Transcript Local Government annual activities report

Food Regulation Partnership
Driving food safety culture
in the retail food sector of NSW
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Newington
6 November 2013
The Food Regulation Partnership (FRP)
• Partnership between local and state government in NSW
• Established July 2008 – all 152 councils appointed as
enforcement agencies under NSW Food Act 2003
• Formalised the role of local government in regulating the
retail and food service sectors in their local
government area
• Underpinning the FRP is the work that the Authority does
in provides support, assistance and networking for council
officers – aim: to assist councils work more consistently
and effectively
FRP objectives
• Reduce foodborne illness in NSW caused by the
retail food sector
• Achieve better use of local and state government
resources including:
• reduced duplication of food regulation services
• improve food safety response capacity
• Support the environmental health profession
• Improve communication with the retail food sector
• Improve consistency of inspection across 152 local
councils and >400 council officers in NSW
Foodborne illness (FBI) is a real life trauma
for affected people and the community
as well as a serious risk to business reputation and survival
Food Standards Code - sets out requirements that food
businesses must follow to prevent foodborne illness
• Annual inspection by council officers for compliance
• Food Premises Assessment (FPAR) (standardised inspection checklist)
• Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) program
• Scores on Doors
• Additional training and capacity building programs run by councils
• Escalating compliance strategy – warning, improvement notice,
penalty notice (Name & Shame), prosecution in extreme cases
‘Name and Shame’ - 8.5M hits over 5 years since 2008
Compliance failures in >8,300 published PNs
Offence type by food safety risk factor in FSC 3.2.2
•
19 (1) Cleanliness of food premises - garbage, food waste, dirt, grease, etc. (21%)
•
19 (2) Cleanliness of food fixtures, fittings and equipment - food waste, dirt, grease,
etc. (13%)
•
24 (1) Prevent entry animals and pests and take all practicable measures to eradicate
and prevent the harbourage of pests (13%)
•
17 (1) Hygiene of food handlers - maintain easily accessible hand washing facilities
with supply of warm running water, soap, and items to thoroughly clean hands (11%)
•
6 (1) Food must be stored so it is protected from contamination and environmental
conditions that will affect its safety/suitability (8%)
•
8 (5) Displayed food must be maintained under temperature control (5%)
These top 6 issues account for 70% of all PNs published
Associated with introducing or contaminating food with FBI pathogens and
conditions that favour growth/persistence of FBI pathogens
All factors clearly linked associated with foodborne illness
Councils provide a range of
assistance to food businesses
 All retail food businesses are required to comply with the Food
Standards Code – sets minimum food safety requirements
•
•
Food safety failures => major reputation risk for business & sector
Council inspections and follow up help to ensure compliance
 Most councils provide technical advice to food businesses
•
e.g. food safety, construction and fit out of new food premises, pre-purchase
and pre-operational inspections
 Most councils provide information to food businesses
•
e.g. newsletters, posters, calendars, websites, fact sheets (some in various
languages)
 Most councils provide or facilitate food safety training
Name and
Shame
Food Premises
Assessment Report
(FPAR)
Contributing to food
safety via
Scores on Doors
Food Safety
Supervisor
Food Standards Code
• Requirements that
must be followed to
prevent foodborne
illness
Underpinned by Food Regulation Partnership between
councils and NSW Food Authority
• Annual inspections of food businesses by council
Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)
• Also supported by information and training provided by EHOs
Food Safety Supervisor
• Requires certain food businesses* in the NSW
hospitality and retail food service sector to have at
least one trained Food Safety Supervisor
• Applies to businesses serving food that is:
- ready-to-eat,
- potentially hazardous, and
- not sold and served in its package
*Affected businesses include: restaurants, cafés, takeaway shops,
caterers, bakeries, pubs, clubs, hotels and supermarket hot food
sale.
FSS training requirements
• Affected businesses must appoint a trained FSS
• FSS must hold a FSS Certificate
• 125 Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) approved to
provide FSS training and issue FSS certificate
• Approved RTOs listed on Food Authority website
• Aim of training – prevent food handling errors through better
understanding
• Refresher training every 5 years
• Over 53,000 FSS Certificates issued to date
• Review of FSS notification requirement – discussed later
Food Premises Assessment
Report (FPAR)
• Key objective – tool to improve consistency in achieving
and inspecting compliance with food safety requirements
• Based on Food Standards Code requirements
• Food business can use FPAR to undertake self-assessment
• Exploring options for universal adoption of FPAR in NSW
• FPAR updated to include Fast Choices and additional notes
field
Scores on Doors
• Voluntary program to improve food safety
• Covers food service businesses that sell ready-toeat, potentially hazardous food ie restaurants,
takeaway, cafes, bakeries, bistros
• Excludes - supermarkets, delicatessens, low risk
businesses and premises licensed by the Food
Authority
• ‘Scores on Doors’ informs consumers about
businesses compliance with the FSC
Benefits of Scores on Doors
• Helps drive compliance and promotes a positive food
safety culture
• Provides positive promotion for businesses that are
compliant and an incentive for non-compliant
businesses to improve
• Uses the inspection program that is already in place
• Would ideally assist all food businesses achieve
compliance and therefore qualify for 5 stars (full
compliance)
• Enhancements will be covered later
Name & Shame
Two ‘Offences Registers’ (Name & Shame) hosted on
the Food Authority website
1. The ‘Register of penalty notices’ which lists ‘On-thespot-fines’
2. The ‘Register of offences’ which lists ‘court fines
(prosecutions)’
Both registers work by creating ‘reputation risk’ for
any business that is listed
Key messages
Compliance with the Food Standards Code is needed to maintain food
safety in the retail sector.
The partnership fosters the understanding and compliance with these
requirements through:
•
Food Safety Supervisor (FSS)
•
Food Premises Assessment Report (FPAR)
•
Annual compliance inspections by council officers
•
Support through information/training provided by officers
•
Scores on Doors
•
Name and Shame
We welcome your input and feedback
Food Safety Supervisor
Notification and Evaluation
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Newington
6 November 2013
Food Safety Supervisor Notification
• FSS formally commenced for retail food businesses 1 October
2011 (after 12 month implementation period)
• Food businesses required to notify their FSS (some exemptions)
• FSS notification requirements reviewed in early 2013
• Review found that FSS notification was not contributing
effectively to FSS objectives of improving skills and knowledge
• Process is underway to allow Parliament to formally remove
FSS notification requirement (provided Parliament agrees)
• Council EHOs advised of situation and asked not to enforce
FSS notification
• Parliament expected to consider FSS notification this year
FSS Evaluation
The evaluation project comprises 3 components:
1. Food Authority RTO monitoring/verification data
2. Food business compliance data (comparing before & after FSS)
• Council activity reports
• FPAR data from 3 selected councils
3. Classroom survey of FSS training participants at registered RTO
training courses (voluntary for both RTOs and students).
The Authority is aiming to have findings and reports published
early 2014
Comments to:
• Contact @ foodauthority.nsw.gov.au
Scores on Doors
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Newington
6 November 2013
Scores on Doors program
• Aim
• to drive food safety culture
• Improve consistency of inspections
• Introduced as trial program in 2011
• Working Group established
• Barriers to uptake
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Businesses feel intimidated by the Participation agreement
Business reluctance to display low scores
Perceived lack of value
Perception of additional resource burden by councils
Disagreement about element of the program (FPAR, rating system)
Not enough education about the program (for EHOs and businesses)
Lack of consumer awareness and confusion about the program
Proposed changes to Scores on Doors program
• Removal of participation agreement – allows council officers to
routinely offer certificates to businesses at the end of inspections
• Streamlined process and guidelines for issuing certificates
• Simplified reinspection guidance for councils who decide to offer
reinspections
• Improved standardised Food Premises Assessment Report (FPAR)
• Redesigned certificates with clearer information for consumers
• A ‘toolkit’ for councils (factsheets, brochures, web content)
Roll out changes in December 2013
• The Authority’s campaign to promote Scores on
Doors this December represents a significant
opportunity for councils and retail food businesses
to get involved.
• The Authority has comprehensive support
materials and is happy to work with and support
councils that are interested.
• Thank You
Alternative compliance
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Newington
6 November 2013
Alternative compliance
• Food legislation contains specific requirements that food
businesses must comply with.
• Some standards contain an ‘equivalence clause’ which allow
food businesses to use an alternative method of compliance
• These alternatives can be used, provided the food business can
demonstrate that it will achieve an equivalent outcome and not
adversely affect the safety and suitability of the food
Standard 3.2.2 - Food Safety Practices and
General Requirements
•
A food business must, when cooling cooked potentially hazardous food, cool the
food –
(a)
within two hours – from 60C to 21C; and
(b)
within a further four hours – from 21C to 5C;
unless the food business demonstrates that the cooling process used will
not adversely affect the microbiological safety of the food
•
A food business must, when reheating previously cooked and cooled potentially
hazardous food to hold it hot, use a heat process that rapidly heats the food to a
temperature of 60C or above, unless the food business demonstrates that
the heating process used will not adversely affect the microbiological
safety of the food
…to demonstrate…..
In the NSW Food Regulation 2010
a reference in the Food Standards Code:
‘to demonstrate is to be read as a reference to the
satisfaction of the Food Authority’
Clause 25 Alternative methods of
compliance
•
Without limiting the ways in which a food business can
demonstrate that the temperature and any heating or cooling
process it uses will not adversely affect the microbiological
safety of food, a food business satisfies this requirement by
complying with
a) a food safety program that meets the requirements for food safety
programs in the Act, regulations under the Act, or a food safety standard
other than this Standard;
b) if no such requirements apply to the food business, a ‘food safety program’
as defined in this Standard;
c) a process that according to documented sound scientific evidence is a
process that will not adversely affect the microbiological safety of the food;
or
d) a process set out in written guidelines based on sound scientific evidence
that are recognised by the relevant food industry.
• Well documented or validated systems may not require an
application to be made.
• For all other alternative methods of compliance, the food
businesses must:
•
•
•
•
submit the application form
include any supporting evidence
achieve an equivalent outcome and
demonstrate that is does not adversely affect the safety and
suitability of the food
• do this prior to the introduction of any alternative method.
• The Authority considers each application on its merits and
will inform the food business in writing if their application has
been successful or not
• Encourage businesses to notify the Authority where
they intend to use alternative methods of compliance
• Otherwise they may run the risk of being found not to
comply with specific regulatory requirements
• In the first instance, retail food businesses
should contact their local council for assistance
or for businesses that operate in a number of
LGA’s they should come to the Authority.
Recent alternative compliance
submissions
• Use of electrolysed water for use as a
cleaner/sanitiser and for fresh produce
• water reuse
• alfalfa seed disinfection
• extended storage times for sushi
• electrolysed water for use as a cleaner/sanitiser
and for fresh produce
• Cooling of hot roasted chickens
Alternative Compliance or Consistent
Interpretation?
•
•
•
•
The Authority has received a number of enquiries from councils and
businesses concerning interpretation of compliance with 3.2.2
specifically around issues of display of food and minimising the
likelihood of contamination.
Examples of this include olives and bread and labelling provisions for
cheese in assisted service cabinets.
The Authority has reviewed these matters and the information
submitted by the businesses. Intention is to provide guidance to
councils and business to assist consistency of compliance with 3.2.2.
This process strongly aligns with recommendations from the evaluation
of the Food Regulation Partnership that was conducted in 2011 that the
Authority take a renewed focus on regulatory consistency and also
strengthen its role in assisting councils resolve food regulatory issues.
Revised Process
• Review found many different points of reference
within the Authority.
• Need to have a standardised approach to this to
streamline approach within Authority and improve
consistency of response.
• Proper delegated sign off for all approvals
• Communication of outcomes to relevant parties
where relevant.
Comments
• Were you aware of this?
• Have you used it?
• Do you have any comments or suggestions?
Comments & suggestions to:
• Contact @ foodauthority.nsw.gov.au
THANK YOU
Case Study: Salmonella
outbreaks, business impacts and
risks
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Newington
6 November 2013
Bad mayonnaise poisons 140 people
Salmonella victims Marcelo Solar sits with his wife in Calvary Hospital.
Source: Canberra Times, May 17 2013. Photo: Jay Cronan
What’s in the public
domain…
•
•
Extract from business Facebook page, 5 June 2013
Update from the Canberra Times Today - All eggs have been removed from our menu since
we've reopened.
"A Victorian egg supplier is under investigation and one person has ongoing health issues
following Canberra's largest salmonella outbreak, which has left health professionals ''struck
by the severity'' of the symptoms and high infection rate."
Dr Kelly confirmed ACT Health was monitoring the Copa since it reopened about a week
after the outbreak. He said the authority established a short period of increased inspections
for the establishment, and so far had not discovered any issues.
''They're fine. They'd done a complete refit before the incident, so there wasn't any of that
sort of hardware problems to fix,'' he said.
''Really, it was just the raw eggs. I really wish people would just stop using them.''
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/supplier-of-eggs-under-scrutiny-201306052nqyj.html
•
SUPPLIER OF EGGS UNDER SCRUTINY
•
WWW.CANBERRATIMES.COM.AU
Most common disease
agents and settings in NSW
Factor
Common feature
Agents (more
serious)
Norovirus, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria,
Agents to follow
up
Toxoplasma, Cryptosporidium,
Foods
Mixed foods, eggs, poultry, meat, bakery products
Settings
Restaurants, takeaways, caterers, bakeries, homes
Seasonality
Outbreaks more likely in the warmer months
Clostridium perfringens
Findings from NSW
foodborne illness
investigations
Most common Penalty
Notice breaches
• 19 (1) Cleanliness of food premises - garbage, food waste, dirt, grease, etc.
(21%)
• 19 (2) Cleanliness of food fixtures, fittings and equipment - food waste, dirt,
grease, etc. (13%)
• 3.2.2 24 (1) Prevent entry animals and pests and take all practicable
measures to eradicate and prevent the harbourage of pests (13%)
• 17 (1) Hygiene of food handlers - maintain easily accessible hand washing
facilities with supply of warm running water, soap, and items to thoroughly
clean hands. (11%)
• 6 (1) Food must be stored so it is protected from contamination and
environmental conditions that will affect its safety/suitability – e.g. temperature
abuse. (8%)
• 8 (5) Displayed food must be maintained under temperature control. (5%)
Penalty Notice frequency
and consequences
• These top 6 penalty notice issued account for 70%
of all PNs published
• All associated with potential to either:
• Contaminate food with harmful pathogens
OR
• Create conditions that favour growth/persistence
of pathogens
Foodborne illness case study
Albury Burger Bar, January 2010
• http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/science/foo
dborne-illness-case-studies/aioli-using-raw-eggsalmonella-typhimurium/
Albury Burger Bar – the business
• Popular eatery, established by husband & wife
team, Nov 2008
• Good reputation in town, well frequented
• Promoted foods on basis of healthy, free range
• Good compliance history with local council
Albury Burger Bar – the incident
• 18 January 2010
• NSW Health notification of 20 affected who had eaten from a
Burger Bar on 14 & 15 January 2010.
• Interviews of cases found that aioli was a common food
served over the exposure period.
• The business prided itself on its homemade burgers and
ingredients. The aioli was prepared on the premises and
used in 10 types of burgers.
• Albury council also notified by NSW Health. Obtained
sample of aioli, instructed business not to use this product.
• 19 January
• Food Authority staff obtain additional samples
• Eggs, cleaning cloths, chopping boards, preparation areas
• Advice that 27 people now affected
Albury Burger Bar – the incident
• 20 January 2010
• NSW Health notification of 57 affected, 3 confirmed
Salmonella cases, 2 hospitalised
• Business decides to close voluntarily pending test results
• 21 January
• Story breaks in local media (Border Mail)
• Salmonella outbreak forces Burger Bar shut
“A DEAN Street eatery is at the centre of a salmonella poisoning
outbreak. Already three people have been confirmed as having the
potentially deadly bug after eating at Albury's The Burger Bar last
Friday.
The Border Mail has spoken to a woman who was hospitalised and
placed on a drip after being sick less than 24 hours after eating at
the restaurant.”
Albury Burger Bar – the incident
• 22 January 2010
• NSW Health ~ 100 sick
• Lumbar puncture, laparotomy for appendicitis
• 2 new cases who ate after 19 January (post-removal of aioli)
• Full Prohibition Order issued on business
• Formalising existing voluntary closure
• Additional media pressure
Burger bug: Eatery closes as salmonella cases flood
health services
Jan. 22, 2010, 12:31 p.m.
• ALMOST 100 salmonella cases are now under investigation as the
Dean Street eatery at the centre of the outbreak yesterday closed its
doors.
• Health authorities say seven cases have been confirmed as
salmonellosis but expect that number to rise.
• All are linked to eating at The Burger Bar from Thursday to Saturday
last week.
• It is now believed a batch of aioli, a garlic mayonnaise that includes
raw egg, may be the cause of the salmonella outbreak.
• Ninety-six cases are now under investigation.
• A total of 69 suspected cases have been seen at emergency
departments at Wodonga and Albury since last Friday.
(continued)
• Burger Bar owners…last night posted a message to customers on
their restaurant’s Facebook page.
• The message confirmed they had closed the restaurant for the
weekend until tests confirmed the source of the salmonella.
• “Working together this week with NSW Health and the NSW Food
Authority, we are almost certain that this outbreak has been caused
by an infected batch of eggs (or maybe just one egg, that’s all it
takes) we have received from a local farm,” they said.
• The couple said as soon as they were notified there was an issue
and that the eggs were suspected they stopped using their homemade sauces and switched to store-bought products.
What’s in the public
domain…
•
•
Extract from business Facebook page, 5 June 2013
Update from the Canberra Times Today - All eggs have been removed from our menu since
we've reopened.
"A Victorian egg supplier is under investigation and one person has ongoing health issues
following Canberra's largest salmonella outbreak, which has left health professionals ''struck
by the severity'' of the symptoms and high infection rate."
Dr Kelly confirmed ACT Health was monitoring the Copa since it reopened about a week
after the outbreak. He said the authority established a short period of increased inspections
for the establishment, and so far had not discovered any issues.
''They're fine. They'd done a complete refit before the incident, so there wasn't any of that
sort of hardware problems to fix,'' he said.
''Really, it was just the raw eggs. I really wish people would just stop using them.''
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/supplier-of-eggs-under-scrutiny-201306052nqyj.html
•
SUPPLIER OF EGGS UNDER SCRUTINY
•
WWW.CANBERRATIMES.COM.AU
Test results
• 24 January
• Raw egg aioli positive for Salmonella
• 25 January
• Chopping board Salmonella positive
Salmonella keeps Emma from Qatar
Jan. 26, 2010, 10:13 p.m.
• ALBURY cyclist Emma Mackie was supposed to fly out with an
Australia team to compete overseas next week but is instead
recovering at home after copping the brunt of a salmonella bug
that swept through the Border recently.
• Mackie was due to fly out on Sunday…but suffered an extreme
reaction after eating at Dean Street’s The Burger Bar.
• The 25-year-old spent a week struggling with the infection,
including spending time on a drip, and lost 5kg during her
ordeal, which forced her to pull out of the Aussie squad.
• “I am disappointed and a bit angry I suppose. I’m pretty upset
that I can’t represent Australia,” she said.
Albury Burger Bar – final damage
• 28 January
• Total of 179 people affected
• 44 laboratory confirmed Salmonella cases
• DNA fingerprint pattern of Salmonella cases matched aioli
and chopping board positive
Penalties and aftermath
• Prohibition order lifted after two weeks
• negative test results
• demonstration of appropriate food safety skills and
knowledge
• improvements in cleaning and sanitising procedures
• Business issued with 2 penalty notices and Named and Shamed
• Unsafe food, Handling food in manner that renders unsafe
• Owners sold business in Feb 2011
• Declining sales, bad publicity
Contributing factors – use
of raw eggs, poor handling
• Pooling eggs to produce mayonnaise increases likelihood of
Salmonella being introduced from the surface of an egg shell to a food
which does not receive a further ‘kill’ step.
• Outbreak occurred during summer, ambient temperatures were high
(>30°C)
• Eggs not stored in refrigerated environment. Under these conditions
eggs may ‘sweat’ which reduces shelf life and increases potential for
penetration by Salmonella from the outside of the egg shell.
• Analysis of aioli found pH of 5.8 which is not sufficient to prevent the
growth of any Salmonella present, particularly at the high ambient
temperatures current at the time of the incident.
• Business sourcing eggs from local hobby farm rather than dedicated
egg supplier. Farm did not have quality control such as candling or
crack detection
• Eggs also placed into re-used cartons which increased potential
for cross contamination of Salmonella to outside of shells.
What should the business have
done?
• Use a pasteurised egg product or commercial
mayonnaise in place of raw egg ingredients
• Stored eggs under refrigeration: below 5°C
• Sourced eggs from a recognised commercial
supplier
Contributing factors –
insufficient sanitising
• Investigation of cleaning practices revealed that an antibacterial
surface spray/wipe product was used.
• Product had a low ethanol content and was inadequate for
commercial use as a sanitiser.
• No document or schedule outlining a cleaning regimen of how
and when equipment such as bench tops, floors, chopping
boards and other equipment should be cleaned and sanitised.
• This may have contributed to the Salmonella finding on a
chopping board and additional cases of illness
What should the business
have done?
• Obtain appropriate chemical from a supplier for use
in a food service facility, such as a hypochlorite or
quaternary ammonium compound
• Ensure that a well understood, documented
cleaning regime is in place and adhered to
rigorously
Summary and lessons learnt
• Skills and knowledge essential
• Know hazards associated with foods
• Eggs come from a chicken’s backside!
• Blaming eggs will not save your business from penalties or
public perception
• Understand the importance of proper cleaning and
sanitising
• Cleaning and sanitising two very separate processes
• Both essential and contribute to spread of pathogens if not
done properly