Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group"— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
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

3 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 The food regulation partnership was established in 2008 to formalise the role of 152 councils in regulating food safety in retail and food service businesses The partnership is a very important are of the Food Authority’s work and the Authority takes it very seriously. This includes the consultation which is happening this afternoon with council environmental health officers, food businesses, and other food industry stakeholders.

4 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

5 Annual inspection by council officers for compliance
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 Foodborne illness is a really significant issue for those individuals who are affected but also for the community and for food businesses themselves which can also be severely impacted by these outbreaks. Measures to prevent foodborne illness include the routine inspections and other training and support provided by councils, the Food Safety Supervisor program and Scores on Doors program which you will hear more about later. At the same time retail food businesses need certainty and consistency in the way they are regulated and of course they need to be regulated fairly. One tool that can help with this is the Food Premises Assessment Report – this is a standardised inspection checklist that most councils use to inspect food businesses. By the way - the FPAR also provides a score for the Scores on Doors program and businesses can also use the form to self assess (there are copies of the FPAR available for anyone who wants one). This presentation will look at how the food regulation partnership is going as far as regulating retail food businesses. (Next Slide)

6 ‘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 Despite the graduated enforcement model some businesses fail to comply and councils issued a total of 1721 Penalty Notices during This brings the total number of Penalty Notices listed on the Name & Shame register up to 30 June 2013 at over 8,300 since the register began in 2008 It is telling that the six main issues on the register account for 70% of all Penalty Notices Cleanliness of premises - Cleanliness of fixtures & equipment – pest control – hand washing – food storage and temperature control These are all associated with introducing or contaminating food with FBI pathogens and conditions that favour the growth of persistence of FBI pathogens

7 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 All retail businesses must comply with the code but Councils do not rely solely on food business inspections to achieve compliance It is commendable that almost all councils (95%) also support food businesses in other ways including technical advice and information in a variety of forms Most also facilitate or provide training to help food businesses comply

8 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 In addition to routine inspections, there are a number of measures that work together to address foodborne illness risk factors and achieve compliance with the national Food Standards Code These measures are all underpinned by annual compliance inspections conducted by council EHOs I will now explain each one in further detail.

9 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. The Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) program became a mandatory requirement in October 2011. The program was established to help reduce foodborne illness in the hospitality and retail food service sectors in NSW by improving food handler skills and knowledge. A major role of the program is to provide food businesses with high quality and consistent training by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) that have been approved by the Authority. The FSS laws require certain food businesses in the NSW hospitality and retail food service sector to have at least one trained Food Safety Supervisor. The FSS requirement 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 sales. Some businesses are exempt from the FSS requirement examples include not-for-profit community and charitable causes, school canteens (primary or secondary) and childrens service (childcare centres). So what are the training requirements? (Click to next slide)

10 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 Each appointed Food Safety Supervisor needs to be trained in certain nationally recognised units of competency and hold a FSS certificate, these are (read from the table in the slide). The legislation requires refresher training every 5 years. (Click to next slide).

11 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 The Authority and councils developed a standard Food Premises Assessment Report (FPAR) which was launched in July 2010. It aims to improve the consistency of inspections between businesses and between different councils in NSW and is based on legal requirements of the Food Standards Code in particular Standards & 3.2.3, with a particular focus on issues with a strong link to food borne illness The FPAR can be used by councils when inspecting notified food premises and is currently used by nearly 90 councils across NSW, participation is voluntary. The Authority would like to see increased use of the FPAR, currently more than half the councils in NSW are using it, greater uptake in our view will positively influence food safety (as well as business and public confidence in the food safety system). The FPAR looks like this (Click to next slide).

12 There have previously been two versions of the FPAR, a scored version shown in this slide for use by councils who participate in the ‘Scores on Doors’ program and a non-scored version. The scored version has been updated to include space for comments and notes. The reason for explaining this is that cost pressures and increasing adoption of Scores on Doors are making the non-scored version unviable – in future there will just be a single FPAR The FPAR is available on the Authority’s website and businesses are encouraged to use this as a self assessment tool. We also have translated versions available. The FPAR also makes it clear how the inspection result is translated into a Scores on Doors rating. (Click to next slide).

13 Scores on Doors Voluntary program to improve food safety
Covers food service businesses that sell ready-to- eat, 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 So what is Scores on Doors – The ‘Scores on Doors’ Program aims to drive food safety culture and improve consistency of inspections in the retail food sector by helping inform consumers about businesses compliance it was piloted in 2010, then offered as an ongoing state-wide voluntary trail from August 2011. It covers food service businesses that sell ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food – restaurants, takeaway, cafes, bakeries, bistros. And excludes - supermarkets, delicatessens, low risk businesses and premises licensed by the Authority. It is a demerit based point system, the total number of points determines a star rating. Five stars represents full (or almost full) compliance with the Food Standards Code (FSC). (Click to next slide).

14 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 You can read from the slide here. So what do the ‘Scores on Doors’ cards look like? (Click to next slide).

15 Name & Shame Two ‘Offences Registers’ (Name & Shame) hosted on the Food Authority website The ‘Register of penalty notices’ which lists ‘On-the-spot-fines’ The ‘Register of offences’ which lists ‘court fines (prosecutions)’ Both registers work by creating ‘reputation risk’ for any business that is listed The ‘Offences registers’ are commonly referred to as the Name and Shame, The Authority began publishing breaches on our website in July 2008. There are two registers that publish details of individuals and businesses One lists ‘On-the-spot fines’ known as ‘Register of penalty notices’ and the second register lists ‘court fines or prosecutions’ this is known as the ‘Register of offences’. There is a publication protocol that is used to check whether each penalty notice should be published. Factors that are checked include: whether a warning has previously been given whether the breaches pose a serious risk to public health or significantly mislead consumers, and the number of breaches or repeat offences. People listed in the register or with an interest in a business can apply to the Authority to add, correct or remove information if: a business has been sold or disposed of after an offence, or a correction needs to be made. (click to next slide).

16 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 (Read from slide). Thank you.

17

18 Food Safety Supervisor Notification and Evaluation
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group Newington 6 November 2013

19 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 As you have previously heard - FSS is a capacity building initiative designed to improve skills and knowledge in retail food businesses Its about ensuring someone in the business understands safe food handling practices and can ensure these are implemented The Requirement to notify FSS was part of the initial implementation arrangements but a review of this requirement found that FSS notification was not needed A process is underway for Parliament remove FSS notification – most likely later in this current session of Parliament

20 FSS Evaluation The evaluation project comprises 3 components:
Food Authority RTO monitoring/verification data Food business compliance data (comparing before & after FSS) Council activity reports FPAR data from 3 selected councils 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 FSS Evaluation project is on track and we greatly appreciate the assistance of selected councils that have provided the Authority with FPAR data (we are keeping councils anonymous so you won’t be able to give special thanks). There has also been great support from RTOs and students completing the FSS training courses. All students have been happy to participate when asked to complete the surveys. Any of you are welcome to comment on the FSS program so far any improvements you would like to suggest.

21 Comments to: foodauthority.nsw.gov.au

22 Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group
Scores on Doors Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group Newington 6 November 2013

23 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 As mentioned previously, the Authority has established a working group of key stakeholders to identify ways to drive greater uptake of Scores on Doors

24 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 These changes are designed to make participation simpler and easier (read from slide)

25 These are the Scores on Doors certificates that have been updated as part of work the Authority is doing to improve adoption

26 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

27

28 Alternative compliance
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group Newington 6 November 2013

29 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

30 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

31 …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’

32 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 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; if no such requirements apply to the food business, a ‘food safety program’ as defined in this Standard; a process that according to documented sound scientific evidence is a process that will not adversely affect the microbiological safety of the food; or a process set out in written guidelines based on sound scientific evidence that are recognised by the relevant food industry.

33 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

34 In 2009 the Authority developed a protocol to explain what food businesses must do to demonstrate that any alternative method still achieves an equivalent food safety outcome and not adversely affect the safety and suitability of the food. This can be found on the website.

35 The process requires a business to submit a completed application form to the Authority containing any supporting evidence that the use of the alternative method of compliance will achieve an equivalent outcome.

36 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.

37 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 Authority has received approximately 30 applications for alternative compliance over the last three years. These range from highly technical processes in manufacturing areas to variations of temperature control requirements at retail.

38 Alternative Compliance or Consistent Interpretation?
The Authority has received a number of enquiries from councils and businesses concerning interpretation of compliance with 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 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. Increasingly retailers are looking at innovative ways to market their product. Some of their methods may at first glance be assessed as not complying with the provisions of the code and whereas alternative compliance largely utilises scientific validation to ensure that unsafe or unsuitable food is not produced it can be a more difficult process to assess new or different practices such as food display methods. Its important to recognise that the Code aims to minimise the likelihood of contamination which is different to totally eliminating any potential hazard. It has to be acknowledged that unfortunately the Food Standards Code pre-dates the risk based approach which underpins where food safety regulation has been moving towards over the last decade. So in many ways there is an inherent conflict confronting businesses and regulators alike between a no risk approach rather than a acceptable risk approach. The process being developed by the Authority will ensure that consideration will be given to the actual risk assessment of the practices involved which are mitigated by scientific validation of an alternative process or acceptance of well established practices and procedures where businesses monitor a process through a food safety program. The objective will be to provide both businesses and council with the information required to enable consistent compliance by regulators and facilitate innovation or alternative compliance where risk assessments support this.

39 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. A review has found interpretations of the Code’s requirements have been provided to industry and Council Environmental Health Officers adhoc by different groups across the agency including by both the Local Government Unit, Science Unit, and Compliance branches. In general, these interpretations have been in response to issues identified at inspections or audits conducted by local council and Food Authority officers and in some instances relate to businesses practices occurring at more than on site. In addition, the Authority has recently been contacted by the main supermarkets regarding approval of in-store practices and communication of approvals to local council officers. These have not necessarily been captured through the alternative compliance process. It is proposed that a revised process be established to: • streamline how this work is progressed through a single contact point in the Authority who can allocate the work as required and receive input as needed from various units across the Authority (eg Science, Policy, Compliance, Local Government Unit, Communications) • establish a single centralised database where this information is recorded to ensure consistency of response • a proper delegated sign-off for all approvals • communicate approvals to local council officers and business where relevant The benefit of establishing this process is to eliminate potential inconsistencies in responses the Authority may give, and also to ensure that the information is captured for future reference.

40 Comments Were you aware of this? Have you used it?
Do you have any comments or suggestions?

41 Comments & suggestions to:
foodauthority.nsw.gov.au THANK YOU

42 Case Study: Salmonella outbreaks, business impacts and risks
Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group Newington 6 November 2013

43 Bad mayonnaise poisons 140 people
Salmonella victims Marcelo Solar sits with his wife in Calvary Hospital. Source: Canberra Times, May Photo: Jay Cronan

44 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.'' 2nqyj.html SUPPLIER OF EGGS UNDER SCRUTINY

45 Most common disease agents and settings in NSW
Factor Common feature Agents (more serious) Norovirus, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, Clostridium perfringens 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

46 Findings from NSW foodborne illness investigations

47 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%) (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%)

48 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

49 Foodborne illness case study
Albury Burger Bar, January 2010

50 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

51 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

52 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.”

53 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

54 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.

55 (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 home-made sauces and switched to store-bought products.

56 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.'' 2nqyj.html SUPPLIER OF EGGS UNDER SCRUTINY

57 Test results 24 January Raw egg aioli positive for Salmonella
Chopping board Salmonella positive

58 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.

59 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

60 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

61 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.

62 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

63 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

64 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

65 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


Download ppt "Retail and Food Service Industry Advisory Group"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google