What's your opinion on this approach from an EHO?
They looked at a burger / sausage van who was cooking in advance but had no evidence about what temperature he was hot holding the meat at, they said he was "safe".
A third business, they took samples from because they were concerned about pathogens and although no pathogens were present, the total micro loading was high so they did talk to him.
Personally, I would prefer it if they were protecting me and my family by challenging unsafe practices even if they have no evidence it is causing illness now! For one, I'd rather they challenged things on their first visit, not waiting for a micro result but also asked the proprietor to provide evidence that they know their process can be safe (ie their validation) rather than rely on a one off test!!!
So, what do you all think?
My four centavos.
Actually, i had thought that one of the primary objectives behind the SFBB project was (rightly or wrongly) to side-step "in-depth" technicalities of the type you are discussing while "complying" with the ca. 2005 EC food law as applied to "retailers" (possibly one-step up from some of yr examples). The reason being that preliminary investigations / proposed monitoring documents, etc had proven the impossibility of such businesses being faced head-on by HACCP.I daresay this included concepts like "validation".
If so, such logics will presumably equally dictate the level of conversation which a food inspector can hope to initiate. (this also assumes that routine UK food inspectors themselves are able to engage in such microbiological discussions ??
Rgds / Charles.C
I am sad. I record food safety programmes off the TV. I was watching an episode of 'the food inspectors' the other day and they took samples from some market stalls of some vine leaves stuffed with cooked rice and some olives and feta; all unrefrigerated. They tested them and they came back without pathogens so they allowed the trader to continue.
They looked at a burger / sausage van who was cooking in advance but had no evidence about what temperature he was hot holding the meat at, they said he was "safe".
A third business, they took samples from because they were concerned about pathogens and although no pathogens were present, the total micro loading was high so they did talk to him.
Personally, I would prefer it if they were protecting me and my family by challenging unsafe practices even if they have no evidence it is causing illness now! For one, I'd rather they challenged things on their first visit, not waiting for a micro result but also asked the proprietor to provide evidence that they know their process can be safe (ie their validation) rather than rely on a one off test!!!
So, what do you all think?
From my experience of interviewing 'food outlet' managers over the years, very few know what HACCP is or how it works, so validation would not even be understood. most of these people have very little training in food Safety, let allow HACCP principles!
Food safety that food manufacturers work to is so much higher especially when supplying supermarkets etc.
This difference between manufacturers and food outlets can easily be seen within the supermarkets themselves. You only have to look at supermarkets standards for their own in store bakery or Deli counters against the standards that they put on the factories that supply the same products within there stores.
Making judgements on individual cases from a TV programme is not good. Had the EHO any knowledge of the stallholders practices in producing the products? Go to a farmers market for example and there are stall holders selling products and produce made in places as varied as a farm kitchen or a BRC certificated premises.
As far as the Mediterranean products seller is concerned was he/she keeping product chilled behind the counter and only presenting sufficient product to sell in a short time?
Was the burger stall thoroughly cooking and killing potential pathogens and then protecting the cooked meat from contamination?
On a visit to Russia I saw a Sunday market where chicken pieces were being sold from a simple table. As I passed in the morning the blocks of frozen wings and drumsticks had been lifted from their box. When I passed in the afternoon there were a few thawed pieces left. Shock horror! …….but they were probably as warm as those I took from my fridge at home. What is more the usual practice by the customers was to buy for immediate cooking.
During my first journey to Thailand the street food vendors also came as a culture shock on first sight. In discussion with the EH professional and food microbiologist who were with me the conclusion was that the normal way of preparation was an excellent CCP. As a customer placed an order it was vigorously cooked in hot oil immediately served and eaten.
Although it is dangerous to generalise the impression I have is that too many EH professionals have a weak understanding of food micro and are poorly trained in sample taking. As much as this can be a problem in protecting the public it can also be a problem in protecting the food business from an EHO intent on finding evidence for prosecution they are determined to make.
Making judgements on individual cases from a TV programme is not good. Had the EHO any knowledge of the stallholders practices in producing the products? Go to a farmers market for example and there are stall holders selling products and produce made in places as varied as a farm kitchen or a BRC certificated premises.
No, but I'm also making judgements based on face to face experience where an EHO said
" 'GMO', I'm doing a HACCP audit on a factory later, what should I ask?"
"Well firstly I'd check the team leader was trained..."
"Really? That's a good idea"!
The TV programme just saw them making judgements on the inherent product risk. They automatically labelled pickles, jams and chutneys as low risk (which they would be for micro so I guess not a bad assumption.)
As far as the Mediterranean products seller is concerned was he/she keeping product chilled behind the counter and only presenting sufficient product to sell in a short time?
No. The product was all in large uncovered bowls on display with no refrigeration facilities.
Was the burger stall thoroughly cooking and killing potential pathogens and then protecting the cooked meat from contamination?
There was no evidence of temperature probing going on which you could argue is not applicable for thin burgers but it would be for sausages.
On a visit to Russia I saw a Sunday market where chicken pieces were being sold from a simple table. As I passed in the morning the blocks of frozen wings and drumsticks had been lifted from their box. When I passed in the afternoon there were a few thawed pieces left. Shock horror! …….but they were probably as warm as those I took from my fridge at home. What is more the usual practice by the customers was to buy for immediate cooking.
To be honest I see no problem with this as long as from a quality point of view people buying the defrosted chicken are aware it was previously frozen. I don't get the whole "Shock horror!" thing. I don't think the issues I raised with these are anything like the example you gave. This was an apparently sunny day in the UK with stalls showing clear risks which would be identified in any competent HACCP plan. Meat thawing is perfectly acceptable outside of a chiller as long as it's controlled.
During my first journey to Thailand the street food vendors also came as a culture shock on first sight. In discussion with the EH professional and food microbiologist who were with me the conclusion was that the normal way of preparation was an excellent CCP. As a customer placed an order it was vigorously cooked in hot oil immediately served and eaten.
Yes, this is common travel advice, however, none of the vendors on this UK street market were cooking their food in boiling oil.
The trouble is EHO have to find a "immediate risk to public health" before they can really act, there cannot act on what they think may go wrong! The other problem they have is, there is not enough of them to go round resulting in inconsistencies in there approach to what they find.
That's a bit scary though. Basically they're reliant on a positive pathogen result which would only be received long after people have eaten the food and fallen ill, or, as in this case, the store holders are 'lucky' and no pathogens are found (or the right ones aren't tested for) but another day and they're screwed. Microbiological contamination is rarely uniform.
So my argument is why not give advice now rather than waiting? Also considering it is a legal requirement that high risk foods (like cheese and cooked rice) are not unrefrigerated for more than 4 hours surely they could take action on that basis?
You might want to consider that your observations were made off the TV, not in real-life, even though the TV show may have appeared to 'report' 'real life'.
It seems to me from what you are describing, that in this case the considerations of those responsible for the programme strongly influenced the displaying of 'official' food inspection. In short: the whole thing appears to be fabricated.
Maybe the intention of the producers was to make food inspectors look like idiots who don't know what they are doing to provide industry with ammunition against the naming and shaming of unhygienic food businesses under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. (See here for news: http://www.ifsqn.com..._medium=twitter )
Honestly: Have you ever seen an EHO act that way in your own business during an inspection?
Anyways, I have long stopped believing anything I see on TV, except the news from reputed and verifiable sources. IMHO, these programmes are made to entertain and possibly to create perceptions, but certainly not to inform - sad as it may be!
Regards, MKRMS
Also from a consumer point of view, I've not found them to be particularly effective. For example; I once complained about a local takeaway who stored cooked rice in a big bowl, not refrigerated, not even covered and reheated to order. I pointed out the risks to the EHO and they got back to me saying "it's legal and the takeaway have reassured us it's only kept at room temperature for 4 hours". Considering the takeaway was open for approx 6 hours every weekend night and presumably the rice was not cooked after the doors open, I'd question what evidence they had that this was the practice, and, irrespective of what the law says, it's just not a good idea! Why didn't they say "ok, it's not illegal as far as we can tell but we have suggested to the proprietor that keeping it refrigerated would reduce the risks of bacillus cereus food poisoning".