The human brain is an incredibly complex organ consisting of over 80 billion neurons with about 1 million gigabytes worth of memory storage. With so much hardware, it’s no wonder we sometimes face shortcomings in our perspective of the world. In his bestselling book “The Tipping Point” Malcom Gladwell reminds us that, while we are accustomed to thinking of change as something that happens gradually over time, every so often change happens exponentially and at a fast pace. The looming question in my brain is how the potentially rapid changes facing the retail food industry in the next 10-12 years are slated to affect risk of foodborne illness transmission. 

What kind of changes you ask? 

Domo arigato Mr. Roboto, the answer lies in robotics and automation. Machines like “Flippy” and “Pepe” are being developed that flip burgers and prepare pizza, respectively, thus mimicking the manual dexterity and precision required by a food handler to accomplish the same tasks. The cost of these advanced forms of technology continues to decline as well, making a solid business case amid mandated minimum wage hikes. Foodservice workers spend almost half their time doing tasks that have the capacity to be automated. Some industry analysts predict up to a third of all food prep jobs could be lost to automation by the year 2030. 

The end result could be significantly fewer hands touching our food in the retail setting. Human hands have an instrumental role in contributing to risk of foodborne illness transmission and foodborne illness outbreaks. The human hand can be responsible for transferring pathogens from raw to ready to eat products via cross contamination. Without consistent, effective handwashing, harmful microorganisms may accumulate in the transient flora of the hands, prone to spreading to food contact surfaces or the food itself.  

If “Pepe” does the plating, then that means less bare hand contact with ready-to-eat food. If “Flippy” is at the grill, then computer code will ensure spatulas that handle raw hamburger will never handle cooked hamburger. Risk boils down to the consistency of a robot, programmed to execute a task the same way each instance, versus spending time and money to train workers to execute food safety behaviors they may not feel like doing because they’re having a bad day. 

Mind you, this is one scenario of many that may play out in the next decade or so. Robots do not necessarily spell gloom and doom for the average foodservice worker, nor are they the magic bullet to achieve zero risk of foodborne illness transmission. 

Despite dramatic increases in automation over the 20th Century, the number of jobs relative to the number of people actually increased. Echoing the Lyndon B. Johnson administration from over a half century ago, “..technology eliminates jobs, not work.”  Rather than being replaced, food service workers may simply experience work reallocation. As seen in restaurants like Panera, more automation can drive demand for more jobs by increasing efficiency, leading to higher volume of sales. Workers are assigned to tasks less conducive for automation like delivering food to tables or interacting with customers to create positive in- store experiences. 

But then this raises another question of risk, revolving around the law of unintended consequences. With more employees in a restaurant, how might this affect spread of Norovirus? The recent report put out by the CDC links this pesky virus with a significant number of outbreaks. Norovirus transmission isn’t limited to bare hand contact with food, but could occur through secondary transmission of human hands touching food contact surfaces; we know norovirus is resilient on common kitchen materials like stainless steel. 

Alas, these are all untested hypotheses that will be accepted or nullified by the sands of time. Only time will tell whether greater use of robotics and automation in retail food service will be a tipping point to affect food safety for the better. 

*References available upon request

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

His day had just begun but already he was headed back home. The look of defeat in his eyes, the slight grimace on his face, and the sweat on his brow gave it all away: He was going home sick.

During the past several months I have had the privilege of interviewing and surveying dozens of foodservice workers about their food safety practices as part of my doctoral research. The man before me was no exception, especially as I learned more about his story and the potential ramifications of taking a sick day.

For many workers in America today, taking a sick day is no big deal because of wiggle room within salaried positions. However, for both foodservice managers and hourly employees, this is simply not the case. The manager is left shorthanded and the employee loses a day’s wages. Managers and employees in the foodservice industry have a legal and moral obligation not to work when sick, because of the risk of contaminating food, customers and other employees. The decision to take a sick day can stress both managers and employees, but is always the right thing to do, nonetheless.

As the interview with this foodservice worker progressed, I uncovered the true difficulty of his situation.

He was working at a low-wage job to provide for a young toddler with another child on the way. I’m not sure of all the details of his circumstances. I can’t say whether missing this one day of work meant an eviction notice, a missed light bill, or sacrificing food to pay for diapers. Whether his decision to leave work was of his own volition or that of his manager I don’t know.

One fact I am confident of is that this man and his employer were making sacrifices to ensure the health of the public.

If we’re honest with ourselves, food safety can be inconvenient at times. Other employees I interviewed shared how their hands took a beating from washing them so often.

Before starting to work on my Ph.D., I worked in quality assurance at a produce factory. My job would sometimes involve rewashing thousands of pounds of cut vegetables because the produce “wash water” concentration was too high or too low. Of course, this would generally happen at 10 p.m. when workers were anxious to go home, leading to tension and pushback.

The late Dave Theno, who was vice president of product safety for Jack in the Box immediately following the 1993 E. coli outbreak, faced even more pushback for his overhaul of food safety standards. Theno managed to create an uproar from just about every part of the meat industry, from the slaughterhouses to the fast food chains. His new protocols raised worries about costs and compromises in product taste. Yet, he was willing to forgo his comfort zone to ensure the safety of the consumer.

Adhering to food safety principles can stretch both foodservice managers and employees, halt the production process, and run contrary to conventional practices. But the sacrifice is worth it. Here’s to ordinary restaurant workers like the man I interviewed and food safety officers like Dave Theno who are willing to sacrifice for the health and safety of others.

About the author: Jeff Clark is a third-year Ph.D. student at the University of Arkansas working under professor Philip Crandall. Jeff’s research interests include understanding how food safety culture, empathic concern for foodborne illness victims, and persuasive technology affect food safety practices at the industry level. Before grad school, he tried just about every job in the food industry, including busser, server, prep cook, caterer, meat clerk and quality assurance technician in produce processing. He is happily married to his high school sweetheart who he gets to jam with on the ukulele when he’s not collecting data or writing manuscripts.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)