Food Safety in Tasmania Performance Assessment using Audit

SCHOOL OF HEALTH

SCIENCES

Food Safety in Tasmania

Performance Assessment using

Audit Findings

41th EHA National Conference

Hobart 2016

SCHOOL OF HEALTH

SCIENCES

Food Safety in Tasmania

Performance Assessment using

Audit Findings

James Wood,

Lecturer Environmental Health

&

Managing Director

Environmental Health Services (Tas) P/L

Who in Tasmania needs / has a Food

Safety Plan?

• Vulnerable persons

• Bivalve and Mollusc producers

• Ready To Eat Meat premises (RTE)

• Other (top end restaurants, ice

manufacturers, wholesale retailers)

EHA 41st Annual Conference – Hobart, Australia3

Food Safety Regulatory Standards –

a recap

Australia New Zealand Food Standards

Code

Chapter 1 General Food Standards

Chapter 2 Food Product Standards

Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards (Aus)

Chapter 4 Primary Produce Standards

76 different standards in total

4EHA 41st Annual Conference – Hobart, Australia

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Search/Australia New Zealand Food Standards

Food Safety Regulatory System

Chapter 1 examples (29 standards)

Standard 1.2.8 Nutrition Information Requirements

Standard 1.2.11 Country of Origin Labelling [Australia only]

Standard 1.3.1 Food Additives

Standard 1.4.1 Contaminants and Natural Toxicants

Standard 1.5.3 Irradiation of Food

Standard 1.6.1 Microbiological Limits in Food


http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2008B00608

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2013L00051





Food Safety Regulatory System

Chapter 2 examples (34 standards)

Standard 2.2.1 Meat and Meat Products

Standard 2.2.2 Egg and Egg Products [Australia only]

Standard 2.2.3 Fish and Fish Products

Standard 2.7.1 Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages and Food Containing Alcohol

Standard 2.7.2 Beer

Standard 2.9.2 Foods for Infants



http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L00858





Food Safety Regulatory SystemChapter 4 examples [all Australia only] 9 Standards

Standard 4.2.1 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Seafood

Standard 4.2.2 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat

Standard 4.2.3 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Meat Standard 4.2.4 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Dairy Products

Standard 4.2.4A Primary Production and Processing Standard for Specific Cheeses

Standard 4.2.5 Primary Production and Processing Standard for Eggs and Egg Product

Standard 4.2.6 Production and Processing Standard for Seed Sprouts









Vulnerable persons

8

ANZFSC 3.3.1

Food Safety Programs

for Food Service to

Vulnerable Persons

Hospitals

Nursing Homes

Aged care sector

Child care centres

Mental Health Centres

Prisons, Rehab Centres

EHA 41st Annual Conference – Hobart, Australia

Vulnerable persons

i.e. 1 in 34!!


Vulnerable persons

10

ANZFSC 3.3.1 not appropriate foods include:

foods that are higher risk for Listeria monocytogenes

• sliced ready to eat cold meats

• purchased ready to eat cold cooked chicken (whole, portions or diced)

• pâté (refrigerated pâté or meat spreads)

• pre-prepared or pre-packaged salads

• raw seafoods (for example oysters, sushi)

• soft and semi-soft surface-ripened cheeses (for example brie, camembert, feta, ricotta, blue cheese)

or E.coli

• unpasteurised dairy products

• uncooked fermented meats, such as salami

• unpasteurised milk or fruit juices


Vulnerable persons - Assessment

Criteria

11

Audit reports over last 6 years

Review of number of Corrective Actions for

audits in 2010, 2013 and 2016

Discussion with DHHS


Vulnerable persons Audit performance

2010 to 2016 (n=10)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

# of CARs


Vulnerable persons

13

• Considered to have a high level of

Compliance (Quinn pers comm 2016)

• Food safety in Aged Care homes

overlaps with Total care plans

• State Government funding available for

building safety, fire safety, drug

management and food safety


Vulnerable persons

Summary of performance in food Safety

2010 to 2016

Highly regulated area at multiple levels

Decrease then steady trend of improvement

Some missed audits

Change of auditor


Bivalves and Molluscs

ANZFSC 4.2.1 - PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND

PROCESSING STANDARD FOR SEAFOOD

Oyster growers (Pacific oysters -Crassostrea gigas)Mussels growersAngasi growers (Native oysters)

Oysters – a Delicacy or danger?

Bivalve and Molluscs by numbersTasmanian oyster industry:

• direct employment of over 300 people

• produce around 4 million dozen oysters

each year,

• an estimated ‘farm gate’ value of $24

million

• over 100 license holders leasing a total

area of about 1450 ha


Oyster Tasmania


Bivalve and Molluscs

Tasmanian Quality Assurance Program

(TSQAP) in place since 2008

DPIPWE issued the Food Safety

Management System for Live Tasmanian

Farmed Bivalve Molluscs - Oyster

Template

Now up to Version 5, 2016


Oysters signed Quality Policy

• “To be the leader in the Australian live farmed bivalve mollusc (oyster) industry, recognised for the safety and quality of our product, our sustainable management practices, and our customer service.”

• As a producer of Live Tasmanian Farmed Bivalve Mollusc (oysters), I am committed to producing food safe, quality product that meets the requirements of Primary Production and Processing Standards for Seafood (Standard 4.2.1 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code)

Signed Joe Bloggs 1/11/16


Growing, sorting, grading



The Tasmanian industry is an Australian

leader in culture technology. The industry

is based primarily on the Pacific oyster

(Crassostrea gigas) – with 4 hatchery-

reared juvenile farms then moving to on

grower farms for market size on licensed

marine farms including South Australia,

until February 2016!


POMS Outbreak 2016

• The national supply of oysters is tipped to be cut by up to 70 per cent by August 2017 as a result of the Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS) outbreak in Tasmania in 2016 – (Sally Dakis - Tas Country 26/10/16)

• Major suppliers say their farms can expect a 90 per cent drop in production after losing the bulk of their juvenile oysters.



• Most farms that have been impacted by

POMS, have got a little bit of stock left

from the survivors

• After that they’re got nothing left until the

new seasons stock comes through, some

time in 2018

• Australian oyster industry will retract

somewhere between 60 to 70 per cent for

the space of two years



Brief History of POMS

2008 First detected in France, then UK, Jersey, Ireland and Netherlands

2010 NZ, especially north island

2010 late – detected in NSW in Georges River -Botany Bay and Port Jackson

2013 NSW Hawksbury River

2016 – 28th January Pitt Water in SE TAS

Then extended from St Helens and south to Dunalley

Auditing ceased



• Cost of POMS is estimated to be around

$30 million

• Producers have lifted the price of oysters

by 25 to 30 per cent to help their

businesses survive

• 3 businesses have closed in last 6

months (DPIPWE Hunt pers. Com. 2016)

• NW coast of TAS unaffected



27


Review of number of Corrective Actions per

audit in 2010, 2013 and 2016

Discussion with DPIPWE


Oyster Audits performance

2010 to 2016 (n=14)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

# of CARs


Oysters

Summary of performance in food Safety

2010 to 2016

High risk industry subject to many

environmental factors

Decrease in CARs then slight increase

2013/4 bushfires destroyed some farms

Biotoxins and floods closed many farms

POMS hit in 2016, what next?


Oysters – Impact on Food safety

What are the hazards going forward

• POMS hits at 16C and testing to start this summer when water gets to 18C

• Biotoxins – warm water and nutrients

• Sewage Spills – any time particularly with high rain events

• Vibrio parahaemolyticus (7 cases in NE) and V. vulnificus (50% mortality rate)

• Other diseases – 13 listed reportable diseases and 6 others non listed

• Climate Change events


Interesting times


Ready To Eat Meats

ANZFSC 1.6.1. & 2.2.1

Games Meat FSP since 1990

Poultry Meat FSP since 1990

Eggs FSP since 2002

RTE FSP since 2010

Change in regulator from DHHS and Councils

(Food Act 2003) to DPIPWE (Primary Produce

Safety Act 2011) in 2014

Is this the poacher becoming the game keeper?


Ready To Eat Meats

Standard 1.6.1

Microbiological Limits in Food

Standard 2.2.1

Meat and Meat Products




Ready To Eat meats

34


Review of number of Corrective Actions per

audits in 2010, 2013 and 2016

Discussion with DPIPWE


Ready to Eat Meat performance

2010 to 2016 (n=10)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

# of CARs


Ready To Eat Meat Performance

Four premises have had Prohibition Ordersissued by DPIPWE

Three premises were found not to have hadany audits on FSP when DPIPWE tookover regulating

High proportion of butchers using AMICFSP template (hard copy only) leading topoor updating of plans

EHOs appear to have taken a hands offapproach since auditing introduced


Ready To Eat Meat Audit summary

Summary of performance in Food Safety

2010 to 2016

Continual decrease in CARs over 6 years

Poor literacy levels in industry

Many old premises with high maintenance

levels

Constant high level of cleaning required

Need regular product monitoring


Summary of

Audit Assessment across 3 sectors

Vulnerable person

Audits are in a highly regulated system and

are mostly compliant based on audit

findings

Frequent turn over of QA managers


Summary of



High risk industry subject to many

environmental factors

General improvement in FS over 6 years

Following NZ lead in managing POMS and

developing resistant strains

Robust industry and life style choice

Provides majority of oysters in Australia


Summary of


Ready To Eat Meats

A mature industry now highly regulated

following Garibaldi incident

Audits show a continuous improvement

despite many old premises and semi

illiterate work force


Thank you


Documents

Food Safety in Tasmania Performance Assessment using Audit