduction The HACCP system is a science-based system created to identify specific hazards and actions to control them in order to ensure food safety. It is also a systematic process: a sequence of twelve tasks has been described, in which the seven basic HACCP principles are included (Fig. 1) (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997). The system can be considered an efficient tool for both industry and health authorities to prevent foodborne diseases if it is based on understanding and proper implementation, because it is not HACCP system itself which makes food safe, but its correct application (Mortajemi & K€ aferstein, 1999; Mortimore, 2000). Success in implementing and maintaining a HACCP program depends on how its four basic pillars (commitment, education and training, availability of resources and external pressure) are prioritised and organised in a company (Panisello & Quantick, 2001).
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +34-91-642-59-44. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ramırez Vela).
The European Union is introducing in its legislative proposal of Food Hygiene 2000/178 (COD) the obligation of complying Codex seven basic principles of HACCP; the principles mentioned nowadays in European Council Directive 93/43/EEC differ considerably of them. Despite the fact of compulsory self-control systems in the regulations, their development and implementation is being slow and complicated, because in order to modify behaviours and correct implementing HACCP programs it is essential an attitude change (Sallares Sanmartı, 1992; Mortajemi & K€aferstein, 1999). To achieve this, besides adequate and available information there should be motivation, and some barriers associated to that attitude change must be overcome. Nevertheless, attitude change not always carries a change in behaviour. It is necessary to know how to change and have help to do it (Sallares Sanmartı, 1992). Gilling, Taylor, Kane, and Taylor (2001) have proposed a HACCP awareness to adherence model, showing eleven potential knowledge, attitude and behaviour-related barriers involved in failures of HACCP guideline adherence. It provides a diagnostic tool identifying and locating problems and therefore facilitating
0956-7135/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00098-1
334
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
The final aim is to overcome those barriers and achieve adequate, efficient and well implemented HACCP plans.
3. Materials and methods
Fig. 1. Logic sequence for the application of HACCP.
constructive and efficient interventions. It is established that through the sequential inclusion of each of the three stages more sustainable change or adherence to those changes can be achieved (Fig. 2). For public administration is important to do detailed diagnoses to adequate its targeted interventions in order to maximising its resources. Simplistic assumptions lead to erroneous actions or with scarce impact in the population which means not only a poor resources management but also the loose of interest among the groups involved. 2. Objective To identify the main difficulties and barriers in developing and implementing HACCP plans in food industries located in the District of Alcorc on and in the VII Health Area of Community of Madrid (Spain).
Lack of adherence
Successful Adherence
There have been two stages in this study. In the first, Community of MadridÕs strategy for implementing selfcontrol systems which considers industrial establishments of dairy, meat and fish products as a priority, was followed. Companies among those sectors were asked by letter to submit their HACCP plans to regulatory authority, to be evaluated by a team of four veterinarian inspectors with education in HACCP systems. Once evaluated, two team members held a meeting with businessÕ representatives and their food assessors (if any) to inform about misconceptions, mistakes and gaps found in the plan. The information was also sent as a written report which included an expiry date to submit an adequate HACCP plan. During the meeting, adequate bibliography both in Spanish and English was offered to companies and external consultants. There are 29 food industries of the prioritised sectors (22 of meat sector, 5 of fish products and 2 of dairy products) in the area of study. Most of them could be included among small and/or less developed businesses following Codex criteria (WHO, 1999). A checklist with the 12 stages of the Codex logic sequence for HACCP system was used as a tool, all the questions with just ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer. At the second stage of the survey, industries and external consultants were invited by letter to a session to show first stage results and to dialogue about selfcontrol systems. During the session, they were asked to
BARRIERS
BEHAVIOR
ATTITUDE
KNOWLEDGE
Fig. 2. HACCP awareness to adherence model (from Gilling et al. (2001)).
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
complete a questionnaire (two models, one for industries and other for consultants, both with 17 closed questions, one opened and two valoratives) about basic HACCP concepts, perceptions of the system, problems to the implementation, relationship between industry and consultants and authorities role. To evaluate the results, the model proposed by Gilling et al. (2001) was followed, grouping data in three levels to identify most important barriers.
4. Results and discussion 29 HACCP plans were evaluated at first stage (100%). 16 completed surveys from companies and 11 (out of 12) from consultants were obtained, which means a response rate of 55.2% and 91.6%, respectively. Other authors obtained rates of response between 15.3% and 17.5% with mailing (Panisello, Quantick, & Knowles, 1999; Mortlock, Peters, & Griffith, 1999) or 64.4% using phone interview (Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 2000). At knowledge level, the barrier ‘‘lack of awareness (K1)’’ did not exit, for every respondent had heard about HACCP, among other reasons because the letter requiring HACCP plan enclosed information about it as an annex and meetings had been held with all the companies at the time of inquiry. Results about ‘‘lack of understanding (K2)’’ show that 46.6% of industry respondents say to have good knowledge of HACCP, 46.6% to have not-bad knowledge and 6.6% say to know HACCP badly. However, only 26.6 of them related the system with food safety and 73.3% relate it to food quality. On the other hand, 72.7% of consultant respondents said to have good knowledge of HACCP, and most of them related it with safety, although 18.2% related the system exclusively with food quality. 81.8% answered that pre-requisites should be in place before starting a HACCP system and 72.7% that the correct way to conduct a hazard analysis consist in identifying potential hazards and determine their risk (likelihood and severity), but 100% of the plans lack of documented hazard analysis. A good hazard analysis is essential to obtain an efficient HACCP plan, but it is frequent to declare the implementation of hygiene measures as a ‘‘HACCP concept’’ without carry out a specific hazard analysis (Untermann, 1999; Panisello et al., 1999). Besides, evaluated plans had an enormous number of CCP (up to 253), most of them should not be considered as that, which show that the difference between control point and critical control point is not well understood (Camino et al., 2000; Taylor, 2001). On the other hand, pre-requisites are considered a basic pillar to build solid self-control system. They
335
are indispensable to develop and implement successful HACCP plans, being their aim to provide necessary conditions for the production of wholesome and suitable food, apart of safe (Mortajemi & K€aferstein, 1999; Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997; NACMCF, 1998; Mortimore, 2001). Results indicate that neither the relation between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan (Wallance & Williams, 2001) nor that the former should be documented and regularly audited but established and managed separately are well understood (NACMCF, 1998). Therefore, lack of understanding among food companiesÕ personnel is replaced by contracting external consultants but results show this barrier is still present, because HACCP must be developed, verified and maintained by experts (Mortimore & Wallace, 1996). At attitude level, respect ‘‘lack of agreement (A1)’’ half industry respondents think the system is useful and has long term benefits, and 18.7% think it is a waste of time. When consultants were asked about the benefits perceived by companies, 9.1% say ‘‘none’’ and 72.7% answer ‘‘safer products’’. These data are similar to those obtained by different authors (Henson, Holt, & Northen, 1999; Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 2000). Related with the barrier ‘‘lack of self-efficacy (A2)’’, 43.7% of industry respondents think their company could do the controls with the personnel it had at the time of inquiry, although plans were really complex and have many CCP, registers and controls. Nevertheless, 26% think it will be necessary more personnel to do the controls and 15.5% think it will be impossible to do them. Respect ‘‘lack of outcome expectancy (A3)’’, 25% of industry respondents think there will be no difference after applying HACCP in their companies and the same percentage thinks that the system could be only carried out in big companies. Among advisers, 72.7% answer that the company they assess considers that HACCP requires too much effort comparing with the safety it gives. These difficulties must be seriously considered when strategies of intervention were planned, specially in small businesses where owner-managers must be convinced that the system is both effective and practical in the context of their businesses (Taylor, 2001). In relation with ‘‘lack of motivation (A4)’’ 75% of industry respondents say they would like to carry out self-control although it was not compulsory and 93.7% answer they would like to change the way they work to produce safer products. The consultants view at this point is very different for only 18.2% think that advised company would like to do it if it was not compulsory, and 54.5% think they would carry it out if it were a customer necessity even being voluntary. Advisers point of view coincide with data of British studies, showing that heavier factors to implement HACCP are meet legal
336
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
requirements and meet the needs of major customers (Henson et al., 1999; Taylor, 2001; Panisello et al., 1999). Theoretically, motivation does not seem to be a barrier in HACCP application because there is a desire of change if it means safer products and most respondents perceive long term benefits, but some consultants and industry system managers say that a major problem for implementation is the lack of commitment of the board of directors (most meeting assistants were personnel without governing function). Besides, the method used for questioning could carry a deviation, because most or least motivated people usually answer these surveys, and possibly the first came to the meeting. It is important to remember that successfulness of HACCP systems depends on the education, training and motivation of both managing and working personnel (Mortajemi & K€ aferstein, 1999; NACMCF, 1998; Mortimore & Wallace, 1996). Among difficulties related to behaviour, there were no questions included in the survey related with ‘‘lack of cueing mechanism (B1)’’ since legislation obliges to the implementation of self-control systems based on HACCP and any studied company were under administationÕs pressure (requiring letter, penalties, etc). Questions about ‘‘lack of competence (B2)’’ were neither asked, but the companies with a self-control system in place thought it was adequate, although 100% of evaluated plans were rejected. This barrier, however, should not be difficult to overcome seeing that correct program will probably mean a simplification and that it is about establishing proper documentation in already implemented systems. As for ‘‘negative environmental factors (B3)’’ insufficient time is the major barrier obstructing HACCP application according to company and adviser respondents, ahead of education/training and money. Indeed, most of studied companies are small and for them ‘‘time is money and costs too much’’ and even giving them facilities for education and training or economic aids to implement the system, many has to stop the production to attend courses or meet the consultants (Taylor, 2001; Henson et al., 1999). ‘‘Negative guideline factors (B4)’’ seems to be a very important barrier, for there are difficulties to put in practice the existing knowledge, specially to conduct the hazard analysis and to establish a correct interaction between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan. This agrees with Gilling et al. (2001), for most guides appear simple at first glance, but they are of difficult interpretation, adaptation and application. There is also much recent bibliography bewildered and bad translated, some from official sources, which makes that methodology was misinterpreted (Untermann, 1999; Taylor, 2001). Besides, the system itself has been modified and revised by international bodies, adding new definitions
and providing more detailed explanation of the basic principles, and even adding new pre-requisite programs (NACMCF, 1998). Most detailed guides and the most interesting and useful articles to clarify concepts are usually in English, which probably impedes their divulging and understanding within our country. Among the administration activities to facilitate HACCP development and implementation, the highest score from companies was for the meetings with inspectors and inspectorsÕ visits to their establishments; references provided from administration (reports, books, articles) and written reports had a lower score. In regard of ‘‘customer and negative external factors (B5)’’ there was not found that any customer were requiring self-control systems distinct from HACCP. It was said both in the inquiry and at the talk that followed it, that there are different criteria among inspectors and that this is an important barrier. Food consultants are not always experts in HACCP and as result of knowledge shown, sometimes their advice is inappropriate. There is a big confusion between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan, their relations and how they should be managed. This gets worse because there is a lack of specific hazard analysis. The reasons for this misunderstanding are located on negative guideline factors and lack of understanding, being difficult to say which barrier takes place first. As all this occurs among industry personnel and external consultant, it generates a barrier of negative external factors. Administration should plan actions in order to develop clear and detailed guides in Spanish for HACCP system, with special attention to hazard analysis and pre-requisites programs and their relation with HACCP plan. There are also interactions between attitude related barriers (lack of agreement and lack of outcome expectancy) which are obstructing the change of behaviour although there is motivation to do so. It should be convenient to plan activities targeted to consultants, managers and owners with the aim of improving knowledge and understanding, and to improve the attitude to achieve that business management includes food safety.
References Camino, E., El Busto, I., Gonzalez, C., Fernandez, S., Mallada, P., & Echaniz, I. (2000). Problematica de los puntos de control cualitativos en los planes HACCP. Congreso internacional de autocontrol y seguridad alimentaria (pp. 80). San Sebastian. Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997). Recommended International Code of Practice-General Principles of Food Hygiene. CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev.3 and anex. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2000). Survey of the implementation of HACCP and food hygiene training in Irish food businesses. Available: http://www.fsai.ie.
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337 Gilling, S., Taylor, E. A., Kane, K., & Taylor, J. Z. (2001). Successful hazard analysis critical control point implementation in the United Kingdom: understanding the barriers through the use of a behavioral adherence model. Journal of Food Protection, 64(5), 710–715. Henson, S., Holt, G., & Northen, J. (1999). Cost and benefits of implementing HACCP in the U.K. dairy processing sector. Food Control, 10, 99–106. Mortimore, S. (2000). An example of some procedures used to assess HACCP systems within the food manufacturing industry. Food Control, 11, 403–413. Mortimore, S. (2001). How to make HACCP really work in practice. Food Control, 12, 209–215. Mortimore, S., & Wallace, C. (1996). HACCP enfoque practico. Zaragoza: Ed. Acribia, S.A. Mortlock, M. P., Peters, A. C., & Griffith, J. (1999). Food hygiene and hazard analysis critical control point in the United Kingdom food industry: practices, perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Food Protection, 62(7), 786–792. Motarjemi, Y., & K€ aferstein, F. (1999). Food safety, HACCP and the increase in foodborne diseases: a paradox? Food Control, 10, 325– 333.
337
NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods) (1998). HACCP principles and application guidelines. Journal of Food Protection, 61(9), 1246–1259. Panisello, P. J., Quantick, P. C., & Knowles, M. J. (1999). Towards the implementation of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey. Food Control, 10, 87–98. Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2001). Technical barriers to hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food Control, 12, 165–173. Sallares Sanmartı, L. (1992). Educaci on sanitaria: conceptos, campos de acci on, agentes y las bases cientıficas de la modificaci on de los comportamientos de salud. In: G. Piedrola Gil (Ed.), Medicina preventiva y salud publica (pp. 1039–1062). Barcelona: MassonSalvat Medicina. Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden? Food Control, 12, 217–222. Untermann, F. (1999). Food safety management and misinterpretation of HACCP. Food Control, 10, 161–167. Wallance, C., & Williams, T. (2001). Pre-requisites: a help or a hindrance to HACCP? Food Control, 12, 235–240. World Health Organization (1999). Strategies for implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed businesses. WHO/SDE/ PHE/FOS/99.7.
Barriers for the developing and implementation of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey A. Ramırez Vela *, J. Martın Fern andez Centro de Salud P ublica Area VIII, Consejerıa de Sanidad Comunidad de Madrid, Avda, Legan es 25, 28925 Alcorc on, Spain Received 11 January 2002; received in revised form 4 August 2002; accepted 6 August 2002
Abstract Despite the fact of compulsory HACCP plan in the regulations, their development and implementation is being difficult and slow. This paper present a survey in an area of Madrid to identify the barriers which are obstructing the implementation of HACCP programs in food companies, following the model of eleven potential barriers organised around three levels proposed by Gillings et al. [J. Food Protect. 64(5) (2001) 710]. The results suggested that lack of understanding and negative guideline factors conduce to inadequate hazard analysis, and this is not solved contacting external advisers. There are also problems at attitude level which obstruct the change of behaviour. It is suggested that regulatory agencies should work to publish clear and detailed HACCP guides in Spanish and to promote activities aimed to external consultants and industry managers and directives. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: HACCP; Barriers
1. Introduction The HACCP system is a science-based system created to identify specific hazards and actions to control them in order to ensure food safety. It is also a systematic process: a sequence of twelve tasks has been described, in which the seven basic HACCP principles are included (Fig. 1) (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997). The system can be considered an efficient tool for both industry and health authorities to prevent foodborne diseases if it is based on understanding and proper implementation, because it is not HACCP system itself which makes food safe, but its correct application (Mortajemi & K€ aferstein, 1999; Mortimore, 2000). Success in implementing and maintaining a HACCP program depends on how its four basic pillars (commitment, education and training, availability of resources and external pressure) are prioritised and organised in a company (Panisello & Quantick, 2001).
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +34-91-642-59-44. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ramırez Vela).
The European Union is introducing in its legislative proposal of Food Hygiene 2000/178 (COD) the obligation of complying Codex seven basic principles of HACCP; the principles mentioned nowadays in European Council Directive 93/43/EEC differ considerably of them. Despite the fact of compulsory self-control systems in the regulations, their development and implementation is being slow and complicated, because in order to modify behaviours and correct implementing HACCP programs it is essential an attitude change (Sallares Sanmartı, 1992; Mortajemi & K€aferstein, 1999). To achieve this, besides adequate and available information there should be motivation, and some barriers associated to that attitude change must be overcome. Nevertheless, attitude change not always carries a change in behaviour. It is necessary to know how to change and have help to do it (Sallares Sanmartı, 1992). Gilling, Taylor, Kane, and Taylor (2001) have proposed a HACCP awareness to adherence model, showing eleven potential knowledge, attitude and behaviour-related barriers involved in failures of HACCP guideline adherence. It provides a diagnostic tool identifying and locating problems and therefore facilitating
0956-7135/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00098-1
334
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
The final aim is to overcome those barriers and achieve adequate, efficient and well implemented HACCP plans.
3. Materials and methods
Fig. 1. Logic sequence for the application of HACCP.
constructive and efficient interventions. It is established that through the sequential inclusion of each of the three stages more sustainable change or adherence to those changes can be achieved (Fig. 2). For public administration is important to do detailed diagnoses to adequate its targeted interventions in order to maximising its resources. Simplistic assumptions lead to erroneous actions or with scarce impact in the population which means not only a poor resources management but also the loose of interest among the groups involved. 2. Objective To identify the main difficulties and barriers in developing and implementing HACCP plans in food industries located in the District of Alcorc on and in the VII Health Area of Community of Madrid (Spain).
Lack of adherence
Successful Adherence
There have been two stages in this study. In the first, Community of MadridÕs strategy for implementing selfcontrol systems which considers industrial establishments of dairy, meat and fish products as a priority, was followed. Companies among those sectors were asked by letter to submit their HACCP plans to regulatory authority, to be evaluated by a team of four veterinarian inspectors with education in HACCP systems. Once evaluated, two team members held a meeting with businessÕ representatives and their food assessors (if any) to inform about misconceptions, mistakes and gaps found in the plan. The information was also sent as a written report which included an expiry date to submit an adequate HACCP plan. During the meeting, adequate bibliography both in Spanish and English was offered to companies and external consultants. There are 29 food industries of the prioritised sectors (22 of meat sector, 5 of fish products and 2 of dairy products) in the area of study. Most of them could be included among small and/or less developed businesses following Codex criteria (WHO, 1999). A checklist with the 12 stages of the Codex logic sequence for HACCP system was used as a tool, all the questions with just ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer. At the second stage of the survey, industries and external consultants were invited by letter to a session to show first stage results and to dialogue about selfcontrol systems. During the session, they were asked to
BARRIERS
BEHAVIOR
ATTITUDE
KNOWLEDGE
Fig. 2. HACCP awareness to adherence model (from Gilling et al. (2001)).
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
complete a questionnaire (two models, one for industries and other for consultants, both with 17 closed questions, one opened and two valoratives) about basic HACCP concepts, perceptions of the system, problems to the implementation, relationship between industry and consultants and authorities role. To evaluate the results, the model proposed by Gilling et al. (2001) was followed, grouping data in three levels to identify most important barriers.
4. Results and discussion 29 HACCP plans were evaluated at first stage (100%). 16 completed surveys from companies and 11 (out of 12) from consultants were obtained, which means a response rate of 55.2% and 91.6%, respectively. Other authors obtained rates of response between 15.3% and 17.5% with mailing (Panisello, Quantick, & Knowles, 1999; Mortlock, Peters, & Griffith, 1999) or 64.4% using phone interview (Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 2000). At knowledge level, the barrier ‘‘lack of awareness (K1)’’ did not exit, for every respondent had heard about HACCP, among other reasons because the letter requiring HACCP plan enclosed information about it as an annex and meetings had been held with all the companies at the time of inquiry. Results about ‘‘lack of understanding (K2)’’ show that 46.6% of industry respondents say to have good knowledge of HACCP, 46.6% to have not-bad knowledge and 6.6% say to know HACCP badly. However, only 26.6 of them related the system with food safety and 73.3% relate it to food quality. On the other hand, 72.7% of consultant respondents said to have good knowledge of HACCP, and most of them related it with safety, although 18.2% related the system exclusively with food quality. 81.8% answered that pre-requisites should be in place before starting a HACCP system and 72.7% that the correct way to conduct a hazard analysis consist in identifying potential hazards and determine their risk (likelihood and severity), but 100% of the plans lack of documented hazard analysis. A good hazard analysis is essential to obtain an efficient HACCP plan, but it is frequent to declare the implementation of hygiene measures as a ‘‘HACCP concept’’ without carry out a specific hazard analysis (Untermann, 1999; Panisello et al., 1999). Besides, evaluated plans had an enormous number of CCP (up to 253), most of them should not be considered as that, which show that the difference between control point and critical control point is not well understood (Camino et al., 2000; Taylor, 2001). On the other hand, pre-requisites are considered a basic pillar to build solid self-control system. They
335
are indispensable to develop and implement successful HACCP plans, being their aim to provide necessary conditions for the production of wholesome and suitable food, apart of safe (Mortajemi & K€aferstein, 1999; Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997; NACMCF, 1998; Mortimore, 2001). Results indicate that neither the relation between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan (Wallance & Williams, 2001) nor that the former should be documented and regularly audited but established and managed separately are well understood (NACMCF, 1998). Therefore, lack of understanding among food companiesÕ personnel is replaced by contracting external consultants but results show this barrier is still present, because HACCP must be developed, verified and maintained by experts (Mortimore & Wallace, 1996). At attitude level, respect ‘‘lack of agreement (A1)’’ half industry respondents think the system is useful and has long term benefits, and 18.7% think it is a waste of time. When consultants were asked about the benefits perceived by companies, 9.1% say ‘‘none’’ and 72.7% answer ‘‘safer products’’. These data are similar to those obtained by different authors (Henson, Holt, & Northen, 1999; Food Safety Authority of Ireland, 2000). Related with the barrier ‘‘lack of self-efficacy (A2)’’, 43.7% of industry respondents think their company could do the controls with the personnel it had at the time of inquiry, although plans were really complex and have many CCP, registers and controls. Nevertheless, 26% think it will be necessary more personnel to do the controls and 15.5% think it will be impossible to do them. Respect ‘‘lack of outcome expectancy (A3)’’, 25% of industry respondents think there will be no difference after applying HACCP in their companies and the same percentage thinks that the system could be only carried out in big companies. Among advisers, 72.7% answer that the company they assess considers that HACCP requires too much effort comparing with the safety it gives. These difficulties must be seriously considered when strategies of intervention were planned, specially in small businesses where owner-managers must be convinced that the system is both effective and practical in the context of their businesses (Taylor, 2001). In relation with ‘‘lack of motivation (A4)’’ 75% of industry respondents say they would like to carry out self-control although it was not compulsory and 93.7% answer they would like to change the way they work to produce safer products. The consultants view at this point is very different for only 18.2% think that advised company would like to do it if it was not compulsory, and 54.5% think they would carry it out if it were a customer necessity even being voluntary. Advisers point of view coincide with data of British studies, showing that heavier factors to implement HACCP are meet legal
336
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337
requirements and meet the needs of major customers (Henson et al., 1999; Taylor, 2001; Panisello et al., 1999). Theoretically, motivation does not seem to be a barrier in HACCP application because there is a desire of change if it means safer products and most respondents perceive long term benefits, but some consultants and industry system managers say that a major problem for implementation is the lack of commitment of the board of directors (most meeting assistants were personnel without governing function). Besides, the method used for questioning could carry a deviation, because most or least motivated people usually answer these surveys, and possibly the first came to the meeting. It is important to remember that successfulness of HACCP systems depends on the education, training and motivation of both managing and working personnel (Mortajemi & K€ aferstein, 1999; NACMCF, 1998; Mortimore & Wallace, 1996). Among difficulties related to behaviour, there were no questions included in the survey related with ‘‘lack of cueing mechanism (B1)’’ since legislation obliges to the implementation of self-control systems based on HACCP and any studied company were under administationÕs pressure (requiring letter, penalties, etc). Questions about ‘‘lack of competence (B2)’’ were neither asked, but the companies with a self-control system in place thought it was adequate, although 100% of evaluated plans were rejected. This barrier, however, should not be difficult to overcome seeing that correct program will probably mean a simplification and that it is about establishing proper documentation in already implemented systems. As for ‘‘negative environmental factors (B3)’’ insufficient time is the major barrier obstructing HACCP application according to company and adviser respondents, ahead of education/training and money. Indeed, most of studied companies are small and for them ‘‘time is money and costs too much’’ and even giving them facilities for education and training or economic aids to implement the system, many has to stop the production to attend courses or meet the consultants (Taylor, 2001; Henson et al., 1999). ‘‘Negative guideline factors (B4)’’ seems to be a very important barrier, for there are difficulties to put in practice the existing knowledge, specially to conduct the hazard analysis and to establish a correct interaction between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan. This agrees with Gilling et al. (2001), for most guides appear simple at first glance, but they are of difficult interpretation, adaptation and application. There is also much recent bibliography bewildered and bad translated, some from official sources, which makes that methodology was misinterpreted (Untermann, 1999; Taylor, 2001). Besides, the system itself has been modified and revised by international bodies, adding new definitions
and providing more detailed explanation of the basic principles, and even adding new pre-requisite programs (NACMCF, 1998). Most detailed guides and the most interesting and useful articles to clarify concepts are usually in English, which probably impedes their divulging and understanding within our country. Among the administration activities to facilitate HACCP development and implementation, the highest score from companies was for the meetings with inspectors and inspectorsÕ visits to their establishments; references provided from administration (reports, books, articles) and written reports had a lower score. In regard of ‘‘customer and negative external factors (B5)’’ there was not found that any customer were requiring self-control systems distinct from HACCP. It was said both in the inquiry and at the talk that followed it, that there are different criteria among inspectors and that this is an important barrier. Food consultants are not always experts in HACCP and as result of knowledge shown, sometimes their advice is inappropriate. There is a big confusion between pre-requisite programs and HACCP plan, their relations and how they should be managed. This gets worse because there is a lack of specific hazard analysis. The reasons for this misunderstanding are located on negative guideline factors and lack of understanding, being difficult to say which barrier takes place first. As all this occurs among industry personnel and external consultant, it generates a barrier of negative external factors. Administration should plan actions in order to develop clear and detailed guides in Spanish for HACCP system, with special attention to hazard analysis and pre-requisites programs and their relation with HACCP plan. There are also interactions between attitude related barriers (lack of agreement and lack of outcome expectancy) which are obstructing the change of behaviour although there is motivation to do so. It should be convenient to plan activities targeted to consultants, managers and owners with the aim of improving knowledge and understanding, and to improve the attitude to achieve that business management includes food safety.
References Camino, E., El Busto, I., Gonzalez, C., Fernandez, S., Mallada, P., & Echaniz, I. (2000). Problematica de los puntos de control cualitativos en los planes HACCP. Congreso internacional de autocontrol y seguridad alimentaria (pp. 80). San Sebastian. Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997). Recommended International Code of Practice-General Principles of Food Hygiene. CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev.3 and anex. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2000). Survey of the implementation of HACCP and food hygiene training in Irish food businesses. Available: http://www.fsai.ie.
A. Ramırez Vela, J. Martın Fernandez / Food Control 14 (2003) 333–337 Gilling, S., Taylor, E. A., Kane, K., & Taylor, J. Z. (2001). Successful hazard analysis critical control point implementation in the United Kingdom: understanding the barriers through the use of a behavioral adherence model. Journal of Food Protection, 64(5), 710–715. Henson, S., Holt, G., & Northen, J. (1999). Cost and benefits of implementing HACCP in the U.K. dairy processing sector. Food Control, 10, 99–106. Mortimore, S. (2000). An example of some procedures used to assess HACCP systems within the food manufacturing industry. Food Control, 11, 403–413. Mortimore, S. (2001). How to make HACCP really work in practice. Food Control, 12, 209–215. Mortimore, S., & Wallace, C. (1996). HACCP enfoque practico. Zaragoza: Ed. Acribia, S.A. Mortlock, M. P., Peters, A. C., & Griffith, J. (1999). Food hygiene and hazard analysis critical control point in the United Kingdom food industry: practices, perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Food Protection, 62(7), 786–792. Motarjemi, Y., & K€ aferstein, F. (1999). Food safety, HACCP and the increase in foodborne diseases: a paradox? Food Control, 10, 325– 333.
337
NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods) (1998). HACCP principles and application guidelines. Journal of Food Protection, 61(9), 1246–1259. Panisello, P. J., Quantick, P. C., & Knowles, M. J. (1999). Towards the implementation of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey. Food Control, 10, 87–98. Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2001). Technical barriers to hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food Control, 12, 165–173. Sallares Sanmartı, L. (1992). Educaci on sanitaria: conceptos, campos de acci on, agentes y las bases cientıficas de la modificaci on de los comportamientos de salud. In: G. Piedrola Gil (Ed.), Medicina preventiva y salud publica (pp. 1039–1062). Barcelona: MassonSalvat Medicina. Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden? Food Control, 12, 217–222. Untermann, F. (1999). Food safety management and misinterpretation of HACCP. Food Control, 10, 161–167. Wallance, C., & Williams, T. (2001). Pre-requisites: a help or a hindrance to HACCP? Food Control, 12, 235–240. World Health Organization (1999). Strategies for implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed businesses. WHO/SDE/ PHE/FOS/99.7.