agriculture union cfia membership study
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
1/38
Impressions on food safety from
the frontline
Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
February 2016
Prepared for the Agriculture Union
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
2/38
Methodology
2
• The survey was conducted in English and French among 580 members of the
Agriculture Union who work for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency using aninternet 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
3/38
KEY FINDINGS
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
4/38
Key Findings
4
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 ofconfidence 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 theirimmediate workplace as inadequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements. Four-in-
ten (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 areinadequate 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 dailypresence 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 inthe near future given the state of food safety in Canada today. Just 15% believe that such an
outbreak is unlikely.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
5/38
Key Findings
5
• 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 becausethere 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 Canada’s food supply less safe.
• Concerning Inspection Modernization, CFIA’s staff lack confidence in the program’s 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 CFIA’s 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 CFIA’s senior leadership will be able to introduce
Inspection Modernization while protecting public safety at the same time. Only 14% agree theCFIA’s senior leadership will be able to safeguard the public during the transition.
• .
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
6/38
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
7/38
Profile of Respondents
7 All Respondents, n = 580
Length of time at CFIA
The majority of respondents have 6 to 15 years of experience, with the plurality of respondentsworking in the meat hygiene program area.
25%
18%
9%
10%
11%
2%
1%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Fair Labeling/Consumer
Protection
Food Safety
Fruit and Vegetables
Microbiology
Other, please specify...
Program at CFIA
17%
32%
29%
10%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
8/38
Province of Employment
8 All Respondents, n = 580
In which province do you work?
28%
26%
10%
10%
11%
5%
5%
5%
4%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Quebec
Ontario
Alberta
British Columbia
New Brunswick
Manitoba
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Prince Edward Island
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
9/38
SURVEY FINDINGS
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
10/38
Number of inspectors in local workplaces
10 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
6%
5%
25%
24%
31%
31%
29%
29%
9%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
There are enough inspectors inmy immediate work area to allowstaff to take leave for vacation,
illness and other purposes.
There are enough inspectors inmy immediate work area to allow
staff to book off for required
training
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Overall, a majority (60%) of respondents agree there are insufficient inspectors in their work area toallow staff to take leave for vacation, illness or other reasons, or to allow staff to book off time for
required training.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
11/38
Number of inspectors in local workplaces
11 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in myimmediate work area to allow staff to book off for required training
5%
8%
4%
4%
8%
5%
5%
6%
6%
24%
23%
28%
24%
20%
14%
19%
49%
27%
31%
30%
27%
30%
37%
33%
40%
17%
28%
29%
28%
26%
35%
28%
47%
37%
23%
19%
10%
11%
14%
7%
7%
1%
6%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
When asked whether there are sufficient inspectors in their work area to allow time off for requiredtraining, 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).
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
12/38
Number of inspectors in local workplaces
12 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? | There are enough inspectors in myimmediate work area to allow staff to take leave for vacation, illness and other purposes.
6%
8%
5%
4%
9%
4%
7%
6%
7%
25%
25%
25%
26%
22%
16%
19%
51%
27%
31%
29%
29%
32%
33%
33%
35%
17%
31%
29%
27%
28%
31%
30%
47%
40%
23%
17%
9%
11%
12%
7%
6%
4%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t 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).
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
13/38
Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff
13 All Respondents, n = 580
Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediateworking group?
6%
39%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
More than adequate to complete all tasks needed toensure 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 ensurecompliance with food safety requirements
Although 39% of respondents report that the current complement of staff in their immediate workinggroup is adequate to ensure compliance with food safety requirements, a majority (55%) felt that
current staffing levels are inadequate.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
14/38
Perceptions about Current Complement of Inspection Staff
14 All Respondents, n = 580
Which of the following best describes the current complement of inspection staff in your immediateworking group?
Overall, 55% of respondents felt the current complement of inspection staff in their working groupwas 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%).
6%
7%
4%
4%
8%
5%
4%
8%
6%
39%
45%
41%
34%
40%
35%
25%
43%
46%
55%
48%
55%
62%
52%
60%
71%
49%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
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
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
15/38
Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors
15 All Respondents, n = 254
Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence inestablishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only
27%
57%
13%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Always
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Just over a quarter of meat inspectors (27%) report that there are always enough inspectors in theirgroup 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
16/38
Daily Presence of Meat Inspectors
16 All Respondents, n = 254
Are there enough inspectors in your immediate working group to allow meaningful daily presence inestablishments for which your group is responsible? Meat Inspectors Only
When examined across demographic subgroups, those with 6-10 years of experience (22%), andthose working in meat hygiene processing (18%) were least likely to think there are always enough
inspectors to allow meaningful daily presence.
27%
29%
22%
26%
33%
33%
18%
57%
59%
58%
65%
41%
54%
60%
13%
12%
18%
4%
18%
10%
16%
4%
0%
3%
4%
8%
2%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Meat Inspectors
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Always Sometimes Rarely Never
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
17/38
Required Food Safety Tasks
17 All Respondents, n = 580
Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safetyrelated tasks?
24%
76%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Yes
No
Although 76% of respondents answered ‘no’, nearly a quarter (24%) stated that they had beenasked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safety related tasks.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
18/38
Required Food Safety Related Tasks
18 All Respondents, n = 580
Have you been asked or directed by CFIA managers to stop doing some required food safetyrelated tasks?
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.
24%
20%
24%
28%
23%
28%
29%
42%
17%
76%
80%
76%
72%
77%
72%
71%
58%
83%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Yes No
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
19/38
Reason for stopping food safety related tasks
19 All Respondents, n = 147
Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing somerequired food safety related tasks, in your opinion?
59%
13%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
There are not enough inspectors available todo all required food safety tasks
The food safety tasks aren’t necessary to
ensure compliance with safety requirements
Other, please specify...
Of those asked to stop doing some required food safety related tasks, a majority (59%) believe thatsuch 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
20/38
Reason for stopping food safety related tasks.
20 All Respondents, n = 147
Which of the following best describes why managers at the CFIA asked you to stop doing somerequired food safety related tasks, in your opinion?
Across demographic subgroups, those working in the meat hygiene slaughter and processdivisions 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%).
59%
52%
60%
62%
56%
72%
78%
30%
47%
13%
19%
15%
11%
9%
2%
3%
39%
16%
29%
29%
26%
28%
34%
26%
19%
30%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
There are not enough inspectors available to do all required food safety tasksThe food safety tasks aren’t necessary to ensure compliance with safety requirements
Other, please specify...
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
21/38
Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness
21 All Respondents, n = 580
In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illnessbecause of a shortage of inspectors?
44%
19%
37%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Yes
No
Don’t know
Although 37% of respondents weren’t sure if a shortage of food inspectors has led to an increasedrisk of food borne illness, a plurality (44%) believe it has.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
22/38
Increased Risk of Food Borne Illness
22 All Respondents, n = 580
In your opinion, have Canadian consumers been exposed to an increased risk of food borne illnessbecause of a shortage of inspectors?
Although there was minimal variation across demographic subgroups when it came to an increasedrisk 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%).
44%
28%
47%
48%
46%
50%
48%
47%
38%
19%
24%
16%
18%
21%
20%
19%
25%
18%
37%
48%
37%
34%
32%
29%
33%
28%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Yes No Don’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
23/38
Self Regulation
23 All Respondents, n = 580
As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to foodsafety. Will this trend make Canada’s food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on
the food supply?
3%
11%
86%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More safe
No impact
Less safe
Overall, a strong majority (86%) of respondents believe that a greater reliance on industry to self-regulate food safety makes Canada’s food supply less safe.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
24/38
Self Regulation
24 All Respondents, n = 580
As you may know, the CFIA is increasingly reliant on industry to self-regulate when it comes to foodsafety. Will this trend make Canada’s food supply more safe, less safe, or will it have no impact on
the food supply?
Results are relatively consistent across demographic subgroups when respondents were askedwhether an increased reliance on industry to self-regulate would lead to a safer or less safe food
supply in Canada.
3%
4%
4%
2%
3%
2%
4%
2%
4%
11%
15%
11%
7%
12%
6%
10%
11%
14%
86%
81%
85%
90%
85%
92%
86%
87%
82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
More safe No impact Less safe
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
25/38
Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness
25 All Respondents, n = 580
Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is thelikelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?
26%
43%
10%
5%
15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Don’t know
Nearly seven in ten (69%) respondents believe that, based on their knowledge and experience, amajor food borne illness outbreak in Canada is likely in the near future. Just 15% felt that such an
outbreak is unlikely.
69% believe that amajor food borne
illness outbreak in
Canada is at leastsomewhat likely tooccur in the near
future.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
26/38
Likelihood of Major Food Borne Illness
26 All Respondents, n = 580
Given your knowledge and experience with the state of food inspection in Canada, what is thelikelihood that a major food borne illness outbreak in Canada will occur in the near future?
Across demographic subgroups, belief in the likelihood of a major food borne illness outbreak inCanada 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).
26%
12%
24%
34%
31%
32%
23%
23%
26%
43%
45%
42%
43%
44%
46%
44%
45%
41%
10%
11%
11%
9%
11%
7%
13%
11%
11%
5%
9%
4%
2%
6%
4%
4%
2%
6%
15%
23%
19%
11%
9%
10%
16%
19%
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
27/38
What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?
27 All Respondents, n = 580
If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, doyou think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would!
12%
12%
63%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Increase
Stay the same
Decrease
Don’t know
A strong majority of respondents (63%) think confidence in food inspection would decrease ifCanadians had their inside knowledge. Few (12%) believe more knowledge would increase
confidence among Canadians, and another 12% felt more knowledge would make no difference.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
28/38
What if Canadian consumers knew what you know?
28 All Respondents, n = 580
If Canadian consumers had your knowledge about the level of food inspection in Canada today, doyou think their level of confidence in the safety of food they consume would!
Across demographic subgroups, those with more experience working for CFIA were more likely tobelieve 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.
12%
20%
10%
6%
15%
13%
13%
6%
12%
12%
11%
14%
12%
9%
10%
11%
8%
14%
63%
52%
61%
67%
69%
69%
60%
74%
59%
13%
17%
14%
14%
7%
9%
15%
13%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Increase Stay the same Decrease Don’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
29/38
The Compliance Verification System
29 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System hasallowed 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.
10%
27%
23%
10%
29%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know
Overall, respondents are split on whether the Compliance Verification System allowed them to beinvolved 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
30/38
The Compliance Verification System
30 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? | The Compliance Verification System hasallowed 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.
Those with five years of experience or less were most likely to have found the ComplianceVerification 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).
10%
18%
11%
5%
8%
10%
17%
11%
7%
27%
32%
30%
24%
24%
37%
45%
19%
17%
23%
15%
21%
28%
27%
35%
22%
30%
16%
10%
7%
7%
13%
13%
12%
12%
13%
8%
29%
28%
30%
30%
29%
6%
4%
26%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
31/38
Inspection Modernization
31 All Respondents, n = 580
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
CFIA’s motivation for doing this?
24%
51%
11%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA
To transfer more responsibility and liabilityfrom CFIA to industry
To improve food safety outcomes
Don’t know
Overall, a majority (51%) of respondents believe that the CFIA’s motivation for introducingInspection 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
32/38
Inspection Modernization
32 All Respondents, n = 580
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
CFIA’s motivation for doing this?
Those with less than five years experience are least likely to feel the motivation behind InspectionModernization 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 CFIA’s motivation is to transfer
responsibility (64% and 59%, respectively).
24%
26%
27%
21%
20%
29%
19%
13%
25%
51%
41%
46%
58%
57%
55%
59%
64%
43%
11%
16%
11%
9%
12%
8%
10%
8%
14%
14%
17%
17%
12%
10%
8%
11%
15%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
To respond to dwindling resources at the CFIA
To transfer more responsibility and liability from CFIA to industryTo improve food safety outcomesDon’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
33/38
Inspection Modernization
33 All Respondents, n = 580
CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontlinesupervisors 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?
6%
14%
24%
42%
13%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Yes
Somewhat
Not very
Not at all
Don’t know
When asked how qualified they would feel to inspect products outside of their field of expertise, twothirds (66%) feel they would be not very or not at all qualified. Just 20% feel qualified.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
34/38
Inspection Modernization
34 All Respondents, n = 580
CFIA has said Inspection Modernization will allow the Agency to assign inspectors and frontlinesupervisors 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?
A majority of all groups felt not very or not at all qualified to inspect products outside their field ofexpertise. 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%).
6%
8%
5%
7%
6%
8%
8%
4%
5%
14%
17%
10%
16%
17%
18%
12%
13%
13%
24%
16%
27%
24%
28%
26%
27%
28%
22%
42%
49%
42%
40%
39%
44%
47%
47%
38%
13%
10%
17%
14%
11%
5%
5%
8%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Yes Somewhat Not very Not at all Don’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
35/38
Impact of Inspection Modernization
35 All Respondents, n = 580
In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization!
5%
12%
50%
32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Reduce the chanceof a major food borne
illness outbreak
Make no difference
Increase the chanceof a major food borne
illness outbreak
Don’t know
Overall, half of respondents (50%) felt that the introduction of Inspection Modernization wouldincrease the risk of a major food borne illness outbreak, while just 5% felt it would reduce such
risks.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
36/38
36 All Respondents, n = 580
In your opinion, will the introduction of Inspection Modernization!
Across demographic subgroups, there appeared to be a relationship between experience andfeelings 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%.
Impact of Inspection Modernization
5%
8%
4%
3%
9%
3%
3%
4%
8%
12%
10%
12%
14%
12%
14%
12%
17%
11%
50%
45%
49%
53%
53%
61%
49%
45%
46%
32%
37%
36%
30%
27%
22%
36%
34%
36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 15 years
15 + years
Meat Hygiene - slaughter
Meat Hygiene - process
Fish
Other
Reduce the chance of a major food borne illness outbreakMake no difference
Increase the chance of a major food borne illness outbreakDon’t know
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
37/38
Inspection Modernization
37 All Respondents, n = 580
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
10%
9%
6%
5%
4%
31%
23%
32%
31%
22%
19%
19%
41%
41%
22%
36%
46%
19%
21%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Senior leadership at the CFIA will be able to
introduce Inspection Modernization whileprotecting consumer safety at the same time.
Inspection Modernization will allow me to do
more hands on oversight and inspection ofindustry.
I have been briefed and am fully aware of my
new role and responsibilities under InspectionModernization.
In preparation for the introduction of InspectionModernization, I have received adequate
training to fulfill those responsibilities.
An assessment of resources needed to safelyimplement Inspection Modernization has been
done in my immediate work area.
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
When a range of statements were tested about the introduction of Inspection Modernization,respondents were overall lacking confidence in the program’s 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.
-
8/19/2019 Agriculture Union CFIA Membership Study
38/38
CONTACT INFO
David Coletto
CEO
613-232-2806
www.abacusdata.ca