Hygienie

Home
Hygienie

Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Hygienie, Food consultant, .

Hygienie Ltd provide your business with food safety training and coaching.

- Highfield Approved Centre
- Probably the cheapest way to achieve Highfield qualifications
- On-line courses accepted by EHO
- Bespoke courses developed for your business

28/09/2025

Affect Heuristic
This is relying on our current emotions when making quick decisions. This usually relates to instant decisions, like what to eat for dinner. If this is based on how we feel, it can lead to unhealthy decision making.
The work example given in the original article is delegating a work task because you ‘feel good’ about the person.
You have confidence in the person and assign the task based on emotions, rather than considering their experience or training.
Ramifications for safety are clear; for example ‘the fryer needs cleaning, can I leave that with you?’.
Unfortunately, we’re more likely to rely on emotions and less on concrete information when we’re tired. And hospitality can definitely be tiring.
The affect heuristic may also be relevant to dynamic assessments, assessing the risk of tasks throughout the day. For example, when we cross a road, we carry out a dynamic risk assessment. Affect heuristic states we are more likely to underestimate the risk if we have positive emotions, such as excitement. Crossing the road on the way to a football match, or concert, or a date might lead us to underestimate, or not carefully consider the speed of cars heading towards us.
The article also explains how our emotions can affect the uptake of public policy. For example, positive feelings about a warm, cosy log fire may override concerns about pollution.
This could also relate to the implementation of company policy. For example, a restaurant chain that moves towards standardised menus and controls.
A chef may understandably have positive emotions (such as pride) around the menu they’ve created themselves, the recipes they’ve created.
They may resent moving towards menu specs and menus created at head office.

However, the affect heuristic can bring about positive changes by sharing statistics, information and images.
Take allergens as an example. The chef who’s changed to centralised menu species may be less inclined to alter recipes and ingredients (unhealthy behaviour) if they’re aware of the consequences.
Relying on our emotions can also help in making quick decisions. If a customer is experiencing a reaction to a food allergy, immediate, life saving action is required.

We’ve probably all made decisions based on emotion; sometimes the outcomes are positive, and sometimes not.
Often the decision is trivial, for example purchasing a pack of biscuits based on positive feelings such as nostalgia or happiness.
At other times, such as delegating tasks to work colleagues, the decision is vitally important.
As an auditor, I need to be aware of how my emotions can influence my decisions. If I find out of date food when I’m in a ‘happy place’ will the outcome in terms of audit score be the same as when I’m feeling negative emotions.
Of course, I’d like to think it would be the same outcome.
But perhaps the most important point is to be aware that emotions can influence behaviour, and then to consciously consider whether I’m being objective and using concrete information as I should.

The original source of this information was:
Action Bias - The Decision Lab
Please note: I’m interested in the psychology of safety, and these posts are primarily aimed at developing my own knowledge. I’m not claiming to have expertise in the subject of psychology.

24/09/2025

Action bias: a tendency to favour action over inaction.
For example, sitting in a traffic jam and turning off the road to take an alternative route. Even though your Satnav has warned you it will take longer and cover more miles.
In safety, taking action is often a good thing. Cleaning up a slip hazard, reminding a chef to wash their hands after handling raw meat, intervening when a server isn’t following allergen procedures.
However, sometimes it’s best to do nothing, at least in the short term. Chefs, eager to clean a dirty canopy have been known to climb up, slip, and plunge their leg into 175°C oil.
Action bias can lead to micromanagement. Intervention as a corrective action is sometimes necessary. Taking over the entire procedure can result in poorer standards long term.
As an auditor or manager it’s often necessary to give negative feedback, which can result in the recipient becoming angry or upset.
Our natural response is to resolve the issue, to take action.
The most effective strategy would be to stand back, allow for thinking time, and let emotions calm down.
(See also Reeves and Mortimer ‘you wouldn’t let it lie’).
Single-action bias can also be an issue. This is where one solution is applied to a problem that requires several corrective actions. Years ago, I audited a site that had ‘insufficient storage space’. The single-action bias was to buy more fridges and freezers. There seemed to be little consideration of improved stock control, stock checks and relevant staff training.
Unsurprisingly, the amount of stock kept expanding to fill the freezers available.
The original source of this information was:
Action Bias - The Decision Lab
Please note: I’m interested in the psychology of safety, and these posts are primarily aimed at developing my own knowledge. I’m not claiming to have expertise in the subject of psychology.

24/08/2025

The pictures reflect how botulism fits within the structure I use for Level Four Food Safety courses.

Two cases of botulism were reported in Food Safety News this week.
The first was in Italy in July this year. Traces of the botulinum toxin were found in avocado pulp consumed at a travelling festival.
Some patients were hospitalised.

The second case was a report linking infant botulism to peanut butter in 2024. The child’s father has a peanut allergy, and peanuts were introduced into the child’s diet from 6 months old to help the child’s immune system develop a tolerance to the allergy.
The illness followed a slow progression, starting with lethargy (day one), intubation and ventilation on day six. An antitoxin was administered on day 10, and the patient was discharged on day 44. Severe constipation continued up to day 234.
The guacamole incident was caused by the preformed toxin already on the food.
Infant botulism occurs when botulinum spores are ingested by an infant, germinating and producing a toxin in the gut. The peanuts may have become contaminated with the spores at source, or during processing.
The spores are highly resistant and can survive in the environment for long periods. The spores are harmless to older children and adults, because natural defences like acidity and gut flora have developed to prevent the spores from germinating.
Infant botulism is rare; the FSA reported only 6 cases between 1992 and 2019. It is the reason honey should not be given to children under one years of age, as spores can also survive pasteurisation.

My next open Level Four course will be 5th to 8th January 2026 (£350 pp).
Self directed learning can be taken at any time through my website (£395 including Sprengers Highfield for Management book).
The prices of both options include exam fees, taken on-line at a time and location to suit you.
For information on courses contact me here or visit our website Hygienie.org.

03/08/2025

My last post was about keeping information simple and straightforward when training food handlers. Comments broadly agreed this was a good thing, as Iain Ferris noted 'these very general and simplified rules … makes it easier on the whole and provides a higher degree of protection'.
However I think it's interesting to note how some generalised rules are more readily accepted than others. Even when they're wrong.
In one course I train, there are two questions in the final, multiple choice revision section which illustrate this.
Both questions ask 'which of the following is an offence?'
The answer to the first question is 'sell food beyond it's use by date'. I estimate that 98% of delegates choose the correct answer (not all delegates are food handlers so some confusion might be expected).

Now here's the interesting bit. Just 17 slides later, the same question is asked; 'which of the following is an offence?'.
Again, the answer should be 'sell food beyond it's use by date'.
However, a new option is introduced which is 'refreeze food which has been defrosted'.
As a very rough estimate, I'd say only 60% now choose the correct answer. Even though it was confirmed, only minutes before, the answer should be 'beyond use by dates'. We also covered use by dates during the course.
I suspect it's the frequency of the message that results in the false answer.
From childhood, even mothers such as mine, with a somewhat cavalier attitude to food safety would never risk refreezing food, even if only partially defrosted.
The message is regularly reinforced on frozen packaging 'do not refreeze once defrosted'.
Similarly, in another course I run, even experienced food handlers and managers will suggest you CAN identify pathogenic bacteria by smell and texture. (Again, there may be exceptions to this, and it would be great to hear of any specific examples of pathogenic bacteria that can be identified organoleptically).
These delegates have probably taken dozens of courses in which they're told you can't identify pathogenic bacteria by look, smell or touch. And yet, compared to the learned, intuitive action of the 'sniff test' the message is lost.

'High risk food' is another example where, even after explaining the definition, 99% of delegates will say raw chicken is a high-risk food.
This is because in the real world, well, it is. I've even known EHO refer to raw chicken as 'high risk food'.

As a trainer, I believe in the importance of training, but I'm also aware of its limitations. Reinforcement of the correct messages through internal checks and audits is equally, perhaps even more important.

30/07/2025

I've been reading comments by Euan MacAuslan and Richard Sprenger from Highfield regarding the 'Danger Zone' and how the term might be misleading.

To explain (as far I understand):

Danger is the possibility that harm could occur. So, from -2°C to 55°C (Listeria to Bacillus Cereus) harm COULD occur. It would therefore be more accurate to call this range the danger zone.

Risk is the likelihood that harm will occur.
So, between 5°C/8°C to 63°C it's more LIKELY harm will occur. This range should, therefore, technically be called the risk zone.
There’s also an argument the risk zone should be narrowed further to 20°C to 50°C, when most pathogenic bacteria multiply (mesophiles are 20°C to 45°C).
The definition of 'Danger Zone' differs from country to country.

Google tells me USA is 4°C to 60°C.
(Although Google also says it's 8°C to 60°C).

Even in Britain, some sources quote 5°C to 63°C and some 8°C to 63°C.
This validates the criticism a ‘Danger Zone’ isn’t based on science. It's the range of temperatures more likely to result in food poisoning and prosecution.

In my opinion (for what it’s worth), I’m not sure the use (or misuse) of the term really matters.
If the focus is on meeting legal requirements and reduce the risk, isn’t that a good thing? And perhaps ‘Danger Zone’ is the most effective term in achieving this compliance and safety.

The term has been around a long time, and it’s broadly understood by most food handlers. To use different terms might add to the confusion.
Everyone understands the word danger, less so the word risk. ‘Danger’ is an emotive word, evoking feelings of fear, and making it a powerful tool for persuasion.
A sign saying 'Danger, keep out' carries more weight than 'Risk, keep out'.
Personally, I prefer to use the range 8°C to 63°C when describing the danger zone as it ties in with legal requirements. Why complicate things by adding additional temperatures?
That said, for in-house courses I can’t see the issue with changing the parameters to suit specific policies. We are clearly emphasising what needs to be done to provide safe food and comply with policy/law.
Perhaps it’s only misleading from an academic stance and not a practical one. Or maybe, because my background is practical and not academic, I’m being influenced by my own experience bias.
Certainly, for my Level Four Food Safety delegates, I think this is an interesting point to consider. The picture illustrates how it fits into the overall structure of my courses, and for those revising right now, this is a useful reminder of temperature ranges for Listeria and Bacillus Cereus.

21/04/2025

The biological process behind an allergenic reaction to food.
The information is taken from the book 'Allergic: How our immune system reacts to a changing world' by Theresa MacPhail.

10/01/2025

Phorids are small, hunchback flies like fruit flies.

01/01/2025

A food safety short on the food poisoning bacteria Yersinia.

23/09/2024

Sources of bacteria, the latest free food safety video on my website Hygienie.org

16/09/2024

Allergen contamination controls, what would your feedback to your team be?

19/08/2024

Would this represent a basic framework of how to manage food safety?
Clearly, it’s an over-simplification but I can’t think of anything that wouldn’t fit into this cycle.
Take documentation for example.
We start by training teams on how to record temperatures etc, and then we motivate them to complete accurate records, monitor it’s done correctly, and feedback as required.

On my website Hygienie.org you can find details of my Level 3 and 4 courses.
For organisations I have developed one day and half day courses in food safety and health & safety. This includes pre-course workbooks, e-learning micro courses, bespoke videos, live streaming via Zoom, presentations, interactive quizzes, course workbooks and examination.
I also work as an independent contractor for organisations such as NSF and Safer Food Scores. I regularly train delegates from major hospitality brands.

12/08/2024

Through my company Hygienie Ltd I provide food safety and health & safety training for organisations and individual learners.
For more information, please visit my website Hygienie.org
I also work as an independent contractor for organisations such as NSF and Safer Food Scores.

Address

Telephone

+447570252641

Website

http://www.hygienie.org/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Hygienie posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Hygienie:

Want your practice to be the top-listed Clinic?

Country:

City: