Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 38

Impressions on food safety from

the frontline
Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
February 2016
Prepared for the Agriculture Union

Methodology

The survey was conducted in English and French among 580 members of the
Agriculture Union who work for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency using an
internet survey programmed and collected by Abacus Data.

The survey was completed from February 12 to February 29, 2016.

There are a total of 3,712 members of Agriculture Union who work at the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency. The response rate for the survey was 15.6%.

The margin of error for this study is 4.15%, 19 times out of 20.

KEY FINDINGS

Key Findings
With the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on the verge of overhauling its food safety
inspection program, a new survey of its staff reveals widespread confusion and an absence of
confidence about the changes and a workforce that expects its short-handed inspection operations
will lead to a major food borne illness in the near future.

More than half (55%) of respondents describe the current complement of inspectors in their
immediate workplace as inadequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements. Four-inten (39%) report adequate and 6% report more than adequate complements.

This shortage is most acute in meat plants where seven-in-ten (71%) inspectors in process meat
plants and 60% in slaughter facilities report staffing levels in their immediate work team that are
inadequate to ensure safety compliance.

Daily presence of inspection staff in meat processing plants, a safety requirement for
establishments producing for both Canadian and foreign consumer, is a reality for only a small
minority (27%) working in the meat hygiene program who report there are enough staff for this
practice to always be in place. More than half (57%) report sufficient staff to provide daily
presence sometimes, while 13% report it rarely happens and 4% say it never happens.

Nearly seven in ten (69%) respondents believe that a major food borne illness outbreak is likely in
the near future given the state of food safety in Canada today. Just 15% believe that such an
outbreak is unlikely.

Key Findings

One-in-four (24%) of all respondents have been asked by a CFIA manager to stop doing required
food safety related tasks and most (59%) believe these instructions have been issued because
there are not enough inspectors available to do all required food safety tasks.

A wide majority (86%) believe greater reliance on the food industry to police its own food safety
practices makes Canadas food supply less safe.

Concerning Inspection Modernization, CFIAs staff lack confidence in the programs ability to
protect consumer safety, do not feel they have been briefed on their new roles, or trained on their
new responsibilities, and expect it will limit hands-on oversight.

A majority feel not at all (42%) or not very (24%) qualified because the CFIAs Modernization
program expects inspectors to work outside their area of expertise and half (50%) believe the new
approach will actually increase the chance of a major food borne illness outbreak.

Half (50%) of all respondents doubt the CFIAs senior leadership will be able to introduce
Inspection Modernization while protecting public safety at the same time. Only 14% agree the
CFIAs senior leadership will be able to safeguard the public during the transition.
.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Profile of Respondents
Length of time at CFIA

Program at CFIA
25%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

17%

0 5 years

18%

Meat Hygiene - process

9%

Fish

32%

6 10 years

Fair Labeling/Consumer
Protection

10%

Food Safety

11%

29%

11 15 years

Fruit and Vegetables

2%

Microbiology

1%

10%

15 + years

40%

Other, please specify...


0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

The majority of respondents have 6 to 15 years of experience, with the plurality of respondents
working in the meat hygiene program area.

All Respondents, n = 580


7

Province of Employment
In which province do you work?
28%

Quebec

26%

Ontario

10%

Alberta

10%

British Columbia

11%

New Brunswick
Manitoba

5%

Newfoundland and Labrador

5%

Nova Scotia

5%
4%

Saskatchewan

2%

Prince Edward Island


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

All Respondents, n = 580


8

SURVEY FINDINGS

Number of inspectors in local workplaces


Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

There are enough inspectors in


my immediate work area to allow
staff to take leave for vacation,
illness and other purposes.

6%

25%

There are enough inspectors in


my immediate work area to allow
staff to book off for required
training

5%

24%

0%

Strongly agree

Agree

10%

20%

31%

29%

31%

30%

Disagree

40%

50%

9%

29%

60%

70%

Strongly disagree

10%

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

Overall, a majority (60%) of respondents agree there are insufficient inspectors in their work area to
allow staff to take leave for vacation, illness or other reasons, or to allow staff to book off time for
required training.

All Respondents, n = 580


10

Number of inspectors in local workplaces


Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in my
immediate work area to allow staff to book off for required training
All
0 5 years

5%

24%

8%

23%

6 10 years 4%
11 15 years 4%
15 + years

Meat Hygiene - process 5%


Fish

6%

Other

6%
0%

Strongly agree

Agree

30%

28%

27%

24%

8%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter 5%

31%

28%

11%

17%

27%

28%

Disagree

40%

1%

37%

49%

30%

7%

47%
40%

20%

7%

28%

33%

19%

14%

35%

37%

14%

10%

10%

26%

30%

20%

29%

50%

23%
19%

60%

70%

Strongly disagree

6%
20%

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

When asked whether there are sufficient inspectors in their work area to allow time off for required
training, 60% of all respondents report there are not. Inspectors in meat slaughter (80% disagree)
and processing (77% disagree) establishments were least likely to report sufficient inspectors,
while those working in fish were most likely to feel there were enough inspectors (55% agree).

All Respondents, n = 580


11

Number of inspectors in local workplaces


Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in my
immediate work area to allow staff to take leave for vacation, illness and other purposes.
All
0 5 years

6%

25%

8%

31%

25%

29%

6 10 years 5%

25%

29%

11 15 years 4%

26%

32%

15 + years

9%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter 4%


Meat Hygiene - process

7%

Fish

6%

Other

7%
0%

Strongly agree

Agree

22%

9%

27%

11%

28%

40%

51%

17%

27%

31%
30%

Disagree

6%

47%
35%

20%

7%

30%

33%

19%

12%

31%

33%

16%

10%

29%

40%

50%

23%
17%

60%

70%

Strongly disagree

4%

19%
80%

90%

100%

Dont know

When asked whether there are sufficient inspectors in their work area to allow time off for vacation,
illness, or other leave, 60% of respondents felt there are not. Again, those working in the meat
slaughter (80% disagree) and meat process (75% disagree) were least likely to feel there are
sufficient inspectors, while those working in fish were most likely to feel there are enough
inspectors (57% agree).
All Respondents, n = 580
12

Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff


Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediate
working group?

More than adequate to complete all tasks needed to


ensure compliance with food safety requirements

6%

Adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure


compliance with food safety requirements

39%

Inadequate to complete all task needed to ensure


compliance with food safety requirements

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Although 39% of respondents report that the current complement of staff in their immediate working
group is adequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements, a majority (55%) felt that
current staffing levels are inadequate.

All Respondents, n = 580


13

Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff


Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediate
working group?
All

6%

0 5 years

7%

39%
45%

6 10 years 4%

48%

41%

11 15 years 4%
15 + years

55%

55%

34%

8%

62%
40%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter 5%

52%

35%

Meat Hygiene - process 4%

60%

25%

71%

Fish

8%

43%

49%

Other

6%

46%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements
Adequate to complete all tasks needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements
Inadequate to complete all task needed to ensure compliance with food safety requirements

Overall, 55% of respondents felt the current complement of inspection staff in their working group
was inadequate. This view was more widely held among those with 11-15 years of experience
(62%), and those working in the meat hygiene process area (71%).
All Respondents, n = 580
14

Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors


Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence in
establishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only

27%

Always

Sometimes

57%

13%

Rarely

Never

4%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Just over a quarter of meat inspectors (27%) report that there are always enough inspectors in their
group to allow for meaningful daily presence in meat slaughter and process establishments they
are responsible for. Meanwhile, a majority (57%) report that there are sometimes enough, while
13% report there are rarely enough and 4% report there are never enough to meet this
requirement.
All Respondents, n = 254
15

Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors


Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence in
establishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only
All Meat Inspectors

27%

0 5 years

57%

29%

6 10 years

26%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

33%

Meat Hygiene - process

10%

18%

Sometimes

8%

54%

10% 2%

60%
20%

30%

40%

50%

Rarely

16%
60%

3%

4% 4%

41%

18%
0%

18%
65%

33%

4%

12% 0%

58%

15 + years

Always

59%

22%

11 15 years

13%

70%

80%

90%

6%
100%

Never

When examined across demographic subgroups, those with 6-10 years of experience (22%), and
those working in meat hygiene processing (18%) were least likely to think there are always enough
inspectors to allow meaningful daily presence.

All Respondents, n = 254


16

Required Food Safety Tasks


Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safety
related tasks?

24%

Yes

76%

No

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Although 76% of respondents answered no, nearly a quarter (24%) stated that they had been
asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safety related tasks.

All Respondents, n = 580


17

Required Food Safety Related Tasks


Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safety
related tasks?
All

24%

0 5 years

76%

20%

6 10 years

80%

24%

11 15 years

76%

28%

15 + years

72%

23%

77%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

28%

72%

Meat Hygiene - process

29%

71%

Fish

42%

Other

58%

17%
0%

10%

Yes

83%
20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No

While those with five years experience or less (20%), and those working in other sectors (17%)
were least likely to have been asked to stop doing some food safety related tasks, those in fish
(42%) and meat hygiene process (29%) were most likely.

All Respondents, n = 580


18

Reason for stopping food safety related tasks


Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing some
required food safety related tasks, in your opinion?

There are not enough inspectors available to


do all required food safety tasks

59%

The food safety tasks arent necessary to


ensure compliance with safety requirements

13%

Other, please specify...

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Of those asked to stop doing some required food safety related tasks, a majority (59%) believe that
such a request was made because of a lack of available inspectors. Just 13% felt the request was
made because the tasks were not necessary to ensure compliance with safety requirements.

All Respondents, n = 147


19

Reason for stopping food safety related tasks.


Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing some
required food safety related tasks, in your opinion?
All

59%

0 5 years

13%

52%

6 10 years

19%

60%

11 15 years

28%

9%
72%

Meat Hygiene - process

26%

11%

56%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

29%

15%

62%

15 + years

29%

34%
2%

78%

Fish

30%

Other
0%

10%

3%
39%

47%
20%

40%

50%

19%

30%

16%
30%

26%

60%

37%
70%

80%

90%

100%

There are not enough inspectors available to do all required food safety tasks
The food safety tasks arent necessary to ensure compliance with safety requirements
Other, please specify...

Across demographic subgroups, those working in the meat hygiene slaughter and process
divisions were more likely to feel that they were asked to stop doing some tasks because there are
not enough inspectors (72% and 78%, respectively). Those in the fish sector were most likely to
feel that they were asked to stop because the tasks were not necessary (39%).
All Respondents, n = 147
20

Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness


In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illness
because of a shortage of inspectors?

44%

Yes

No

19%

Dont know

37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Although 37% of respondents werent sure if a shortage of food inspectors has led to an increased
risk of food borne illness, a plurality (44%) believe it has.

All Respondents, n = 580


21

Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness


In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illness
because of a shortage of inspectors?
All

44%

0 5 years

19%

28%

37%

24%

48%

6 10 years

47%

11 15 years

48%

18%

34%

15 + years

46%

21%

32%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

16%

50%

Meat Hygiene - process

48%

Fish

47%

Other

20%

Yes

10%

20%

29%

19%

33%

25%

38%
0%

37%

28%

18%
30%

No

40%

50%

45%
60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

Although there was minimal variation across demographic subgroups when it came to an increased
risk of food borne illness in Canada as a result of a shortage of inspectors, those who have worked
for CFIA for five years or less were less likely to see a relationship between risk and the number of
inspectors (28%).
All Respondents, n = 580
22

Self Regulation
As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to food
safety. Will this trend make Canadas food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on
the food supply?

More safe

3%

No impact

11%

86%

Less safe

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall, a strong majority (86%) of respondents believe that a greater reliance on industry to selfregulate food safety makes Canadas food supply less safe.

All Respondents, n = 580


23

Self Regulation
As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to food
safety. Will this trend make Canadas food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on
the food supply?
All 3% 11%
0 5 years 4%

86%

15%

81%

6 10 years 4% 11%

85%

11 15 years 2% 7%

90%

15 + years 3% 12%

85%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter 2%6%

92%

Meat Hygiene - process 4% 10%

86%

Fish 2% 11%
Other 4%
0%

87%

14%
10%

More safe

82%
20%

30%

40%

No impact

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less safe

Results are relatively consistent across demographic subgroups when respondents were asked
whether an increased reliance on industry to self-regulate would lead to a safer or less safe food
supply in Canada.

All Respondents, n = 580


24

Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness


Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is the
likelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?

Very likely

26%

Somewhat likely

43%

Somewhat unlikely

10%

Very unlikely

5%

69% believe that a


major food borne
illness outbreak in
Canada is at least
somewhat likely to
occur in the near
future.

15%

Dont know
0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Nearly seven in ten (69%) respondents believe that, based on their knowledge and experience, a
major food borne illness outbreak in Canada is likely in the near future. Just 15% felt that such an
outbreak is unlikely.

All Respondents, n = 580


25

Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness


Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is the
likelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?
All

26%

0 5 years

43%

12%

6 10 years

10% 5%

45%
24%

11 15 years

11%
42%

31%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

32%

23%

11% 4%

34%

15 + years

9%

43%
44%

11%

46%
44%

13%

Fish

23%

45%

11% 2%

0%

Very likely

10%

Somewhat likely

41%
20%

30%

40%

Somewhat unlikely

50%

11%
60%

6% 9%

7% 4% 10%

23%
26%

19%

9% 2% 11%

Meat Hygiene - process


Other

15%

70%

Very unlikely

4%
6%
80%

16%
19%
16%
90%

100%

Dont know

Across demographic subgroups, belief in the likelihood of a major food borne illness outbreak in
Canada in the near future is most widely held by those working in meat hygiene slaughter (78%
likely) and those with over 11 years of experience (77% likely). This belief was least held by those
with less than five years of experience (57% likely).
All Respondents, n = 580
26

What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?


If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, do
you think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would

Increase

12%

Stay the same

12%

Decrease

63%

13%

Dont know
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

A strong majority of respondents (63%) think confidence in food inspection would decrease if
Canadians had their inside knowledge. Few (12%) believe more knowledge would increase
confidence among Canadians, and another 12% felt more knowledge would make no difference.

All Respondents, n = 580


27

What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?


If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, do
you think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would
All

12%

0 5 years

20%

6 10 years
11 15 years

12%

10%
6%

15 + years

15%

Meat Hygiene - process

13%
12%
0%

10%

17%

61%

14%

67%
9%

14%
69%

10%

7%

69%

11%

9%

60%

6% 8%

Other

13%

52%

12%

13%

Increase

11%
14%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter


Fish

63%

15%

74%
14%
20%

13%

59%
30%

Stay the same

40%

50%

60%

Decrease

15%
70%

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

Across demographic subgroups, those with more experience working for CFIA were more likely to
believe that public confidence would decrease if consumers shared workers knowledge. Those
with less than five years of experience were most likely to feel that public confidence would
increase (20%). Those working in areas of meat hygiene slaughter and fish were most likely to
feel that confidence would decrease, at 69% and 74%, respectively.
All Respondents, n = 580
28

The Compliance Verification System


Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System has
allowed me to be involved in day-to-day problem solving with industry to avoid problems in the
plant from becoming problems that make people sick.
Strongly agree

10%

Agree

27%

Disagree

23%

Strongly disagree

10%
29%

Dont know
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Overall, respondents are split on whether the Compliance Verification System allowed them to be
involved in day to day problem solving. Just over a third (37%) of respondents felt that it had
helped, while a third (33%) felt that it had not, a further 29% were unsure.

All Respondents, n = 580


29

The Compliance Verification System


Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System has
allowed me to be involved in day-to-day problem solving with industry to avoid problems in the
plant from becoming problems that make people sick.
All

10%

0 5 years

27%

18%

6 10 years

32%

11%
8%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

37%

7%
0%

Agree

7%

19%
17%

13%

10%

20%

30%

Disagree

29%

35%

6%

12% 4%

13%

8%
40%

12%
22%

30%
16%

30%
30%

45%

11%

28%

13%

27%

17%

Fish

Strongly agree

24%

29%

7%

21%
28%

10%

Meat Hygiene - process


Other

24%

10%
15%

30%

11 15 years 5%
15 + years

23%

26%
53%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly disagree

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

Those with five years of experience or less were most likely to have found the Compliance
Verification System helpful (50%), while those with over 11 years of experience were less likely.
Meanwhile, those working in the area of meat hygiene process were most likely to have found the
system helpful (62% agree), while those working in fish were less likely (30% agree).
All Respondents, n = 580
30

Inspection Modernization
As you may know, the CFIA intends to replace the current commodity inspection system with a new
system. The Agency is calling this change Inspection Modernization. In your opinion, what is the
CFIAs motivation for doing this?
24%

To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA

To transfer more responsibility and liability


from CFIA to industry

51%

11%

To improve food safety outcomes

14%

Dont know
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Overall, a majority (51%) of respondents believe that the CFIAs motivation for introducing
Inspection Modernization is to transfer more responsibility and liability from CFIA to industry.
Nearly a quarter (24%) feet it is to respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA, and just 11% feel it
is to improve safety outcomes.

All Respondents, n = 580


31

Inspection Modernization
As you may know, the CFIA intends to replace the current commodity inspection system with a new
system. The Agency is calling this change Inspection Modernization. In your opinion, what is the
CFIAs motivation for doing this?
All

24%

0 5 years

26%

6 10 years

27%

51%

11%

41%

14%

16%

46%

17%

11%

17%

11 15 years

21%

58%

9%

15 + years

20%

57%

12%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter


Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other

29%
19%
13%
25%

55%

10%

8%

59%

10%

64%
43%

12%

8%
14%

8%
11%

15%
18%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA
To transfer more responsibility and liability from CFIA to industry
To improve food safety outcomes
Dont know

90%

100%

Those with less than five years experience are least likely to feel the motivation behind Inspection
Modernization is to shift responsibility from CFIA to industry (41%), while those with over 11 years
experience were most likely to feel that way (58%). Further, those working in areas of fish and
meat hygiene - process were most likely to agree that the CFIAs motivation is to transfer
responsibility (64% and 59%, respectively).
All Respondents, n = 580
32

Inspection Modernization
CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontline
supervisors work outside of their area of expertise (for example, forestry experts inspecting fish,
animal science experts inspecting plant material).Do you feel qualified to inspect products outside
of your field of expertise?
Yes

6%
14%

Somewhat
Not very

24%
42%

Not at all
Dont know

13%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

When asked how qualified they would feel to inspect products outside of their field of expertise, two
thirds (66%) feel they would be not very or not at all qualified. Just 20% feel qualified.

All Respondents, n = 580


33

Inspection Modernization
CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontline
supervisors work outside of their area of expertise (for example, forestry experts inspecting fish,
animal science experts inspecting plant material).Do you feel qualified to inspect products outside
of your field of expertise?
All

0 5 years
6 10 years

6%

8%

17%

5% 10%
7%

16%

15 + years

6%

17%

8%

Meat Hygiene - process

8%

Fish 4%
Other 5%
0%

Somewhat

24%

42%

16%

49%

27%

11 15 years

Meat Hygiene - slaughter

Yes

14%

18%

10%

5%

47%

22%

Not very

5%

47%

28%

30%

11%

44%

27%

20%

14%

39%

26%

13%

17%

40%

28%

13%

10%

42%
24%

12%

13%

8%

38%
40%

50%

60%

Not at all

23%
70%

80%

90%

100%

Dont know

A majority of all groups felt not very or not at all qualified to inspect products outside their field of
expertise. There was minimal variation across demographic subgroups, however, feelings of
qualification were lowest among those with 6-10 years experience (15%) and highest among those
working in meat hygiene slaughter (26%).
All Respondents, n = 580
34

Impact of Inspection Modernization


In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization
Reduce the chance
of a major food borne
illness outbreak

5%

Make no difference

12%

Increase the chance


of a major food borne
illness outbreak

50%

Dont know

32%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Overall, half of respondents (50%) felt that the introduction of Inspection Modernization would
increase the risk of a major food borne illness outbreak, while just 5% felt it would reduce such
risks.

All Respondents, n = 580


35

Impact of Inspection Modernization


In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization
All
0 5 years

5%
8%

12%
10%

6 10 years 4% 12%
11 15 years 3%
15 + years

14%

9%

Meat Hygiene - slaughter 3%

17%

8%
0%

37%

49%

36%

53%

11%

30%

53%

14%

Fish 4%

32%

45%

12%

Meat Hygiene - process 3% 12%


Other

50%

27%

61%
49%
45%
46%

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Reduce the chance of a major food borne illness outbreak
Make no difference
Increase the chance of a major food borne illness outbreak
Dont know

22%
36%
34%
36%
80%

90%

100%

Across demographic subgroups, there appeared to be a relationship between experience and


feelings of increased risk of an outbreak: those with less experience expressed greater uncertainty
and lower levels of risk, while those with more experience were more likely to fear an outbreak and
less likely to be unsure. Those working in the area of meat hygiene slaughter were most likely to
feel that Inspection Modernization would lead to an increased risk of a major outbreak, at 61%.
All Respondents, n = 580
36

Inspection Modernization
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Senior leadership at the CFIA will be able to
introduce Inspection Modernization while
4% 10%
protecting consumer safety at the same time.
Inspection Modernization will allow me to do
more hands on oversight and inspection of 2% 9%
industry.

31%

23%

I have been briefed and am fully aware of my


new role and responsibilities under Inspection 2%6%
Modernization.
In preparation for the introduction of Inspection
Modernization, I have received adequate
2%5%
training to fulfill those responsibilities.
An assessment of resources needed to safely
implement Inspection Modernization has been 2%
4%
done in my immediate work area.
0%

Strongly agree

Agree

19%

19%

32%

20%

Disagree

46%

41%

31%

22%

36%

19%

41%

22%
40%

21%

50%
60%

Strongly disagree

80%

100%

Dont know

When a range of statements were tested about the introduction of Inspection Modernization,
respondents were overall lacking confidence in the programs ability to protect consumer safety, felt
it would limit hands-on oversight, did not feel they had been briefed on their new roles, and did not
feel they had been trained on their new responsibilities.
All Respondents, n = 580
37

CONTACT INFO
David Coletto
CEO
david@abacusdata.ca
613-232-2806
www.abacusdata.ca

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi