Food Hygiene Enforcement Interventions

Aim

To provide delegates: with an understanding of the food enforcement

interventions provided for in the Food Law Code of Practice and;

practical guidance on their use.

Objectives

The course will seek to provide delegates with: A brief review of Regulatory Reform and how this has

influenced changes to the Food Law Code of practice. A summary of the range of food enforcement interventions. Suggestions on how these interventions can be used to

drive up business compliance with food law. Guidance on preparing service planning for the effective

delivery of a food safety enforcement service. Practical help with promoting consistency in the use of

enforcement interventions.

Programme

09.30 Registration10.00 Introduction

The changing nature of food regulation

10.45 Food Hygiene Interventions11.15 Coffee11.30 Selecting Interventions 13.00 Lunch13.45 Selecting Interventions

Service planning 15.00 Coffee15.15 Ensuring consistency 16.15 Questions

IntroductionThe changing nature of food regulation

Regulatory Reform

Hampton Report (2005) Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and

enforcement.

McCrory Review (2006) Sanctions

Davidson Review (2006) Compliance with EU law

Rogers Review (2007) Priorities

Regulatory Reform

Regulatory Reform

Hampton McCrory Rogers Davidson

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill

Compliance Code LBRO

Primary AuthorityScheme

National Priorities

Sanctions

EC Implementation

Food Law Code of Practice

Hampton Report

Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement.

Hampton Principles

“Regulators should recognise that a key element of their activity will be to allow, or even encourage, economic progress and only to intervene when there is a clear case for protection;”

Hampton Principles

“Regulators, and the regulatory system as a whole, should use comprehensive risk assessment to concentrate resources in the areas that need them most;”

Hampton Principles

“Regulators should provide authoritative, accessible advice easily and cheaply”

Hampton Principles

“No inspection should take place without a reason;”

Hampton Principles

“Businesses should not have to give unnecessary information or give the same piece of information twice;”

Hampton Principles

“The few businesses that persistently break regulations should be identified quickly and face proportionate and meaningful sanctions”

Hampton Principles

“Regulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take.”

Regulatory Reform Act 2006Compliance Code

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 Regulatory functions:

transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent, and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

Compliance Code

S21 of Act, in force: April 08

Legislative basis to Hampton Principles

Approved by Parliament

Compliance CodePurpose

“to promote efficient and effective approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement which improve regulatory outcomes without imposing unnecessary burdens on business, the Third Sector and other regulated entities.”

Compliance CodeDefinitions

“Regulatory outcomes” ‘end purpose’ of regulatory activity for example:

Improvement of compliance with food law Reduction in food poisoning

Compliance CodeOverview

Code requires regulators to: “adopt a positive and proactive approach

towards ensuring compliance by: helping and encouraging regulated entities to

understand and meet regulatory requirements more easily; and

responding proportionately to regulatory breaches”

Regulatory functions Based on risk assessment.

Compliance Code

Certain Regulators required to have regard to the Compliance Code when: Writing policies, Setting standards Providing guidance

Code only applies to policy making. Not to inspections, investigations, prosecution and

other enforcement activities.

New Local Performance Framework New ways of working:

public sector organisations working together more to deliver better, more responsive services to local people;

public, private and third sectors striving together for improved prosperity with plenty of ambition for the future;

central and local government agreeing the priorities for an area and working together to improve outcomes;

opportunities for local people to influence decisions about services and how they are delivered.

Focusing scarce resources on priority outcomes

New Local Performance Framework National Indicators

NI 184 Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) Sustainable Community Strategy Local Area Agreements (LAAs)

Objectives of Food Hygiene Service National Indicator 184:

Food establishments in the area which are broadly compliant with food hygiene law

Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) Introduced from April 2009. Each year’s CAA will have four elements:

an area risk assessment identifying risks to outcomes and the effectiveness of their management;

a scored use of resources judgement for public bodies in the area;

a scored direction of travel judgement for each local authority in the area; and

publication of performance data for each area against the set of national indicators.

Implementing the changes.

“CAA will see a shift from cyclical to risk-based inspection only when it’s deemed necessary or likely to aid improvement.”–

Michael O’Higgins

Chairman Audit Commission

Source: “Food matters at your council” LACORS/FSA

Food Law Code of Practice

Food Law Code of PracticeIntroduction

Revision necessary: Bring food law enforcement in line with Regulatory

Reform. Some omissions in previous code Reflect changes in EU law.

Food Law Code of PracticeIntroduction

Main changes: Section 4 “Interventions” Risk rating of approved establishments Enforcement arrangements at primary level Revised food registration form live bivalve molluscs permanent transport

authorisation fishing vessel hygiene checklist

Food Law Code of PracticeInterventions

“activities (by the local authority) which are designed to monitor, support and increase Food Law compliance within a food establishment.”

Divided into “Official Controls” Other interventions

Interventions

Official Controls Other interventions

inspections

audits

sampling visits

monitoring visits

education

advice

coaching

surveillance visits

verification visits

information and intelligence gathering

Official controls

Regulation (EC) 882/2004 Lays down general rules for performance of

official controls Introduced to improve consistency

Official controls should be: Carried out regularly On a risk basis With appropriate frequency

Regulation (EC) 882/2004

‘Official Control’ “any form of control that the competent authority

performs for the verification of compliance with food law…”

Official controls

Official controls should take account of: Identified risks FBO’s past record Reliability of own checks Any information that might indicate non-

compliance. Should be unannounced

Flexibility to pre-arrange visits where necessary. For example some audits.

Official Controls

Inspections Audits Sampling Monitoring Surveillance Verification

Official ControlsInspections

“the examination of any aspect of feed, food,animal health and animal welfare in order to verify that such aspect(s) comply with the legal requirements of feed and food law and animal health and welfare rules”

Official ControlsAudits

“The systematic and independent examination to determine whether activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives.”

Official ControlsSampling

“Taking …. food or any other substance (including from the environment) relevant to the production, processing and distribution of… food…. in order to verify through analysis compliance with … food law..”

Official control if Submitted to official control laboratory.

Official ControlsMonitoring

“Conducting a planned sequence of observations or measurements with a view to obtaining an overview of the state of compliance with … food law..”

Official ControlsSurveillance

“The careful observation of one or more food businesses, or food business operators or their activities”

Official ControlsVerification

“The checking, by examination and the consideration of objective evidence, whether specified requirements have been fulfilled”

Other interventions

Advice Education Coaching Information & intelligence gathering

Monitoring form

Inspections/audits Verification/surveillance Sampling Advice/education Information/intelligence gathering

Selecting Interventions

Selecting Interventions

“Intensive regulation should be directed by Food Authorities at those food businesses that present the greatest risk to public health;”

“those that are compliant with Food Law should be subject to interventions that reflect the level of compliance that has been achieved by the food business operator”.

Selecting interventionsStrategic approach

Intervention strategy should: Recognise factors influencing non-compliance Consider risks resulting from non-compliance Focus on outcomes/outputs not inputs Seek to secure compliance with food law

Top down approach Centrally set

Bottom up approach Local control

Selecting interventionsFactors influencing non-compliance

FSA funded research Robin Fairman, Kings College

Different types of non-compliance Inability to recognise own non-compliance Lack of management controls Wilful non-compliance

Selecting interventionsBarriers to compliance

Lack of: Knowledge Interest Skill Money Time

Selecting interventionsRisks resulting from non-compliance

Need to match interventions to causes of non-compliance. High risk business/low risk of non-compliance

Audit of systems Sampling

Medium risk business/high risk of non-compliance Inspection

Medium risk business/low risk of non-compliance Verification

Low risk business/low risk of non-compliance Minimal (if any) intervention

Selecting interventionsMeasuring outputs

Inputs

Compliance Interventions

Training Training levels

LA ReturnsInspection

Processes

Output

OutcomesReduced

Food poisoningIID Surveillance

Selecting interventionsMeasuring outputs

Best to measure outcomes Difficult in practice IID data unreliable IID multifactorial

Less desirable to measure inputs No data on effectiveness

Process measurement unreliable No strong link between training and reduction in IID

Output measurement Measurable improvement in compliance with law Not perfect

Selecting interventionsFactors influencing compliance with food law

Awareness of legal requirements

Technical ability to identify non compliance/relate requirements to own business

Managerial motivation to identify non-compliance

Technical ability to identify necessary changes to achieve compliance

Managerial ability, resources and motivation to implement changes

Managerial ability to monitor and review changes

Food Law Code of Practice Interventions

Risk Rating

Category A or BC

Broadly Compliant?

D

Audit/Inspection

YesOfficial controls as Appropriate every

18 months

NoAudit/

Inspection

Alternate betweenOfficial controls

Other Interventions

E

AlternativeEnforcement

Strategy

“Broadly Compliant”

No more than 10 in “Hygiene”, “Structure” or “Confidence in Management” scores

Score Guidance on the Scoring System

25 Almost total non-compliance with statutory obligations.

20 General failure to satisfy statutory obligations – standards generally low.

15Some major non‑compliance with statutory obligations – more effort required to prevent fall in

standards.

10Some non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.

Standards are being maintained or improved.

5High standard of compliance with statutory obligations, industry codes of recommended practice, and

minor contraventions of food hygiene regulations. Some minor non-compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice.

0High standard of compliance with statutory obligations and industry codes of recommended practice;

conforms to accepted good practices in the trade.

“Broadly Compliant”

“Broadly Compliant”

FSA Strategic Plan 75% food businesses “fully compliant” by 2010. Full compliance

Score 0/5 for confidence in management.

Official control decisions

Officer should record: Type of official control selected Justification for this

Factors influencing decisionPromoting food law compliance

Targeted assessment of compliance

Influencing behaviour of FBO Change bad practice Endorse good practice

Factors influencing decisionCompliance Code

“Should only adopt a particular approach if the benefits justify the costs and it entails the minimum burden compatible with achieving their objectives.”

Factors influencing decisionCompliance Code

“Regulatory efforts should be targeted where they would be most effective by assessing the risks to their regulatory outcomes.”

Factors influencing decisionCompliance Code

Greatest inspection effort focused on businesses where risk assessment shows that both:

a compliance breach or breaches would pose a serious risk to a regulatory outcome; and

there is high likelihood of non-compliance.

Factors influencing decisionCompliance Code

“Reward businesses that have consistently achieved good levels of compliance.”

Factors influencing decisionEffective use of resources

More resource available for failing premises

Alternative enforcement strategies

Research suggests: Commonly used Preferred method:

Questionnaires Other methods:

Business forums Use other inspectors Random inspection

Advantages: Contact with low risk businesses Targeting of resources

Disadvantages Reduced face-face contact Administration

Information capture

Information capture

Essential that sufficient information: Collected Recorded Retained

To permit: Monitoring Subsequent selection of intervention.

Communicating with businesses Interventions should seek to influence

behaviour of FBO Change bad practice Endorse good practice

Explanation of: Type of intervention Why specific intervention selected.

Selecting InterventionsWorkshop

Case 1

Changes to Risk Rating

Only permitted following: Inspection Audit Partial inspection/audit

Changes to Risk Rating

Where new information arises about premises justified complaint or poor sampling result

Should consider whether an inspection, partial inspection or audit is appropriate, which may lead to a change of both the

intervention rating and appropriate intervention choice.

Internal monitoring of interventions

Monitoring should include: Adherence to the Food Authority’s planned intervention programme; Priority given to interventions with businesses according to Intervention

ratings; Compliance with the Code of Practice, the Practice Guidance and other

Agency guidance; Consistent assessment of Intervention ratings; Appropriate use of relevant inspection forms; Compliance with internal procedures, policies and the Food Authority’s

Enforcement Policy; Interpretation and action taken by officers following an intervention is

consistent within that Food Authority and is consistent with Agency and/or LACORS guidance;

That officers are aware of and have access to other published industry codes of practice relevant to the businesses within the area of the Food Authority;

That officers have due regard to published UK or EU Guides to Good Practice

Service Planning

Purpose of service planning

Identify Objectives of food service Links with corporate and national priorities Demands on service Resources required Partnership working

Target Resources to meet stated objectives.

Communicate to: Members Staff

Communicating with elected Members. Food Law Code of Practice

Promotes Effective use of resources

Facilitates Use of resources to meet local and national priorities

Permits Transfer of resources to areas requiring intervention.

Service planning workshop

Fulchester Council

Population 98,929 885 food businesses

8% FBOs non-English speaking Turkish Polish Chinese

Corporate Priorities1)  Make a positive local contribution to tackling the causes and effects

of climate change

2)  Enhance the vitality of Fulchester town centre

3)  Give priority to involving and meeting the needs of young people

4)  Achieve a cleaner, smarter and better maintained 'Street Scene' and open space environment

5)  Promote, encourage and provide opportunities for healthy living

6) Enhance the lives of the elderly.

Service aims and objectivesFulchester Council

Ensure that all food intended for human consumption that is manufactured prepared or sold in the District complies with food safety requirements;

Undertake programmed inspections of food businesses in accordance with minimum levels specified in the Food Law Code of Practice.

Advise and educate consumers, businesses and other service users on food safety matters.

Promote food and health issues generally

Investigate and take appropriate action on all complaints relating to food safety matters;

Carry out a planned food sampling programme;

Food business profile 2007/08Fulchester Council

Category A 18 (8)Category B 57 (32) Category C 303 (318) Category D 122 (135) Category E 291 (237) New businesses 89 (81)Approved establishments 5 (6)

Total 885

Food business profile 2007/08Fulchester Council

Based on historical data: 62% category C premises “Broadly compliant”

with food law.

Enforcement activitiesInspections 2007/8

Category A 24

Category B 48

Category C 278

Category D 94

New businesses 42

Approved establishments 12

Total 498

Enforcement activitiesSampling and advice/education

246 Micro samples taken 12 adverse results

6 SFBB seminars held 2 in Turkish 1 in Cantonese 3 in English

Fulchester Food Team

Food TeamLeader

PEHO

TO EHO (vacant) EHO

SEHO (P/T)

Ensuring Consistency

Where can inconsistencies arise?

Consistency strategies

Training Monitoring

Summary

Food Hygiene Interventions Focus on achieving compliance in food

businesses. Broadly compliant businesses

Less invasive interventions Target resources

Less compliant businesses

Questions?