BENCHMARK RESEARCH ON THE POULTRY INDUSTRY€¦ · Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry Colmar Brunton Social Research 2 6.1.1 Enforcement officer involvement with specific

FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND

© Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2005 ISBN 0 642 34510 4 ISSN 1448-4501 Printed November 2005 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food (FSANZ). Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Information Officer, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, PO Box 7168, Canberra BC, ACT 2610. An electronic version of this work is available on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) website at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au . This electronic version may be downloaded, displayed, printed and reproduced in unaltered form only for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Australia New Zealand PO Box 7186 PO Box 10599 Canberra BC ACT 2610 Wellington Australia New Zealand Tel +61 2 6271 2241 Tel +64 4 473 9942 Fax +61 2 6271 2278 Fax +64 4 473 9855 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

BENCHMARK RESEARCH

ON THE POULTRY INDUSTRY

EVALUATION REPORT SERIES NO. 11

Our ref: 70357 Your ref: 2004/1 29 June 2005

Original

Prepared by

Colmar Brunton Social Research

PO Box 2212 Canberra ACT 2601

Tel: 02 6249 8566 Fax. 02 6249 8588

Contact: Jodi Coppin

Benchmark research on the

Poultry Meat Industry

Full Report

prepared for

Food Standards Australian New Zealand

Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry

Colmar Brunton Social Research 1

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 8

2 Interpretative Summary 11 2.1 Poultry Meat Industry 11

2.1.1 Findings 11 2.2 Enforcement officers 24

2.2.1 Findings 24 2.3 Consumers 34

2.3.1 Findings 34

3 Introduction 40 3.1 Background 40 3.2 Audience 40 3.3 Research objectives 41

4 Methodology in Brief 43 4.1 Industry research methodology 44 4.2 Enforcement officer research methodology 46 4.3 Consumer research methodology 47 4.4 Interpretative notes 48

5 Poultry meat industry findings 51 5.1 Awareness and attitudes towards food safety 52

5.1.1 Importance of food safety to managers of poultry meat businesses 53 5.1.2 Managers’ opinions of the likelihood of foodborne illness in the end product 53 5.1.3 Managers’ attitudes towards sectors of the poultry meat industry 57

5.2 Behaviours and practices and impact on food safety 63 5.2.1 Current behaviours and practices 63 5.2.2 Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contaminants 67 5.2.3 Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contaminants 71 5.2.4 Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contaminants 76

5.3 Government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry 80 5.3.1 Standards, code of practice and guidelines used 80 5.3.2 Awareness of Chapter 3 and 4 of the Food Standards Code 84 5.3.3 Practices undertaken to comply with Chapter 3 85 5.3.4 Awareness of proposed Chapter 4 standards 86 5.3.5 Inspections conducted of poultry meat businesses 88 5.3.6 Self-regulation within the poultry meat industry 90

5.4 Sources of information and staff training on food safety issues 92 5.4.1 Sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations 93 5.4.2 Education and training opportunities for poultry meat industry staff 96

6 Enforcement officer findings 98 6.1 The role of enforcement officers in the poultry meat industry 98



6.1.1 Enforcement officer involvement with specific sectors of the poultry meat industry 98 6.1.2 Geographic areas of work 100 6.1.3 Time spent dealing with food safety issues and food poisoning 102

6.2 Enforcement officers opinions of the poultry meat industry 104 6.2.1 Likelihood of current practices leading to food poisoning 105 6.2.2 Chicken versus non-chicken 107

6.3 Level of awareness and knowledge of regulations 108 6.3.1 Specific legislation, standards and codes of practice 109 6.3.2 Developing and enforcing standards 110 6.3.3 Effectiveness of current standards and regulations 114 6.3.4 Gaps in current standards and regulations 117

6.4 Level of awareness and knowledge of Chapter 3 food safety standards 119 6.4.1 Frequency of use of Chapter 3 119 6.4.2 Familiarity with Chapter 3 121

6.5 Awareness and attitudes towards proposed Chapter 4 standard 123 6.5.1 Level of awareness of proposed Chapter 4 standards 123 6.5.2 Impact on the risk of foodborne illness from Chapter 4 125 6.5.3 Impact on workload and work conditions for Enforcement Officers from Chapter 4 130

6.6 Sources of information and staff training 133 6.6.1 Sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations 134 6.6.2 Current staff training levels 136

7 Consumer findings 138 7.1 Consumer awareness and knowledge of raw poultry meat handling practices 139

7.1.1 Purchasing and transport of raw poultry meat 139 7.1.2 Food storage, preparation and personal hygiene 143

7.2 Consumer awareness and knowledge of pre-cooked poultry meat handling practices 151 7.2.1 Purchasing and transport of pre-cooked poultry meat 151 7.2.2 Storage of pre-cooked poultry meat 155

7.3 Consumer attitudes towards food safety for poultry meat 157 7.4 Information sources on safe food handling for consumers 160

8 Appendix A: Technical notes 162 8.1 Definitions 162

9 Appendix B: Additional industry data 164

10 Appendix C: Additional enforcement officer data 173

11 Appendix D: Additional consumer data 176

12 Appendix E: Industry Sampling Plan 179

13 Appendix F: Enforcement officer sampling plan 191

14 Appendix G: Industry questionnaire 193

15 Appendix H: Enforcement questionnaire 276

16 Appendix I: Consumer questionnaire 304



Index of Tables Table 1: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any

capacity? 100 Table 2: Q8. Firstly, what is your role within the business? 164 Table 3: Q9. Which of the following activities is your business involved in? Is it involved in…? 164 Table 4: Q10. How many birds do you currently have on your farm at this location? 165 Table 5: Q11. How many birds do you process per hour at this location? 165 Table 6: Q13. How many kilograms of poultry meat would you sell each day at this location? 166 Table 7: Q14, Q15 & Q16. Equivalent full-time staff 166 Table 8: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne

illness from poultry meat products derived from your birds? 167 Table 9: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne

illness from poultry meat products in poultry processing? 169 Table 10: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne

illness from poultry meat products? 171 Table 11: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food

safety in the poultry meat industry? 173 Table 12: PC_1. State/Territory 176 Table 13: PC_2. Gender 176 Table 14: PC_3. Which of the following age groups do you fall into? 176 Table 15: Q37. Which of the following best describes your household? 177 Table 16: Q39. Are you currently employed in the poultry meat industry? 177 Table 17: Q40. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin? 177 Table 18: Q43. What is the highest level of education you have attained? 178 Table 19: Q44. Which of the following best describe the area where you live? 178 Table 20: Proposed sampling design 180 Table 21: Top 11 Processors 183 Table 22: Estimated maximum margins of error 185 Table 23: Projected in-scope and out-of-scope sampling units 186 Table 24: Projected call outcomes for Growers 188 Table 25: Projected call outcomes for Processors 189 Table 26: Projected call outcomes for Retailers 190 Table 27: Stratified sampling plan for LGAs 192 Table 28: LGA Response rates 192



Index of Figures Figure 1: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead

to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely) 13

Figure 2: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely) 14

Figure 3: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely) 15

Figure 4: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry? 17



Figure 7: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 20

Figure 8: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 21

Figure 9: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling/retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 22

Figure 10: Q46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their employees about food safety. Can you please say where or not your business does each one for any of your employees? 23

Figure 11: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any capacity? 25

Figure 12: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry? 27

Figure 13: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely) 29

Figure 14: Q27: Why do you think it will have a positive impact? 32 Figure 15: Q14. How did you thaw it? 35 Figure 16: Q32. I would like to read a series of statements to you, and I would like you to tell me

whether you think they are true or false. If you don’t know, please say so. 37 Figure 17: Q35. Where do you currently get information about safe handling and cooking of poultry

meat? 39 Figure 18: Outline of Research Approach 43 Figure 19: Q22. Overall, how important is food safety to your poultry business? (possible ratings

range from 1 not important – 10 very important) 53 Figure 20: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead

to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely) 54



Figure 21: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely) 56

Figure 22: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely) 57

Figure 23: Q39. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms”? 58

Figure 24: Q40. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry processors don’t do enough to control food safety risks in processing plants”? 59

Figure 25: Q41. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets”? 60

Figure 26: Q42 Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat”? 61

Figure 27: Q43. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products”? 62

Figure 28: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products? 64



Figure 31: Q27. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products? 70

Figure 32: Q28. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risks of chemical contamination of your birds/poultry meat products? 70

Figure 33: Q31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products? 75

Figure 34: Q33. What are the three main practice you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your birds/poultry meat products? 75

Figure 35: Q29. What kinds of physical things are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products? 78

Figure 36: Q30. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products? 79

Figure 37: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 81

Figure 38: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 82

Figure 39: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling/retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety? 83

Figure 40: Q49. Before today, had you heard of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code or the guide to Chapter 3, “Safe Food Australia”? 84

Figure 41: Q50. What things does your business do to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards? 86

Figure 42: Q51. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards of the Food Standards Code? 87



Figure 43: Q54. How many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry operations? 89

Figure 44: Q55. Which external organizations conducted these inspections? 90 Figure 45: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry

meat product industry? 93 Figure 46: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry

meat product industry? 94 Figure 47: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry

meat product industry? 95 Figure 48: Q46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or

inform their employees about food safety. Can you please say where or not your business does each one for any of your employees? 97

Figure 49: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any capacity? 99

Figure 50: Q5. In the last three months, what percentage of your work time was spent in…? 101 Figure 51: Q6. Approximately what percentage of your work time was spent dealing with food safety

issues in general [in the last three months]? 103 Figure 52: Q7. What percentage of your work time was spent tracking down causes of food

poisoning [in the last three months]? 103 Figure 53: Q9. How likely is it that current practices at the… stage could lead to foodborne illnesses

in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely) 105 Figure 54: Q9. How likely is it that current practices at the… stage could lead to foodborne illnesses

in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely) 106 Figure 55: Q10: Do you think there is greater risk on a per serve basis of food poisoning from

poultry meat in the chicken meat sector, the non-chicken poultry meat sector or is the risk the same? 107

Figure 56: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry? 109

Figure 57: Q13. Who has the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for [stages] in the poultry meat supply chain in your State/Territory? 111

Figure 58: Q14. Who has the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation for [stages] in the poultry meat supply chain in your State/Territory? 113

Figure 59: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…? 115

Figure 60: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…? 116

Figure 61: Q12. What, if any, are the gaps in the current standards and regulations? 118 Figure 62: Q17. In the last three months, how many times have you used the Chapter 3 Food Safety

Standards of the Food Standards Code in your capacity as an enforcement officer of the poultry meat industry? What about “Safe Food Australia”? 121

Figure 63: Q18. How familiar would you say that you are with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards in general or Safe Food Australia, the guide to Chapter 3? (possible ratings range from 1 not familiar – 10 very familiar) 122

Figure 64: Q23. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard of the Food Standards Code? 125



Figure 65: Q25: Do you think the introduction of the Chapter 4 primary production and processing standards will have a positive impact, a negative impact or no impact at all on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat? 129

Figure 66: Q27: Why do you think it will have a positive impact? 130 Figure 67: Q29: Will the introduction of Chapter 4 mean less, the same or more work for you? 132 Figure 68: Q30: Will it make your job easier, harder or make no difference? 132 Figure 69: Q31: Where do you get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry? 136 Figure 70: Q34: What qualification relating to food safety do you have? 137 Figure 71: Q8. Where did you get this <POULTRY> from? 140 Figure 72: Q9. How long did it take to get the raw <POULTRY> from <PLACE BOUGHT> to your

home? 141 Figure 73: Q10. What did you use to transport the raw <POULTRY> in? 142 Figure 74: Q11. What did you do with the raw <POULTRY> when you got home? 143 Figure 75: Q13. Did you thaw the raw <POULTRY> before cooking it? 144 Figure 76: Q14. How did you thaw it? 145 Figure 77: Q15e. When you are preparing the <POULTRY> for eating, did you use the same surface

for preparing other food items afterwards, without cleaning in between? 146 Figure 78: Q16. Did you use the same surface without cleaning for…? 146 Figure 79: Q18 When you finished cooking the <POULTRY>, did you place the cooked <POULTRY>

on the same plate or surface that the raw <POULTRY> is previously on? 147 Figure 80: Q20. How did you know when the <POULTRY> is cooked? 148 Figure 81: Q22. Thinking about the last time you cooked a whole chicken, how did you decide when

it is cooked and ready to eat? 149 Figure 82: Q15. When you are preparing the <POULTRY> for eating, did you…? 150 Figure 83: Q25. Thinking about the last time you brought pre-cooked poultry meat, what kind of

pre-cooked poultry meat did you buy? 152 Figure 84: Q26. Is the <POULTRY> purchased hot or cold? 152 Figure 85: Q30. How long did it take you to get the <POULTRY> from where you bought it to where

you stored it? 153 Figure 86: Q31. What did you use to transport the <POULTRY> in? 154 Figure 87: Q28. What did you do with the <POULTRY> after you bought it? 156 Figure 88: Q29. Where did you store the <POULTRY>? 156 Figure 89: Q32. I would like to read a series of statements to you, and I would like you to tell me

whether you think they are true or false. If you don’t know, please say so. 158 Figure 90: Q33. I would like to read another series of statements to you. This time I would like you

to use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree and tell me how much you agree or disagree with the statements. 159

Figure 91: Q35. Where do you currently get information about safe handling and cooking of poultry meat? 161

Figure 92: Q35. Where do you currently get information about safe handling and cooking of poultry meat? 161



1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The major objective of government food safety standards is to protect public health and safety by reducing the risk of food borne illness and contamination in the food chain. In Australia, FSANZ works together with State and Territory governments and other organisations, to achieve its mission of helping to maintain a safe food supply, thereby protecting public health and safety.

FSANZ is currently preparing to implement a new chapter to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which will see national food regulation extend across all parts of the food chain, including primary production, processing and retail – in essence from paddock to plate. One of these new standards due to be introduced in 2006 is the Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat (PPPSPM). This standard will complement the existing Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards.

In order to assist in the evaluation of the implementation of this standard in the future, FSANZ have identified the need for benchmark data on awareness, knowledge and behaviour of poultry meat businesses, government enforcement officers and consumers in relation to food safety issues. These benchmark data will provide FSANZ with information about the poultry meat industry before the standard is implemented in all States and Territories in Australia.

FSANZ identified three key stakeholder groups for the research: the poultry meat industry including poultry growers, processors, and wholesalers and retailers; government enforcement officers at the state and local government level; and consumers. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) surveys were conducted for all three stakeholder groups. Questions were asked of all stakeholders about their awareness and knowledge of food safety practices and sources of information on food safety issues. For the food industry and enforcement officers additional questions were asked on the potential for different stages in the food chain to lead to foodborne illness, on awareness of the FSANZ Food Standards Code (Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and the proposed Chapter 4 standards) and about the regulations and guidelines currently used by each sector. Enforcement officers were also asked about their current responsibilities with respect to the poultry meat industry, where the gaps in regulations were with regards to preventing foodborne illness and how their responsibilities may change once the Chapter 4 PPPSPM is implemented.

This report comprises a short Executive Summary of the research project, an Interpretative Summary of the main findings for each of the three stakeholder groups and the main report with the methodology used for each stakeholder group and full results. It should be noted that research findings based on the CATI surveys report on people’s opinions, awareness and knowledge of food safety issues not on actual practices.

Food safety

Overall, food safety was found to be important by managers of businesses throughout the poultry meat industry. Only four percent of growers and one percent of wholesalers and retailers do not report food safety as important to them. Growers, processors, wholesalers and retailers all provide varying examples of the practices they employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness, however maintaining good employee hygiene and pest controls are commonly mentioned by all three sectors (details of these practices are given in the Interpretive Summary and Full Report).



Businesses in all sectors consider several stages of the poultry meat supply chain may lead to foodborne illness if appropriate precautions are not taken, however, a significant proportion of food businesses do not know about the risks of foodborne illnesses in their sector or other related sectors. Most businesses in the industry believe growers, processors or supermarkets are doing enough to control food safety risks in their businesses. Take-away food businesses are seen as the stage within the industry more likely to lead to food borne illness, while live bird transport is seen as the stage least likely to lead to foodborne illness. Only wholesalers and retailers believe it is ‘likely’ that failure to apply appropriate precautions at the growing stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product. Consumers are commonly seen by poultry meat businesses as not doing enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat and the most likely stage to lead to foodborne illness.

LGA, State and Territory Officers also believed the preparation of poultry meat for consumption by consumers to be the stage leading to the greatest risk of foodborne illness. After consumers, take-away businesses are seen as the next most likely to lead to foodborne illness. LGA officers see the poultry retail stage as the next most likely to lead to foodborne illness. State and Territory Officers, however, believe current practices in poultry processing could lead to foodborne illness, followed by poultry retailing, de-boning and the poultry growing stage. These answers may reflect the current role of State and Territory officers and LGA officers. While the role of enforcement officers varies according to jurisdiction, LGA officers are typically involved with poultry retailers and take-away food service businesses only. State and Territory officers work mainly with poultry processors, wholesalers and retailers.

In terms of the potential risk of chicken versus non chicken meat, overall, two-thirds of State and Territory Officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same from all types of poultry meat, while a third believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector. This is higher than for LGA officers with almost half believing the risk of food poisoning is the same from all types of poultry meat, while a third believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector.

Despite the views reported from the poultry meat industry and enforcement officers about consumer practices and handling of poultry meat, the vast majority of consumers report safe practices in transporting, handling and storing raw poultry meat, indicating a high level of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety.

For example, consumers typically purchase raw poultry meat from major supermarkets and usually transport this meat home in a shopping bag within 20 minutes of purchase. Those who use a cooler bag to transport raw poultry meat, typically do so in less than 20 minutes, while those who use an esky are more likely to take longer. Very few use potentially unsafe storage methods. Consumers also demonstrate knowledge of safe and healthy practices in preparing raw poultry meat for consumption, usually thawing the meat (if frozen) prior to cooking, and the majority report using safe thawing practices. Consumers are careful to avoid practices that may lead to cross-contamination of raw poultry meat and other food items, and also report a good understanding of how to determine when chicken is cooked.

The vast majority of consumers also report safe practices in transporting, handling and storing pre-cooked poultry meat, indicating a high level of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety. The most popular type of pre-cooked poultry meat is a whole chicken, and is typically purchased hot and transported home in a shopping bag within a safe period of time. Pre-cooked poultry meat is typically eaten immediately or stored safely.



Sources of information on food safety issues

With regards to sources of information on food safety issues utilised, poultry growers appear the most likely to rely on industry information sources, while processors and wholesalers/retailers are more likely to nominate government sources of food safety information. Enforcement officers mention FSANZ as the most common source of information and other government departments, whilst the majority of consumers refer mainly to magazines or cooking books, the television and butchers or retailers for information on safe handling and cooking of poultry meat.

Standards and regulations used in the poultry meat industry

The standards, codes of practice and/or guidelines used in the poultry meat industry, and the extent of government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is very much aligned to the sector of the industry. Poultry growers are most likely to be self-regulated, with large proportions adhering to contractual obligations, industry guidelines and HACCP plans, with less than one-quarter aware of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and fewer aware of the proposed Chapter 4 standard.

The most commonly mentioned obligations for processors to adhere to are those in HACCP plans, followed by State and Territory government food hygiene or safety regulations and Australian Standard obligations. A large majority of processors are aware of Chapter 3, however only a small proportion is aware of Chapter 4. Wholesalers and retailers are the least likely sector within the poultry meat industry to be exposed to self-regulation. The most commonly mentioned obligations for wholesalers and retailers to adhere to are local and state government regulations, the Food Standards Code and a HACCP plan. A majority are aware of Chapter 3, and at least one-third are aware of Chapter 4.

The specific legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers typically reflects the different sectors of the poultry meat industry that enforcement officers are working in. State and Territory governments are seen as having the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain, while the responsibility for enforcing standards is less clear.

Most State and Territory officers believe that current standards and regulations are effective for the poultry processing, de-boning, transportation, wholesale and retail stages of the food chain. However, a significant proportion of these officers indicate they do not know about the effectiveness of Standards and/or regulations of the poultry growing and live bird transportation stages of the food chain. State and Territory officers are most likely to identify gaps in processing, growing and retail standards and regulations. They are also likely to believe there is not enough training in the application of the standards and regulations.

The majority (two-thirds) of government officers believe the introduction of a PPPSPM will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat by providing more information and/or better education for applying standards for enforcement officers; and allowing for an overall approach to be introduced, thereby improving consistency across the industry and jurisdictions.



2 INTERPRETATIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Poultry Meat Industry

For the purposes of this benchmark research the poultry meat industry includes businesses that can be divided into a number of groups: poultry growers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and food services businesses.

These groups of the poultry meat industry have been further categorised into the following three sectors for the purposes of analysis:

• growers sector – incorporating both chicken and non-chicken poultry growing businesses;

• processors sector – including businesses that slaughter or de-bone poultry, and business that further process or add value to poultry meat products;

• wholesalers and retailers sector – incorporating businesses who deal with fresh or frozen poultry meat, poultry meat products but not including small good, and food services businesses who receive raw chicken and non-chicken poultry meat and cook on the premises (for example, fast food outlets, supermarket delicatessens, but not restaurants)

Overall, a total of 157 were sampled from the growers sector, 141 were sampled from the processors sector, and 181 were sampled from the wholesalers and retailers sector. For further details regarding the poultry meat industry sample see Appendix B: Additional industry data.

Objectives

For the poultry meat industry, the aim of the research was to assess:

• current level of awareness and knowledge of managers of poultry meat businesses of food safety issues;

• current behaviours and practices in relation to their impact on food safety;

• sources of information on food safety;

• provisions for staff training on food safety issues;

• standards, codes of practice and/or guidelines currently used; and

• the extent of self-regulation within each segment.

2.1.1 Findings

Current level of awareness and knowledge of managers of poultry meat businesses of food safety issues (see Section 5.1 of the Full Report)

Food safety is considered important by managers of businesses throughout the poultry meat industry.

• Only four percent (4%) of growers and one percent (1%) of wholesalers/retailers do not report food safety as important to them. All processors report food safety as important to their business.



Food safety is seen as important by the industry, and businesses in all sectors consider many stages of the poultry meat supply chain as likely to lead to foodborne illness if appropriate precautions are not taken.

However, these findings are limited by the fact that a significant proportion of growers and wholesalers/retailers are unable or unwilling to express opinions about stages of the poultry meat supply chain outside of their own.

• A substantial proportion of poultry growers indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 20% for the consumers stage to 31% for the wholesaling stage).

• Wholesalers/retailers are also prone to indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur at any stage of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 31% for the processed poultry meat transport stage to 46% for the live bird transport stage).

In contrast, processors are more willing to indicate the likelihood of individual sectors leading to foodborne illness in the end product, and tend to believe the likelihood is higher than both growers and wholesalers/retailers.

Only wholesalers/retailers believe it is ‘likely’ that failure to apply appropriate precautions at the growing stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product. All other stages of the poultry meat supply chain (from processing to consuming) are seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness by all sectors of the industry. Consumers and take-away food businesses are seen as the stages most likely to lead to foodborne illness. Live bird transport is seen as the stage least likely to lead to foodborne illness

Very few businesses in the industry believe that growers, processors or supermarkets are not doing enough to control food safety risks in their businesses. Take-away food businesses are seen as slightly more lacking in their efforts to control food safety risks. However, it is consumers who are overwhelmingly seen as not doing enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat.



Figure 11: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely)

Growers

2215

56 55 59 5864 66

71

713

2532 29 31 28 27

20

7.78.1

8.4 8.58.8 8.9 8.8

3.74.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Grower respondents (n=157). Key: Likely includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

1 In order to create this type of chart, we collapsed the 10-point scales used in the questionnaire as follows: 1-4 was classified as ‘disagree’, 5-6 was classified as ‘neither agree nor disagree’, and 7-10 was classified as ‘agree’. The category ‘don’t know’ was left untouched. To create the chart we used the 7-10 ‘agree’ category as well as the ‘don’t know’ category, and included the mean. For further information, please see ‘Methodology in Brief’.




Processors

45

32

79 84 8277 80 82

87

13 10 2 1 0 4 7 11 8

8.3 8.48.0 8.0

8.4

9.1 9.1

5.3

6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Processor respondents (Processors n=141). Key: Likely includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)




Wholesalers and retailers

3428

50 51 55 55 59

71 68

45 46 41 43

31 30 30

17 20

8.6 8.8

8.1 7.9

8.6 8.5 8.7

6.67.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). Key: Likely includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

Current behaviours and practices in relation to their impact on food safety (see Section 5.2 of the Full Report)

Growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers all provide varying examples of the practices they employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness derived from their poultry meat products. Maintaining good employee hygiene and pest controls are commonly mentioned for all three sectors.

Grower practices focus on:

• ensuring growing sheds are kept as clean as possible through cleaning out sheds between batches (34%);

• ensuring a clean water supply is maintained for birds (22%); and

• disposing of dead birds in a bio-secure manner (17%).

Processors ensure that:

• a HACCP plan or system is followed (60%);

• carcasses are kept at 5 degrees Celsius (or less) during storage/distribution (28%); and

• employees regularly wash their hands (23%).

Wholesalers/retailers report they:

• keep carcases at 5 degrees Celsius (or less) during storage and distribution (32%);



• ensure employees wash their hands regularly (20%); and

• follow a HACCP plan/system (19%).

Chemical, microbiological and physical contamination within the poultry meat supply chain (see Section 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 of the Full Report)

Awareness of chemicals that could potentially contaminate poultry meat is relatively low across all sectors of the poultry meat industry, with only two types of chemicals cited by more than ten percent of growers (Sanitising/cleaning agents and pesticides and herbicides). The most commonly mentioned practice used to reduce the risk of chemical contamination is to not use chemicals at all or separate them from poultry.

Microbiological hazard awareness is slightly higher than awareness of chemical risks – particularly for processors. The most nominated microbiological hazards are Salmonella and E. coli. Processors also nominate Listeria Monocytogenes, Campylobacter and Staphylococcus Aureus in large numbers. The practices most commonly mentioned to reduce risk of microbiological contamination by all sectors is to maintain a clean and hygienic workplace. Maintain temperature controls is also commonly mentioned by processors and wholesalers/retailers, while vaccination/health checks for birds are commonly mentioned by growers.

Physical contamination of poultry products is also a concern for processors and wholesalers/retailers. The most commonly mentioned hazards by these two groups are metal, plastic, wood and dirt or unclean surfaces. Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contamination include maintaining employee hygiene and keeping poultry separate from other substances. Processors are particularly likely to mention monitoring/maintenance of equipment.

Sources of information on food safety

Reflecting the differences between the nature of the work involved in each sector of the poultry meat industry, growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers are likely to nominate a range of sources of information and training/education opportunities they use.

Poultry growers appear the most likely of the three sectors of the industry to rely on industry information sources such as the National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming. In addition, growers appear particularly reliant on contractual parties for information about food safety (Figure 4.)

Processors and wholesalers/retailers, meanwhile, are more likely to nominate government sources of food safety information. A majority of wholesalers/retailers nominate local and State/Territory governments, while a majority of processors only nominate State/Territory governments. Processors also nominate the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and industry groups (Processors: Figure 5; Wholesalers/retailers Figure 6).



Figure 4: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry?

Growers

6

0

1

2

1

15

7

59

49

12

15

17

21

34

49

58

59

86

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Australian New ZealandFood Standards Code

Local government

Australian Standards

Other C'wlth govt

AQIS

State/territory govt

National Biosecurity Manualfor Contract Meat Chicken Farming

Contractual parties *

Industry group

% mentioningUnprompted Unprompted and prompted

Base: All respondents (Growers n=157). * Contractual parties was not a prompted question and so the percent mentioning for unprompted and prompted for this category remains constant at 59%.




Processors

5

5

13

4

21

18

40

40

41

44

62

66

67

75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other C'wlth govt

Local government

AQIS



Industry group



Base: All respondents (Processors n=141).





2

1

1

10

8

19

17

24

29

34

38

41

55

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AQIS

Other C'wlth govt


Industry group



Local government


Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).

Standards, codes of practice and/or guidelines currently used, and the extent of self-regulation within each sector (see Section 5.3.1 of the Full Report)

The standards, codes of practice and/or guidelines used, and the extent of government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is very much aligned to the sector of the industry.

Poultry growers are most likely to be self-regulated, with large proportions of growers saying they adhere to contractual obligations, industry guidelines and HACCP plans before mentioning government regulations. Less than one-quarter of growers are aware of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and fewer are aware of the proposed Chapter 4. Growers are not particularly likely to have annual inspections of their operations (which is in contrast to processors and wholesalers/retailers) and when these inspections do take place, they are overwhelmingly conducted by contractual parties.



Figure 7: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety?

Growers

1

11

1

2

7

1

20

1

64

17

48

50

54

65

66

67

76

87

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Aust Standard - meat(AS 4694-2002)

HACCP or QA

Guidelines ofAnimal Health Australia

State government(food hygiene/safety)

National Biosecurity Manual forContract Meat Chicken Farming

State government(animal health)

Industry guidelines/codes ofpractice

Local government

Contractual obligations

% mentioning

Unprompted and prompted

Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157).



Poultry processors also exhibit signs of self-regulation, however, they also appear subject to government regulation. The most commonly mentioned obligations for processors to adhere to are HACCP plan obligations, followed by State/Territory government food hygiene/safety regulations and Australian Standard obligations. A large majority of processors are aware of Chapter 3 and, as with growers, only a small proportion is aware of the proposed Chapter 4. Almost all processors report having at least one inspection of their operations each year, with these inspections mainly being conducted by a State/Territory government department/agency.

Figure 8: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety?

Processors

10

10

4

27

10

15

16

48

50

69

74

76

77

80

95

97

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Industry guidelines/codes of practice

Local government

Food Standards Code (any chapter)


Australian Standard - poultry specific(AS 4465-2001)


HACCP or QA

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents (Processors n=141).



Wholesalers/retailers are the least likely sector within the poultry meat industry to be exposed to self-regulation. Wholesalers/retailers most commonly report adhering to local government and State/Territory government regulations, followed by the Food Standards Code. Following a HACCP plan is also mentioned by a majority of wholesalers/retailers. While a majority of wholesalers/retailers are aware of Chapter 3, at least one-third are unaware of the Chapter. Like processors, most wholesalers/retailers report at least one inspection by a third party each year, with these inspections most commonly conducted by a local government authority.

Figure 9: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling/retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety?


1

1

2

6

36

8

4

8

6

18

20

38

60

62

82

82

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100





HACCP or QA



Local government

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



Provisions for staff training on food safety issues (see Section 5.4 of the Full Report)

When looking at the training and education opportunities offered to processing and wholesaling/retailing employees, these opportunities appear relatively similar. These two sectors of the industry most commonly provide induction/orientation training, circulate brochures/pamphlets, circulate food safety regulation documentation and conduct performance reviews of their staff.

In contrast, the opportunities growers most commonly offer are circulating trade or industry magazines/journals, circulating brochures/pamphlets and providing induction/orientation training.

Figure 10: Q46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their employees about food safety. Can you please say where or not your business does each one for any of your employees?

15

55

58

68

50

72

68

87

22

69

65

73

55

73

78

94

23

28

34

38

80

40

54

46

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Circulate internationalinformation sources

Provide non-accredited foodsafety training for poultry

Provide accredited food safetytraining for handling poultry

Provide performance reviews

Circulate trade or industrymagazines or journals

Circulate food safety regulationdocuments

Circulate brochures, pamphletsor posters

Provide induction/orientationtraining

% mentioning

GrowersProcessorsWholesalers and Retailers

Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



2.2 Enforcement officers

The government enforcement officers participating in this benchmark research fell into two broad categories: Local Government Area (LGA) enforcement officers and State or Territory government department enforcement officers. These two groups have been reported on separately.

A total of 121 enforcement officers completed a 17 minute survey to inform this research. A sample (n=72) of the estimated 1641 LGA officers currently working in Australia participated in the survey, while a census was completed for all State/Territory officers (n=49).

Objectives

The objectives of the enforcement officer quantitative research were to assess:

• current level of awareness and knowledge of enforcement officers of regulations relating to poultry meat businesses;

• level of awareness and knowledge of Chapter 3 food safety standards;

• level of awareness and knowledge of proposed Chapter 4 standards for poultry meat;

• current level of engagement in enforcing Chapter 3 standards;

• proposed role in enforcing Chapter 4 standards and potential impact on workloads;

• sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations; and

• provisions for staff training on food safety issues for poultry meat.

2.2.1 Findings

The role of enforcement officers in the poultry meat industry (see Section 6.1 of the Full Report)

While the role of enforcement officers varies according to jurisdiction, LGA officers are typically involved with poultry retailers and take-away food service businesses only. In contrast, State/Territory officers work mainly with poultry processors, wholesalers and, to a lesser extent, retailers. Figure 11 provides a graphical representation of which stages in the poultry meat supply chain LGA and State/Territory officers work in.

• All (100%) LGA officers report working with take-away food businesses serving poultry meat, and almost all (99%) LGA officers are involved with poultry retailers (including butchers).

• Less than ten percent of LGA officers work in any of the other stages of the poultry meat supply chain.

• More than three-quarters (82%) of State/Territory officers work with poultry processors or transporters of processed poultry meat.

• State/Territory officers are least likely to work with poultry growers (22%) and live bird transporters (14%).



Figure 11: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any capacity?

0

20

40

60

80

100Growers

Transporters of live birds

Processors

De-boners

Transporters of processed meat

Wholesalers

Retailers

Take away food service businesses

S\T officers

LGA officers

Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).

LGA officers work predominantly in one geographic area only, and their job descriptions require them to also work on issues other than food safety. In comparison, State/Territory officers are more likely to work in more than one geographic area, and to spend all of their time dealing with food safety issues.

• Almost half (42%) of LGA officers work exclusively in a State/Territory capital city, with the remaining LGA officers working in regional centres or remote/rural areas.

• Only one-in-five (20%) of State/Territory officers work exclusively in a State/Territory capital city. A further 27% spend at least three-quarters of their time working in a capital city.

A. The remaining State/Territory officers tend to split their work time between a capital city, regional centres and remote or rural areas.

While State/Territory officers are more likely than their LGA counterparts to spend all of their time dealing with food safety issues, a majority of both State/Territory and LGA officers spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues.

• Half of all LGA officers (52%) spend at least half of their time dealing with food safety issues, while 27% report they spend less than a quarter of their time on this.

B. Almost two-thirds (64%) of LGA officers who deal with food safety spend at least some of their time dealing with tracking down causes of food poisoning.

• A large proportion of State/Territory officers specialise in dealing with food safety issues, with over three-quarters (78%) spending at least half of their time dealing with food safety.

C. Over half (60%) of State/Territory officers who deal with food safety spend at least some of their time dealing with tracking down causes of food poisoning.



Enforcement officers opinions of the poultry meat industry (see Section 6.2 of the Full Report)

Both LGA and State/Territory officers see current practices leading to the greatest risk of foodborne illness at the stage in the poultry meat supply chain where consumers are preparing poultry meat for consumption (76% and 82% respectively believe this is likely).

• Following consumers, both LGA and State/Territory officers believe the take-away food business stage is the next most likely to lead to foodborne illness (63% and 61% respectively).

• Just fewer than half of LGA officers (43%) believe the poultry retail stage could lead to foodborne illness.

• Of the other stages in the supply chain (growers, transportation, processors, de-boners and wholesalers), LGA officers are more likely than State/Territory officers to say they “don’t know” in relation to the likelihood of that stage leading to foodborne illness. This is not an unexpected result given that LGA officers are unlikely to be involved in these sectors of the poultry meat industry.

• A majority of State/Territory officers (61%), meanwhile, believe current practices in poultry processing could lead to foodborne illness, followed by the poultry retailing stage (51%), the de-boning stage (45%) and the poultry growing stage (41%).

When asked whether officers believe there is greater risk on a per serve basis of food poisoning from poultry meat in the chicken meat sector, the non-chicken poultry meat sector or is the risk the same the majority of LGA and State/Territory officers indicate they believe the risk is the same, or they don’t know.

• Almost half (46%) of all LGA officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same on a per serve basis from all types of poultry meat. One-third (32%) believe the risk in the chicken meat sector is greater while eight percent (8%) believe the risk in the non-chicken meat sector is greater.

• Almost two-thirds (62%) of all State/Territory officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same on a per serve basis from all types of poultry meat, while one-third (33%) believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector.

Level of awareness and knowledge of regulations (see Section 6.3 of the Full Report)

The specific legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers typically reflects the different sectors of the poultry meat industry that enforcement officers are working in.

• The legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers used by LGA officers includes:

D. the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (mentioned by 85%);

E. food acts/regulation/codes of practice and other state or territory government tools (mentioned by 68%); and

F. the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (mentioned by 18%).

• The legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers used by State/Territory officers includes:



G. State/Territory food acts/regulation/codes of practice (65%);

H. the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (mentioned by 55%); and

I. the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (45%).

Figure 12: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry?

0

3

2

85

18

68

4

4

31

45

55

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Agricultural, animal andveterinarian acts/regulations/codesof practice (State/Territory govt)

Industry standards or codes ofpractice

Australian standards (other)

Australia New Zealand‘Food Standards Code’

Australian standard – poultryspecific 4465-2001

Food acts/regulations/codes ofpractice and other tools(State/Territory govt)

% mentioning

LGA officers S/T officers Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).

Developing and enforcing standards (see Section 6.3.2 of the Full Report)

State/Territory governments are seen as having the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain by all officers.

• Between 54% and 84% of LGA officers believe State/Territory governments have the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for each stage of the supply chain.

J. One-in-five (20%) LGA officers also believe local government has a responsibility at the food service stage.

• Between 47% and 78% of State/Territory officers believe State/Territory governments have the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for each stage of the supply chain.

K. One-third (33%) also believe local government has a responsibility at the food service stage.

The responsibility for enforcing standards is slightly less clear, with the majority of all officers believing State/Territory governments have the main responsibility for the supply chain from



poultry growers to wholesalers (between 53% and 81% of LGA officers and 55% and 92% of State/Territory officers believe this).

• For retailers and food service businesses, 91% and 97% of LGA officers respectively believe local government has the main responsibility.

• State/Territory officers are less likely to nominate local government as having the main responsibility here.

L. Just fewer than one-third (29%) believe local government has the main responsibility for enforcing standards at the retail level. Over two-thirds (69%) nominate State/Territory governments as having the main responsibility.

M. Over half (53%) believe local government has the main responsibility for enforcing standards at the food service business level. But, 43% believe State/Territory governments have the main role.

Effectiveness of current standards and regulations (see Section 6.3.3 of the Full Report)

There are significant differences between the opinions of LGA and State/Territory officers in relation to the effectiveness of current Australian standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meant products across the poultry meat supply chain (Figure 13).

• A majority of LGA officers see the current standards and regulations as being effective in minimising the risk of foodborne illness in retail businesses (78% effective, mean score 7.3) and food service businesses such as takeaways (67% effective, mean score 7.1).

• Most LGA officers do not currently work with the other areas of the poultry meat supply chain, and are unsure of the effectiveness in these areas.

• State/Territory officers see the current standards and regulations as being reasonably effective across the supply chain from processing plants to food service businesses, (mean effectiveness score from 5.8 to 7.6 on a ten point scale).

• However, in contrast to LGA officers, the mean effectiveness score for retail and food service businesses is significantly lower for State/Territory officers (6.9 and 5.8 respectively compared to 7.3 and 7.1 respectively for LGA officers).

• As is the case for LGA officers, State/Territory officers are unsure of the effectiveness of current standards at the primary production stage (69% say ‘don’t know’).



Figure 13: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 most likely)

LGA officers

138

16 12 1217

7867

8692

78 80 7670

1 0

7.3 7.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On farms In thetransportationof live birds

In processingplants

In de-boningplants

In thetransportationof processedpoultry meat

In wholesalebusinesses

In retailbusinesses

In food servicebusinesses eg

takeaways

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Effe

ctiv

enes

s m

ean

scor

e

Effective (7-10) Don't know Mean

State/Territory officers

10 10

57 59

7165

51

22

69 69

20 2212 14

25

41

7.3 7.47.6 7.5

6.9

5.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


In processingplants

In de-boningplants



In retailbusinesses


takeaways

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Effe

ctiv

enes

s m

ean

scor

e

Effective (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49). Base for mean scores exclude those who said ‘don’t know’. Mean scores not reported for base sizes under 30. Key: Likely includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)



Gaps in current standards and regulations (see Section 6.3.4 of the Full Report)

Almost all officers are able to identify some gaps in current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products (15% of LGA officers and 27% of State/Territory officers say there are no gaps or they don’t know of any gaps).

• LGA officers are most likely to identify a lack of training of food businesses as a gap in the current standards (41%), followed by not enough policing of the standards (22%).

• LGA officers tend not to identify gaps in the growing or processing stages of the poultry meat supply chain, and this is most likely because of their limited role in enforcing regulations in these sectors of the industry.

• Reflecting their role in the processing sector of the poultry meat industry, State/Territory officers are most likely to mention gaps in this stage of the poultry meat supply chain.

N. One-in-five (20%) of State/Territory officers mention gaps in processing regulations compared to no LGA officers mentioning this.

• Following gaps in the processing stage of the industry, State/Territory officers mention a lack of training of food businesses as a gap in the current standards (18%), followed by gaps in growing regulations (14%) and gaps in retail regulations (10%).

Level of awareness and knowledge of Chapter 3 food safety standards (see Section 6.4 of the Full Report)

Chapter 3 of the Food Standards Code deals with food hygiene issues in Australia. As such, Chapter 3 is primarily used by government agencies responsible for the enforcement of the three mandatory food safety standards that comprise Chapter 3. An additional publication, “Safe Food Australia”, has also been developed by FSANZ for the purpose of providing assistance to government agencies (and other interested parties) in their interpretation of Chapter 3.

• LGA officers use and familiarity with Chapter 3:

O. Despite almost all LGA officers (99%) being involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector of the poultry meat supply chain, one-quarter (26%) report they haven’t used the Chapter in the last three months.

P. Meanwhile, almost half of LGA officers (42%) report they used Chapter 3 more than 10 times in the last three months.

Q. Of LGA officers that have heard of Chapter 3, almost three quarters (74%, mean of 7.3) are familiar with the Chapter.

• State/Territory officers use and familiarity with Chapter 3:

R. Two-thirds (63%) of State/Territory officers are involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector of the poultry meat supply chain. A similar proportion (57%) of all State/Territory officers also report using the Chapter in the last three months.

S. While on the surface, these figures would seemingly suggest that State/Territory enforcement officers who should be using Chapter 3 are in fact using the Chapter, this is not correct.

T. In fact, only 65% of State/Territory officers who are involved in enforcing the retail/food business sector report using the Chapter in the last three months. The



remainder report they have not used the Chapter or “don’t know” if they’ve used the Chapter in the last three months.

U. Just over half of State/Territory officers are familiar with Chapter 3 (53%, mean of 5.9).

Awareness and attitudes towards proposed Chapter 4 standards (see Section 6.5 of the Full Report)

The Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards will form a new chapter of the Australian Food Standards Code. The standard for poultry meat will cover the production of poultry meat for human consumption for those parts of the poultry meat industry not already covered by Chapter 3 food safety standards.

• Over one-third (37%) of LGA officers say they have heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard.

• Reflecting their increased likelihood to be involved in enforcing standards in the growing and processing stages of the poultry meat industry, State/Territory officers are more likely to have heard of the proposed Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard of the Food Standards Code than LGA officers (53% compared to 37%).

Overall, two-thirds of both LGA and State/Territory officers believe the introduction of the proposed Chapter 4 Primary and Production Processing Standards will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat (68% and 65% respectively).

• Four-in-ten (39%) LGA officers who believe Chapter 4 will have a positive impact believe this because it will provide more information and/or better education for applying standards for enforcement officers.

• State/Territory officers meanwhile believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will have a positive impact because it will allow for an overall approach to food safety to be introduced and, therefore, improve consistency across the industry and across jurisdictions (mentioned by 31%).



Figure 14: Q27: Why do you think it will have a positive impact?

29

15

1

6

39

11

19

25

3

6

9

13

13

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Will allow tighter controls

Will reduce risks at the primaryproduction stage

Specific standards for primaryproduction is an improvement

Will provide moreinformation/better education for

applying standands

Will cover current gaps in thestandards

An overall approach will improveconsistency

S/T officers

LGA officers% mentioning

Base: All respondents who thought the introduction would have a positive effect (LGA officers unweighted n=50, State/Territory officers n=32).

The potential impact on the workloads and the difficulty of work for enforcement officers is not seen as a major concern for a majority of officers. However, State/Territory officers appear more likely to believe the proposed Chapter will result in more work for them and will make their jobs harder than LGA officers.

• One-in-five (16%) LGA officers believe that the introduction of Chapter 4 will mean more work for them, with the vast majority (66%) believing the proposed Chapter will mean the same workload.

• One-in-five LGA officers (18%) believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will make their job easier, with the majority (53%) believing it will make no difference. One-in-ten LGA officers (8%) believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will make their job harder

• Over one-third (37%) of State/Territory officers believe the introduction of the proposed Chapter 4 will mean more work for them, while slightly less than half (43%) believe it will mean no change in workloads.

• One-in-five State/Territory officers believe Chapter 4 will make their job easier, while almost half (45%) believe it will make no difference. Sixteen percent (16%) of State/Territory officers believe their jobs will become harder when the Chapter is introduced.

Sources of information and staff training (see Section 6.6 of the Full Report)

A majority of State/Territory officers and close to a majority of LGA officers indicate FSANZ as a source of information on food safety from them in relation to the poultry meat industry. Very few officers report not being able to find information about food safety (1% of LGA officers and 12% of State/Territory officers say this).



• FSANZ is the most commonly mentioned source when both LGA and State/Territory enforcement officers are asked where they get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry (48% and 53% respectively).

• Following FSANZ, the next most commonly mentioned sources of information for LGA officers are:

V. other State/Territory health departments and agencies (31%);

W. NSW Food Authority (16%); and

X. supervisor at work (10%).

• For State/Territory officers, the next commonly mentioned sources of information for LGA officers are:

Y. the Internet (20%);

Z. colleague at work (16%);

AA. other State/Territory health departments and agencies (12%); and

BB. supervisor at work (10%).

• Only 1% of LGA officers and 12% of State/Territory officers report not being able to find information about food safety. Their information needs include:

CC. more information on Chapter 4;

DD. information on microbiological problems with poultry; and

EE. information about which government agencies have jurisdiction over particular food safety issues.

Over eighty percent of both LGA and State/Territory officers hold qualifications that relate to food safety (LGA officers: 89%; State/Territory officers: 84%). While holding an environmental health degree is clearly favoured by LGA officers, the qualifications held by State/Territory officers tends to more diverse.

• Environmental health degrees are held by a vast majority of LGA officers (83%).

• The most commonly held qualification to be held by State/Territory officers is HACCP training (held by 47%), closely followed by internal auditor training (41%).

• Tertiary qualifications held by State/Territory officers include:

FF. environmental health degree (35%);

GG. food technology degree (18%); and

HH. microbiology degree (6%).



2.3 Consumers

An important part of the poultry meat food chain is those who purchase, prepare and consume poultry meat – the consumers. The consumer audience for the research consisted of adults (over 18 years of age) across Australia who had ever bought or cooked poultry meat for themselves or others.

In total, 400 consumers were included in the research. The total sample is weighted to match the demographic profile of the Australian capital city/non-capital city population.

Objectives

The objectives of the consumer quantitative research are to assess:

• Current level of awareness and knowledge of safe food handling practices in general and for poultry meat, specifically in relation to:

purchasing;

transport;

storage;

food preparation in the home and in other venues;

personal hygiene; and

• Sources of information on safe food handling, especially for poultry meat.

2.3.1 Findings

Consumer awareness and knowledge of raw poultry meat handling practices (see Section 7.1 of the Full Report)

The vast majority of consumers generally report safe practices in transporting, handling and storing raw poultry meat, indicating that they have high levels of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety, particularly when it comes to raw poultry meat.

Consumers typically purchase raw poultry meat from major supermarkets, and usually transport this meat home in a shopping bag within 20 minutes of purchase.

• Four-in-five respondents (82%) use a shopping bag to transport raw poultry meat home.

Eighty-four percent of respondents (84%) who transport raw poultry meat home in a shopping bag do so within 20 minutes of purchase.

• Fewer than one-in-ten use a cool/thermal bag (9%), an esky (7%), or some other method such as butcher’s paper or delivery via a refrigerated transport vehicle (2%).

Most respondents who use a cool/thermal bag to transport raw poultry meat home do so within 20 minutes of purchase (72%).

While the majority of those who use an esky also transport raw poultry meat home within 20 minutes of purchase (57%), these respondents are more likely to take longer, with 15% taking one hour or more.



Raw poultry is usually either stored safely or cooked immediately.

• Half of respondents (50%) store their raw poultry meat in the freezer, close to half (47%) store it in the fridge, and 6% cook the raw poultry meat immediately.

• Very few (1%) of respondents use potentially unsafe food storage methods, such as leaving raw poultry meat on a bench-top.

• Consumers also demonstrate safe and healthy practices in preparing raw poultry meat for consumption. Consumers usually thaw raw poultry meat, if frozen before cooking, and the majority use safe thawing practices.

Figure 15 shows the various methods used by consumers to thaw frozen raw poultry meat.

• More than half (56%) thaw the meat in the fridge, and a further quarter (24%) thaw the meat in the microwave.

• However, around a quarter of respondents overall (26%) use potentially unsafe food handling practices to thaw raw meat, such as leaving it outside the fridge (for instance, on a bench-top).

Figure 15: Q14. How did you thaw it?

1

24

26

56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

Used a microwave

Left it outside of the fridge (i.e.bench top)

Left it in the fridge

% mentioning Base: All respondents that had thawed the poultry meat in question when surveyed (n=112 ).

In addition, almost all consumers wash the utensils that they use with raw poultry (96%), wash their hands both before (94%) and after (95%) handling raw poultry, and also dry their hands after washing them (93%).

Consumers are very careful to avoid practices that may lead to cross-contamination of raw poultry meat and other food items.

• Almost all respondents (98%) indicate that they do not use the same plate or surface to store cooked and uncooked poultry meat.



• Of the few respondents that do report using the same surface (2%, or n=5), just over half (n=3) indicate that they clean this surface before using it again for the cooked poultry meat.

• One-in-ten respondents (10%) indicate they use the same surface to prepare raw poultry meat as well as vegetables for cooking or consumption - in total, this comprises 35 respondents.

Of those that do use the same surfaces, around one-quarter of respondents use adequate heat treatment to kill pathogens that may have contaminated vegetables prepared on the same surface as raw poultry meat.

Slightly more than one-quarter (27%, or n=9) lightly cook these vegetables in a stir-fry, and 25% (n=8) cook the vegetables in a casserole.

Very few of these respondents (13%, or n=3) report that they used the same surface to prepare raw poultry meat as well as vegetables that are not going to be cooked (for instance, salad vegetables).

Consumers also report a good understanding of how to determine when chicken is cooked.

• Consumers usually determine when chicken pieces are cooked when the chicken meat is no longer pink (30%), or has turned white (28%).

• Consumers usually determine that a whole chicken is cooked by inserting a skewer or fork into the meat (32%), following a set recipe (28%), or waiting until the juices run clear (21%).

Consumer awareness and knowledge of pre-cooked poultry meat handling practices (see Section 7.2 of the Full Report)

The vast majority of consumers also report safe and healthy practices in transporting, handling and storing pre-cooked poultry meat, indicating that they have high levels of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety, particularly when it comes to pre-cooked poultry meat.

The most popular type of pre-cooked poultry meat purchased by consumers is a whole chicken (e.g. roast chicken). Most pre-cooked poultry meat is purchased hot, and is transported home in a shopping bag within a safe period of time.

• Overall, the majority of respondents (69%) take less than 10 minutes to transport pre-cooked poultry meat from the place of purchase to their home.

• The average time taken by all respondents was 14 minutes - this is a shorter average time than the time taken by respondents to transport raw poultry meat home (19 minutes).

• On average, hot pre-cooked poultry meat was transported home faster (average 13 minutes), than cold pre-cooked poultry meat (average 18 minutes).

• Very few respondents (4%) took one hour or longer to transport pre-cooked poultry meat home.

Pre-cooked poultry is usually either eaten immediately or stored safely.

• Around two-thirds of respondents (62%) ate their pre-cooked poultry meat straight away, either at home or at another location.



• A third of respondents (36%) stored the pre-cooked poultry meat for later consumption.

Consumer attitudes towards food safety for poultry meat (see Section 7.3 of the Full Report)

On the whole, consumers are highly aware of safe practices they should use to handle raw poultry meat, and have a conservative attitude towards these issues from a food safety standpoint.

Almost all consumers are aware of correct procedures to use in the kitchen to avoid cross-contamination of raw poultry meat and other food items, and are aware of necessary personal hygiene measures. In addition, consumers report a very conservative view when it comes to these issues, and are ‘over-cautious’ in some instances. Figure 16 shows the way in which consumers determine whether statements relating to food safety were true or false.

• Almost all respondents agree that it is not okay to use the same chopping board for preparing raw poultry and salad ingredients (99%), nor to store cooked poultry meat and raw poultry meat on the same plate without washing it between use (98%), and that it is vital to wash your hands after handling raw poultry meat. This is in agreement with current thinking on food safety.

• Nine-in-ten (90%) also feel that it is not okay to use the same surface for preparing raw poultry and vegetables that will be cooked well, without washing the surface between use. This, however, is an acceptable practice from a food safety point of view.

Figure 16: Q32. I would like to read a series of statements to you, and I would like you to tell me whether you think they are true or false. If you don’t know, please say so.

95

9

2

1

5

90

98

99

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

It is vital to wash your handsafter handling uncooked poultry

meat

It is okay to use the samechopping board for preparing

raw poultry and vegetables thatyou are going to cook well

It is okay to put cooked poultrymeat back on the same plateyou had the uncooked poultrymeat on without washing it


raw poultry and saladingredients

% mentioning

True False Don’t know

Base: All respondents (n=400).



Most consumers agree that they have an important personal role in preventing food poisoning, and are not concerned about contracting food poisoning from food prepared by themselves. They are, however, more concerned about food that they have less control over preparing, particularly food from takeaways or restaurants, and to some extent food prepared by friends.

• More than nine-in-ten (92%) agree that how they prepare food in their own home is very important to prevent food poisoning, with 80% of these respondents ‘strongly’ agreeing with this statement.

Women are significantly more likely to agree with this statement (average agreement score 9.3) than men (average 8.6).

• Close to two-thirds (64%) disagree that they are concerned about food poisoning from food prepared themselves. Nearly one-third, however, is concerned about this (30%).

• The majority (60%) are concerned about food prepared by takeaways or restaurants.

II. Women are significantly more concerned (average agreement score 7.3) than men (average 6.3).

JJ. Respondents with children are significantly more concerned (average 7.2) than those living in other types of households (average 5.4).

KK. Respondents in capital cities are also significantly more concerned (average 7.1), than those in non-capital cities (average 6.8).

LL. Younger respondents aged 18-24 years are significantly less concerned (average 4.9) than older respondents (average 6.7 or more for all other age groups).

Information sources on safe food handling for consumers

Overall, only a minority of respondents indicate they currently obtain information on safe food handling, particularly for poultry meat. However, once they were prompted, or made aware of specific options, the proportion of those who said they would consider looking for information on these issues increased significantly.

• Around one-quarter or fewer respondents said that they currently obtain information on safe food handling practices, particularly for poultry meat, with the most common source of information being family and friends (26%).

When prompted with options for information sources, up to 69% of respondents said that they would consider looking for information on safe food handling practices from these places (shown in Figure 17)

More than two-thirds of respondents said they would consider looking for information in magazines or cook books (69%) or on television (67%). A further 53% said they would look for information from their butcher or retailer.

Around one-third of respondents said they would look to a Government Health Department (36%), the Food Safety Information Council (32%) or the Internet (30%).



Figure 17: Q35. Where do you currently get information about safe handling and cooking of poultry meat?

2

1

2

5

22

15

30

32

36

53

67

69

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Internet

Food Safety Information Council

Government Health Department

Butcher/retailer

Television

Magazines/Cooking books

% mentioning

Prompted & unprompted

Unprompted

Base: All respondents (n= 400).



3 INTRODUCTION

Colmar Brunton Social Research (CBSR) was selected as a member of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) research panel in 2004. In July 2004, FSANZ asked panel members to tender to conduct a quantitative research study of the poultry meat industry, of which CBSR was the successful tenderer.

The quantitative research involved research with three stakeholder groups, the poultry meat industry, government enforcement officers and consumers. The research, which was undertaken between September 2004 and January 2005, collected Australian data about stakeholder views on food safety issues in relation to poultry meat production and processing. This report presents the findings of this research.

3.1 Background

The major objective of government food safety standards is to protect public health and safety by reducing the risk of food borne illness and contamination in the food chain. In Australia, FSANZ works together with State and Territory governments and other organisations, to achieve its mission of helping to maintain a safe food supply, thereby protecting public health and safety.

FSANZ is currently preparing to implement a new chapter to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which will see national food regulation extend across all parts of the food chain, including primary production, processing and retail – in essence from paddock to plate. One of these new standards due to be introduced in 2006 is the Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat (PPPSPM).

In order to assist in the evaluation of the implementation of this standard in the future, FSANZ has identified the need for benchmark data on awareness, knowledge and behaviour of poultry meat businesses, government enforcement officers and consumers in relation to food safety issues to be collected in 2004. This benchmark data will provide FSANZ with a benchmark of information from the poultry meat industry before the standard is implemented in all States and Territories in Australia.

3.2 Audience

FSANZ have identified three key stakeholder groups for the research:

• the poultry meat industry;

• government enforcement officers; and

• consumers.

Poultry meat industry

For the purposes of this research, the poultry meat industry included:

• chicken growers;

• other poultry growers (including ducks, turkeys, quail, squab or pigeons, geese, pheasants and guinea fowl);



• poultry meat processors (including slaughter, boning, further processing and value adding);

• wholesale and retail poultry meat sector (businesses who deal with fresh or frozen poultry meat, poultry meat products but not including small goods); and

• food services businesses who receive raw chicken and non-chicken poultry meat and cook on the premises (for example, fast food outlets, supermarket delicatessens, but not restaurants).

Enforcement officers

Depending on the particular State or Territory, the enforcement officers included in this research represented:

• local government;

• state/territory departments of health/human services;

• state/territory departments of agriculture/primary industries;

• New South Wales Food Authority;

• Primsafe (Victoria); and

• SafeFood Queensland.

Consumers

The consumer audience for the research included adults (over 18 years of age) across Australia.

3.3 Research objectives

The research was to collect benchmark quantitative data from a representative sample drawn from each stakeholder group mentioned above. This benchmark data, combined with subsequent follow-up quantitative research, will provide FSANZ with the means to determine the effectiveness of the PPPSPM after it is implemented on a national basis.

For the poultry meat industry, the aim of the research was to assess:



• sources of information on food safety;



• extent of self-regulation within each segment.



For the enforcement officers, the aim of the research was to assess:

• current level of awareness and knowledge of enforcement officers of regulations relating to poultry meat businesses;

• level of awareness and knowledge of Chapter 3 food safety standards;

• level of awareness and knowledge of proposed Chapter 4 standards for poultry meat;

• current level of engagement in enforcing Chapter 3 standards;

• proposed role in enforcing Chapter 4 standards and potential impact on workloads;

• sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations and usefulness of this information; and

• provisions for staff training on food safety issues for poultry meat.

For the consumers, the aim of the research was to assess:

• current level of awareness and knowledge of safe food handling practices in general and for poultry meat in particular (purchasing, transport, storage, food preparation at home and in other venues and personal hygiene); and

• sources of information on safe food handling, especially for poultry meat, and usefulness of this information.



4 METHODOLOGY IN BRIEF

CBSR employed a consultative research approach to conduct this benchmark research of the poultry meat industry. CBSR worked closely with FSANZ and industry to develop a methodology and survey instruments that could deliver quantitative data to meet FSANZ’s needs. An outline of the research approach is provided in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Outline of Research Approach

Seminar presentation Presentation of the findings of the research to FSANZ staff and key stakeholders

Reporting Draft report prepared and sent to FSANZ staff for comment, then to the FSANZ Project Team, the FSANZ external Stakeholder Advisory Group on Evaluation

and the Data and Evaluation Steering Committee

Analysis of data Analysis of data, including a reporting meeting with the topline data for

discussion

Consumers

Short CATI survey of a nationally

representative sample of consumers

Enforcement officers

Short CATI survey of local government and

State/Territory government department

officers

Poultry meat industry

Modular CATI survey covering the key

identified sectors of the industry: growers,

processor and wholesalers/retailers

Questionnaire testing Questionnaire pre-testing using expert review,

skirmish testing, and dress rehearsal

Questionnaire design Consultation workshop with key project stakeholders with the aim of

communicating to CBSR the existing knowledge and understanding of the dynamics, attitudes and behaviours of the target groups, so that CBSR could put

together draft questionnaires for each group

Scoping stage Crucial stage for agreement and refinement of research approach



4.1 Industry research methodology

The methodology for this quantitative survey was:

• n=479 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) conducted between 5th November 2004 and 25th January 2005;

• 20-minute interviews were conducted with the following sectors of the poultry meat industry:

MM. poultry growers (n= 157);

NN. poultry processors (n=141);

OO. poultry wholesalers (n=61); and

PP. poultry retailers (n=120).

• contact details for the poultry meat industry were sourced from the Yellow Pages, supplemented by information supplied by FSANZ; and

• an overall response rate of 55% was achieved for all sample groups. This can be further divided up into the following groups:

QQ. 69% for growers;

RR. 94% for the ‘Top-11’ processors;

SS. 60% for all other processors;

TT. 64% for ‘key’ wholesalers;

UU. 65% for all other wholesalers; and

VV. 37% for retailers.

A ‘dress rehearsal’ of the survey was conducted at the beginning of fieldwork with the first 26 interviews including the following questions:

• Firstly, how did you feel about the survey overall?

• Secondly, which questions were difficult to answer? Why?

• Finally, which questions made you feel uncomfortable? Why?

Responses to these questions were examined in conjunction with overall interview length, comments from interviewers and data collected. Following this review, some minor changes were made to the survey, which included the removal of several questions, to reduce interview length. Data collected from the dress rehearsal interviews was included for the purposes of data analysis. The final questionnaire is provided in Appendix G: Industry questionnaire.

This methodology included completing a census of all poultry growers and processors, as attempts were made to interview all known growers and processors. A census was also conducted of all major wholesalers (representing 7 of the completed 61 surveys). The remaining wholesaler and retailer interviews represent a sample of all wholesalers and retailers. Wholesaler and retailer findings are combined for the purposes of analysis.



For a more details relating to the survey methodology, see:

• Appendix A: Technical notes; and

• Appendix E: Industry Sampling Plan.



4.2 Enforcement officer research methodology

The enforcement officers participating in the benchmark research fell into two broad categories: Local Government Area (LGA) enforcement officers and State or Territory government department enforcement officers. These two groups have been reported on separately.

The LGA officer group consists of a sample of LGAs with one participating officer from each. The participating officer was asked how many enforcement officers there were in the LGA, and the data were weighted to reflect average enforcement officer numbers in state and capital city/non-capital city areas.

An attempt was made to contact all State and Territory Department Officers rather than sampling this group.


• n=121 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) conducted between 27th October and 17th November 2004;

• interviews were conducted with the following types of enforcement officers:

WW. officers from State/Territory government departments/agencies (n= 49); and

XX. officers from local government (n=72).

• for State/Territory enforcement officers, contact details were sourced from individual State/Territory government departments/agencies;

• for local government enforcement officers, a complete list of all local governments was provided to CBSR by FSANZ, from which officers were local governments were contacted at random;

• a response rate of 96% was achieved; and

• 17 minute interview, with a minimum of 14 minutes and a maximum of 39 minutes.





Responses to these questions were examined in conjunction with overall interview length, comments from interviewers and data collected. Following this review, some minor changes were made to the survey, which included the removal of several questions, to reduce interview length. Data collected from the dress rehearsal interviews was included for the purposes of data analysis. The final questionnaire is provided in

For a more details relating to the survey methodology, see:

• Appendix A: Technical notes; and

• Appendix F: Enforcement officer sampling plan.



4.3 Consumer research methodology


• n=400 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) conducted between 13th and 24th October 2004;

• telephone interviews conducted from a random sample of households listed in the White Pages;

• a response rate of 21% was achieved; and

• 10 minute interview, with a minimum of 7 minutes and a maximum of 17 minutes.





Responses to these questions were examined in conjunction with overall interview length, comments from interviewers and data collected. Following this review, some minor changes were made to the survey, which included the removal of several questions, to reduce interview length. Data collected from the dress rehearsal interviews was included for the purposes of data analysis. However, for some questions where question wording changed after the dress rehearsal, base sizes have been reduced to reflect the fact that dress rehearsal respondent data is not included. The final questionnaire is provided in

For a more details relating to the survey methodology, see Appendix A: Technical notes.



4.4 Interpretative notes

Charts, tables and percentages

• Percentages are rounded to whole numbers. Charts/tables may not always add up to 100% due to rounding. Base sizes for each question are shown under the chart or table where the data are presented.

Agreement and importance scales

• Some questions in the survey used 10-point agreement/importance scales. Where these scales have been used, the scales have been collapsed in the following way to allow for data analysis and ease of interpretation:

YY. a score of 1-2 is classified as “Strongly disagree” or “Extremely unimportant”;

ZZ. a score of 3-4 is classified as “Disagree” or “Unimportant”;

AAA. a score of 5-6 is classified as “Neither agree nor disagree” or “Neither important nor not important”;

BBB. a score of 7-8 is classified as “Agree” or “Important”; and

CCC. a score of 9-10 is classified as “Strongly agree” or “Extremely important”.

• Some responses have been further collapsed as follows:

DDD. a score of 1-4 is classified as “Disagree”;

EEE. a score of 5-6 is classified as “Neither agree nor disagree”; and

FFF. a score of 7-10 is classified as “Agree”.

Effective and likelihood scales

• Some questions in the survey used 10-point effectiveness and likelihood scales. Where these scales have been used, we have only reported on whether respondents answer “unlikely” or “likely”; or “not effective” or “effective”. The scale has been collapsed as follows to achieve this:

GGG. a score of 1-4 is classified as “Unlikely” or “Not effective”; and

HHH. a score of 7-10 is classified as “Likely” or “Effective”.

Differences between sub-groups of respondents

• All findings have been analysed to identify statistically significant differences between subgroups of the population.

III. For the poultry meat industry data, this includes analysis by sector of the industry (growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers).

JJJ. For the enforcement officer data, this includes analysis between responses of State/Territory and LGA officers. Additional analysis was also undertaken to look for differences between:

KKK. those officers who spend at least half of their time dealing with food safety issues compared to other officers; and



LLL. those State/Territory officers who work for health departments, agriculture or primary industries departments or food safety dedicated agencies2.

MMM. For the consumer data, this includes analysis by age, gender, education level, households with children, capital city/non-capital city, and people from non-English speaking and Indigenous backgrounds.

Prompted and Unprompted Responses

Some questions in the survey collected both a prompted and an unprompted response. For example, some respondents were asked:

‘”Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry?”

This question was first asked in an open fashion without providing the respondent response categories to choose from. The resultant answer is the ‘unprompted’ response. Unprompted responses capture what is top-of-mind for the respondent and hence probably most influential in terms of their beliefs or decision-making.

The interviewer then went on to probe about specific options that were not mentioned by the respondent on a top-of-mind basis. For example, the interviewer will ask

“And do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry growing industry from any of the following sources?”

The resultant answer is the ‘prompted’ response.

By combining the unprompted and prompted responses into ‘total mentions’, we get a complete understanding of sources of information on food safety used or received by those involved in the poultry meat industry.

Limitations of CATI Surveys

While each survey methodology has its own advantages and disadvantages, there are a number that are specific to CATI surveys. The limitations of CATI surveys include:

• CATI surveys may exclude people without telephones, and often excludes those with silent numbers;

• It is more difficult to establish rapport with the respondent, and the interviewer can have greater difficulty in establishing the validity of the survey;

• May not be able to ask sensitive questions because of the presence of the interview;

• Cannot use visual stimulus;

• Interview length is usually limited to a maximum of 20 minutes; and

2 Throughout this document, any reference to “food safety dedicated agencies” refers to government agencies expressly established to deal with food safety in their particular states, and specifically refers to SafeFood Queensland, Primesafe and the New South Wales Food Authority.



• There may be interviewer bias introduced into the results, though this is minimised by programming set interviewer responses into the CATI questionnaire.

It should be noted that research findings based on the CATI surveys report on people’s opinions, awareness and knowledge of food safety issues not on actual practices.



5 POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY FINDINGS

As described in Section 3.2 (page 40), for the purposes of this benchmark research the poultry meat industry includes businesses that can be divided into a number of groups: poultry growers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and food services businesses.

These groups of the poultry meat industry have been further categorised into the following three sectors for the purposes of analysis:

• growers sector – incorporating both chicken and non-chicken poultry growing businesses;

• processors sector – including businesses that slaughter or de-bone poultry, and business that further process or add value to poultry meat products;

• wholesalers and retailers sector – incorporating businesses that deal with fresh or frozen poultry meat, poultry meat products but not including small good, and food services businesses that receive raw chicken and non-chicken poultry meat and cook on the premises (for example, fast food outlets, supermarket delicatessens, but not restaurants)

Included within the processors sector is a sub-group of the ‘Top-11 Poultry Processors’ as defined by FSANZ. These poultry processors are considered by FSANZ to be the major poultry processors in the poultry meat industry.

Within the wholesalers sector is a sub-group of ‘major wholesalers’. These major wholesalers were purposely selected to participate in the research because they are viewed as being the major poultry wholesalers in the poultry meat industry.

These three sectors of the poultry meat industry operate across various stages of the poultry meat supply chain (referred to as the supply chain in this document). The supply chain includes the following stages:

• growing;

• live bird transport;

• processing;

• de-boning;

• processed poultry meat transport;

• wholesaling;

• retailing;

• take-away food service businesses; and

• consumers.



5.1 Awareness and attitudes towards food safety

Food safety appears to be considered ‘important’ by managers of businesses throughoutthe poultry meat industry.

However, when asked their opinions of the likelihood of foodborne illness resulting from afailure to apply appropriate precautions at varying stages of the poultry meat supplychain, some sectors are unable or unwilling to provide answers. Significant proportions ofgrowers and wholesalers/retailers do not express opinions about the current status offood safety precautions in stages of the poultry meat supply chain outside of their ownstage.

In contrast, processors are more willing to indicate the likelihood of individual sectorsleading to foodborne illness in the end product, and tend to believe the likelihood ishigher than both growers and wholesalers/retailers.

Only wholesalers/retailers believe it is ‘likely’ that failure to apply appropriate precautionsat the growing stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product. All other stagesof the poultry meat supply chain are seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness by allsectors of the industry. Consumers and take-away food businesses are seen as the stagesmost likely to lead to foodborne illness.

Very few businesses in the industry believe that growers, processors or supermarkets arenot doing enough to control food safety risks in their businesses. Take-away foodbusinesses are seen as slightly more lacking in their efforts to control food safety risks.However, it is consumers who are overwhelming seen as not doing enough to controlfood safety risks from poultry meat.



5.1.1 Importance of food safety to managers of poultry meat businesses

Across all sectors of the poultry meat industry, food safety is considered important by almost all businesses. Only four percent (4%) of growers and one percent (1%) of wholesalers/retailers do not report food safety as important to them. All processors report food safety as important to their business.

Figure 19: Q22. Overall, how important is food safety to your poultry business? (possible ratings range from 1 not important – 10 very important)

96 100 99

1 0 0

9.99.7

9.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Growers Processors Wholesalers/Retailers

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Important (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). Key: Important includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

5.1.2 Managers’ opinions of the likelihood of foodborne illness in the end product

Across all three sectors of the poultry meat industry, poultry growing is considered relatively unlikely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product. However all other stages of the poultry meat supply chain are seen as ‘likely’ to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if there is a failure to apply appropriate precautions.

Growers

Managers of poultry growing businesses believe there is a relatively low risk that failure to apply appropriate precautions at the growing and live bird transport stages could lead to foodborne illness in the end product compared to the other stages of the poultry meat supply chain (Figure 1a).



• Less than one-quarter (22%) of poultry growers believe their own stage of the poultry meat supply chain could lead to foodborne illness in the end product (mean score of 4.4).

• However, when asked about the other stages of the poultry meat supply chain, growers see the risk as considerably higher (ranging from a mean score of 7.7 for poultry processing to 8.9 for take-away food businesses).

NNN. Importantly, a substantial proportion of poultry growers indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 20% for the consumers stage to 31% for the wholesaling stage).

OOO. Growers see de-boning as more likely to lead to foodborne illness than processing itself (mean scores of 8.1 compared to 7.7).

• Poultry growers consider the retailing, take-away food businesses and the consumer stages of the poultry meat supply chain to be the most likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if appropriate precautions are not taken (mean scores or 8.8, 8.9 and 8.8 respectively).

Figure 20: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)

Growers

2215

56 55 59 5864 66

71

713

2532 29 31 28 27

20

7.78.1

8.4 8.58.8 8.9 8.8

3.74.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Grower respondents (n=157). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

Processors

Processors tend to believe each stage of the poultry meat supply chain is slightly more likely to lead to foodborne illness than growers, perhaps reflecting a higher level of awareness of food safety issues in general (Figure 2).



• As with growers, the poultry growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are seen as the least likely stages to lead to foodborne illness according to processors (likelihood mean scores of 6.3 and 5.3 respectively compared to a range of 8.0 to 9.1 for other stages).

PPP. However, considerably more processors believe the growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are likely to lead to foodborne illness than compared to growers themselves.

QQQ. The average likelihood scores from processors for the growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are 6.3 and 5.3 respectively compared to just 4.4 and 3.7 for growers.

• Processors consider their own stage of the supply chain to be moderately likely to lead to foodborne illness, with the de-boning stage considered slightly more likely to result in illness than the processing stage (mean scores of 8.3 and 8.4 respectively).

• The take-away food business and consumer stages of the poultry meat supply chain are considered to be the most likely stages of the supply chain to lead to foodborne illness by processors, with both having a likelihood mean score of 9.1.

RRR. Interestingly, processors single out take-away food businesses from other retail outlets that sell poultry products as being more likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if appropriate precautions are not taken (retail mean score is 8.4).

• Unlike growers and wholesalers/retailers, processors are very unlikely to fail to express an opinion when asked of the likelihood of foodborne illness in the end product for each stage of the poultry meat supply chain if appropriate precautions have not been followed.

SSS. A maximum of 13% of processors indicate they “don’t know” the likelihood of foodborne illness for any one stage of the poultry meat supply chain.

TTT. This compares to a maximum of 32% for growers and 46% for wholesalers/retailers.




Processors

45

32

79 84 8277 80 82

87

13 10 2 1 0 4 7 11 8

8.3 8.48.0 8.0

8.4

9.1 9.1

5.3

6.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Processor respondents (Processors n=141). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

Wholesalers/retailers

Like processors, wholesalers/retailers tend to believe the risk of foodborne illness is higher for each stage than growers if appropriate precautions are not taken (Figure 3).

• Of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry, wholesalers/retailers are more likely to say the poultry growing/live bird transport stages of the supply chain are likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product.

UUU. The average likelihood score for wholesalers/retailers at the growing and live bird transport stages are 7.0 and 6.6 respectively, compared to 4.4 and 3.7 for growers and 6.3 and 5.3 for processors.

• Wholesalers/retailers are also more likely than both growers and processors to believe the poultry processing stage could lead to foodborne illness.

VVV. Wholesalers/retailers average likelihood score for the processing stage is 8.6 compared to 7.7 for growers and 8.3 for processors.

• Wholesalers/retailers are not significantly different to processors in their opinions of the other stages of the supply chain with the exception of take-away food businesses.

WWW. Wholesalers/retailers are significantly less likely to consider current practices within the take-away stage of the supply chain to lead to illness in the end product when compared to processors (likelihood mean score of 8.5 compared to 9.1).



• As with growers, wholesalers/retailers are likely to indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 31% for the processed poultry meat transport stage to 46% for the live bird transport stage).



3428

50 51 55 55 59

71 68

45 46 41 43

31 30 30

17 20

8.6 8.8

8.1 7.9

8.6 8.5 8.7

6.67.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gro

win

g

Live

bird

tran

spor

t

Proc

essi

ng

De-

boni

ng

Proc

esse

dtr

ansp

ort

Who

lesa

ling

Reta

iling

Take

-aw

ay

Cons

umer

s

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)

5.1.3 Managers’ attitudes towards sectors of the poultry meat industry

Managers of poultry meat businesses tend to disagree with statements that suggest growers, processors and supermarkets are not doing enough to control safety risks within their businesses’ operations. However consumers and to a lesser extent takeaway food businesses, are singled out by all sectors of the poultry meat industry as not doing enough.

No sector of the poultry meat industry believes that poultry growers are not doing enough to control food safety risks on their farms (Figure 23).

• Poultry growers are most likely to disagree with this statement.

XXX. Eight-in-ten growers disagree with the statement, “poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms”, with 69% saying they “extremely disagree”.

YYY. Only four percent (4%) of growers agree with the statement.

• Over half of poultry processors (52%) disagree with the statement and 10% agree.



ZZZ. One-in-five processors (22%) say they “don’t know” whether they agree or disagree.

• Wholesalers/retailers exhibit little confidence in being able to respond to this question, with the majority (62%) saying they “don’t know”.

Figure 23: Q39. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms”?

2

4

1

4

6

3

8

16

8

11

15

13

13

37

69

62

22

5 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wholesalers and Retailers

Processors

Growers

% mentioning

Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused


Again, no sector of the poultry meat industry believes that poultry processors are not doing enough to control food safety risks in processing plants (Figure 24).

• Poultry processors are the most likely sector of the poultry meat industry to disagree with the statement (72% disagree).

AAAA. Twelve percent (12%) of processors agree with the statement.

• A majority of growers (62%) and a third of wholesalers/retailers (32%) also disagree with the statement.

• A significant proportion of both growers (29%) and wholesalers/retailers (49%) are not able to say whether they agree or disagree with the statement.



Figure 24: Q40. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry processors don’t do enough to control food safety risks in processing plants”?

4

2

2

4

10

4

11

12

4

17

21

55

47

49

4

26 315

12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning



More growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers agree with the statement “supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets” than with the statements relating to the growing and processing stages of the poultry meat supply chain – however, most still disagree or say they “don’t know” (Figure 25).

• Again, it is poultry processors who are the most likely to agree with the statement, however, for this statement only just over a quarter of processors (29%) agree.

• One-in-five wholesalers/retailers (19%) and 12% of growers agree with the statement.

• Again, a quarter or more of both growers and wholesalers/retailers say they “don’t know” if they agree with the statement (37% and 25% respectively).

BBBB. Eighteen percent (18%) of processors say they “don’t know”.

• No single sector has a majority saying they disagree with the statement:

CCCC. Almost four-in-ten growers and wholesalers/retailers (39% and 38% respectively) disagree with the statement, while one-third (33%) of processors disagree.



Figure 25: Q41. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets”?

8

10

3

10

19

9

18

21

11

13

20

19

28

25

18

36 111

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning



Compared to growers, processors and supermarkets, the poultry meat industry believes that fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat (Figure 26).

• Close to a majority of processors and a large proportion of wholesalers/retailers and growers agree with the statement, “fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat” (49%, 36% and 24% respectively).

• A large proportion of growers (41%) still answer “don’t know” when asked if they agree or disagree with the statement.

• Wholesalers/retailers are most likely to disagree with the statement (33%).

DDDD. This compares to 20% of growers and 18% of processors who disagree.



Figure 26: Q42 Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat”?

17

23

7

19

26

17

17

19

14

9

20

10

13

14

13

41 1

13

7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning



A clear majority of all three sectors of the poultry meat industry strongly agrees with the statement, “consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products” (Figure 27).

• Processors are most likely to agree with the statement (94%).

• This is followed by 85% of growers and 82% of wholesalers/retailers who agree with the statement.

• Very few poultry meat industry businesses disagree with the statement.

EEEE. Five percent (5%) of wholesalers/retailers, 2% of growers and 1% of processors disagree.



Figure 27: Q43. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products”?

68

79

76

15

16

10

8

3

4

1

2

2

5

1

8 1

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning





5.2 Behaviours and practices and impact on food safety

5.2.1 Current behaviours and practices

The behaviours and practices that poultry meat businesses employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products is very much dependent on the stage of the poultry meat industry that the business operates in.

The top-ten behaviours and practices are reported below for each of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry. For a complete list of all behaviours and practices, see Appendix B: Additional industry data.

Growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers all provide varying examples of thepractices they employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness derived from their poultrymeat products. Maintaining good employee hygiene and pest controls are commonlymentioned by all three sectors.

Grower practices focus on ensuring growing sheds are as kept as clean possible throughcleaning out sheds between batches, cleaning up feed spillages in a timely fashion anddisposing of dead birds in a biosecure manner.

Processors and wholesalers/retailers both commonly mention that employees wearprotective clothing/uniforms, employee health is monitored, and that a HACCPplan/system is followed.

Awareness of chemicals that could potentially contaminate poultry meat is relatively lowacross all sectors of the poultry meat industry, with only two types of chemicals cited bymore than 10% of growers (Sanitising/cleaning agents and pesticides and herbicides).The most commonly mentioned practice used to reduce the risk of chemicalcontamination is to not use chemicals at all or separate them from poultry.

Microbiological hazard awareness is slightly higher than awareness of chemical risks –particularly for processors. The most nominated microbiological hazards are Salmonellaand E.coli. Processors also nominate Listeria Monocytogenes, Campylobacter andStaphylococcus Aureus in large numbers. The practices most commonly mentioned toreduce risk of microbiological contamination by all sectors is to maintain a clean andhygienic workplace. Maintain temperature controls is also commonly mentioned byprocessors and wholesalers/retailers, while vaccination/health checks for birds arecommonly mentioned by growers.

Physical contamination of poultry products is also a concern for processors andwholesalers/retailers. The most commonly mentioned hazards by these two groups aremetal, plastic, wood and dirt or unclean surfaces. Practices employed to reduce the riskof physical contamination include maintaining employee hygiene and keeping poultryseparate from other substances. Processors are particularly likely to mentionmonitoring/maintenance of equipment.



Growers

When asked to spontaneously nominate things they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds, growers most often mention that sheds are cleaned out between batches of birds to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds (mentioned by 34%).

Other commonly mentioned unprompted responses include:

• a clean water supply is maintained for birds (mentioned by 22%);

• dead birds are disposed of in a biosecure manner (17%);

• workers wear protective clothing or uniforms (16%);

• shed area is completely fenced (11%);

• maintaining a healthy environment for birds (11%); and

• rodent controls are in place, bird health is checked regularly and employees regularly wash their hands (each mentioned by 10% of growers).

When prompted, most growers say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products?

Growers

9

8

10

10

31

17

8

34

22

10

89

89

90

90

93

96

97

97

98

99

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wild species are kept off thefarm

Sheds are left for 7-10 daysbetween batches

Bird health is checked regularly

Employees regularly wash theirhands

Foot baths are in place

Dead birds are disposed of in abiosecure manner

Feed spillages are cleaned upimmediately

Sheds are cleaned out betweenbatches

A clean water supply ismaintained for birds

Rodent controls are in place

% mentioning



Processors

When asked to spontaneously nominate things they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds, a majority of processors mention



they follow a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan or system (mentioned by 60%).


• carcasses are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution (mentioned by 28%);

• employees regularly wash their hands (23%);

• employees wear protective clothing or uniforms (14%);

• equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day (14%);

• audits are conducted regularly (13%);

• carcasses are always reduced to 4 degrees or less within 12 hours of slaughter (13%);

• temperature controls (12%); and

• the level of free chlorine and/or overflow rate in the spin chiller is closely monitored (11%).

When prompted, most processors say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 29).


Processors

2

5

28

4

13

23

60

14

6

14

75

87

92

96

96

97

97

97

98

99

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Employee health is monitored regularly

Employees regularly change gloves

Carcases are kept at 5 degreesor less during storage and distribution


Audits are conducted regularly

Employees regularly wash their hands

A HACCP Plan/System is followed

Equipment is cleaned andsanitised at the end of each day

Insect controls are in place

Workers wear protective clothing or uniforms

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).




Wholesalers/retailers tend to nominate a smaller variety of responses than growers and processors when asked what they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products. The most mentioned response is to keep poultry carcases at five degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution (mentioned by one-third (32%) of wholesalers/retailers).


• employees regularly wash their hands (20%);

• temperature controls (20%);

• a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan/System is followed (19%);

• equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day (14%); and

• raw poultry meat products are always stored separately from cooked products (12%).

When prompted, most wholesalers/retailers say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 30).



1

14

19

3

1

10

2

5

2

20

61

63

68

68

72

86

88

95

95

96

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Restrict duties of employees whoare ill

Equipment is cleaned andsanitised at the end of each day

A HACCP Plan/System isfollowed

Employees regularly changegloves

Employee health is monitoredregularly

Workers wear protective clothingor uniforms

Insect controls are in place

Audits are conducted regularly


Employees regularly wash theirhands

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



5.2.2 Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contaminants

Only two types of chemicals are mentioned by more than 10% of all sectors of the poultry meat industry when they are asked, “What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?” These are sanitising or degreasing agents and pesticides and herbicides (Figure 31).

The major practices employed by growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of their poultry products are separating chemicals from poultry, not using chemicals, using approved chemicals only, following chemical directions, cleaning and sanitising work stations and providing staff training (Figure 32).

Growers

• Growers are most likely to nominate herbicides and pesticides (including rodenticides and insecticides) when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate your birds (23%).

• The next most mentioned types of chemicals are sanitising or cleaning agents (mentioned by 19%);

• A majority of growers (61%) fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:

FFFF. forty-eight percent (48%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of;

GGGG. eleven percent (11%) who say they “don’t know”; and

HHHH. one percent (1%) who refuse to answer the question.

Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination by growers

Growers are most likely to say they separate chemicals from their poultry birds or theydon’t use chemicals. Over one-quarter (29%) mention this.

Specifically, growers say:

…we don't really use any chemicals except for chlorine and that is given in measured doses for drinking water and kept far from the birds. Only certain people have access to the chemicals and they follow strict guidelines.

…waiting time of two days between cleaning and setting up for next batch so that the shed dries out thoroughly.

…don't use it [chemicals] three weeks prior to the free-range birds being let out.



Processors

• Unlike growers, processors are most likely to nominate sanitising or cleaning agents when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate their poultry meat products.

IIII. An overwhelming majority mention this (70%).

• Pesticides and herbicides are mentioned by 11% of processors.

• Six percent of processors also mention ‘grease from equipment’.

• One-quarter (25%) of processors fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:

JJJJ. sixteen percent (16%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of;

KKKK. eight percent (8%) who say they “don’t know”; and

LLLL. one percent (1%) who refuse to answer the question.

Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination by processors

Processors are most likely to say they separate chemicals from their poultry meatproducts or they don’t use chemicals. Two-in-five processors (43%) mention this. This isfollowed by:

• use approved chemicals/use chemicals only as directed (mentioned by 30%);

• keep work areas clean and sanitised (25%); and

• staff training (14%).

Specifically, processors say:

… we use approved chemicals/suppliers are approved.

…no other chemicals enter our premise. Contract cleaners follow HACCP plan.

…keep everything off the ground and in bags. Everything is palletised and birds that have fallen on the ground are put in the wash tub.

…benches and equipment are all sanitised at the end of each night.




• As is the case with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to mention sanitising or cleaning agents when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate their poultry meat products.

MMMM. Close to a majority of wholesalers/retailers mention this (48%).

• Pesticides and herbicides are mentioned by 10% of wholesalers/retailers.

• Close to a majority (47%) of wholesalers/retailers fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:

NNNN. one-quarter (26%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and

OOOO. twenty-one percent (21%) who say they “don’t know”.

Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination bywholesalers/retailers

As with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to say they separate chemicalsfrom their poultry meat products or they don’t use chemicals. Almost a majority (46%)mention this.

The only other practice mentioned by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is to keepwork areas clean and sanitised (mentioned by 17%).

Specifically, wholesalers/retailers say:

… keep chemicals and products separate, or we just don't use chemicals.

…we don't use chemicals around cooked or raw product. Use ‘chucks’ without any chemicals.

…chemicals kept in separate area. At the end of the night all food is put away before cleaning begins.

…proper rinsing of all benches and equipment after sanitising. No use of pest controls while food is being prepared or served.



Figure 31: Q27. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?

0

21

26

3

1

0

0

1

1

1

3

10

48

1

8

16

4

0

1

2

1

1

1

6

11

70

1

11

48

1

1

1

0

2

1

3

0

23

19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Don't know

None

Other

Hormones

Heavy metals

Sodium acetate

Antibiotics

Dioxins/Polychlorinated biphenyls

Antimicrobial agents

Grease from equipment

Pesticides and Herbicides *

Sanitising or cleaning agents

% mentioning

Growers

Processors

Wholesalers andRetailers

Includes hormones, fuel, other food products and references to 'any chemical' or 'any unapproved chemical'.

Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). * Pesticides and herbicides also includes rodenticides and insecticides.

Figure 32: Q28. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risks of chemical contamination of your birds/poultry meat products?

2

48

5

1

1

3

3

7

17

8

46

0

25

4

1

2

3

8

14

25

30

43

1

61

1

1

0

1

5

3

3

8

29

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Not applicable

Other

Hygienic seals/barriers on equipment

Temperature controls

Wash hands

Restrict access

Staff training

Cleaning/sanitisation

Use approved chemicals/use chemicals as directed

Separate chemicals from poultry/don't use chemicals

% mentioning

Growers

Processors





5.2.3 Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contaminants

Compared to poultry growers and wholesalers/retailers, processors exhibit better knowledge of the range of microbiological food safety hazards that could potentially contaminate poultry meat products. Salmonella is the most commonly mentioned hazard mentioned by all three sectors of the industry, followed by E. coli.

Maintaining a clean and hygienic workplace, maintaining temperature controls and ensuring employees maintain their own personal hygiene and wear protective clothing are amongst the most commonly mentioned practices used by the industry to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination. Monitoring and testing of poultry processing is also commonly mentioned by processors and vaccination/health checks for birds is commonly mentioned by growers.

Growers

• Salmonella and E. coli are the only microbiological hazards that are mentioned by more than 10% of growers.

PPPP. One-third mention Salmonella and E. coli (36% and 33% respectively).

• Four-in-ten growers (39%) do not nominate microbiological hazards. This includes:

QQQQ. one-in-five (18%) say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and

RRRR. twenty-one percent (21%) who say they “don’t know”.

• One-in-five growers (17%) growers also nominate hazards that are not specific to food safety. These include Newcastle Disease and Avian Flu.



Processors

• Processors nominate more microbiological food safety hazards than both growers and wholesalers/retailers.

• A majority of processors nominate both salmonella and E. coli (65% and 54% respectively).

• The next most commonly mentioned potential microbiological hazards are:

SSSS. Listeria Monocytogenes (mentioned by 39%);

TTTT. Campylobacter (33%); and

UUUU. Staphylococcus Aureus (20%).

• One-in-five (19%) of processors do not nominate any microbiological hazards. This includes:

VVVV. six percent (6%) who say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and

WWWW. thirteen percent (13%) who say they “don’t know”.

This is the lowest proportion not nominating any hazards of the three sectors in the industry.

Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination bygrowers

Growers are most likely to say they maintain a clean and hygienic farm to reduce the riskof microbiological contamination. One-quarter (25%) mention this.

Reflecting their position in the poultry meat industry, growers are the only sector toreport they conduct vaccinations/health checks on birds in substantial numbers (22%mention this).

Ten percent of growers (10%) also say they ensure employees maintain good personalhygiene and/or wear protective clothing to reduce microbiological contamination risk.

Specifically, growers say:

…any sick birds are immediately culled.

…reduce bird stress by correct temperatures and ventilation – good food and plenty of space and no overcrowding.

… all birds have salmonella like people carry cancer. Most are not affected.

…we change our clothes when moving from older birds to the sheds with younger ones and use foot baths.




• Over half of wholesalers/retailers (53%) do not nominate any microbiological hazards. This is the highest proportion of any of the sectors of the poultry meat industry not to nominate any microbiological hazards. This proportion is comprised of:

XXXX. fourteen percent (14%) who say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and

YYYY. thirty-nine percent (39%) who say they “don’t know”.

• The most mentioned microbiological hazard by wholesalers/retailers is Salmonella (mentioned by 36%).

• The only other microbiological hazard mentioned by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is E. coli (mentioned by 13%).

Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination byprocessors

Processors are most likely to say they maintain clean and hygienic processing plantswhen asked about the practices they employ to reduce the risk of microbiologicalcontamination (mentioned by 40%). This is followed by:

• maintaining temperature controls (mentioned by 35%);

• monitoring and testing of processing plant (32%); and

• employees maintain good personal hygiene and/or wear protective clothing (20%).


…we look at the cleaning of the bird and temperature controls are contained and faecal control is watched.

…water spraying with chlorine – monitor chillers for chlorine and heat – ensure control temperatures are correct.

…continual hygiene – meat not kept out of cooler long – knives and cutting boards colour coded red for raw meat and brown for cooked meat.

…send samples off every week to be tested – test for heavy metals.

…we have monitoring equipment that allows us to swab test our equipment and benches.



Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination bywholesalers/retailers

Maintaining temperature controls is the most likely practice wholesalers/retailersundertake to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination (mentioned by 27%). Thisis followed by:

• maintaining a clean and hygienic workplace (14%); and

• employees maintain good personal hygiene and/or wear protective clothing (12%).

Specifically, wholesalers/retailers say:

…keep them at right temperature. Let the chickens cool down for 30 minutes before putting them in the cool room.

…temperature controlled. Nothing is left uncovered – all food is covered. All equipment is sterilised.

…raw poultry kept under4 degrees. We’ve got thermometers in the fridges. Hot food kept over 60 degrees.

…we always wear gloves when working with chicken meat.

…high level of personal hygiene. All of our staff have food-handling accredited training.



Figure 33: Q31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?

39

14

1

8

2

9

4

4

13

36

13

6

1

6

5

20

33

39

54

65

21

18

17

1

1

2

6

6

33

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

None

Other - not food safety hazards

Other - food safety hazards

Clostridium perfringens

Staphylococcus aureus

Campylobacter

Listeria monocytogenes

E. coli

Salmonella

% mentioning

Growers

Processors



Figure 34: Q33. What are the three main practice you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your birds/poultry meat products?

2

53

2

2

3

1

2

1

9

0

3

12

27

14

1

19

6

1

1

0

4

0

3

1

32

20

35

40

1

39

11

1

1

4

1

6

3

22

6

10

5

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Not applicable

Other

Appropriate equipment/packaging

Staff training

Pest control

Use HACCP guidelines

Restric access/quarantine

Separate poultry from contaminants

Vaccination/health checks on birds

Monitoring/Testing

Wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing

Temperature control

Cleaning/hygiene

% mentioning

Growers

Processors





5.2.4 Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contaminants

For poultry processors and wholesalers/retailers, physical contamination of their poultry meat products is one potential risk to food safety. For processors, metal and plastic are the most commonly mentioned potential contaminants, while wholesalers/retailers mention wood and contaminants from other people as being potential risks.

Processors mention monitoring, maintenance and cleaning as the main practices they employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of their poultry meat products. Wholesalers/retailers most commonly mention personal hygiene, supply protective clothing and keeping poultry separate from other substances as their main practices to avoid contamination.

Processors

• Metal is nominated by one-third (34%) of processors when asked what kind of physical things could potentially contaminate poultry meat products.

• The next most commonly mentioned potential physical contaminants are:

ZZZZ. plastic (mentioned by 23%);

AAAAA. dirt or unclean surfaces (18%); and

BBBBB. contaminants from humans (15%).

• One-quarter (24%) of processors do not nominate physical contaminants. This includes:

CCCCC. twelve percent (12%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and

DDDDD. twelve percent (12%) who say they “don’t know”.




• For wholesalers/retailers, wood is most mentioned as a potential physical contaminant (mentioned by 19%).

• Wood is followed by:

EEEEE. contaminants from humans (13%);

FFFFF. plastic (12%);

GGGGG. metal (11%); and

HHHHH. dirt or unclean surfaces (10%).

• Four-in-ten (39%) wholesalers/retailers do not nominate physical contaminants. This includes:

IIIII. twenty percent (20%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and

JJJJJ. twenty percent (20%) who say they “don’t know”.

Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contamination by processors

Processors are most likely to say they regularly monitor or maintain their processingplants to reduce the risk of physical contamination. Three-in-ten processors (31%)mention this. This is followed by:

• wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing (mentioned by 23%);

• cleaning/hygiene (18%); and

• separate poultry from other substances (13%).


…regular equipment maintenance and online inspection of machinery when in use.

…accounting for nuts and bolts – knives counted hourly – all labelled knives consecutively – all cartons isolated if knives missing.

…staff wear protective clothing and hairnets – no jewellery.

…clean uniform every day – washing hands after smoke breaks and toilet.

…only use certified overalls with inside pockets.

…either throw out or wash any dropped birds.



Figure 35: Q29. What kinds of physical things are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?

20

20

10

1

1

3

2

1

2

5

13

10

19

12

11

12

12

6

8

8

6

9

11

10

9

15

18

13

23

34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

None

Other

Intestinal matter

Feathers

Blood

Bones/bone fragments

Faecal matter

Glass

Insects and pests

Contaminants from humans

Dirt or unclean surfaces/equipment

Wood

Plastic

Metal

% mentioning

Processors


Includes temperature, foreign objects, other food


Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination bywholesalers/retailers

Maintaining personal hygiene and using protective clothing is the most nominatedpractice by wholesalers/retailers to reduce the risk of physical contamination of poultrymeat (mentioned by 19%).

The only other practice nominated by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is toseparate poultry from other substances (mentioned by 17%).


…employees always wear clean uniforms – sick employees kept away.

…staff are prohibited from wearing anything that could fall into the food – all staff wear uniforms including hair nets.

…separate boards for different means, and limited handling of poultry.

… all poultry is covered in tubs after it is delivered and left covered until ready for repackaging.



Figure 36: Q30. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products?

5

39

4

1

0

1

5

5

8

6

17

6

19

1

24

5

0

1

1

1

9

9

18

13

31

23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Not applicable

Other

Restrict access

Use approved chemicals/use chemicals as directed

Pest control

Correct equipment/packaging

Staff training

Temperature control

Cleaning/hygiene

Separate poultry from other substances

Monitoring/maintenance

Wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing

% mentioning

Processors





5.3 Government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry

5.3.1 Standards, code of practice and guidelines used

Not surprisingly, the standards, codes of practice and guidelines adhered to by poultry growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers in relation to food safety varies greatly according to the stage of the poultry meat supply chain the business operates within.

For growers, contractual obligations are the most commonly mentioned obligation growers are required to adhere to. Processors, meanwhile, mention HACCP or quality assurance programs. Wholesalers/retailers are most likely to mention local government and State/Territory food hygiene/safety legislation, standards or codes of practice.

The extent of government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is very muchaligned to the sector of the industry.

Poultry growers are most likely to be self-regulated, with a large proportion of growerssaying they adhere to contractual obligations, industry guidelines and HACCP plans beforementioning government regulations. Less than one-quarter of growers are aware of theChapter 3 Food Safety Standards and less are aware of the proposed Chapter 4. Growersare not particularly likely to have annual inspections of their operations (which is incontrast to processors and wholesalers/retailers) and when these inspections do takeplace, they are overwhelmingly conducted by a contractual parties.

Poultry processors also exhibit signs of self-regulation. However they also appear subjectto government regulation. The most commonly mentioned obligations for processors toadhere to are HACCP plan obligations, followed by State/Territory government foodhygiene/safety regulations and Australian Standard obligations. A large majority ofprocessors are aware of Chapter 3 and as with growers, only a small proportion areaware of the proposed Chapter 4. Almost all processors report having at least oneinspection of their operations each year, with these inspections mainly been conducted bya State/Territory government department/agency.

Wholesalers/retailers are the least likely sector within the poultry meat industry to beexposed to self-regulation. Wholesalers/retailers most commonly report adhering to localgovernment and State/Territory government regulations, followed by the Food StandardsCode. Following a HACCP plan is also mentioned by a majority of wholesalers/retailers.While a majority of wholesalers/retailers are aware of Chapter 3, at least one-third areunaware of the Chapter. Like processors, most wholesalers/retailers report at least oneinspection by a third party each year, with these inspections most commonly conductedby a local government authority.



Growers

The standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines that are most ‘top-of-mind’ for growers are not government-initiated. Instead, growers are focused on obligations that come from their own business operations or industry. Specifically, the only obligations mentioned spontaneously by more than 10% of poultry growers are:

• contractual obligations (mentioned by 64%);

• industry guidelines/codes of practice (20%); and

• HACCP or quality assurance programs (11%).

When prompted however, growers offer some other government-initiated obligations. These include:

• local government acts/regulations (mentioned by 76%);

• State/Territory government animal health acts/regulations (66%); and

• State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (54%).

Figure 37: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety?

Growers

1

11

1

2

7

1

20

1

64

17

48

50

54

65

66

67

76

87

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


HACCP or QA

Guidelines ofAnimal Health Australia


National Biosecurity Manual forContract Meat Chicken Farming

State government(animal health)

Industry guidelines/codes ofpractice

Local government


% mentioning



Processors

When asked what standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines they adhere to in relation to food safety, processors are most likely to spontaneously mention a combination of



government, company, and industry-initiated obligations. The most commonly spontaneously mentioned obligations are:

• HACCP or quality assurance programs (mentioned by 48%);

• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards code (27%);

• State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (16%); and

• the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (15%).

When prompted, almost all processors say they adhere to HACCP or quality assurance programs and State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (97% and 95% respectively).

The next most mentioned obligations processors adhered to when prompted are:

• the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (80%);

• the Australian Standard for the hygienic production and transportation of meat and meat products for human consumption (AS 4694-2002) (77%); and

• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (76%).

Figure 38: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety?

Processors

10

10

4

27

10

15

16

48

50

69

74

76

77

80

95

97

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Local government





HACCP or QA

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents ( Processors n=141).




Unlike both growers and processors, a considerable proportion of wholesalers/retailers are likely to say they “don’t know” what standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines they adhere to in relation to food safety.

• One-third (34%) of wholesalers/retailers say don’t know.

KKKKK. This compares to 10% of growers and 4% of processors.

The only obligation more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers are likely to spontaneously nominate is that they adhere to a HACCP or quality assurance plan.

When prompted, however, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to say they adhere to local government acts/regulations and State/Territory government food hygiene/safety regulations/acts (both mentioned by 82%). This is followed by:

• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards code (mentioned by 62%); and

• HACCP or quality assurance programs (60%).

Figure 39: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling/retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety?


1

1

2

6

36

8

4

8

6

18

20

38

60

62

82

82

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100





HACCP or QA



Local government

% mentioning


Unprompted Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



5.3.2 Awareness of Chapter 3 and 4 of the Food Standards Code

Awareness of the Chapter 3 Food Standards of the Food Standards or its guide, “Safe Food Australia”, is low within the growers sector of the poultry meat industry. However, a majority of both processors and wholesalers/retailers have heard of the Chapter (Figure 40).

• Less than one-quarter of growers (22%) are aware of Chapter 3.

LLLLL. This is not surprising, given Chapter 3 does not specifically relate to the operations of poultry growing businesses.

• Four-in-five processors (79%) and two-thirds of wholesalers/retailers (63%) are aware of Chapter 3.

MMMMM. This proportion indicates relatively good awareness of Chapter 3. However, at least one-in-three wholesalers/retailers are not aware of Chapter 3.

Figure 40: Q49. Before today, had you heard of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code or the guide to Chapter 3, “Safe Food Australia”?

63

79

22

37

21

78 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning

YesNoRefused




5.3.3 Practices undertaken to comply with Chapter 3

When asked, processors and wholesalers/retailers offer a range of practices they undertake to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards.3 As has previously been noted (see Section 5.2.1), wholesalers tend to offer fewer practices than processors.

Over half of both processors and wholesalers/retailers say they “don’t know” what practices they undertake in order to comply with Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards (66% for wholesalers/retailers and 53% for processors).

Processors

The most commonly nominated practice by processors to comply with Chapter 3 is to train poultry meat handlers (mentioned by 30%). This is followed by:

• take practical measures to reduce the risk of contamination (mentioned by 17%);

• supervise poultry meat handlers (15%);

• maintain clean premises (15%);

• only hold poultry meat at 5 degrees or below, or above 60 degrees Celsius (14%); and

• ensure poultry meat handlers know about food safety and food hygiene matters (14%).


Training poultry meat handlers is also the most commonly mentioned practice by wholesalers/retailers, however only 12% of wholesalers/retailers mention this (in comparison to 30% of processors).

There are only two other practices that are mentioned by 10% or more of wholesalers/ retailers:

• maintain clean premises (10%); and

• only hold poultry meat at 5 degrees or below, or above 60 degrees Celsius (10%).

3 As growers are not required to adhere to Chapter 3, they were not asked what practices they undertake to comply with the Chapter.



Figure 41: Q50. What things does your business do to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards?

Top-ten practices

0

5

4

3

3

5

10

10

9

12

4

2

5

6

15

14

14

15

17

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Restrict duties of employees who are ill

Freshly cooked food is notmixed with older batches

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooledto under 21 degrees Celsius within 4 hours

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooledto 5 degrees Celsius or under within 6 hours

Supervise poultry meat handlers

Ensure poultry meat handlers knowabout food safety and food hygiene matters

Only hold poultry meat that at 5 degreesor below, or above 60 degrees Celsius

Maintain clean premises

Take practical measures toreduce the risk of contamination

Train poultry meat handlers

% mentioning

Processors


Base: All respondents who comply with Chapter 3(Processors n=111; Wholesalers/Retailers n=130 (weighted)).

5.3.4 Awareness of proposed Chapter 4 standards

Across the entire poultry meat industry, awareness of the proposed Chapter 4 standards is relatively low, with less than a quarter of all sectors of industry aware of the proposed Chapter 4 standards (Figure 42).



Figure 42: Q51. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards of the Food Standards Code?

8

20

10

92

79

89

1

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning

YesNoRefused




5.3.5 Inspections conducted of poultry meat businesses

A majority of processors and wholesalers/retailers report some kind of third-party inspections conducted of their operations, while just fewer than half of growers (46%) report at least one inspection (Figure 43).

There is a clear division between which organisations/parties conduct these inspections depending on the sector of the industry. For growers, inspections are predominantly conducted by a contractual party, for processors they are mainly carried out by a State/Territory government department or agency and for wholesalers/retailers they are mainly carried out by a local government authority (

Figure 44).

Growers

• More than one-third of all growers (36%) report no inspections of their poultry growing operations.

• One-quarter (27%) report between one and nine inspections per year.

• Almost one-in-five (17%) report that they don’t know how many inspections are carried out per year.

• Over two-thirds (68%) of growers report contractual parties as the organisations that conduct these inspections.

NNNNN. Inspections by State/Territory governments, local governments and industry groups are also reported by more than 10% of growers (14%, 12% and 11% respectively).

Processors

• The overwhelming majority of processors (77%) report between one and nine inspections per year.

• Fourteen percent (14%) report between ten and 49 inspections per year.

• Only one percent (1%) report no inspections, and an additional six percent (6%) report not knowing how many inspections they have.

• State/Territory governments are the most reported organisation to conduct inspections of processors (mentioned by 74%).

OOOOO. Inspections by contractual parties, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) and third party auditors (such as SGS International) are also mentioned (30%, 26% and 16% respectively).


• As is the case for growers, a large majority of wholesalers/retailers (75%) report between one and nine inspections per year.

• However, as is the case for growers, almost one-in-five report not knowing how many inspections they have each year (17%).

• Four percent (4%) report no inspections.



• For wholesalers/retailers, inspections by local government authorities are most common (mentioned by 68%).

PPPPP. Inspections by State/Territory governments and third party auditors are also mentioned (26% and 13% respectively).

Figure 43: Q54. How many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry operations?

4

1

36

75

77

27

2

14

7

1

11 1

17

6

17

1

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Processors

Growers

% mentioning

None 1-9 10-49 50-99 100 and above Don't know Refused Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



Figure 44: Q55. Which external organizations conducted these inspections?

0

3

2

1

13

5

68

9

26

1

2

4

15

16

26

12

30

74

0

1

7

11

3

9

12

68

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Don't know

Other

Industry group

Third party auditor

AQIS

Local government authority

Contractual party

State government agency

% mentioning

Growers

Processors


Base: All respondents who reported at least one inspection (Growers n=74; Processors n=127; Wholesalers/Retailers n=143 (weighted)).

5.3.6 Self-regulation within the poultry meat industry

As has been briefly discussed above, self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is largely dependent on the sector of the industry.

Growers

As noted in Figure 7, growers are most likely to spontaneously nominate adhering to contractual obligations, industry guidelines or codes of practice and HACCP or quality assurance programs (spontaneously mentioned by 64%, 20% and 11% respectively).

While growers do indicate they adhere to government regulations/standards when prompted, this prevalence to adhere to industry and company-specific guidelines and standards demonstrates a relatively high degree of self-regulation.

This is further supported by the overwhelming majority of growers (78%) who nominate contractual parties as an external organisation that conducts inspections of their operations Figure 44).

Processors

Similar to growers, processors also tend to demonstrate a relatively high degree of self-regulation. Processors however are more likely to spontaneously nominate adhering to a HACCP or quality assurance program in comparison to growers’ tendency to mention



contractual obligations (48% of processors mention HACCP/quality assurance when not prompted) (Figure 8).

Unlike growers, processors appear quite exposed to inspections by government rather than self-inspection, with 74% of processors reporting being inspected by State/Territory governments. However thirty percent of processors (30%) do report being inspected by a contractual party. In addition, 16% report inspection by a third party auditor (such as SGS International) and 15% report inspections by an industry group.


Wholesalers/retailers appear the least likely of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry to display signs of self-regulation. A third (36%) of wholesalers/retailers do spontaneously mention following a HACCP or quality assurance program. However when prompted, following State/Territory and local government regulations/acts appears more widespread (Figure 9).

Local government authorities are most likely to be mentioned by wholesalers/retailers as a third party that would conduct inspections of their operations (mentioned by 68%). Indication of self-regulation is relatively low, with only nine percent (9%) reporting inspection from a contractual party and one percent (1%) reporting inspection by an industry group. Thirteen percent (13%) however, report an inspection by a third party (Figure 44).



5.4 Sources of information and staff training on food safety issues

Reflecting the differences between the nature of the work involved in each sector of thepoultry meat industry, growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers are likely tonominate a range of sources of information and training/education opportunities theyuse.

Poultry growers appear the most likely of the three sectors of the industry to rely onindustry information sources such as the National Biosecurity Manual for Contract MeatChicken Farming. In addition, growers appear particularly reliant on contractual partiesfor information about food safety.

Processors and wholesalers/retailers, meanwhile, are more likely to nominate governmentsources of food safety information. A majority of wholesalers/retailers nominate local andState/Territory governments, while a majority of processors only nominate State/Territorygovernments. Processors also nominate the Australian New Zealand Food Safety Codeand industry groups.

Again, when looking at the training and education opportunities offered to processing andwholesaling/retailing employees, these opportunities appear relatively similar. These twosectors of the industry most commonly provide induction/orientation training, circulatebrochures/pamphlets, circulate food safety regulation documentation and conductperformance reviews of their staff.

In contrast, the opportunities growers most commonly offer are circulating trade orindustry magazines/journals, circulating brochures/pamphlets and providing induction/orientation training.



5.4.1 Sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations

Industry groups, State/Territory governments and local governments are the most mentioned information sources for growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers respectively when businesses within these sectors need information on food safety and poultry meat regulations.

Growers

Poultry growers are most likely to spontaneously mention contractual parties when asked which sources they go to for information on food safety in the poultry meat industry (mentioned by 59%). This is followed by industry groups and State/Territory governments (49% and 15% respectively).

When prompted, industry groups (such as the Chicken Meat Federation) are the most commonly mentioned source of information (mentioned by 86% of growers). This is followed by:

• the National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming (mentioned by 58%);

• State/Territory government (49%); and

• AQIS (34%).


Growers

6

0

1

2

1

15

7

59

49

12

15

17

21

34

49

58

59

86

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Local government


Other C'wlth govt

AQIS


National Biosecurity Manualfor Contract Meat Chicken Farming

Contractual parties *

Industry group


Base: All respondents (Growers n=157). * Contractual parties was not a prompted question and so the percent mentioning for unprompted and prompted for this category remains constant at 59%.



Processors

State/Territory governments are most commonly spontaneously mentioned by processors when they are asked where they get information on food safety (mentioned by 40%). This is followed by:

• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (mentioned by 21%);

• industry groups (18%); and

• AQIS (13%).

State/Territory governments, the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and industry groups remain the top-three most mentioned sources of information when processors are prompted if they access these information sources (Figure 5).

However, Australian Standards (such as The Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001)) displace AQIS as the fourth most mentioned information source, mentioned by over half of all processors (62%).


Processors

5

5

13

4

21

18

40

40

41

44

62

66

67

75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other C'wlth govt

Local government

AQIS



Industry group



Base: All respondents (Processors n=141).




Local and State/Territory governments are the most commonly mentioned sources for wholesalers/retailers when they are looking for information on food safety in the poultry meat industry.

• Local government is spontaneously mentioned by 17% of wholesalers/retailers and is mentioned by three-quarters when prompted (73%);

• State/Territory governments are mentioned by 19% without prompting, and 55% after prompting.

• The Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code, industry groups and Australian Standards are the next most commonly mentioned sources of information (41%, 38% and 34% respectively after prompting).



2

1

1

10

8

19

17

24

29

34

38

41

55

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AQIS

Other C'wlth govt


Industry group



Local government


Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).



5.4.2 Education and training opportunities for poultry meat industry staff

The education and training opportunities offered to employees is fairly similar across the processing and wholesaling/retailing sectors of the poultry meat industry. Growers, however offer different opportunities to their employees (Figure 10).

Growers

The circulation of trade or industry magazines and journals is the most nominated practice by growers to train or inform their employees about food safety (mentioned by 80%). This proportion is considerably larger than processors and wholesalers/retailers (55% and 50% respectively).

The next most commonly mentioned opportunities offered by growers to their employees are:

• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (mentioned by 54%); and

• provide induction/orientation training (46%).

Importantly, 11% of growers offer no training or education opportunities to employees. This is the largest proportion within the poultry meat industry.

Processors

Almost all processors (94%) provide induction/orientation training to employees. This is followed by:

• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (mentioned by 78%);

• circulate food safety regulation documents (73%); and

• provide performance reviews (73%).

All processors report offering some kind of training or education opportunities to employees.


As is the case with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to provide induction/orientation training to employees (mentioned by 87%). This is followed by:

• circulate food safety regulation documents (mentioned by 72%);

• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (68%); and

• provide performance reviews (68%).

Only a small proportion of wholesalers/retailers (3%) report offering no training or education opportunities to employees.



Figure 48: Q46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their employees about food safety. Can you please say where or not your business does each one for any of your employees?

15

55

58

68

50

72

68

87

22

69

65

73

55

73

78

94

23

28

34

38

80

40

54

46

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Circulate internationalinformation sources

Provide non-accredited foodsafety training for poultry

Provide accredited food safetytraining for handling poultry


Circulate trade or industrymagazines or journals

Circulate food safety regulationdocuments

Circulate brochures, pamphletsor posters

Provide induction/orientationtraining

% mentioning

GrowersProcessorsWholesalers and Retailers


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Circulate international information sources

Provide non-accredited food safety training for poultry

Provide accredited food safety training for handlingpoultry


Circulate trade or industry magazines or journals

Circulate food safety regulation documents

Circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters

Provide induction/orientation training

Wholesalers and RetailersProcessorsGrowers




6 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FINDINGS

Government enforcement officers of the poultry meat industry fall into two broad categories: Local Government Area (LGA) enforcement officers and State or Territory government department enforcement officers. These two groups have been reported on separately.

A number of cross-tabulations have been conducted to determine if there are any detectable relationships between officers with particular characteristics.

For both LGA and State/Territory officers, comparisons have been made between officers who spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues with those officers who spend less time dealing with food safety issues.

State/Territory officers included in this survey are derived from a diverse selection of State and Territory government departments and agencies. For the purpose of cross-tabulation analysis, these departments have been grouped into the following three categories:

• organisations specifically established to deal with food safety issues, which will be referred to as “food safety dedicated agencies” throughout this document;

QQQQQ. Includes Primesafe, SafeFood Queensland and the New South Wales Food Authority.

• State/Territory health departments; and

• State/Territory agriculture or primary industries departments.

6.1 The role of enforcement officers in the poultry meat industry

6.1.1 Enforcement officer involvement with specific sectors of the poultry meat industry

• Of the LGA officers, almost all (97%) describe their job title as a ‘Local Council Environmental Health Officer’. Only 3% describe their job title as something else.

• Of the State/Territory officers, almost half (47%) describe their job title as a ‘State or Territory Enforcement Officer’. Almost one-third (29%) describe their job as a ‘State or Territory Environmental Health Officer’. One-in-ten (12%) describe their job as either ‘Food Safety Officer’ (NSW only) or ‘State or Territory Veterinarian or Scientist’.

While the role of government enforcement offices varies according to jurisdiction, LGA officers are typically involved with poultry retailers only, they work predominantly in one geographic area and their job descriptions do not require them to be dedicated to only working in relation to food safety issues.

In contrast, State/Territory officers work mainly with poultry processors, wholesalers and, to a lesser extent, retailers. State/Territory department officers are also more likely to work in more than one geographic area, and to spend all their work time dealing with food safety issues.

Few enforcement offices are working with poultry growers.



• All (1005) of LGA officers report working with take-away food businesses serving poultry meat, and almost all (99%) LGA officers are involved with poultry retailers including butchers and supermarket butchers. Less than ten percent of LGA officers work with any of the other listed groups in the poultry meat industry.

• More than three-quarters (82%) of State/Territory officers work with poultry processors or transporters of processed poultry meat. State/Territory officers are least likely to work with transporters of live birds (14%) or poultry growers (22%).

Figure 49: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any capacity?

0

20

40

60

80

100Growers

Transporters of live birds

Processors

De-boners

Transporters of processed meat

Wholesalers

Retailers

Take away food service businesses

S\T officers

LGA officers




Table 1: Q2. Which groups involved in the poultry meat industry do you work with in any capacity?

LGA officers

(n=72)


(n=49)

Count % Count %

Poultry growers 4 6 11 22

Transporters of live birds 1 1 7 14

Poultry processors 5 7 40 82

Poultry de-boners 2 3 35 71

Transporters of processed poultry meat 5 7 40 82

Poultry wholesalers 6 9 36 73

Poultry retailers including butchers 71 99 32 65

Take away food businesses serving poultry meat 72 100 16 33

6.1.2 Geographic areas of work

• LGA officers are more likely than State/Territory department officers to spend all of their time in one area (e.g. a capital city, regional centre or rural area).

• State/Territory department officers work across areas, and are not particularly likely to spend all of their time in a regional or rural area.



Figure 50: Q5. In the last three months, what percentage of your work time was spent in…?

(a) LGA officers

29

20

42

5

2

1

6

1

62

73

5511

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Remote or rural areas

A regional centre

A State or Territory capital city

% mentioning

100% 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0%

(b) S/T department officers

2

20

6

8

6

35

20

41

29

827 14

14

16

10

12

31

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


A regional centre

A State or Territory capital city

% mentioning

100% 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0% Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n =49).



6.1.3 Time spent dealing with food safety issues and food poisoning

While, State/Territory officers are more likely than their LGA counterparts to spend all of their time dealing with food safety issues, a majority of both State/Territory and LGA officers spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues (Figure 51).

State/Territory department officers and LGA officers spend similar proportions of their time tracking down the causes of food poisoning (Figure 52).

LGA officers

• Half (52%) of all LGA officers spend at least half of their time dealing with food safety issues.

• Almost two-thirds (64%) of LGA officers who deal with food safety spend less than a quarter of their time tracking down causes of food poisoning, with 31% reporting they spend no time on this.


• A large proportion of State/Territory officers specialise in dealing with food safety issues, with over three-quarters (78%) spending at least half of their time dealing with food safety.

RRRRR. More than half (55%) of all State/Territory department officers spend all their time dealing with food safety.

SSSSS. This compares to just two percent (2%) of LGA officers who spend all of their time on food safety.

• A majority (56%) of State/Territory officers who deal with food safety spend less than a quarter of their time tracking down causes of food poisoning, with 40% reporting they spend no time on this.



Figure 51: Q6. Approximately what percentage of your work time was spent dealing with food safety issues in general [in the last three months]?

55

20

12

30

16 2

2

10

21

4

27

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LGA officers


% mentioning

100% (all) 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0% (none) Base: All respondents with a valid response (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).

Figure 52: Q7. What percentage of your work time was spent tracking down causes of food poisoning [in the last three months]?

56

31

40

51

4

63

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LGA officers


% mentioning

100% (all) 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0% (none) Not part of job description Base: All respondents who spent at least some time dealing with food safety issues (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=48).



6.2 Enforcement officers opinions of the poultry meat industry

LGA and State/Territory officers believe that current consumer practices when handlingpoultry meat is the most likely stage within the poultry meat supply chain (from growersto consumers) to lead to foodborne illness.

After consumer practices leading to foodborne illness, LGA officers believe that take-awayfood businesses and retailers are the next most likely stages in the supply chain to leadto illness.

In comparison to LGA officers, State/Territory officers show greater familiarity with theentire poultry meat supply chain. While a large proportion of State/Territory officers alsobelieve that take away food businesses and poultry retailers are likely to lead tofoodborne illness, a majority also believe current practices within the poultry processingstage is likely to lead foodborne illness. Similarly, current practices within the poultry de-boning stage of the supply chain is seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness by justfewer than half of State/Territory officers.

Current practices within the poultry growing stage are also considered likely to lead tofoodborne illness by close to a majority of State/Territory officers.

Approximately one-third of both State/Territory and LGA officers believe the risk of foodpoisoning is greater from the chicken meat sector on a per-serve basis as compared tothe non-chicken meat sector. However, the majority of all officers either believe there isno difference between the two sectors or don’t have an opinion as to which sector islikely to produce a greater risk of food poisoning.



6.2.1 Likelihood of current practices leading to food poisoning

Both LGA and State/Territory officers see the greatest risk of foodborne illness at the stage where consumers are preparing raw poultry meat (76% and 82% respectively).

LGA officers

• LGA officers are most familiar with the retail and take-away businesses, and a majority (63%) consider it likely that current practices in take-away food businesses could lead to foodborne illness.

• Of the other stages in the supply chain (growers, transportation, processors, de-boners and wholesalers), LGA officers are more likely than State/Territory officers to say they “don’t know” in relation to the likelihood of that stage leading to foodborne illness. This is not an unexpected result given that LGA officers are unlikely to be involved in these sectors of the poultry meat industry.

• LGA officers who spend at least 50% of their time dealing with food safety issues are more likely to say that current practices across all stages of the food chain are likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product.

Figure 53: Q9. How likely is it that current practices at the… stage could lead to foodborne illnesses in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)

LGA officers

175

27 29 3124

43

63

76

4942 43 41 42

58

1 1

6.3 6.3 6.36.0 5.8

6.7

7.4

3.5

4.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poultrygrowing

Transport oflive birds

Poultryprocessing

Poultry de-boning

Transport ofprocessed

poultry

Poultrywholesaling

Poultryretailers

Take awayfood

businesses

Consumers

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All LGA officer respondents (n=72 (weighted)). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)




• State/Territory officers show greater familiarity with the entire poultry meat supply chain than LGA officers, which may be a result of State/Territory officers being more likely to spend at least half of their time dealing with food safety issues than LGA officers.

• A majority (61%) of State/Territory officers consider it likely that current practices in poultry processing could lead to foodborne illness.

• The poultry de-boning stage is also seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness by close to a majority of State/Territory officers (45%).

• Whereas almost a majority of LGA officers did not offer an opinion as to whether current practices within the poultry growing stage are seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness, this was not the case for State/Territory officers. A large proportion of State/Territory officers (41%) believe that current practices within the poultry growing stage are likely to lead to foodborne illness.

• Across all stages of the poultry meat supply chain (with the exception of the ‘processed poultry meat transport’ stage), State/Territory officers who spend 50% or more of their time dealing with food safety issues are more likely to indicate current practices could lead to foodborne illness in the end product.

Figure 54: Q9. How likely is it that current practices at the… stage could lead to foodborne illnesses in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)

S/T Department officers

41

10

61

45

33 31

5161

82

1622

8 8 6 1020

2

5.5

3.8

6.7

6.0

4.85.1

6.2

7.57.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poultrygrowing

Transport oflive birds

Poultryprocessing

Poultry de-boning

Transport ofprocessed

poultry

Poultrywholesaling

Poultryretailers

Take awayfood

businesses

Consumers

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Like

lihoo

d m

ean

scor

e

Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All State/Territory officer respondents (n=49). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)



6.2.2 Chicken versus non-chicken

• Almost half (46%) of all LGA officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same on a per serve basis from all types of poultry meat. One-third (32%) believe the risk in the chicken meat sector is greater while 8% believe the risk in the non-chicken meat sector is greater.

• Almost two-thirds (62%) of all State/Territory officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same on a per serve basis from all types of poultry meat, while one-third (33%) believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector.

TTTTT. State/Territory officers who work for food safety dedicated agencies4 are more likely than those officers who work for State/Territory health, agriculture or primary industries departments to indicate the risk of food poisoning is the same on a per serve basis (83% compared to 44% of health department officers and 67% of agriculture/primary industries department officers).

Figure 55: Q10: Do you think there is greater risk on a per serve basis of food poisoning from poultry meat in the chicken meat sector, the non-chicken poultry meat sector or is the risk the same?

33

32

62

46 148

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

S/T officers

LGA officers

% mentioning

Greater risk in chicken meat sector Risk the same in both sectors Greater risk in non-chicken meat sector Don't know

Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=21 (excluding pilot respondents)).

4 Throughout this document, any reference to “food safety dedicated agencies” refers to government agencies expressly established to deal with food safety in their particular states, and specifically refers to SafeFood Queensland, Primesafe and the New South Wales Food Authority.



6.3 Level of awareness and knowledge of regulations

The regulations used by enforcement officers in their work in the poultry meat industryis, as expected, closely correlated to the sector of the industry the enforcement officerdeals with and the particular State/Territory regulatory framework.

The most commonly cited tool used by both LGA and State/Territory officers in their workin relation to food safety in the poultry meat industry are the State/Territory governmentfood acts, regulations, codes of practice and other tools. LGA officers are more likely touse the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code than State/Territory officers, whilethey are less likely to use the poultry meat industry-specific Australian Standard (AS4465-2001).

For both State/Territory and LGA officers, it is State/Territory governments that are seento have the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for all stages inthe poultry meat supply chain. Similarly, State/Territory governments are also seen asprimarily responsible for enforcing food safety legislation for most stages of the poultrymeat supply chain.

When asked about the effectiveness of current standards and regulations in minimisingthe risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products, themajority of State/Territory officers believe that current standards/regulations are effectivefor the poultry processing, de-boning, processed poultry transportation, wholesale andretail stages of the food chain. A significant proportion of State/Territory officers indicatethey do not know about the effectiveness of standards/regulations of the poultrygrowing, live bird transportation or food service business stages of the food chain.

In comparison, LGA officers typically indicate they don’t know the effectiveness ofstandards/regulations in all stages in the poultry meat supply chain with the exception ofpoultry retailing (including food service businesses). For poultry retail and food servicebusinesses, over two-thirds believe current standards/regulations are effective.

The current gaps in food safety standards/regulations that State/Territory officers aremost likely to identify focus on gaps in processing, growing and retail standards.State/Territory officers are also likely to believe there is not enough training in theapplication of standards/regulations.

In comparison, LGA officers are most likely to identify gaps in training in the applicationof standards and that there is not enough policing of standards.



6.3.1 Specific legislation, standards and codes of practice

The specific legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers typically reflects the different sectors of the poultry meat industry that enforcement officers are working in (Figure 56).

LGA officers

• LGA officers report that they most commonly use the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (85%) with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry.

• Two-thirds (68%) rely on food acts/regulation/codes of practice and other state or territory government tools.

• LGA officers are least likely to use other Australian Standards (2%) or Industry Standards or codes of practice (3%).


• State/Territory officers rely most commonly on State/Territory food acts/regulation/codes of practice (65%).

• More than half (55%) of State/Territory officers also rely on the poultry specific Australian Standard (4465-2001).

• The Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code is used by 45%.

• Industry Standards or codes of practice (4%) and agricultural, animal and veterinarian acts/regulations or codes of practice (4%) are less used.

Figure 56: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry?

0

3

2

85

18

68

4

4

31

45

55

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Agricultural, animal andveterinarian acts/regulations/codesof practice (State/Territory govt)

Industry standards or codes ofpractice

Australian standards (other)

Australia New Zealand‘Food Standards Code’

Australian standard – poultryspecific 4465-2001

Food acts/regulations/codes ofpractice and other tools(State/Territory govt)

% mentioning

LGA officers S/T officers Base: All respondents (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).



6.3.2 Developing and enforcing standards

State/Territory governments are seen having the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain by all officers (Figure 57)5

The responsibility for enforcing standards is slightly less clear, with the majority of all officers believing State/Territory governments have the main responsibility for the supply chain from poultry growers to wholesalers (Figure 58). The retail stage (including food service businesses) is seen more as a local government responsibility with some State/Territory government responsibility.

Developing standards

• Developing requirements is seen most often to be a State Government responsibility across all stages of the poultry meat supply chain, by both LGA officers and State/Territory officers. LGA officers also see Local Government as having responsibility in the food service stage.

• The majority of LGA officers who indicate they “don’t know” who has the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements are officers who spend less than half of their work time dealing with food safety issues.

• Similarly, State/Territory officers who spend less than half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are more likely than other State/Territory officers to say “don’t know” when asked who has the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements in the poultry meat sector.

5 With the exception of the live bird transport stage, where just fewer than a majority (47%) of State/Territory officers believe State/Territory governments have the main responsibility.



Figure 57: Q13. Who has the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for [stages] in the poultry meat supply chain in your State/Territory?

(a) LGA officers

20

22

8

4

4

3

9

72

77

81

77

84

54

78

20

12

9

2

6

5

5

3 9

18

13

42

18

1

1

3

2

3

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Food service

Retailers

Wholesalers

Processed transporters

Processors

Live transporters

Growers

% mentioning

Federal Government State Government Local GovernmentNo agency has responsibility currently Other Don't know

(b) S/T officers

14

16

20

24

22

10

12

49

61

78

73

69

47

55

33

16

2

2

2

2

18

18

2

2

2

4

4

4

8

6

6

2

4

24

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Food service

Retailers

Wholesalers


Processors

Live transporters

Growers

% mentioning





Enforcing standards

• Enforcement of food safety regulation is also seen mainly as the responsibility of State/Territory governments by all officers with the exception of the retail and food service areas.

• Almost all LGA officers nominate local government as having the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation for retailers and food service businesses (91% and 97% respectively).

• In contrast, significantly fewer State/Territory officers nominate local government as having the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation for retailers and food service businesses (retail: 29% and food service businesses: 53%).

UUUUU. State/Territory officers who work for food safety dedicated agencies are more likely than officers who work for State/Territory health, agriculture or primary industries departments to provide an answer when asked who has the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation across specific stages of the poultry meat supply chain.



Figure 58: Q14. Who has the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation for [stages] in the poultry meat supply chain in your State/Territory?

(a) LGA officers

2

1

5

49

81

72

76

53

69

97

91

15

8

12

12

9

21

13

43

19

3

1

1

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Food service

Retailers

Wholesalers


Processors

Live transporters

Growers

% mentioning


(b) S/T officers

2

4

6

3

5

43

69

90

92

90

55

65

53

29

4

2

5

33

10

8

6

4

6

38

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Food service

Retailers

Wholesalers


Processors

Live transporters

Growers

% mentioning


Base: All respondents except those who said ‘no agency has responsibility’ for developing standards in Q13 for a particular stage.



6.3.3 Effectiveness of current standards and regulations

There are significant differences between the opinions of LGA and State/Territory officers in relation to the effectiveness of current Australian standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products across the poultry meat supply chain.

LGA officers

• A majority of LGA officers see the current standards and regulations as being effective in minimising the risk of foodborne illness in retail businesses (78% effective, mean score 7.3) and food service businesses such as takeaways (67% effective, mean score 7.1).

VVVVV. Very few LGA officers believe current standards and regulations are ineffective in for retail and food-service businesses (1% and 2% say this respectively).

WWWWW. The balance of LGA officers are ambivalent6 about saying whether current standards and regulations are effective or not (retail: 20%; food-service businesses: 30%).

• Most LGA officers do not currently work with the other areas of the poultry meat supply chain, and are unsure of the effectiveness in these areas.

6 i.e. providing a score between 5 and 6 out of ten when asked, “On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘not at all effective’ and 10 means ‘very effective’, how effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat product?



Figure 59: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…?

LGA officers

138

16 12 1217

7867

8692

78 80 7670

1 0

7.3 7.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


In processingplants

In de-boningplants



In retailbusinesses


takeaways

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Effe

ctiv

enes

s m

ean

scor

e

Effective (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All LGA officer respondents (n=72 (weighted)). Base for mean scores exclude those who said ‘don’t know’. Mean scores not reported for base sizes under 30.


• State/Territory officers see the current standards and regulations as being reasonably effective across the supply chain from processing plants to food service businesses, (mean effectiveness score from 5.8 to 7.6 on a ten point scale).

XXXXX. Few State/Territory officers believe that the current standards and regulations are ineffective of any one stage of the poultry meat supply chain (ranging from 4% for the processing and wholesaling stages to 14% for the growing stage).

• However, in contrast to LGA officers, the mean effectiveness score for retail and food service businesses is significantly lower for State/Territory officers (6.9 and 5.8 respectively compared to 7.3 and 7.1 respectively for LGA officers).

• As is the case for LGA officers, State/Territory officers are unsure of the effectiveness of current standards at the primary production stage (69% say ‘don’t know’).

• State/Territory officers who spend 50% or more of their time dealing with food safety issues are significantly more likely to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of current standards as compared to other officers.



Figure 60: Q11. How effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products…?


10 10

57 59

7165

51

22

69 69

20 2212 14

25

41

7.3 7.47.6 7.5

6.9

5.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


In processingplants

In de-boningplants



In retailbusinesses


takeaways

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Effe

ctiv

enes

s m

ean

scor

e

Effective (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All State/Territory officer respondents (n=49). Base for mean scores exclude those who said ‘don’t know’. Mean scores not reported for base sizes under 30.



6.3.4 Gaps in current standards and regulations

Almost all officers are able to identify some gaps in current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products (15% of LGA officers say there are no gaps or they don’t know of any gaps, while 27% of State/Territory officers say there are no gaps or they don’t know of any gaps in current standards) (Figure 61).

LGA officers

• LGA officers are most likely to identify a lack of training of food businesses as a gap in the current standards (41%), followed by the opinion there is not enough policing of the standards (22%).

• LGA officers tend to not identify gaps in the growing or processing stages of the poultry meat supply chain, and this is most likely because of their limited role in enforcing regulations in these sectors of the industry.

• There are no significant differences within LGA officers to suggest that some groups of LGA officers are more or less likely to specify any particular gaps than other groups of LGA officers.


• Reflecting their role in the processing sector of the poultry meat industry, State/Territory officers are most likely to mention gaps in this stage of the poultry meat supply chain.

YYYYY. One-in-five (20%) of State/Territory officers mention gaps in processing regulations compared to no LGA officers mentioning this.

• Following gaps in the processing stage of the industry, State/Territory officers mention a lack of training of food businesses as a gap in the current standards (18%), followed by gaps in growing regulations (14%) and gaps in retail regulations (10%).

• State/Territory officers who spend less than half of their time dealing with food safety issues are very unlikely to nominate gaps in current standards of regulations compared to those other officers who deal with food safety issues on a more regular basis (64% compared to 16%).



Figure 61: Q12. What, if any, are the gaps in the current standards and regulations?

3

12

30

22

1

0

14

4

10

0

41

0

10

16

14

4

6

6

8

8

10

14

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

No gaps in standards

Other gaps

Not enough policing of standards

Gaps in transport of wholesale/retail produce regulations

Gaps in live transport regulations

Businesses not following standards

Standards not specific enough/open to interpretation

Gaps in retail regulations

Gaps in growing regulations

Not enough training/education in application of standards

Gaps in processing regulations

% mentioningLGA officers S/T officers

Includes standards being different between states/territories, problems with overlaps between different enforcement agencies, too many regulatory changes recently and not enough support to small business, each stage of industry takes care of itself and does not take into account whole of industry point-of-view.




6.4 Level of awareness and knowledge of Chapter 3 food safety standards

6.4.1 Frequency of use of Chapter 3

While almost all government enforcement officers indicate they are aware of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Codes or its guide, “Safe Food Australia” (98% of LGA officers and 96% of State/Territory officers), more than a quarter of LGA officers and more than a third of State/Territory officers have not used the Chapter in the past three months (26% and 39% respectively) (Figure 62).

There are no significant differences between officers of particular States and Territories and their frequency of use Chapter 3 amongst both LGA and State/Territory officers.

LGA officers

• Despite almost all LGA officers (99%) being involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector of the poultry meat supply chain, one-quarter (26%) report they haven’t used the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code in the last three months.

• Meanwhile, almost half of LGA officers (42%) report they used Chapter 3 more than 10 times in the last three months.

• LGA officers who spend 50% or more of their work time dealing with food safety issues are more likely than other LGA officers to report using Chapter 3 more than ten times in the last three months (54% compares to 30%).

Chapter 3 of the Food Standards Code deals with food hygiene issues in Australia. Assuch, Chapter 3 is primarily used by government agencies responsible for theenforcement of the three mandatory food safety standards that comprise Chapter 3. Anadditional publication, “Safe Food Australia”, has also been developed by FSANZ for thepurpose of providing assistance to government agencies (and other interested parties) intheir interpretation of Chapter 3.

Due to Chapter 3 being focused on the retail/food business sector, it is expected thatgovernment enforcement officers who enforce food safety standards/regulations in thissector would be experienced with the Chapter or Safe Food Australia.

However, despite almost all LGA officers being involved in enforcing food safetystandards in the retail/food business sector, over one-quarter of officers indicate theyhaven’t used the Chapter in the last three months. When asked about their familiaritywith the Chapter, a quarter of all LGA officers fail to indicate they are familiar.

State/Territory officers are less likely than LGA officers to have used Chapter 3 in the lastthree months. On the surface, this result is not unexpected given that these officers areless likely to work in the retail/food business sector. However, a more detailed analysisshows that close to 40% of State/Territory officers who report spending at least half oftheir work time dealing with food safety issues have not used the Chapter in the last 3months.



• Conversely, LGA officers who spend less than half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are more likely than other LGA officers to report they haven’t used the Chapter in the last three months (41% compared to 12%).


• Just less than two-thirds (63%) of State/Territory officers are involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector of the poultry meat supply chain. A similar proportion (57%) of officers also report using the Chapter in the last three months.

ZZZZZ. While on the surface, these figures would seemingly suggest that State/Territory enforcement officers who should be using Chapter 3 are in fact using the Chapter, this is not correct.

AAAAAA. In fact, only 65% of State/Territory officers who are involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector report using the Chapter in the last three months. The remainder report they have not used the Chapter or “don’t know” if they’ve used the Chapter in the last three months.

BBBBBB. In comparison, 44% of State/Territory officers who are not involved in enforcing the poultry retail/food business sector report using the Chapter in the last three months.



Figure 62: Q17. In the last three months, how many times have you used the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code in your capacity as an enforcement officer of the poultry meat industry? What about “Safe Food Australia”?7

0

0

2

26

9

6

3

11

1

42

0

4

0

39

6

10

6

8

12

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Don't know

Haven't heard of the Chapter 3Food Safety Standards

Haven't used it in the last 3months

Once

Two to three times

Four to five times

Six to seven times

Eight to ten times

More than ten times

% mentioning

S/T officers

LGA officers


6.4.2 Familiarity with Chapter 3

A majority of all officers who are aware of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards report being familiar with the Chapter, or its guide, “Safe Food Australia” (Figure 63).

LGA officers

• Of LGA officers that have heard of Chapter 3, almost three quarters (74%, mean of 7.3) are familiar with the Chapter.

• LGA officers who have not used Chapter 3 in the last three months are significantly less likely to indicate they are familiar with the Chapter as compared to those who have used the Chapter in the last three months (40% compared to 86% respectively).


• Just over half of State/Territory officers are familiar with Chapter 3 (53%, mean of 5.9).

• As is the case with LGA officers, State/Territory officers who have not used Chapter 3 in the last three months are significantly less likely to indicate they are familiar with the

7 Enforcement officers were only specifically asked about “Safe Food Australia” if they indicated they had not used Chapter 3 in the last three months or they had not heard of Chapter 3.



Chapter as compared to those who have used the Chapter in the last three months (21% compared to 73% respectively).

• Similarly, State/Territory officers who spend less than half of their time dealing with food safety issues are less likely than other State/Territory officers to be familiar with the Chapter (27% compared to 61%).

• State/Territory officers who work for food safety dedicated agencies are more likely than other officers to indicate they are familiar with Chapter 3 (72% compared to 50% of health department officers and 27% of agriculture/primary industries department officers).

Figure 63: Q18. How familiar would you say that you are with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards in general or Safe Food Australia, the guide to Chapter 3? (possible ratings range from 1 not familiar – 10 very familiar)

74

53

7.3

5.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LGA officers S/T officers

%

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Fam

iliar

ity m

ean

scor

e

Familiar (7-10) Mean Base: All respondents who have heard of Chapter 3 (LGA officers n=71 (weighted);State/Territory officers n=49). Key: Familiar includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)



6.5 Awareness and attitudes towards proposed Chapter 4 standard

6.5.1 Level of awareness of proposed Chapter 4 standards

Reflecting their increased likelihood to be involved in enforcing standards in the growing and processing stages of the poultry meat industry, State/Territory officers are more likely to have heard of the proposed Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard of the Food Standards Code than LGA officers (53% compared to 37%) (Figure 64).

LGA officers

• Over one-third (37%) of LGA officers say they have heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard.

CCCCCC. This low proportion of officers having heard of the proposed Chapter may be explained by the limited proportion of LGA and State/Territory officers who report being actively involved in the growing and processing stages of the poultry meat industry (6% and 11% respectively).8

8 Due to the small proportion of LGA officers who report being involved in the growing and processing stages of the industry, it is not possible to determine this within a statistically reliable margin of error.

The Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards will from a new chapter ofthe Australian Food Standards Code. The standard for poultry meat will cover theproduction of poultry meat for human consumption for those parts of the poultry meatindustry not already covered by Chapter 3 food safety standards.

When asked of their awareness of the proposed Chapter 4, the majority of State/Territoryofficers and a considerable proportion of LGA officers indicate they have heard of theproposed Chapter.

Over two-thirds of all enforcement officers believe the introduction of the proposedChapter will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat.Reasons given for this belief range from the proposed Chapter providing moreinformation and education for applying the standards, to the Chapter providingconsistency across the industry and across jurisdictions.

Only a small minority of officers believe the proposed Chapter will have no impact on therisk of foodborne illness from poultry meat.

The potential impact on the workloads and the difficulty of work for enforcement officersis not seen as a major concern for officers. State/Territory officers appear more likely tobelieve the proposed Chapter will result in more work for them and will make their jobsharder than LGA officers. However, the proportion believing this is still a minority of allState/Territory officers.



• Curiously, LGA officers who spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are less likely than other LGA officers to have heard of Chapter 4 (18% compared to 59%).


• In contrast to LGA officers, more than half (53%) of State/Territory officers have heard of the proposed Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard.

DDDDDD. This relatively higher proportion of State/Territory officers who have heard of the proposed Chapter may be explained by their increased involvement in the growing and processing stages of the industry. Some 29% of State/Territory officers are involved in the growing stage of the industry and 90% are involved in the processing stage.

EEEEEE. This idea is supported by the following statistics:

FFFFFF. State/Territory officers who are involved in the growers stage are more likely to have heard of Chapter 4 than those not involved in the sector (64% compared to 49%); and

GGGGGG. State/Territory officers who are involved in the processing stage are more likely to have heard of Chapter 4 than those not involved in the sector (57% compared to 20%).

• As is the case for LGA officers, State/Territory officers who spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are more likely than other officers to have heard of Chapter 4 (63% compared to 18%).

• State/Territory officers who work for food safety dedicated agencies are more likely than officers who work for State/Territory health, agriculture or primary industries departments to indicate they have heard of Chapter 4 (67% compared to 45% of health department and agriculture/primary industries department officers).



Figure 64: Q23. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standard of the Food Standards Code?

37

53

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LGA officers

S/T officers

% mentioning

S/T officers

LGA officers

Base: All respondents with a valid response (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).

6.5.2 Impact on the risk of foodborne illness from Chapter 4

Overall, two-thirds of both LGA and State/Territory officers believe the introduction of the proposed Chapter 4 Primary and Production Processing Standards will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat (68% and 65% respectively) (Figure 65).

A large proportion (39%) of LGA officers who believe Chapter 4 will have a positive impact believe this because it will provide more information and/or better education for applying standards for enforcement officers (Figure 66). Specifically, LGA officers said Chapter 4 will have a positive impact because:

… it will be more regulated, it should be more easily understood.

… we will be able to give more information out to the people who need it and should be using it. Hopefully, it will make enforcing easier.

… it will make for more understanding rather than having to make adaptations as we do at present.

State/Territory officers meanwhile believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will have a positive impact because it will allow for an overall approach to food safety to be introduced and, therefore, improve consistency across the industry and across jurisdictions (mentioned by 31%) (Figure 66). Specifically, State/Territory officers said the introduction will be positive because:



… has to be a good thing to cover everything.

… covering every part of the industry in one place has to improve the outcomes..

LGA officers

• A clear majority of LGA officers believe that the proposed Chapter 4 will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat (68%), with 14% believing the Chapter will have no effect.

• Only three percent (3%) of LGA officers believe the proposed Chapter will have a negative impact.

• Fifteen percent (15%) are unable to say what kind of impact the Chapter will have.

• There are no particular indicators to suggest sub-groups of LGA officers are more likely to believe Chapter 4 will have a positive impact.

HHHHHH. For example, LGA officers who spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are equally likely to say the proposed Chapter will have a positive impact as compared to other LGA officers.



LGA officer reasons for no impact

• Of the small proportion of LGA officers who indicate Chapter 4 will have a no impact(n=9 or 14% of all LGA officers), the reasons nominated by these offices include:

…because chicken is cooked at temperatures over 60 degrees and that kills bacteria, I can’t really see that it will have any impact at all.

…don’t really believe that raw meat is a hugely high risk – if dealing only with raw meat, then there is no real problem.

…food poisoning often occurs because of the way it is stored at retail level, not at the farms or processing plants. There seems to be more risk in handling and storage and that is covered already.

LGA officer reasons for negative impact

• Only one LGA officer surveyed indicated that Chapter 4 would have a negativeimpact. The officer offered said this was because:

…I think food poisoning is mainly linked to the point of sale and to the consumers’ home.

LGA officer reasons for positive impact

Previously, the LGA officers reported that the greatest gaps in the current standards weretraining for applying the standards and policing of the standards. It appears that theseare the issues they see the Chapter 4 standards as improving, with more information andeducation for applying the standards (39%), improved consistency from the overallapproach (19%) and the allowance for tighter controls (15%) mentioned by those whobelieve the Chapter will have a positive impact.




• Two-thirds (65%) of State/Territory officers believe that the introduction of Chapter 4 will have a positive impact, with no officers believing the introduction will have a negative impact.

• Fourteen percent (14%) State/Territory officers are unable to say what kind of impact the Chapter will have.

IIIIII. Interesting, officers who spend less than half of their work time dealing with food safety issues are more likely to believe the introduction of the proposed Chapter will have a positive impact than other officers (82% compared to 61%).

JJJJJJ. Officers from State/Territory health departments are most likely to believe the proposed Chapter will have a positive impact (75%), compared to officers from food safety dedicated agencies (61%) and agriculture or primary industries departments (55%).

State/Territory officer reasons for positive impact

• State/Territory officers who believe the Chapter will have a positive impact are mostlikely to believe this because the Chapter will provide an overall approach to foodsafety and, therefore, improve consistency across the industry and acrossjurisdictions (mentioned by 31%).

• Other reasons mentioned by officers who believe the impact will be positive include:

A. cover over current gaps in standards (13%);

B. will provide more information and/or better education for applying standards(13%); and

C. specific standards for primary production is an improvement over the statusquo (9%).



Figure 65: Q25: Do you think the introduction of the Chapter 4 primary production and processing standards will have a positive impact, a negative impact or no impact at all on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat?

65

1468

20

3 15

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LGA officers

S/T officers

% mentioning

Positive impact No impact Negative impact Don't know


State/Territory officer reasons for no impact

• Of the small proportion of State/Territory officers who indicate Chapter 4 will have ano impact (n=10 or 20% of all State/Territory officers), the reasons nominated bythese offices include:

…in Victoria, the standards are already in place and tight at the end stages [of the poultry meat supply chain] so that there are minimal problems. I don’t think that putting further standards on the growers will make a great deal of difference.

…most of it occurs post processing, [with] minimal contamination until the retail/take-away and consumer stages.

…can’t change primary producers any more as they are already complying.

…depends on who it is targeted at. If it is just transferring information over that is already there, then it will be of no help. It depends on how companies implement things and if they are willing to worry about food safety instead of just profits.



Figure 66: Q27: Why do you think it will have a positive impact?

29

15

1

6

39

11

19

25

3

6

9

13

13

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Will allow tighter controls

Will reduce risks at the primaryproduction stage

Specific standards for primaryproduction is an improvement

Will provide moreinformation/better education for

applying standands

Will cover current gaps in thestandards

An overall approach will improveconsistency

S/T officers

LGA officers% mentioning

Base: All respondents who thought the introduction would have a positive effect (LGA officers unweighted n=50, State/Territory officers n=32).

6.5.3 Impact on workload and work conditions for Enforcement Officers from Chapter 4

LGA officers

Overall, the majority of LGA enforcement officers do not believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will result in more work for them (Figure 67).

• One-in-five (16%) LGA officers believe that the introduction of Chapter 4 will mean more work for them, with the vast majority (66%) believing the proposed Chapter will mean the same workload.

• Eighteen percent (18%) of LGA officers are unsure of the impact.

Reflecting the opinion amongst LGA officers that the introduction of Chapter 4 will not result in an increase in their workload, relatively few LGA officers believe the proposed Chapter will result in their job becoming harder (Figure 68).

• One-in-five LGA officers (18%) believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will make their job easier, with the majority (53%) believing it will make no difference to whether their job is easy or hard.

• Meanwhile, one-in-ten LGA officers (8%) believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will make their job harder and one-in-five (20%) are not sure of the implications of the new Chapter for their job.



• LGA officers who believe Chapter 4 will mean more work for them are significantly more likely to believe the Chapter will also mean their job will become harder.


Overall, a minority of State/Territory enforcement officers believe the introduction of Chapter 4 will result in more work for them (Figure 67).

• A minority (37%) of State/Territory officers believe the introduction of the proposed Chapter 4 will mean more work for them, while slightly less than half (43%) believe it will mean no change in workloads.

This higher proportion of State/Territory officers believing the proposed Chapter will mean more work form them compared to LGA officers is not unusual given Chapter 4 directly relates to the parts of the poultry meat industry that State/Territory officers are more likely to work in (i.e. the growing and processing sectors).

• As is the case for LGA officers, 18% of State/Territory officers are unsure of the impact of Chapter 4 on their workloads.

• Very few (2% or n=1) State/Territory officers believe the proposed Chapter will mean less work for them.

State/Territory officer opinions on whether the proposed Chapter 4 will make their jobs easier, harder or no difference are not unlike the opinions of LGA officers. That is, a minority believe it will make their job harder (Figure 68).

• One-in-five State/Territory officers believe Chapter 4 will make their job easier, while almost half (45%) believe it will make no difference.

• Sixteen percent (16%) of State/Territory officers believe their jobs will become harder when Chapter 4 is introduced, while 18% are unsure of the implications of the new Chapter in relation to the difficulty of their jobs.



Figure 67: Q29: Will the introduction of Chapter 4 mean less, the same or more work for you?

2

66

43

16

37 18

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LGA officers

S/T officers

% mentioning

Less work The same More work Don't know Base: All respondents with a valid response (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49). Figure 68: Q30: Will it make your job easier, harder or make no difference?

20

53

45

818

16 18

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LGA officers

S/T officers

% mentioning

Easier No difference Harder Don't know




6.6 Sources of information and staff training

A majority of State/Territory officers and close to a majority of LGA officers indicateFSANZ as a source of information on food safety from them in relation to the poultrymeat industry.

Ten percent or more of State/Territory officers also indicate the Internet, colleagues andsupervisors at work and State/Territory health departments and agencies as othersources of information. In comparison, LGA officers favour State/Territory healthdepartments and agencies, the New South Wales Food Authority and supervisors at workas their sources of information.

Very few officers report not being able to find information about food safety.

The qualifications held by officers tend to differ according to whether officers are LGAofficers or State/Territory officers. LGA officers overwhelming tend to hold anenvironmental health degree, while the qualifications State/Territory officers hold aremore diverse. State/Territory officers are more inclined to report having HACCP, internalauditor, AQF accredited food safety training, or a Meat Inspection Certificate. Tertiaryqualifications held by State/Territory officers include environmental health and foodtechnology degrees.



6.6.1 Sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations

FSANZ is the most commonly mentioned source when both LGA and State/Territory enforcement officers are asked where they get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry (48% and 53% respectively).

LGA officers

• Following FSANZ, the next most commonly mentioned sources of information for LGA officers are:

KKKKKK. other State/Territory health departments and agencies (31%);

LLLLLL. NSW Food Authority (16%); and

MMMMMM. supervisor at work (10%).

• Fourteen percent (14%) of LGA officers say they don’t get any information on food safety in the poultry meat industry.

NNNNNN. Almost all (94%) of these officers who say they do not get any information on food safety are officers who spend less than half of their work time dealing with food safety. That is, officers not dealing predominantly with food safety issues are unlikely to get information on the poultry meat industry.

Information needs for LGA officers

• Only a very small proportion (1%) of LGA officers indicates they have not been ableto get access to information they need. When asked about this, officers say:

…information from the industry on things like the timing of transportation to wholesalers in order to reassure consumers that poultry is fresh.

…sometimes it is a bit grey as to who handles what area and we can’t find this out clearly.

…need to know for some premises whether it is Primesafe or local government who needs to make inspections. This varies in all states and clear lines are needed.




• Following FSANZ, State/Territory officers nominate a variety of sources of information in relation to the poultry meat industry, including:

OOOOOO. the Internet (20%);

PPPPPP. colleague at work (16%);

QQQQQQ. other State/Territory health departments and agencies (12%); and

RRRRRR. supervisor at work (10%).

• When looking at the differences between State/Territory officers who spend at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues compared to officers who spend less time with food safety, it is interesting to note:

SSSSSS. officers who spend a minority of their time dealing with food safety issues are more likely to mention other State/Territory health departments and agencies as a source of information than other officers (27% compared to 8%).

• Only a very small proportion (4% or n=2) State/Territory officers say they don’t receive any information in relation to the poultry meat industry.

TTTTTT. Unusually, however, this small proportion of officers spends at least half of their work time dealing with food safety issues.

Information needs for State/Territory officers

• Twelve percent (12%) of State/Territory officers say they have not been able to getaccess to information they need. These needs include:

…more information on Chapter 4.

…things in relation to hurdles used in poultry processing, like chlorination, contact time, strength of chlorination and information regarding validation

…information on a benchmark study on the microbial quality of poultry meat and the process monitoring of poultry abattoirs with respect to pathogens.

…information on microbiological problems with poultry.

…microbial quality at poultry growers level.



Figure 69: Q31: Where do you get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry?

14

7

0

3

0

3

8

16

8

10

31

0

1

48

4

18

0

0

2

2

2

2

6

10

12

16

20

53

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't get any information

Other

Meat Food Safety Surveillance Network


Meat Standards Committee

Other State or Territory agricultural agencies

Primesafe (VIC)

NSW Food Authority

SafeFood Queensland

Supervisor at work

Other State or Territory health agencies

Colleague at work

Internet

FSANZ

% mentioning

S/T officers

LGA officers


6.6.2 Current staff training levels

Over eighty percent of both LGA and State/Territory officers hold qualifications that relate to food safety9 (LGA officers: 89%; State/Territory officers: 84%). While holding an environmental health degree is clearly favoured by LGA officers, the qualifications held by State/Territory officers tends to more diverse – reflecting the various responsibilities these officers hold in comparison to LGA officers whose work is concentrated in the poultry retail sector.

LGA officers

• Environmental health degrees are held by a vast majority of LGA officers (83%).

• The next most common qualifications to hold for LGA officers are:

UUUUUU. internal auditor training (22%);

VVVVVV. HACCP training (16%); and

WWWWWW. AQF accredited food safety training (15%).

• Over half (55%) of all LGA officers say they have received some other type of training on food safety issues that is applicable to the poultry meat industry either at work or elsewhere.

9 Food safety related qualifications include Environmental Health Degrees, Food Technology Degrees, Microbiology Degrees, AQF accredited Food Safety Training or a Meat Inspection Certificate.




• The most commonly held qualification to be held by State/Territory officers is HACCP training (held by 47%), closely followed by internal auditor training (41%).

• Tertiary qualifications held by State/Territory officers include:

XXXXXX. environmental health degree (35%);

YYYYYY. food technology degree (18%); and

ZZZZZZ. microbiology degree (6%).

• Other qualifications held by ten percent or more State/Territory officers are:

AAAAAAA. AQF accredited food safety training (31%);

BBBBBBB. meat inspection certification (31%); and

CCCCCCC. quality assurance auditor qualification (10%).

• Forty-one percent (41%) of State/Territory officers say they have received some other type of training on food safety issues that is applicable to the poultry meat industry either at work or elsewhere.

Figure 70: Q34: What qualification relating to food safety do you have?

12

0

0

7

1

1

15

83

22

16

18

2

6

10

18

31

31

35

41

47

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Agricultural degree (tertiary)

Microbiology degree (tertiary)

Quality assurance auditorqualification

Food technology degree(tertiary)

Meat Inspection Certificate

AQF accredited Food SafetyTraining

Environmental Health Degree(tertiary)

Internal auditor training

HACCP training

% mentioningS/T officers

LGA officers Base: All respondents with a valid response (LGA officers n=72 (weighted); State/Territory officers n=49).



7 CONSUMER FINDINGS

The major objective of Australian food safety standards is to protect public health and safety by reducing the risk of food borne illness and contamination in the food chain. An important part of the poultry meat food chain are those who purchase, prepare and consume poultry meat – the consumers.

The consumer audience for this research consists of adults (over 18 years of age) across Australia who had ever bought or cooked poultry meat for themselves or others. The aim of the quantitative research with this group is to assess the current level of awareness and knowledge of safe food handling practices, in general and for poultry meat in particular, as well as to determine sources of information on safe food handling and the usefulness of this information.

The total sample is weighted to match the demographic profile of the Australian capital city/non-capital city population.

After weighting, the overall the sample has the following demographic characteristics: • Two-thirds are women (68%) and one-third are men (32%).

• Almost one-quarter (22%) are aged less than 34 years, 20% are aged 35-44 years, 23% are aged 45-54 years, 18% are aged 55-64 years, and 16% are aged 65 years or older.

• One-third (34%) of the sample are from NSW, 25% are from Victoria, 19% are from Queensland, 10% are from Western Australia, eight percent (8%) are from South Australia, two percent (2%) are from Tasmania and the ACT, and one percent (1%) are from the Northern Territory.

For additional demographic information, including comparisons of the weighted and unweighted sample characteristics, see Appendix D: Additional consumer data.



7.1 Consumer awareness and knowledge of raw poultry meat handling practices

7.1.1 Purchasing and transport of raw poultry meat

Purchasing

Consumers purchase raw poultry meat from the following places:

• Two-thirds (67%) of consumers purchase raw poultry meat made from a major supermarket such as Coles, Woolworths/Safeway.

Consumers from Queensland and Western Australia are significantly more likely to purchase raw poultry meat from a major supermarket (78% of consumers in each state).

• One-fifth (20%) purchase raw poultry meat from a butcher independent from major supermarkets.

• Fewer than five percent (5%) of consumers purchase raw poultry meat from other types of retailers such as local supermarkets, fresh produce market butchers, delicatessens, a farm, or some other retailer such as a wholesaler.

The vast majority of consumers generally demonstrate safe and healthy practices intransporting, handling and storing raw poultry meat, indicating that they generally havehigh levels of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety, particularly when it comesto raw poultry meat. The weakest area is in consumer awareness of safe thawingpractices for frozen poultry meat, with around one-quarter demonstrating potentiallyunsafe thawing practices.

Consumers typically purchase raw poultry meat from major supermarkets, and usuallytransport this meat home in a shopping bag within 20 minutes of purchase. Raw poultryis usually either stored safely (frozen or refrigerated) or cooked immediately.

Consumers generally demonstrate safe and healthy practices in preparing raw poultrymeat for consumption. Most consumers thaw raw poultry meat, if frozen before cooking.And while the majority use safe thawing practices (by refrigerating or in the microwave),around one-quarter use potentially unsafe thawing methods, such as leaving frozenpoultry meat out on a bench-top.

However, almost all consumers wash their hands and other utensils use during cooking.They also typically use separate surfaces to prepare raw poultry meat and other fooditems (e.g. vegetables) for cooking. Of those that do use the same surfaces, almost alluse adequate heat treatment to kill pathogens that may have contaminated other fooditems.

Consumers usually determine when chicken pieces are cooked when the poultry meat isno longer pink, or has turned white. In addition, Consumers usually determine that awhole chicken is cooked by inserting a skewer or fork into the meat, following a setrecipe, or waiting until the juices run clear.



Figure 71: Q8. Where did you get this <POULTRY> from?

1

1

2

4

5

20

67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Someone else's farm

Delicatessen

Fresh produce marketbutcher/deli

All other supermarkets(IGA, Foodland, etc.)

Butcher

Major Supermarket(Coles or Woolworths)

% mentioning


Transport

To measure whether consumers transport raw poultry meat home in a safe10 manner, consumers provided an indication of how long it takes them to transport their raw poultry meat home.

• Overall, the majority of consumers (59%) take less than 10 minutes to transport raw poultry meat from the place of purchase to their home.

Consumers from regional areas are more likely to transport raw poultry meat home within 10 minutes of purchase (72%), while consumers from metropolitan areas are more likely to take slightly longer (31% take 11-20 minutes).

• The average taken by all consumers is 19 minutes.

Men are significantly more likely to take longer to transport their raw poultry meat home (average 25 minutes), than women (average 16 minutes).

• One-in-five (19%) take longer than 20 minutes to transport their raw poultry meat home.

• There are six percent (6%) who take one hour or longer to get their raw poultry meat home, which is potentially unsafe.

Consumers who take one hour or longer to transport their raw poultry home are more likely to be male, live in NSW, and be 35-44 years old.

10 For consumers, ‘safe’ refers to storage or handling practices that are appropriate for home use.



Consumers who take one hour or longer are also more likely to use a cool or thermal bag or an esky to transport the poultry meat.

Figure 72: Q9. How long did it take to get the raw <POULTRY> from <PLACE BOUGHT> to your home?

1 min to 5 mins32%

6 to 10 mins28%

11 to 20 mins21%

21 to 59 mins13%

One hour or more6%


Consumers specified the type of carrier they use to transport their purchased raw poultry meat home.

• Four-in-five consumers (82%) use a shopping bag to transport raw poultry meat home.

Most consumers who transport raw poultry meat home in a shopping bag do so within 20 minutes of purchase (84%).

Men are significantly more likely to use a shopping bag (89%), than women (78%).

English-speaking consumers are also significantly more likely to use a shopping bag (83%), than non-English speaking consumers (65%).

Five percent (5%) of consumers take one hour or longer to transport raw poultry meat home in a shopping bag, which is potentially unsafe.

• Fewer than one-in-ten use a cool/thermal bag (9%) an esky (7%), or some other method such as butcher’s paper or delivery via a refrigerated transport vehicle (2%).

Most consumers who use a cool/thermal bag to transport raw poultry meat home do so within 20 minutes of purchase (72%).

Non-English speaking consumers are significantly more likely to use a cool/thermal bag (22%), than English-speaking consumers (8%).



While the majority of those who use an esky also transport raw poultry meat home within 20 minutes of purchase (57%), these consumers are more likely to take longer, with 15% taking one hour or more.

Consumers from non-capital cities are significantly more likely to use an esky (14%), than consumers from capital cities (4%).

Figure 73: Q10. What did you use to transport the raw <POULTRY> in?

Shopping bag, 82%

Cool/thermal bag, 9%

Eskie, 7%

Other, 2%Don't know, 0%




7.1.2 Food storage, preparation and personal hygiene

Storage

To measure whether consumers use safe storage methods to store raw poultry meat, consumers specified the actions they take once they bring their purchased raw poultry meat home11.

• The vast majority of consumers use safe food storage methods to store raw poultry meat at home.

Half of consumers (50%) store their raw poultry meat in the freezer, close to half (47%) store it in the fridge, and six percent (6%) cook the raw poultry meat immediately.

• Very few (1%) of consumers use potentially unsafe food storage methods, such as leaving raw poultry meat on a bench-top.

Figure 74: Q11. What did you do with the raw <POULTRY> when you got home?

1

1

6

47

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Leave it on the bench or someother cupboard

Use it immediately for cooking

Put it in the fridge

Put it in the freezer

% mentioning


11 Consumers were given the opportunity to provide multiple responses if they indicated that they had split the raw poultry meat up once they brought it home (for example, by freezing some, and cooking the rest).



Food preparation

To examine whether consumers demonstrate safe preparation techniques to prepare raw poultry meat, consumers indicated whether they freeze raw poultry meat prior to cooking and whether or not they thaw the raw meat before cooking it.

• Nine-in-ten consumers (89%) thawed the raw poultry meat prior to cooking.

If they thaw raw poultry meat before cooking it, consumers indicated how they thaw the frozen meat.

• The majority of consumers use safe food handling practices to thaw raw poultry meat.

More than half (56%) thaw the meat in the fridge, and a further quarter (24%) thaw the meat in the microwave.

• However, around a quarter of consumers overall (26%) use potentially unsafe food handling practices to thaw raw meat, such as leaving it outside the fridge (for instance, on a bench-top).

Consumers from South Australia are significantly more likely to demonstrate safe thawing practices, with 82% thawing raw poultry meat in the fridge, and just nine percent (9%) thawing the raw poultry meat outside the fridge.

Figure 75: Q13. Did you thaw the raw <POULTRY> before cooking it?

No11%

Yes89%

Base: All respondents that had frozen the poultry meat in question (n= 125).



Figure 76: Q14. How did you thaw it?

1

24

26

56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Don't know

Used a microwave

Left it outside of the fridge (i.e.bench top)

Left it in the fridge

% mentioning Base: All respondents that had thawed the poultry meat in question (n= 112).

To examine the incidence of cross-contamination practices consumers were asked whether, during meal preparation, they use the same surface to prepare raw poultry meat and vegetables (for either cooking or raw consumption) without cleaning the preparation surface.

• One-in-ten consumers (10%) use the same surface to prepare raw poultry meat as well as vegetables for cooking or consumption - in total, this comprises 35 consumers.

• Around one-quarter of consumers use adequate heat treatment to kill pathogens that may contaminate vegetables prepared on the same surface as raw poultry meat.

Slightly more than one-quarter (27%, or n=9) lightly cook these vegetables in a stir-fry, and 25% (n=8) cook the vegetables in a casserole.

• Very few of these consumers demonstrate unsafe preparation methods, with 13% (n=3) using the same surface to prepare raw poultry meat as well as vegetables that are not going to be cooked (for instance, salad vegetables).



Figure 77: Q15e. When you are preparing the <POULTRY> for eating, did you use the same surface for preparing other food items afterwards, without cleaning in between?

No, 89%

Yes, 10%Don't know, 1%

Base: All respondents that had cooked the poultry meat in question (n= 299).

Figure 78: Q16. Did you use the same surface without cleaning for…?

13

25

27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Salad or vegetables that werenot going to be cooked

Vegetables that were going to bewell cooked for example in a

casserole

Vegetables that were going to belightly cooked for example in a

stir fry

% mentioning Base: All respondents that had cooked the poultry meat in question when surveyed, ie had answered ‘yes’ to question 15e (n= 35).



To further investigate the incidence of cross-contamination practices among consumers, consumers indicated whether they use the same plate or surface to store cooked and uncooked poultry meat.

• Almost all consumers (98%) do not use the same plate or surface to store cooked and uncooked poultry meat.

• Of the few consumers that do use the same surface (2%, or n=5), just over half (n=3) clean this surface before using it again for the cooked poultry meat.

Figure 79: Q18 When you finished cooking the <POULTRY>, did you place the cooked <POULTRY> on the same plate or surface that the raw <POULTRY> is previously on?

No98%

Yes2%


For cooking all types of poultry meat (including a whole bird, different pieces of the bird, and mince) consumers specified the methods they use to determine when raw poultry meat is cooked.

• More than one-quarter of consumers know the meat is cooked when it is no longer pink (30%), while others know the meat is cooked when it looked white (28%).

• Around one-in five also insert a fork or skewer in the meat to check if it is cooked (22%), or follow the time set in a recipe (19%).

• Fewer than one-in-ten know the meat is cooked when the juices run clear (9%), when the cooked meat smells good (6%), when the meat falls off the bone (5%), or when the meat reaches a set temperature (1%).



Figure 80: Q20. How did you know when the <POULTRY> is cooked?

18

0

1

2

5

6

9

19

22

28

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

The indicator on the bird

Used a thermometer/set temperature reached

Don't know

Meat fell off the bone

Smelt good

Juices ran clear

Set time for cooking/followed recipe

Inserted skewer or fork into meat

Meat looked white

Meat no longer pink

% mentioning

Including when the meat is firm, whether it is brown, based on the cooking time, or from experience.


Consumers specified the methods they use to determine when a whole chicken is cooked.

• One-third of consumers know the meat is cooked by inserting a skewer or fork into the meat (32%), while others follow a set time or recipe to determine when the chicken is cooked (28%).

• Around one-in five also know the whole chicken is cooked when the juices run clear (21%), when the meat is no longer pink (19%), or when the chicken meat looks white (15%).

• Fewer than one-in-ten know the chicken is cooked when the meat falls off the bone (9%), when the meat reaches a set temperature (4%), when the meat smells good (2%) or via a thermal indicator on the bird (1%). Other ways that consumers determine when a whole chicken is cooked include when the meat is firm to the touch, when the outside of the bird is brown and crisp, the cooking time, or based on past experience.



Figure 81: Q22. Thinking about the last time you cooked a whole chicken, how did you decide when it is cooked and ready to eat?

1

3

11

1

2

4

9

15

19

21

28

32

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Don't know

Other

The indicator on the bird

Smelt good

Used a thermometer/set temperature reached

Meat fell off the bone

Meat looked white

Meat no longer pink

Juices ran clear

Set time for cooking/followed recipe

Inserted skewer or fork into meat

% mentioning

Including when the meat is firm, whether it is brown, crispy on the outside, based on the size of the chicken, cooking time, or from experience.

Base: All respondents that indicate they have previously cooked a whole roast chicken (n= 344).

Personal hygiene

Consumers gave an indication of the personal hygiene measures they take when preparing raw poultry meat for consumption. Almost all consumers use safe and healthy personal hygiene practices when dealing with raw poultry meat.

• Almost all consumers wash utensils that they use with raw poultry (96%), wash their hands both before (94%) and after (95%) handling raw poultry, and also dry their hands after washing them (93%).



Figure 82: Q15. When you are preparing the <POULTRY> for eating, did you…?

93

94

95

96

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dry hands after washing them

Wash hands before handlingraw poultry

Wash hands after handling rawpoultry

Wash utensils, such as knives,after using them with raw

poultry

% mentioning Base: All respondents that had cooked the poultry meat in question (n= 299).



7.2 Consumer awareness and knowledge of pre-cooked poultry meat handling practices

7.2.1 Purchasing and transport of pre-cooked poultry meat

Purchasing

Consumers specify the type of pre-cooked poultry meat they purchase.

• The most popular pre-cooked poultry meat that consumers purchase is a whole chicken (49%), roasted for instance.

• Around one-in-ten purchase parts of chicken, at takeaways such as Red Rooster or KFC for instance (10%), or purchase sliced or shaved chicken (8%).

• Fewer than one-in-twenty purchase other types of pre-cooked poultry meat such as a takeaway chicken burger (4%), shaved or sliced turkey (3%), a chicken sandwich, kebab, part of turkey, pre-prepared meal, or whole turkey (1% each).

• Around one-in-six consumers (15%) do not buy pre-cooked poultry meat.

For those who do purchase pre-cooked poultry meat:

• Close to three-quarters purchase the pre-cooked poultry meat hot (72%); and

• Around one-quarter (23%) purchase the pre-cooked poultry meat cold.

The vast majority of Consumers also demonstrate safe and healthy practices intransporting, handling and storing pre-cooked poultry meat, indicating that they havehigh levels of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety, particularly when it comesto pre-cooked poultry meat.

The most popular type of pre-cooked poultry meat purchased by Consumers is a wholechicken (e.g. roast chicken). Most pre-cooked poultry meat is purchased hot, and istransported home in a shopping bag within 10 minutes of purchase. Pre-cooked poultry isusually either eaten immediately or stored safely (refrigerated most often).



Figure 83: Q25. Thinking about the last time you brought pre-cooked poultry meat, what kind of pre-cooked poultry meat did you buy?

15

5

3

0

1

1

1

1

3

4

8

10

49

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Have not bought pre-cooked poultry meat

Don't know

Other

Turkey - whole turkey (i.e. roasted)

Pre-prepared meal eg take-away

Turkey - part of turkey (i.e. roasted wing, leg, cutlets)

Chicken kebab (eg Ali Baba)

Chicken sandwich

Turkey - sliced or shaved

Chicken - burger (i.e. KFC, McDonald's)

Chicken - sliced or shaved

Chicken - part of chicken (i.e. KFC, Red Rooster)

Chicken - whole chicken (i.e. roasted)

% mentioning Base: All respondents (n= 376).

Figure 84: Q26. Is the <POULTRY> purchased hot or cold?

Hot, 72%

Cold, 23%

Don't know, 3%

Refused, 2%

Base: All respondents who have purchased pre-cooked poultry meat (n= 323).



Transport

To measure whether consumers transport pre-cooked poultry meat home in a safe manner, consumers provided an indication of how long it takes them to transport their pre-cooked poultry meat home (if it is taken home).

• Overall, the majority of consumers (69%) take less than 10 minutes to transport pre-cooked poultry meat from the place of purchase to their home.

• The average time taken by all consumers is 14 minutes - this is a shorter average time than the time taken by consumers to transport raw poultry meat home (19 minutes).

• On average, hot pre-cooked poultry meat is transported home faster (average 13 minutes), than cold pre-cooked poultry meat (average 18 minutes).

• Very few consumers (4%) take one hour or longer to transport pre-cooked poultry meat home.

Figure 85: Q30. How long did it take you to get the <POULTRY> from where you bought it to where you stored it?

1 min to 5 mins37%

6 to 10 mins32%

11 to 20 mins14%

21 to 59 mins13%

One hour or more4%

Base: All respondents who take their pre-cooked poultry meat home (n= 304).



Of those who take their pre-cooked poultry meat home, consumers specified the type of carrier they use to transport their purchased raw poultry meat home.

• Three-quarters of consumers (74%) use a shopping bag to transport pre-cooked poultry meat home.

Most consumers who transported pre-cooked poultry meat home in a shopping bag do so within 10 minutes of purchase (69%).

Just three percent (3%) of these consumers take one hour or longer to transport pre-cooked poultry meat home in a shopping bag.

• Fewer than one-in-ten use a cool/thermal bag (8%), and very few use an esky (3%).

Most consumers who use a cool/thermal bag to transport pre-cooked poultry meat do so within 10 minutes of purchase (74%, or n=17).

Those who transport their pre-cooked poultry meat home in an esky are significantly more likely to take longer than consumers who use other methods, with 70% of these (n=7) taking 21 minutes or more.

• Fourteen percent (14%) of consumers use other methods to transport their pre-cooked poultry meat home. Of these, the most common carriers are a foil bag or cardboard box provided by the retailer.

Figure 86: Q31. What did you use to transport the <POULTRY> in?

Shopping bag74%

Cool/thermal bag8%

Other14%

Refused0%

Don't know1%

Eskie3%

Base: All respondents who take their pre-cooked poultry meat home (n= 310).



7.2.2 Storage of pre-cooked poultry meat

To measure whether consumers use safe storage methods to store pre-cooked poultry meat, consumers specified the actions they take once they bring their purchased pre-cooked poultry meat home12.

• Almost all consumers (98%) either eat or store their pre-cooked poultry meat soon after purchase.

Around two-thirds of consumers (62%) eat their pre-cooked poultry meat straight away, either at home or at another location.

A third of consumers (36%) store the pre-cooked poultry meat for later consumption.

To measure whether consumers use safe storage methods to store pre-cooked poultry meat, consumers indicated, if they store the pre-cooked poultry meat for later consumption, where they store this meat.

• Of these consumers, nine-in-ten (90%) use safe storage methods to store pre-cooked poultry meat.

The vast majority store their pre-cooked poultry meat in the fridge (79%).

A further 11% store their pre-cooked poultry meat in the freezer.

• Fewer than one-in-ten (8%) use potentially unsafe storage methods for storing pre-cooked poultry meat, such as leaving it on a bench-top or in a cupboard.

12 Consumers were given the opportunity to provide multiple responses if they indicated that they had split the pre-cooked poultry meat up once they brought it home (for example, by eating some, and refrigerating the rest).



Figure 87: Q28. What did you do with the <POULTRY> after you bought it?

2

2

36

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Refused

Don't know

Take it to your home (orsomewhere else) and store it

for eating later?

Take it to your home (orsomewhere else) to eat straight

away?

% mentioning Base: All respondents who have purchased pre-cooked poultry meat (n= 323).

Figure 88: Q29. Where did you store the <POULTRY>?

In the fridge, 79%

In the freezer, 11%

On the bench or in cupboard, 8%

Refused, 1%Other, 3%

Base: All respondents who did not eat all the pre-cooked poultry meat straight away (n= 121).



7.3 Consumer attitudes towards food safety for poultry meat

Consumers are highly aware of safe practices they should use to handle raw poultry meat, and have a conservative attitude towards these issues from a food safety standpoint.

• Overall, almost all consumers are aware of safe practices they should use to handle raw poultry meat.

Almost all consumers agree that it is not okay to use the same chopping board for preparing raw poultry and salad ingredients (99%), nor to store cooked poultry meat and raw poultry meat on the same plate without washing it between use (98%), and that it is vital to wash your hands after handling raw poultry meat. This is in agreement with current thinking on food safety.

Nine-in-ten (90%) also feel that it is not okay to use the same surface for preparing raw poultry and vegetables that will be cooked well, without washing the surface between use. This, however, is an acceptable practice from a food safety point of view. The misunderstanding from the consumer standpoint is also still acceptable, and may reflect a conservative, but desirable, attitude towards food safety regarding raw poultry meat.

On the whole, Consumers are highly aware of safe practices they should use to handleraw poultry meat, and have a conservative attitude towards these issues from a foodsafety standpoint.

Almost all Consumers are aware of correct procedures to use in the kitchen to avoidcross-contamination of raw poultry meat and other food items, and are aware ofnecessary personal hygiene measures. In addition, Consumers demonstrate a veryconservative view when it comes to these issues, and are even careful to not use thesame chopping board for preparing raw poultry meat and other vegetables that will becooked well - even though this is technically an acceptable practice.

Most Consumers agree that they have an important personal role in preventing foodpoisoning, and are not concerned about contracting food poisoning from food preparedby themselves. They are, however, more concerned about food that they have lesscontrol over preparing, particularly food from takeaways or restaurants, and to someextent food prepared by friends.

Consumers are generally more careful with the preparation of raw poultry meat than withraw red meat.



Figure 89: Q32. I would like to read a series of statements to you, and I would like you to tell me whether you think they are true or false. If you don’t know, please say so.

95

9

2

1

5

90

98

99

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

It is vital to wash your handsafter handling uncooked poultry

meat


raw poultry and vegetables thatyou are going to cook well

It is okay to put cooked poultrymeat back on the same plateyou had the uncooked poultrymeat on without washing it


raw poultry and saladingredients

% mentioning

True False Don’t know


Consumers are also aware and concerned when it comes to food poisoning, particularly in terms of poultry meat.

• When presented with the statement “How I prepare food in my kitchen is very important to prevent food poisoning” the vast majority of consumers agree.

More than nine-in-ten (92%) agree that how they prepare food in their own home is very important to preventing food poisoning, with 79% of these consumers ‘strongly’ agreeing with this statement.

Women are significantly more likely to agree with this statement (average agreement score 9.3) than men (average 8.6).

• When presented with the statements “I am concerned about food poisoning from food that I prepare/my friends prepare/I buy from take-away outlets or restaurants”, most consumers are not concerned about contracting food poisoning from food prepared by themselves. They are, however, more concerned about food that they had less control over preparing, particularly food from takeaways or restaurants, and to some extent food prepared by friends.

Overall, consumers are least concerned about contracting food poisoning from food prepared by themselves, with close to two-thirds (64%) disagreeing with this statement. Nearly one-third, however, are concerned about this (30%).

Consumers are slightly more concerned about food prepared by friends. Fewer consumers disagree with this statement (47%), and more consumers are ambivalent, with one-in-five (21%) indicating they ‘neither agree nor disagree’.



The majority are most concerned about food prepared by takeaways or restaurants, with more than half (60%) agreeing with this statement.

Women are significantly more concerned (average agreement score 7.3) than men (average 6.3).

Consumers with children are significantly more concerned (average 7.2) than those living in other types of households (average 5.4).

Consumers in capital cities are also significantly more concerned (average 7.1), than those in non-capital cities (average 6.8).

Younger consumers aged 18-24 years are significantly less concerned (average 4.9) than older consumers (average 6.7 or more for all other age groups).

• Consumers are more careful with the preparation of raw poultry meat than with raw red meat.

Close to two-thirds of consumers (62%) disagree with this statement. However, nearly a quarter are ambivalent, with 23% indicating they ‘neither agree nor disagree’.

Consumers aged 18-24 years are also significantly more likely to disagree (average 2.7) than consumers aged 55-64 years.

Figure 90: Q33. I would like to read another series of statements to you. This time I would like you to use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree and tell me how much you agree or disagree with the statements.

20

18

37

79

5

10

22

13

23

19

3

8

1

56

33

11

5

1

1

31

9

14 20

7

8

13

8

54

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I am more careful with thepreparation of raw red meat

than I am with raw poultry meat

I am concerned about foodpoisoning from the food that I

prepare myself

I am concerned about foodpoisoning from food that my

friends prepare

I am concerned about foodpoisoning from food I buy fromtake-away outlets or restaurants

How I prepare food in mykitchen is very important to

prevent food poisoning

% mentioning





7.4 Information sources on safe food handling for consumers

Overall, only a minority of consumers currently obtain information on safe food handling, particularly for poultry meat. However, once they are prompted, or made aware of specific options, the proportion of those who say they will consider looking for information on these issues increases significantly.

• Around one-quarter or fewer consumers said that they currently obtain information on safe food handling practices, particularly for poultry meat.

Of those who do obtain information on safe food handling practices, one-quarter (26%) obtain this information from their family or friends, 22% obtain this information from television, and 16% find it in magazines or cook books.

Close to one-in-five consumers (17%) say they look to other sources of information, the most popular being their own experience or ‘common sense’.

Nearly one-in-six (14%) do not get any information on safe food handling practices, particularly for poultry meat.

• However, when prompted with options for information sources, up to 69% of consumers say that they will consider looking for information on safe food handling practices from these places.

More than two-thirds of consumers will consider looking for information in magazines or cook books (69%) or on television (67%). A further 53% said they will look for information from their butcher or retailer.

Around one-third of consumers said they will look to a Government Health Department (36%), the Food Safety Information Council (32%) or the Internet (30%).

Overall, only a minority of respondents currently obtain information on safe foodhandling, particularly for poultry meat. However, once they are prompted, or made awareof specific options, the proportion of those who said they would consider looking forinformation on these issues increased significantly.

Of these, the most popular information sources are magazines or cook books, television,or the local butcher or retailer.




1

1

1

2

2

5

15

16

22

26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Food Standards Australia NewZealand

Poultry companiese.g. Inghams, Bartter


Internet

Butcher/retailer


Training coursee.g. for work or school

Television

Family/friends

% mentioning Base: All respondents (n= 400).


2

1

2

5

22

15

30

32

36

53

67

69

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Internet



Butcher/retailer

Television


% mentioning

Prompted & unprompted

Unprompted




8 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL NOTES

8.1 Definitions

The research was split into three key stages:

1. scoping meeting with stakeholders;

2. questionnaire development and testing stage; and

3. a comprehensive quantitative study.

This scoping meeting involved a discussion of:

• the aims and objectives of the project;

• background to the topic; and

• methodology for the study.

During this scoping phase, key issues regarding the study were addressed and agreement about many aspects of the survey design and implementation was obtained. The scoping phase was invaluable to ensure that the survey collected information in a way that maximised its usefulness to FSANZ.

Following the scoping phase, CBSR developed three questionnaires for consideration of FSANZ:

• a consumer questionnaire;

• an enforcement officer questionnaire; and

• an industry questionnaire.

All three questionnaires were discussed in detail through a consultation workshop with key project stakeholders. This workshop was supplemented by further consultation with stakeholders who could not attend the workshop. This consultation phase allowed CBSR to understand the dynamics, attitudes and behaviours of the targets groups, so that the three questionnaires could be further developed.

Following this consultation phase, all three questionnaires were extensively tested using:

• expert review;

• skirmish testing; and

• a dress rehearsal.

Expert review is the process by which other expert researchers within CBSR are consulted regarding the questionnaire design. Expert review enables the project team to draw on the wider expertise of our research organisation. All the questionnaires underwent expert review by CBSR’s Quantitative Research Best Practice Manager.

Skirmish testing is the technique whereby the questionnaire is ‘tested out’ on someone within the office or otherwise easily accessible, to check for any major issues before more formal testing commences. Three skirmish tests were completed for the Consumer questionnaire – two with the general public and one with another CBSR employee. Two skirmish tests were completed for the Enforcement Officer questionnaire – one with a local government enforcement officer and one with a state government food safety agency. Three



skirmish tests were completed for the Industry questionnaire – two with poultry growers and one with a poultry processor.

Dress rehearsal is the process by which the survey is tested with ‘live’ respondents with the same mode as for the actual survey. In a dress rehearsal we would expect that that all elements of the survey are being tested in essentially the form that they would have for the live run. As such, only minor changes can be implemented after a dress rehearsal and the data collected can usually be included in the final data file.

Dress rehearsals are complementary to other forms of testing because they provide information not otherwise captured on:

• likely response rates; • estimated average interview time; or • issues with flow of the questionnaire.

Dress rehearsals were conducted for each questionnaire in our Melbourne field office, which also conducted the actual fieldwork for questionnaires. The Dress Rehearsal for the Consumer questionnaire was conducted on 15 October 2004. The Dress Rehearsal for the Enforcement Officer questionnaire was conducted on 27 October 2004. The Dress Rehearsal for the Industry questionnaire was conducted on 5-8 November 2004. Following each Dress Rehearsal, modifications were made to the questionnaires.

A Questionnaire Testing Report was provided to FSANZ on 22 November 2004 that documented all the outcomes from this testing stage.



9 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL INDUSTRY DATA

Table 2: Q8. Firstly, what is your role within the business?

% mentioning

Position within business

Grower (n=157)

Processor (n=141)

Wholesaler/ Retailer (n=181)

Owner/Partner 81 19 48

Chief Executive/General Manager 7 11 26

Senior Executive 3 3 2

Quality Assurance Manager/Officer 2 65 5

HACCP Manager/Officer 0 0 2

Safety Manager/Officer 0 0 1

Supervisor 7 1 15

Other (specify) 1 1 2

Don't know 0 0 0

Refused 0 0 0

TOTAL 100 100 100

Table 3: Q9. Which of the following activities is your business involved in? Is it involved in…?

% mentioning

Stage of the poultry meat supply chain involved in

Grower (n=157)

Processor (n=141)

Wholesaler/ Retailer (n=181)

Poultry growing 99 23 1

Transportation of live birds 7 23 0

Poultry processing (other than de-boning and value-adding) 6 69 2

Poultry de-boning 5 81 1

Poultry value-adding 3 66 5

Transportation of processed poultry meat 4 65 16

Poultry wholesaling 3 47 36

Poultry retailing excluding take-away 2 20 14

Take-away outlets that sell poultry meat products 0 2 61



Table 4: Q10. How many birds do you currently have on your farm at this location?

Growers only

Number of birds

% mentioning

(n=157)

Less than 10,000 13

10,000 - 49,999 25

50,000 - 99,999 28

100,000 - 149,999 16

150,000 - 199,999 8

200,000 - 999,999 8

1,000,000 and above 1

Don't know 1

TOTAL 100

Table 5: Q11. How many birds do you process per hour at this location?

Processors only

Number of birds

% mentioning

(n=141)

Less than 250 41

250 - 999 16

1000 - 4999 16

5000 - 9999 15

10,000 or more 1

Don't know 11

TOTAL 100



Table 6: Q13. How many kilograms of poultry meat would you sell each day at this location?

Wholesalers/retailers only

kg of poultry meat

% mentioning

(n=141)

Less than 100 kg 56

100 - 999 kg 22

1000 kg and above 5

Don't know 18

TOTAL 100

Table 7: Q14, Q15 & Q16. Equivalent full-time staff

% mentioning

Equivalent full-time staff Growers (n=157)

Processors (n=141)

Wholesalers/ retailers (n=181)

Less than 20 employees 96 60 80

20-199 employees 3 25 15

200 employees and above 1 11 2

Don't know 0 4 3

TOTAL 100 100 100



Table 8: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from your birds?

Growers:

Mentioned %

(n=157) Practices used to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products Unprompted Prompted Total13

Sheds are cleaned out between batches 34 63 97

Foot baths are in place 31 62 93

A clean water supply is maintained for birds 22 76 98

Dead birds are disposed of in a biosecure manner 17 79 96

Workers wear protective clothing or uniforms 16 64 80

Your shed area is completely fenced 11 74 85

Maintaining a healthy environment for birds 11 - 11

Rodent controls are in place 10 89 99

Bird health is checked regularly 10 80 90

Employees regularly wash their hands 10 80 90

Insect controls are in place 9 73 82

Wild species are kept off the farm 9 80 89

All gates on the farm are lockable 9 - 9

Feed spillages are cleaned up immediately 8 89 97

Sheds are left for 7-10 days between batches 8 81 89

A HACCP Plan/System is followed 8 40 48

No other species are kept on the farm 8 65 73

Bio-security measures put in place 8 - 8

Restricted access to areas 7 - 7

Your farm has signs posted to keep visitors away from the poultry sheds 6 77 83

General hygiene/cleanliness 6 - 6

Cleaning truck exterior 5 - 5

Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run 4 6 10

Using dry litter on the ground 4 - 4

Audits are conducted regularly 3 82 85

Quarantining of farm/stock areas 3 - 3

13 Total number of prompted and unprompted responses



Mentioned %


Protecting feed silos 3 - 3

Employees shower at work before starting 3 29 32

Automatic feeders used to prevent spillages 3 - 3

Standard food safety practices adhered to 1 - 1

Bird feed is heat treated 1 40 41

Restrict duties of employees who are ill 1 - 1

Employee health is monitored regularly 1 69 70

Workers are not allowed to have pet birds 1 - 1

Employees regularly change gloves 1 - 1

Provide food safety training to all employees 1 - 1

Temperature controls 1 - 1

Other, specify 3 - 3

Nothing 2 - 2

Don't know 1 - 1



Table 9: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products in poultry processing?

Processors:

Mentioned %



Carcases are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution 28 64 92



Equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day 14 83 97


Carcases are always reduced to 4 degrees or less within 12 hours of slaughter 13 44 57


The level of free chlorine and/or overflow rate in the spin chiller is closely monitored 11 32 43



Eviscerated carcases are washed internally and externally 6 46 52

Environmental microbiological swabbing 6 - 6


Employees regularly change gloves 5 82 87

Regular internal monitoring system in place 5 - 5



Birds are slaughtered between 8 and 12 hours after their last feed 3 42 45

Feathers are completely removed 3 52 55


Bird stress is minimised 2 52 54

Trucks are cleaned between each load 2 - 2





Mentioned %


During evisceration, care is taken to ensure viscera are not damaged when being removed 1 54 55

Restrict duties of employees who are ill 1 - 1

Drop meat policy (not using dropped meat) 1 - 1


Birds are always dead and adequately bled before scalding 1 54 55

Different boards/utensils for raw and cooked meat 1 - 1

Making sure fresh produce is used daily 1 - 1

Separating stock/produce to avoid cross-contamination 1 - 1

Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run 0 21 21



Nothing 0 - 0

Don't know 2 2



Table 10: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products?

Wholesalers/retailers:

Mentioned %


Carcases are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution 32 - 32




Equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day 14 49 63

Raw poultry meat products are always stored separately from cooked products 12 49 61


Dating/rotating products 8 - 8

Making sure fresh produce is used daily 8 - 8


Different gloves are worn when handling raw poultry meat compared to handling cooked poultry meat 7 47 54

Procedures are in place to avoid cross contamination 7 54 61


Freshly cooked food is not mixed with older batches 5 56 61

Only packed meat is used 5 - 5



Different boards/utensils for raw and cooked meat 4 - 4

Separating stock/produce to avoid cross-contamination 4 - 4

Employees regularly change gloves 3 65 68

Making sure chicken is cooked 3 - 3


Regular internal monitoring system in place 2 - 2


Trucks are cleaned between each load 1 19 20





Mentioned %


Environmental microbiological swabbing 1 - 1

Discarding unsold produce at the end of each day 1 - 1

Restrict duties of employees who are ill 1 60 61

Drop meat policy (not using dropped meat) 1 - 1





Nothing 0 - 0

Don't know 2 - 2



10 APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DATA

Table 11: Q15. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry?

% Mentioned

Type Legislation, standard, code of practice name LGA

(n=72)

State\ Territory

(n=28)

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (no further information supplied) 73 39

Chapter 1 of the Food Standards Code 0 4



C’wealth

Safe Food Australia 3 0

Food Act (2001) 0 4

Animal Diseases Act (1993) 0 0

Animal Welfare Act (1992) 0 0

ACT

Stock Act (1991) 0 0

Food Act / Regulations 13 6

Food Production (Meat Food Safety Scheme) Regulation (2000) 2 2

Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (NSW) Act / Regulations 0 0

Pesticides Act / Regulations 0 0

NSW

Stock Foods Act / Regulations 0 0

Food Act (2004) 0 12

Meat Industries Act / Regulations 0 2

Stock Diseases Act / Regulations 0 0

Animal Welfare Act 0 0

NT

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (NT) Act 0 0

Food Production (Safety) Act / Regulations 8 16

Food Act (1981) 1 0

Food Hygiene Regulation (1989) 5 0

Stock Act / Regulations 0 0

Animal Care and Protection Act (2001) 0 0

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act (1994) 0 0

Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act / Regs 0 0

QLD

Animal Standards Act (1994) 0 0



% Mentioned


(n=72)

State\ Territory

(n=28)

Agricultural Standards Regulation (1997) 0 0

Food Act (2001) 8 2

Meat Hygiene Act / Regulations 0 4

Livestock Act / Regulations 0 0

Stock Medicines Act (1939) 0 0

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (SA) Act (1994) 0 0

Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) Act / Regulations 0 0

SA

Controlled Substances (Pesticides) Regs (2003) 0 0

Food Act (2003) 7 2

Meat Hygiene Act / Regulations 0 6

Animal Health Act / Regulations 0 0

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (TAS) Act (1994) 0 0

TAS

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act (1994) 0 0

Health (Meat Hygiene) Regulations (2001) 6 8

Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations (1993) 14 6

Environmental Protection Act 0 0

Animal Welfare Act (2002) 0 0

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (WA) Act/Regs 0 0

WA

Veterinary Preparations & Animal Feed Stuff Act/Regs 0 0

Food Act (1984) 14 2

Victorian Standard for the Hygienic Production of Meat at Retail Premises 0 0

Meat Industry Act / Regulations 0 2

Livestock Disease Control Act (1994) 0 2

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1986) 0 2

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (VIC) Act (1994) 0 0

VIC

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act / Regulations 0 0

Australian Standard – poultry specific (AS 4465-2001) 18 53

Australian Standard – Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002) 0 29

National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming 0 0

Other

A HACCP program for each business 0 4



% Mentioned


(n=72)

State\ Territory

(n=28)

Other 9 8

None 4 4

Don't know 0 0

Don't enforce safety regulations in poultry meat industry 0 2



11 APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL CONSUMER DATA

Table 12: PC_1. State/Territory

Unweighted Weighted

State/Territory n= % n= %

NSW 141 35 135 34

VIC 84 21 99 25

QLD 74 19 76 19

SA 29 7 32 8

WA 47 12 39 10

TAS 16 4 10 2

NT 3 1 4 1

ACT 6 2 7 2

TOTAL 400 100 400 100

Table 13: PC_2. Gender

Unweighted Weighted

Gender n= % n= %

Male 117 29 129 32

Female 283 71 271 68

TOTAL 400 100 400 100

Table 14: PC_3. Which of the following age groups do you fall into?

Unweighted Weighted

Q3:Age n= % n= %

Under 18 years 0 0 0 0

18 - 24 24 6 25 6

25 - 34 61 15 64 16

35 - 44 82 21 81 20

45 - 54 94 24 93 23

55 - 64 72 18 72 18

65 years or older 66 17 64 16

TOTAL 399 100 399 100



Table 15: Q37. Which of the following best describes your household?

Unweighted Weighted

Household type n= % n= %

Without children 176 44 177 45

With children 196 49 191 48

Other 24 6 27 7

Refused 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 396 100 396 100

Table 16: Q39. Are you currently employed in the poultry meat industry?

Unweighted Weighted

Employed in meat industry n= % n= %

No 393 98 391 98

Yes 6 2 7 2

TOTAL 399 100 399 100

Table 17: Q40. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?

Unweighted Weighted

Aboriginal/TSI origin n= % n= %

No 394 99 394 99

Yes, Aboriginal 4 1 4 1

Yes, Torres Strait Islander 1 0 1 0

TOTAL 399 100 399 100



Table 18: Q43. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

Unweighted Weighted

Education level n= % n= %

Year 9 or below 41 11 38 10

Year 10 or equivalent 64 17 60 16



Trade certificate or apprenticeship 47 12 43 11

Diploma 44 11 47 12

Bachelors or Honours degree 60 16 64 17

Post-graduate qualifications (eg, Masters, PhD) 18 5 21 6

TOTAL 385 100 385 100

Table 19: Q44. Which of the following best describe the area where you live?

Unweighted Weighted

Q44. Area lived in n= % n= %

Non-capital city 196 49 144 36

Capital city 204 51 256 64

TOTAL 400 100 400 100



12 APPENDIX E: INDUSTRY SAMPLING PLAN

Target Population

The target population is the Australian poultry meat industry, which has been defined by FSANZ to include:

• chicken growers;

• other poultry growers (including ducks, turkeys, quail, squab or pigeons, geese, pheasants, guinea fowl, partridge, mutton birds and silky);

• poultry meat processors (including slaughter, boning, further processing and value adding);

• retail poultry meat sector (businesses who deal with fresh or frozen poultry meat, poultry meat products but not including small goods); and

• food service businesses who receive raw chicken and non-chicken poultry meat and cook on the premises (for example, fast food outlets, supermarket delicatessens).

Sample size and stratification

The design of the sample will be a significant factor underpinning the success of this project. We understand the key requirements for the sample to be:

• stratification by ‘significance’ where appropriate (e.g. major versus minor ‘players’ in the poultry meat industry)’;

• stratification by sub-sector according to activities/part of the poultry meat supply chain (eg farmers, manufacturers/processors, wholesalers, retailers and vendors);

• obtaining a sample which is statistically representative of the target population; and

• obtaining sufficient completed surveys to allow for precision in estimation of +/-5% at a 95% confidence level, for top level estimates.

Given these constraints, CBSR recommends the following sample design for the poultry meat industry component of the project.



Table 20: Proposed sampling design

Industry Sample or census Suggested n =

Sample of chicken farms (ensuring representation from suppliers to top 10 processors)

n=152 Poultry growing (meat), Game Bird Farming & Poultry hatchery operation (meat breeds) Sample of other farms (ducks, turkeys

and other) n=60

Completely enumerate processing plants from top 11 businesses

n=27

Sample remaining chicken businesses n=93

Poultry meat processors – manufacturing & packing (including frozen)

Sample non-chicken sector n=60

Poultry wholesaling (dressed, frozen or packed; except canned)

Sample n=60

Poultry retailing (including take away food, delicatessens, supermarkets & grocery stores, catering – functions, kosher and organic products)

Sample n=120

TOTAL n=572

Sampling Unit

Given that many businesses in the poultry food industry have operations that span sectors of the industry (from growing to processing) and different locations, we feel it is important to clearly define the sampling unit of this survey.

The sampling unit for this survey will be business operations at a single location.

For example, Mario’s Poultry is listed in the Telstra Yellow Pages as having operations in both processing and retailing. From a sampling perspective we will be considering Mario’s as two sampling units – one in scope of the processing part of the study and another that is in scope of the retailing part of the study.

Similarly, Inghams Enterprises, a multi-site operation with operations that span across growing, processing, wholesaling and retailing, would have multiple opportunities to respond to the questionnaire. Here, each location would be considered a separate sampling unit so that the Inghams poultry farm in Tamworth NSW has the same chance of being selected to respond to the growers’ survey as the Inghams poultry farm in Quirindi NSW.

Our motivation for defining the sampling unit at this level is that we believe it is important to measure knowledge, awareness, attitudes and activities at the level where these may differ, namely the individual locations of the business. We want to ensure that the survey captures what is actually happening, ‘on the factory floor’ so to speak. The alternative would be to survey each business ‘group’ (eg Inghams Enterprises) only once, by talking to a manager at



Head Office, for example. We are concerned that the data yielded from such an approach would not reflect the actual practices related to food safety in the poultry meat industry.

As we plan to completely enumerate the top 11 poultry meat processors, this will involve a survey of all business operations for all individual locations. For example, we understand that, as a top 11 processor, Inghams operates nine processing centres across Australia, and in order to completely enumerate the top 11 poultry meat processors, we would contact all nine of Inghams’ processing centres as well as all the processing centres for the other top 11 processors.

Sample Frame

The sample for the Poultry Meat Industry representatives will be sourced using the Electronic Yellow Pages. The following categories will be included in the sample frame, as agreed with FSANZ:

• Poultry growing, incorporating the Yellow Pages categories of: o Poultry Farmers & Dealers

• Poultry processing, incorporating the Yellow Pages categories of: o Poultry Processing & Supplies o Food Products – Manufacturers and Processors

• Poultry wholesaling, incorporating the all poultry wholesale listings from: o The Retail World Guide

• Poultry retailing, incorporating the yellow pages categories of: o Poultry – Retail o Butchers – Retail o Frozen Foods – Retail o Take Away Food o Delicatessens o Supermarkets and Grocery Stores o Catering – Functions o Kosher Products o Organic Products

The sample frame will be compiled in the following way:

• All organisations that fall within these categories will be compiled into four separate databases

• Each database will then be examined and duplicate entries removed. o Here a duplicate refers to a business that is listed multiple times within a

database using the same address/telephone number. For example: Chicken Treat appears in the Yellow Pages in both the “Catering –

Functions” category and the “Take Away Food” category using the same address.

Both of these Yellow Pages categories fall within the Poultry retailing stratum for the purposes of this survey.

Given that an organisation should appear only once in each stratum using the same address, one of these entries for Chicken Treat would be deleted using this duplication removal protocol.



However, the other Chicken Treat outlets that appear in the Yellow Pages under the “Take Away Food” category would not be removed as they are listed using different addresses and are therefore individual sampling units.

• After duplicates are removed in each database, the list will be supplemented by as many information sources as practical and assistance will be sought from industry representatives for this task, provided no duplication is being created.

• Once these steps above are complete, we will have four sample frames ready for sampling to begin.

Representativeness of the sample frames

Using industry assistance, we believe that the sample frames we collate will be as representative as possible of the target population. That is, for poultry processors and retailers we have no reason to suspect that the frame will not adequately represent the total population or that the units of the frame will be substantially different from the total population.

However, for poultry growers, we are aware that the frame under-represents the number of poultry growers. For this reason, we plan to use a multi-stage sampling strategy (outlined in section 0). This strategy includes asking poultry processors for their suppliers so that we can supplement the sample frame.

In addition, the sample frame for wholesalers is not representative of all poultry wholesalers. Rather, it represents what we believe to be the major poultry wholesalers currently operating in Australia.

Sampling

Once the four sample frames have been prepared, sampling will take place to produce the initial contact list comprising the businesses we will contact to ask for their participation in the study. Sampling for the databases will vary as follows:

Sampling strategy for Poultry Growers

The sampling plan calls for 152 interviews be complete with chicken growers and 60 interviews be complete with non-chicken growers.

As indicated in section 0, because of suspected deficiencies in the sample frame, a two-stage sampling strategy will be used for poultry growers.

Firstly, we will randomly select sufficient units from the sample frame (the contact list) to ensure a final sample of 122 chicken growers and 50 non-chicken growers complete the survey. As the sample frame can not identify if the grower is chicken or non-chicken, we will set a quota of non-chicken growers of 50, and continue the fieldwork process until this is complete. We will keep a record of the incidence of chicken growers compared to non-chicken growers for weighting purposes.

The remaining 30 chicken grower interviews and 10 non-chicken grower interviews will be completed by randomly selecting growers from a list compiled from poultry processors. That is, at the end of each poultry processing interview, processors will be asked to provide the names of all their growers. From this list of growers, 30 chicken and 10 non-chicken grower interviews will be completed. We believe that this is the most efficient method of completing



interviews with both growers listed in the Yellow Pages and those not listed in the Yellow pages given this project’s time and budgetary constraints.

Sampling strategy for Poultry Processors

The proposed sampling design calls for complete enumeration of all the processing plants of the top 11 businesses. We understand these top 11 businesses to be:

Table 21: Top 11 Processors

Company Name Number of Processing Plants in all states and territories

Inghams Enterprises 9

Bartter Enterprises 6

Baiada Poultry P/L 3

Cordina Chicken Farms 2

Golden Cockerel P/L 1

Hazeldene's 1

Red Lea Chickens P/L 1

Pepe's P/L 1

CP & L Quast & Son 1

New England Spec. Poultry 1

Game Farm P/L 1

Total 27

All processing locations for these businesses will be removed from the sample frame and placed onto the Top 11 Poultry Processors Contact List for complete enumeration.

After the processing locations for the top 11 processors have been removed from the sampling frame, we would then randomly select sufficient units from the sample frame (the contact list) to ensure a final sample of 153 poultry processing plants complete the survey, including 93 chicken processing plants and 60 non-chicken processing plants.

We suspect that due to the prevalence of chicken processors in the market, the stratum of 93 chicken processors will fill before the stratum of 60 non-chicken processors. Once the chicken processors stratum is filled, a screening question will be introduced into the questionnaire whereby only non-chicken processors would be interviewed until this stratum is filled. We will keep a record of the incidence of chicken growers compared to non-chicken growers for weighting purposes.

Sampling strategy for Poultry Wholesalers

A small sample of 20 poultry wholesalers will be surveyed for this research project. The Sample Frame has approximately 25 sampling units, which will mean that we will attempt to completely enumerate this sector. However, as noted previously, this frame does not represent all poultry wholesalers. Rather, it represents what we believe to be the major poultry wholesalers currently operating in Australia.



Sampling strategy for Poultry Retailers

A sample of 120 poultry retailers will be included in this sample. The contact list will be generated by selecting retailers at random from the sample frame. However, the sample frame is not able to identify whether retailers are poultry retailers or not. The poultry retailer questionnaire will be structured so that retailers are screened and only those who handle uncooked poultry products continue with the survey. Contact information will be maintained so that the incidence of poultry retailers versus non-poultry retailers can be monitored.

When the fieldwork is complete, and the proportion of poultry retailers versus non-poultry retailers is known, the relative proportion will be used to estimate the total population size of poultry retailers. For example, if…

• we have 20,000 retailers on the sample frame; and • we successfully contact 200 retailers to complete the survey but 80 of those do not

handle uncooked poultry products; then • the proportion of poultry retailers is 60% (120 out of 200); and • we can assume that of our 20,000 retailers in the sample frame, approximately 60% or

12,000 are poultry retailers.

Comparing the contact lists

One final step to be completed before fieldwork commences is to compare all the contact lists. That is, contact lists will be compiled for:

• Growers • Processors – complete enumeration of the top 11; • Processors – random sample of all other processors; • Wholesalers –complete enumeration or major wholesalers; and • Retailers – random sample.

When these contact lists are compiled, each list will be compared to determine if any of the proposed sampling units are the same. If individual sampling units have been chosen for multiple questionnaires, one questionnaire will be chosen at random for the respondent to complete. If, at the end of the survey period there is insufficient sample, these units may be recontacted to complete alternative questionnaires.

Weighting

For those sectors of the poultry industry that will not be completely enumerated, weighting will be required. The final sample will be weighted back to the sample frame, which will be considered to be representative of the total population size.

Margins of Error

It is not possible to determine the actual margins of error on the estimates yielded by the above sample until the size of the populations in certain groups, such as primary producers and processors, are known. Moreover, because we propose completely enumerating (CE) some sectors – to ensure reliability of the sample – the margins of error given by the relevant statistical formula will overstate the actual margin of error. However, as a guide, we have put together a table of estimated maximum margins of error.



Table 22: Estimated maximum margins of error

Survey yields an estimate of

50% 75% 90%

Primary producers – chicken n=152 ±7.9% ±6.9% ±4.8%

Primary producers – non-chicken n=60 * ±7.5% ±6.5% ±4.5%

Poultry meat processors – chicken n=120 ±8.9% ±7.7% ±5.4%

Poultry meat processors – non-chicken n=60 ±12.7% ±11.0% ±7.6%

Poultry meat wholesalers – major only – n=20 N/A – Complete Enumeration

Poultry retail and wholesale n=120 ±8.9% ±7.7% ±5.4%

Total sample of n=572 ±4.1% ±3.5% ±2.5%

We note that the margins of error estimates for the chicken meat processors are actually overestimates, because this sample of 120 includes at least 27 interviews to be completed with the top 11 processors and 20 interviews with wholesalers. This represents two completely enumerated sub-sectors, therefore lowering the overall margins of error slightly.

* This margin of error has been calculated using a total population size of 92, which was the total size of this population in a 2001 survey by the ABS. We did propose to completely enumerate this group, however, a complete sample frame could not be compiled.

Projected response rates

In-scope and out-of-scope sampling units

From our experience in using the Telstra Yellow Pages, we estimate that the live sample proportion will be approximately 45%. That is, the number of live and in scope businesses as a proportion of total businesses will be approximately 55%. The break-up of this 55% is described below.

This includes approximately 26% that are “dead” – i.e. are expected to be consistently engaged, no answer, answering machine at the end of the fieldwork period. Also included in this 26%, are 7% that is expected to be potential respondents who make appointments to complete interviews, but those interviews are not completed because the fieldwork process concludes before the interview can take place.

We expect approximately 13% of numbers to be invalid – i.e. because they are not connected, not a business, or the wrong number.

We also expect that approximately 1%, or 40 businesses, will not be able to complete the questionnaire because of language, hearing or other barriers.

We also predict that approximately 15% will be ineligible to complete the survey because they fail the screening process. For example, the sample frame will not be able to help us distinguish between retailers who handle uncooked poultry from those who do not. Therefore, we estimate that approximately 15% will not be eligible for these reasons.

This proportion will differ according to the sample frame. For example, we estimate that 12% of growers that we attempt to contact will be out-of-scope because we will have already completed the required number of chicken growers and will still be attempting to fill



the non-chicken grower quota. Similarly, we predict that approximately 10% of wholesalers that we attempt to contact will not actual deal with chicken and therefore be out-of-scope. More importantly, however, we predict that approximately 25% of retailers that we attempt to contact will not deal with chicken, and therefore be out-of-scope. In contrast, the poultry processing frame will be drawn from categories within the Yellow pages that exclusively deal with poultry, and we are therefore predicting no businesses out-of-scope for this reason.

We will be collecting the names and addresses of the processing plants for the top-11 poultry processors. This will involve completing surveys with approximately 27 processing plants, leaving 545 sampling units to be randomly selected.

Similarly, we will be attempting to completely enumerate all the major wholesalers (n=20).

For the remaining 525 interviews that will be completed, we expect to draw a total of 3,953 business names and telephone numbers to achieve the final sample of 525. The table on the next page details the expected outcomes for these numbers. Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 on pages 13 and 14 further detail expected call outcomes for each industry sector (i.e. growers, processors, wholesalers and retailers).

Table 23: Projected in-scope and out-of-scope sampling units

Category Code # of

telephone numbers

% of total

numbers

Interviews fully completed F 525 14%

Explicit refusal RE 1254 32%

Subtotal Live and In Scope Numbers S 1779 45%

Dead\Ongoing - answering machine CM 278 7%

Dead\Ongoing - engaged CE 79 2%

Dead\Ongoing - no answer CN 397 10%

Ongoing - appointment made CA 278 7%

Dead\Ongoing subtotal 1,2 O 1033 26%

Invalid number 3 I 397 10%

Barrier 4 B 40 1%

Out of scope - not a business O1 94 2%

Out of scope - not poultry O2 610 15%

Subtotal Dead and Out of Scope Numbers D 1141 29%

Total used numbers U 3953 100%

1 Ongoing numbers are those numbers that we expect still to be “open” at the end of the fieldwork period, but no final outcome has yet to be determined.



2 Dead numbers are those numbers that we attempt to contact eight times during the fieldwork period, but were consistently engaged, no answer, or an answering machine.

3 Invalid numbers are those numbers that are wrong numbers, fax machines, etc…

4 Barrier refers to either a language or some other kind of barrier that prevents the interview from being completed.

Live Sample Proportion

Of the 3,953 businesses that we will initially draw, we expect 1,779 to be live and in scope. That is, the Live Sample Proportion will be approximately 45%.

These businesses are not expected to be in scope for the reasons outline in the table above.

These estimates have been determined from our past experience contacting businesses from random samples with sample frames generated from the Telstra Yellow Pages.

Response rates

Of the 1,779 businesses that we estimate will be live and in scope, we believe we will complete 525 interviews successfully. That is, the Overall Response Rate will be approximately 30%.

This estimate has been determined based on our past experience contacting businesses from the Telstra Yellow Pages.



Table 24: Projected call outcomes for Growers

Category Code # of

telephone numbers

% of total

numbers




Ongoing - answering machine CM 87 7%

Ongoing - engaged CE 25 2%

Ongoing - no answer CN 125 10%


Ongoing subtotal 1 O 324 26%


Barrier 4 B 12 1%


Out of scope - chicken quota full O2 150 12%





Table 25: Projected call outcomes for Processors

Category Code # of

telephone numbers

% of total

numbers










Barrier 4 B 7 1%







Table 26: Projected call outcomes for Retailers

Category Code # of

telephone numbers

% of total

numbers










Barrier 4 B 17 1%







13 APPENDIX F: ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAMPLING PLAN

Summary

• 121 interviews were completed with Enforcement Officers from across Australia.

• Enforcement officers from both State/Territory government department/agencies AND from local government authorities (LGAs) were surveyed.

DDDDDDD. The ACT has no local government enforcement officers.

EEEEEEE. The Northern Territory has only one local government enforcement officer (Alice Springs Town Council). This enforcement officer will be included in the state/territory government department/agencies complete enumeration.

Sampling plan for State/Territory government department/agencies

• All enforcement officers from the State/Territory government department/agencies were surveyed. That is, a census was conducted of all State/Territory government enforcement officers.

• Forty-nine (49) State/Territory officers were surveyed.

Sampling plan for local government authorities

• A random sample of LGA enforcement officers was surveyed.

• It was proposed to complete 60 interviews with LGA offices. However, a final sample size of 72 was obtained.

• Sampling was conducted as follows:

FFFFFFF. All councils were classified according to whether they are a council from a state capital city or not.

GGGGGGG. A stratified sample was then drawn. Stratification occurred according to the proportion of councils indicated in Table 27. These proportions were been determined according to the proportion of the Australian population living in these geographical areas. For example, 22% of the Australian population live in Sydney. Therefore, 22% of the intended 60 interviews to be completed with LGAs will be completed with councils from Sydney.

HHHHHHH. One interview was completed per LGA. Enforcement officers were chosen at random from each LGA. The enforcement officer whose first name began closest to the letter “A” was selected to complete the interview.



Table 27: Stratified sampling plan for LGAs

Region Number of councils %

Sydney 13 22%

NSW - Remainder 8 13%

Melbourne 11 18%

VIC - Remainder 4 7%

Brisbane 5 9%

QLD - Remainder 6 11%

Adelaide 4 6%

SA - Remainder 1 2%

Perth 4 7%

WA - Remainder 2 3%

Hobart 1 1%

TAS – Remainder 1 1%

Total 60 100%

Expected Response Rates for LGAs

We selected 90 LGAs randomly from the sample frame as presented in Table 28. This number of LGAs was selected assuming we were to complete 60 interviews and would achieve a 67% response rate overall.

Table 28: LGA Response rates

Region Number of completed

LGA interviews Number of LGAs to be selected for contact

Predicted Response Rate

Sydney 13 19 70%

NSW - Remainder 8 11 70%

Melbourne 11 16 70%

VIC - Remainder 4 6 70%

Brisbane 5 7 70%

QLD - Remainder 6 9 70%

Adelaide 4 6 70%

SA - Remainder 1 2 50%

Perth 4 6 70%

WA - Remainder 2 4 50%

Hobart 1 2 50%

TAS – Remainder 1 2 50%

Total 60 90 67%



14 APPENDIX G: INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Number: 70357 7900 FSANZ Poultry Meat Safety Issues – Poultry Industry Questionnaire

For the poultry meat industry, the quantitative research will aim to assess the:



• sources of information on food safety and usefulness of this information;



• extent of self-regulation within each segment.

GROWER QUESTIONNAIRE

PROCESSOR QUESTIONNAIRE

WHOLESALER QUESTIONNAIRE

RETAILER QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER:

TEXT IN CAPITALS ARE INSTRUCTIONS

TEXT IN SENTENCE CASE IS THE SCRIPT

DK = DON’T KNOW



R = REFUSED

VOL = VOLUNTEERED (I.E. ACCEPT THIS AS A VALID RESPONSE, BUT DO NOT

OFFER IT AS A RESPONSE CATEGORY)

PRE-CODES

2. SELECTED FOR FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE:

DO NOT READ (MR) CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

GROWING 01 CONTINUE

PROCESSING 02 CONTINUE

WHOLESALING 03 CONTINUE

RETAILING 04 CONTINUE

3. QUESTION DELETED 4. QUESTION DELETED 5. QUESTION DELETED 6. QUESTION DELETED

INTRODUCTION

Good morning / afternoon / evening. My name is [INTERVIEWER] from Colmar

Brunton Social Research. Today, I am calling on behalf of Food Standards Australia

New Zealand, an independent statutory authority that protects the health and safety

of the people in Australia and New Zealand by maintaining a safe food supply.

IF GROWER, SAY: May I speak to the owner or manager please? IF ADDITIONAL GOWER SAMPLE, SAY: May I speak to <INSERT NAME FROM

LIST> please?

IF PROCESSOR, SAY: May I speak to your Quality Assurance Manager please? IF WHOLESALER, SAY: May I speak to <INSERT NAME FROM LIST> please?

IF RETAILER, SAY: May I speak to the owner, manager or Chief Executive please?



IF CORRECT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, ASK FOR THEIR NAME AND DIRECT

TELEPHONE NUMBER TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO CALL BACK.

7. WHEN CORRECT PERSON IS ON THE PHONE:




of the people in Australia and New Zealand by maintaining a safe food supply.

Is now a good time to speak to you, or would it be more convenient if I make an

appointment to call back later?

DO NOT READ (SR) CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

IF UNAVAILABLE 01 ARRANGE A TIME TO CALL BACK

IF NO ANSWER 02 CALL BACK AT A LATER TIME

IF AVAILABLE 03 CONTINUE

IF GROWER, PROCESSOR OR RETAILER SAY: We are conducting a confidential research project and we would like to include your

business’s views. The research concerns current levels of awareness and knowledge

of food safety issues and practices within the poultry <INSERT Q2> industry.

IF Q2=04, SAY: Does your business sell raw poultry products to the general public or

cook raw poultry products and sell those products to the general public?

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED: By poultry, I mean chicken, turkey, duck,

quail, geese pheasant, pigeon and guinea fowl, but not emu or ostrich.

IF WHOLESALER SAY: We are conducting a confidential research project and we would like to include your



business’s views. We recently sent your company a letter explaining this. The

research concerns current levels of awareness and knowledge of food safety issues

and practices within the poultry <INSERT Q2> industry.

Are you the best person to speak to in relation to this? Or should we speak to

someone else within your business?


No, refers to another

respondent

00 RETURN TO Q7(above)

Yes 01 CONTINUE

No, does not want business

to participate

02 THANK AND CLOSE

If you choose to participate, please be assured that the information and opinions you

provide will be used only for research purposes and your responses will remain

confidential. In particular, no individual responses will be given to our client, they will

only be reported in aggregate form.

IF GROWER, PROCESSOR OR RETAILER SAY: We are contacting businesses that deal with poultry meat products at random from

the Telstra Yellow Pages. Please be assured that Food Standards Australia New

Zealand will not be informed which poultry businesses responded to this survey.

ADDITIONAL GOWER SAMPLE, SAY: We are contacting all poultry growers that supply major poultry processors. We have

been given your contact information from <INSERT PROCESSOR NAME FROM

SAMPLE FRAME>. Please be assured that neither Food Standards Australia New

Zealand nor your processor will be informed of your individual answers to this survey. IF WHOLESALER SAY: As a part of this survey, we are contacting all the major poultry wholesalers. Please



be assured that Food Standards Australia New Zealand will not be informed which

poultry businesses responded to this survey.

The survey will take around twenty minutes.

IF NECESSARY, SAY: This survey has been approved by the Australian Government

Statistical Clearing House. The approval number is 01581-01. You may phone the

Statistical Clearing House on (02) 6252 5285 to verify the approval number.

Are you interested in participating?

DO NOT

READ (SR)

CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

Yes 01 CONTINUE WITH SCREENER

No 00 THANK & CLOSE

Before I begin I would just like to make you aware that this call may be monitored for

quality assurance and/or training purposes. Are you happy to continue?


Yes 01 CONTINUE

No 00 THANK & CLOSE

SCREENER/DEMOGRAPHICS

8. Firstly, what is your role within the business?

DO NOT READ (SR) CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Owner/Partner 01 CONTINUE



Chief Executive/General Manager 02 CONTINUE

Senior Executive 03 CONTINUE

Quality Assurance Manager/Officer 04 CONTINUE

HACCP Manager/Officer 05 CONTINUE

Safety Manager/Officer 06 CONTINUE

Supervisor 07 CONTINUE

Other, please specify 96 CONTINUE

Don’t know 97 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

9. Which of the following activities is your business involved in? Is it involved in…

READ (MR) CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Poultry growing 01 CONTINUE

Transportation of live birds 02 CONTINUE

Poultry processing (other than de-boning and value-adding)

03 CONTINUE

Poultry de-boning 04 CONTINUE

Poultry value-adding 09 CONTINUE

Transportation of processed poultry meat 05 CONTINUE

Poultry wholesaling 06 CONTINUE

Poultry retailing excluding take-away 07 CONTINUE



Take-away outlets that sell poultry meat products 08 CONTINUE

Don’t know (VOL) 97

Refused (VOL) 99

Ask for someone who can/is willing to answer this, or close

IF Q2=02 AND Q9≠03 AND Q9=04 CLASSIFY AS “DE-BONER” AND SKIP QUESTIONS AS

SPECIFIED.

IF Q2=02 AND Q9≠03 AND Q9=09 CLASSIFY AS “VALUE-ADDER” AND SKIP QUESTIONS AS

SPECIFIED.

10. SKIP TO Q11 IF Q2≠01: How many birds do you currently have on your farm at this location? IF THE RESPONDENT DOESN’T KNOW, PROMPT WITH An estimate will be appropriate.


INSTRUCTION

RECORD NUMBER OF BIRDS CONTINUE

Don’t know D CONTINUE

Refused R CONTINUE

11. SKIP TO Q13 IF Q2≠02: PROCESSORS ONLY: How many birds do you process per hour at this location? IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW, ASK HOW MANY BIRDS PROCESSED PER DAY AND THEN ASK THEM TO DIVIDE THIS BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS THE PLANT OPERATES FOR EACH DAY. ALSO SAY, “An approximation will be fine”.


INSTRUCTION

Less than 250 01 SKIP TO Q13

250-999 02 SKIP TO Q13



1000-4999 03 SKIP TO Q13

5000-9999 04 SKIP TO Q13

10,000 or more, please specify 05 SKIP TO Q13


Refused 99 CONTINUE

12. ONLY FOR PROCESSORS WHO CANNOT ANSWER Q11: How many kilograms of poultry meat do you process each day at this location? IF NEEDED, SAY, “An approximation will be fine”.


INSTRUCTION

RECORDS KGS CONTINUE


Refused R CONTINUE

13. SKIP TO Q14 IF Q2≠03 OR 2≠04: How many kilograms of poultry meat would you sell each day at this location? IF NEEDED, SAY, “An approximation will be fine”.


INSTRUCTION

RECORD KGS CONTINUE


Refused R CONTINUE

14. How many full-time staff does your business currently employ at your location?




INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE

RECORD NO. OF EMPLOYEES CONTINUE


Refused 9999 CONTINUE

15. In the past week, did you have any part-time or casual staff working at your location?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q17

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Don’t know 97 SKIP TO Q17

Refused 99 SKIP TO Q17

16. In the past week, approximately how many hours, in total, did these part-time and casual staff work? PROMPT FOR AN ESTIMATE IF NECESSARY.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE

RECORD NUMBER OF HOURS CONTINUE




Refused R CONTINUE

17. Next, I would like to ask you a series of questions specifically related to the poultry <INSERT Q2> part of your business IF Q2 = 01, specifically your growing sheds. So, when answering all the questions in this survey, please only think about your <INSERT Q2> operations. CONTINUE TO Q19.

18. DELETED QUESTION.

19. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:

SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

IF Q2=01 (GROWER) CONTINUE TO Q20 ON GROWER QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION

IF Q2=02 (PROCESSOR) SKIP TO Q20 ON PROCESSOR QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION

IF Q2=03 (WHOLESALER) SKIP TO Q20 ON WHOLESALER QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION

IF Q2=04 (RETAILER) SKIP TO Q20 ON RETAILER QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION



GROWER QUESTIONNAIRE

20. What type of poultry does your business grow?

DO NOT READ (MR) CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Chicken/broilers 01 CONTINUE

Turkey 02 CONTINUE

Duck 03 CONTINUE

Quail 04 CONTINUE

Squab/Pigeons 05 CONTINUE

Geese 06 CONTINUE

Pheasant 07 CONTINUE

Guinea fowl 08 CONTINUE

Silky 09 CONTINUE

Mutton bird 10 CONTINUE

Partridge 11 CONTINUE


None of these products 98 THANK AND CLOSE

Don’t know 97

Refused 99




21. Would you describe the poultry meat processing done by your business as all manual or is it automated?

22. Overall, how important is food safety to your poultry growing business? Please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

Extremely Unimportant

Extremely important

DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99

23. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products derived from your birds? PROBE WITH, “What else?” UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS “NOTHING ELSE”. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH CODE 05 :HACCP Plan” PROMPT: “And what sort of things does your business do through your HACCP plan to reduce the risk of food-borne illness?”


INSTRUCTION

Employees regularly wash their hands 01 CONTINUE

Workers wear protective clothing or uniforms 02 CONTINUE

Rodent controls are in place 03 CONTINUE

Insect controls are in place 04 CONTINUE

A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan/System is followed

05 CONTINUE

Your shed area is completely fenced 06 CONTINUE

Your farm has signs posted to keep visitors away from the poultry sheds

07 CONTINUE

No other species are kept on the farm 08 CONTINUE

Feed spillages are cleaned up immediately 09 CONTINUE



Wild species are kept off the farm 10 CONTINUE

A clean water supply is maintained for birds 11 CONTINUE

Sheds are cleaned out between batches 12 CONTINUE

Sheds are left for 7-10 days between batches 13 CONTINUE

Dead birds are disposed of in a biosecure manner (e.g. dead birds are composted or placed in refrigerated containers that are collected regularly)

14 CONTINUE

All gates on the farm are lockable 15 CONTINUE

SKIP IF Q9≠2 Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run

16 CONTINUE

Bird health is checked regularly (e.g. swab for harmful bacteria)

32 CONTINUE

Bird feed is heat treated 33 CONTINUE

Restrict duties of employees who are ill (e.g. don’t handle birds, stay home)

34 CONTINUE

Audits are conducted regularly 35 CONTINUE

Employees shower at work before starting 36 CONTINUE

Employee health is monitored regularly 37 CONTINUE

Workers are not allowed to have pet birds 38 CONTINUE

Foot baths are in place 39 CONTINUE

Employees regularly change gloves 40 CONTINUE

Provide food safety training to all employees 41 CONTINUE

Other, specify 96 CONTINUE




Nothing 98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

24. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products derived from your birds. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one?

READ AND ROTATE THOSE NOT

MENTIONED IN Q23 (SR)

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

a) Employees regularly wash their hands 00 01 97 99

b) Workers wear protective clothing or uniforms

00 01 97 99

c) Rodent controls are in place 00 01 97 99

d) Insect controls are in place 00 01 97 99

e) A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System is followed

00 01 97 99

f) Your shed area is completely fenced 00 01 97 99

g) Your farm has signs posted to keep visitors away from the poultry sheds

00 01 97 99

h) No other species are kept on the farm 00 01 97 99

i) Feed spillages are cleaned up immediately 00 01 97 99

j) Wild species are kept off the farm 00 01 97 99

k) A clean water supply is maintained for birds

00 01 97 99

l) Sheds are cleaned out between batches 00 01 97 99

m) Sheds are left for 7-10 days between batches

00 01 97 99

n) Dead birds are disposed of in a biosecure manner (e.g. dead birds are composted or placed in refrigerated containers that are collected regularly)

00 01 97 99



p) SKIP IF Q0≠2 Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run

00 01 97 99

ff) Bird health is checked regularly (e.g. swab for harmful bacteria)

00 01 97 99

gg) Bird feed is heat treated 00 01 97 99

ii) Audits are conducted regularly 00 01 97 99

jj) Employees shower at work before starting 00 01 97 99

kk) Employee health is monitored regularly 00 01 97 99

mm) Foot baths are in place 00 01 97 99

25. QUESTION DELETED

26. I’m going to read out a list of stages in the poultry meat supply chain from growers to consumption. For each one, I’d like you to tell me how likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to food-borne illness in the end product. Please rate the likelihood from 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘extremely unlikely’ and 10 is ‘extremely likely’.

READ AND ROTATE (SR) 1-10 DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

a) Poultry growing 97 99

b) Transportation of live birds 97 99

c) Poultry processing (other than de-boning) 97 99

d) Poultry de-boning 97 99

e) Transportation of processed poultry meat 97 99

f) Poultry wholesaling 97 99



g) Poultry retailing excluding take-away 97 99

h) Take-away outlets that sell poultry meat products 97 99

i) Handling of poultry meat by consumers 97 99

27. Next, I’m going to ask some questions about potential contamination of your birds. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q31

Antimicrobial agents 01 CONTINUE

Antibiotics 02 CONTINUE

Dioxins/Polychlorinated biphenyls 03 CONTINUE

Heavy metals 04 CONTINUE

Hormones 05 CONTINUE

Pesticides (including insecticides and rodenticides) 06 CONTINUE

Sanitising or cleaning agents (e.g. chlorine) 07 CONTINUE

Sodium acetate 08 CONTINUE

Grease from equipment 09 CONTINUE






28. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of your birds in your poultry growing operations?

DO NOT READ (MR) RECORD VERBATIM CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Accept up to three responses CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

SKIP TO Q31 IF GROWERS.

29. What kinds of physical things are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?

30.What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products? IF DON”T MENTION THREE PROMPT Anything else?



31.What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds?


None 00 CONTINUE

Salmonella 01 CONTINUE

Campylobacter 02 CONTINUE

Listeria monocytogenes 03 CONTINUE

Clostridium perfringens 04 CONTINUE

Staphylococcus aureus 05 CONTINUE

E. coli 06 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE


33. SKIP TO Q34 IF Q31=00 OR 97 OR 99. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your birds in your poultry growing operations?

DO NOT READ (MR) RECORD VERBATIM CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION



Does not apply to my business 98 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

34. I am now going to list a series of statements, and I would like you to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each. Please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree.

ROTATE

39. Poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms

40. Poultry processors don’t do enough to control food safety risks in processing plants

41. Supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat in their outlets

42. Fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat

43. Consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products

44. DELETE QUESTION.

45. QUESTION DELETED.

46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their poultry growing employees about food safety. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one for any of your employees?

READ AND ROTATE (SR) No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

a) Provide induction/orientation training 00 01 97 99

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

DK R

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99



b) Provide performance reviews 00 01 97 99

c) Provide accredited food safety training for handling poultry

00 01 97 99

d) Provide non-accredited food safety training for poultry

00 01 97 99

e) Circulate food safety regulation documents 00 01 97 99

f) Circulate brochures, pamphlets or put up posters

00 01 97 99

g) Circulate trade or industry magazines or journals

00 01 97 99

h) Circulate international information (e.g. from World Health Organisation or CODEX)

00 01 97 99

47. Next, I have some questions about the codes, guidelines and standards that are used in the poultry meat industry. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety, if any? PROBE WITH, “What else” UNTIL RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE SAID ALL THEY CAN THINK OF. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH “Food Safety Standards Code produced by FSANZ” OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, PROMPT WITH, “What chapter(s) for the Food Safety Standards Code?””. IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHICH CHAPTER, CODE “01”.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE

Food Standards Code produced by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (no further information supplied)

01 CONTINUE

Chapter 1 General Food Standards of the Food Standards Code

02 CONTINUE

Chapter 2 Food Product Standards of the Food Standards Code

03 CONTINUE

Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code

04 CONTINUE

Safe Food Australia 05 CONTINUE



National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming

06 CONTINUE

The Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001)

07 CONTINUE

The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002)

08 CONTINUE

A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System (HACCP) or Quality Assurance program

09 CONTINUE

Contractual obligations with growers, processors or retailers

11 CONTINUE

Guidelines of Animal Health Australia 12 CONTINUE

Other federal government regulations/laws (e.g. AQIS)

13 CONTINUE

State government animal health regulations 14 CONTINUE

State government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations

15 CONTINUE

Other state government regulations/laws/guidelines/codes of practice (e.g. NSW Food Authority/Primesafe/Safefood Qld)

16 CONTINUE

Local government regulations/bylaws 17 CONTINUE

Industry management guidelines/codes of practice (e.g. Australian Chicken Meat Federation Codes of Practice such as HACCP manual or broiler risk analysis)

18 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE



48. And does your business adhere to …?

READ AND ROTATE THOSE NOT MENTIONED IN Q47 (SR).

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

c) National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming

00 01 97 99

e) The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002)

00 01 97 99

f) A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System (HACCP) or Quality Assurance program

00 01 97 99

g) Contractual obligations with processors or retailers

00 01 97 99

h) Guidelines of Animal Health Australia 00 01 97 99

i) State government animal health regulations 00 01 97 99

j) State government food hygiene/safety regulations

00 01 97 99

k) Local government regulations/bylaws 00 01 97 99

l) Industry management guidelines/codes of practice (e.g. Australian Chicken Meat Federation Codes of Practice such as HACCP manual or broiler risk analysis)

00 01 97 99

SKIP TO Q50 IF Q47=04 OR Q47=05 OR Q48a_03=01 OR Q48b=01 . (I.E. ASK

ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE INDICATED THEY DON’T COMPLY WITH

CHAPTER 3 OR SAFE FOOD AUSTRALIA)

49. Before today, had you heard of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code or the guide to Chapter 3, “Safe Food Australia”?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q51



Yes 01 CONTINUE


50. You indicated that your business adheres to Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code. What things does your business do to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards?

51. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards of the Food Standards Code?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

52. Next, I am going to ask some questions about inspections of your poultry <INSERT Q2> operations.

53. In 2003, how many inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry growing operations? This includes inspections by processors or retailers.




INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q56

RECORD NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS CONTINUE



54. And again in 2003, how many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry growing operations? This includes inspections by processors or retailers.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q56




55. Which external organisations conducted these inspections?


INSTRUCTION

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service

(AQIS)

01 CONTINUE

Industry group 02 CONTINUE

Contractual party (e.g. processor or retailer) 03 CONTINUE



State government agency (e.g. Primesafe, NSW Food Authority or SafeFood QLD)

04 CONTINUE

Local government authority 05 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

60. Now I would like to talk about sources of information in relation to poultry meat safety. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry growing industry?


INSTRUCTION

Don’t get information about food safety 00 SKIP TO Q62

Animal Health Australia (AHA) 01 CONTINUE

Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code /

FSANZ / ANZFA

02 CONTINUE


Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) 04 CONTINUE

Australian Standards 05 CONTINUE



07 CONTINUE

Contractual parties including other

growers/processors/retailers

08 CONTINUE



Standards Australia 09 CONTINUE

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF or AFFA)

10 CONTINUE

Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA)

11 CONTINUE

Other commonwealth government agency/department

12 CONTINUE

State Government Environment Departments 13 CONTINUE

State Government Health Departments 14 CONTINUE

State Government Human Services Departments 15 CONTINUE

State Government Industry/Agriculture Departments 16 CONTINUE

NSW RESPONDENTS: NSW Food Authority 17 CONTINUE

VIC RESPONDENTS: Primesafe 18 CONTINUE

QLD RESPONDENTS: SafeFood Queensland 19 CONTINUE

Other state/territory government agency/department 20 CONTINUE

Local Government/councils 21 CONTINUE

Colleague at work 22 CONTINUE

Supervisor at work 23 CONTINUE

HACCP course 24 CONTINUE

Conferences (e.g. Poultry Information Exchange

(PIX), Australasian Turkey Federation, Asia Pacific

Poultry Health conference etc)

25 CONTINUE




Refused 99 CONTINUE

61. And do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry growing industry from any of the following sources?

READ AND ROTATE ONLY THOSE NOT MENTION AT Q60 (SR)

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

a) National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming

00 01 97 99

b) Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code 00 01 97 99

c) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 00 01 97 99

d) Australian Standards produced by Standards Australia

00 01 97 99

e) Federal government departments or agencies 00 01 97 99

f) State/territory government departments or agencies

00 01 97 99

g) Local government council 00 01 97 99

h) Industry group 00 01 97 99

62. CONTINUE TO CLOSING SECTION.



PROCESSOR QUESTIONNAIRE

20. What kind of poultry does your business process?


INSTRUCTION


Turkey 02 CONTINUE

Duck 03 CONTINUE

Quail 04 CONTINUE


Geese 06 CONTINUE



Silky 09 CONTINUE





Don’t know 97

Refused 99






INSTRUCTION

Automated (fully or semi) 01 CONTINUE

All manual 02 CONTINUE

Don’t know 97

Refused 99


22. Overall, how important is food safety to your business? Please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

23. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products in poultry processing? PROBE WITH, “What else?” UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS “NOTHING ELSE”. IF CODE 05 HACCP Plan IS ONLY RESPONSE PROMPT: And what sort of things does your business do through your HACCP plan to reduce the risk of food-borne illness?


INSTRUCTION



Extremely important

DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99






A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan/System is followed

05 CONTINUE

SKIP IF Q9≠2 Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run

16 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Bird stress is minimised 17 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Birds are slaughtered between 8 and 12 hours after their last feed

18 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Birds are always dead and adequately bled before scalding 19 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Feathers are completely removed 20 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: During evisceration, care is taken to ensure viscera are not damaged when being removed

21 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Eviscerated carcases are washed internally and externally (to remove visible faecal contamination)

22 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: The level of free chlorine and/or overflow rate in the spin chiller is closely monitored

23 CONTINUE

Carcasses are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution 24 CONTINUE

SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Carcases are always reduced to 4 degrees or less within 12 hours of slaughter

25 CONTINUE

Equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day 26 CONTINUE

IF Q9=05 Trucks are cleaned between each load 31 CONTINUE

Restrict duties of employees who are ill (e.g. don’t handle food, stay home)

34 CONTINUE












Nothing 98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

24. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one?



No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)



00 01 97 99




00 01 97 99

p) SKIP IF Q9≠2 Vehicles that transport live birds are cleaned after every run

00 01 97 99



q) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Bird stress is minimised

00 01 97 99

r) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Birds are slaughtered between 8 and 12 hours after their last feed

00 01 97 99

s) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Birds are always dead and adequately bled before scalding

00 01 97 99

t) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Feathers are completely removed

00 01 97 99

u) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: During evisceration, care is taken to ensure viscera are not damaged when being removed

00 01 97 99

v) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Eviscerated carcases are washed internally and externally (to remove visible faecal contamination)

00 01 97 99

w) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: The level of free chlorine and/or overflow rate in the spin chiller is closely monitored

00 01 97 99

x) Carcasses are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution

00 01 97 99

y) SKIP IF DE-BONER\VALUE-ADDER: Carcases are always reduced to 4 degrees or less within 12 hours of slaughter

00 01 97 99

z) Equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day

00 01 97 99

ee) IF Q9=05 Trucks are cleaned between each load

00 01 97 99





nn)Employees regularly change gloves 00 01 97 99






(VOL)

R

(VOL)










27. Next, I’m going to ask some questions about potential contamination of poultry meat. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products during processing?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q29















28. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of your poultry meat products during processing?


INSTRUCTION



Refused 99 CONTINUE

29. What kinds of physical things are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products during processing?




INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q31

Bones/bone fragments 01 CONTINUE

Feathers 02 CONTINUE

Intestinal matter 03 CONTINUE

Faecal matter 04 CONTINUE

Blood 05 CONTINUE

Metal 06 CONTINUE

Plastic 07 CONTINUE

Glass 08 CONTINUE




30. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products during processing?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE



31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products during processing?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE






E. coli 06 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE




33. SKIP TO Q34IF Q31=00 OR 97 OR 99. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your poultry meat products?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE


ROTATE



41. Supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets



Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

DK R

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99



46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their poultry processing employees about food safety. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one for any of your employees?


(VOL)

R

(VOL)




00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99



00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

47. Next, I have some questions about the codes, guidelines and standards that are used in the poultry meat industry. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety, if any? PROBE WITH, “What else” UNTIL RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE SAID ALL THEY CAN THINK OF. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH “Food Safety Standards Code produced by FSANZ” OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, PROMPT WITH, “What chapter(s) for the Food Safety Standards Code?”. IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHICH CHAPTER, CODE “01”.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE


01 CONTINUE


02 CONTINUE




03 CONTINUE


04 CONTINUE



06 CONTINUE


07 CONTINUE


08 CONTINUE


09 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE



13 CONTINUE


State government food hygiene/safety regulations 15 CONTINUE


16 CONTINUE



18 CONTINUE





Refused 99 CONTINUE



IF MENTIONED 01, 02, 03 OR 04 AT Q47 SKIP a).

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)

a) Food Standards Code produced by Food Standards Australia New Zealand

00 01 97 99

IF YES TO a) IMMEDIATELY ASK a_01 to a_03 in following order. ASK, “and do you specifically adhere to… READ Q a_01 to Qa_03 :

a_01) Chapter 1 General Food Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_02) Chapter 2 Food Product Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_03) Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

b) Safe Food Australia 00 01 97 99

d) The Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001)

00 01 97 99

e) The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002)

00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

g) Contractual obligations with growers or retailers 00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99




l) Industry management guidelines/codes of practice (e.g. Australian Chicken Meat Federation Codes of Practice such as HACCP manual or broiler risk analysis)

00 01 97 99

SKIP TO Q50 IF Q47=04 OR Q47=05 OR Q48a_03=01 OR Q48b=01 . (I.E. ASK





INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q51

Yes 01 CONTINUE


ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 3

50. You indicated that your business adheres to Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code. What things does your processing business do to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards?


INSTRUCTION

Nothing 00 CONTINUE

Train poultry meat handlers 01 CONTINUE

Supervise poultry meat handlers 02 CONTINUE

Ensure poultry meat handlers know about food safety and food hygiene matters

03 CONTINUE



Take practical measures to reduce the risk of contamination

04 CONTINUE

Only hold poultry meat that at 5 degrees or below, or above 60 degrees Celsius

05 CONTINUE

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooled to under 21 degrees Celsius within 4 hours

06 CONTINUE

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooled to 5 degrees Celsius or under within 6 hours

07 CONTINUE

Rapidly reheat all cooked poultry meat to over 60 degrees Celsius

08 CONTINUE

Maintain clean premises 09 CONTINUE

Raw poultry meat products are always stored separately from cooked products 10 CONTINUE

Freshly cooked food is not mixed with older batches 11 CONTINUE


12 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION

No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE




53. In 2003, how many inspections by external organisations were conducted of your poultry growing operations? This includes inspections by processors or retailers..

In 2003, how many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your processing operations? This includes inspections by retailers.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q56






INSTRUCTION


(AQIS)

01 CONTINUE




04 CONTINUE




Refused 99 CONTINUE



60. Now I would like to talk about sources of information in relation to poultry meat safety. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry?


INSTRUCTION




FSANZ / ANZFA

02 CONTINUE






07 CONTINUE



08 CONTINUE



10 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE


12 CONTINUE


















25 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

61. And do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry from any of the following sources?


No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)




c) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 00 01 97 99

d) Australian Standards produced by Standards Australia

00 01 97 99

e) Federal government departments or agencies 00 01 97 99

f) State/territory government departments or agencies

00 01 97 99

g) Local government council 00 01 97 99

h) Industry group 00 01 97 99

Proces_1. Finally, we would like to make sure that we survey a representative

number of poultry growers. Would you be able to tell me the names of

the growers who supply your processing plant with birds, including

contact names and telephone numbers? IF RESPONDENT HAS ANY

CONCERNS AND WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, ASK

THEM TO CONTACT CHRIS OWENS FROM CBSR ON 02 6249 8566.

OR THEY CAN EMAIL GROWER INFORMATION TO CHRIS:

[email protected]

RECORD CONTACT NAME, COMPANY NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER

(INCLUDING AREA CODE) FOR EACH GROWER RECOMMENDED.




WHOLESALER QUESTIONNAIRE

20. What kind of poultry does your business wholesale?


INSTRUCTION


Turkey 02 CONTINUE

Duck 03 CONTINUE

Quail 04 CONTINUE


Geese 06 CONTINUE



Silky 09 CONTINUE





Don’t know 97

Refused 99





22. Overall, how important is food safety to your wholesaling business? Please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

23. What sorts of things does your wholesaling business do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products? PROBE WITH, “What else?” UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS “NOTHING ELSE”. IF CODE 05 HACCP Plan IS ONLY RESPONSE PROMPT: And what sort of things does your business do through your HACCP plan to reduce the risk of food-borne illness?


INSTRUCTION





A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System is followed

05 CONTINUE




34 CONTINUE


Extremely important

DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99












Nothing 98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

24. Now I am going to read out things that other wholesaling businesses sometimes do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one?



No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)



00 01 97 99




00 01 97 99




00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99








(VOL)

R

(VOL)












27. Next, I’m going to ask some questions about potential contamination of poultry meat during wholesaling. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q29












Refused 99 CONTINUE



28. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of your poultry meat products during wholesaling?


INSTRUCTION



Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q31





Blood 05 CONTINUE

Metal 06 CONTINUE

Plastic 07 CONTINUE

Glass 08 CONTINUE

Wood (e.g. from pallets) 09 CONTINUE






30. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products during wholesaling?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE



31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE






E. coli 06 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE



33. SKIP TO Q34 IF Q31=00 OR 97 OR 99. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your poultry meat products during wholesaling?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE


ROTATE






46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their poultry wholesaling employees about food safety. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one for any of your employees?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

DK R

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99




(VOL)

R

(VOL)




00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99



00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

47. Next, I have some questions about the codes, guidelines and standards that are used in the poultry meat industry. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling business adhere to in relation to food safety, if any? PROBE WITH, “What else” UNTIL RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE SAID ALL THEY CAN THINK OF. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH “Food Safety Standards Code produced by FSANZ” OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, PROMPT WITH, “What chapter(s) for the Food Safety Standards Code?”. IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHICH CHAPTER, CODE “01”.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE


01 CONTINUE


02 CONTINUE


03 CONTINUE




04 CONTINUE



06 CONTINUE


07 CONTINUE


08 CONTINUE


09 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE



13 CONTINUE




16 CONTINUE



18 CONTINUE





Refused 99 CONTINUE



IF MENTIONED 01, 02, 03 OR 04 AT Q47 SKIP a)

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)


00 01 97 99

IF YES TO a) IMMEDIATELY ASK a_01 to a_03 in following order. ASK, “and do you specifically adhere to… READ Qa_01 to Qa_03 :

a_01) a_01)Chapter 1 General Food Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_02) a_02) IF YES TO a): Chapter 2 Food Product Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_03) a_03) IF YES TO a):Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

b) b)Safe Food Australia 00 01 97 99

d) d) The Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001)

00 01 97 99

e) e) The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002)

00 01 97 99

f) f) A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System (HACCP) or Quality Assurance program

00 01 97 99

g) g) Contractual obligations with growers or retailers

00 01 97 99

j) j) State government food hygiene/safety regulations

00 01 97 99

k) k) Local government regulations/bylaws 00 01 97 99

l) i) Industry management guidelines/codes of practice (e.g. Australian Chicken Meat

00 01 97 99



Federation Codes of Practice such as HACCP manual or broiler risk analysis)

SKIP TO Q50 IF Q47=04 OR Q47=05 OR Q48a_03) =01 OR Q48b) =01 . (I.E. ASK





INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q51

Yes 01 CONTINUE





INSTRUCTION

Nothing 00 CONTINUE




03 CONTINUE


04 CONTINUE




05 CONTINUE


06 CONTINUE

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooled to 5 degrees Celsius or under within 6 hours

07 CONTINUE


08 CONTINUE





12 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION

No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE




53. In 2003, how many inspections by external organisations were conducted of your poultry growing operations? This includes inspections by processors or retailers.

In 2003, how many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your wholesaling operations. This includes inspections by retailers.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q56






INSTRUCTION


(AQIS)

01 CONTINUE




04 CONTINUE




Refused 99 CONTINUE





INSTRUCTION




FSANZ / ANZFA

02 CONTINUE






07 CONTINUE



08 CONTINUE



10 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE


12 CONTINUE


















25 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)


c) Food Standards Australia New Zealand 00 01 97 99



d) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 00 01 97 99

e) Australian Standards produced by Standards Australia

00 01 97 99

f) Federal government departments or agencies 00 01 97 99

g) State/territory government departments or agencies

00 01 97 99

h) Local government council 00 01 97 99

i) Industry group 00 01 97 99




RETAILER QUESTIONNAIRE

20. What kind of poultry meat products does your business retail?


INSTRUCTION


Turkey 02 CONTINUE

Duck 03 CONTINUE

Quail 04 CONTINUE


Geese 06 CONTINUE



Silky 09 CONTINUE





Don’t know 97

Refused 99




22. Overall, how important is food safety to your business? Please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is extremely important.

23. What sorts of things does your retailing business do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products? PROBE WITH, “What else?” UNTIL RESPONDENT SAYS “NOTHING ELSE”. IF CODE 05 HACCP Plan IS ONLY RESPONSE PROMPT: And what sort of things does your business do through your HACCP plan to reduce the risk of food-borne illness?


INSTRUCTION





A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan/System is followed

05 CONTINUE


Equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day 26 CONTINUE

Different gloves are worn when handling raw poultry meat compared to handling cooked poultry meat

27 CONTINUE


Procedures are in place to avoid cross contamination 29 CONTINUE



Extremely important

DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99





34 CONTINUE







Nothing 98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

24. Now I am going to read out things that other retailing businesses sometimes do to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat products. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one?



No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)



00 01 97 99




00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99



aa) Different gloves are worn when handling raw poultry meat compared to handling cooked poultry meat

00 01 97 99

bb) Raw poultry meat products are always stored separately from cooked products

00 01 97 99

cc) Procedures are in place to avoid cross contamination

00 01 97 99

dd) Freshly cooked food is not mixed with older batches

00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

hh)Restrict duties of employees who are ill (e.g. don’t handle food, stay home)

00 01 97 99







(VOL)

R

(VOL)












27. Next, I’m going to ask some questions about potential contamination of poultry meat during retailing. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q29














Refused 99 CONTINUE

28. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of your poultry meat products during retailing?


INSTRUCTION



Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q31





Blood 05 CONTINUE

Metal 06 CONTINUE

Plastic 07 CONTINUE

Glass 08 CONTINUE



Wood (e.g. from pallets) 09 CONTINUE




30. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products during retailing?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE



31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE






E. coli 06 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE



33. SKIP TO Q34 IF Q31=00 OR 97 OR 99. What, if any, are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your poultry meat products during retailing?


INSTRUCTION




Refused 99 CONTINUE


ROTATE






Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

DK R

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99



46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their poultry retailing employees about food safety. Can you please say whether or not your business does each one for any of your employees?


(VOL)

R

(VOL)




00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99



00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

47. Next, I have some questions about the codes, guidelines and standards that are used in the poultry meat industry. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety, if any? PROBE WITH, “What else” UNTIL RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE SAID ALL THEY CAN THINK OF. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH “Food Safety Standards Code produced by FSANZ” OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, PROMPT WITH, “What chapter(s) for the Food Safety Standards Code?””. IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW WHICH CHAPTER, CODE “01”.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE


01 CONTINUE


02 CONTINUE




03 CONTINUE


04 CONTINUE



06 CONTINUE


07 CONTINUE


08 CONTINUE


09 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE



13 CONTINUE




16 CONTINUE



18 CONTINUE





Refused 99 CONTINUE



IF MENTIONED 01, 02, 03 OR 04 AT Q47 SKIP a).

No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)


00 01 97 99

IF YES TO a) IMMEDIATELY ASK a_01) to Qa_03) in following order. ASK, “and do you specifically adhere to… READ Qa_01) to Qa_03) :

a_01) Chapter 1 General Food Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_02) IF YES TO a): Chapter 2 Food Product Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

a_03) IF YES TO a):Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code

00 01 97 99

b) Safe Food Australia 00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99

g) Contractual obligations with growers or processors

00 01 97 99


00 01 97 99


SKIP TO Q50 IF Q47=04 OR Q47=05 OR Q48a_03=01 OR Q48b) =01 . (I.E. ASK







INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q51

Yes 01 CONTINUE





INSTRUCTION

Nothing 00 CONTINUE




03 CONTINUE


04 CONTINUE


05 CONTINUE


06 CONTINUE

Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooled to 5 degrees 07 CONTINUE



Celsius or under within 6 hours


08 CONTINUE





12 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION

No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE


In 2003, how many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry retailing operations?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 SKIP TO Q56








INSTRUCTION


(AQIS)

01 CONTINUE




04 CONTINUE




Refused 99 CONTINUE



INSTRUCTION






FSANZ / ANZFA

02 CONTINUE






07 CONTINUE



08 CONTINUE



10 CONTINUE


11 CONTINUE


12 CONTINUE


















25 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



No Yes DK

(VOL)

R

(VOL)


c) Food Standards Australia New Zealand 00 01 97 99

d) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 00 01 97 99

e) Australian Standards produced by Standards Australia

00 01 97 99

f) Federal government departments or agencies 00 01 97 99

g) State/territory government departments or agencies

00 01 97 99



h) Local government council 00 01 97 99

i) Industry group 00 01 97 99




CLOSING

That’s the end of the interview. As this is social research, it is carried out in

compliance with the Privacy Act and the information you provided will be used only

for research purposes. Your answers will be combined with those of other

participants to allow them to assess current levels of awareness and knowledge of

safe food handling practices amongst the Australian general public.

As I mentioned before, FSANZ will not be able to identify your individual answers.

Once the validation period and information processing has been completed, please be

assured that your name and contact details will be removed from your responses to this

survey. After that time we will no longer be able to identify you to the responses you gave.

owever, under the Privacy Act, for the period that your name and contact details remain with

your answers, which will be approximately 3 months, you are able to contact us to request

access to your information or that we delete some or all of your information.



15 APPENDIX H: ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Number: 70357 Project Name: Poultry Meat Safety Benchmark – ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS




INTRODUCTION



New Zealand.

May I please speak to [READ NAME FROM CALL SHEET].

IF NAME NOT PROVIDED, SAY: “May I please speak to your Environmental Health

Officer?”

IF MORE THAN ONE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER, ASK TO SPEAK TO

ANY OFFICER WHO IS AVAILABLE. WHEN SPEAKING TO OFFICER

INTRODUCE YOURSELF AGAIN AND SAY, “Today I need to speak to the

environmental health officer in your council whose first name starts with the letter ‘A’

or is closest to ‘A’. IF NECESSARY, SAY: “This is for the purpose of maintaining a

random sample”

Is now a good time or would it be more convenient if I make an appointment to speak

to you at another time? NOTE: SOME OFFICERS MAY NEED TO REQUEST



PERMISSION FROM MORE SENIOR OFFICERS TO PARTICIPATE.





ALL

We are conducting a research project and we would like to include your views.

The research concerns food safety in the poultry meat industry.

We are contacting enforcement officers across Australia. The survey will take around

20 minutes.


provide will be used only for research purposes. Individual responses will not be

taken as the view of your employer and your responses will remain confidential. In

particular no individual responses will be given to FSANZ, they will only be reported

in aggregate form.


IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE, SUGGEST TO THEM

THAT YOU CAN SEND OUT A COPY OF THE QUESTIONS TO THEM. THIS MAY

PUT THEM AT EASE. OFFER TO EMAIL OR FAX THE QUESTIONS TO THEM,

THEN MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO CALL BACK.

DO NOT

READ (SR)





No 02 THANK & CLOSE




Yes 01 CONTINUE

No 02 CLOSE CONTACT

While we’d prefer that you answer all the questions, if there are any questions that

you’d prefer not to answer, that’s fine, just let me know.

PC_1. ORGANISATION TYPE – PRE-CODE FROM LIST:


LGA 01 CONTINUE

ACT DEPT OF HEALTH 02 SKIP TO PC_4

NSW FOOD AUTHORITY 03 SKIP TO PC_4

NT DEPT OF BUSINESS, INDUSTRY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 04 SKIP TO PC_4

NT DEPT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 05 SKIP TO PC_4

QLD SAFEFOOD 06 SKIP TO PC_4

QLD DEPT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES 07 SKIP TO PC_4

SA DEPT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES 08 SKIP TO PC_4

TAS DEPT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, WATER AND ENVIRONMENT 09 SKIP TO PC_4

VIC PRIMESAFE 10 SKIP TO PC_4



VIC DEPT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES 11 SKIP TO PC_4

WA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 12 SKIP TO PC_4

WA DEPT OF HEALTH 13 SKIP TO PC_4

PC_2. SKIP IF PC_1≠01: GEOGRAPHIC REGION – PRE-CODE FROM LIST:


Sydney 01 CONTINUE

NSW – Remainder 02 CONTINUE

Melbourne 03 CONTINUE

VIC – Remainder 04 CONTINUE

Brisbane 05 CONTINUE

QLD – Remainder 06 CONTINUE

Adelaide 07 CONTINUE

SA – Remainder 08 CONTINUE

Perth 09 CONTINUE

WA – Remainder 10 CONTINUE

Hobart 11 CONTINUE

TAS – Remainder 12 CONTINUE

PC_3. SKIP IF PC_1≠01: Firstly, how many equivalent fulltime environmental

health officers work for your council?


RECORD NUMBER CONTINUE




Refused 99 CONTINUE

PC_4. RECORD GENDER


Male 01 CONTINUE

Female 02 CONTINUE



SCREENER First I have some questions about your role.

1. As part of your job, do you work with people or businesses in the poultry meat industry, for example, growers, processors, transporters, wholesale, retail or food service businesses?

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IF NEEDED: By poultry, I mean chicken, turkey, duck, quail,

geese, pheasant, pigeon and guinea fowl, but not emu or ostrich.


INSTRUCTION

No 00 CLOSE

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Don’t know 97 CLOSE

Refused 99 CLOSE

2. I’m going to read out a list of groups involved in the poultry meat industry. Can you please tell me which, as part of your job, you work with in any capacity?

READ (SR) No Yes DK SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Poultry growers 00 01 97 CONTINUE

Transporters of live birds 00 01 97 CONTINUE

Poultry processors 00 01 97 CONTINUE

Poultry de-boning 00 01 97 CONTINUE

Transporters of processed poultry meat

00 01 97 CONTINUE

Poultry wholesalers 00 01 97 CONTINUE



Poultry retailers including butchers, and supermarket butcheries

00 01 97 CONTINUE

Take away food businesses serving poultry meat

00 01 97 CONTINUE

3. Which of the following best describes your job title?

READ (SR) CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Local council Environmental Health Officer 01 CONTINUE

State or Territory Environmental Health Officer 02 CONTINUE

Food Safety Officer (NSW) 03 CONTINUE

State or Territory agricultural officer 04 CONTINUE

State or Territory policy officer 05 CONTINUE

Other, please specify (VOL) 96 CONTINUE

Don’t know (VOL) 97 CONTINUE

Refused (VOL) 99 CONTINUE

4. Which State or Territory do you work in?


INSTRUCTION

New South Wales 01 CONTINUE

Victoria 02 CONTINUE

Queensland 03 CONTINUE



South Australia 04 CONTINUE

Western Australia 05 CONTINUE

Tasmania 06 CONTINUE

Northern Territory 07 CONTINUE

Australian Capital Territory (ACT) 08 CONTINUE

5. In the last three months, what percentage of your work time was spent in …?

READ (SR) 0% 1-

24%

25-

49%

50-

74%

75-

99%

100% DK R

A State or Territory Capital city

00 01 02 03 04 05 97 99

A regional centre 00 01 02 03 04 05 97 99


00 01 02 03 04 05 97 99

6. And still thinking about the last three months, approximately what percentage of your work time was spent dealing with food safety issues in general?


INSTRUCTION

0% (none) 00 SKIP TO Q9

1-24% 01 CONTINUE

25-49% 02 CONTINUE

50-74% 03 CONTINUE



75-99% 04 CONTINUE

100% (all) 05 CONTINUE

Not part of job description 06 CONTINUE



7. And in the last three months, what percentage of your work time was spent tracking down causes of food poisoning?


INSTRUCTION

0% (none) 00 CONTINUE

1-24% 01 CONTINUE

25-49% 02 CONTINUE

50-74% 03 CONTINUE

75-99% 04 CONTINUE

100% (all) 05 CONTINUE

Not part of job description 06 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

8. DELETE QUESTION

9. I’m going to read out a list of stages in the poultry meat supply chain from growers to consumption. For each one, I’d like you to tell me how likely it is that current practices at



this stage could lead to food-borne illness in the end product. Please rate the likelihood from 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘extremely unlikely’ and 10 is ‘extremely likely’. How likely is it that current practices at the …. stage could lead to food-borne illness in the end product?

READ (SR) 1-10 DK R

j) Poultry growing 97 99

k) Transportation of live birds 97 99

l) Poultry processing (other than de-boning) 97 99

m) Poultry de-boning 97 99

n) Transportation of processed poultry meat 97 99

o) Poultry wholesaling 97 99

p) Poultry retailing excluding take-away 97 99

q) Take-away outlets that sell poultry products 97 99

r) Handling of poultry meat by consumers 97 99



10. Do you think there is greater risk on a per-serve basis of food poisoning from poultry meat in the ROTATE TWO SECTORS: “chicken sector”, “the non-chicken poultry sector”, or is the risk the same?


INSTRUCTION

Greater risk in chicken sector 01 CONTINUE

Greater risk in non-chicken poultry sector 02 CONTINUE

Risk the same in both sectors 03 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

11. In the next question we would like you to rate the effectiveness of the current standards and regulations for each of the stages of the poultry meat supply chain. If you are not familiar with a particular stage, please say ‘don’t know’. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘not at all effective’ and 10 means ‘very effective’, how effective are the current standards and regulations in minimising the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat and/or poultry meat products… READ

i. On farms?

ii. In the transportation of live birds?

iii. In processing plants?

iv. In de-boning plants?

v. In the transportation of processed poultry meat?

vi. In wholesale businesses?

vii. In retail businesses?

viii. In food service businesses eg takeaways

Not at all effective

Very effective

DK R



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 99

12. What, if any, are the gaps in the current standards and regulations? RECORD VERBATIM. RECORD MAXIMUM OF THREE RESPONSES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Who has the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for <INSERT CATEGORY BELOW> in the poultry meat supply chain in your State or Territory? READ.

ix. Poultry growers?

x. Transportors of live birds?

xi. Poultry processors including de-boners?

xii. Transportors of processed poultry meat?

xiii. Wholesale poultry businesses?

xiv. Retail poultry businesses?

xv. Food service businesses?


INSTRUCTION

No agency has responsibility currently 00 DON’T ASK

STAGE IN Q14

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (was

ANZFA – Australia New Zealand Food Authority)

01 CONTINUE

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and 02 CONTINUE



Forestry (DAFF or AFFA)

Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) 03 CONTINUE






NSW Food Authority 09 CONTINUE

SafeFood Queensland 10 CONTINUE

Primesafe (VIC) 11 CONTINUE


Don’t Know 97 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE



14. Who has the main responsibility for enforcing food safety legislation for <INSERT CATEGORY BELOW> in the poultry meat supply chain in your State or Territory? READ

xvi. Poultry growers?

xvii. Transporters of live birds?

xviii. Poultry processors including de-boners?

xix. Transporters of processed poultry meat?

xx. Wholesale poultry businesses?

xxi. Retail poultry businesses?

xxii. Food service businesses?


INSTRUCTION

No agency has responsibility currently 00 CONTINUE

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) (was

ANZFA – Australia New Zealand Food Authority)

01 CONTINUE

Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Forestry (DAFF or AFFA)

02 CONTINUE

Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) 03 CONTINUE












Don’t Know 97 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

15. The next questions are about specific legislation, standards or codes of practice for the poultry meat industry. What legislation, codes, standards or guidelines do you use with regards to food safety in the poultry meat industry?

CATI PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTIONS – FROM CODE 10 TO CODE 57 ONLY LIST

THE CODES APPLICABLE TO THE STATE(S) THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS IN

FROM Q4.


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (no

further information)

01 CONTINUE

Chapter 1 General Food Standards of the Food

Standards Code

02 CONTINUE

Chapter 2 Food Product Standards of the Food

Standards Code

03 CONTINUE

Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food

Standards Code

04 CONTINUE

Safe Food Australia (guideline to Chapter 3 Food

Safety Standards)

05 CONTINUE




INSTRUCTION

The Australian Standard for the construction of

premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for

human consumption (AS 4465-2001)

06 CONTINUE

The Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production

and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for

Human Consumption (AS 4694-2002)

07 CONTINUE

National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken

Farming

08 CONTINUE

The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)

program for each business

09 CONTINUE

[NSW] Food Act / Regulations 10 CONTINUE

[NSW] Food Production (Meat Food Safety Scheme)

Regulation (2000)

11 CONTINUE

[NSW] Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (NSW)

Act / Regulations

12 CONTINUE

[NSW] Pesticides Act / Regulations 13 CONTINUE

[NSW] Stock Foods Act / Regulations 14 CONTINUE

[SA] Food Act (2001) 15 CONTINUE

[SA] Meat Hygiene Act / Regulations 16 CONTINUE

[SA] Livestock Act / Regulations 17 CONTINUE

[SA] Stock Medicines Act (1939) 18 CONTINUE




INSTRUCTION

[SA] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (South

Australia) Act (1994)

19 CONTINUE

[SA] Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of

Use) Act / Regulations

20 CONTINUE

[SA] Controlled Substances (Pesticides) Regulations

(2003)

21 CONTINUE

[NT] Food Act (2004) 22 CONTINUE

[NT] Meat Industries Act / Regulations 23 CONTINUE

[NT] Stock Diseases Act / Regulations 24 CONTINUE

[NT] Animal Welfare Act 25 CONTINUE

[NT] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Northern

Territory) Act

26 CONTINUE

[TAS] Food Act (2003) 27 CONTINUE

[TAS] Meat Hygiene Act / Regulations 28 CONTINUE

[TAS] Animal Health Act / Regulations 29 CONTINUE

[TAS] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals

(Tasmania) Act (1994)

30 CONTINUE

[TAS] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control

of Use) Act (1994)

31 CONTINUE

[WA] Health (Meat Hygiene) Regulations (2001) 32 CONTINUE

[WA] Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations (1993) 33 CONTINUE




INSTRUCTION

[WA] Environmental Protection Act 34 CONTINUE

[WA] Animal Welfare Act (2002) 35 CONTINUE

[WA] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Western

Australia) Act / Regulations

36 CONTINUE

[WA] Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feed Stuff

Act / Regulations

37 CONTINUE

[VIC] Food Act (1984) 38 CONTINUE

[VIC] Victorian Standard for the Hygienic Production

of Meat at Retail Premises

39 CONTINUE

[VIC] Meat Industry Act / Regulations 40 CONTINUE

[VIC] Livestock Disease Control Act (1994) 41 CONTINUE

[VIC] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1986) 42 CONTINUE

[VIC] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Victoria)

Act (1994)

43 CONTINUE

[VIC] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control

of Use) Act / Regulations

44 CONTINUE

[QLD] Food Production (Safety) Act / Regulations 45 CONTINUE

[QLD] Food Act (1981) 46 CONTINUE

[QLD] Food Hygiene Regulation (1989) 47 CONTINUE

[QLD] Stock Act / Regulations 48 CONTINUE




INSTRUCTION

[QLD] Animal Care and Protection Act (2001) 49 CONTINUE

[QLD] Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals

(Queensland) Act (1994)

50 CONTINUE

[QLD] Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act /

Regulations

51 CONTINUE

[QLD] Animal Standards Act (1994) 52 CONTINUE

[QLD] Agricultural Standards Regulation (1997) 53 CONTINUE

[ACT] Food Act (2001) 54 CONTINUE

[ACT] Animal Diseases Act (1993) 55 CONTINUE

[ACT] Animal Welfare Act (1992) 56 CONTINUE

[ACT] Stock Act (1991) 57 CONTINUE



Don’t enforce safety regulations in the poultry meat

industry

98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE




17. In the last three months, how many times have you used the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code in your capacity as an enforcement officer of the poultry meat industry? BEFORE CODING AS 00 OR 01, ASK: What about “Safe Food Australia”, which is the guide to Chapter 3. How many time shave you used Safe Food Australia in the last three months? SAFE FOOD AUSTRALIA AND CHAPTER 3 CAN BE CONSIDERED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS QUESTION.


INSTRUCTION

Haven’t heard of the Chapter 3 Food Safety

Standards

00 SKIP TO Q19

Haven’t used it in the last 3 months 01 CONTINUE

Once 02 CONTINUE

Two to three times 03 CONTINUE

Four to five times 04 CONTINUE

Six to seven times 05 CONTINUE

Eight to ten times 06 CONTINUE

More than ten times 07 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

18. And using a scale from 1 to 10, how familiar would you say that you are with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards in general or Safe Food Australia, the guide to Chapter 3, where 1 is ‘not at all familiar’ and 10 is ‘very familiar’?

Not at all familiar

Very familiar

DK R

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 99









No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 GO TO Q25


Refused 99 CONTINUE

24. READ DESCRIPTION “The Chapter 4 primary production and processing standards will form a new chapter of the Food Standards Code. The standard for poultry meat will cover the production of poultry meat for human consumption for those parts of the poultry meat industry not already covered by Chapter 3 food safety standards”

25. Do you think the introduction of the Chapter 4 primary production and processing standards will have a ROTATE IMPACT: “positive” impact, a “negative” impact, or no impact at all on the risk of food-borne illness from poultry meat in your area?


Positive impact 01 SKIP TO Q27

No impact 02 SKIP TO Q28

Negative impact 03 CONTINUE





26. Why do you think it will have a negative impact? RECORD VERBATIM. RECORD MAXIMUM OF THREE RESPONSES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Why do you think it will have a positive impact? RECORD VERBATIM. RECORD MAXIMUM OF THREE RESPONSES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Why do you think it will have no impact? RECORD VERBATIM. RECORD MAXIMUM OF THREE RESPONSES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. Will the introduction of Chapter 4 mean less, the same or more work for you?




Less work 01 CONTINUE

The same 02 CONTINUE

More work 03 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

30. Will it make your job easier, harder or make no difference?


Easier 01 CONTINUE

No difference 02 CONTINUE

Harder 03 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

31. Next, I would like to talk to you about information in relation to food safety. Where do you get information on food safety in the poultry meat industry?


INSTRUCTION

Don’t get any information 00 SKIP TO Q32

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)

(was ANZFA – Australia New Zealand Food

Authority)

01 CONTINUE



Meat Standards Committee 02 CONTINUE




Other State or Territory health agencies 06 CONTINUE

Other State or Territory agricultural agencies 07 CONTINUE

Food Safety Information Council 08 CONTINUE



Meat Food Safety Surveillance Network 11 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

32. Is there any information that you need and haven’t been able to get?


No 00 GO TO Q34

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Don’t know 97 GO TO Q34

Refused 99 GO TO Q34



33. What information have you not been able to get? RECORD VERBATIM. RECORD MAXIMUM OF THREE RESPONSES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEMOGRAPHICS

34. What qualifications relating to food safety do you have?


INSTRUCTION

None 00 CONTINUE

Environmental Health Degree (tertiary)

01 CONTINUE

Meat Inspection Certificate 02 CONTINUE

Food technology degree (tertiary) 03 CONTINUE

Microbiology degree (tertiary) 04 CONTINUE

Agricultural degree (tertiary) 05 CONTINUE

Quality assurance auditor

qualification

06 CONTINUE

HACCP training 07 CONTINUE

AQF accredited Food Safety

Training

08 CONTINUE

Internal auditor training 09 CONTINUE



Other (please specify) 96 CONTINUE


Refused/not answered 99 CONTINUE

35. Not including the qualifications we’ve just talked about, have you received any other training on food safety issues that is applicable to the poultry meat industry, either at work or elsewhere?


No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



36. Are you employed full time, part time or on a casual or contract basis?


Full time 01 CONTINUE

Part time 02 CONTINUE

Casual or contract 03 CONTINUE


That’s the end of the interview. As this is market research, it is carried out in


for research purposes.

Just to remind you, this research is being conducted on behalf of Food Standards

Australia New Zealand. Your answers will be combined with those of other

participants to assist Food Standards Australia New Zealand in the implementation of

the Chapter 4 Standards.

As part of our quality control procedures, someone from our project team may wish

to re-contact you to ask a couple of question, verifying some of the information we

just collected.

Once the validation period and information processing has been completed, please

be assured that your name and contact details will be removed from your responses

to this survey. After that time we will no longer be able to identify the responses

provided by you. However, for the period that your name and contact details remain

with your survey responses, which will be for approximately 3 months, you will be



able to contact us to request that you have access to your information and/or we

deleted some or all of your information.

We do re-contact people from time to time for research purposes about the job you

have just participated in. Would you mind if we contacted you again for this

purpose?

RECORD YES NO

Consent to recontact for research purposes about the

project we have just invited you to participate in.

01 02

FINAL CLOSE/TERMINATION

Again, thank you for your patience in answering these questions. Just to remind

you, I’m calling from Colmar Brunton Social Research.

If you have any queries regarding this survey please call our Canberra office on (02)

6249 8566 and ask to speak to Debbie Randall, or contact Janis Baines at FSANZ on

(02) 6271 2234.

If you have any general enquiries about research you can call the Market Research

Society’s free Survey Line on 1300 364 830.



16 APPENDIX I: CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Project Number: 70357 7900 FSANZ Poultry Meat Safety Issues

– Consumer




INTRODUCTION




of people in Australia and New Zealand by maintaining a safe food supply.

May I please speak to the person who mainly prepares food in your household?

Is now a good time or would it be more convenient if I make an appointment to speak

to you at another time?







We are conducting a research project and we would like to include your views.

The research concerns food handling and preparation with respect to poultry meat,

for example, chicken, turkey and duck.

We are contacting people at random from the Telstra White Pages.

The survey will take around seven minutes.


provide will be used only for research purposes and your details will be kept

confidential.


DO NOT

READ (SR)


No 00 ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE IN HOUSEHOLD

WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IF

THEY ALSO PREPARE FOOD

IF YES, ASK TO SPEAK TO THEM (MUST

REPEAT INTRO TO NEW INDIVIDUAL)

THANK & CLOSE







No 00 CLOSE CONTACT

Yes 01 CONTINUE

While we’d prefer that you answer all the questions, if there are any questions that

you’d prefer not to answer, that’s fine. Just let me know.



SCREENER PC_1. RECORD STATE/TERRITORY


NSW 01 CONTINUE

VIC 02 CONTINUE

QLD 03 CONTINUE

SA 04 CONTINUE

WA 05 CONTINUE

TAS 06 CONTINUE

NT 07 CONTINUE

ACT 08 CONTINUE

PC_2. RECORD GENDER


Male 01 CONTINUE

Female 02 CONTINUE

PC_3. Before we start, I need to ask your age to make sure you are eligible to

participate in this survey. Please be assured that this information is kept completely

confidential. Which of the following age groups do you fall into?

READ (SR) CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

Under 18 years 01 SKIP TO Q5

18 - 24 02 CONTINUE

25 - 34 03 CONTINUE

35 - 44 04 CONTINUE



45 - 54 05 CONTINUE

55 – 64 06 CONTINUE

65 years or older 07 CONTINUE


1. This survey is going to involve questions about poultry meat, by which I mean chicken, turkey, duck, quail, geese, pheasant, pigeon and guinea fowl, but not emu or ostrich. How often do you buy poultry meat both for yourself and other people in your household?


INSTRUCTION

Never 00 CONTINUE

Once a month or less frequently 01 CONTINUE

More than once a month but not more than

once a week

02 CONTINUE

More than once a week but not more than

once a day

03 CONTINUE

More than once a day 04 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



2. How often do you eat poultry meat?

3. How often do you cook raw poultry meat at home for yourself or others?


INSTRUCTION

Never 00 SKIP TO Q5

Once a month or less frequently 01 CONTINUE

More than once a month but not more than

once a week

02 CONTINUE

More than once a week but not more than

once a day

03 CONTINUE

More than once a day 04 CONTINUE



4. IF (Q1 =0 OR 97 OR 99 AND Q2 =0 OR 97 OR 99 AND Q3 =0 OR 97 OR 99) THEN GO TO Q5 AND TERMINATE. ELSE, CONTINUE TO Q6.

IF UNSUCCESSFUL

5. Thank you, we do not have any further questions. We sincerely appreciate your time and assistance today.



IF SUCCESSFUL

6. Next I have a few questions about food safety in the kitchen. What are three things you can do in your kitchen to reduce the chances of food poisoning when dealing with raw poultry meat? PROMPT WITH, “Anything Else?” TO ACHIEVE THREE THINGS.


INSTRUCTION

Cook it fast 01 CONTINUE

Cook it thoroughly 02 CONTINUE

Cool food fast / keep cool / keep in fridge 03 CONTINUE

Clean surfaces in the kitchen / keep a clean kitchen 04 CONTINUE

Disinfect surfaces in the kitchen 05 CONTINUE

Don’t thaw and then re-freeze poultry meat 06 CONTINUE

Prevent the raw poultry from coming into contact with

other foods

07 CONTINUE

Reheat food fast 08 CONTINUE

Thaw frozen poultry inside, rather than outside, the fridge 09 CONTINUE

Use a thermometer to check the temperature of your food 10 CONTINUE

Wash surfaces (ie chopping boards) after touching the

raw poultry meat

11 CONTINUE

Wash surfaces (ie chopping boards) before touching the

raw poultry meat

12 CONTINUE

Wash utensils, such as knives, after using them 13 CONTINUE

Wash utensils, such as knives, before using them 14 CONTINUE



Wash your hands after handling raw poultry meat 15 CONTINUE

Wash your hands before handling raw poultry meat 16 CONTINUE

Wear disposable gloves 17 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

7. IF Q1 =0 THEN SKIP TO Q25. Now I would like to talk to you about the last time you bought raw poultry meat. What kind of poultry meat did you buy last?

IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THEY DO NOT BUY POULTRY MEAT BECAUSE THEY GET IT

DIRECT FROM A FARM, THIS IS OK. CONTINUE.

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH “DON’T KNOW” PROBE WITH “Was it …” READ OUT

RESPONSE CATEGORIES.

IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF RAW

POULTRY MEAT AT THE SAME TIME, ASK THEM TO TALK ABOUT A NON-CHICKEN

PRODUCT. IF BOTH NON-CHICKEN PRODUCTS, ASK TO TALK ABOUT WHICHEVER

PRODUCT THEY PURCHASED MORE OF. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH MEAT OTHER

THAN LISTED, INDICATE THAT THAT PRODUCT IS NOT OF INTEREST FOR THIS

SURVEY AND ASK FOR LAST PURCHASE FROM LIST.


INSTRUCTION

Chicken 01 CONTINUE

Turkey 02 CONTINUE



Duck 03 CONTINUE

Quail 04 CONTINUE


Geese 07 CONTINUE



Silky 10 CONTINUE



Don’t know 97 THANK AND CLOSE

Refused 99 THANK AND CLOSE

8. Where did you get this <INSERT Q7 > from?.


INSTRUCTION

Major Supermarket (Coles or

Woolworths/Safeway)

01 CONTINUE

All other supermarkets (i.e. IGA, Foodland, etc.) 02 CONTINUE

Butcher independent of supermarket, but not in a

fresh produce market

03 CONTINUE

Delicatessen independent of supermarket, but not

in a fresh produce market

04 CONTINUE



Fresh produce market butcher/deli 05 CONTINUE

Don’t buy, but have own farm 06 CONTINUE

Someone else’s farm 07 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

9. And how long did it take to get the raw <INSERT Q7 > from <INSERT Q8 > to your home? IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “DON’T KNOW”, ENCOURAGE THEM TO ESTIMATE A TIME. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH A RANGE, ASK, “Was that closer to UPPER TIME or LOWER TIME?” CATI PROGRAMMER: SET UP EDIT TO ENSURE DATA QUALITY


INSTRUCTION

RECORD ANSWER IN MINUTES CONTINUE



10. What did you use to transport the raw <INSERT Q7 > in? Did you use a…

READ AND ROTATE (SR) CODE SEQUENCE

INSTRUCTION

Shopping bag 01 CONTINUE

Cool/thermal bag 02 CONTINUE

Eskie 03 CONTINUE






11. And what did you do with the raw <INSERT Q7 > when you got home? ONLY ACCEPT MULTIPLE IF RESPONDENT SAYS THAT THEY SPLIT THE POULTRY PRODUCT PURCHASED AND, FOR EXAMPLE, PUT SOME IN THE FREEZER AND USED THE OTHER CHICKEN FOR COOKING.


Put it in the fridge 01 CONTINUE

Put it in the freezer 02 CONTINUE

Leave it on the bench or some other cupboard 03 CONTINUE

Use it immediately for cooking 04 SKIP TO Q13



Refused 99 CONTINUE

12. Have you cooked the <INSERT Q7 > yet?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q21

Yes 01 CONTINUE





13. IF Q11 =02 THEN CONTINUE. OTHERWISE GO TO Q15. Did you thaw the raw <INSERT Q7 > before cooking it?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q16

Yes 01 CONTINUE



14. How did you thaw it?


INSTRUCTION

Used a microwave 01 CONTINUE

Left it in the fridge 02 CONTINUE

Left it outside of the fridge (i.e. bench top) 03 CONTINUE

Placed it in a bowl of hot water 04 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

15. When you were preparing the <INSERT Q7 > for eating, did you…



READ (SR) No Yes DK R

a) Wash your hands before handling the raw <INSERT Q7 >

00 01 97 99

b) Wash your hands after handling the raw <INSERT Q7 >

00 01 97 99

c) SKIP IF Q15a ≠01 AND Q15b ≠01: Dry your hands after washing them

00 01 97 99

d) Wash utensils, such as knives, after using them with <INSERT Q7 >

00 01 97 99

e) And when you were preparing the <INSERT Q7 > for eating, did you use the same surface (like a chopping board) for preparing other food items afterwards, without cleaning in between?

00 01 97 99

IF Q15e =01 CONTINUE, OTHERWISE GO TO Q17

16. PROBE Did you use the same surface without cleaning for… READ

READ & ROTATE (SR) No Yes DK R

Salad or vegetables that were not going to be cooked

00 01 97 99

Vegetables that were going to be lightly cooked for example in a stir fry

00 01 97 99

Vegetables that were going to be well cooked for example in a casserole

00 01 97 99

17. Now I would like to ask you some questions about how you cooked the <INSERT Q7 >. Firstly, what cut of <INSERT Q7 > did you cook?


INSTRUCTION

A whole bird 01 CONTINUE

Half or quarter bird 02 CONTINUE

Breast fillets 03 CONTINUE

Tenderloins/pieces 04 CONTINUE



Thighs 05 CONTINUE

Drumsticks/legs 06 CONTINUE

Wings 07 CONTINUE

Pre-prepared uncooked meals, such as skewers 08 CONTINUE

Chicken sausage 09 CONTINUE

Chicken mince 10 CONTINUE

Other 96 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



18. When you finished cooking the <INSERT Q7 >, did you place the cooked <INSERT Q7 > on the same plate or surface that the raw <INSERT Q7 > was previously on?


No 00 SKIP TO Q20

Yes 01 CONTINUE



19. And did you wash this plate or surface before placing the cooked <INSERT Q7 > on it?


No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

20 How did you know when the <INSERT Q7 > was cooked? PROBE, WITH, “anything else?”


Smelt good 01 CONTINUE

Meat looked white 02 CONTINUE

Meat no longer pink 03 CONTINUE

Meat fell off the bone 04 CONTINUE

Juices ran clear 05 CONTINUE



Used a thermometer / set temperature for the

poultry meat reached

06 CONTINUE

Set time for cooking / followed recipe 07 CONTINUE

IF Q17 =1, The indicator on the bird 08 CONTINUE

Inserted skewer or fork into meat 09 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

21. IF Q17 =01 AND Q7 =01 GO TO Q25. Have you ever cooked a whole chicken?


INSTRUCTION

No 00 SKIP TO Q25

Yes 01 CONTINUE



22. Now, thinking about the last time you cooked a whole chicken, how did you decide when it was cooked and ready to eat? PROBE, WITH, “anything else?”


INSTRUCTION

Smelt good 01 CONTINUE

Meat looked white 02 CONTINUE



Meat no longer pink 03 CONTINUE

Meat fell off the bone 04 CONTINUE

Juices ran clear 05 CONTINUE

Used a thermometer / set temperature for poultry meat reached

06 CONTINUE

Set time for cooking / followed recipe 07 CONTINUE

The indicator on the bird 08 CONTINUE


Inserted skewer or fork into meat 09 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE

25. The next questions are about pre-cooked poultry meat. Pre-cooked poultry meat includes cold sliced poultry meat, take-away foods that include poultry meat and whole cooked chicken. Thinking about the last time you bought pre-cooked poultry meat, what kind of pre-cooked poultry meat did you buy? Please do not include poultry meat you ate immediately at a restaurant or take-away outlet.


INSTRUCTION

Have not bought pre-cooked poultry meat 00 SKIP TO Q32

Chicken – sliced or shaved 01 CONTINUE

Chicken – whole chicken (i.e. roasted) 02 CONTINUE

Chicken – part of chicken (i.e. KFC, Red

Rooster)

03 CONTINUE

Chicken – burger (i.e. KFC, McDonald’s) 04 CONTINUE



Chicken kebab (eg Ali Baba) 05 CONTINUE

Turkey - sliced or shaved 06 CONTINUE

Turkey – whole turkey (i.e. roasted) 07 CONTINUE

Turkey – part of turkey (i.e. roasted wing, leg,

cutlets)

08 CONTINUE

Pre-prepared meal eg Asian/Indian dish/take-

away from restaurant

09 CONTINUE

Chicken sandwich 10 CONTINUE

Turkey sandwich 11 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

26. Was the <INSERT Q25 > purchased hot or cold?


Hot 01 CONTINUE

Cold 02 CONTINUE



Refused 99 CONTINUE

27. After purchasing the <INSERT Q25 > at <INSERT Q25 >, where did you take it?



28. What did you do with the <INSERT Q25 > after you bought it? Did you…

READ (MR) ACCEPT MULTIPLE IF THEY ATE SOME AND STORED THE REST


Take it to your home (or somewhere else) and store it for eating later?

01 CONTINUE

Take it to your home (or somewhere else) to eat straight away?

02 IF ONLY CODE 2, SKIP TO Q30

Don’t know (VOL) 97 SKIP TO Q30

Refused (VOL) 99 SKIP TO Q30

29. Where did you store the <INSERT Q25 >? Did you store it …


In the fridge 01 CONTINUE

In the freezer 02 CONTINUE

On the bench or in cupboard 03 CONTINUE

Other, specify (VOL) 96 CONTINUE



30. IF Q28 =01 ONLY: And how long did it take you to get the <INSERT Q25 > from where you bought it to where you stored it?

IF Q28 =02 OR IF Q28 =01 AND 02: And how long did it take you to get the <INSERT Q25 > from where you bought it to where you ate it?

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “DON’T KNOW”, ENCOURAGE THEM TO ESTIMATE A TIME. IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH A RANGE, ASK, “Was that closer to UPPER TIME or LOWER TIME?”




RECORD ANSWER IN MINUTES CONTINUE





31. What did you use to transport the <INSERT Q25 > in? Did you use a…

READ AND ROTATE (SR) CODE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTION

Shopping bag 01 CONTINUE

Cool/thermal bag 02 CONTINUE

Eskie 03 CONTINUE




32. Next, I would like to read a series of statements to you, and I would like you to tell me whether you think they are true or false. If you don’t know, please say so.

READ AND ROTATE (SR) False True DK R

(VOL)

a) It is vital to wash your hands after handling uncooked poultry meat

00 01 97 99

b) It is okay to put cooked poultry meat back on the same plate you had the uncooked poultry meat on without washing it.

00 01 97 99

c) It is OK to use the same chopping board for preparing raw poultry and vegetables that you are going to cook well.

00 01 97 99

d) It is OK to use the same chopping board for preparing raw poultry and salad ingredients

00 01 97 99



33. Now, I would like to read another series of statements to you. This time I would like you to use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree and tell me how much you agree or disagree with the statements…

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 97 99

READ AND ROTATE (SR)

a) How I prepare food in my kitchen is very important to prevent food poisoning.

b) I am concerned about food poisoning from the food that I prepare myself.

c) I am concerned about food poisoning from food that my friends prepare.

d) I am concerned about food poisoning from food I buy from take-away outlets or restaurants.

e) I am more careful with the preparation of raw red meat than I am with raw poultry meat

35. Now, where do you currently get information about safe handling and cooking of poultry meat? PROBE WITH, Anything else?


INSTRUCTION

Food Safety Information Council 01 CONTINUE

Food Standards Australia New Zealand 02 CONTINUE

Government Health Department 03 CONTINUE

Television 04 CONTINUE

Magazines / Cooking books 05 CONTINUE



Internet 07 CONTINUE

Poultry companies, eg. Inghams, Bartter 08 CONTINUE

Butcher/retailer 09 CONTINUE

Family / friends 10 CONTINUE

Training course, eg. for work or school 11 CONTINUE



Don’t get any information 98 CONTINUE

Refused 99 CONTINUE

36. And what about the following sources of information… Would you consider looking for information about safe handling and cooking of poultry meat from these sources?

READ AND ROTATE ONLY THOSE NOT MENTIONED AT Q35 (SR)

No Yes DK (VOL)

R (VOL)

Food Safety Information Council 00 01 97 99

Government Health Department 00 01 97 99

Television 00 01 97 99

Magazines / Cooking books 00 01 97 99

Internet 00 01 97 99

Butcher/retailer 00 01 97 99



DEMOGRAPHICS

Finally a few questions about you to make sure we survey a proper

cross-section of respondents. The answers you give here are

completely confidential.

37. Which of the following best describes your household?


Lone person without children 01 CONTINUE

Lone person with children 02 CONTINUE

Couple without children 03 CONTINUE

Couple with children 04 CONTINUE

Other (multiple family household – includes share houses)

05 CONTINUE


38. What is your current employment status?

39. Are you currently employed in the poultry meat industry?


No 00 CONTINUE

Yes 01 CONTINUE




40. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?


No 00 CONTINUE

Yes, Aboriginal 01 CONTINUE

Yes, Torres Strait Islander 02 CONTINUE

Refused/no answer 99 CONTINUE

41. At home, do you speak a language other than English?


No, English only 00 SKIP TO Q43

Yes 01 CONTINUE

Refused/no answer 99 SKIP TO Q43

42. What is the main language you speak at home other than English?




Arabic (including Lebanese) 01 CONTINUE

Australian Indigenous

Languages

02 CONTINUE

Chinese – Cantonese 03 CONTINUE

Chinese – Mandarin 04 CONTINUE

Croatian 05 CONTINUE

German 06 CONTINUE

Greek 07 CONTINUE

Italian 08 CONTINUE

Macedonian 09 CONTINUE

Polish 10 CONTINUE

Spanish 11 CONTINUE

Tagalog (Filipino) 12 CONTINUE

Vietnamese 13 CONTINUE


Refused 99 CONTINUE



43. What is the highest level of education you have attained?


Year 9 or below 01 CONTINUE

Year 10 or equivalent 02 CONTINUE



Trade certificate or

apprenticeship

05 CONTINUE

Diploma 06 CONTINUE

Bachelors or Honours degree 07 CONTINUE

Post-graduate qualifications

(eg, Masters, PhD)

08 CONTINUE


44. Which of the following best describes the area where you live?


Capital city 01 CONTINUE

Regional centre 02 CONTINUE

Rural 03 CONTINUE

Remote 04 CONTINUE



That’s the end of the interview. As this is social research, it is carried out in


for research purposes.

As part of our quality control procedures, someone from our project team may wish

to re-contact you to ask a couple of question, verifying some of the information we

just collected.

Once the validation period and information processing has been completed, please

be assured that your name and contact details will be removed from your responses

to this survey. After that time we will no longer be able to identify the responses

provided by you. However, for the period that your name and contact details remain

with your survey responses, which will be for approximately 3 months, you will be

able to contact us to request that you have access to your information and/or we

deleted some or all of your information.

We do re-contact people from time to time for research purposes about the research

you have just participated in. Is it okay if we contact you again for this purpose?

RECORD NO YES

Consent to recontact for research purposes about the

project we have just invited you to participate in.

00 01

FINAL CLOSE/TERMINATION

Again, thank you for your patience in answering these questions. Just to remind

you, I’m calling from Colmar Brunton Social Research. If you have any queries, you



can call the Market Research Society’s free Survey Line on 1300 364 830 or Colmar

Brunton Social Research on (02) 6249 8566.

IF RESPONDENT HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAFE HANDLING OF POULTRY

MEAT, PLEASE DIRECT THEM TO THE FOLLOWING:

Information is available from the Food Safety Information Council at

www.foodsafety.asn.au



This document takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

COLMAR BRUNTON SOCIAL RESEARCH

PO BOX 2212

CANBERRA ACT 2601

PH. (02) 6249 8566

FAX. (02) 6249 8588

ACN NO: 090 919 378

ABN NO: 63 090 919 378

Documents

BENCHMARK RESEARCH ON THE POULTRY INDUSTRY€¦ · Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry Colmar Brunton Social Research 2 6.1.1 Enforcement officer involvement with specific