Food Regulation Partnership

Driving food safety culturein 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 communityas 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 2008Compliance failures in >8,300 published PNsOffence 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

Contributing to food safety via

Name and Shame

Food Safety Supervisor

Food Premises Assessment Report

(FPAR)

Scores on Doors

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 Standards Code

• Requirements that must be followed to prevent foodborne illness

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

• 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

Food Premises Assessment Report (FPAR)

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

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-the-spot-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 EvaluationThe evaluation project comprises 3 components:1. Food Authority RTO monitoring/verification data2. 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 60C to 21C; and(b) within a further four hours – from 21C to 5C;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 60C 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 peopleSalmonella 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-20130605-2nqyj.html

• SUPPLIER OF EGGS UNDER SCRUTINY

• WWW.CANBERRATIMES.COM.AU

Most common disease agents and settings in NSWFactor 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

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 studyAlbury Burger Bar, January 2010

• http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/science/foodborne-illness-case-studies/aioli-using-raw-egg-salmonella-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

• 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.

Burger bug: Eatery closes as salmonella cases flood health services Jan. 22, 2010, 12:31 p.m.

(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.

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-20130605-2nqyj.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

• 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.

Salmonella keeps Emma from Qatar Jan. 26, 2010, 10:13 p.m.

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