Research into the use and perceptions of guidance on food safety and standards

Food businesses described using a range of other sources to find information about food safety. These spanned websites, online search engines and in some cases Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, as well as external third parties, suppliers and sector-specific resources. Decisions about which sources to use are driven by factors such as ease of access and the need for practical, business-specific advice. There was also evidence that food businesses prefer established, authoritative sources such as food law professionals, official websites, and representative bodies, believing that these are more likely to offer clear, practical and trustworthy guidance. 

However, many food businesses felt existing sources, including visits from their food law professionals, were sufficient, and time constraints and a perceived lack of need for additional guidance meant they were unlikely to start referring to other sources of guidance unless they offered clear value. 

Online searches were commonly used for quick answers to questions about food safety and standards. These were considered easy to use and could provide quick and, if necessary, targeted answers. However, some disliked using search engines as they felt it was harder to be confident that the information referred to Scottish-specific legislation or provided compliance-specific detail. Similarly, a few businesses reported using online searches for a quick answer but would then check the information via an official body to ensure it was correct.

Others visited their local authority website to find answers to their questions, or to learn about upcoming changes to standards or legislation. A few mentioned that local authority websites would signpost them to the FSS website. 

Some food businesses reported using AI tools, such as ChatGPT, either spontaneously or when prompted. Any use of AI was predominantly for operational reasons, for example, helping to redesign menus, rather than for compliance-specific questions. Again, businesses appreciated the importance of compliance and had concerns around whether the information provided by AI tools could be trusted. However, it was noted that AI could potentially be a common resource in the future, especially with younger staff thought to be using AI tools more often. 

Some businesses use third-party apps to ease the administration of record keeping, such as logging temperatures, because they integrate easily with HACCP processes and provide notifications of critical changes. One franchisee used an app provided by triSaaS, while another business mentioned Nutritics' food data management software to produce compliant product labels.

Several food businesses described using a range of services offered by external organisations. While these are used selectively, they are seen as important in ensuring staff are aware of their responsibilities around food safety, pass information around a team and keep up to date.

Training programmes were often mentioned as a means of ensuring staff had the appropriate food hygiene certifications, in several cases, Level 2 Food Safety and Hygiene for Catering. These were typically found through online searches and were described as straightforward and accessible. Examples of providers included Virtual College, High Speed Training and REHIS Scotland (Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland).

A few other businesses mentioned using third parties for information on allergens. These were often the organisations they had used for food safety training, with allergens as an included module. Other common sources of information about allergens included general internet searches and local authority websites.

Conversely, several businesses said they do not use third parties for training or advice and guidance, citing high costs and limited added value. While these services offer to keep businesses updated and provide reassurance, businesses felt that responsibility for food safety ultimately rests with the business and its staff. It was acknowledged, however, that some specialist guidance or accreditation could be necessary for niche compliance needs.

A small number of manufacturers and distributors commented on the role of certification, such as SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier approval), BRCGS Global Standards, and, in some cases, retailer requirements as both sources of guidance and mechanisms to ensure their compliance. Rather than being preferred because they offer additional guidance, these businesses highlighted that they need these certifications to demonstrate proof of their compliance through frequent audits and clear documentation, traceability, and equipment controls. It was clear that, without complying to these standards, they would not be able to operate.

Trade publications and industry resources, such as licensed trade newsletters and magazines, were mentioned as sources for legislative updates because they provide sector-specific information and practical advice for hospitality businesses. 

Interviews with stakeholders in the wider sector highlighted some of the guidance they produce. This included, for example, incident prevention and management toolkits, food authenticity guides, guidance on changes since Brexit, import-export guides, pesticide guidance for importers, allergen management, 

Suppliers can be a source of information for food businesses as they provide information directly relevant to the products and ingredients businesses use, which is needed to provide allergen information and meet labelling requirements. Informal networks with friends, family or with other local businesses are also used to ask questions and share information as changes arise.

Many businesses have signed up to receive newsletters or email notifications from agencies, including FSS or their local authority. These updates help alert businesses to significant changes because they offer convenience and reduce the need to actively search for updates. Some mentioned getting regular updates for specific topics, such as daily allergen-related recall emails from Food Standards Scotland. However, some businesses expressed a desire for more proactive communication to ensure they do not miss information about any critical changes. 

While email alerts and newsletters are used, it was evident in conversations with food businesses that paper or hard copy updates and communications remain popular among food businesses. There was no consensus among respondents about which is best, with most using multiple channels. However, there were concerns about the high volume of emails received daily by food businesses, with some expressing the view that a letter from a food law professional or a recognised agency would be more likely to be opened and noticed. In contrast, some businesses felt their younger staff would prefer digital communication. 

Some businesses maintain their own compliance manuals and record systems because these are tailored to their processes and used for staff training and inspections. Some businesses adapted these from official templates like CookSafe.

One food business was a franchisee and explained that they rarely look at guidance beyond that provided by their franchise, and that they would go to their franchise with questions in the first instance. While some food businesses reported using delivery platforms, only one business, which runs multiple takeaway outlets, reported using guidance provided by the platforms. They used information from Uber Eats and Just Eat to avoid cross-contamination when preparing gluten-free and vegan orders. 

Another food business noted that Scottish premises of UK-wide businesses may get most expertise in-house, but that this could be England-oriented. For that business, this meant they had to follow English regulations to adhere to company rules, but also monitor changes in Scotland, which could become cumbersome.

FSA guidance was repeatedly mentioned by food law professionals, particularly in instances where guidance is not provided by FSS, and it was felt that FSA guidance is the next best alternative. It was acknowledged, however, that some content within FSA guidance may not align with Scottish legislation. Another suggested that FSS add more signposting within FSS guidance to relevant external agencies.

Food law professionals described using a range of alternative sources of guidance in addition to FSA. This included:

• Research institutes like Campden BRI (such as for information on bacteria).
• Trading Standards Institute (Business Companion specifically for labelling).
• Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, such as for export health certificates).
• Public Health Scotland (PHS).
• ComBase for calculating shelf life.
• Veripro, the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST).
• Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI).
• Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS) for training.
• Nationwide Caterers Association (NCASS).
• Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) shellfish monitoring website.
• European Food Commission (such as for raw fish consumption controls).
• British Retail Consortium.
• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA, for where they have guidance not available from UK or EU sources).

In the survey of food law professionals, over half (53%) indicated that they use guidance on food safety and standards to develop local resources. This was explored more in conversations with food law professionals, who explained that this was sometimes needed to help food businesses find the guidance most relevant to them, particularly when they are registering a new businesses. This includes signposting food businesses to relevant guidance, local training opportunities, the local council website, and where to find out more food safety information. 

A few food law professionals also described developing guidance for their local context, such as for small events and smaller meat product businesses. A small number commented on using guidance and resources created or provided by other local authorities, for example, labelling guidance for home-run businesses that food law professionals would not inspect.