Food Handler Demographics

Of the 2,751 respondents, restaurants (67 percent) and quick service/fast food establishments (42 percent) were the most commonly represented settings, followed by catering (33 percent), cafeterias (30 percent), concessions (24 percent), hospitality (21 percent), and grocery stores (21 percent).

Notably, Spanish was the primary language of 367 respondents (13 percent).

Training History

Most respondents (88 percent) had completed an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) National Accreditation Board (ANAB)-accredited food handler training program; 74 percent had completed it within the past two years, and 86 percent completed it in English. Another 7 percent of respondents (194) reported receiving employer-based or local health department training, 69 percent of whom had completed it within the last two years, and 92 percent had completed it in English.

The rest of the respondents reported gaining food safety knowledge through independent study or learning from coworkers, and some reported having no formal training.

More than half of the 730 respondents who reported a native language other than English had completed their training in English.

Strength of Food Safety Knowledge

The food handlers were given a multiple-choice assessment to determine their understanding of key food safety concepts and practices. Overall, respondents demonstrated strong food safety knowledge, with an average score of 84 percent on the assessment and a median of 88 percent. However, the strength of knowledge varied among domains.

The highest scores were observed in the food safety domains of:

• Handwashing (98 percent)
• Illness reporting (96 percent)
• Personal hygiene (88 percent).

Moderate scores were achieved for questions related to:

• Allergen cross-contact (86 percent)
• Cross-contamination prevention (84 percent).

Food safety domains with the lowest scores related to:

• Time/temperature control (80 percent)
• Safe food preparation (77 percent)
• Cleaning and sanitizing (66 percent)
• Food storage (61 percent).

Specific items for which respondents demonstrated the weakest knowledge included reheating requirements for chicken soup (62 percent), proper food storage order (61 percent), cooking temperature for ground beef (56 percent), and required cleaning frequency for equipment (48 percent).

Knowledge by Training Type

Interestingly, food handlers’ scores on the knowledge assessments varied by the type of training they received, with state or local health department training associated with the highest scores and certified training associated with the second-to-lowest scores. Specifically, respondents trained through state or local health departments achieved an average score of 88.7 percent, followed by self-study (88.2 percent), company-provided training (86.3 percent), learning from coworkers (85.3 percent), certified training (84.1 percent), and no formal training (79.8 percent).

Additionally, the length of time since training showed a clear relationship with knowledge outcomes. Respondents who trained within the past year scored significantly higher than respondents who trained 1–2 years ago and 3–5 years ago. Respondents who trained 1–2 years ago, however, scored significantly lower than respondents who trained 3–5 years ago.

The number of food handler courses completed during the past five years did not significantly affect knowledge scores.

Barriers to Application of Training and Knowledge Retention

Respondents noted workplace factors that influenced their ability to apply and retain food safety knowledge, including:

• Having appropriate equipment (65.6 percent)
• Opportunities to apply training on the job (59.3 percent)
• Job tasks requiring the use of training (55.2 percent)
• Visual reminders such as posters or signs (40.1 percent)
• Supervisor support (35 percent)
• Additional employer-led training (30.8 percent)
• Coworker support (27.1 percent).

Additionally, respondents named factors that limited their ability to use knowledge that they gained in training, including conflicting job information (12.6 percent), the need for additional training (10 percent), and simply forgetting course material (9.3 percent).

Training Preferences

The food handlers were also surveyed on their training preferences. They indicated that pre-recorded online classes (47 percent), in-person sessions (44 percent), and on-the-job instruction (35 percent) were most valuable. Respondents also said videos (61 percent), fact sheets (48 percent), and live demonstrations (48 percent) were the most helpful resources.

Recommendations and Implications for Industry

Based on their survey findings, the researchers suggested improvements to food handler training, workplace implementation, and system-level strategies:

• Training design: Training programs should be practical and aligned with daily responsibilities, be multilingual and culturally adapted, reinforce high-risk domains (e.g., food storage and cleaning/sanitizing) through applied exercises, and incorporate continued training to refresh knowledge at regular intervals
• Workplace implementation: Supervisors should be trained as active reinforcement agents and mentors, functional equipment and job aids should be maintained to support food safety practices, and ongoing feedback and on-the-job coaching should be integrated into standard operating procedures
• Regulatory and system-level strategies: Regular refresher training should be required, learning outcomes should be evaluated through demonstrated competency rather than course completion, state and local training initiatives should be supported, and adaptive learning systems tailored to employee roles and experience levels should be developed.