Strong employee training is key for any company to achieve its objectives and maintain quality standards. But food manufacturers face an additional reality: it’s not just company goals around yield and margin on the line, it’s also the stability of the global food supply, public health and people’s lives.

The recent run of high-profile recalls and foodborne illness outbreaks — including the Cyclospora outbreak that led to nearly 13,000 confirmed cases and 600 hospitalizations with at least two deaths — are a stark reminder that workforce training is different for food manufacturers. The only acceptable bar is excellence, every single day, every single shift.

So, how can food manufacturers prepare employees to follow safety protocols consistently, even amid demanding production schedules? And what can organizations do to make their food safety training more effective?

The answer starts with understanding the challenges employees and training teams face, then identifying practical ways to improve training delivery, content and follow-through.

Understanding the Challenges of Food Safety Training

Food manufacturers are exposed to greater risk due to inadequate training, but it’s not for lack of effort. Production schedules leave little room for employees to step away from their work, while training teams must balance content development, delivery and documentation.

According to the 2026 Global Food Safety Training Survey, comprised of data representing more than 3,000 food manufacturing facilities, scheduling time for training is the biggest challenge holding facilities back. The second and third biggest challenges are making training engaging and finding the staff and resources to manage training delivery and documentation.

These challenges can reinforce one another. When training teams have limited time and resources, it becomes harder to create engaging learning experiences, accommodate different schedules and verify that employees understand what they’ve learned.

The survey also examined why employees don’t consistently follow established procedures. Respondents identified three leading reasons:

• Employees prefer doing things “the old way”
• Employees did not remember the training
• Employees are unengaged

Additionally, 20% of facilities reported that employees did not understand the training. That’s 1 in 5 facilities surveyed.

When employees don’t fully comprehend their training or are unable to remember it once on the floor, it’s no wonder they slip to “old habits.” Through this lens, non-compliance to protocols becomes less of a discipline issue, and more an indication there are significant defects in the training program.

3 Ways to Improve Food Safety Training

Food manufacturers can begin by addressing these challenges in three areas: training delivery, content design, and the validation and documentation of learning.

1. Choose Training Methods That Fit Production Demands

When employees can’t step away from production easily, scheduling training becomes a significant challenge. One place to start is by reviewing how training is delivered and identifying opportunities to give employees more flexibility.

The survey found that:

• 72% of facilities use on-the-job coaching from supervisors
• 63% use instructor-led classroom training
• 33% use eLearning courses

These methods serve different purposes, and a mix of approaches can help organizations address different learning needs. However, classroom training can be difficult to schedule when large groups of employees must leave the production floor at the same time.

For appropriate topics, short, self-paced eLearning courses may offer a practical alternative. Employees can complete training around production schedules, while training teams can use digital records to track completion and identify knowledge gaps. Depending on the platform, they may also be able to assess comprehension through quizzes and other interactive activities.

Classroom instruction and supervised practice still have an important role, particularly when employees need hands-on demonstrations, discussion or feedback. The goal is to match the delivery method to the learning objective and operational constraints, rather than relying on one approach for every topic.

2. Design Training That Employees Can Understand and Apply

Choosing the right delivery method is only part of the solution. Training also needs to hold employees’ attention and help them remember what to do when they’re back on the production floor.

The survey’s findings on engagement and retention point to an opportunity to rethink how food safety content is developed. Long presentations and passive videos may communicate information, but employees also need opportunities to work through scenarios, recognize risks and practice making decisions.

Interactive eLearning can support this kind of practice through activities such as drag-and-drop exercises and “spot the risk” scenarios. These experiences let employees apply concepts in a learning environment before encountering similar situations on the production floor.

Regardless of training delivery method, keep training focused on what employees need to know and do. Food safety training involves scientific concepts, but the level of detail should reflect the audience and its responsibilities. Production line workers, for example, may need different background information than quality assurance laboratory technicians.

A few adult-learning principles can help make training more relevant and effective:

• Keep training focused. Prioritize the information employees need to perform their specific roles.
• Break information into manageable sections. Introduce one concept at a time and build on it as employees progress.
• Use a mix of media. Combine text, images, video and narration where appropriate.
• Reinforce key concepts. Build in opportunities to revisit important information during training and through follow-up activities on the production floor.
• Use realistic scenarios. Connect concepts to situations employees are likely to encounter in their work.
• Explain why procedures matter. Help employees understand the reasoning behind a protocol, not just the steps they need to follow.

Developing this kind of content takes time and expertise, which can be difficult for lean training teams. Third-party training libraries may offer another option, particularly when they combine food safety expertise with instructional design. Before selecting a provider, review the quality and relevance of its content, compare courses and confirm compatibility with your organization’s HR and learning systems.

Consider Where AI Can Support Content Development

Today it’s hard to discuss developing content without considering how (or even if) to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI). Given the top challenges of finding time and stretched-thin resources, AI tools could help training teams work more efficiently.

Food safety is not a topic with room for error. But keep in mind the FDA has been exploring the use of generative AI, and industry discussions have also addressed AI’s role in food safety programs. For training teams considering these tools, several safeguards are important:

• Require human review. Subject matter experts should verify AI-generated content against approved procedures and applicable requirements before employees use it.
• Start with a defined use case. Converting a difficult-to-navigate SOP into a clearer learning resource may be a manageable starting point.
• Maintain consistent content standards. Use established formats and review processes to support clarity and consistency across courses.
• Evaluate tools carefully. Consider data security, integration requirements and features designed specifically for training development when comparing purpose-built platforms with general-purpose AI tools.

3. Verify Learning Application and Improve Documentation

Creating and delivering training isn’t enough. In operations with as much risk as food manufacturers, validating training is correctly applied on the floor is a must.

On-the-job assessments can help supervisors identify gaps between what employees learned and what they do in practice. The survey found that 62% of facilities perform on-the-job assessments of correct application. While that’s a healthy majority, that means nearly 40% of facilities reported that they don’t use this approach.

Training teams can strengthen this process by building practical checks into existing workflows. Depending on the task, these might include observing an employee perform a procedure, asking the employee to explain a critical step or checking whether the employee can identify a potential food safety risk.

Documentation is another important part of the process. Accurate records help organizations track completion, maintain visibility into training requirements and identify employees who need additional instruction.

However, the survey suggests that many facilities still rely on manual systems. Only 17% identified a learning management system (LMS) as their primary method for managing and documenting training. By comparison, 52% primarily use paper records, while 27% rely on spreadsheets.

These findings don’t necessarily mean that the remaining facilities lack an LMS. Some may have a system but use other methods as their primary recordkeeping process. Still, the results highlight an opportunity to evaluate whether current tools and workflows provide the visibility and efficiency training teams need.

Final Thoughts

Most food manufacturers are constantly vigilant on food safety. But the focus is oftentimes directed toward processes and procedures, with less focus on people. Even the best food safety plans are only as good as the workers implementing them on the floor.

The Global Food Safety Training Survey offers one final perspective: 18% of respondents rated their own training program as poor, 62% rated them as good enough, and 20% rated them as above average.

These self-assessments suggest there is room for improvement across much of the industry. For learning and development teams, the opportunity is to examine where employees struggle, identify the changes most likely to help and continually evaluate whether training translates into safer practices on the production floor.