Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap: Informal Training and Food Safety Outcomes
Food safety training is widely promoted as a key strategy for reducing the risk of foodborne illness. Governments, industry organizations, and academic institutions have invested substantial resources in developing and delivering training programs. Yet, despite its widespread availability, an important question remains: how effective is food safety training at improving safe handling practices and, ultimately, at reducing the risk of foodborne illness?
Numerous studies report a positive effect. However, a review of the methodologies of many of these studies reveals important limitations, including weak or no controls, small convenience samples, and other data collection constraints.1–5 In the absence of a substantial body of high-quality evidence, definitive conclusions about training effect remain difficult to make. Why, then, do we continue to promote training as a key strategy? Perhaps it is working, just not in the way we think it is. What is often missing from the assessment of training outcomes is the role of informal training, which is rarely documented and even less likely to be measured when evaluating effect.
Bridging the Gap Between Knowledge and Practice
When we envision food safety training, we think of formal training, such as classroom instruction, online courses, and synchronous or asynchronous modules. These methods are important for building foundational knowledge of food safety hazards, regulations, and best practices. However, foundational knowledge alone does not always lead to behavior change. Adult learners tend to benefit more from hands-on, experiential learning and from understanding the "why" behind food safety practices. When training is delivered outside the work environment, important practical details and contextual nuances can be overlooked. As a result, employees may miss the real-world guidance and situational insights that shape day-to-day food safety practices within an establishment.
We assert that informal training complements formal training by playing a critical role in translating knowledge into daily practice. Informal training occurs through workplace interactions, observation, coaching, feedback, mentoring, and the continuous reinforcement of expectations during routine operations. Together, these informal learning activities help foster a strong food safety culture in which safe practices become habitual and embedded within organizational norms, ultimately leading to improved food safety performance.
Advantages of Informal, On-the-Job Training
A key advantage of informal training is that it occurs in real time, within the actual work environment where knowledge is applied. Employees learn while performing tasks, allowing them to immediately implement knowledge into practice. For example, a supervisor observing sandwich preparation may provide immediate feedback on glove use or handwashing procedures. This type of coaching helps employees connect abstract food safety concepts with specific workplace behaviors. When learning is embedded in the actual work context, employees are more likely to understand both why a procedure is important and how it should be performed correctly.
Informal training also supports continuous learning rather than relying solely on formal training events. Although food establishments typically provide formal training during onboarding and periodic refreshers, employees may forget procedures over time, develop shortcuts, or adopt unsafe practices from coworkers. Informal training helps bridge this gap through ongoing reminders, reinforcement, and corrective feedback. Daily shift huddles, managerial observations, peer discussions, and routine coaching opportunities reinforce expectations and sustain attention to food safety (Figure 1).
Additionally, informal training can address site-specific challenges. Formal training programs generally provide standardized content intended to apply across a wide range of operations, whereas informal training is tailored to the unique risks, equipment, workflows, and products within a specific establishment. A deli manager may coach employees on proper slicer cleaning, while a produce supervisor may reinforce procedures to prevent cross-contamination during fresh-cut preparation. This contextualized instruction increases relevance and helps employees recognize hazards in their daily work.
Looking for quick answers on food safety topics?
Try Ask FSM, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask FSM →
Informal training offers several advantages. It enables workplace- and job-specific instruction, often delivered one-on-one, which can be more effective than group-based learning. It also allows employees to ask questions in real time without fear of embarrassment, translating discussions directly into actionable behavior changes. These interactions support deeper understanding and practical application of food safety knowledge.
Peer Learning, Coaching, and Real-Time Feedback
Peer-to-peer learning is another valuable component of informal training. New employees often learn by observing experienced coworkers. When well-trained employees demonstrate proper techniques and explain the rationale behind procedures, they help transfer tacit knowledge that may not be fully captured in formal training materials. However, when unsafe behaviors are modeled, they can quickly spread throughout the organization. For this reason, organizations must ensure that informal learning reinforces, rather than undermines, formal food safety instruction and expectations.
Coaching and feedback are particularly effective forms of informal training because they provide immediate opportunities for improvement. Behavioral science indicates that feedback is most effective when it is timely, specific, and directed toward observable behaviors that employees can readily modify.6 Rather than general statements such as "be more careful," a supervisor might explain that hands must be washed after handling raw meat and before touching ready-to-eat foods. This specificity helps employees understand exactly what behavior needs to change and why it matters.
Informal training can also enhance employee confidence and competence. Workers may be hesitant to ask questions during formal training sessions but are often more comfortable seeking clarification during routine work activities. These informal conversations allow employees to address unusual situations, resolve uncertainty, and build practical judgment for safe food handling decisions. Over time, this ongoing learning strengthens self-efficacy and improves job performance.
Building Food Safety Culture Through Continuous Learning
Informal training supports a strong food safety culture. Food safety culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that determine how food safety is prioritized within an organization. Employees are strongly influenced by managerial actions and expectations, which shape the social norms of the workplace. When managers consistently model safe practices, provide constructive feedback, and recognize compliance, they communicate that food safety is a priority. These day-to-day interactions often have a greater influence on behavior than formal training alone.
Finally, the effect of informal training depends heavily on leadership commitment. Managers play a central role in creating an environment where food safety discussions are routine and corrective feedback is framed as learning rather than punishment. When production speed is prioritized over food safety, employees may be discouraged from following proper procedures. In contrast, leaders who consistently reinforce expectations and allocate time for coaching and observation help embed food safety into everyday practice.
Integrating Formal and Informal Food Safety Training
Despite its importance, informal training is often not recognized and under-documented. Establishing systems to document coaching and on-the-job instruction can help ensure that informal training is recognized as part of the overall food safety management system. Successful food safety training programs must recognize both formal and informal training approaches. Formal training establishes the foundational knowledge necessary for safe food handling, while informal training reinforces, contextualizes, and sustains that knowledge over time. Organizations that rely solely on formal training may struggle to achieve consistent compliance because employees receive limited opportunities to practice and reinforce learned concepts. By incorporating mentoring, coaching, observation, peer learning, and routine feedback into daily operations, food establishments can create a continuous learning environment that supports sustainable behavior change.
In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that formal training alone is insufficient to produce sustained improvements in food safety performance. While formal training provides essential knowledge, informal training can help transform that knowledge into consistent workplace behaviors. Through coaching, observation, feedback, mentoring, and role modeling, employees receive ongoing reinforcement that strengthens food safety practices and supports a positive food safety culture. Organizations that recognize the complementary role of informal training are better positioned to improve compliance, reduce food safety risks, and ultimately protect public health.
References
- Egan, M.B., M.M. Raats, S.M. Grubb, et al. "A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial sector." Food Control 18, no. 10 (October 2007): 1180–1190. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713506002088.
- Fraser, A.M. and C. Miller. "Chapter 3: Educating about Food Safety." In Practical Food Safety: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions. V.M. Gómez-Lopez and R. Bhat, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118474563.
- Viator, K., J. Blitstein, J.E. Brophy, and A. Fraser. "Preventing and Controlling Foodborne Disease in Commercial and Institutional Food Service Settings: A Systematic Review of Published Intervention Studies." Journal of Food Protection 78, no. 2 (February 2015): 446–456. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X23056053.
- Insfran-Rivarola, A., D. Tlapa D, J. Limon-Romero, et al. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Food Safety and Hygiene Training on Food Handlers." Foods 9, no. 9 (August 2020): 1169. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/9/1169.
- McGilvery, K., E. Johnson, A. Pezoldt, A. Fraser, A. Simonne, and K. Wiley. 2025. "A Systematic Literature Review of Produce Safety Training Research: Do We Know What Works?" Journal of Food Protection 88, no. 5 (April 2025): 100491. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X25000432.
- Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. "The Power of Feedback." Review of Educational Research 77, no. 1 (March 2007): 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543029.
