From Corporate to Corner Store: Retail Food Safety Practices in Small Businesses and How They Compare with Large Brands

Article By By Carrie E. Rigdon, Ph.D., Research Director, Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO); Sally L. Flowers, Ph.D., Scientific Affairs Director, AFDO; Deanna E. Copeland, Retail Food Safety Director, AFDO; and Steven Mandernach, J.D., Executive Director, AFDO
Article Source: https://digitaledition.food-safety.com/october-november-2025/feature-cover-story/?utm_medium=emailsend&utm_source=DG-FS-Food+Safety&utm_content=BNPCD251001064_01&oly_enc_id=5144A7749701F4Y

Small businesses show positive signs of managerial engagement and understanding of food safety principles but face challenges in implementing formal Food Safety Management Systems

This study examines the implementation of Food Safety Management Systems (FSMSs) and food safety culture (FSC) among small retail food businesses in the U.S. and compares the findings to a prior national survey of large brand operators. Using a modified version of the original survey instrument, data were collected from 747 small businesses across 28 states. The analysis indicated that small businesses show positive signs of managerial engagement and a foundational, though variable, understanding of food safety principles; yet they face challenges in implementing formal FSMS elements and maintaining consistent practices.

Notably, small businesses rely heavily on regulatory agencies and food inspectors for training, policy development, and performance assessment—an approach that contrasts with the internal infrastructure and third-party verification systems common among large brands. These findings suggest that inspections of small businesses may benefit from a more dialogic, "educate while you regulate" approach that supports capacity-building in addition to compliance. Tailored regulatory strategies and accessible training resources may help strengthen food safety outcomes in this critical sector of the food system.

Introduction

Foodborne illness affects millions of Americans annually, with retail food establishments serving as a critical control point for preventing foodborne illness. Restaurants and catering facilities are frequently implicated in foodborne disease outbreaks,1 and grocery stores and convenience stores can serve as a vehicle for contaminated products.2 Throughout the food supply chain, producers, distributors, handlers, and vendors share responsibility for food safety, with retail food operators playing a particularly significant role due to their direct contact with consumers and final handling of products before consumption.

Among retail food operators, owners and managers play an especially crucial role in establishing and maintaining effective food safety practices. Effective food safety management requires two complementary approaches: FSMSs, which provide systematic, documented procedures and controls for identifying and managing hazards;3 and FSC, which encompasses the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that prioritize food safety in daily operations.4 Retail food establishment owners and managers who implement a robust FSMS are more successful in controlling foodborne illness risk factors.5 Furthermore, research has demonstrated that a strong correlation exists between a strong FSC and a well-developed FSMS,6,7 with the culture providing the "why" and the system providing the "how."8

A recent survey of large retail food industry brands conducted by AFDO, as part of the Retail Food Safety Regulatory Association Collaborative, identified several techniques to promote and sustain FSC and FSMS within their operations. The survey also demonstrated a strong positive relationship between the maturity levels of both approaches and highlighted several opportunities for brands to enhance their FSCs and FSMSs.9,10

Large retail food companies typically possess greater financial resources, dedicated food safety professionals, and corporate infrastructure that may facilitate comprehensive FSMS implementation and FSC development. However, research on food safety practices in small retail food businesses remains limited. While some studies suggest that FSC and manager leadership implementation increase for small- and medium-sized businesses after FSMS implementation, and that these businesses are less likely to perceive barriers to implementation after FSMS implementation has begun,11 comprehensive data on the current state of FSMS and FSC in small retail food establishments is lacking.

"Given the prevalence of small retail food businesses and their important role in the food system, understanding their food safety practices is essential for developing targeted interventions, guidance, and support strategies."

An estimated 90 percent of U.S. restaurants have fewer than 50 employees, and seven out of ten are single-unit operations.12 This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the current state of FSMS and FSC implementation among small retail food businesses. Additionally, by comparing these findings with data from large retail food brands, this research provides novel insights into how organizational size and resources may influence food safety management approaches. The specific aims of this study were to: (1) assess the current implementation and maturity levels of FSMS and FSC in small retail food businesses, and (2) compare food safety knowledge, practices, and system maturity between small businesses and large retail food brands.

Methods

Survey Design and Distribution

An online survey was developed and pilot tested based on a previous survey of large retail and restaurant brands.9,10 This version was modified for small business owners and managers to include fewer questions, more plain language, and distribution in one installment instead of two. The survey consisted of similar FSMS, Active Managerial Control (AMC), management practices, and FSC themes to make the results comparable between the two surveys. A participation incentive of one entry to win one of 15 $50 gift cards was offered to all who completed the survey.

Collaborations with state and local food regulatory authorities resulted in varied distribution mechanisms. The link to the survey was provided to businesses in 28 states via direct email, state agency newsletters, and through local regulatory agencies.

Survey Demographics

Survey responses were received between October 30, 2024 and April 10, 2025. A total of 790 businesses completed the survey. Of those, 747 met the definition of "small business:" having 50 or fewer employees. Although the survey collected data on both full-time and part-time staff, the authors applied the small business criteria based solely on full-time employee counts. Of the 747 small business responses, 267 (42.9 percent) were from restaurants, 39 (6.3 percent) were from grocery stores, 35 (5.6 percent) were from convenience stores, and 281 identified as other business types (see Table 1). The other business types included 182 fixed kitchens; 41 mobile food establishments; 35 concession stands; 15 bars, pubs, breweries, or wineries; and eight food pantries or food banks. The proportion of small restaurant businesses was comparable to that of large restaurant businesses, which accounted for 43.4 percent of large brand responses. In contrast, large grocery stores and convenience stores represented 25 percent and 26.3 percent of large business respondents, respectively, with only 5.3 percent falling into other business categories.

Roughly three-quarters (74.9 percent) of respondents were affiliated with businesses of a single location, and a further 15.7 percent represented businesses with 2–5 locations. The majority of respondents (73.7 percent) described their operations as independent, followed by 9.6 percent as franchises and 9.3 percent as corporate-owned. In comparison, among large businesses, 2.6 percent were independent operators, while the majority (82.9 percent) were part of chains, and 14.5 percent identified as franchises.

Most (70.1 percent) of the small businesses surveyed had 10 or fewer full-time employees. Some respondents qualitatively described the size of their staff instead of entering the number of employees. Employee numbers were estimated for these responses (e.g., "100+" transformed to 100). Responses that included the terms "seasonal workers" or "volunteers" were counted as part-time because they would be expected to follow establishment food safety practices in the same manner as full-time employees.

Food Safety Training

Businesses were asked what type of food safety training is provided to employees who handle food. Slightly more than half of these employees earn Food Manager Certification (57.9 percent) or receive training from their supervisor (57.9 percent), followed by in-house training (53.9 percent) and Food Handler Certification (51.7 percent). Approximately one-fourth of employees receive online training (23.5 percent) or are trained by employees other than a supervisor (23.3 percent). About 8 percent of employees receive training from an external source. When asked which positions are Certified Food Managers, 83.5 percent said managers, and nearly one-third said shift leaders (36.8 percent) and supervisors (31.9 percent;). About 6 percent of business owners are Certified Food Managers, while 4 percent of small businesses ensure that every employee is certified.

The five respondents who said "Unsure" (0.7 percent) rely on their health inspector or attend health department trainings rather than having an established training plan. Twelve respondents marked "Other" and said that one or more of their food handlers undergo ANSI-accredited food handler training. These 12 responses were counted under Food Manager Certification training. Some establishments that identified as childcare centers or bars mentioned training and certifications that are not related to food safety. These employee trainings included TIPS® (Training for Intervention ProcedureS) or liquor license training and child nutrition courses.

Small businesses were more likely to report training for employees that handle food (98 percent) compared with large brands (85 percent). However, Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM) training is more common with large brands, with 92.8 percent requiring CFPM training, compared with 57.9 percent of small businesses that require it.

Nearly 10 percent of respondents selected "Other," indicating that they were either the establishment owner themselves or that all food handlers (essentially everyone) were Certified Food Managers. This may reflect the smaller staff sizes typical of small businesses.

Management Practices

The majority of small businesses (93 percent) stated that managers immediately intervene after observing employees performing unsafe food safety behaviors (see Table 4). About 3 percent of managers correct behavior at a later time, while 1.6 percent correct behaviors some of the time. Only two respondents (0.3 percent) said that managers do not act on unsafe food handling behaviors. This was less frequent than large brand survey respondents, 19 percent of whom indicated that management noticing unsafe food handling and not speaking up happened often. Two respondents stated that employees are retrained (0.3 percent), and one said that the manager documents unsafe practices when they are observed (0.2 percent).

Additionally, nearly 68 percent of managers role-model proper handwashing to encourage employees to adopt the same practice. This is similar to the 65 percent of large brand survey respondents who reported that managers consistently modeled correct food safety behaviors.

To encourage FSC, 14 percent of managers recognize and/or reward employees who demonstrate excellence in food safety behaviors). This is significantly less frequent than large brands (45.6 percent).10 For those small businesses that did provide recognition, 34 small businesses (5.4 percent) offer praise or compliments individually to employees or in front of the entire team. Examples included in-house communication and awards. Thirty businesses recognize good practices with a monetary award such as a bonus, gift card, free food, or other prizes, and one mentioned awarding staff getaways. Four businesses provide consideration for promotions or leadership recognition, and one mentioned paying for food safety classes as professional development.

Assessment of Food Safety Management System Practices

This survey assessed components of an FSMS, including the tools, practices, and behaviors that help prevent foodborne illnesses. The most frequent tool to ensure food safety was inspections by state or local regulatory agencies (81.5 percent; see Table 6). Three out of four small businesses (77.3 percent) see open communication between management and employees as a way to ensure the safe handling of food, which is also a trait of positive FSC.

Monitoring cold storage temperatures (93.5 percent) is the most common practice for keeping food safe, followed by date-marking foods (see Table 7). Nearly three-fourths of small businesses thaw foods according to safe practices (77.1 percent), monitor cooking temperatures (73.2 percent), routinely calibrate their thermometers (72 percent), and prep food in small batches (70.5 percent). Slightly more than half of respondents monitor cooling processes (57.7 percent) and conduct line checks of hot and cold holding temperatures (57.4 percent). Less than half of small businesses check delivery temperatures (44.5 percent), maintain temperature logs (38.3 percent), or use time labels when food is held at room temperature (30.9 percent). Almost 14 percent of respondents said they do not serve foods that require temperature control. A sentiment emerged among the open-ended "not applicable" responses (less than 1 percent) that some businesses do not view themselves as retail food safety operations even though they serve one or more food items.

Small businesses were asked which written food safety procedures or policies they use in their establishments. Most have written cleaning and sanitization procedures (81.1 percent) and personal hygiene standards (78.2 percent). Half employ pest management (49.5 percent) and allergen control policies (47.3 percent), while slightly less than half maintain an emergency response plan (43.9 percent) or preventive maintenance procedure (39.9 percent). The least common policies include a supplier/vendor approval program (23.6 percent), equipment design (20.3 percent), and facility design standards (17.3 percent). One respondent mentioned a need to follow military procedures.

A variety of other sources are involved in creating food safety procedures. The sources most frequently cited were the small business owner(s) (77.9 percent), managers (69.5 percent), and their food inspectors (61.4 percent). Contributions from employees who handle food account for 47.6 percent of responses. Training companies provide input to approximately one-quarter (25.9 percent), while company-provided procedures are reported by 14.5 percent of respondents. Less commonly, third-party auditors (8 percent) and industry trade associations (6.8 percent) are identified as sources of food safety procedures. Extension services and universities are the least frequently mentioned, with only 2.1 percent of respondents indicating their involvement. Three respondents identified U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Education Child Nutrition for assistance with food safety policy needs.

To assess the presence and maturity of FSMS among small food businesses, the survey included 15 of 37 questions designed to capture core FSMS principles. Recognizing that many small business operators may be unfamiliar with the term "Food Safety Management System," the survey focused instead on practices, policies, and behaviors that reflect its foundational elements or procedures, training, and monitoring.

The FSMS composite score reflected how well establishments implemented key food safety practices, such as maintaining written policies, training staff and verifying their knowledge, documenting procedures through records like cleaning and temperature logs, and taking corrective actions when issues arose. It also considered the use of third-party audits, management oversight, and systems for monitoring ongoing compliance.

Weights were applied to reflect the strength of evidence demonstrated by the question or response related to a systematic, preventive food safety approach. Ten questions were fully weighted, and selected response options from an additional five questions received partial weighting based on the degree to which they indicated a mature FSMS.

Results showed that 59 percent of small business respondents had FSMS scores in the upper half of the possible range, and 16.1 percent scored in the top quartile.Comparatively, 74 percent of large brands in a separate national survey self-reported their FSMS as either "well-developed" or "well-developed and documented," suggesting a meaningful but not insurmountable gap in FSMS adoption between small and large establishments.

Assessment of Food Safety Culture Practices

FSC was assessed through a combination of direct and indirect measures. Unlike FSMS, respondents were explicitly asked to define FSC, providing insight into their conceptual understanding of the term. Survey respondents were asked to describe FSC in their own words. Over half of the respondents (54.5 percent) offered open-ended responses across a broad spectrum. We assigned binary values (0, 1) to responses for a preliminary look at the data. A value of 0 was assigned to answers that expressed an intangible, unsure, or negative response. A value of 1 was assigned to answers that demonstrated a basic to advanced description of the term "food safety culture."

In addition to this binary classification of open-ended responses, we identified eight preliminary themes to enable categorization of responses into meaningful groups. This early analysis revealed themes that appear to best reflect FSC sentiments and understanding. A value of 1 (88 percent) indicates an understanding of FSC that ranges from above-average to mastery. Meanwhile, a value of 0 (12 percent) reflects an uncertain or minimal fluency in FSC.

Recognizing that self-reported awareness may not fully capture the strength of a business's FSC, the survey also examined related practices, behaviors, and organizational norms. In addition to the open-ended question, nine closed-ended questions were used to develop a composite FSC score, with weights applied to specific response options that more strongly reflected key cultural attributes. For example, respondents were asked whose input is used to create food safety procedures for their business. Those who answered owner (77.9 percent), managers (69.5 percent), employees who handle food (47.6 percent), and shift leaders/person in charge (42.9 percent) were given a greater weight for FSC than those who selected the other options, which indicates limited buy-in of establishment staff.

Similarly, respondents were asked who is accountable for food safety at their establishment. Those who answered, "employees who handle food" (71 percent) were given a greater weight for FSC than those who selected the other options.

Using this weighted scoring approach, 26 percent of small business respondents had FSC scores in the top quartile of the scale .Small business FSC scores appear to follow a right-tailed, normal distribution, suggesting that approximately 75 percent of respondents demonstrated an above-average to advanced understanding of FSC by effectively describing its principles. In comparison, 90 percent of large brands stated they had a good understanding of FSC, were well-versed in it, or were responsible for driving it within their organizations.

Food Safety Audits

While many tools are available for small businesses to confirm that food is safe before it is served, only 9.4 percent reported reliance on third-party audits compared with 88.3 percent of large brands. In fact, 5 percent said that they consider third-party auditors to be accountable for food safety in their establishments. Small businesses are more likely to depend on regulatory inspections (81.5 percent), communication between management and employees (77.3 percent), and/or in-house food safety audits or checklists (69.1 percent) to confirm adherence to safe practices.

About 8 percent of small businesses use inputs from third-party audits to craft their food safety procedures. Otherwise, owners (77.9 percent), managers (69.5 percent), and state or local jurisdictions (61.4 percent) are the three most common sources of input.

Key Criteria for Supplier Selection

Most respondents (84 percent) indicated that they choose the food suppliers that their business uses. In a follow-up question, these respondents were asked to rate the importance of nine attributes when selecting a food supplier. A diverging stacked bar chart was created to visualize the distribution, direction, and strength of responses for each attribute. In this chart, the proportion of responses rated as "least" or "not very" important are shown to the left of the zero axis as negative values, while "somewhat important" is centered at zero, and "important" or "most important" extend to the right as positive values (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. Diverging bar chart depicting the relative importance of supplier selection criteria in a survey of small food establishments; the number of responses for each attribute ranged from n = 586 for price to n = 566 for supplier audits (Credit: AFDO)

When sorted by positive values ("important" or "most important"), reliability emerged as the most highly valued supplier attribute among small businesses, followed closely by flavor or taste, and compliance with state and local regulations. These findings suggest a strong emphasis on product consistency, sensory quality, and regulatory alignment. In contrast, attributes such as sourcing foods locally and supplier audits were rated as less important, receiving the greatest proportion of negative values. This may reflect the inconsistent availability of locally sourced foods or a lack of customer demand for locally sourced products. Low ratings for supplier audits may indicate limited operational capacity or differing risk perceptions among small business operators regarding the benefit of formal supplier verification programs.

Relationships with Regulatory Authorities

It is noteworthy that owners (77.9 percent) and managers (69.5 percent) are the most frequent source of input for food safety procedures within their establishments (see Table 9). Inspector and health department input also played a significant role (61.4 percent) in the development of procedures. Small businesses appear to depend more heavily on regulatory guidance, while over half of large businesses (55 percent) develop and implement their FSMS with direct input from regulatory partners.

Training efforts and food safety signs draw from a variety of sources. The most frequent sources were from regulatory agencies, including state and local health departments (71.3 percent) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website (34.9 percent). Just 2 percent of small businesses look to other federal agencies, such as the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program, the U.S. Department of Education Child Nutrition Program, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Four small businesses (0.7 percent) procure signage from suppliers.

Small businesses were asked where they look for ideas to improve food safety. Most rely on their state or local health department for guidance (84.9 percent), with formal training for food managers, food handlers, and continuing education following closely behind at 73.8 percent. Nearly half cite managers (56.4 percent), employees (54.1 percent), and observations from other small businesses (52.6 percent) as key sources of improvement ideas. Federal guidance was mentioned in three responses (0.5 percent), referencing the FDA Food Code and the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Social media (27 percent) and trade associations (26.2 percent) were less common. By comparison, 66.7 percent of large brands seek input from employees regarding food safety improvements and are considerably more likely to participate in trade associations, a trend linked to higher FSMS development (90.8 percent).

Regulatory Assistance and Support

Small business respondents were asked what they would change about the inspections done by their health inspector. All responses were open-ended and evaluated for emergent themes. A significant portion of small businesses (33.6 percent) indicated that they would not suggest any changes. Additionally, 20.1 percent offered compliments or positive feedback about the inspection process. However, several respondents identified areas for improvement. Specifically, 10 percent expressed a desire for inspectors to provide more educational feedback and focus on risk-based issues rather than minor infractions like floors, walls, and ceilings. Another 8.6 percent suggested changes to the format, style, or requirements of the inspection. A smaller group (5.3 percent) called for more frequent inspections, whereas only 0.4 percent preferred less frequent visits. Overall, 7.5 percent of respondents were either unsure or did not provide a specific response.

Most small businesses expressed either positive or neutral views toward inspections of their facilities. As shown in Table 16, negative sentiments were less common. Only 7.7 percent cited concerns about the timing of inspections, particularly during busy service times. Six percent noted issues with inspector behavior or ethics, and 4.4 percent observed inconsistencies in inspections over time. In comparison, 69 percent of large businesses had actively forged relationships with their regulatory authorities, while 31 percent were not engaged in building relationships.

When asked whether their business would benefit from uniform food safety rules across the U.S., a majority of small business respondents expressed support via 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Specifically, over half (57.3 percent) strongly agreed (38 percent) or agreed (19.3 percent) that national consistency in a food safety standard is valuable. Meanwhile, 37.4 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, suggesting a significant portion are neutral or uncertain on the issue. Only a small minority expressed opposition, with 2.9 percent disagreeing and 2.3 percent strongly disagreeing. Large brands were considerably more likely to agree with the benefit of a universally adopted Food Code (85.7 percent), with none (0 percent) disagreeing and 14.3 percent unsure. These findings suggest that while there is broad support for standardized food safety regulations, a notable share of businesses may be ambivalent or concerned about potential implications.

Respondents who rated this question were then prompted to explain their reasoning. Through qualitative analysis, five key themes emerged, and responses were categorized accordingly. Each theme was paired with its corresponding Likert ratings, and average scores were calculated to assess overall support among small businesses for uniform food safety regulations. The most common theme, cited in 47.4 percent of follow-up responses, emphasized support for uniform regulation to promote consistent, efficient operations and training, and/or to protect public health. This group had the strongest level of agreement, reflected in an average Likert score of 1.7.

Other respondents expressed more critical perspectives. Specifically, 19.9 percent focused on the importance of doing what is right for food safety rather than adhering to a standard, with a moderate Likert score of 2.9. Similarly, 12.8 percent of respondents argued that food safety needs vary too widely by business type to be standardized, resulting in an average score of 3.2, the highest among all themes, indicating a more neutral or skeptical stance.

Two other themes included uncertainty or lack of familiarity with the issue (10.3 percent, average score 2.9) and a preference for local control or concern about federal overreach (9.6 percent, average score 3). These findings suggest that while many small businesses favor national consistency in food safety regulations, a significant portion value flexibility or local autonomy, or remain unsure about the implications of a standardized approach.

Discussion

This study represents the largest known survey to date characterizing the food safety practices and attitudes of small retail food businesses in the U.S. Although a response rate could not be calculated, the volume and composition of responses—primarily from independent operators, single-location businesses, and those with fewer than 50 employees—indicate successful engagement with the intended audience. The findings offer critical insights into the current state of FSMSs and FSC in small businesses and how these compare with large brand counterparts.

Unique Characteristics and Challenges of Small Businesses

A key observation is that many small business respondents did not identify with traditional retail categories such as restaurants, grocery stores, or convenience stores. Instead, a significant portion selected "other," citing operations like mobile food units, coffee shops, and food pantries. This divergence from conventional classifications may hinder efforts to connect small businesses with regulatory programs and trade associations, which often tailor resources to more narrowly defined sectors.

Small businesses appear to rely heavily on regulatory inspections as their primary food safety assurance mechanism. Over 80 percent cited state or local health department inspections as a key tool, and 85 percent reported seeking food safety improvement ideas from inspectors. While this underscores the vital role of regulatory agencies in supporting public health, it also highlights a potential vulnerability: the relative absence of independent verification mechanisms such as HACCP plans (33.9 percent) and third-party audits (9.4 percent). This reliance may reflect limited access to resources or technical assistance tailored to small operations.

FSMS and FSC Implementation

Despite some encouraging signs, foundational food safety practices remain inconsistently implemented among small food businesses. While refrigeration checks were common (93.5 percent), fewer than three-quarters of respondents reported monitoring cooking (73.2 percent) or cooling (57.7 percent) temperatures. Only 57.4 percent conducted line checks for hot and cold holding. Written food safety policies were also frequently lacking. These gaps in basic monitoring and documentation raise concerns about risk management and the consistent application of preventive controls.

At the same time, FSMS and FSC scores suggest that many businesses are making progress.

Approximately 59 percent of small businesses scored in the upper half of the FSMS scale, and 26 percent were in the top quartile for FSC. These findings indicate that at least some foundational elements are in place. However, the uneven presence of key food safety practices highlights the need for continued investment in both system development and implementation.

Encouragingly, 54.5 percent of respondents provided a definition of FSC, and 88 percent of those demonstrated at least a basic understanding. This level of engagement is notable, given that FSC remains a relatively new concept in the small business context. However, the lack of external validation for the scoring systems used remains a limitation of this study.

Training and Certification Gaps

Training and certification emerged as areas of concern. While 98 percent of small businesses reported providing some form of food safety training, only 57.9 percent offered Food Manager Certification. Notably, 20 percent of respondents either lacked a credential or were unsure if they had one. In-house training was common (53.9 percent), but its effectiveness and consistency are unclear. These findings suggest a need for validated, accessible training programs that are specifically designed for small business contexts.

"Unlike large brands, small businesses often lack the leverage or infrastructure to influence or control their supply chains. This limits their ability to implement supplier verification programs or enforce food safety standards upstream."

Comparison With Large Brands

Compared with large brands, small businesses reported lower adoption of formal FSMS elements and less frequent use of third-party audits or supplier verification programs. For example, only 9.4 percent of small businesses used third-party audits, compared with 88.3 percent of large brands. Similarly, supplier audits were among the least valued criteria in supplier selection, reflecting either limited operational capacity or differing perceptions of risk. These findings may also reflect a structural reality: unlike large brands, small businesses often lack the leverage or infrastructure to influence or control their supply chains. This limits their ability to implement supplier verification programs or enforce food safety standards upstream.

Despite these gaps, small businesses indicated strong managerial engagement. Over 93 percent of managers reported intervening immediately when observing unsafe food handling, and 68 percent modeled proper handwashing. These behaviors align with core FSC principles and suggest that leadership commitment is not lacking—rather, it may be constrained by structural and resource limitations. For example, what prevents the 32 percent of small businesses that stated managers do not model proper handwashing from doing so?

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The survey was not distributed evenly across all geographic regions, and participation was voluntary, which may introduce self-selection bias. Additionally, the FSMS and FSC scoring systems, while grounded in best practices, have not been externally validated. Self-reported data may also be subject to social desirability bias, particularly in comparisons with large brands.

Recommendations

The results of this study suggest two key areas where regulatory and public health strategies could be refined to better support food safety in small businesses, as detailed below.

Recognize and Support the Regulatory Role in Small Business Food Safety

Small businesses demonstrate a pronounced reliance on regulatory agencies and food inspectors, not only for compliance checks but also as primary sources of training, guidance, and evaluation. Over 80 percent of respondents cited health department inspections as a key tool for ensuring food safety, and nearly 85 percent reported seeking improvement ideas from their inspectors. Additionally, 71.3 percent of small businesses use food safety signs and training materials provided by state or local health departments, and 61.4 percent rely on inspectors to help shape their food safety procedures.

This degree of reliance indicates that regulators serve not only as enforcers but also as the primary, most accessible, and trusted sources of food safety guidance for small businesses. Food regulatory agencies should embrace and formalize this role by:

• Expanding inspector training to include coaching and consultative skills

• Providing inspectors with tools to deliver tailored, risk-based education during inspections

• Developing easy-to-use, validated training materials that inspectors can share onsite.

Reframe Inspections for Small Businesses as Engaged, Dialogue-Based Public Health Interventions

Unlike large brands, which often have internal food safety teams and third-party audits, small businesses may lack the infrastructure to independently assess and improve their food safety systems. For these establishments, inspections are not just compliance checks—they are often the only structured opportunity for feedback and improvement. This reinforces the "educate while you regulate" approach that many regulatory agencies are adopting.

Regulators should consider adapting their inspection approach for small businesses to reflect this reality. This includes:

• Shifting from a checklist mentality to a dialogue-based model that explores the "why" and "how" behind current practices

• Prioritizing education and capacity-building over punitive measures, especially for first-time or low-risk violations

• Encouraging inspectors to identify opportunities for improvement and co-create solutions with operators.

This reframing aligns with the broader public health mission of reducing foodborne illness and supports the development of more mature Food Safety Management Systems and stronger food safety culture in small businesses.

Funding Acknowledgment Statement

This article was supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award (FAIN) totaling $500,000, with 100 percent of this article funded by FDA/HHS. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by, FDA/HHS or the U.S. government.

References

1. Dewey-Mattia, D., K. Manikonda, A.J. Hall, M.E. Wise, and S.J. Crowe. "Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks—United States, 2009–2015." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 67, no. 10 (July 27, 2018): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6710a1.

2. Innes, G.K., A.N. Patton, K.E. Nachman, et al. "Distance and Destination of Retail Meat Alter Multidrug Resistant Contamination in the United States Food System." Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (November 2023): 21024. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-48197-z.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Supplement to the 2022 FDA Food Code. 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/183271/download.

4. Griffith, C.J., K.M. Livesey, and D. Clayton. "The Assessment of Food Safety Culture." British Food Journal 112, no. 4 (April 2010): 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701011034448.

5. FDA. FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Retail Food Store Deli Departments, 2015–2016. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/148247/download.

6. FDA. Food Safety Culture Systematic Literature Review. Prepared by Westat Inc. in Collaboration with FDA Food Safety Culture Research Subgroup. U.S. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/media/163588/download.

7. Kramer, A.J., N. Hedeen, B. Viveiros, et al. "Worker and Restaurant Characteristics Associated with Food Safety Culture: An Environmental Health Specialists Network Study." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease (April 2025). https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2024.0132.

8. FDA. Perspectives from Retail Food Organizations: Relationship Between Food Safety Culture and Food Safety Management Systems. 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/184169/download.

9. Miklos, M.S., E.A. Nutt, S. Mandernach, S.W. Arendt, and Y. Xu. "Current States of Food Safety Culture and FSMSs in Food Establishments." Food Safety Magazine April/May 2023. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/8477-current-states-of-food-safety-culture-and-fsmss-in-food-establishments.

10. Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO). "2021 Food Retailer Large Brands Survey Descriptive Statistics Report." 2022. https://www.afdo.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AFDO-2021-Food-Retailer-Large-Brands-Survey-Preliminary-Data-Analysis.pdf.

11. Lee, J.C., M. Neonaki, A. Alexopoulos, and T. Varzakas. "Case Studies of Small-Medium Food Enterprises around the World: Major Constraints and Benefits from the Implementation of Food Safety Management Systems." Foods 12, no. 17 (August 2023): 3218. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/17/3218.

12. National Restaurant Association (NRA). "National Statistics: Restaurant Industry Facts at a Glance." https://restaurant.org/research-and-media/research/industry-statistics/national-statistics/.