NEHA May 2024 Journal of Environmental Health

ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE

Conclusion Our research examined the propensity for food safety inspection to provide an e ective health protection measure. We found that current food safety inspection approaches lack a clear methodology, particularly in terms of theoretical links between the research goal and the required evidence, analytical meth- ods for coherent interpretation of data gath- ered, and the means to maintain rigor and attend to bias. Unless adequate checks and balances are established, the imbalanced emphasis applied by inspectors on areas of focus and methods of assessment will remain. Thus, a robust food safety inspection meth- odology with mechanisms to overcome the limitations of current food safety practices

should be established and implemented for food safety inspections to meet their objec- tive. This methodology should include: • A position that food safety inspection is synonymous with research. • A research question that has coherent links to the causation of foodborne illness. •A hypothetico-deductive approach to inquiry to reduce the potential for bias. • An investigative framework that employs a variety of data-gathering methods. • Equal priority and emphasis when assess- ing food preparation points, processes, and contamination sources for control. •An interpretive framework that consists of seven decision criteria for determining control that is based on HACCP principles.

• An interpretive framework that facilitates examination and comparison of various data when determining control. Establishing and implementing a method- ology that includes these elements will over- come the limitations identified with the cur- rent approach and subsequently improve the ecacy of food safety inspection as a health protection measure. Corresponding Author: Jason Barnes, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, 1 Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia. Email: jason.barnes@latrobe.edu.au.

References

Almanza, B., & Ghiselli, R. (2014). Food safety: Researching the haz- ard in hazardous foods . Apple Academic Press. Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P.A. (2008). The ‘elasticity’ of crim- inal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 (9), 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432 Bailey, C.A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Barnes, J., & Mitchell, R.T. (2000). HACCP in the United King- dom. Food Control , 11 (5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0956-7135(99)00033-X Borraz, O., Beaussier, A.-L., Wesseling, M., Demeritt, D., Rothstein, H., Hermans, M., Huber, M., & Paul, R. (2022). Why regula- tors assess risk di erently: Regulatory style, business organiza- tion, and the varied practice of risk-based food safety inspections across the EU. Regulation & Governance , 16 (1), 274–292. https:// doi.org/10.1111/rego.12320 Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003115700 Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Dien, Y., Dechy, N., & Guillaume, E. (2012). Accident investigation: From searching direct causes to finding in-depth causes—Prob- lem of analysis or/and of analyst? Safety Science , 50 (6), 1398– 1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.010 Dror, I.E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert deci- sion making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analyti- cal Chemistry , 92 (12), 7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. analchem.0c00704

Drury, C.G., Richards, I., Sarac, A., Shyhalla, K., Woodcock, K., & Watson, J. (2000). Measuring the eectiveness of error investigation and human factors training . Fielding, N.G., & Fielding, J.L. (1986). Linking data . Sage Publica- tions, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984775 Fleetwood, J., Rahman, S., Holland, D., Millson, D., Thomson, L., & Poppy, G. (2019). As clean as they look? Food hygiene inspection scores, microbiological contamination, and food- borne illness. Food Control , 96 , 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodcont.2018.08.034 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2002). Manual on the application of the HACCP system in mycotoxin pre- vention and control (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 73). https:// openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/Y1390E Green, R.M., & Kane, K. (2014). The e ective enforcement of HACCP based food safety management systems in the UK. Food Control , 37 , 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.016 Grith, C.J. (2005). Are we making the most of food safety inspec- tions? A glimpse into the future. British Food Journal , 107 (3), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510586452 Hueston, W.D. (2013). BSE and variant CJD: Emerging science, public pressure and the vagaries of policy-making. Preventive Vet- erinary Medicine , 109 (3–4), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. prevetmed.2012.11.023 International Association for Food Protection. (2011). Procedures to investigate foodborne illness (6th ed.). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8396-1 Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Sage Pub- lications, Inc. MacLean, C.L. (2022). Cognitive bias in workplace investiga- tion: Problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Applied

Volume 86 • Number 9