STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

sponsored by

SPONSORED CONTENT

2 State of the Employee Hygiene Market meritech

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

ABOUT THE SURVEYSponsored by Meritech, QA’s 2020 State of the Employee Hygiene Market survey was conducted by Readex Research, a private-ly held research firm based in Stillwater, Minn. The February 2020 survey sample of food processing managers and executives was systematically selected from the cir-culation file of Quality Assurance & Food Safety (QA). Data was collected from 258 recipients of QA’s digital magazine and/or e-newsletter at unique U.S. company lo-cations. Of these, 198 work for a company with at least one food facility and are the basis of this report. The margin of error for percentages is ±6.8 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The margin of error for percentages based on smaller sample sizes will be larger. Specific results may not add up to 100% due to rounding or respondents’ ability to select multiple responses.

INTRODUCTION The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world’s focus on many areas, one of which is the importance of personal hygiene, particularly that of handwashing. However, as reflected by the responses to QA’s State of the Hygiene Market survey sponsored by Meritech, employee hygiene, particularly handwashing, is of importance as a standard operating practice for the food and beverage processing industry. This is particularly notable as the survey was distributed in early February before community spread had been detected in the U.S.

In fact, no respondents ranked handwashing, personal hygiene, or ill-worker separation from food as unimportant in their facility. With the further emphasis that has been put on these areas during the pandemic, it is likely that we will see a post-COVID world — both within and out-side the food industry — that places an even greater emphasis on hygiene

SURVEY RESPONDENTSFigure 1. Number of food facilities:

9% 2% 9% 26% 32% 23%20 or more

10 – 19 5 – 9 2 – 4 1 None*

*Not included in remaining survey responses(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 256)

Figure 2. Job title/function:

Quality control/assurance 42%

Food safety 34%

Corporate management 9%

Plant manager 6%

Buyer/purchaser 2%

Sanitarian 1%

Other/no response 7%(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198)

Figure 3. Food manufactured, processed, packed or stored:

Beverages 24%Meat, seafood 24%Baked goods 20%

Fresh or fresh-cut produce 20%

Snack foods 20%Dairy 18%

Flour, grains, cereal 16%Frozen or canned

produce 13%Vitamins, supplements 7%

Oils, fats, malts 6%Cannabis or hemp

edibles 2%Other 23%

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198)

meritech State of the Employee Hygiene Market 3

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

EMPLOYEE HYGIENE?M

aintaining employ-ee health and hygiene in a food facility is not only a standard prac-tice, it is mandated un-

der the Personnel section of the Preventive Controls Rule of the Food Safety Modernization Act (Title 12: Part 117.10). The rule states that management of a covered food facility must take reasonable measures and pre-cautions to ensure disease con-trol and cleanliness, to include:

Disease control. Personnel with diseases or other condi-tions that could contaminate food are to be excluded from manufacturing operations.

Personal hygiene. For those working in direct contact with food, food-contact surfaces, and food-packaging materials:• Clothing must protect against

allergen cross-contact and contamination of food,

food-contact surfaces, or food-packaging materials.

• Hands must be thoroughly washed before starting work, after each absence from the workstation, and at any oth-er time when the hands may have become soiled or con-taminated.

• Jewelry is to be removed or, if unremovable, covered by ma-terial which can be maintained in an intact, clean, and sanitary condition and effectively pro-tect against the contamination of food, food-contact surfaces, or food-packaging.

• Gloves are to be intact, clean, and sanitary.

Training. Employees must be trained in the principles of food hygiene and food safety, includ-ing the importance of employee health and hygiene as appropri-ate to the food, facility, and indi-vidual’s duties. Records of train-ing must be maintained.

The food industry is certainly on the right track as, when com-bined, more than 90% rank most of the key aspects of person-al hygiene as being important (4) or very important (5) practic-es in their facilities (Figure 4). But it is somewhat concerning to note that only 72% rank shoe/boot sanitation as important or very important and 13% give it little im-portance, with 5% responding that it has no importance at all. (See page 6 for more on this topic.)

While all respondents also stated that they do have per-sonal hygiene standards, fewer had these standards in writing, except that of handwashing, and

even fewer provided employees with any education on or expla-nation of the “why” behind the established policies (Figure 5).

One area in which we may see some change resulting from the current COVID-19 sit-uation is that of sick leave for floor workers (Figure 6). While most companies do communi-cate to workers that they should stay home if they are sick, near-ly one-third did not provide sick leave for these employees.

Figure 4. How important are each of the following to your facility?

Hygiene Factor Very Important Not At All Important

5 4 3 2 1

Handwashing 95% 4% 1% 0% 0%

Ill worker separation from food 86% 10% 4% 0% 0%

Personal hygiene 84% 14% 2% 0% 0%

Clothing cleanliness 78% 16% 5% 1% 0%

Shoe/boot sanitation 48% 24% 17% 8% 3%

Overall Average 78% 14% 6% 2% 1%

Figure 5. Does your facility have set, written employee hygiene standards?All respondents stated that they have set employee hygiene standards, with 94% of those having the standards in writing. Those written standards include:

HOW IMPORTANT IS

98%A

handwashing policy

86%Policy

education/explanation

51%A shoe/

bootwashing policy

1%None of

these

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 186, those with written standards)

Figure 6. Does your facility communicate to its employees that it is acceptable to miss work if they are ill?

95%

Yes:63% Provide paid sick leave for floor workers

32% Do not provide paid sick leave for floor workers

3% Unsure

2% No (Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198)

4 State of the Employee Hygiene Market meritech

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

HANDSARE DOING ABOUT…WHAT COMPANIES

Given the importance respondents have placed on personal hygiene practices and standards, what, specifically is being implemented related to hands, gloves, and fOOTWEAR?

CLEAN HANDS KEEP

YOU HEALTHY.

Wash your hands with soap and water for at least

20 SECONDS.

LIFE IS BETTER WITH

www.cdc.gov/handwashing

This material was developed by CDC. The Life is Better with Clean Hands Campaign is made possible by a partnership between the CDC Foundation, GOJO, and Staples. HHS/CDC does not endorse commercial products, services, or companies.

CDC 20-second handwashing poster.

To determine their extent of knowl-edge, survey participants were asked about proper handwashing procedures. While only 84% knew that handwashing should take at

least 20 seconds (Figure 7), this closely corresponds with the total percentage of respondents (83%) in roles (food safety, quality control/assurance, plant managers and sanitarians) most likely to be responsible for training and work-ing with employees on hygiene (Figure 2, page 2).

That training is being conducted, as 93% of respondents said their em-ployees are trained on handwashing, with the highest numbers being trained upon hire (89%), through signs at hand-washing sinks (85%) and during regular food safety training (75%) (Figure 8). With the exception of signage, training is infrequently conducted as the majority (52%) repeated handwashing training only annually (Figure 9). However, 53% supervise handwashing (Figure 10), so further training could be conducted at that time, if needed.

There has been a continually repeated emphasis on 20-second handwashing as a preventive measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. This, too, is an area in which we are likely to see a focus retained well into the “new normal” of the post-pandemic era.

89% General training upon hire85% Signs at handwashing sinks75% In regular food safety training52% At annual meetings51% In the employee handbook4% Other

Figure 7. If hands are washed manually, how long should this take?(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198)

84%20 seconds

or more

11%15 seconds

2%10 seconds

or less

3%Until they look clean

Figure 8. Handwashing Training93% of respondents stated their facility trains employees on handwashing through a variety of actions including...

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 184, those who train)

Figure 10. How is handwashing managed at your facility?

53% 17% 3% 35%It’s

supervisedIt’s

manually tracked

It’s automatically

tracked

None of these

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198) © R

OM

ANR

| A

DOBE

STO

CK

meritech State of the Employee Hygiene Market 5

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

In addition to food facilities having requirements for handwashing, 78% of respondents stated that they require the use of gloves. However, those requirements for who must wear gloves and where and when they must be worn vary

between businesses (Figure 11). The most common requirement is that any employees who contact the food itself are required to wear gloves (85%), and close to half of those who require gloves mandate them of all employees in the processing area (41%).

In some cases, visitors also must don gloves, par-ticularly those who have polished nails or do not re-

move rings (30%); and about a fifth (17%) require that all visitors in the processing area wear gloves.

While it may seem duplicative to wash hands if gloves are to be worn, it is in fact a regulation that this be done. As stated in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Part 112, hygienic practices of personnel who handle (contact) covered produce or food contact surfaces include “washing hands thoroughly…before putting on gloves.” Not only do 93% of respondents follow that practice, but 31% of those also require that hands be washed after the wearing of gloves as well (Figure 12).

However, the Conference for Food Protection has clarified that this does not mean hands must be washed every time gloves are changed even when performing the same task. Rather, employees should be allowed to change gloves without having to wash their hands when they are performing the same task without increased risk of cross-contamination and when handling raw food and not increasing the risk of cross-contamination with RTE foods or clean food contact surfaces. GLOVES

Figure 9. Handwashing

training is repeated

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 184, those who train)

5%

52%

4%Daily

2%Weekly

9%Monthly

11%Quarterly

17%Bi-annually

Annually

Less often than annually

Figure 11. Of those who require gloves, they are required for:

85% 41% 30% 17% 6%Employees

who contact food

All employees

in the processing

area

Certain visitors in the

processing area (e.g.,

those with rings, nail

polish, etc.)

All visitors in the

processing area

Other

Figure 12. Hand or glove washing

© R

OM

ANR

| A

DOBE

STO

CK

62%

2%

31%5%

Before donning gloves After donning gloves Both before and after Neither before nor after(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 155, those who require gloves)

Those who wear gloves must wash their hands...

6 State of the Employee Hygiene Market meritech

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

ARE DOING ABOUT…WHAT COMPANIES FOOTWEARS

hoes and boots can be a significant source of con-tamination in a food facility. As was stated in a 2008 University of Arizona study,

and has been recently reinforced by coronavirus transmission research (such as that explained in a Penn State Extension article), bacteria can be carried into food facilities on the surfaces and soles of workers’, visitors’, and customers’ shoes.

In the University of Arizona re-search, coliform and E. coli bacte-ria were found on 96% of the out-side of shoes studied, indicating frequent contact with fecal mate-rial. The study also indicated that bacteria can be tracked by shoes over a long distance.

Despite these findings, 34% of food facilities have no footwear hygiene system (Figure 13) and 57% do not provide boots or shoe coverings for employees or vis-itors (Figure 14). There may be some overlap between these — with those not providing boots or shoe covers instead having a footwear hygiene system. How-ever, with Figure 3 (page 2) show-ing that 13% of respondents saw shoe/boot san-itation as having little or no im-portance, we can likely assume that at least 13% have no pro-cedures in place for reduc-

© IN

DUST

RIEB

LICK

|

ADO

BE S

TOCK

© N

EW A

FRIC

A |

ADO

BE S

TOCK

Figure 13. Type of footwear hygiene system(s)

25% 21% 20% 16% 13%Footbath/boot

dipFloor foamer Footwear covers

or bootiesDry quat pellets Tacky mats

9% 7% 6% 7% 34%Automated step-

in systemAutomated walk-through system

Foot-activated step-in machine

Other None

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198) Figure 14. Facility-provided boots or shoe

covers?

57%No

43%Yes

Why?To further prevent contamination

34%

To protect employee or visitor shoes

9%

For other reasons 10%34% of facilities have no footwear hygiene system.

ing bacterial contamination of foot traffic. It is also feasible that at least some of the 34% (in Fig-

ure 14) who have no footwear hygiene system are among the 34% (in Figure 15) who provide boots or shoe covers for the purpose of fur-

ther preventing contamination. Howev-er, having no footwear hygiene system — such

as the footbath/boot dip and floor foamer used by 25% and 21%, respectively — pro-vides for no control of the contamination that could be carried into a food area on the wheels of equipment and tools.

meritech State of the Employee Hygiene Market 7

STATE OF THE EMPLOYEE HYGIENE MARKET

It may, at first, appear from Figure 15 that employee hy-giene is not that important since only 4% responded that they had had an incident

related to lack of handwashing or shoe/bootwashing. Howev-er, when this is compared with Figure 4 (page 3), it is seen that the percentage of respondents who had not had incidents (81%) roughly correlates with a calcu-lation of the average of those who see all the listed factors of employee hygiene as being very important (78%).

This correlation of those seeing importance in employee hygiene and not having incidents would appear to support the regulations and standards requiring that food facilities take reasonable measures and pre-cautions related to personal hy-giene — and the requirements for employee training in the importance of employee health and hygiene (as discussed in the article on page 3). This is further reinforced by the survey responses on corrective action taken fol-lowing an incident, with the most common action being that of increased training or retraining of employees (88%) (Figure 16).

Of the eight facilities that did have a related incident, none resulted in a recall, but all the facilities made improvements

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE COMPANY INITIATIVES?

© IN

DUST

RIEB

LICK

|

ADO

BE S

TOCK

© N

EW A

FRIC

A |

ADO

BE S

TOCK

following the incident.Second to the most common

response of training/retraining was that of increased envi-ronmental testing (63%). The importance of this practice relates to both hand and foot cleanliness, as an employee who does not wash their hands prior to entering a food area can contaminate the food or a food-contact surface that they touch, which can be detected through environmental testing. To help reduce the potential of this, 38% of respondents added or increased their handwashing supervision or automation.

Additionally, because unclean footwear can track pathogens into food production zones, the environmental testing can help detect contamination before it impacts a food product. As such, it does appear that incidents caused respondents to realize the need for footwear sanita-tion, as more than half (63%) of

those who had had a related incident made changes to their footwear policies — adding or increasing shoe/bootwashing (50%) or adding a captive-boot program (13%).

Protecting food from hand, foot, and ill-worker contamina-tion is a regulatory requirement

for the food industry, but with no two food facilities being ex-actly the same and options ex-isting for this protection, no two company policies and practices will be exactly the same either. This appears to be particularly true in footwear sanitation, as it was the only hygiene factor of

the survey which was not rated as important or very important for at least 94% of respondents.

However, the fact that 63% of those who had had related incidents imple-mented corrective action for footwear likely shows an increasing awareness of — and preventive controls for — the potential for footwear-related contami-nation.

Figure 15. Incidents related to lack of handwashing or shoe/bootwashingHave not had related incident 161 81%Unsure if had related incident 29 15%Had related incident 8 4%Had related incident resulting in recall 0 0%

(Source: Readex Survey 2020; Number of respondents: 198)

Figure 16. Corrective actions by those having incidentsIncreased training/retrained employees 7 88%Conducted more environmental testing 5 63%

Added/increased shoe/bootwashing 4 50%Added/increased handwashing supervision/automation 3 38%

Added captive boot program 1 13%Other 3 38%