Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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%
17%
0 5 years
18%
9%
Fish
32%
6 10 years
Fair Labeling/Consumer
Protection
10%
Food Safety
11%
29%
11 15 years
2%
Microbiology
1%
10%
15 + years
40%
5%
The majority of respondents have 6 to 15 years of experience, with the plurality of respondents
working in the meat hygiene program area.
Province of Employment
In which province do you work?
28%
Quebec
26%
Ontario
10%
Alberta
10%
British Columbia
11%
New Brunswick
Manitoba
5%
5%
Nova Scotia
5%
4%
Saskatchewan
2%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
SURVEY FINDINGS
6%
25%
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.
5%
24%
8%
23%
6 10 years 4%
11 15 years 4%
15 + years
6%
Other
6%
0%
Strongly agree
Agree
30%
28%
27%
24%
8%
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).
6%
25%
8%
31%
25%
29%
6 10 years 5%
25%
29%
11 15 years 4%
26%
32%
15 + years
9%
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
6%
39%
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.
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%
52%
35%
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
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
27%
0 5 years
57%
29%
6 10 years
26%
33%
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.
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.
24%
0 5 years
76%
20%
6 10 years
80%
24%
11 15 years
76%
28%
15 + years
72%
23%
77%
28%
72%
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.
59%
13%
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.
59%
0 5 years
13%
52%
6 10 years
19%
60%
11 15 years
28%
9%
72%
26%
11%
56%
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
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.
44%
0 5 years
19%
28%
37%
24%
48%
6 10 years
47%
11 15 years
48%
18%
34%
15 + years
46%
21%
32%
16%
50%
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.
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%
92%
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.
Very likely
26%
Somewhat likely
43%
Somewhat unlikely
10%
Very unlikely
5%
15%
Dont know
0%
5%
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.
26%
0 5 years
43%
12%
6 10 years
10% 5%
45%
24%
11 15 years
11%
42%
31%
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%
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
Increase
12%
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.
12%
0 5 years
20%
6 10 years
11 15 years
12%
10%
6%
15 + years
15%
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%
63%
15%
74%
14%
20%
13%
59%
30%
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
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.
10%
0 5 years
27%
18%
6 10 years
32%
11%
8%
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%
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%
51%
11%
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.
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%
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.
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%
8%
Fish 4%
Other 5%
0%
Somewhat
24%
42%
16%
49%
27%
11 15 years
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
5%
Make no difference
12%
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.
5%
8%
12%
10%
6 10 years 4% 12%
11 15 years 3%
15 + years
14%
9%
17%
8%
0%
37%
49%
36%
53%
11%
30%
53%
14%
Fish 4%
32%
45%
12%
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%
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%
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