1. FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS Leena Räsänen leena.rasanen@evira.fi

2. Food safety organisation

3. Implementation of the plans Monitoring the effects of implementation - Use of resources - Implementation of the control plans - Sector based MANCP-reports Corrective actions Changes needed Annual control plans Continuous improvement – long and short term PDCA’s Annual planning Strategic planning State budget, national strategies, Changes in operational environment Impact indicators Effectiveness and efficiency indicators of CA’s

4. Finnish food safety rating system Oiva (Finnish “Smiley”) “Oiva” meaning “excellent” The publicity of the food control results became possible in 2011 by the change of the national food law (23/2006) Oiva is coordinated by “the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira” and carried out by municipal food control authorities –At first a pilot project “Oiva”, now expanding

5. OIVA evaluation grades Food safety level is indicated by four smiley grades; excellent, good, to be corrected and poor A BCD

6. The objectives of OIVA –Increase the transparency of the activities of food business operators and authorities Consumers are able to vote with their feet –Harmonize food control Standardize the inspections Promote the risk-based approach Improve the effectiveness of controls –Encourage the business operators to improve food safety

7. Indicators for impact Goal: High level of food safety is maintained –Objective1: Food-borne illnesses remain at acceptable level IND1 Number of human foodborne cases Target, incidences/100 000 inhabitants Campylobacter13,4 Salmonella6,0 Yersinia10,0 Listeria1,3 EHEC0,6

8. Indicators for effectiveness Goal: High level of food safety is maintained –Objective 1: The Oiva inspections improve compliance of FBO’s IND2 Trends in Oiva inspections (smiley) Target: YearCoverage of Oiva inspections% of FBOs achieving two of the best grades (A or B) 201465 %85 % 201588 %85 % 201698 %88 % 2017100 %90 %

9. Indicators for effectiveness Goal: High level of food safety is maintained –Objective1: the proportion of FBO’s with C or D in Oiva, which get A or B in follow-up inspection IND3 % of FBO’s which have improved their performance in Oiva inspections Target (% of FBO’s improving their performance in next inspection) FBO’s which have got grade C100 % (gets grade A or B in next inspection) FBO’s which have got grade D100 % (gets grade A or B in next inspection)

10. Indicators for effectiveness Goal: High level of food safety is maintained –Objective1: Compliance of FBO’s with labelling requirements IND4 % of FBO’s compliant with labelling requirements Target: Percentage of inspections on labelling in compliance 85 %

11. Indicators for efficiency and quality Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based –Objective2: Variation of results in Oiva inspections among municipal CA’s are acceptable level IND5 % of A, B, C ja D grades of Oiva inspections of municipal CA’s Target: Will be decided later when the results of two or three years are available

12. Indicators for efficiency and quality Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based –Objective2: CA’s carry out risk based control plan IND6 Implementation level of risk based control plans, % TargetTarget 2014-2017Indicator value 2012 % of risk based control plans fully implemented by municipal CA’s 90 %2014 75 % 2015 80 % 2016 85 % 2017 90 % 57 %

13. Indicators for efficiency and quality Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based –Objective2: Coverage of inspections in accordance with recommended risk based frequency IND7 Coverage of inspections, % Final targetTarget 2014-2017Indicator value 2012 Total41 % FBO’s whose recommended inspection frequency is less than 1/year Coverage more than 70 % Will be decided later when results of 2013 are available FBO’s whose recommended inspection frequency is 1/year or more Coverage is 100 % Will be decided later when results of 2013 are available

14. Indicators for efficiency and quality Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based –Objective2: Inspectors carry out more inspections Later also economic efficiency (€/inspection) will be measured IND8 Efficiency of inspections, inspections/fte TargetTarget 2014-2017Indicator value 2012 1502014 110 2015 130 2016 140 2017 150 113

15. Efficiency of inspections carried out by municipal CA’s (2012) Inspections/fte Municipal CA’s in random order

16. Costs of inspection, €/inspection (2012) Municipal CA’s in random order €

17. Indicators for efficiency and quality Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based –Objective2 Municipal CA’s notify suspected food-borne epidemics IND9 Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics, number/100 000 inhabitants Target Will be decided later when results are available from two or more years

18. Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics/ 100 000 inhabitants (2012) Municipal CA’s

19. Backround ”information” (no special objectives) Residue control –Number of samples –Number of analyses –Number of non-compliant samples, cases or lots Number of RASSF-notifications made by Finland Number of withdrawals or recalls Number of official samples (taken by municipal CA’s)