food related course details - microsoft€¦ · web viewif food that needs to be chilled is left...

DONCASTER FOOD PLAN 2016/2018Additional Information

1

Content

1.0 Introduction Page 3

2.0 Performance and business statistics Page 3

2.1 Premises profile Page 3

2.2 Risk rating – food hygiene Page 4

2.3 Risk rating – food standards Page 5

2.4 Risk rating - animal feedstuff Page 6

2.5The review of inspection performance for 2011/2012 with a comparison to previous year’s figures Page 7

3.0 Courses provided by the Service during 2011/2012 including those relating to food Page 8

4.0 Food hygiene rating scheme Page 9

5.0 Broadly compliant Page 11

6.0 Food and waterborne infectious disease investigations Page 11

7.0 How to avoid food poisoning Page 12

8.0 Food sampling Page 14

8.1 Microbiological Page 14

8.1.1 Sampling carried out during 2013/2014 Page 14

8.1.2 Sampling carried out during 2014/2015 Page 15

8.2 Food Standards completed studies Page 15

8.2.1 Undeclared meat species in meals advertised and sold as

“lamb”.

Page 16

8.2.2 Presence of allergens in meals ordered as peanut free Page 16

8.2.3 Fish authenticity checks Page 16

8.2.4 Illegal colours in takeaway food Page 17

8.2.5 National co-ordinated food sampling survey Page 17

8.3 Proposed Food Sampling for 2016/2018 Page 17

8.3.1 Microbiological Page 17

8.3.2 Food Standards Page 18

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document is to be read in conjunction with Doncaster’s Food Plan 2016/2018 and contains more detailed information that has been excluded from the main plan for reasons of clarity and brevity.

The document also includes links to other information which the reader may find useful in understanding the role of the service and its links with regional, national and international bodies.

2.0 PERFORMANCE AND BUSINESS STATISTICS

2.1 Premises Profile

This categorises Doncaster’s food businesses according to a national scheme that has been running for many years.

It can be seen that there has been an increase in the number of retailers and restaurants within the Borough and an overall increase in the number of food premises over the last 5 years.

Premises Type Figure for 2013/2015

Figure for 2012/2013



ProducersNB these are subject to primary producer inspections not food hygiene inspections

149 145 168 148

Manufacturers / Processors

57 68 64 67

Distributors 46 44 42 43Retailers (Total) 835 823 812 842Supermarkets 54 57 60 55Smaller Retailers 693 674 660 711Retailers (others) 88 92 92 76Restaurants (Total) 2417 2407 2371 2310Restaurant/Café/Canteen 481 425 421 411Hotel/Guest House 35 46 47 49Pub/Club 310 350 340 354Takeaway 315 333 326 309Caring Establishment 637 602 595 609School/College 122 155 153 158Mobile Food Unit 118 133 126 212Restaurant/Caterer (others)

399 363 363 299

Total 3504 3487 3457 3410

3

2.2 Risk Rating – Food Hygiene All food premises are risk rated, based on the current Code of Practice produced under statute by the Food Standards Agency. Numerical scores are given for the type of food, method of production and standards at the premises. The results give the timescale for the next inspection. The profile of premises in Doncaster is below.

Category of Premises

Description Number of Premises April 1st 2015

Number of Premises April 1st 2013



Frequency of Inspection

A These are generally poor premises providing high risk food sales

17 7 8 17 Minimum6 monthly

B These are mainly catering premises or takeaways where standards are not very high

133 122 151 143 Minimum 12 Monthly

C These are premises of a good or reasonable standard providing high risk food, or poorer premises without food preparation on premises

547 1052 949 1024 Minimum 18 Monthly

D These are reasonable or good premises serving some open food, but not preparing and cooking food, or poor premises selling only wrapped

1012 440 564 504 Minimum24 Monthly

E These are premises that sell wrapped foods or low risk foods and are

1095 1136 1020 882 Minimum 36 Monthly

4

unlikely to cause any problems

Outside the Inspection Programme

These are premises such as child minders that have a very low risk involvement with food and to which we provide specific training and guidance.

505 354 354 355 No inspection frequency

Unrated Premises not yet inspected

195 239 243 195

TOTAL 3504 3487 3457 3255Primary Producers

These premises will be inspected by the Animal Health Team

149 137 165 135 No inspection frequency

2.3 Risk Rating – Food Standards

Food standards issues are ranked in a similar manner to food hygiene using the same Code of Practice. The risk ratings depend on factors including the risk to consumers, the number of consumers and the standard of management.

Category of Premises





A Businesses with a large area of distribution with significant number of labelled products or complex food components

9 10 12 Minimum12 monthly

B Businesses with a smaller packing distribution element, or considerable menus with complex descriptions

288 244 245

Minimum 24 Monthly

5

elements that do not comply with all legislation

C All other rated premises

2167

2182

2085

Minimum 60 Monthly

Outside the Inspection Programme

These are premises such as child minders that have a very low risk involvement with food and to which we provide specific training and guidance

499 488 500

No inspection frequency

Unrated Premises not yet inspected

544 563 617

Total 3504

3487

3459

2.4 Risk Rating - Animal FeedstuffCategory of Premises




Number of PremisesApril 1st

2011


A Businesses with a large area of distribution and or a wide range of products or complex feed components and which may have poor levels of compliance

3 3 3 0 Minimum12 monthly

B Businesses with smaller packing and distribution element, or less complex feed components, which may have minor contraventions of the legislation


C All other feed businesses which may not be manufacturing feed stuff


Unrated Businesses, which have yet to be inspected for feedstuffs.

310 273 3 355

6

The risk rating of animal feedstuffs premises became a requirement in 2006 under new EU Feedstuffs Regulations. The Code of Practice to implement the legal requirements was issued during 2007 and introduced considerable training requirements for staff which are currently being addressed. The number of unrated feedstuffs premises are dropping and it is expected that most will be inspected before the end of the year.

2.5 The review of inspection performance for 2014/2015 with a comparison to the previous year’s figures Inspections Achieved

14/15Achieved

13/14Achieved

12/13Achieved

11/12Achieved

10/11Food Hygiene Inspections carried out

1359 1372 1251 1514 1392

Food Standards Inspections carried out

352 493 527 636 603

Food Standards Premises questionnaire

0 0 0 317 334

Animal Feedstuffs Inspections carried out

16 21 33 87 103

Primary Production Inspections carried out

6 0 9 54 84

Priority is always given to inspecting higher risk premises and the number of premises varies from year to year as premises open and close.

NB Low risk premises questionnaires were a specific project for the year 07/08 which looked at childminders. These premises have now been excluded from the inspection programme.

3.0 COURSES PROVIDED BY THE SERVICE 2012 - 2015 RELATING TO FOOD

Food Related Course Details

Number of Courses 14/15

Number of people 14/15





Level 1 courses

0 0 0 0 1 10

7

in Food HygieneLevel 2 courses in Food Hygiene

30 318 43 457 33 626

Level 3 courses in Food Hygiene

1 6 0 0 1 9

Healthier Eating courses

1 7 1 6 3 26

Food Hygiene awareness sessions for the Community

0 0 0 0 1 12

Hand washing sessions in schools

0 0 0 0 3 320

Mission Possible Hygiene training sessions for schools

0 0 0 0 0 0

Food Safety Refresher

0 0 0 0 1 9

Total 43 1012

4.0 FOOD HYGIENE RATING SCHEME

The department moved over to the new Food Hygiene Rating Scheme operated by the Food Standards Agency in April 2012. The scheme is similar to the old “Scores on the Doors” scheme but doesn’t use a star rating, but simply a score between zero and 5 and has been adopted by the vast majority of local authorities across the UK.

8

The score reflects the businesses current level of compliance with the law and the confidence in their ability to manage the business safely. This score considers:

1. Food hygiene and safety (handling practices/procedures, temperature controls etc).

2. Structure (cleaning, layout, condition, lighting, ventilation, facilities etc).

3. Confidence in management/control systems and training. (See tables below)

The total score from the 3 categories is used to calculate the FHRS score. The lower the score the better the compliance. If major improvements are needed or this department is taking formal action, the business will receive a zero rating.

Using the total score from the above 3 elements, the table below will give the FHRS score a business will receive. All premises will be sent a certificate and window sticker for display on the premises.

Total score 0 – 15 20 25 – 30 35 – 40 45 – 50 > 50

Highest permitted individual score

5 10 10 15 20 -

Rating

Hygienic Practices and Structural Quality which both use the same score guide

Score Guidance on the Scoring System25 Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.20 General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards

generally low.15 Some major non-compliance with statutory obligations –

9

more effortrequired to prevent fall in standards.

10 Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice. Standards are being maintained or improved.

5 High standard of compliance with statutory obligations, industry codes of recommended practice and minor contraventions of food hygieneregulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations andindustry codes of recommended practice.

0 High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice; conforms to accepted good practice in the trade.

Confidence in Management

Score Guidance on the Scoring System30 Poor track record of compliance. Little or no technical

knowledge. Little or no appreciation of hazards or quality control. No food safety management procedures.

20 Varying record of compliance. Poor appreciation of hazards and control measures. No food safety management system.

10 Satisfactory record of compliance. Access to and use of technical advice either in-house, from trade associations and/or from Guides to Good Practice. Understanding of significant hazards and control measures in place. Making satisfactory progress towards a documented food safety management system/procedures commensurate with type of business.

5 Reasonable record of compliance. Technical advice available in-house or access to, and use of, technical advice from trade associations and/or from Guides to Good Practice. Have satisfactory documented procedures.Able to demonstrate effective control of hazards. Will have satisfactory documented food safety management system. Audit by Food Authority confirms general compliance with procedures.

0 Good record of compliance. Access to technical advice withinorganisation. Will have satisfactory documented HACCP based foodsafety management procedures which may be subject to external audit process. Audit by Food Authority confirms compliance with documented procedures with few/minor non-conformities not identified in the system as critical control points.

5.0 BROADLY COMPLIANT

10

The national indicator set for local authority partnerships consisted of 198 indicators which are reported upon by each local authority to central government and which are used to measure the authority’s performance.

One of the indicators, NI 184, was a measure of the number of food establishments in a local authority’s area that were broadly compliant with the law. Although this indicator has been withdrawn as of April 2010 from the national set, its usefulness as a measure will mean it may continue to be used as a local indicator to assess the success of the service.

The performance indicator is based on the same score used for the Scores on the Doors scheme. The scoring system is detailed in the above 2 tables. A Broadly Compliant food business has a score of 10 or less in each of the 3 categories.

6.0 FOOD AND WATERBORNE INFECTIOUS DISEASE INVESTIGATIONS

Organism Number of confirmed cases 2014/2015

Number of confirmed cases 2013/2014



Shigella 1 3 1Salmonella 41 47 41 56Legionella 2 1 1Giardiasis 7 9 22 15E Coli 0157 5 8 6 7Cryptosporidium 30 16 51Blastocytisis Hominis

1

Listeria monocytogenes

1 2

Campylobacter 465 475 527 477Other 16 13 1 14 Total

552 561 651 572

The figures show an increase in the total number of confirmed cases of food poisoning most notably in the case of Campylobacter. This increase is reflected in the national figures and a research and advisory campaign is underway to identify the main causes of Campylobacter infection and inform the public and businesses as to the mechanisms for preventing its occurrence. Doncaster is involved through Food Safety week in informing the public of the dangers of Campylobacter and through its sampling programme, trying to identify some of the main routes of infection.

11

A few simple rules are used to inform businesses and the public about how to go about avoiding food poisoning and these are given in section 7 below.

7.0 HOW TO AVOID FOOD POISONING

All the organisms listed above are capable of making you very ill through food poisoning. There are four main things to remember for avoiding food poisoning and maintaining good food hygiene – they are called the 4 Cs. You should think about them whenever you’re in the kitchen.

The 4 Cs1 Cleaning 2 Cooking 3 Chilling 4 Cross-contamination

Cleaning

You can prevent the spread of harmful bacteria by observing good personal hygiene and keeping work surfaces and utensils clean. It’s important to wash your hands regularly, especially:

after visiting the toilet after handling raw foods before touching ready-to-eat food

And remember: don’t handle food when you are ill with stomach problems, such as

diarrhoea or vomiting don’t touch food if you have sores or cuts, unless they are covered

with a waterproof dressing

Cooking Proper cooking kills food poisoning bacteria such as listeria,

salmonella, E. coli O157 and Campylobacter. It’s important to cook food thoroughly, especially meat. Make sure that food is cooked right through and piping hot in the middle.

When reheating food make sure it’s piping hot all the way through and don’t reheat it more than once.

Chilling It’s very important to keep certain foods at the right temperature to

prevent bacteria growing or toxins forming. Always look at the label on the packaging.

If it says that the food needs to be refrigerated, make sure you keep it in the fridge.

If food that needs to be chilled is left standing at room temperature, food poisoning bacteria can grow and multiply to dangerous levels.

Cooked leftovers should be cooled quickly and then put in the fridge. Putting food in shallow containers and dividing it into smaller amounts

will speed up the cooling process.

12

Cross-contamination

Cross-contamination is the transfer of bacteria from foods (usually raw) to other foods. The bacteria can be transferred directly when one food touches (or drips onto) another, or indirectly, for example from hands, equipment, work surfaces, or knives and other utensils. Cross-contamination is one of the major causes of food poisoning.

To prevent cross-contamination: always wash your hands thoroughly after touching raw food keep raw and ready-to-eat foods separate store raw meat in sealable containers at the bottom of the fridge, so it can’t drip onto other foods use different chopping boards/work surfaces for raw food and ready-to-

eat food clean knives and other utensils thoroughly after use with raw food

Further information can be obtained by following the web page link

13

http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Environment_and_Planning/envirn_health/Food_Safety/Communicable_Disease.asp

8.0 FOOD SAMPLING

8.1 Microbiological

8.1.1 Sampling carried out during 2013/2014

Overview of National HPA Studies and York Laboratory Cross-Regional Studies for 2013-14Year 2013 2014Months of sampling J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

National StudiesStudy 50 Soda water from soda gun or fixed dispensing point

Study 52Imported fresh whole leaf herbs to be eaten raw or with minimal cooking.

Ongoing from the 2012/2013ProgrammeStudy 48. Pâté study: comparison of ‘in-house’ produced and large-scale produced offal-based pâtéStudy 49. Reactive response study*Meat piesXR11 Pies, Pasties and Somosas Stored at Ambient TemperaturesXR13 Swabbing as an intervention in compliant food premises with a focus on food preparation areas in schools, nurseries and care homes.

Cross Regional Studies (XR) 2013/14XR15 Takeaways

XR16 Hygiene in Hairdressers and Nail Bars

XR17 Grated Cheese

14

8.1.2 Sampling carried out during 2014/2015

Overview of National PHE Studies and York Laboratory Cross-Regional Studies for 2014-15

Year 2014 2015Months of sampling J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

National StudiesStudy 53 Swabs from ready-to-use platters used to serve foodStudy 54 Decision pendingStudy 55 Decision pending

Ongoing from the 2013/2014ProgrammeStudy 51. Sandwiches from unregistered premises

Study 52 Imported whole leaf herbs

XR15 Takeaways

XR17 Grated Cheese

Cross Regional Studies (XR) 2014/15

XR18 Food Safety and Hygiene in Mobile Vendors

XR19 Sandwiches from small, medium or large producers

XR20 Complex Equipment

XR21 Spa pools and Hot Tubs

Public Health England has not yet published the reports of these individual studies.

15

In addition to the national and cross regional studies, we also undertook a number of sampling visits to local businesses. These consisted of:

Reacting to poor hygiene standards found during inspections;

Reacting to unsatisfactory sample results referred to us by other local authorities where food is manufactured/distributed from within the borough;

Spot checks on approved businesses within the borough.

8.2 Food Standards

The following compositional studies were completed:

8.2.1 Undeclared meat species in meals advertised and sold as ‘lamb.’

A significant amount of DNA sampling took place within the restaurant and takeaway sector following regional intelligence indicating the prevalence of substitution of lamb in meals for cheaper cuts of beef. The Council prosecuted a local restaurant owner in June 2015 and a further food business operator is due to answer charges in Court in July 2015 for selling beef in a meal advertised and ordered as lamb.

8.2.2 Presence of allergens in meals ordered as peanut free

Regional intelligence indicated that almond powder was being substituted for cheaper peanut blends in some business. This was due to high prices on the almond market.

An individual can be allergic to peanuts (groundnuts) but tolerate, without issue, other nuts such as almond. Sampling was undertaken in indian cuisine restaurants, as almond is traditionally used in a number of dishes. The meals were ordered, requesting peanut free.

Most businesses passed the sampling apart from two. In one of the businesses the owner had changed when the team revisited. In the other, it transpired during an interview under caution that the business had been sold an almond/peanut mix even though they had requested almond. A traceability check and invoice paperwork backed this up.

8.2.3 Fish authenticity checks

In recent years, the main commercial fish stocks in European Community waters have been under pressure. The resulting market pressure has led to the shortages and increased prices of the traditionally popular species of fish in the UK market, such as cod and haddock. As a result, the potential for

16

economic gain by substituting more expensive fish species with less expensive ones has increased.

Restaurants and takeaways selling fish and chips were targeted to determine the authenticity of the fish being sold. All premises passed the survey.

8.2.4 Illegal colours in takeaway food

EC Regulation 1333/2008 specifies which foods may contain artificial colours. They also list the colours which may be used and the maximum permitted levels. There is a food category for sauces and seasonings, which will include sauces used in prepared meals such as curry dishes as well as chutneys and pickles and curry powders. The Regulations have recently been amended which means that the amount of artificial colour which is allowed to be present in sauces has reduced and in the case of Ponceau 4R, is now prohibited. A sampling survey of restaurants and takeaways was undertaken to determine this.

In one sample the curry sauce and also the seasoning applied to the meat, were found to contain Ponceau 4 R, contrary to the regulations. As these were recent amendments to the law we used the information to advise the business. However, all illegal colours were seized and removed from the premises.

8.2.5 National co-ordinated food sampling survey

The aim is to inform policy makers and to provide better information to assist in future sampling programmes as well as determining levels of compliance around areas of concern within the UK food chain.

Sampling priorities for this programme are developed in consultation with a wide range of organisations (including DEFRA, Department of Health, Public Health England, the Association of Public Analysts and Local Authorities).The funding provided by this programme covers the costs of sample collection and analysis, and represents additional work over and above our existing work programme. Any non-compliance highlighted by sampling results is followed up and appropriate enforcement action taken.

Information on the 2013/14 programme can be found here.

Information on the 2014/15 programme can be found here.

8.3 Proposed Food Sampling For 2016/2018

8.3.1 Microbiological

17

http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/food-priorities-2014-2015.pdf

http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/enforcement/enfe13015a.pdf

Full details of the PHE national and cross regional studies for 2015/16 can be seen below. At this stage we do not have the 2016/17 program. This will be consulted on in the second half of 2015/16. Overview of National PHE Studies and York Laboratory Cross-Regional Studies for 2015-16Year 2015 2016Months of sampling J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

National Studies 2015/16Study 56 Bagged Salads

Study 57 Sandwich and Jacket potato fillings

Study 58 Topic pending

On-going from the 2014/2015ProgrammeStudy 54. Takeaways with FHR of 3 or lessStudy 55 Reactive response survey of Raw MilkXR19 Sandwiches from small, medium or large producersXR20 Complex Equipment

Cross Regional Studies (XR) 2015/16XR18 Food Safety and Hygiene in Mobile VendorsXR22Pre-fried riceXR23Pre-cut fruitXR24 Shopping basket/trolley Imported fruit, vegetable, nuts and seeds.

Local survey as agreed

8.3.2 Food Standards

The following Food Standards initiatives are being completed in 2015/16:

Prevalence of undeclared allergens in catering establishments. Continuation of undeclared meat species in catering establishments.

18

Further surveys will be added throughout the remainder of the year and then similar for 2016/17.

Full details of the annual national co-ordinated food sampling programme can be found here.

19

http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/enf-ni-15-004-annex.pdf

food related course details - microsoft€¦ · web viewif food that needs to be chilled is left...

Documents