The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Towards integrated hygiene and food safety management systems: the Hygieneomic approach
Abstract
Integrated hygiene and food safety management systems in food production can give rise to exceptional improvements in food safety performance, but require high level commitment and full functional involvement. A new approach, named hygieneomics, has been developed to assist management in their introduction of hygiene and food safety systems. For an effective introduction, the management systems must be designed to fit with the current generational state of an organisation. There are, broadly speaking, four generational states of an organisation in their approach to food safety. They comprise: (i) rules setting; (ii) ensuring compliance; (iii) individual commitment; (iv) interdependent action. In order to set up an effective integrated hygiene and food safety management system a number of key managerial requirements are necessary. The most important ones are: (a) management systems must integrate the activities of key functions from research and development through to supply chain and all functions need to be involved; (b) there is a critical role for the senior executive, in communicating policy and standards; (c) responsibilities must be clearly defined, and it should be clear that food safety is a line management responsibility not to be delegated to technical or quality personnel; (d) a thorough and effective multi-level audit approach is necessary; (e) key activities in the system are HACCP and risk management, but it is stressed that these are ongoing management activities, not once-off paper generating exercises; and (f) executive management board level review is necessary of audit results, measurements, status and business benefits.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Armstrong, G.
- Corresponding author
- Armstrong, G
- Venue
- International Journal of Food Microbiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-09-15
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 19-24
- ISSN
- 0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073758379
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Quality and Management Systems
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Supply Chain Traceability
- Keywords
- food safety management systems, food production, management responsibility, HACCP, risk management, organizational culture
- MeSH terms
- Food Handling, Hygiene, Safety Management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review