Most food manufacturers rate their training program as “sufficient,” according to Laura Dunn Nelson, a globally recognized food safety consultant. This means the training is enough to pass an audit, but it may not be effective in preventing food safety risks. Nelson has spent years tracking how training happens on the plant floor, and her research shows that many plants stop at “sufficient” and don’t invest in high-quality training.
Nelson’s research found that only one in five facilities rate their training as above average. The difference between “sufficient” and above-average training is significant, with above-average programs tied to measurable gains in behavior compliance, retention, and risk reduction. For example, going from sufficient to above-average training drives a significant lift in consistent SOP adherence.
According to Nelson, “sufficient” training is defined as “gets the job done.” This means that the training is enough to achieve certification, but it may not be delivered in a compelling way or confirmed to be effective. Many plants deliver training in a way that is not optimized, such as bringing everyone in for a big training session on a Saturday or having new hires shadow existing employees.
This approach can lead to a lack of knowledge transfer, as employees may not understand the training or may forget it soon after. Nelson notes that language and education level are also important factors, as training may not be effective if it is not delivered in a way that is accessible to all employees.
Nelson emphasizes the importance of validating employee behaviors on a routine basis, rather than just checking the box and documenting completion. This requires investment in coaching and verification of behaviors, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. However, the benefits of high-quality training far outweigh the costs, as it can lead to measurable gains in behavior compliance, retention, and risk reduction.
Leadership plays a critical role in training, as leaders must decide how to run the business to get aligned behaviors.
Related: Sugar Supplies Tighten Amid FDA Action
Nelson gives an example of a company that invested in a digital learning system and saw significant improvements in retention and compliance. The company made sure to train trainers and supervisors, and built coaching and verification into the supervisors’ job responsibilities. This approach helped to ensure that employees understood the whys and could answer questions effectively.
Nelson notes that AI is starting to earn its place in learning and development, particularly in food safety training. While only a small percentage of facilities are currently using AI in training, Nelson believes that there are significant opportunities for AI to improve training effectiveness. She notes that AI can be used for translations, chatbots, and course creation, and that it can help to drive out non-compliant behaviors.
Nelson encourages manufacturers to start by getting educated on the use cases around training, and to explore the resources available to them. She notes that there are many training opportunities available, and that investing in AI can help to improve training effectiveness and reduce costs, much like math problems in compliance programs can be complex.
Ultimately, Nelson believes that executives should focus on measuring employee capability and competence, rather than just measuring training completion. By investing in high-quality training and coaching, companies can improve retention, reduce risks, and drive business performance. As Nelson notes, “if an executive took on that kind of focused effort, I think it would uncover opportunities across the organization and level up not just training effectiveness, but operational performance.”
They can achieve this by implementing effective exposure control measures and ensuring that employees understand the importance of food safety.