Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone 4 Clinical review of area mental health services 1997-2004 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone This report has been developed as required under the Food Act 1984 (s. 7C).
If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format please phone 1300 364 352 using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email: [email protected] This document is available as a PDF on the internet at: www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety
Unless indicated otherwise, this work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au
It is a condition of this Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence that you must give credit to the original author who is the State of Victoria.
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.
May 2014 (1307018)
Printed by Digital House, South Melbourne. Printed on sustainable paper.
ISSN 2200-1220 (Print) ISSN 2200-1239 (Online) Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Welcome to the Food Act report
We are pleased to present this report which covers the This gives food businesses greater flexibility about calendar years 2011 and 2012 – milestone years in which how to comply. It has been accompanied by the rapid the final phases of amendments to the Food Act and development of private standards. associated initiatives have modernised Victoria’s food Spurred by serious outbreaks of foodborne illness in the regulatory system. late 1990s, and successive inquiries into food safety, the Lifestyles and patterns of food consumption are vastly Food Act 1984 has been revised in the light of the lessons different from what they were in the past when production learnt from all these developments. The safety of our food was predominantly local, preparation was labour-intensive supply is critical and Victorians can now rely on some of and means of preservation were limited. the highest food safety standards in the world.
Victorians today enjoy choice, convenience and quality In 2011 the second and third major phases of Food Act when it comes to the food they buy. While not everyone amendments came into effect. These changes give councils may appreciate the complexities of getting food from the new enforcement powers to deal with mid-level offences farm through the factory to the table, most are well aware under the Food Act and establish a statewide approach that safety risks can arise at any point in the food chain if to food sampling surveillance by local government. appropriate precautions are not in place. Among many highlights for 2012, in October we were In parallel to changes in consumer behaviour and demands, especially pleased to launch Streatrader, a new online way science and technology have driven a revolution in the way for traders to obtain approval to operate food vans and that food is produced, processed and marketed. Agriculture stalls. Streatrader radically reduces the regulatory burden and the food industry are unrecognisable compared with for traders operating food vans and stalls who trade across even a few decades ago, and globalisation has introduced municipal districts. It also gives councils online access to new products, new competition and new concerns. the compliance histories of the food vans or stalls, which greatly improves their capacity for food safety compliance Victoria’s food safety policy and legislation have evolved monitoring and risk management. Many council officers in line with these changes. New techniques in the food worked extremely hard on this innovation. industry require innovative regulatory approaches. As new challenges and threats emerged, an effective With data now being reported by the majority of Victoria’s and proportionate response had to be developed. 79 local councils, in this our second report we are able The result is a body of legislation and regulation that to present a glimpse of how the food regulatory system will take Victoria confidently into the future. But how is performing. The transition to statewide reporting has did we get to where we are today? been no small feat and we commend those councils that worked hard and endured the inevitable frustrations to First, food safety is a complex policy area that involves achieve this. In future reports we anticipate that all councils both public and private sector incentives and controls. will be able to report fully, so that complete and accurate This means that food safety risk management must data are available across the state. encompass a mix of private and public responsibility.
The private sector produces food. National, state and local governments together provide policy, regulation and oversight. The private market responds to the public regulatory system – for example, by finding ways Pauline Ireland to comply efficiently – but can also choose to exceed Assistant Director, safety-related regulatory requirements to improve Food Safety and Regulation shelf life or gain reputational and competitive advantage. Department of Health Second, most countries around the world have been part of an ongoing shift from ‘command and control’ to a more ‘performance-based’ food safety regulatory approach. From the Municipal Association of Victoria
Victoria’s 79 councils are integrally involved in the food The transition to Streatrader in October 2012 succeeded safety regulatory system that governs the myriad food due to councils’ willingness to rework their own business businesses that produce and sell food. Councils carry out practices to achieve more effective regulation of food vans, the legislated requirements that are set out for them in the stalls and vending machines across the state. The new Food Act 1984 and, as the tier of government closest to online application enables temporary and mobile food local businesses and communities selling and buying food, businesses to obtain approval to trade anywhere in Victoria they act to protect public health to minimise the risks of quickly, easily and at less cost. For the first time, it also food poisoning for consumers. gives councils access to the compliance histories of any trader moving into their districts. The scale and stakes of this activity are large, with councils registering (class 1–3) or being notified of (class 4) close to Councils also grappled with local issues as they arose. 50,000 food premises in an industry that employs 232,000 The floods in 2011 and 2012 posed considerable Victorians, exports around $7 billion of food and beverages additional workloads for affected councils, with officers and represents 19 per cent of household expenditure on working closely with their local businesses to provide advice food and drink. Victoria maintaining its reputation as a about cleaning up and disposing of affected food stuffs. producer of safe food is also very important to the overall Many councils also conducted information sessions about economy and availability of jobs for Victorians. the regulatory changes for many hundreds of participants from both business and community organisations. Councils take these roles seriously, and bring to the fore judgement and careful management of resources As the peak body representing local government in to ensure their regulatory activity does not provide an Victoria, the MAV welcomes the cooperative partnership undue brake on innovation and progress of Victoria’s food with the Food Safety Unit within the Department of Health. industry. At the same time they act where necessary to This constructive approach is vital to continuing reform of protect public health and respond to complaints from the Victoria’s food safety regulatory system. local community with the resources they have available.
Reform activities undertaken by councils in 2011 concentrated on achieving greater consistency of classification of food businesses by councils, and in making the technical and administrative changes Rob Spence necessary for councils to be able to report the required food safety regulatory data to the Department of Health. Chief Executive Officer Migrating data into a new format and starting quarterly Municipal Association of Victoria reporting was a significant task involving many thousands of dollars and hours of officer time.
We congratulate the Department of Health for contributing to the funding for information technology (IT) providers. The necessary changes to councils’ IT systems to enable easy and consistent reporting by councils could not otherwise have been made. This data provides an important policy tool to enable state and local government to undertake their regulatory activities based on evidence.
We thank councils and their IT providers for the considerable work and attention to detail that occurred throughout 2011 to make the changes to achieve better statewide coordination and consistency. Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
In memory of Nancy Millis
10 April 1922 – 29 September 2012 This report is dedicated to Emeritus Professor Nancy Millis, AC, who sadly passed away in September 2012.
Professor Millis was an eminent Australian microbiologist who served as an active member of Victoria’s Food Safety Council from the late 1990s until 2011. Professor Millis’ expertise and her spirited delivery were highly regarded by the Council and the various arms of government that worked with her.
During her tenure with the council, Nancy – her preferred form of address – contributed to deliberations regarding the microbiological risks in the food chain, both current and emerging. Her expertise was sought to assist the Victorian Government in its assessment of applications made to the national food standards setting body – now known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) – for the safety of genetically modified foods in the Australian and New Zealand markets.
Nancy’s professionalism and enduring dedication impressed upon those who worked with her that she was committed to ensuring that the development of food safety standards was based on scientifically sound information. It is no surprise to those who knew her well, that even while convalescing in hospital in September last year prior to her passing, she continued to work on her microbiology endeavours.
Nancy is fondly remembered by those who have compiled this Food Act report for her formidable intellect, warmth and her sense of humour.
Despite Nancy’s passing, her legacy will live on because of this contribution.
Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Contents
About us 1 About this report 2 Food industry facts and figures 3 Change challenge and achievement 6 Marking a milestone 12 Regulatory innovations 17 2011 and 2012 years in review 33 Year in review 2011 37 Food safety and food risks 38 Food premises registrations and notifications 47 Compliance and enforcement approaches 59 Revamped surveillance system 69 Fresh look at the evidence 73 Workforce connections 74 Communications 78 Year in review 2012 81 Food safety and food risks 82 Food premises registrations and notifications 89 Compliance and enforcement approaches 99 Food surveillance – how safe is our food supply? 109 Evidence on emerging food safety risks 114 Investing in workforce 116 Communications 119 In your municipality 123 The national scene 157 Appendices 163 Appendices 2011 and 2012 164 Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations 165 Appendix 2: Governance 169 Appendix 3: Functions, accountabilities and legislation 171 Appendix 4: Resources and publications 172 Appendix 5: Websites 177 Appendix 6: Acronyms and abbreviations 178 Appendix 7: Glossary of terms 179 Appendices 2011 184 Appendix 8: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications 185 by business class, region and municipality, Victoria, as at December 2011 Appendix 9: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications 188 by business class, region and municipality type, Victoria, as at December 2011 Appendix 10: Municipalities by number of fixed and mobile food premises registrations 191 and notifications by business class, Victoria, as at December 2011 Appendix 11: Fixed and mobile food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, 194 Victoria, as at December 2011 Appendix 12: Offences under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, 197 by type of offence, Victoria, 2011 Appendices 2012 200 Appendix 13: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by 201 business class, region and municipality, Victoria, as at December 2012 Appendix 14: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by 204 business class, region and municipality type, Victoria, as at December 2012 Appendix 15: Municipalities by number of fixed and mobile food premises registrations 207 and notifications by business class, Victoria, as at December 2012 Appendix 16: Fixed and mobile food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, 210 Victoria, 2012 Appendix 17: Offences under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, 213 by type of offence, Victoria, 2012 References 217 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
List of figures
2011 and 2012 Figure 1: Victoria’s food industry 3 2011
Figure 2: Salmonellosis and campylobacter infection rates per 100,000 population, Victoria, 2002–2011 38 Figure 3: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and suspected foodborne disease by aetiology, Victoria, 2011 39 Figure 4: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and suspected foodborne disease by setting where the food 39 was prepared, Victoria, 2011 Figure 5: Incidents and complaints reported to Department of Health, Victoria, 2011 42 Figure 6: Examples of food complaints, 2011 42 Figure 7: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, Victoria, as at December 2011 49 Figure 8: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations by Department of Health region, Victoria, 50 as at December 2011 Figure 9: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by municipality, Victoria, 54 as at December 2011
Figure 10: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications per 10,000 population in Victoria, 56 as at December 2011 2012
Figure 11: Salmonellosis and campylobacter infection rates per 100,000 population, Victoria, 2003–2012 82 Figure 12: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and suspected foodborne disease by aetiology, Victoria, 2012 83 Figure 13: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and suspected foodborne disease by setting where the food 83 was prepared, Victoria, 2012 Figure 14: Incidents and complaints reported to Department of Health, Victoria, 2012 85 Figure 15: Examples of food complaints, 2012 86 Figure 16: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, Victoria, as at December 2012 91 Figure 17: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations by Department of Health region, Victoria, 92 as at December 2012 Figure 18: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by municipality, Victoria, 96 as at December 2012 Figure 19: Fixed and mobile food premises per 10,000 population in Victoria, as at December 2012 98 List of tables
2011 and 2012
Table 1: Milestones in Victoria’s food regulatory framework, 1996–2012 4 Table 2: Highlights at a glance 6 2011 Table 3: Reports received from laboratories of notifiable microorganisms under Public Health and Wellbeing 41 Regulations 2009, 2011 Table 4: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2011 45 Table 5: Typical food premises classifications under the Food Act 1984 48 Table 6: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, by business class and region, Victoria, 51 as at December 2011 Table 7: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, by municipality type and business class, 53 Victoria, as at December 2011 Table 8: Food premises closures by councils for serious breaches of the Food Act 1984 s. 19 (3), 2011, 63 Victoria, 2011 Table 9: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by number of food premises in relation to which the 66 conviction was recorded, for each offence and by number and type of offence, Victoria, 2011 Table 10: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by type of convicted persons and type of 67 food premises to which the conviction relates, Victoria, 2011 Table 11: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 that led to convictions being recorded by 68 type of food premises at which the offences occurred, Victoria, 2011 Table 12: Number of food premises where Food Act 1984 offences have been committed at which a prosecution 68 resulted in a conviction, and the number of convictions in total, by municipality and region, Victoria, 2011 Table 13: Visits to the Department of Health food safety website, 2011 78 Table 14: Food safety website pages viewed more than 10,000 times, 2011 79 2012 Table 15: Reports received by laboratories of notifiable microorganisms under the 85 Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009, 2012 Table 16: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2012 88 Table 17: Typical food premises classifications under the Food Act 1984 92 Table 18: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations by business class and region, Victoria, 94 as at December 2012 Table 19: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations by municipality type and business class, Victoria, 95 as at December 2012 Table 20: Food premises closures by councils for serious breaches of the Food Act 1984 s. 19 (3), Victoria, 2012 102 Table 21: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by number of food premises in relation to which 105 a conviction was recorded, for each offence and by number and type of offence, Victoria, 2012 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 22: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by type of convicted persons and 106 type of food premises to which the conviction relates, Victoria, 2012 Table 23: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 that led to convictions being recorded 107 by type of food premises at which the offences occurred, Victoria, 2012 Table 24: Food premises where Food Act 1984 offences have been committed at which a prosecution resulted 108 in a conviction, and the number of convictions in total, by municipality and region, Victoria, 2012 Table 25: Visits to the Department of Health food safety website, 2012 120
Table 26: Food safety website pages viewed more than 10,000 times, 2012 120
Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
About us
The Department of Health has general oversight of the administration of the Food Act 1984 (Vic).
The Food Act provides the regulatory framework for the food industry to ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe, suitable and correctly labelled. In the main, it relates to the conduct of food businesses, such as manufacturers, cafés and restaurants, as well as facilities that serve food to their customers such as hospitals and aged care facilities.
The department also responds to food incidents and emergencies and coordinates a response when more than one local municipality is involved.
It shares responsibility for developing and administering food regulation with the Commonwealth and Victorian local governments within a framework that endeavours to harmonise regulatory requirements across a widely dispersed and varied food industry.
The department’s relationship with local government and its enforcement officers is set out in the Act. Mornington Kindergarten Centre Cook Nikki Dempster and Local government administers the Act at a premises Mornington Peninsula Shire Council EHO Becky Harman in kindergarten kitchen. level. This task combines registration, investigation and enforcement roles. The department promotes a consistent approach by providing guidance to councils and their enforcement officers, as well as to food safety auditors.
It also provides information to food businesses to ensure that the law is clear.
The Commonwealth and state governments jointly agree upon national food standards that are embodied in the Food Standards Code, which forms part of the Food Act. This collection of bi-national standards promotes consistency in Australia’s and New Zealand’s food laws.
The department has a range of other functions to ensure the proper operation of the Act, such as:
• approving food safety auditors and analysts • registering food safety program templates • publishing the register of Food Act convictions • setting requirements for food sampling numbers.
1 About this report
Welcome to the Victorian Department of Health’s report on Our initial report, covering 2010, detailed the initial work food safety regulation under the Victorian Food Act 1984. of the department and municipal councils to put the first The Act provides the regulatory framework for the food round of changes into place as well as non-statutory industry to ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe, suitable initiatives implemented in tandem with the legislation. and correctly labelled. It provided the first snapshot of the number and nature of food premises regulated under the Act, and of food Wide-ranging amendments to the Act came into force safety incidents, complaints and convictions. in July 2010 and have been implemented in three phases from July 2010 to July 2011. The changes give Victoria Fine-tuning of the new data collection and systems a food regulatory system which is able to respond to the continued throughout 2011 and 2012. issues of today but is also evolving strategically to meet This, our second report, provides a wealth of information future challenges. The system protects public health on the number and nature of food premises regulated by reducing the risk of foodborne illness. It protects under the Act, food safety incidents, complaints and consumers from unsanitary, unwholesome, mislabelled some enforcement actions for breaches under the Act. or adulterated food. It also contributes to the economy by maintaining consumer confidence in the food system These data better enable the department and councils to and providing a sound regulatory foundation for domestic identify emerging food safety risks that have the potential and international trade in food. to impact on public health. In turn, better information provides a sound foundation for risk assessments on The new statewide data collection ushered in by the which food safety policy and enforcement decision making amended Act is a vital resource for monitoring the system. can be based. • Since July 2010, the department has published details As data system enhancements are made, future reports of convictions for offences under the Food Act on its will also include additional information on temporary food website. For further details see
2 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food industry facts and figures
Victoria is highly regarded around the world as a supplier Victoria offers a highly innovative operating environment of safe, high-quality food. with flexible food safety standards, exceptional infrastructure and a strong research and development focus. It is the largest food processing state in Australia and the food industry is tremendously important to its economy. Farm producers and equipment manufacturers, chemical, Many large multinational firms have processing and packaging and logistics companies contribute significantly manufacturing facilities in Victoria. The state is also to the growth and sustainability of the food industry. home to a large number of small to medium-sized Victoria also has a diverse supply of high-quality raw food businesses. Employment in food-related industries ingredients and seamless access to fast growing markets. is especially crucial to the prosperity of regional and It is fortunate in being a net food exporter by a significant rural communities. margin, with many opportunities in international markets. ‘The food industry is supported by a It has key markets in New Zealand, China, South East Asia robust regulatory framework, further and India and is also well positioned to supply out-of-season produce to northern hemisphere trading partners due to enhancing product integrity.’ the advantage of opposing seasons.
Around 232,000 Victorians are employed in food The food industry (Figure 1) is supported by a robust businesses regulated under the Act, including food regulatory framework, further enhancing product integrity. manufacture, processing and food service. They are contributing to one of Victoria’s most resilient and profitable industries.
Figure 1: Victoria’s food industry1
Turnover Consumption 21.4 per cent of total manufacturing industry2 19.1 per cent of household expenditure $32.9 billion retail food turnover on food and drink 2.2 per cent increase compared with 2010–11 Retail Employment3 $32.9 billion total: Around 232,000 people (15 per cent of workforce) 63 per cent supermarket and grocery stores in food manufacturing, wholesale, retail and service sector 13 per cent cafés and restaurants 47 per cent of Australia’s prepared food products 12 per cent take-away food outlets 6 per cent liquor retailing 6 per cent other food retail Agriculture4 Farmers markets5 73,750 employed in agricultural food production 90 in 2011: $227 million turnover per year 22 in 2004 Food exports Food premises (fixed and mobile) 7 Around $7 billion.6 42 per cent of Australia’s air freight regulated under Food Act exports of food and beverages 48,185 in 2011 48,435 in 2012 Infrastructure investment Food processing R&D8 $3.5 billion capital expenditure in 2006–07 Around 40 per cent of Australia’s research and development is undertaken in Victoria
3 Food safety regulation milestones
Table 1 lists milestones in Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework since 1996.
Table 1: Milestones in Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework, 1996–2012 The Food Act is the principal state Act that controls the sale of food in Victoria. Local councils and the Department of Health jointly administer the Act. Food business owners are legally responsible for ensuring that the food they sell is safe and suitable to eat.
Progressive changes to legislation over 15 years have resulted in less prescriptive food standards and greater emphasis on flexibility and prevention strategies in Victoria (for example, outcome-based food standards,food handling and hygiene programs, food safety supervisors and statutory sampling of foods). Associated initiatives, such as food safety education, food handler training and monitoring and surveillance have become more important components of the regulatory system.
This framework has enabled Victoria to stay at the forefront of public health and regulation in Australia and internationally.
1996– Serious foodborne illness outbreaks occur in Victoria. 1997 The Minister for Human Services announces a review of food safety. A new strategy and Act amendments respond to food industry concerns about regulatory costs and a desire for greater flexibility. Victoria becomes the first Australian jurisdiction to apply the Australia New Zealand Food Authority’s (ANZFA) food risk management approach.
2000 Department of Human Services conducts community consultations on the 1997 provisions of the Act. The report identifies concerns from the food industry that the changes are too onerous for small and medium businesses, and from local governments about their role in approving food safety programs.
2001 The resulting amendments to the Act receive bipartisan support in the Victorian Parliament and the amended Bill is enacted. The changes continue a shift to a prevention and outcomes-based approach.
2002 The Victorian Auditor-General (AG) inquires into whether Victoria’s food regulatory framework minimises the risks of food-related illness efficiently and effectively. The AG releases final report, Management of food safety in Victoria.
2005 The AG conducts a follow-up audit to examine progress on key recommendations from the 2002 report. The audit identifies ongoing problems that the AG considers are unlikely to improve while the key agencies’ accountabilities are unclear under the legislation.
2006 The VCEC commences an inquiry into food regulation in Victoria to examine ways to simplify food regulation without compromising food safety.
2007 VCEC releases its final report, Simplifying the menu: Food regulation in Victoria.
Jan 2008 The state responds to VCEC’s recommendations, accepting that changes to the legislation should be made to improve food safety.
Jul 2008 The Department of Human Services proposes extensive changes to the Act and consults widely on them.
Jul 2009 The Food (Regulation Reform) Bill 2009 passes through Parliament with bipartisan support, ushering in major changes designed to give Victoria a better system for regulating the sale of food.
Jul 2010 Phase 1 of Food Act changes come into effect, that is: stronger regulator accountabilities and reporting, food premises regulated under a new four-tier classification system based on food safety risk, and the Department of Health commences publishing details of Food Act convictions on its website.
Oct 2010 Victoria’s 79 councils commence recording their food safety regulatory activities using new statewide data definitions, bringing together the results of active surveillance undertaken by all councils since 1984.
4 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Mar 2011 Phase 2 of Food Act changes come into effect, that is: enforceable undertakings for labelling breaches, infringement notices for less serious hygiene and handling offences, and new food sampling requirements.
Jul 2011 Phase 3 of Food Act changes come into effect, that is: food vans and stalls register with one council to operate at any location across the state, replacing the system of registering separately with each council. Private water carters register for the first time under a statewide scheme.
Statewide registration and notification of food and drink vending machines commences.
Nov 2012 Food Act amended to improve implementation of the Primary Production and Processing Standards under the Food Standards Code.
Ngo Muoi, Footscray Bakery and Maribyrnong City Council EHO Russell Thomson discussing new food safety flyer translated into Vietnamese.
5 Change challenge and achievement
‘… the years 2011 and 2012 year Further major changes to the Act came into force in saw the culmination of a major work November 2012 when it was amended to improve implementation of the national food standard governing program which commenced in 2008’ the sale of cracked and dirty eggs.
The Department of Health and local government food The two years 2011 and 2012 therefore saw the safety regulators on the ground play a vital role in culmination of a major work program that commenced in protecting Victoria’s food supply by developing policy and 2008. The intention was to modernise food safety law in administering the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health Victoria. With a new policy and legislative framework now and Wellbeing Act 2008. in place, attention can now turn to achieving the consistent In addition to their respective regulatory responsibilities approach to regulation across the state which both to safeguard food sold in the state’s food premises, government and food businesses want. these two tiers of government work closely with food Table 2 gives a flavour of activity and achievements in businesses, the public and community and not-for-profit food safety over this period. organisations to promote best practice in food handling.
The Department of Health and local government together marked an important milestone in 2011 when two further phases of amendments to the Food Act came into force in March and July 2011.
Table 2: Highlights at a glance
2011 2012 Policy and legislation
Jan–Dec 48,185 fixed and mobile food premises were registered 48,435 fixed and mobile food premises were registered with Victorian councils (class 1, 2 and 3) or recorded (class 1, 2 and 3) or recorded as having notified their in council systems as having notified their class 4 food class 4 food handling activities handling activities
Victorian Committee of Food Regulators (VCFR) VCFR met three times – comprising Department of Health, PrimeSafe, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and Municipal Association of Victoria – met three times
Suite of advisory bulletins published for councils to help them apply Food Act amendments
Jan Labelling logic, the final report of the national Review of Food Labelling Law, released
Feb New organisational structure implemented to align the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit to its new role following Food Act amendments
6 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2011 2012
Mar Second major phase of Food Act amendments came Respected public health practitioner Dr Rosemary Lester into force appointed Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, which includes acting to protect the community from foodborne illness New enforceable undertakings provisions commenced under the Food Act as an extra way to remedy mid-level breaches of labelling requirements
Councils given power to issue infringement notices for less serious food safety and hygiene offences
May Australian and New Zealand health ministers ordered a review of health concerns associated with caffeinated energy drinks
Jun Victorian Committee of Food Regulators published a food regulation strategic plan
Victoria’s food regulators signed an updated memorandum of understanding outlining respective roles and a collaborative approach between the agencies
Jul Third and final phase of Food Act amendments came into force
New statewide system commenced for registration and notification of food vans, stalls and food vending machines
Statewide registration introduced for water carters delivering water for human consumption
Jul–Sep The details of 5,506 temporary and mobile traders were entered into Streatrader prior to it ‘going live’. A further 1,520 new users signed up in response to the awareness campaign, giving a total of 7,026 approvals to 9,363 food premises – 60 per cent of which were operated by community groups
Oct Streatrader went live
Department gave evidence at the Inquiry into the Impact of Food Safety Regulation on Farm and Other Businesses
Licensed meat transport vehicles exempted from the requirement to register under the Food Act when selling packaged meat at markets (Gazette, No. S 337 11 October 2012)
Oct–Dec Traders lodged 3,445 statements of trade on Streatrader
7 2011 2012
Nov Details of statewide registration of temporary and Food Act amended to improve implementation of the mobile food premises and vending machines declared national Food Standards Code standard covering sale under the Food Act (Gazette No S 372, 17 Nov 2011) of cracked and dirty eggs
Egg farmers retailing eggs from the farm gate exempted from the need to register the farm with council (Gazette, No. S 387 21 Nov 2012)
Permanent exemption for quail and duck eggs, and two-year exemption for chicken eggs, from the obligation to stamp them with unique identifier of producer (Gazettes No. S 392 22 Nov 2012 and No. S 387 21 Nov 2012)
Advice and education
Jan–Dec 30,127 unique visitors to dofoodsafely - the department’s 36,871 unique visitors to dofoodsafely online learning program for food handlers9
More than 10 major briefing sessions held on changes 128 council officers attended training in food safety to the Food Act for councils across the state auditing and Cook Chill processes used in class 1 high-risk facilities, such as hospital kitchens
Jan Your guide to food safety booklet, 10 easy steps for food safety, released
Feb Guidance for council officers on issuing new infringement notices released
Council officers attended annual environmental health practitioners conference on food safety
More than 200 council officers attended regional sessions on the use of new infringements powers
Mar 120 council officers attended regional briefings on new Draft Environmental health technician (food safety) requirements relating to food surveillance sampling guidance for local government released
Workshop held with bed and breakfast operators to brief them about changed regulatory requirements and assist them to comply
Apr Forum for food safety program template developers held Chief Health Officer released an advisory on egg safety for restaurants, cafés and caterers Updated guide released to assist template developers to produce industry-specific class 2 food safety program templates
Jul Guidance for food van, stall and vending machine operators released to help traders comply with the Food Act
Guide for drinking water carters released to help operators comply with the Food Act
8 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2011 2012
Aug–Dec 445 council staff attended Streatrader introductory training in metropolitan and regional areas. 143 attended ‘Super User’ training (2 from each council)
Sep Guide to donating food to emergency services published jointly with Australian Red Cross
Oct 230 council officers attended departmental forum on new standards for primary production and processing, Streatrader, managing outbreaks and the national food regulation system
Oct–Dec 1,596 callers received advice from the department’s Streatrader helpline
Nov 241 council officers attended Health Protection Forum Councils and businesses were advised about the eggs – a ‘stocktake’ regarding implementation of Food Act and egg product standard reforms and new statewide registration system for food vans and stalls
Advice on complying with the amended Food Act released for proprietors of class 2 and 3 food vending machines
Department-funded training of 254 council environmental health officers in effective food and water sampling techniques completed by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)
Dec Orange juice vending machine safety bulletin prepared Draft Guide to remote monitoring of temperatures and provided to the National Vending Association in food storage units released
Investigations and enforcement
Jan–Dec Department conducted risk assessments on 465 Department acted on 381 laboratory notifications laboratory notifications of pathogenic microorganisms detected in food or drinking water
Department conducted risk assessments and acted Department acted on 222 complaints on 186 complaints about food and food premises
40 council environmental health officers trained in food Department assesses 365 mandatory reports safety auditing and the Cook Chill processes used in referred by the ACCC about cases of potential illness high-risk facilities, such as hospital kitchens associated with food
Convictions under the Food Act were recorded against Convictions under the Food Act were recorded against 42 companies or individuals in relation to 29 food 48 companies or individuals in relation to 39 food premises. The companies and individuals were found premises. The companies and individuals were found guilty of a total of 409 offences. guilty of a total of 494 offences.
Department acted on 67 food recalls, 24 of which Department acted on 60 food recalls, 17 of which were instigated by Victorian-based food companies were instigated by Victorian-based food companies
Department acted on two referrals in relation to imported foods issues from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
9 2011 2012
Jan, Apr Department issued health warnings on eating poisonous mushrooms (in English and traditional Chinese) and on contaminated salad sprouts
Oct–Nov Department coordinated the response to a national outbreak of salmonellosis associated with almonds, resulting in a number of food recalls
Food surveillance
Feb New statewide food sampling regulatory requirements Annual regulatory food sampling numbers declared declared (Gazette No S 47, 17 Feb 2011) for each council (Gazette No S 36, 14 Feb 2012)
Authorised public food analysts attended annual update. Use of molecular typing methods in outbreak investigations in Australia was among the presentations
Mar New food surveillance sampling requirements came into effect, with a focus on higher-risk food handling activities and capacity for statistical results across the state
May 17 authorised public food analysts attended update
Oct Victoria convened national Salmonella summit to look at causes for increasing notification of cases in Victoria and Australia
Nov Laboratories commenced electronic reporting to the department of statistics on analysis of all food samples collected by councils. Further enhancements planned
Knowledge
Jan–Jun 27,500 new class 2 food safety program templates provided at no cost to food premises to assist them to comply with the amended Food Act
Jan–Dec 77 (of 79) councils were able to report fully against new 78 (of 79) councils were able to report fully statewide dataset on Food Act activities
Department endorsed four research proposals under Department endorsed five research proposals under the first Food Safety Evidence for Policy program the Food Safety Evidence for Policy program funding funding round round. A further five commissioned studies were completed
26 businesses registered their own food safety program More than 30 businesses registered food safety templates with the department program templates with the department
Feb Template released to assist community groups running class 2 temporary and mobile food premises to prepare a food safety program
10 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2011 2012
Communication
Jan–Dec Department responded to more than 4,000 emails Department responded to more than 4,000 emails to the Food Safety inbox
Department answered 4,182 calls to Food Safety Department answered 4,144 calls to the food safety hotlines (4,363 in 2009, 4,479 in 2010) hotline
40 information flyers, guides and bulletins for councils, 27 information flyers, guides and bulletins published business and the community published
175,677 visitors viewed 1.2 million web pages on the 163,328 visitors viewed 2.6 million web pages on the department’s food safety website department’s food safety website
Department’s online register of convictions was the third most visited food safety web page with 43,414 visits (27 per cent of all visits)
Oct–Dec Councils and key stakeholders, such as the Victorian Farmers’ Market Association, received an information pack to assist with raising awareness about Streatrader and simplified arrangements for packaged meat stalls
1,520 new users responded to awareness campaign by signing up to Streatrader, the new web-based regulatory system for food vans, stalls and vending machines
11 Marking a milestone
Victoria now has a modernised food safety regulatory system. Industry update for Bayside’s local businesses Risk-based system In March 2011 the Bayside City Council’s Environmental Health department held a food safety Food premises are classified by municipal councils under forum to provide businesses with an industry update the Food Act according to the public health risks involved on the upcoming changes, and to assist them to in handling foods. comply with the Food Act. The nature of food, together with the way it is handled, More than 60 representatives from local businesses and the vulnerability to illness of the person eating the attended. All participants rated the forum as ‘very food, determines food safety risk. good’ to ‘excellent’ and stated that staff were friendly The Act adopts a preventative approach to food safety. and easy to understand. All attendees reported that It groups food premises into defined ‘classes’, and the forum improved their knowledge of the topics sets out different food safety requirements for each covered, particularly the legislative changes. class based on the food safety risks of its highest risk Topics discussed included: food handling activity. • the new four-class food premises classification There are four classes – from highest risk (class 1), system such as a nursing home, to lowest risk (class 4), such as a newsagency selling only pre-packaged confectionery. • the department’s new food safety program template (version 2.0), which has been provided to all class The level of regulation is now better matched to the risks 2 premises in the municipality of different food handling activities. • changes to class 2 record-keeping requirements It is largely determined by the microbial hazards posed by • food allergens food handling at the premises. The greater the chance of • new minimum records introduced for class 3 something going wrong during the food handling process, premises to streamline requirements for lower risk and the greater the potential impact on people’s health, food premises the higher the level of regulation. • infringement notices for a range of offences under This risk-based approach enables resources to be targeted the Food Act, and how they may affect local to the areas where they are most needed. businesses • the upcoming single statewide registration system The terms ‘high-risk’ and ‘low-risk’ are used in this report for all food vans and stalls. for ease of reference. High-risk food should be taken to refer to foods that require more careful handling to keep Con Tsekouras, Environmental Health Coordinator, them safe. This usually involves temperature control Bayside City Council (refrigeration and/or cooking to a sufficiently high temperature) to control or kill the pathogens that can cause food poisoning.
Table 5 later in this report describes each food premises class with examples of typical food handling activities.
12 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Choice and flexibility Mount Alexander’s information resources Businesses have more choice in how they meet their revamped regulatory obligations. For example, most food business In 2011 Mount Alexander’s environmental health that require a food safety program may choose between officers enlisted the assistance of a placement an independent and a Department of Health-approved student to update our Food premises information program. Due to the lower risks associated with their kit to incorporate the changes to the Food Act. food handling activities, class 3 and 4 food premises are The student also assisted with a newsletter that was no longer required to have a formal food safety program. sent to proprietors with the renewal of registration. This has benefited many small businesses, such as milk The newsletter included information about changes bars and other convenience stores, that handle only to the Act and food handling issues that were pre-packaged food and fruit and vegetables. encountered at a number of routine inspections. Training options for food handlers are also based on the Tracey Watson, Senior Environmental Health Officer, level of risk. Class 1 and 2 premises (such as hospitals, Mount Alexander Shire Council nursing homes and manufacturers) must have a food safety supervisor who has the knowledge and authority High satisfaction with Whittlesea to supervise staff who handle food. Other businesses In 2011 Whittlesea City Council’s Health Services handling low-risk food can still have a food safety department continued to implement the changes supervisor, but they are not required by law to do so. to the Food Act. They may decide that formal training is still the best approach, especially where the skills and knowledge To assist our food businesses, information was required are more complex. Alternatively they may provided via our FoodNews newsletter. We offered recognise prior experience, conduct on-the-job training or a series of presentations on the following topics: have staff complete dofoodsafely, the department’s free, • new food laws, May (35 attendees) award-winning online food handler learning program. • food labelling requirements, April (17 attendees). ‘For food vans and stalls, the new Each year, Council sends food businesses a survey system is … more efficient and has to rate its service in relation to registration renewal. greatly reduced the costs of complying In 2011 we received 305 survey responses with 97 per cent of the applicants rating their environmental with the Act.’ health officer assistance as either ‘excellent’ or For the state’s temporary and mobile traders, the new ‘good’. Ninety-one per cent either ‘strongly agreed’ statewide single registration system allows them to notify or ‘agreed’ that they had a better understanding (class 4) or register (class 2 and 3) with one council, of Food Act requirements after the inspection/ rather than with every council in whose districts they trade assessment. Proprietor comments from the survey throughout the year. For these food vans and stalls, the were taken into consideration in the team’s annual new system is more reasonable, more efficient and has planning sessions. greatly reduced the costs of complying with the Act. Neville Kurth, Manager Health, Access and Bushfire Recovery, Whittlesea City Council Phased improvements Victoria’s food regulatory system is based on the primary responsibility and capacity of industry to produce safe food through preventive controls tailored to inherent hazards.
13 The Food Act now gives Victoria a better system for regulating the sale of food. The amendments came into Yarra Ranges greater presence in food safety effect in three phases. Yarra Ranges Council had a strong presence in the Phase 1 was explained in our 2010 report. It included area of food safety in 2011 and, as such, managed regulator accountabilities and reporting, enabled a new to gain greater compliance with the Food Act and the Food Standards Code by the majority of food four-tier food premises classification system based on food safety risk and a created the register of Food Act premises owners. convictions available on the department’s website. The biggest challenge for Council is the large In March 2011 the phase 2 changes involved: geographical area it covers with a mix of outer metropolitan and rural areas. • enabling enforceable undertakings for certain labelling breaches All statutory inspections were completed within the calendar year. • empowering councils to issue infringement notices for certain food safety or hygiene offences Implementation of the statewide temporary and mobile • a new statewide approach to food sampling surveillance food premises register was an important priority. by local government. During the year we changed over our electronic In July 2011, phase 3 involved: record system to enable easier reporting to the Department of Health and to create a more tailored • the commencement of the new statewide single system for premises registrations and Inspections. registration system for food vans, stalls and vending machines Jessica Tindall, Team Leader, Health Operations, • the requirement for private water carters that sell Yarra Ranges Shire Council drinking water to the public to register under the Food Act amendments prompt quality review Food Act. During 2011 Wyndham implemented the final round In 2012 the Food Act was further amended to improve of Food Act amendments, including changes to the implementation of Primary Production and Processing registration process for temporary and mobile food Standards. operations and the registration of water carriers. During this busy period all food sampling and tobacco Partners in implementation programs were successfully completed.
Throughout 2011 and 2012 the department published Council conducted inspections of stalls at public guidelines and practical tools to assist local councils, food events including Weerama, Werribee Craft Markets, businesses and food safety auditors to understand and Laverton Market, Point Cook Market and Italian adopt the changes to the Act. markets. This helped ensure compliance with the A Department of Health–Municipal Association of Victoria Food Standards Code, and was an opportunity to Food Safety Coordination Committee continued to advise further educate stall operators on the amendments on implementation in 2011 and 2012. This successful to the Food Act. partnership has been further assisted by local government In response to the Food Act changes, Council health managers and environmental health officers who is undertaking a significant review of its quality have provided input to Food Act reform projects through assurance standards and policies to ensure the working groups and steering committees. new legislative requirements are met.
For details of publications, see Appendix 4. Brooke Hutcheon, Coordinator Environmental Health Unit, Wyndham City Council
14 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Scope of food safety reform This situation arose because each of the state’s 79 councils has historically made decisions in isolation The 1990s saw a shift away from prescriptive statewide about how they will administer their obligations under food safety regulations to outcome-based standards. the Food Act. Councils also had inadequate tools Across Australia, options for moving towards seamless to deal with mid-level Food Act offences and the policy and regulation – from paddock to plate – began department had no powers to steer the system or assist to be considered. local government in its role of administering the Act. Serious outbreaks trigger change ‘… the level of regulation is now Following several serious outbreaks of foodborne illness better matched to the risk of different in Victoria, the Food Act was amended progressively between 1998 and 2001. Food safety programs and food handling activities’ mandatory food safety supervisors were introduced. New rules and tools ‘… there was a concern that some In response, with bipartisan support Parliament enacted food businesses, especially small major changes to the Act to significantly improve food businesses’ experience of regulation. business and the not-for-profit sector, were over-regulated’ The level of regulation is now better matched to the risk of different food handling activities. Without diminishing Over-regulation the intended protections of public health, the regulatory regime takes account of changing community The food regulatory system was reviewed by the expectations and pressures on business. Victorian Auditor-General in 2002 and 2005. These reviews were followed in 2006 and 2007 by a Victorian Graduated, proportionate regulation Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) inquiry The level of regulation remains similar for premises into food regulation. carrying out higher-risk food activities. However, There was a concern that some food businesses, regulatory requirements have been eased for businesses especially small business and the not-for-profit sector, and community groups whose food handling activities were over-regulated. Contentious issues included: pose less overall risk to public health. The intention is to regulation of farmers’ market stalls and community reduce the time and costs of complying with the Act for group activities; inconsistencies in the state’s regulatory many businesses and community groups. The level of approach; capacity and commitment across local assistance to food premises to assist them to meet their councils; food labelling; and pressure to ‘name and regulatory obligations has also increased through access shame’ food businesses failing to meet their food safety to a suite of new information and training resources. obligations. In some areas regulatory requirements were New non-regulatory program support systems have duplicated; for example, food vans and stalls had to been developed, including the award-winning, web- register with, and pay a fee to, each council in whose based food handler learning program, dofoodsafely. district they operated throughout the year.
The VCEC inquiry found a regulatory system in which responsibilities were devolved to local government without clear accountabilities or adequate governance arrangements. Little information was available about food businesses registered in Victoria, and there was no statewide information about even basic things.
15 Clearer responsibilities, closer partnerships Better data, better health Responsibilities for solving food safety system problems Since 1 October 2010 most councils have been locally and at the state level have been clarified. recording their food safety regulatory activities in a way that can be reported to the department. This followed ‘One of the recognised strengths of intensive work to establish a statewide information the Victorian system is that councils system to capture council activities in relation to Food are in regular contact with their food Act monitoring and enforcement. The changes mean businesses.’ that a true picture of how the Act is applied across Victoria is emerging. Businesses may now expect a similar approach to food While the department has traditionally supplemented regulation by councils across the state. The department consultation with small surveys, statewide data will now has statutory responsibility to provide guidance facilitate policies and procedures supported by a to councils in order to promote consistent statewide stronger evidence base. For example, aggregated data application of the Act. It can also advise councils about should aid council decisions about how to conduct food adopting risk management frameworks. premises compliance checks. The data should inform One of the recognised strengths of the Victorian system councils and the department about which premises is that councils are in regular contact with their food types are most often assessed as critically noncompliant businesses. Councils continue in their roles as primary with requirements and would benefit from targeted regulators on the ground. New tools, guidance and education. Over time, trends and emerging food safety training for council officers are available to help them issues across a region or across the state should be understand their responsibilities under the amended Act, evident. and to be well equipped to discharge them. Work is continuing so that comparable, accurate data At the state level, a memorandum of understanding are available statewide. between the Department of Health, the Municipal From principles to practice Association of Victoria, PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria has improved coordination between A handful of important themes underpin the amended regulatory agencies with responsibility for food safety legislation. These are consistency, proportionality, from paddock to plate. accountability, transparency and the need for an evidence base. Embedding this philosophy into culture and practice across the state demands different ways of thinking and working and more committed partnerships between local governments, state governments and the state agencies that regulate primary production.
16 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Regulatory innovations
Consistent, statewide approach Regulation eased for Golden Plains The importance of promoting a consistent, statewide food premises approach, as well as consolidating the changes made The 2011 year was very busy with implementing the in 2010, was a continuing theme in 2011 and 2012. updates to the Food Act. Our aim was to ensure all New enforcement tools became available to councils to registered businesses had up-to-date information. deal with noncompliant businesses. These new powers are Council provided all relevant registered premises governed by a range of statutory procedures about when, with the new version of the department’s food safety and how, to use them across the state. program, along with education on its contents and use.
Statewide registration of food vans and markets stalls The job of assisting proprietors on the new radically altered the approval process for these businesses. classification system proved to be a considerable District-based approvals ceased to be required. Only one task! As a rural council, Golden Plains has a council’s approval is now required as permission for these significant number of premises that have changed businesses to operate throughout the state. classification from class 2 to class 3, given the lower risk nature of the food that they handle. We also have This change illustrates the need for councils to cooperate a number of community groups on whose food and to apply a consistent approach to registration and activities the community relies heavily, even though enforcement, as their decisions affect all council districts they are often only small, home-based enterprises. in which a van or stall trades. Council also assisted these groups to understand This trend is not only significant for the traders directly the new legislative requirements. affected by statewide registration. In the long run, all Michelle Newman, Senior Environmental Health food businesses should begin to benefit from a cultural Officer, Golden Plains Shire Council shift within local government. This will involve retaining the benefits of local, on-the-ground education and enforcement but coupling it with a greater recognition by councils of how their practices fit within the state food regulation system.
Consolidation of risk-based classification system While many businesses benefited from a reduced level of regulation in 2010 – by dropping down to the new class 3 or 4 – some of these benefits accrued fully in 2011.
For example, class 4 businesses that ceased to be registered at the end of 2010 did not need to apply for a new registration in 2011. This benefited a range of businesses including pharmacies, newsagencies and shops selling only pre-packaged low-risk food.
Many class 2 food premises were reclassified as class 3 due to the lower risks inherent in their food handling activities. The regulatory requirements for these businesses have decreased significantly as a result. They no longer need to keep a full food safety program. Instead they must maintain certain simpler, shorter minimum records
17 that relate to their activities. This move has decreased documentation needed for a robust industry-specific the costs of complying with the Act for a wide range of class 2 template. Victorian businesses including wineries and fresh produce Developing a class 2 food safety program template wholesalers. They have welcomed these changes. no. 1, version 2 is available on the department’s website at
The updated guide was prepared in consultation with the food industry, which advised on the criteria and supporting
18 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Bed and breakfast businesses Food safety programs Hosted accommodation is a vibrant component of A food safety program is a documented plan that Victoria’s tourism industry. Many premises are located describes how class 1 and 2 food businesses will in regional areas and make a contribution to the local manage food safety throughout their operations. economy. Accommodation is available in lighthouse There are two types. keeper cottages, shearers’ quarters, historic homes, Standard food safety programs are prepared by private homes, self-contained cottages and farm stays. individual proprietors from a set of instructions known The common ingredient is owner-operator hosts who as a food safety program template that has been provide guests with hospitality, often including meals registered with the Department of Health. prepared from gourmet local produce.
Independent food safely programs are tailored A 2010 VCEC inquiry into Victoria’s tourism industry noted specifically for the food premises. the cumulative regulatory burden on small and micro tourism businesses such as hosted accommodation.10 The requirements in a food safety program vary Departmental staff met with representatives of the peak depending on the type of food handling activities organisation Hosted Accommodation Australia (HAA) at a food premises. in an effort to better understand the issues facing the bed and breakfast sector. ‘HAA encouraged local governments to adopt a practical approach, especially when dealing with very small bed and breakfast businesses.’ The main concern raised by HAA was the level of Food Act registration fees charged by some councils for these businesses, regardless of their level of activity. It argued that the sector is vulnerable because of members’ limited potential to generate sufficient revenue to cover all regulatory costs.
In response, the department invited HAA representatives to address a statewide local government food regulation forum in November 2011. The forum enabled councils to hear the concerns of bed and breakfast businesses directly. HAA encouraged local governments to adopt a practical approach, especially when dealing with very small bed and breakfast businesses.
A departmental officer also gave a presentation on regulatory requirements under the Act at an HAA forum in 2011 and helped develop Frequently asked questions for publication on the HAA website.
19 Renewed cooperation Food safety from farm to fork between regulators In 2012 the Food Act was amended to implement new The memorandum of understanding between the national primary production standards. Food Standards Department of Health, the Municipal Association of Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) issues standards about Victoria, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe was a range of areas of food production and handling. revised and updated in 2012. This document clarifies the Collectively these standards form the Food Standards roles, responsibilities and arrangements for cooperation Code. They are applied as part of Victorian law under between Victoria’s food regulators. Its overall aim is to the Food Act. It is an offence to breach the Code. ensure food safety and protect public health through Most of the standards applying to primary production a collaborative approach between these agencies. cover meat, seafood and dairy. The principal means of While local governments regulate the majority of food regulating these sectors in Victoria has been through businesses that sell food in Victoria, some primary food specialist legislation. processing businesses are covered by specialist regulators. PrimeSafe is responsible for the meat industry and the PrimeSafe regulates the processing, manufacture and seafood sector and Dairy Food Safety Victoria for dairy transport of meat, fish and seafood products, while Dairy farms and dairy processing and manufacture. Licensing, Food Safety Victoria covers dairy farms, manufacturers, guidance and enforcement of the standards affecting wholesalers and carriers of dairy foods. these sectors is within the province of these regulators As a party to the agreement, the Municipal Association of under their own customised legislation, backed up by Victoria represents councils as their peak representative body. the Food Act. The revised memorandum is available on the department’s ‘A key aim is to ensure that there website at:
As it is not practical to create specialist laws for each new area of focus, the departments of Health and Primary Industries12 worked together to agree on a ‘farm to fork’ regulatory approach to identify who will implement any additional national Primary Production and Processing Standards. A key aim is to ensure that there is only one food regulator for each premises to which each standard applies.
20 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Regulation of primary production – amended Food Act 1984 – 26 November 2012
Pre amendments Post amendments
Local government regulates: Primary Industries and Food Legislation Amendment • Food businesses such as supermarkets, cafés, restaurants Bill 2012 amended Food Act to: and general manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers • create additional enforcement mechanisms suitable Specialist primary production and processing licensing, for new primary production standards monitoring and enforcement regimes administered by: • continue to recognise that primary food production • PrimeSafe – Meat Industry Act 1993 and is different from manufacturing and retail Seafood Safety Act 2003 Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI): • Dairy Food Safety Victoria – Dairy Act 2000 • a declaration can be made under the Food Act Food Act 1984 Part 7 Emergency Powers: to make the DEPI the regulator (for example, for on farm activities) • exercised by Chief Health Officer where there is a serious risk to public health When a standard covers a variety of activities: Gaps: • the aim is to have one regulator for the site, where feasible. • no regulator had clear power to routinely regulate businesses covered by new primary production and processing standards, for example to monitor compliance or take enforcement action.
New national primary production and processing standards ‘These changes are a significant step can cover both primary production (such as farming forward in farm to fork regulation.’ activities) as well as associated processing of food. Most importantly, the aim is to ensure that wherever In addition, sometimes farmers sell their produce to the possible there will be only one regulator per site for food public from the farm gate. Retail activity can be regulated regulation. This is to make it easier for businesses as they by local government under the Food Act. However, farming will only have to deal with one regulator regarding their – not retail – is the dominant activity on farms. Retail is Food Act responsibilities. That regulator will be responsible merely incidental. for providing guidance, monitoring compliance and taking Local government has traditionally not had the role of enforcement action. It will be clear who the businesses regulating farming and does not have expertise in this go to if they have queries. From a community interest area. The Food Act has therefore been amended to enable perspective, the new arrangements strengthen the food a declaration to be made setting out who is to regulate regulatory regime by enabling new primary production new standards covering on farm primary production and standards to be properly enforced. processing as described in a standard, bearing in mind the Whilst separate legislation and dedicated regulators cover range of activities conducted by the businesses that are meat, seafood and dairy production, the Food Act is subject to the particular standard. expected to be the sole statutory basis for enforcing some On a case by case basis, the two departments will assess other new primary production standards in the future. what will work most effectively. Such assessments will be based on ‘best fit’ in terms of what is most practical, taking into account the history of involvement, relevant expertise and how the Food Act applies to the activity in question.
21 Plan hatched for egg safety Some cases of Salmonella infections and occasional outbreaks of illness have been linked to the consumption A new national Primary Production and Processing of foods containing raw or lightly cooked eggs, or Standard for Eggs and Egg Product, endorsed by FSANZ cross-contamination from eggs. came into force in November 2012.13 The standard covers all on farm and processing activities involved in the Eggs that are cracked or contaminated with faeces are production of eggs for human consumption. more likely to contain Salmonella and pose the highest risk to consumers. This can occur because bacteria from Salmonella risk dirt, feathers or chicken droppings on the outside of the Eggs are a highly nutritious everyday food, used in shell can enter the egg through cracks that are sometimes numerous recipes in many different ways. However, like too fine to see. Once inside the egg, bacteria can grow, meat, seafood and dairy products, eggs have the potential increasing the risk of illness. to be hazardous. To reduce the risk of illness, particular Egg pulp that is inadequately heat-treated can also be care must be taken in the production and processing contaminated because cracked eggs are usually used of eggs and when they are handled at home or in food in its production. businesses, such as cafés and restaurants.
Case study – the problem with eggs Victoria’s egg industry14 Prior to the Food Act amendments, the Act provided The egg industry involves: no clear pathway for enforcing the Primary Production • production of 76 million dozen eggs per year, and Processing Standards for Eggs and Egg Product most consumed domestically, with the remainder (the egg standard) which was due to commence processed for domestic use and export operation in November 2012. • a few large and many small and medium sized The amendments to the Act addressed this anomaly producers with some backyard production so that, when it became law, the egg standard could • egg companies which grade, pack and market be enforced from day one. eggs from their own farms or those provided by Responsibilities are now clear and egg producers and independent or contracted suppliers processors know where to seek advice: • eggs 80-85 per cent of which are sold domestically as shell eggs, mostly through retail chains • Department of Environment and Primary Industries • the remaining 15–20 per cent that are processed Egg producers, including farms that also: and sold – primarily to the food service sector – as egg pulp, liquid white, liquid yolk, dried egg – pack or clean eggs from other farms yolk, dried white, boiled eggs, peeled eggs, – retail eggs from the farm omelette mix and scrambled egg mix • Local government • per capita consumption of 192 eggs per year – café/catering using eggs • commercial egg farms that are located mainly – retailing at market stalls by all businesses, in Barwon, Melbourne, Loddon and Gippsland including farmers regions, usually near feed sources and key – bed and breakfast businesses that serve their markets own eggs • a gross value of egg production for human – pasteurising or heat treating eggs consumption of $108.7 million per year • egg producers who must comply with a range of policies and legislation relating to food safety, animal welfare, biosecurity and the environment.
22 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Action on eggs The egg standard aims to reduce food safety hazards associated with the primary production and processing (pulping) of eggs for sale. It covers chicken, duck and quail eggs produced for human consumption and all egg producers from large scale commercial to small ‘home’ producers.
The standard is generally outcome-based, which means that the requirements are flexible enough to allow businesses to decide on the specific measures needed to manage the hazards.
Assistance to comply The Department of Health has prepared paper and Maribyrnong’s egg safety push web-based educational flyers to help retailers, egg or Maribyrnong City Council actively promoted the egg product distributors and wholesalers and associations safe handling of eggs to food businesses in 2012. representing market traders to comply with the new This included distributing brochures on egg safety standard. The department has also provided advice prepared by Council and later, information provided on the changes for local government environmental by the Department of Health. health officers and food safety auditors and suggested approaches to effective implementation. Many food businesses handling eggs in our municipality are owned by Vietnamese proprietors. The Department of Environment and Primary Industries To minimise risks associated with eggs, both Council has developed a range of resources for industry. and Department of Health information on egg safety These include guidance for small and large egg producers was translated into Vietnamese and distributed to and egg processors, approval of a generic food safety food businesses operated by Vietnamese staff so management statement that is available for producers that these staff have clear information. and a list of all producers with more than 50 poultry. The Department of Environment and Primary Industries Foti Beratis, Acting Coordinator Environmental Health, relies on property identification in order to trace animals Maribyrnong City Council for disease control purposes. Egg handling for risk groups in Kingston To ensure that premises were undertaking appropriate storage and use of raw eggs, Kingston City Council environmental health officers conducted education visits to childcare centres and aged care premises in 2012 to provide information.
Dusan Ivanic, Team Leader Environmental Health, Kingston City Council
23 ‘The egg standard aims to reduce food safety hazards associated with the primary production and processing (pulping) of eggs for sale.’
Egg standard – what and when? Traceability • The Primary Production and Processing Standard for • All producers and processors must keep records so Eggs and Egg Product, Standard 4.2.5 of the Food that the source of eggs and egg pulp can be traced, Standards Code took effect on 26 November 2012. if necessary, to investigate an outbreak of foodborne • Section 16 of the Food Act requires egg producers illness. and processors to comply with this standard. • At this stage producers and processors are not • A revised Standard 2.2.2 about the retail of eggs required to stamp each chicken egg with the unique and egg products also took effect on the same day. identity code of the producer/processor – the exemption under the Act made in 2012 operates Who? until 26 November 2014. • The standards apply to egg farms and businesses • An ongoing exemption is in place under the Act that grade, wash, or pack eggs, businesses that from the obligation in the standard to stamp eggs pasteurise egg pulp or wholesale or distribute eggs from quail and duck, due to the impracticability of or egg product. stamping in these situations. • The standard complements existing food safety obligations that apply under Victoria’s Food Act and One site, one regulator the national Food Standards Code for manufacturers • Each business now deals with only one regulator who and restaurants that prepare foods that include eggs. is responsible for advice, monitoring and enforcement of the egg standard: Requirements Department of Environment and Primary Industries • Sale of cracked or dirty eggs is prohibited. regulates all activities ‘on farm’ (production, • Producers and processors must adopt measures to processing and retail): reduce hazards, such as adequate hygiene of sheds – recognises the quality assurance systems that and equipment, pest control, safe feed and water comply with the egg standard of farms with more and use of approved chemicals, competent staff and than 50 chickens disposal of eggs from chickens with diseases that – approves food safety management statements would make their eggs unsafe. in businesses with more than 50 chickens that • Producers with 50 or more birds must operate do not have a quality assurance system. according to a food safety management statement that sets out how food safety hazards are being Local government regulates: controlled. – egg retail ‘off farm’, such as producers selling • Due to their small scale, egg producers who have less at markets than 50 birds have been exempted under the Act from – class 2 food premises that pasteurise the requirement in the egg standard to have a food or heat treat eggs safety management statement. However, they must – general food businesses – cracked or dirty eggs still comply with the requirements of the standard.15 and unpasteurised egg pulp must not be retailed (Guidance material is available for these small or sold for catering. producers about how to meet these obligations.)
24 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Parliament looks at impact of food Streatrader – online solution for safety regulation on farms temporary food stalls and vans The food production sector in Victoria is a world leader in From ice-cream and donut vans to community fêtes, terms of its reputation for producing safe, high quality food ‘street food’ has a long history in Australian food culture. and the government is committed to providing continued But in something of a food revolution, street food is now support for the industry. more than just the basic fried fare, hot dogs and soft drinks. Farmers’ markets, food stalls and vans in almost As such, in June 2012 an inquiry into the impact of food every town and suburb are offering a range of cuisine, safety regulation on farms and other businesses was from Middle-Eastern favourites to curries, to tacos, referred to the Rural and Regional Committee of Parliament to connoisseur cupcakes. Community groups raise to identify opportunities for a more effective approach much-needed funds through sausage sizzles and sale to regulating food safety risks in primary production and of other foods and many restaurants are joining in on processing businesses. the street food trend as well. During the inquiry, the Rural and Regional Committee Making and selling food brings certain responsibilities. received advice from across the food production sector To protect Victorians, all food businesses and community as well as from experts in food safety regulation. groups that sell food must handle food safely. In 2011 and Evidence was received from retail businesses, farmers 2012, the department developed and launched a highly and manufacturers, government and the regulators innovative new system to manage regulation of this rapidly PrimeSafe (meat and seafood) and Dairy Food Safety growing sector. Victoria. The Victorian Government made a submission to the inquiry and also appeared before the inquiry in 2012. In 2011, in response to recommendations by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, the Act established The Victorian Government submission recommended that a single statewide registration scheme for food van and a number of issues be examined, including: stalls, water transport vehicles and food vending machines. • the disproportionate regulatory burden placed on This anticipated an online registration management food businesses relative to the risk of their activities, system. The aim of the online system was to enable food especially for small primary production and processing businesses (including community groups selling food businesses to raise funds) to manage their registrations easily and • further opportunities for risk-based regulation efficiently, while giving councils the necessary information • onerous market access requirements that may about an operator’s activities and food safety history. discourage smaller businesses from exporting food products As part of the changeover to the new mandatory • the effectiveness of national primary production and system, for one year from July 2010 a voluntary version processing standards in achieving improved food safety applied under which councils could choose to recognise outcomes registrations issued by other councils. While the enabling software was being developed, the new system was • consideration of self-regulatory, co-regulatory or paper-based. non-regulatory approaches to managing food safety risks particularly those associated with low-risk activities ‘The new system has freed up council • the need for independent scrutiny in regulatory impact officers to focus on food safety issues assessment processes. that pose a greater risk to public health.’ For further information about the Committee’s report, see
25 welcomed the scheme that has dramatically reduced the time and costs of complying with their Act obligations. Travelling traders welcome Streatrader In 2011 preparations were underway for the Savings for mobile food vans and stalls introduction of Streatrader, the state’s new online This new scheme replaces the former system under which registration system for temporary and mobile food multiple registrations were required to operate in different premises. The council worked with community council districts. groups and also itinerant traders.
It delivers big savings for operators of food vans and stalls Alex Serrurier, Environmental Health Officer, as they no longer need multiple registrations to operate Pyrenees Shire Council in different districts. The new system has also freed up council officers to focus on food safety issues that pose Streatrader preparations a greater risk to public health. The full benefits of this Later in 2011 the key task was changing over to the cultural shift will manifest over time as councils become registration and notification system for temporary and familiar with the concept of the registration applying across mobile premises and educating these businesses the entire state, and become comfortable with relying on about the new statewide approach. business inspections conducted by another council when Melanie Bennett, Team Leader, Public Health a business is operating elsewhere. Services, Swan Hill Rural City Council The next council in which the business trades can follow up on any noncompliance that was detected by the other ‘principal council’, this is the council a food business will council. On the other hand, if the business was originally deal with most in the future. The principal council registers found to be compliant, the second council may not the food van or stall for the state. In this sense, it is acting need to duplicate the process by re-inspecting the same for all other councils in whose districts it will trade. This business. It can instead focus its resources on other more council, together with all ‘trading councils’, are responsible pressing areas. for monitoring the business. While water carters are registering their water transport Once registered or notified, operators of these portable vehicles under the Act for the first time, the scheme food premises must inform all relevant councils about involves the minimum level of regulation necessary to where and when they plan to trade. They do this by lodging protect consumers. a Food Act statement of trade with each council in whose Statewide single registration can include all of a proprietor’s district their van or stall will be operating, with a copy to temporary or mobile food premises, and an associated their principal council. fixed site if they have one. Whether a food business Statements of trade ensure a business’s principal council operates at a single site or has multiple food stalls or vans, understands the extent of its operations, and can answer or at different locations, the registration granted by the any questions asked by relevant trading councils about principal council allows a class 2 or 3 premises to operate its registration/notification and history. for up to 12 months. If a stall or van is a class 4, it can compliance Businesses risk a fine if they fail to lodge a statement of trade anywhere in Victoria on an ongoing basis once the trade within five days prior to commencing trading in a principal council accepts a once-off notification.16 council district.
‘… food vans and stalls … no longer To support the changeover to a statewide system, need multiple registrations to operate the department prepared a suite of materials – such as in different council districts’ application forms and guidance notes for councils and businesses – to ease the process and to ensure that Under the statewide system, one council must be primarily everyone had immediate access to consistent information responsible for approving a business’s food handling about the new arrangements. operations at its portable premises. Known as the
26 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food vending machines Maribyrnong – the Festival City The Act has applied to food vending machines for many In recent years Maribyrnong City Council has raised years. However, there has been uncertainty as to who its profile in relation to festivals and events. Known as must register or notify these machines. From 1 July 2011 the ‘Festival City’, a substantial number of festivals the Act changed to make it clear who has this responsibility. are held throughout the municipality. Maribyrnong is It is now clear that the proprietor of the food business second only to the City of Melbourne in the number selling food from the machine must register (class 1–3) of festivals held annually. or notify (class 4) the machine. In 2010–11, Council received in excess of 350 Class 2 machines are currently relatively unusual. temporary food applications. With the growth in They involve higher risk activities – such as preparing festivals and the introduction of the new statewide orange juice or cooking pizza. Class 3 machines are registration of temporary food premises, Council was more common. They involve medium food handling risk inundated with queries from temporary food vendors and typically prepare tea and coffee or sell pre-packaged who wanted to trade. The changeover from the old sandwiches that require adequate refrigeration. Class 4 council application forms to the new procedure was machines are the most prevalent and sell only low-risk a busy time. food, such as bottled soft drinks and pre-packaged Council introduced a coding system for the new confectionary or chips. forms. It was very successful. It streamlined the application process and vendors knew exactly what ‘The new system has been welcomed to do. The Department of Health adopted the new by proprietors as a good-sense coding system and introduced it to other councils approach that is quick and easy throughout Victoria. to abide by.’ Foti Beratis, Acting Coordinator, Environmental Health, Maribyrnong City Council Vending machine proprietors applying for the first time were able to take advantage of the statewide registration scheme for portable food premises. They must register their class 2 or 3 machines with their principal council, which then issues a single registration that allows these machines to operate anywhere in Victoria for 12 months. Proprietors must also lodge a simple Food Act statement of trade with each council in whose district their vending machines are located.
Given the low risk nature of class 4 vending machines, the principal council only needs to accept a proprietor’s once-off notification of the number of machines they operate across Victoria.
The new system has been welcomed by proprietors as a good-sense approach that is quick and easy to abide by.
27 The Streatrader system Who is it for? The system also: • Businesses and community groups that sell food • automatically determines food premises’ business from stalls, vans or vending machines. classifications under the Food Act 1984 • Councils that regulate food premises under the • alerts traders to their regulatory obligations Food Act 1984. • puts traders in touch with their ‘principal council’ – the council they will deal mostly with What does it do? • allows traders to renew their annual registrations … for businesses and community groups (class 1–3) Whenever these traders wish to sell food, they can now • enables traders to lodge statements of trade register or notify under the Food Act 1984 quickly and anytime and have them immediately available easily through Streatrader, the department’s new online to councils statewide system. • allows traders to update their contact details and Since July 2011, these stalls, vans and vending their food handling activities at any time. machines have only required a single registration … for councils (class 1–3) or notification (class 4) to operate across Streatrader, which replaces councils’ own separate the state, instead of having to apply for permission to systems, is used to: operate from every council in whose district they trade. • assess and approve applications and receive This application process was initially paper-based. payment of fees online Streatrader supersedes this. Online and user-friendly, • manage councils’ workloads, for example it employs ‘smart forms’ to make questions easier for when to inspect, when to send out registration applicants to answer. The system can be used any renewal notices time of day or night with no need to go to the council • allows all councils to monitor information about office – a welcome feature for busy traders and temporary and mobile premises operating in their community volunteers. areas, including their compliance histories and Once an application has been accepted by the enforcement actions taken by any council. main council vendors can trade anywhere in Victoria. The new system also covers private drinking They do not need to apply again to any other council water transport vehicles. where they plan to trade – all they need to do is lodge their trading details.
28 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Benefits ofStreatrader Because they are portable and frequently operate Streatrader eliminates ‘paper warfare’ for Melton outside normal business hours, it was challenging During 2012 Melton City Council’s environmental health for councils to monitor food vans and stalls prior team came to enjoy the benefits brought about by the to Streatrader. Councils had no information about introduction of Streatrader. these traders’ compliance histories outside of their No doubt there was an initial and, to some lesser extent, own municipalities. As there was no alert system in ongoing impact on Council in terms of providing training, place, it could even be difficult to keep up with traders discussion, data cleansing, smoothing out the wrinkles and operating in their municipalities. The online Streatrader developing a user-friendly tool to benefit both Council and system was developed to streamline this process. its clients. But it is bearing fruit.
The new electronic system is specifically designed Without forgetting the smaller events, the benefits of to allow quick and easy temporary and mobile food Streatrader came to the fore in the reduction of ‘paper premises registration/notification with the single warfare’ connected with three major community festivities council which will have primary responsibility for the within the municipality. business. The system also informs all other councils The Djerriwarrh Festival, Food Beer and Wine Festival in whose districts a business or community group (formerly the Olive Festival) and the Summersault Community intends to trade. Event each attract from thirty to forty food vendors. ‘Streatrader radically reduces In the case of the Olive Festival, the convenor had the regulatory burden on traders annually provided an excellent one-stop shop to Council’s Environmental Health team by distributing registration operating food vans and stalls applications and ensuring that most were submitted to across municipal districts.’ Council on time. As ever with events of this nature, there was always a last minute rush to have all the i’s dotted and To help councils and traders make an easy transition t’s crossed. to Streatrader, in 2011 the department provided standardised, paper-based registration/notification Streatrader has eliminated all of this and freed up the forms to councils to be completed by applicants. desktops of Environmental Health in this municipality. Before Streatrader went live in October 2012, the Roy Russell/Barbara Carrick, Environmental Health Officers, department funded the entering of data based on Melton City Council completed forms into Streatrader, where they were available. The Municipal Association of Victoria Streatrader off and running in Campaspe arranged for this to be done. It saved significant Due to the introduction of the statewide registration administrative time for councils that took up this system for food vans and stalls and water carters in 2011, offer. It also meant that traders could use the system a major focus for Campaspe Shire Council in 2012 was immediately to lodge statements of trade and access ensuring that these businesses operated under the revised pre-filled renewal of registration forms containing their arrangements. information which streamlined the process and made Council inspected a number of temporary events as part it easier for them to apply. of the impending implementation of Streatrader in late 2012. This provided an ideal opportunity for officers to check compliance, advise proprietors of the Streatrader requirements and to discuss any associated questions. This assisted Council to implement Streatrader effectively.
Hayley Sutton, Acting Environmental Health Coordinator, Campaspe Shire Council
29 Pyrenees Rainbow Serpent Festival Hume community group partnerships food vendors The Hume Council team has worked collaboratively with The introduction in October of Streatrader saw food our temporary and mobile food businesses operators to vendors start to change to electronic lodgement of ensure smooth transition to Streatrader, the statewide Food Act statements of trade rather than the registration system. Closer partnerships that engage our paper-based version. community groups have been established to facilitate their ease of use and uptake of Streatrader. Pyrenees Shire is home to the Rainbow Serpent Festival Tony Gullone, Coordinator Public Health, Hume City Council with a large number of food vendors needed to feed about 14,000 patrons over the Australia Day Weekend. Support for cottage industry in Mansfield Many come from interstate and, along with the members Mansfield Shire commenced implementation of of the Showman’s Guild, are the true gypsies of the food Streatrader when the system went live in late 2012. industry. This group is looking forward to the changes Small ‘cottage industry’ proprietors are the mainstay brought in by Streatrader. of local markets. Some only do a few events per year Alex Serrurier, Environmental Health Officer, and in the beginning have varying levels of ability to Pyrenees Shire Council lodge online. Some are more familiar with a paper-based approach. Community groups have also not had prior Multicultural trader briefings in Dandenong experience with electronic applications. Council is Food traders attending Victorian festivals and events actively supporting all potential users to take advantage embraced the new Streatrader software and are of the online system. now familiar with making online statements of trade. Kevin Murphy, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Considerable work was completed by Dandenong Mansfield Shire Council environmental health staff to explain the new online system for registering food vans and stalls to the Streatrader and Mount Alexander many multicultural food traders. community groups Geoff Fraser, Greater Dandenong City Council Mount Alexander Shire started to use Streatrader when it came on board in late 2012. This was a busy time, Assistance to Central Goldfields as registration renewals had to be completed. Council community groups officers worked with community groups and people With the changes to the registration process for who do not regularly use the internet to set up accounts. temporary and mobile food premises, Central Goldfields We are currently working on how to include application environmental health officers did a lot of work with fees for one-off events in the system. markets and events held within our municipality. In the We are also looking into how Streatrader can be best lead up, markets and events were inspected more managed by community groups when membership of frequently to ensure temporary or mobile food premises the group changes and responsibility for applying online were aware of the changes and what was required of is handed on to a different member. them regarding set up and how their premises should Tracey Watson, Senior Environmental Health Officer, ideally be constructed. Community groups were supported during the changeover to Streatrader. Mount Alexander Shire Council Laura Blow, Environmental Health Officer, Central Goldfields Shire Council
30 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Streatrader live October 2012 New web-based, statewide system for traders to register/notify food vans, stalls, vending machines and water transport vehicles
Jul-Oct Details of 5,506 temporary and mobile traders were pre-entered into Streatrader in preparation for ‘go live’. This meant an easy transition to the new system for councils and traders. Aug-Dec 445 council staff attended Streatrader introductory training in metropolitan and regional areas. 143 attend ‘Super User’ training (2 from each council). Oct Streatrader went live in early October. 230 council officers attended the department’s Food Safety Forum which included workshops on Streatrader. Oct-Dec Traders lodged 3,445 statements of trade on Streatrader. The department responded to 1,596 calls to the Streatrader helpline. Councils and key stakeholders, such as the Victorian Farmers’ Market Association, received an information pack to assist them to raise awareness about Streatrader. 1,520 new users accessed Streatrader in response to an awareness campaign run by the department with the Municipal Association of Victoria. Councils conducted 194 compliance checks of food vans and stalls and entered the outcomes on Streatrader where they could be accessed by other councils when these traders were operating in their districts.
31 Risk-management approach Food vans give start-ups and creative entrepreneurs the group. The department also ran a telephone helpline for ability to make the food they love without having the high the public and councils to support initial implementation. overhead costs of running a restaurant. They also allow Whilst Streatrader does not replace face-to-face advice diners to eat out and enjoy new foods at a lower cost. from council environmental health officers, it is useful tool Due to high turnover, street food is often fresher and that saves both time and money. As always, vendors are vendors usually buy local and seasonal because it offers encouraged to contact their council health departments best value and margins are tight. And when food is for advice about the new system or with any queries about cooked to order in front of customers, there should food safety or regulation. be no nasty surprises. Given the growth in temporary and mobile food premises, As part of a major reform initiative, the Food Act was the new system is very timely. Initially, the department amended in 2010 to enable single statewide registration estimated that there were around 5,000 temporary and of temporary and mobile food businesses to be introduced. mobile food operators in Victoria who would be using Implementation relied on paper-based records at first. Streatrader. By December 2012, at the end of its first two However, the new legislation was developed on the basis months of operation, 7,026 food operators had registered that it would need an IT system to make it work effectively 9,362 food premises with Streatrader. Streatrader clearly which could only be designed once the legislation passed provides a very valuable picture of this kind of food trading through Parliament. To make sure that the changes could across Victoria. work in practice, amendments to the legislation were developed in consultation with the Municipal Association Adapting regulation to changing market conditions in this of Victoria. The department also consulted extensively growing sector has also contributed to Victoria’s vibrant with councils, businesses and not-for-profit organisations. and diverse food culture. ‘After enormous efforts on the part of The system also frees up council officers’ time to focus on food safety issues that pose the greatest risk to all involved, it was satisfying that the public health. Streatrader online system worked well For more information, go to
After enormous efforts on the part of all involved, it was satisfying that the Streatrader online system worked well from the day it went live. Success was aided by training on the system for council officers across the regions and an inventive communication strategy for each stakeholder
32 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2011 and 2012 years in review
Boroondara City Council environmental health officer Zenita ONeill inspecting a class 2 juice vending machine, Camberwell. 33 Under the Food Act 1984, the Department of Health must report on food regulation each year. The following two sections present statistics for the 2011 and 2012 calendar years and describe the implementation and enforcement of the Act by Victoria’s 79 local councils and the department.
Department of Health role In partnership with regulators, the department focuses on detecting risks to public health and acting to remove those The department‘s role includes: risks. This requires information, the sources of which are • food safety risk assessment and incident investigation many and varied: and response where there are regional, statewide or • When a person is sick, medical practitioners and national implications laboratories report test results that reveal that the illness • investigations into possible breaches of the Food Act is of a type that might be foodborne. and Food Standards Code about products available • Laboratories also advise the department about food throughout the state – for example, food and beverage or water they have tested and found to contain labelling, particularly undeclared allergens – as these microorganisms that may make it unsafe. pose risks to consumers who are allergic to the • Councils that detect unsafe practices at a food business particular substance. contact the department if the situation is one that they cannot manage entirely on their own – such as when potentially harmful food may be in the marketplace and is available throughout the state.
Camberwell Café: Bonnie Pearson discussing safe food display • Other regulators and organisations send information to with City of Boroondara EHO Will Carroll. be acted upon. For example, FSANZ advises about a food product from another state or territory that is to be recalled throughout Australia. • Complaints can be received directly from a person who has purchased or consumed food – such as when they advise they have had an allergic reaction to a food or suffered food poisoning. • Businesses report information – whether it is based on their own knowledge or when they receive a complaint from a customer – about food that might have caused illness.
34 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
All information that is received is assessed to determine Councils’ role whether there is a risk to the community and whether a response is required. The solution is based on the nature Councils register, or accept notifications, from food of the confirmed problem and can involve action by the premises that operate in their districts. As they are the department or referral to the responsible regulator. regulator, they typically take any enforcement action in relation to these premises, if necessary. The Secretary to Where it becomes clear that the problem was a ‘once the department has the power under the Act to register, off’ problem confined to a local food business, this can or accept notifications from, the small number of food be addressed by the relevant council ensuring the food premises located in places that are not within a municipal business improves its practices. On the other hand, if the district. The Secretary has under section 19 of the problem reveals that food may be available for sale that Public Health and Wellbeing Act delegated the regulation can cause harm throughout the state, other steps (such as of these businesses under the Food Act as follows: a recall of the food) may be needed. • Indigo Shire – Mount Hotham Alpine Resort and The following sections for the 2011 and 2012 calendar Falls Creek Alpine Resort years set out details about the approach taken based on • Mansfield Shire – Mount Stirling Alpine Resort and the information received. Some situations require detailed Mount Buller Alpine resort investigation and the gathering of further information before • Baw Baw Shire – Mount Baw Baw Alpine Resort a decision about what needs to be done can be made. • Murrindindi Shire – Lake Mountain Alpine Resort These two sections also describe a range of other activities • Bass Coast Shire – French Island. conducted by the department and councils, including the major work of councils in registering or accepting The department thanks the shires of Baw Baw, Mansfield, notifications of food premises, educating these businesses, Murrindindi, Bass Coast and Indigo for their important taking samples of food for testing, and enforcing the Act. work in these areas. It aids in ensuring a consistency of approach to the regulation of food premises across the state, regardless of where the business is located. It also brings the local expertise of council to bear in dealing with the businesses affected.
Statistics in this report about registrations, notifications and any associated statutory enforcement action (such as prosecutions for selling unsafe food or breaches of the Food Standards Code) therefore relate to actions taken by councils, unless otherwise indicated.
35 36 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Year in review 2011
Monash City Council environmental health officer Bethany Ham bagging a food sample, Monash Medical Centre hospital kitchen, Clayton. 37 Year in review 2011
Food safety and food risks
‘… approximately one-third of all Figure 2: Salmonellosis and campylobacter infection gastroenteritis in Australia is due rates per 100,000 population, Victoria, 2002–2011 to foodborne transmission’ 140 It is estimated that approximately one-third of all 120 gastroenteritis in Australia is due to foodborne 100 transmission.17 Only a small proportion of this disease is notified to health authorities. One way this comes to the 80 department’s attention is through the state’s notifiable 60 diseases surveillance system. This requires symptomatic individuals to present to their medical practitioner, have 40 appropriate laboratory tests (usually stool collection) and be notified to the department if a notifiablepathogen is Rate per 100,000 population 20 detected in the specimen. 0
Reported cases of gastroenteritis 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year of notification In Victoria there are 12 diseases that cause gastroenteritis Salmonellosis and that are notifiable by medical practitioners and Campylobacter infection laboratories under the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009. Of these, salmonellosis, campylobacter infection, listeriosis and verotoxin-producing Escherichia Surveillance and outbreaks coli infection are considered important in terms of locally Surveillance of these enteric diseases and the investigation acquired foodborne disease. of sporadic cases and outbreaks of gastroenteritis enable The most commonly notified diseases are campylobacter us to: infection and salmonellosis. In 2011 there were 6,810 and • measure the prevalence of disease in the population 2,695 cases of these diseases notified to the department, • identify trends in the community that may signify an respectively. Disease rates (number of cases per 100,000 outbreak population) for campylobacter infection have remained • initiate action to prevent, contain or minimise outbreaks relatively stable for the 10-year period from 2002; however, and illness salmonellosis rates have been steadily increasing over this period (Figure 2). It is estimated that for every case of • evaluate control and prevention measures campylobacter infection and every case of salmonellosis • take the opportunity to educate the public in disease notified to the surveillance system there are a further prevention 10 and seven cases of these diseases, respectively, • attempt to identify possible or probable sources in the community. • plan services and set priorities.
The majority of outbreaks of foodborne disease are detected through the notifiable diseases surveillance system or self-reported to the department by affected individuals. The investigations are conducted by departmental officers in collaboration with local government environmental health officers. Occasionally, outbreaks of foodborne disease are multi-jurisdictional and the investigation of these outbreaks is coordinated by OzFoodNet nationally.
38 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
In 2011 there were 55 foodborne or suspected Food vehicles19 responsible for these 55 outbreaks foodborne outbreaks linked to a point source,18 affecting included: foods containing raw or lightly cooked eggs approximately 693 people; of which 74 were hospitalised (14 outbreaks); mixed meats (curries/roast meats) as a result. The pathogen responsible for causing the (four outbreaks); chicken (three outbreaks), beef (two majority of point source foodborne outbreaks in 2011 outbreaks); mixed foods (two outbreaks); mixed fruits (one was salmonella (Figure 3). Of the 15 outbreaks where the outbreak); fish (tuna) (one outbreak); pâté (one outbreak); pathogen was unknown, 11 were suspected to have been pork (one outbreak); rice (one outbreak); and vitamised caused by Clostridium perfringens, two were suspected to foods (one outbreak). A food vehicle was unable to be have been caused by Salmonella, one was suspected to identified for the remaining 24 outbreaks. Of the eight have been caused by Campylobacter and the remaining salmonella cluster investigations, a food source was outbreak was suspected to have been caused by a suspected for two: chicken was suspected to have caused foodborne toxin such as Staphylococcus aureus or a community-wide outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium Bacillus cereus. Of these 55 outbreaks, 44 outbreaks 60; and eggs were the suspected source for a community (80 per cent) were caused by food prepared in registered outbreak of Salmonella Virchow 34. food premises (Figure 4). In addition, there were eight cluster investigations of different types of Salmonella conducted in 2011 affecting at least 123 people.
Figure 3: Point source outbreaks of foodborne Figure 4: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and and suspected foodborne disease by aetiology, suspected foodborne disease by setting where the Victoria, 2011 food was prepared, Victoria, 2011 20 25
20 15
15 10 10 umber of outbreak s umber of outbreak s N 5 N 5
0 0 cereus aureus Private Bakery caterer Bacillus Hospital Unknown Norovirus poisoning residence Histamine Aged care Salmonella Restaurant Take-away perfringens Clostridium Commercial Campylobacter
Staphylococcus Setting where food was prepared Outbreak aetiology
39 Year in review 2011
Gastroenteritis in aged care homes In the general population, gastroenteritis is generally self-limiting and no treatment is required. Given the highly In recent years the numbers of gastroenteritis outbreaks in susceptible populations in aged care, it is particularly aged care facilities, hospitals and residential facilities has important to prevent and limit any spread of infection increased. It is not always possible to pinpoint the cause by applying the guidelines. of an outbreak as the time elapsed between detection of symptoms, confirmation of illness and investigation Under Victoria’s Food Act, all aged care homes must have will mean that the premises and equipment have a food safety supervisor and a food safety program. been routinely cleaned before the investigation can be The programs emphasise that care should always be completed. Gastroenteritis can be the symptom of a taken to closely adhere to all standards, especially virus or may be associated with food consumption. regarding personal hygiene of food handlers, temperature The cause may remain unknown. control, cross-contamination and cleaning and sanitising procedures. Food safety records must also be maintained Figures 3 and 4 show those that occurred in 2011 that continually to show that food is being stored, prepared and were considered to be foodborne or where this was served safely. Staff must be well trained in all aspects of suspected. Common notifiable microorganisms, food hygiene. such as Salmonella, were implicated.
Gastroenteritis generally spreads via person-to-person transmission (viruses), from contact with vomit, diarrhoea or contaminated surfaces, or by consuming contaminated food or water (bacteria, viruses or parasites).
Unfortunately, frail, elderly people living in aged care homes are at high risk for gastroenteritis and tend to experience greater severity and longer duration of illness. In these settings, spread of disease may also be complicated by close living conditions, shared bathroom facilities, Monash City Council EHO Bethany Ham (left) with hospital kitchen low mobility and incontinence. To protect residents, staff: Chef Sabeesh Philip (centre) and Food Services Manager Romela Felton (right), Monash Medical Centre, Clayton. the aged care service sector must comply with a number of standards. The department provides guidance on the management and control of gastroenteritis for these facilities, all of which must meet stringent obligations in reporting and managing outbreaks.20
40 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Microorganisms identified in food Laboratories receive food samples for testing from multiple sources and for various reasons. Local council-registered Under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, laboratories food manufacturers may submit samples to ensure their must notify the department when they detect certain food is safe and complies with the relevant food standards. microorganisms in food or drinking water. This requirement Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe licensed helps minimise the potential public health risks associated facilities may submit samples for the same reasons, as well with eating foods containing these microorganisms. as to ensure they are compliant with their Hazard Analysis Table 3 shows reports received during 2011 of all notifiable and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans. Samples may pathogens as specified in Schedule 5 of the Public Health also be taken for analysis by councils from food to be sold and Wellbeing Regulations. The regulations also specify by businesses, either in response to food complaints or as the timing of notification to the department and the part of their routine food sampling and surveillance activities. minimum information the notice must contain. On receiving a laboratory notification, the department’s Table 3: Reports received from laboratories of Regulatory and Incident Management team conducts an notifiable microorganisms under Public Health immediate risk assessment to determine the appropriate and Wellbeing Regulations 2009, 2011 course of action. These assessments are made on a case-by-case basis, and the next steps depend on factors Pathogen No. (%) such as: the level of microorganisms present; the specific Listeria monocytogenes 292 type of microorganism within a notifiable species; whether 63.0% the food is raw, ready to eat, unsealed or packaged; and Salmonella spp. 132 whether the food has been released to the public. 28.4%
Campylobacter spp. 26 5.6%
Vibrio spp. 15 3.2% Microbiologist Dia Kapaklis discussing bacterial colonies on a plate, Microbiological Diagnostic Unit, University of Melbourne. Cryptosporidium spp. 0
Cyclospora spp. 0
Giardia cysts 0
Hepatitis A 0
Norovirus 0
Verotoxin-producing E. coli (VTEC) 0
Total 465 100%
‘…laboratories must notify the department when they detect certain microorganisms in food or drinking water’
41 Year in review 2011
Incident and complaint management Figure 6 gives examples of the types of complaints received for that year. The department received and responded to 186 complaints about food or food premises in 2011 and 4,182 calls to Figure 6: Examples of food complaints, 2011 its Food Safety hotline. The former represents an increase Complaint type Examples of 18 per cent compared with 2010 when 152 complaints were received. In addition, staff dealt with more than 4,000 Physical Stone in muesli emails to the Food Safety inbox, some of which related to Insect leg in spaghetti incidents or complaints. Hair in dried dates Figure 5 shows food incidents and complaints reported Piece of plastic in shepherd’s pie to the department according to type. Chemical Prohibited colour in dessert Figure 5: Incidents and complaints reported to Allergens Undeclared peanut Department of Health, Victoria, 2011 Inadequate nut labelling
Undeclared gluten
Presence of gluten in ‘gluten free’ product
Labelling Non-English labelling
No best before date on egg noodles
Incorrect Nutrition Information Panel on pasta
Lack of address
Misleading country of origin claim
Physical contamination 57 (30.6%) The complaints came from various sources, predominantly Labelling – other than allergen 38 (20.4%) members of the public. Most pertained to local issues Microbiological contamination 18 (9.7%) such as foreign objects in food or the cleanliness of food Chemical contamination 16 (8.7%) premises. In accordance with protocols, the department Allergen 15 (8.0%) referred these to council environmental health officers for Other (for example, follow-up investigation. unhygienic premises 42 (22.6%) Total 186 (100%) ‘In any complaint investigation the initial focus is on responding to public health risks.’ Particularly where foods are manufactured in Victoria and distributed beyond a local area, the department has a more hands-on role regarding investigation of labelling and allergen complaints. In these cases, the department assists local councils by liaising with other state and territory food authorities and other Victorian regulators including Dairy Food Safety Victoria, which regulates dairy food production, and PrimeSafe, which is responsible for meat and seafood processing.
42 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
In any complaint investigation the initial focus is on responding to public health risks. Where it may be Complaints to councils dangerous if the food is consumed, complaints are Councils also receive and investigate complaints treated as urgent and dealt with immediately. about food premises directly from the public, as As food companies transcend borders, all states and demonstrated by the examples below and overleaf. territories cooperate to act on food incidents and Port Phillip inspections – fewer complaints, complaints quickly and efficiently. For example, a food greater compliance product may be manufactured in one state, while the Supported by updated policy and procedures, company’s head office may be located in a different the increased inspection regime delivered by the state where it does not manufacture food at all. City of Port Phillip in 2010 yielded some excellent To facilitate the referral process, all states and territories food safety outcomes in 2011. have agreed to function under the ‘Home State Rule’ In addition to the annual assessment of class 2 which provides for a clear, cooperative referral mechanism premises, an extra routine inspection (plus follow-up where a trace-back of a food complaint implicates another inspections, where required) was performed at jurisdiction. The department assists local councils with this 80 per cent of our 830 class 2 premises. This year referral process. we measured a significant improvement incompliance Where a complaint needs to be investigated or a within food premises, as well as a reduction in food recall considered, different levels of government enforcement action required and in the number of in a number of jurisdictions may need to work together. verified complaints from the public. The high rate of For example, a Victorian food manufacturer may have inspections will continue throughout 2012. inadvertently omitted peanuts from the ingredients list Doug Martin, Coordinator, Health Services, on the label of one of its foods. As this would be a Port Phillip City Council public health risk, and in breach of the national Food Standards Code, an immediate consumer level food recall would be initiated.
The department and the relevant local council would contact the manufacturer to determine how this happened and to ensure that any necessary corrective action is taken. The council would also consider possible enforcement action.
If, however, the Victorian manufacturer made the product under contract to a food company whose head office was located in another state – for example, New South Wales – then, following investigation by the relevant Victorian council, the recall would be instigated by the New South Wales company under the advisement of the NSW Food Authority.
The department is accountable to the Victorian Parliament for its handling of complaints. In 2011 the department met the required performance standard of an average of 24 hours from notification of a food complaint to commencement of appropriate action.21
43 Year in review 2011
Keeping unsafe food off shelves Complaints to councils Five-star program reduces complaints in Glen Eira ‘Victorians eat more than six billion At the request of the Australian Institute of Food meals every year, and only around Science and Technology, Glen Eira City Council’s 0.03 per cent of these meals cause Public Health Unit presented at the Securing Global some form of foodborne illness.’ Food Safety International Conference held in The food industry in Victoria is huge by any measure. Melbourne in September 2011. Glen Eira was chosen A total of 48,185 food premises were regulated under to present at this conference because its five-star Victoria’s Food Act in 2011. The state’s retail food turnover incentive-based Safe Food Program is one of the amounted to $32.2 million in 2010, and food exports were longest running and most successful in Australia. valued at $7 billion. Victorians eat more than six billion The theme of the presentation was ‘Building a meals every year,22 and only around 0.03 per cent of these five-star food safety culture’ and covered the meals cause some form of foodborne illness.23 These positive effect of the program on food safety within estimates include a large number of mild cases that are the municipality. Outcomes discussed included a not reported. decrease in verified food safety complaints and an The chances of getting food poisoning are low when the increase in compliant food samples over the past volume of food consumed is considered. However, it is five years. important to try to prevent the associated suffering and The conference was attended by international leaders cost through correct food handling techniques from in food safety, food technologists and microbiologists, production, to point of sale, to consumption. including delegates from the United Kingdom, China, The food industry is responsible for manufacturing, Japan, South Africa and the United States. Glen importing and selling safe food. Where food poses a Eira was the only local government organisation to public health risk, the food company responsible for present at the three-day conference and has since that food needs to remove it from the marketplace been contacted by attendees wishing to know more though a food recall. about the five-star program.
Stuart Symes, Acting Manager, Public Health, Glen Eira City Council Food recalls – a definition ‘Action taken to remove from sale, distribution and consumption foods which may pose a safety risk to consumers.’
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
44 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
In 2011 a total of 67 food recalls were instigated by Of the total 67 recalls in 2011, 24 (36 per cent) were Australian food companies compared with 2010 when instigated by Victorian companies, including importers. there were 53 recalls. Twenty-four recalls were instigated A number of recalls involved collaborative work between by Victorian companies. three levels of government and industry. In one case, Table 4 shows the reasons for food recalls in 2011, with this resulted in linking an ingredient contaminated with undeclared allergens (36 per cent) and foreign matter in peanuts in China to the production of two other products, foods (27 per cent) the most common reasons that year. culminating in a total of three consumer-level food The table includes figures for recalls that were requested recalls. This result would not have been possible without by FSANZ but not those that were initiated separately by collaboration. Australian governments are fortunate to have councils in response to purely local issues. such a good relationship with the food industry, particularly where an urgent response is required. Table 4: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2011
Instigated by Victorian In Australia company No. (%) No. (%)
Undeclared allergen 24 (36%) 8 (33%) (including gluten)
Foreign matter in food 18 (27%) 6 (25%)
Microbiological 15 (22%) 6 (25%) contamination
Chemical 9 (13%) 3 (13%) contamination
Labelling 1 (2%) 1 (4%)
Total 67 (100%) 24 (36%)
The reasons for food recalls vary each year. In contrast to 2011, in 2010 microbiological contamination (32 per cent), followed by foreign matter in food (19 per cent) were the most common reasons for food recalls.
In 2011 four recalls were trade-level recalls where the food had not yet been sold to the public. The remaining 63 were consumer-level recalls involving recovery of the foods from all points of the distribution chain through to consumers. ‘Australia is fortunate to have such a good relationship with its food industry, particularly where an urgent response is required.’
45 Year in review 2011
When there’s a food recall Food recalls are usually instigated by the food business There are two types of food recall: with primary responsibility for the supply of an unsafe trade-level or consumer-level: or unsuitable food. These can include importers, • Trade-level recall manufacturers or wholesalers. Recalls may be initiated as a result of a consumer complaint or company or A trade-level recall is conducted before the food has government testing, and are conducted to ensure been sold directly to consumers. It typically involves foods that pose a health risk are removed from the recovering the product from distribution centres, distribution chain. wholesalers and the food service sector, such as caterers and restaurants. Food recalls involve all three tiers of government. FSANZ coordinates the recall. State and territory officers • Consumer-level recall are the conduit between the business instigating the A consumer-level recall is the most extensive type of recall and FSANZ. They also advise local councils of recall and involves recovering the product from all points the recall. Each local government is responsible for in the distribution chain right through to consumers. disseminating information about the recall to affected The business conducting the recall will notify consumers food businesses so they know to remove the product through public notices that are usually placed in major from their shelves. Councils also take follow-up action newspapers. required as a result of the recall. Ways to further utilise the internet and social media to notify consumers of a food recall are being investigated.
Information about recalls is available on the FSANZ website at
46 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food premises registrations and notifications
Preventive approach The Food Act adopts a preventative approach to food Councils also regulate temporary food premises, such safety. It groups food premises into four classes, and sets as stalls. For large councils, this includes numerous major out different food safety requirements for each class based festivals conducted annually in their municipalities, as well on the food safety risks of its highest risk food handling as a large number of one-off or occasional stalls. Statistics activity. The classes range from highest risk (class 1), such for temporary food premises will be available in future years. as a nursing home, to lowest risk (class 4), such as a Councils conduct food sampling programs, which involve newsagency selling pre-packaged confectionery (Table 5). purchasing a statutory number of foods from premises in The level of regulation is largely determined by the the municipality and having samples analysed to assess microbial hazards posed by food handling at the premises. food safety and compliance with standards. The greater the chance of something going wrong during They respond to customer requests and complaints about the food handling process, and the greater the potential food hygiene, contamination, suspected food poisoning impact on people’s health, the higher the level of regulation. and food handling.
‘Municipal councils have substantial Providing information and advice to food handlers during responsibilities for administering and premises visits is a major priority for council environmental enforcing the Act.’ health officers. Many councils also offer food handling information seminars and regular newsletters for food Under the Food Act, class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must premises. Councils also have an active role in educating register annually with the responsible council. On a once- the community about food safety. off basis, class 4 premises must notify the relevant council Finally, councils are responsible for acting on all food of the basic details of the food premises, such as business recalls advised by the Department of Health, and referring type, the nature of the business, types of food handled, information to the relevant food business. and the address and contact details. For more information about individual council activities, Municipal councils have substantial responsibilities for go to the section titled In your municipality. administering and enforcing the Act. They register and inspect food businesses that operate permanent sites. Known as fixed premises, these premises sell, store, manufacture, package or transport food for human consumption (including liquor). They do not do so for premises that mainly handle raw meat, poultry or seafood as these are licensed and inspected by PrimeSafe, and dairy premises are licensed by Dairy Food Safety Victoria.
Councils register and inspect mobile food vans, with 2011 being a transition year. Before July each council could either separately register a van that operated in its own district or choose to recognise the registration of another council instead. A van may therefore have been registered in more than one district during that period, if it traded in multiple councils. From July onwards, district-based registration was no longer an option, and one registration sufficed for the entire state.
47 Year in review 2011
Table 5: Typical food premises classifications under theFood Act 1984
Handles Examples
Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to Hospitals, long-day childcare centres, nursing homes, food-related illness meals on wheels
Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature Cafés, caterers, fast food stores, juice bars, some control at all times to keep them safe manufacturers, restaurants, supermarkets
Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged Bakeries, milk bars, flour mills, some manufacturers, high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ most service stations, some community group activities ‘cook and serve’ foods
Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, Bottle shops, greengrocers, newsagencies, most vending including pre-packaged low-risk food machines, sausage sizzles, cake stalls fundraisers
Boroondara City Council EHO Will Carroll taking a routine food sample.
48 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food premises distribution and status During 2011 a total of 48,185 permanent food premises and food vans were registered with Victorian councils (class 1, 2 and 3) or were reported by councils as having notified their class 4food handling activities (Figure 7).24 Among class 1, 2 and 3 premises, 70 per cent were located in metropolitan Melbourne and the remaining 30 per cent in non-metropolitan municipalities. Non-metropolitan Victoria had a much greater proportion of class 4 food premises than the metropolitan area – 57 per cent were in non-metropolitan Victoria compared with 43 per cent that were Melbourne-based.
Figure 7: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, Victoria,* as at December 2011** Class 1–3 registrations: 42,304 (100%) Class 4 notifications: 5,881 (100%)25
Melbourne metropolitan 29,596 (70%) Melbourne metropolitan 2,522 (43%) Non-metropolitan Victoria 12,708 (30%) Non-metropolitan Victoria 3,359 (57%)
Total class 1–4 registrations/notifications, Victoria: 48,185
Notes: * This figure includes initial registrations and renewals of registration. ** Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted.
49 Year in review 2011
Over the last decade, the number of food businesses Figure 8: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations in Victoria has increased at almost double the rate of by Department of Health region, Victoria,* as at population growth. In early 2001 a departmental survey December 2011 identified 38,194 food premises in Victoria – 22 per cent fewer than in 2011. During the same period, Victoria’s population increased by an estimated 13 per cent.26
In 2011, of the eight health department regions, Melbourne’s North & West Metropolitan Region27 had the highest concentration of food premises in the state (Figure 8). Thirty-two per cent of the state’s food premises were based in this region. This reflects, in part, the presence of large numbers of food manufacturing and processing businesses in this region, which spans the northern and western suburbs from the Melbourne CBD to the outer northern and western suburbs. The Southern Metropolitan Region, which is home to a quarter of the Eastern Metropolitan 7,631 (16%) state’s population, ranked second with 21 per cent of all North & West Metropolitan 15,474 (32%) registered food premises. Not surprisingly only 16 per Southern Metropolitan 10,268 (21%) cent of registered food premises were in the Eastern Barwon-South Western 4,033 (8%) Metropolitan Region, which is more residential in character. Gippsland 2,430 (5%) Grampians 2,437 (5%) Food premises were more evenly distributed in regional Hume 3,064 (6%) Victoria, with six per cent of the state’s registered food Loddon Mallee 2,848 (6%) premises based in each of Hume and Loddon Mallee Victoria 48,185 (100%) regions, and five per cent in each of Gippsland and Grampians regions. The Barwon-South Western Region, *Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted. which covers south-western Victoria and includes the larger regional centres of Geelong and Warrnambool, Table 6 shows food premises classifications for each was home to eight per cent of all food premises in 2011. Department of Health region. In regions where the class of all premises was known (92 per cent),28 five per cent of all food premises were classified by councils as class 1. The corresponding figures were 56 per cent as class 2, 19 per cent as class 3 and 12 per cent as class 4.
The great majority of food premises in Victoria were class 2 premises – 27,094 (56 per cent) – which typically handle high-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times to keep them safe. This class includes a wide variety of premises types including cafés, caterers, fast food stores, juice bars and some manufacturers, restaurants and supermarkets. In 2010 North & West Metropolitan Region had the highest proportion of class 2 premises of all regions (67 per cent). While Table 6 shows that for 2011 only 47 per cent of all premises in the region were assessed as class 2, this is a significant underestimate because it excludes the City of Melbourne’s class 2 premises as these data were not available.
50 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 6: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, by business class and region, Victoria,* as at December 2011 Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Department of Health Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Melbourne metropolitan Eastern 480 6% 4,205 55% 1,885 25% 1,061 14% 0 0% 7,631 100% North & West 590 4% 7,321 47% 2,179 14% 1,450 9% 3,934 25% 15,474 100% Southern 552 5% 6,658 65% 1,877 18% 1,181 12% 0 0% 10,268 100% Subtotal 1,622 5% 18,184 54% 5,941 18% 3,692 11% 3,934 12% 33,373 100% Non-metropolitan Victoria Barwon-South Western 159 4% 2,429 60% 840 21% 605 15% 0 0% 4,033 100% Gippsland 107 4% 1,643 68% 424 17% 256 11% 0 0% 2,430 100% Grampians 100 4% 1,355 56% 597 24% 385 16% 0 0% 2,437 100% Hume 115 4% 1,838 60% 643 21% 468 15% 0 0% 3,064 100% Loddon Mallee 111 4% 1,645 58% 702 25% 390 14% 0 0% 2,848 100% Subtotal 592 4% 8,910 60% 3,206 22% 2,104 14% 0 0% 14,812 100% Total 2,214 5% 27,094 56% 9,147 19% 5,796 12% 3,934 8% 48,185 100% Notes: * The total number of premises for Loddon Mallee Region does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information was not submitted. ** Melbourne City Council in North & West Metropolitan Region was unable to stratify food premises data by class. Its food premises are listed under the column showing class not available. See Appendix 8 for a breakdown by municipality.
In 2011 in regions where premises class was known, class Predictably, for premises of known class, the proportion 2 food premises represented a slightly higher proportion of of class 1 food premises was similar across all regions, all businesses in the Gippsland and Southern Metropolitan ranging from four to six per cent of all premises. Class 1 regions compared with other regions – 68 per cent and premises handle high-risk foods for vulnerable people such 65 per cent, respectively – compared with an average as hospital patients, residents of nursing homes, meals on for the state of 56 per cent. wheels clients and children in long day care.
Gippsland is one of Victoria’s long-established and best Class 3 premises handle unpackaged low-risk foods or known food tourism destinations. In addition to fine produce pre-packaged high-risk foods, occasional community and locally made, gourmet foods, there are more than groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods – for example, bakeries, 40 cellar doors open to the public in Gippsland. milk bars, flour mills and service stations. In regions where food premises class was known, an average of 19 per The Southern Metropolitan Region is home to a quarter cent of all food premises across the state were assessed of the state’s population and includes Casey and Cardinia, as class 3. In metropolitan Melbourne, this compared with which are among the fastest growing municipalities in a low of 18 per cent in the Southern Metropolitan Region Australia. Greater Dandenong is Melbourne’s second and a high of 25 per cent in the Eastern Metropolitan largest retail and commercial centre, with large shopping Region, which is strongly residential in character. complexes at Dandenong and Keysborough, the Dandenong Market, and more than 50 Asian restaurants and specialty supermarkets. The region is also home to a significant number of food processing industries.
51 Year in review 2011
Food premises classes and types For premises of known class (92 per cent), Table 7 The corresponding figures for class 3 premises in 2010 compares food premises that were registered with were 17 per cent in inner metropolitan districts compared councils, or which councils reported as class 4 with 28 per cent in small shires. notifications, across groupings of similar municipalities Looking at the 2011 figures for non-metropolitan Victoria, during 2011. ‘Similar councils’ refers to councils that share on average the proportion of class 2 premises within large similar characteristics, such as location and population shires was greater than in small shires or regional cities – density.29 64 per cent compared with 59 per cent and 58 per cent, Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling respectively. The greater presence of class 2 premises in activities, councils are not required to contact these large shires may simply reflect the larger numbers of towns premises annually to ascertain whether they are still and settlements to be served by small businesses, or it operating and to update their contact details. For this may be due to other factors such as the relatively lower reason, this report may not accurately reflect the total cost of overheads in smaller towns than regional cities or number of class 4 food premises. metropolitan areas.
Caution is needed when interpreting differences in the On average, small rural shires had slightly more class 3 class profiles of food premises in inner metropolitan premises than other rural municipalities – 24 per cent municipalities compared with other municipality types. compared with 22 per cent in regional cities and 20 per cent Figures presented for inner metropolitan municipalities are in large shires – although these differences are not marked. seriously skewed by the absence of a breakdown by food Food Act enforcement activities entail considerable time premises class for Melbourne City Council’s large number and effort, especially for councils with large numbers of of food premises – 3,934 or 12 per cent of all metropolitan food premises and small councils with small workforces food premises and eight per cent of all Victorian premises. spread across air and water quality, immunisation, disease As a consequence, it is not possible to make valid control, environmental protection and noise control in comparisons of metropolitan municipality types. The addition to food safety. substantial differences in the profile of class 2 and 3 Among Victoria’s 79 councils in 2011, eight metropolitan premises across municipalities that were observed in 2010 municipalities (10 per cent) and Greater Geelong City are obscured in the 2011 data. For example, in 2010, on Council had more than 1,200 food premises and 32 average, in small shires 57 per cent of all food premises non-metropolitan councils (41 per cent) had fewer than were classified as class 2 compared with 67 per cent in 300 premises. The remaining 39 councils had between inner metropolitan municipalities. This was not surprising 301 and 1,200 premises (49 per cent) (Figure 9). given the concentration of food service businesses, such as cafés and restaurants in Melbourne’s inner suburbs.
52 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 7: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations/notifications, by municipality type and business class, Victoria,* as at December 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Metropolitan Inner metropolitan 876 4% 10,722 52% 3,037 15% 2,058 10% 3,934 19% 20,627 100% Middle 312 6% 2,990 59% 1,126 22% 640 13% 0 0% 5,068 100% Interface*** 446 6% 4,636 59% 1,829 23% 1,012 13% 0 0% 7,923 100% Subtotal 1,634 5% 18,348 55% 5,992 18% 3,710 11% 3,934 12% 33,618 100% Non-metropolitan Regional city 340 5% 4,105 58% 1,539 22% 1,058 15% 0 0% 7,042 100% Large shires 150 4% 2,654 64% 824 20% 541 13% 0 0% 4,169 100% Small shires 90 3% 1,987 59% 792 24% 487 15% 0 0% 3,356 100% Subtotal 580 4% 8,746 60% 3,155 22% 2,086 14% 0 0% 14,567 100% Total 2,214 5% 27,094 56% 9,147 19% 5,796 12% 3,934 8% 48,185 100%
Notes: * The total number of premises does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information was not submitted. ** As Melbourne City Council was unable to stratify food premises data by class, its food premises are listed under the column showing class not available. *** The term ‘interface councils’ refers to a self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues and that work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, Hume City, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire. See Appendix 9 for a breakdown of municipality type by council.
53 Year in review 2011
Figure 9a: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by metropolitan municipality, Victoria, as at December 2011
54 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Figure 9b: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by regional municipality, Victoria,* as at December 2011
*Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s data are excluded as the information was not submitted. See Appendix 10 for a breakdown by municipality.
55 Year in review 2011
There are substantially more food premises per 10,000 Figure 10: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations persons in non-metropolitan regions than in metropolitan and notifications per 10,000 population in Victoria,* regions (Figure 10). For premises of all classes during as at December 2011 2011, on average, there were 24 more food premises 120 per 10,000 persons in non-metropolitan regions than in metropolitan regions. The corresponding figure for class 2 100 premises was 18 premises.
These figures show the significance of the food sector to 80 rural economies. Many food manufacturing enterprises – such as canning or making foods from locally grown 60 produce – are located in rural and regional Victoria. Interest in fresh seasonal foods and gourmet foods is also high and 40 continues to grow. Many non-metropolitan municipalities 20 actively promote food tourism, for example, winery/ restaurants, outlets for boutique jams, preserves, honey Premises per 10,000 populatio n 0 and baked goods. In recent years, rural councils have also reported significant numbers of sole traders or community Hume Victoria Eastern groups engaged in small, home-based food enterprises. Western Southern Gippsland Grampians Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan
The Hume Region, which covers north-eastern Victoria North & West Barwon-South Loddon Mallee and the Goulburn Valley, had the highest rate of food Department of Health region premises per 10,000 persons (115) in the state, while the Eastern Metropolitan Region had the lowest (74). North * Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s data are excluded as the & West Metropolitan Region had more food premises information was not submitted. See Appendix 11 for a breakdown by municipality. per 10,000 persons than other metropolitan regions (89) compared to Southern (77) and Eastern (74).
Over time, as more data are available about types of food premises, more will be known about the nature of food businesses in different regions.
56 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Safeguarding water supplied ‘The minimum level of regulation by water carters necessary to prevent unacceptable Since July 2011 water carters that sell water to the public risks to consumers from contaminated for human consumption must register their water transport drinking water came into force on vehicles under the Act. 1 July 2011.’ A significant number of Victorians in rural communities This was significant, given the serious risks to human are not connected to a reticulated water supply and rely health associated with drinking contaminated water. on rainwater tanks for their drinking water. Water carters Contaminated water may contain harmful microorganisms supply this water to households from tankers for a fee. that can cause severe gastroenteritis. Infants, older people Due to reduced or unpredictable rainfall, the demand and people with suppressed immune systems are more for potable water to replenish these rainwater tanks has likely to be affected. The department was concerned that increased substantially. serious illness could result if water was taken by the carter From time to time concerns about the safety and quality from an inappropriate source or was contaminated in the of water delivered by water carters have been raised tanker itself. by members of the public, local government and water The minimum level of regulation considered necessary cartage operators. Their concerns centre on whether the to prevent unacceptable risks to consumers came into water comes from an appropriate source, and whether force on 1 July 2011. Private drinking water carters now it is contaminated. need to register their water transport vehicles with the Private water carters’ vehicles were regulated by the local council in whose district their tankers are garaged. Food Act when it was enacted in 1984 – as water is Once registered, water carters must also submit a Food classed as a food under the Act – and some were Act ‘statement of trade’ telling each affected council that registered by councils. However, a number of changes to they may be trading in their district. This can be completed the Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 since then annually. They must also retain their invoices from the water had led to uncertainty as to if, and when, the Act applies. corporations from which they purchase their drinking water.
Water carters not only transport drinking water, they also The new obligations apply to private businesses that deliver sell it and sometimes process it if they disinfect it with water for sale to the public for drinking or for purposes chlorine. Due to lack of clarity about the application of the connected with human consumption, such as preparation Act, councils were not continuing to register water carters. of food, making ice or preserving unpackaged food. This gap meant that consumers could not be assured that These arrangements bring water carters into line with the same monitoring and quality assurance steps were in businesses conducting food and beverage handling place to prevent harm as those that apply to drinking water activities that carry similar risks to human health. from a mains supplier.
57 Year in review 2011
Fresh juice vending machines There are various fresh orange juice vending machines in the market. Typically, they are programmed to self-clean after a Vending machines have come a long way from offering set number of serves, or by the clock. Remote-controlled mainly soft drinks and confectionary to now serving fresh software monitors and manages machines at different fruit juice, prepared sandwiches and even hot chips and locations, including internal temperature, number of pizza. They are a convenient way to get something to eat squeezed fruits and general status. Performance data from on the run, and the department is keen to ensure they are each machine can be monitored centrally by proprietors and dispensing safe, fresh food and drinks. action taken in the case of malfunction. For example, if the Australia has experienced several large and serious temperature of a machine exceeds safe limits, the software outbreaks of foodborne illness caused by contaminated is designed to automatically shut the machine down. oranges. With orange juice vending machines already part Operators must ensure that their machines are used and of the food landscape, in December 2011 the department serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. provided the National Vending Association with a guidance The department’s new guidelines and regulatory note. The note covered food handling and record-keeping requirements reflect food safety standards as they apply requirements to help class 2 vending machine proprietors to portable food vending businesses. They are based on understand their responsibilities under the Food Act and a food safety outcome approach, rather than detailed, the steps to follow to ensure food safety. prescriptive requirements. This trend is consistent with the risk management approach that underpins the amended Act.
The department released a guidance note for class 2 vending machines in December 2011.
58 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Compliance and enforcement approaches
Promotion of food safety is the chief priority under the Compliance checks Food Act and council environmental health officer officers spend much of their time assisting food premises to handle Cost-effective compliance and enforcement arrangements are important to all food premises. As many food businesses food safely. To complement this educative approach, transcend local, state and national borders, a consistent councils have a range of enforcement options. When faced regulatory approach across Victoria is also imperative. with an alleged breach of the legislation, council officers will consider the best response based on the risk to public ‘…less need to resort to costly, health, the severity of the problem and the compliance time-consuming prosecutions history of the food premises. They may simply provide advice or guidance to educate a food premises proprietor for less serious breaches’ about how to comply. They may issue a warning, an As they always have, councils continue to provide advice infringement notice or a direction to fix the problem, to proprietors and community groups about how to or they may commence a prosecution. handle food safely. And while they continue to monitor food premises, the legislation is now easier to administer, investigate and enforce. They now have the authority to focus their enforcement efforts on food premises that pose greater risks to public health. For example, councils may charge fees for follow-up inspections for repeated noncompliance by a food business, as these businesses require more council time and effort in monitoring than compliant operators. To further strengthen food safety risk management, council chief executive officers may also temporarily close premises or stop particular food handling activities until Warrnambool focuses on prevention significant public health problems are rectified. Warrnambool City Council uses a proactive regulatory From March 2011 a new mid-range enforcement power approach, to help prevent noncompliance through was introduced. Councils are able to issue on-the-spot education. fines for a range of less serious food safety or hygiene Direct working relationships are established early offences. This means councils have less need to resort to costly, time-consuming prosecutions for less serious breaches. with proprietors during the initial application phase. Council’s environmental health officers encourage Councils now collect a standard suite of data and report to open discussion to provide information and explain the department on a quarterly basis. In time, this data will how the proprietor can address risks to food safety. provide an overview of compliance checks conducted on food premises by councils in the course of their work. In addition, environmental health officers regularly present at food safety supervisor, hospitality and The compliance regime for class 1, 2 and 3 premises not-for-profit group training courses. These involves some combination of independent food safety presentations provide a personal introduction to audit, assessment and inspection by a council officer. Council’s environmental health officers, define Food premises are checked once or twice each year, the businesses’ and organisations’ food safety depending on their classification and whether afood responsibilities, and increase understanding of safety program is in place. This is to ensure that the proprietor is complying with applicable food safety Council’s role in monitoring food safety under the standards. In view of the lower food safety risks involved, Food Act and related standards. the compliance regime for class 4 premises involves Mark Handby, Senior Environmental Health Officer, discretionary council inspection if a complaint is received Warrnambool City Council or for a spot check.
59 Year in review 2011
Education and follow-up sees results Efficient inspections and sampling in Central Goldfields at Frankston At Central Goldfields Shire Council, 2011 was a Council introduced a targeted inspection program, challenging year. With me being new to the area with scheduling the type of premises to be assessed each new expectations, word quickly got around and rumours month. For example, all restaurants were completed were spread about the new health officer. I’m sure those during the month of May. This enabled a more structured of you from a small community can relate to this. allocation of workload over the course of the year and resulted in more efficient use of staff resources. Food Personally, it was both a great experience and a sampling could be carried out at the same time at the challenge being thrown in the deep end as a sole type of premises being assessed each month. During officer not long out of university. Though a number the restaurant assessments, samples of food that had of noncompliances were observed that needed to be been cooked and then cooled for later use were taken rectified – major and minor – there were some fantastic for laboratory analysis to verify that cooling procedures compliance results achieved through education and implemented by the business were adequate. This follow-ups. resulted in a more comprehensive review of cooling To remind all registered food premises proprietors procedures across a larger number of businesses, and staff of their food safety obligations, a newsletter as opposed to a more ad hoc approach across fewer highlighting problems that arose in food businesses in premises. Results of this sampling survey indicated that 2011 was put together for distribution in early 2012. cooling procedures among local businesses complied Laura Blow, Environmental Health Officer, with the Food Act. Central Goldfields Shire Council Lyle Clauscen, Environmental Health Coordinator, Frankston City Council
60 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Enforcement actions No enforcement action needed in the north-east The Act sets out a range of requirements to ensure that food is safe to eat. It is an offence to breach these requirements. Two Indigo Shire environmental health officers For example, it is an offence to sell unsafe food or to fail to continue to service the municipalities of Indigo, comply with the national Food Standards Code. Towong and the Falls Creek and Mt Hotham Alpine resorts. Despite such a huge area being covered, The Food Standards Code contains food safety standards more than 90 per cent of registered premises were that must be met by food businesses when they handle checked for compliance and complaints are followed food for sale. These include keeping food free of up within 24 hours. No statutory enforcement has contamination, ensuring kitchens are clean, and keeping been necessary due to the committed educational high-risk food under temperature control to prevent approach taken by the officers. harmful pathogens, which can cause food poisoning, from multiplying. The Act also contains some regulatory During the year, council officers attended all class 2 offences. For instance, it is an offence for a class 1, 2 or 3 premises to present them with the new Department food premises to operate without registration. of Health food safety program template and to explain the importance of record keeping, particularly Whenever a law is breached, the relevant law enforcement temperature controls, cleaning schedules and agency must decide what course of action to take. Often supplier details. This also proved to be valuable for the solution is to explain to the business how to comply. proprietors, who indicated that they appreciated Education and assistance may be all that is required, having a ‘pleasant’ visit from the officers and could especially when the operator wishes to do the right see the benefit of their registration fees. Follow-up thing. Depending upon a range of factors, such as the visits have shown that the proprietors are using seriousness of the breach, the risk of harm, and whether the templates and that standards have generally there is a history of compliance or noncompliance, other improved. enforcement actions may be appropriate. Discretion must be exercised as to which tool in the enforcement hierarchy Kimberley Warne, Team Leader, Building and to use. A range of remedies under the Food Act is available Environmental Health, Indigo Shire Council to councils as the primary enforcement agencies at the local level. This can include:
Mandatory council inspections of food premises are • giving a warning with a report about what needs to be required under the Act for purposes including ensuring done to comply that premises are complying with the Act, applicable • issuing an infringement notice if the breach is an food safety standards and the Food Standards Code infringement offence (from March 2011) (the Code). Discretionary council inspections may be • issuing various notices under the Act that require conducted because councils have concerns about food remedial steps to be taken within a specified timeframe businesses, in response to any complaints, or as random • temporarily ordering the closure of a food premises spot checks. until major or ongoing problems are fixed Providing information and advice to food handlers during • suspending or refusing to renew registration premises visits is a major priority for council environmental in a serious case health officers. Many councils also offer food handling • prosecuting the proprietor of the business. information seminars and regular newsletters for food premises.
61 Year in review 2011
Infringements In March 2011 the Act was changed to empower councils The department worked closely with the Department of to issue infringement notices for certain food safety Justice to agree on the offences under the Act for which or hygiene offences as part of a graduated system of infringement notices have been introduced. To promote enforcement options under the Act. consistent use and application by all councils, the department prepared extensive guidance materials and Infringement notices are a useful tool for councils as they provided in-service training in all health regions in 2011 allow them to deal more readily with straightforward food to brief council officers on issuing infringement notices safety or hygiene problems in accordance with the nature under the Act. and gravity of the offence. The training emphasised the importance of official ‘… a prompt, straightforward method warnings prior to issuing a notice and the need to be for a food business to make amends flexible and to deal with special circumstances fairly. for an offence without needing to go This training will be conducted annually to make sure to court’ new officers and those returning to the workforce can become familiar with the requirements for issuing While infringement offences apply on a statewide basis, infringement notices. council officers have discretion as to when it is appropriate Councils anticipate that infringement notices will be to issue notices. In practice, they are useful for mid-level a useful tool for mid-level offences where there is no offences where education or a warning is not sufficient but immediate threat to public health. Most will still prefer where an offence is not so serious as to warrant a criminal to resolve many issues through educational support prosecution. to food premises. By offering a prompt, straightforward method for a food Offences for which infringement notices may be issued are business to make amends for an offence without needing listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. For more information see to go to court, the infringement notice system aims to
Because infringement notices depart from the standard practice of court hearings to enforce breaches of the law, their use is limited to suitable clear-cut offences. The Attorney-General’s Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006 set out when an offence is appropriate to be an infringement offence. Maintenance of proportionality between the relatively minor, clear-cut nature of infringement offences and the penalty they attract reinforces a sense of fairness in the system. Consistency of approach across councils is also crucial to public understanding and confidence in enforcement.
62 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Other action for serious breaches Consistent infringements approach at Casey Where a council has serious concerns about a food premises, there are a range of options available to address From 1 March 2011 changes to the Food Act meant the risk to public health. These include suspending or that Council environmental health officers were able revoking the premises’ registration until those concerns to issue infringement notices for a wide range of food are addressed. In 2011 there were no instances where safety or hygiene offences. While the City of Casey councils took this action. aims to assist food premises to handle food safely through education, infringement notices are a new An alternative approach is for council to direct under the tool that assists Casey to administer, investigate and Act that the business take steps to ensure adequate enforce the Act. hygiene and food handling at the premises. As part of this order, the CEO may temporarily close a food premises or To ensure a consistent approach to issuing stop particular food handling activities in the meantime, infringement notices, Council developed guidance where this is necessary to protect public health. In such notes for environmental health officers and facilitated serious cases, the business may only resume operations training on the principles of issuing infringements and once the problems have been fixed. requirements under the Infringements Act 2006. In 2011 councils closed a total of eight Victorian food Caroline Bell, Manager, Community Safety, premises, all of which were classified as class 2 (Table 8). Casey City Council
Maroondah moves on infringements Table 8: Food premises closures by councils for serious breaches of the Food Act 1984 s. 19 (3), With Food Act infringements a new addition to Victoria, 2011 enforcement options, Maroondah moved quickly to implement an infringement system to ensure Department of Health No. of premises the appropriate training, processes and data region and municipality closed management systems were in place. Class 2 Barwon-South Western New internal procedures to assist with enforcement Surf Coast 1 decision making were developed and discussed among the team to ensure consistency among Eastern Metropolitan officers. The introduction of an infringement data Whitehorse 1 management system and process has assisted Monash 3 Maroondah’s Community Health team to issue Gippsland 0 infringements and monitor the success of the process. Grampians 0 The infringement data management system was Hume undertaken in conjunction with Council’s Local Moira 1 Laws team. Cross-departmental relationships and Loddon Mallee 0 system reviews were a positive by-product of the North & West Metropolitan development and implementation of the Community Hobsons Bay 1 Health infringement system. Yarra City 1 Corinne Bowen, Team Leader Community Health, Southern Metropolitan 0 Maroondah City Council Victoria 8
63 Year in review 2011
‘… temporary closure of a food Enforceable undertakings premises is a more significant step for labelling breaches that can only be ordered by a Enforceable undertakings to remedy noncompliance with council CEO’ the Act were among the new mid-range enforcement powers introduced on 1 March 2011. This recent power complements the longstanding authority of councils to order a clean-up of a food premises This new power joins a suite of graduated enforcement or other steps to ensure safe food handling conditions. powers under the Act. As mentioned, food premises The temporary closure of a food premises is a more proprietors may be given advice, warnings or directions significant step that can only be ordered by a council CEO to remedy defects. They may have conditions placed on when it is clear that food should not be sold from the site their premises’ registrations. Premises may be closed until improvements are made. temporarily. Where a breach is sufficiently serious and all else has failed, proprietors and staff may be prosecuted, The department also has powers to address serious or the right of the business to operate removed by breaches. It can temporarily close a food premises, cancelling registration. where this is necessary to reduce a risk to public health. One such order by the department was authorised by Enforceable undertakings were modelled on existing the Acting Chief Health Officer in 2011.30 departmental practice and equivalent laws for dealing with many labelling breaches. They are particularly useful where: Closures encourage compliance at Hobsons Bay • there is no immediate public health risk Hobsons Bay was one of the first municipalities to • a food business is willing to remedy a problem apply these new enforcement tools. Closing food but needs time to do so premises that were critically noncompliant was very • an effective solution can be negotiated with the business effective and quickly removed the risk to public • prosecution or other more serious enforcement action health. Premises can only re-open when the is not warranted due to the nature of the breach. breaches are fixed.
Malcolm Ramsay, Public Health Coordinator, Hobsons Bay City Council
64 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Prosecutions for serious breaches Enforceable undertakings Overview What? Prosecutions for food safety breaches are typically initiated Enforceable undertakings are a new mid-range when there has been serious noncompliance or a repeated power to enforce the Act. An undertaking is an failure to comply with food laws and when lower level administrative sanction available to deal with certain means of enforcement are not appropriate. A court then alleged breaches of the law. It may be enforced in decides whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the Magistrate’s Court by the regulator if the party that the person charged is guilty of the offence. In cases who agrees to the terms of the undertaking does not where a court finds a person guilty, the court must then comply with them. decide what sentence to impose. In serious cases To achieve this, the food business proprietor promises it may impose a conviction, with or without some other to take a specified action within an agreed timeframe sentencing order. to remedy an alleged breach of the Act at the premises. Since 2010 councils have been required under the Food Act Accordingly, an enforceable undertaking aims to: to report certain information about prosecutions as required under the Act. The department has published on its website • protect the public the details of businesses or individuals who have been • implement a compliance program to prevent prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under the Act similar breaches occurring in future that is serious enough for the court to record a conviction. • change the compliance culture of an organisation The Act requires each conviction to be retained on • rectify any negative impact the conduct may have the register for 12 consecutive months. Ordinarily, had on the general public. a conviction under the Act is dealt with in open court – Who? typically in the Magistrate’s Court. The purpose of the register is to increase the opportunity for a court’s decision The Department of Health may accept an to become more widely known. This makes information undertaking, authorise the Director of Consumer about noncompliance with the Act more readily available to Affairs Victoria to accept an undertaking or, if the the public. The Food Act register of convictions is available breach is purely local, authorise a registering council on the department’s website at
65 Year in review 2011
Types of offences Most of the convictions were for breaches of s. 16 of failure to store food properly or keep pests out, to failure the Food Act (a failure to comply with the Australia New to maintain clean food premises and keep fixtures, fittings Zealand Food Standards Code). The majority of these and equipment in a good state of repair. These offences were breaches of Standard 3.2.2 Food safety practices and the number of premises to which they related are set and general requirements. These offences ranged from out in Table 9 and described in more detail in Appendix 12.
Table 9: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by number of food premises* in relation to which the conviction was recorded, for each offence and by number and type of offence, Victoria, 2011 No. of food No. of Type of offence premises offences Unsafe food Section 8 – Knowingly handle food intended for sale in an unsafe manner 1 1 Section 8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to 2 4 render the food unsafe Section 11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it 1 2 unsafe Section 11(2) – Sell food that is unsafe 2 3 Unsuitable food Section 12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, 5 6 it unsuitable Section 12(2) – Sell food that is unsuitable 1 2 Section 16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code Food safety programs 2 8 Food safety practices and general requirements 24 289 Food premises and equipment 13 61 Section 16(3) – Packaging/labelling Selling or advertising any food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that contravenes a 1 3 provision of the Food Standards Code Section 19 – Failure to comply with an order Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition and alter or improve 4 12 the premises as specified Section 19F – No food safety program at the premises Fail to ensure a required food safety program is kept at the premises to which it relates 5 6 Section 19GB – Details of food safety supervisor Fail to give the council written details of the name and qualifications or experience of the current 1 1 food safety supervisor for the premises within seven days of being asked to do so by the council Section 35A(1) – Unregistered food premises Operate a food business at premises not registered with the council 11 11 Victoria --** 409
Notes: * This includes all types of food premises whether they were fixed premises, mobile premises, vending machines or temporary premises. ** There may be more than one offence per food premises. For example, a company which is the proprietor of the food business and its director may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act. See also Table 10 which shows the type of food premises to which the convictions relate.
66 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
An individual may be charged if: The types of convicted persons in this reporting period are set out Table 10. • he or she is the proprietor of the business, or • if he or she is a director or is otherwise involved in the management of a company, when the company is the proprietor of the business.
Table 10: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by type of convicted persons and type of food premises to which the conviction relates, Victoria, 2011
No. of convicted Proportion of Convicted persons – type persons total convictions Individual – proprietor/manager Restaurant/café 14 Take-away 6 Retail shop 0 Bakery (bread, pies) 3 Manufacturing premises 0 Van 1 Market stall 0 Subtotal 24 57% Individual – director of proprietor company Restaurant/café 5 Take-away 0 Retail shop 1 Bakery (bread, pies) 0 Manufacturing premises 0 Van 0 Market stall 0 Subtotal 6 14% Company – proprietor Restaurant/café 10 Take-away 0 Retail shop 1 Bakery (bread, pies) 0 Manufacturing premises 1 Van 0 Market stall 0 Subtotal 12 29% Total 42 100%
67 Year in review 2011
Types of premises Prosecuting councils Food premises may be fixed (for example, a restaurant, In 2011 prosecutions under the Food Act that resulted in shop or manufacturing factory), temporary (for example, convictions were brought by 17 councils across five of the a market stall) or mobile (such as a van). Table 11 shows eight Department of Health regions (Table 12). that, of the convictions recorded in the 2011 year, all but Table 12: Number of food premises where Food Act one occurred at fixed premises. 1984 offences have been committed at which a Table 11: Convictions for offences under the prosecution resulted in a conviction, and the number Food Act 1984 that led to convictions being recorded of convictions in total, by municipality and region, by type of food premises at which the offences Victoria, 2011 occurred, Victoria, 2011 Department of Health No. of No. of Premises at which offences region premises convictions occurred that led to Barwon-South Western 2 2 convictions being recorded Surf Coast 1 1 No. of Proportion of Warrnambool 1 1 Type of food premises premises total premises Eastern Metropolitan 8 15 Fixed Boroondara 3 6 Restaurant/café 15 Maroondah 2 2 Take-away 9 Monash 1 2 Retail shop 1 Whitehorse 2 5 Bakery (bread, pies) 2 Gippsland 0 0 Manufacturing premises 1 Grampians 0 0 Subtotal 28 96.5% Hume 1 1 Mobile Wodonga 1 1 Van 1 3.5% Loddon Mallee 0 0 Temporary North & West Metropolitan 8 11 Market stall 0 0% Hobsons Bay 3 5 Total 29 100% Melbourne 2 2 Penalties Nillumbik 1 1 Yarra 2 3 The penalties imposed, in addition to the recording of Southern Metropolitan 10 13 a conviction, comprised fines ranging from $300 to Bayside 1 1 $100,000. The most severe penalty in this range involved the conviction of a company for 10 offences, which Glen Eira 1 2 included handling food intended for sale ‘in a manner Greater Dandenong 3 4 that the proprietor ought reasonably to know was likely Kingston 1 1 to render the food unsafe’ (s. 8A), selling unsafe food Mornington Peninsula 2 2 (s. 11(2)) and failing to ensure that staff undertaking or Stonnington 2 3 supervising a food handling operation had the necessary Victoria 29 42 skills in food safety and food hygiene matters (s. 16(1)). The lowest penalty in the range was imposed on an To view the department’s register of convictions, go to individual for operating a food business without being
68 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Revamped surveillance system
Victoria’s food surveillance system provides a snapshot of Centralised system emerging risks and assists food regulators to keep abreast of the latest food pathogens and risks associated with From March 2011 the department added a centralised new foods. food surveillance system to its first-class infectious diseases surveillance system. Food analysts, who are Recent improvements mean that when major outbreaks approved to analyse the samples collected by councils occur the state will be in a better position to track bacteria under the Act, prepare reports for councils. Statistics of a particular strain, link outbreaks and trace food derived from these reports will also be provided to the contamination to the source. department electronically. As councils are the registration ‘Victoria’s food surveillance system authority, they retain responsibility for following up any particular concerns identified in the laboratory results at a underwent sweeping changes in 2011.’ particular premises. As such, reports to the department will The key to maintaining public health is not battling not include the name of the food premises or proprietors. every individual bacterium, but monitoring food safety Victoria’s upgraded surveillance system will give a and quickly containing any outbreaks that threaten the comprehensive insight into food sampling activities by population. A safe and nutritious food supply is easy to councils across the state. It will enable sampling data to be take for granted. However, it relies on an effective food compared at a local, regional and state level and will assist surveillance system that generates timely information that in identifying trends and emerging issues requiring further can be used to develop and measure the outcomes of research. For the first time, areas of success and common public policy on food and food contamination. risks that need attention will be evident. Victoria’s food surveillance system underwent sweeping changes in 2011. It features a common approach to food ‘… the new system will enable the sampling statewide, regional, state and bi-national food department to analyse the results of sampling surveys, routine reporting and analysis and more than 10,000 laboratory analyses targeted policy research. The intent is earlier and better of food samples each year’ analysis of the microbiological and chemical quality of food being sold across the state. Statewide collation of these food sampling statistics will be achieved by designing, piloting and implementing a ‘… the department, councils and computer-based data collection system that provides authorised analysts have cooperated complete and consistent data for sampling information to be the first jurisdiction to centralise and analytical results. The statistical data will be held in a central database managed by the department. To ensure the results of … food sampling for prompt and complete reporting, with no additional costs analysis’ for the laboratories, the department funded upgrades to their IT systems so that the reporting could be automated. Since the introduction of the Act in 1984, Victoria’s 79 During 2012 all testing laboratories will be able to transfer local governments have regularly carried out food sampling statistics directly to the department for analysis. programs to ensure the safety of our food supply. To improve on current systems, the department, councils When all laboratories are online, the new system will and authorised analysts have cooperated to be the first enable the department to analyse the results of more than jurisdiction to centralise the results of environmental health 10,000 laboratory analyses of food samples each year. officers’ food sampling for analysis.
69 Year in review 2011
Standardised food sampling form Banyule’s food sample data loggers In December 2009 the department also developed a Banyule City Council’s sampling program and standard food sampling form for use by all councils. procedures were reviewed in 2011. New equipment, The form allows foods to be described on the basis including new portable coolers and data loggers, of risks. The new forms standardise both the way that were purchased. The data loggers are being used in foods are described and the data transmitted to the new our sampling coolers to record temperatures during database. Standardised food sampling forms are an transit of food samples to the analysts. This will integral part of local government food law enforcement. ensure the samples of food are stored correctly so They help ensure enforcement arrangements are they can be tested by the laboratory. consistent and proportionate across the state and, over time, will contribute to improved food safety regulation. Karly Maurer, Acting Coordinator, Health Services, Banyule City Council The state’s revamped food sampling requirements give environmental health officers a good overview of the Risk-based food sampling at Boroondara safety of food being sold in their municipalities. Every year the department declares the number of food samples each council must take to meet its Act obligations. Each council’s figure is based on the number of food premises in the municipality and the need to protect those most at risk of food poisoning; that is, a minimum number of samples are required for class 1 premises, such as aged Taking a surface swab. care premises and childcare centres. This ensures that The City of Boroondara’s Health Services team the right type and number of food businesses are being introduced a risk-based approach to food sampling sampled in each council district. in 2011. This coincided with the new statewide From March to May 2011 the department went on the sampling regime. The new approach saw foods road to deliver training for council officers in all regions sampled from more premises across the municipality to explain the new sampling requirements and to as a result of observations made during routine or demonstrate how to use the new forms. This training is complaint inspections. Higher-risk premises are also repeated annually to make sure new officers and those sampled at least once every three years. returning to the workforce are up to date with the Nick Lund, Coordinator, Public Health, sampling requirements. Boroondara City Council
The recent changes to the state’s food surveillance Shepparton sampling satisfaction program affect local government, laboratories and the Shepparton City Council’s food sampling program department. The contributions of local government focused on childcare centres: a total of 23 meals environmental health officers and laboratory personnel were collected and all sample results were in building the new system have been essential to the satisfactory. The sampling program also focused success of the system. on soft-serve and store-made ice-cream: four of 15 Gazetted food sampling requirements for each council for samples returned marginal or unsatisfactory results. 2011 can be viewed at
Lisa Eade, Team Leader, Environmental Health, Greater Shepparton City Council
70 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Making safety a key ingredient Focus on food surveillance Victoria participates in a three-tier food surveillance Under the Food Act food analysts regularly test system, with food sampling and monitoring occurring food samples submitted by councils for pathogens at council, regional and state levels. that can cause food poisoning. A council may take a sample of food from a business to be tested in Regional food sampling response to a consumer complaint, or when an Regional food sampling carried out by local government in environmental health officer identifies concerns metropolitan Melbourne in 2011 revealed that most food during an inspection of the business. businesses are compliant with the expected standards, Samples may also be taken randomly when there but there is some room for improvement. While none of are no concerns about a particular business, as part the investigations revealed major pathogen problems, of routine surveillance of particular types of food or they highlighted some problems at food premises, handling practices. This is to gain a better picture particularly regarding temperature control of foods. of the safety of that food or practice. ‘Coordinated sampling provides a Arranging for laboratory analysis of food samples in all of these situations has always been an better picture of risks with certain important council function. Since March 2011 foods and … informs appropriate routine surveillance sampling increased in districts corrective actions in food premises.’ with greater numbers of food premises, and in class 1 premises that serve food to vulnerable people, As food sampling can cover a vast range of foods of such as older people in care and pre-schoolers in varying risk to consumers, the department’s regional childcare. environmental health officers convene regional food surveillance groups to coordinate food sampling across Prompt and effective surveillance of a business that their regions. is of concern allows appropriate control measures to be put in place at that business – particularly during Regional sampling groups consider what types of food an outbreak. Routine surveillance informs knowledge samples should be taken by councils in their areas. This about how to prevent disease in future, and provides enables better targeting of high-risk foods or high-risk useful intelligence about handling practices in a district. food premises. Coordinated sampling provides a better picture of microbiological or chemical risks with certain Food analysts are authorised under the Act and foods and the data informs appropriate corrective actions are ‘appropriately qualified to carry out analyses for in food premises. The sampling groups are responsive to the purposes of this Act’. This means that, as well local issues and problems and provide a valuable source as technical proficiency, authorised analysts must of data to the department for use in monitoring food safety have a solid understanding of the Act and the Food risks across the state. The surveys are also a good way Standards Code. Applicants for authorisation must for councils to achieve their required number of statutory apply to the department, present for an interview, surveillance sampling targets, and to add value to their and be assessed as suitable to attain this status. own results by enabling comparison of their results with those of other councils.
In all surveys completed in 2011, microbiological assessment was conducted in accordance with Australian Standard methods and conducted in laboratories accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities for these methods. Where premises returned unsatisfactory sample results, all councils followed up by revisiting the
71 Year in review 2011
premises and requesting clean-up activities or re-sampling, Bi-national food monitoring as appropriate. The survey results typically highlight issues and surveillance about which food premises proprietors are unaware and they are generally only too willing to rectify any problems. To complete the food monitoring and surveillance picture In addition to these improvements at the premises that across all levels of government, the Victorian Department were part of the formal survey program, environmental of Health is part of a bi-national food regulatory system. health officers also draw on the findings when inspecting The department, with other government agencies in similar high-risk food handling activities at other premises. Australia and New Zealand, monitors the food supply to ensure it is safe and that foods comply with standards for Two of the regional surveys conducted in 2011 are microbiological contaminants, pesticide residue limits and outlined below. chemical contamination.
Custard products, April 2011 In this bi-national food regulatory system, the Cannoli, custard tarts, Danishes, fruit flans, vanilla slices Implementation Sub-Committee (ISC) designs and and custard cakes were among 252 samples of custard in maintains an approach that is collaborative and consistent ready-to-eat foods submitted for analysis by seven councils. between all Australian states and territories and New The results suggested that these products did not present Zealand. One part is to conduct surveillance and a significant food safety risk to customers and compared monitoring activities, such as analytical food surveys, favourably with the findings of a similar study in to monitor the food supply and gather data to inform New South Wales. either new or existing food standards. These collaborative activities are led and managed by agencies in Australia or Council officers followed up and addressed concerns New Zealand, with input from other jurisdictions including about food handling and storage practices at some the Victorian Department of Health, in the planning, design, premises, particularly related to vanilla slices that had a food sampling and/or food analysis for the survey. The 31 higher proportion of unsuitable Standard Plate Count outcomes of each survey and any follow-up activities are and Enterobacteriaceae results. agreed and managed by the ISC.
Ready-to-eat salads, June 2011 FSANZ oversees the surveillance and monitoring A total of 412 samples of ready-to-eat salads were component of the ISC work plan. To view the current submitted for analysis by 11 councils. Overall, the ISC Coordinated food survey plan, or to see the list microbiological hygiene of these salads was good. of completed surveys, go to the FSANZ website. However, nearly half of the salads were stored in the More information is also available from the Food temperature danger zone above 5°C. This prompted Regulation Secretariat website at
Several cases of salmonellosis in Victoria around this time were linked to consumption of raw or undercooked egg products. As a result, councils continued their efforts to raise awareness of the risks of serving raw egg meals and encouraged food businesses to consider safer alternatives, such as pasteurised egg. This survey identified a low number of salads as having a raw egg dressing prepared at the food premises.
72 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Fresh look at the evidence
Evidence for policy ‘Each year, thousands of Victorians Each year, thousands of Victorians get sick from unsafe get sick from unsafe food and it may food and it may surprise some that this is often caused surprise some that this is often caused by the food that people prepare in their own kitchens. by the food that people prepare in their While the Act regulates premises that sell food, it does not extend to meals prepared at home for private consumption. own kitchens.’ This was one of the challenges the department’s Food The study includes developing models: Safety and Regulation Unit had in mind when it called for • simulations of pathogen growth, inactivation and proposals under the first Food Safety Evidence for Policy persistence in model cheese systems program funding round in September 2010. • measurement of physico-chemical properties of A steering committee, chaired by the department and different cheese types. including eminent food safety specialists, oversees this The final report is due in September 2013. relatively new program. Funded from within existing resources, it is dedicated to plugging critical gaps in Salmonella Typhimurium: factors affecting food safety evidence. persistence on eggs In March the committee assessed six submissions In Australia foodborne Salmonella infections are following a competitive round of project proposals. predominantly due to Salmonella Typhimurium (STm). Four projects were approved and have commenced. Much of the international research into how Salmonella The department and other food safety authorities will can be transmitted by eggs has focused on Salmonella use the results to better inform policy development Enteritidis (SE), which is a problem in other countries. In and implementation. this project, researchers from the Melbourne Diagnostic Unit Public Health Laboratory at University of Melbourne Funded and ongoing projects and CSIRO will investigate how the STm serotype Predictive models to inform regulatory decision making survives in and on eggs under Australian egg production The University of Tasmania’s School of Agricultural conditions. Information about the storage temperatures for Science will investigate the persistence of the pathogen, eggs that prevent the growth of Salmonella would enable Listeria monocytogenes in food and food processing better risk management. environments. The findings of this work will be used to prepare guidance The study aims to develop predictive models that would on the safe handling of eggs for environmental health become part of decision support software for use in officers and food premises. containing Listeria monocytogenes in food factories. In Molecular typing of Listeria monocytogenes turn, the data gathered should provide food authorities with This project was funded in 2010. This ongoing work aims invaluable evidence on which to base regulatory decisions. to understand the molecular ecology of these organisms. Listeriosis is a serious infection usually caused by eating The principal researcher is Dr Geoff Hogg, MDU PHL, food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria. in conjunction with the Department of Health and It is an important public health problem because, although Dairy Food Safety Victoria. a low number of cases occur each year in Victoria, an infection may be fatal. Listeria bacteria have been found Completed projects in a variety of raw foods, such as uncooked meats Other projects which were funded in 2011 and completed and vegetables, as well as in foods that have been in 2012 are described in the 2012 section of this report. contaminated after cooking or processing, such as soft cheeses and deli meats. They are also notoriously hard to eliminate and can live in a food processing factory for years.
73 Year in review 2011
Workforce connections
Legal management course Evidence on emerging Twenty council officers completed a one-week Environmental food safety risks Health Legal Management Course to improve skills needed An important role for the department is identifying when taking legal action over Food Act offences. emerging food safety risks and developing strategies Environmental Health Professionals Australia ran this five-day and policies to improve the management of these course in conjunction with the Department of Health in the risks. The Food Safety Evidence for Policy Program Melbourne CBD. manages projects that address priority food safety risks for the Victorian (and Australian) food consumer The course offered participants a contemporary insight into where the gaps in knowledge affect our ability to local government environmental health legal aspects and control hazards. assisted in building confidence to adequately represent their employers, consider the breadth of legal situations The program is guided by a steering committee that and ensure best practice and consistent approaches comprises external scientific and policy representatives, across local governments. as well as representatives from other departmental units including Communicable Diseases Control and A highlight of the course was a visit to the Melbourne Prevention and Environmental Health. The committee Magistrate’s Court where participants had the opportunity assesses priorities for research funding and publishes to witness a Food Act prosecution. Participants also these priorities in an open invitation for researchers to participated in giving evidence in a mock court setting. submit research proposals. Local government forums Research priorities may be part of a response to a food emergency where a lack of knowledge has In February 2011 the department attended an annual food been identified, but the aim of this program is also safety conference held for environmental health officers to continually scan our statistical datasets, as well by their professional association, Environmental Health as reviewing national and international food safety Australia Vic Inc. Every year the number of participants at problems in order to develop long-term strategies the forum exceeds 300 officers involved in administering for managing food safety. the Food Act and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.
For more information go to This year the department explained councils’ power to
In November the department hosted the annual Local Government Forum for environmental health officers. The forum provided an opportunity for these officers to discuss issues they encounter in the administration of the Acts with their peers. This year a range of topics were addressed. The key item was the rationale for statewide registration of food vans and stalls and the implications for council practice of this change of approach, together with advice about how to enforce the regulation of vending machines and private water carters.
74 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Cook Chill safety training for councils Most impressed ‘I attended the Cook Chill training in Ballarat last week to refresh and add to my food safety knowledge. To say that I was most impressed by the trainer’s delivery of the course is an understatement. I would have to say that it is by far the best training course auspiced by the department that I have attended.
The combination of his knowledge, experience and delivery manner made for a rewarding learning experience. Many thanks for the opportunity.’
Public Health Manager, Grampians Region Forty council officers attended Cook Chill safety training in 2011
The Cook Chill system is a major advance in prepared foods technology, in which food is cooked rapidly and chilled to very low temperatures. Restaurants, fast food outlets, hospitals and caterers that produce large quantities of food often use the method to safely extend shelf life and reduce food and labour costs.
Council environmental health officers were offered three- day training sessions funded by the department to update their skills in checking food premises that are using this technology. Forty council environmental health officers attended the accredited ‘Audit a Cook Chill Process’ training sessions that were run in Melbourne, Geelong and Dandenong. The three sessions used materials tailored to an environmental health officer audience and the feedback was excellent. The course covered: new technology and equipment used; hazards associated with Cook Chill processes; and how to manage the risks. It also included visiting a site in full operation using Cook Chill processes. Skills learnt will assist environmental health officers in outbreak investigations and in assisting businesses to resolve outstanding issues from food safety audits.
The Cook Chill system is suitable for a variety of foods and retains texture, colour and nutritional content better than standard cooking processes when food is reheated at a later stage. It enables food premises to maintain very good control over uniformity, quality and safety so that, even after weeks in storage, foods taste as if they were freshly prepared.
75 Year in review 2011
Online food handler learning – The majority of visitors to the site were visiting for the first dofoodsafely time (59.7 per cent), indicating that dofoodsafely continued to reach new participants. The relatively high proportion The Department of Health’s much-awarded online learning of returning visitors (40.3 per cent) is a positive indication, program for food handlers, dofoodsafely, continued suggesting that people find the dofoodsafely a useful to reach a wide market in 2011. Launched just before resource and continually return to complete additional Christmas 2009, 18,504 people had visited the site by its modules or to find information. first birthday. In 2011 that figure rose to 30,127 unique In an in-depth audit of councils in 2002, the Victorian visitors for the year.32 Auditor-General identified that insufficient effort had 30,127 people visited dofoodsafely in 2011 been directed to educating food premises proprietors or handlers with low literacy who are rurally isolated Visits Unique visitors Total page views or culturally and linguistically diverse.33 Councils have 41,230 30,127 1,484,664 identified these groups as being particularly at risk of noncompliance with the Food Act. Pages per visit Average visit % new visits duration (mins) In 2007 the VCEC recommended targeted training 36.01 59.74 for businesses that have difficulty understanding and 16:52 complying with food regulation requirements for cultural, In the program, virtual chef David demonstrates the dos language or other reasons.34 and don’ts of safe food preparation, handling and serving. The department’s dofoodsafely program and council The program is primarily targeted at young people who initiatives featured in this report aim to respond to the would like to work, or are already working, in the food needs of these groups of food handlers. In addition to its industry. Designed to be informative and fun, the program excellent user interface and interactivity, dofoodsafely uses includes six modules and a final quiz covering the basics simple, clear language and favours graphics over words of handling food safely. Participants who score more than where possible. 90 per cent on the quiz are awarded a certificate.
In 2011, 30,127 unique visitors accessed the site a total of 41,230 times. They viewed a total of 1,484,664 pages – 36 pages each on average. They spent significant time on the site (average 16.5 minutes), suggesting they had sufficient time to select and complete relevant modules from among the six topic areas offered.
76 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Training investment at Cardinia Focus on staffing and education The rollout of the amended Food Act involved all at Bendigo staff in the Cardinia Shire Council’s health unit. They Environmental health staff from the City of Greater attended training sessions and workshops, updated Bendigo continued to guest lecture in food subjects systems and amended or developed policies and to environmental health students at La Trobe University. procedures to ensure the requirements of the Act The regular newsletter and fact sheets were well would be implemented smoothly in Cardinia. This received by proprietors and helped educate staff prompted installation of a new registered premises members on food safety. and wastewater software program. The software should ensure Council can meet its new reporting Suzanne Walker, Coordinator – Food, Tobacco, requirements and effectively manage all of Cardinia’s Infectious Diseases, City of Greater Bendigo registered premises and septic tank systems. Warrnambool environmental health Glenn Howard, Team Leader, Environmental Health, officers’ training role Cardinia Shire Council Environmental health officers regularly present at food Whitehorse Asian business collaboration safety supervisor, hospitality and not-for-profit group training courses. These presentations provide a To assist businesses in training their Chinese-speaking personal introduction to Council’s environmental food handlers, Council worked with the Whitehorse health officers, define the businesses’ and Asian Business Association and Chisholm Institute organisations’ food safety responsibilities and and trained more than 80 food handlers in Level 1 increase understanding of Council’s role in monitoring food safety. food safety under the Food Act and related standards. Louis Papageorgiou, Coordinator Environmental Mark Handby, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Health, Whitehorse City Council Warrnambool City Council Chinatown educational support Darebin’s food handler training The Melbourne City Council’s Health Services branch In 2011 the City of Darebin’s Health Protection Unit conducted periodical workshops for businesses provided six information sessions on safe food in the Chinatown precinct to provide educational handling for 183 participants. support to food handlers to better enable them to comply with food safety standards. In formulating Food safety bulletins are produced twice a year. the workshop content, and to determine areas for They cover changes to legislation, trends identified improvement, Council worked with the Chinatown by health officers during inspections and a timetable Precinct Traders Association as well as utilising data for the food handler information sessions. procured during food safety assessments. The most Ellie Mandritis, Coordinator, Health and recent workshops focused on cleaning and sanitising, Urban Protection Unit, City of Darebin cooling/thawing of food and safe storage of food.
Russell Webster, Manager, Health Services, Melbourne City Council
77 Year in review 2011
Communications
Advice lines Food safety website – ‘In 2011 the department answered 1.2 million page views more than 8,000 queries to its food The department’s food safety website is a key source of safety hotlines.’ information for councils, food businesses and community and not-for-profit groups who run food fundraisers. The department’s email advice and telephone lines provide The largest site on the health.vic.gov domain by content, prompt, authoritative advice and referrals about food safety it was revamped following changes to the Food Act. It now concerns. includes extensive new content, is easier to navigate, and has become the go-to site for local government officers In 2011 the department answered more than 8,000 queries on all things to do with the Act. to its food safety hotlines. The service operates from 9am to 5pm weekdays. Trained customer service officers and There were 174,677 visitors to the food safety website food scientists deal with queries on a wide range of topics. during 2011 (Table 13). Of these, 62 per cent were new rather than returning visitors. In total, visitors viewed The department dealt with 4,182 calls to the Food Safety 1,195,313 pages; an average of 6.8 pages each. telephone line in 2011 (4,363 in 2009; 4,479 in 2010) and more than 4,000 email enquiries. A sharp spike in visits occurred in September when almost 35,000 people visited the site on a single day. This followed The majority of queries were from the public. Consumers publication of an article about the department’s register of mainly called to complain about conditions in food convictions under the headline ‘CBD restaurants worst businesses, either in relation to cleanliness or the health offenders’ in a number of media outlets. and hygiene of staff. These complaints were referred to council environmental health officers for investigation. Table 13: Visits to the Department of Health food The service was also used by members of the food safety website, 2011 industry who sought information on topics such as Percentage food safety programs, training, food standards and Month No. of visits of new visits importing and/or exporting food. Jan 8,849 57 Many callers sought information in response to self- Feb 12,581 59 described food emergencies, such as power outages, or food left out of the refrigerator or past its date-marked Mar 13,689 58 period. Others wanted flyers on food safety or advice Apr 9,336 58 about food labelling or starting a food business. May 12,444 55 The department is accountable to the Victorian Parliament Jun 11,417 56 for its handling of calls to the hotline. In 2010–11 the performance target for calls that are answered was 96 Jul 10,452 54 35 per cent. During the 2010–2011 year, the department Aug 12,267 48 answered 98.8 per cent of these calls.36 Sep 49,640 78 Contact the Food Safety hotline on toll-free 1300 364 352 Oct 12,506 54 or by email to
Dec 8,897 55
Total 174,677 62
78 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
‘With two further phases of changes Nine pages were viewed in excess of 10,000 times to the Act coming into force in (Table 14). These most-visited pages featured information for food business owners, food handlers and the public. March and July 2011, page views After the home page, interest was highest in food safety on the website continued to climb.’ program templates, the register of convictions under the Food Act and information for food businesses on keeping Traffic on the department’s food safety website was at food safe. record levels in 2010. Page views soared by 40 per cent in the second half of the year as more users sought Other frequently visited pages featured a broad range information on the major changes to the Food Act that of practical information for food premises, food safety took effect in July that year. regulation/legislation and starting a food business.
With two further phases of changes to the Act coming Two of the most visited pages contained practical into force in March and July 2011, page views on the information for the public on food safety in the home website continued to climb reaching, as mentioned, and at food fundraisers. 1,195,313 for the year. Visitors spent an average 45 seconds per page visited.
Table 14: Food safety website pages viewed more than 10,000 times, 2011
Pages with more than 10,000 views Page views
Food safety home page 83,313
Food safety program template 43,509
Register of convictions 43,414
Keeping food safe 31,053
Food business information 23,342
Regulations and legislation 14,742
Starting a food business 13,098
Food safety at home 12,266
Food safety at home and in the community 10,452
Total 275,189
79 Year in review 2011
Guidance published The department is responsible for providing advice and Advice was also published for businesses and community guidance to councils to support local government and groups to ensure the law is clear, including: promote a consistent approach for Food Act administration. • Food vans and stalls. Single approval to operate in This can also make it easier for businesses to comply. Victoria – class 2, 3 and 4, November 2011 During 2011 eight major guidelines about the Food Act • Food vending machines. Statewide registration or were published for councils. notification, July 2011 Two instruments were made under the Act and published • Private drinking water carters. Approval to operate in in the Government Gazette to support the changes: Victoria, August 2011 • Guide for Victorian water carters, Guidelines for drinking • Victorian Government Gazette, Declaration under the (potable) water transport in Victoria, July 2011 Food Act 1984, Food sampling requirements, No. S 47 • Information about food vending machines – class 2, Thursday, 17 February 2011 How does the Victorian Food Act apply to your food • Victorian Government Gazette, Declaration under the business?, December 2011 Food Act 1984, Temporary and mobile food premises • Information about food vending machines – class 3, and food vending machines, No. S 372 Thursday, How does the Victorian Food Act apply to your food 17 November 2011. businesses?, December 2011 A comprehensive range of standard forms and templates • Health and Human Services Emergency Management, were also supplied to councils, such as: Donating food to emergency services, September 2011.
• infringement notices For a full list of publications, see Appendix 4. • food sampling forms • a suite of customised registration and notification forms and statements of trade for food stalls, vans, vending machines and water carters to submit to councils (to reflect the nature of their activities, different forms were prepared for community groups and businesses).
80 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Year in review 2012
Camberwell Café: Bonnie Pearson (left) with Boroondara City Council environmental health officer Zenita ONeill. 81 Year in review 2012
Food safety and food risks
It is estimated that approximately one-third of all Reported cases of gastroenteritis gastroenteritis in Australia is due to foodborne transmission.37 Only a small proportion of this disease In Victoria there are 12 diseases that cause gastroenteritis is notified to health authorities. One way this comes and that are notifiable by medical practitioners and to the department’s attention is through the state laboratories under the Public Health and Wellbeing notifiable diseases surveillance system, but this requires Regulations 2009. Of these, salmonellosis, campylobacter symptomatic individuals to present to their medical infection, listeriosis and verotoxin-producing Escherichia practitioner, to have appropriate laboratory tests (usually coli infection are considered important in terms of locally stool collection) and to be notified to the department if acquired foodborne disease. a notifiablepathogen is detected in the specimen. The most commonly notified diseases are campylobacter infection and salmonellosis. In 2012 there were 6,006 and 2,507 cases of these diseases notified to the department, respectively. Disease rates (number of cases per 100,000 population) for campylobacter infection have remained relatively stable for the 10-year period from 2003; however, salmonellosis rates have been steadily increasing over this period (Figure 11). It is estimated that for every case of campylobacter infection and every case of salmonellosis notified to the surveillance system there are a further 10 and seven cases of these diseases, respectively, in the community.38
Figure 11: Salmonellosis and campylobacter infection rates per 100,000 population, Victoria, 2003–2012
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 Rate per 100,000 population
0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year of notification Salmonellosis Campylobacter infection
82 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Surveillance and outbreaks Occasionally, outbreaks of foodborne disease are multi- jurisdictional and the investigation of these outbreaks is Surveillance of these enteric diseases and the investigation coordinated by OzFoodNet nationally. of sporadic cases and outbreaks of gastroenteritis enable us to: In 2012 there were 27 foodborne or suspected foodborne outbreaks linked to a point source, affecting approximately • measure the prevalence of disease in the population 348 people of which 22 were hospitalised as a result. • identify trends in the community that may signify an The pathogen responsible for causing the majority of point outbreak source foodborne outbreaks in 2012 was Salmonella • initiate action to prevent, contain or minimise outbreaks (Figure 12). Of the seven outbreaks where the pathogen and illness was unknown, two were suspected to have been caused • evaluate control and prevention measures by Clostridium perfringens, one was suspected to have • take the opportunity to educate the public in disease been caused by Salmonella, one was suspected to prevention have been caused by Staphylococcus aureus and the • attempt to identify possible or probable sources remaining outbreak was suspected to have been caused • plan services and set priorities. by a foodborne toxin such as Staphylococcus aureus or Bacillus cereus. Of the 24 outbreaks where the setting The majority of outbreaks of foodborne disease are was known, 20 outbreaks (83 per cent) were caused by detected through the notifiable diseases surveillance food prepared in registered food premises (Figure 13). system or self-reported to the department by affected In addition, there were eight cluster investigations of individuals. The investigations are conducted by different types of Salmonella conducted in 2012, departmental officers in collaboration with local affecting at least 97 people. government environmental health officers.
Figure 12: Point source outbreaks39 of foodborne Figure 13: Point source outbreaks of foodborne and and suspected foodborne disease by aetiology, suspected foodborne disease by setting where the Victoria, 2012 food was prepared, Victoria, 2012
12 10 9 10 8 7 8 6 6 5 4 4
umber of outbreak s 3 umber of outbreak s N N 2 2 1 0 0 school Private caterer Unknown Norovirus poisoning Histamine Unknown residence Aged care Salmonella Residential Take-away Restaurants Commercial
Campylobacter Setting where food was prepared Outbreak aetiology
83 Year in review 2012
Food vehicles40 responsible for these 27 outbreaks Under Victoria’s Food Act, restaurants, aged care homes, included: foods containing raw or lightly cooked eggs commercial caterers and similar businesses preparing (five outbreaks); vitamised foods (two outbreaks); high-risk food must have a food safety supervisor and mixed foods (two outbreaks), salads (two outbreaks); a food safety program. These programs emphasise fish (tuna) (one outbreak); a noodle dish with chicken that care should always be taken to closely adhere to all (one outbreak); sandwiches (one outbreak); battered fish standards, especially regarding personal hygiene of food (one outbreak); kebabs (one outbreak); food suspected handlers, temperature control, cross-contamination and to have been contaminated by an infectious food handler cleaning and sanitising procedures. (two outbreaks); and an outbreak caused by either a In addition, frail elderly people living in aged care homes chicken or egg dish (one outbreak). A food vehicle was are at high risk for gastroenteritis and tend to experience unable to be identified for the remaining eight outbreaks. greater severity and longer duration of illness. In these Of the eight Salmonella cluster investigations undertaken settings, spread of disease may also be complicated in 2012 a food source was unable to be identified for by close living conditions, shared bathroom facilities, any of them. low mobility and incontinence. The department There was a multi-jurisdictional outbreak of a specific type provides guidance on the management and control of Salmonella Typhimurium in 2012. Forty-three cases of gastroenteritis for these facilities, all of which must were reported from six Australian states. Onsets of illness meet stringent obligations in reporting and managing occurred between 2 July 2012 and 26 November 2012 outbreaks.41 and seven cases were hospitalised with their illness. Interviews were conducted with 39 cases and 37 cases Microorganisms identified in food (95 per cent) reported consuming almonds in their food Under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, history, either as a single food or part of a mixed nut laboratories must notify the department when they detect product. Raw almonds, traced to a single manufacturer, certain pathogenic microorganisms in food or drinking water. were the source of this outbreak. There were two national food recalls of raw almonds and multiple media releases When it receives such notifications, the department’s in relation to this outbreak. Regulation and Incident Management team conducts a risk assessment on each notification to determine the Outbreaks at premises handling appropriate course of action. This will include referral to high-risk food the appropriate food regulator (such as a local council, Dairy Food Safety Victoria or PrimeSafe) or direct It is not always possible to pinpoint the cause of an investigative follow-up by the department with the company outbreak because the time elapsed between detection to ensure the correct public health response is employed. of symptoms, confirmation of illness and investigation This can include recalling food from the marketplace. will mean that the premises and equipment have The risk assessments undertaken by the Regulation and been routinely cleaned before the investigation can be Incident Management team take into account factors completed. Gastroenteritis can be the symptom of a such as: the species, type and level of microorganism virus or associated with food consumption. The cause present; whether the food is raw, ready to eat, unsealed may remain unknown. or packaged; whether the food can or cannot support the Figures 12 and 13 show outbreaks that occurred in 2012 growth of the microorganism; and whether the food has that were considered to be foodborne or where this was been sold to the public. suspected. Common notifiable microorganisms, such During 2012 the department acted on 380 notifications as Salmonella, were implicated. The premises listed are of pathogens in food (Table 15). places at which high-risk food is routinely handled.
84 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 15: Reports received by laboratories of notifiable Incident and complaint management microorganisms under the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009, 2012 The department received and responded to 222 complaints about food or food premises in 2012. This represents an Pathogen No. (%) increase of 16 per cent compared with 2011 when 186 Listeria monocytogenes 228 complaints were received. In addition, staff dealt with (60%) 4,144 calls to its food safety hotline and more than 4,000 emails to the food safety inbox. Many of these contacts Salmonella spp. 120 related to incidents or complaints. (32%) Figure 14 shows food complaints and incidents reported Campylobacter spp. 8 to the department in 2012 according to type. (2%) Figure 14: Incidents and complaints reported to Vibrio spp. 11 Department of Health, Victoria, 2012 (3%)
Cryptosporidium spp. 0 (0%)
Cyclospora spp. 0 (0%)
Giardia cysts 0 (0%)
Hepatitis A 0 (0%)
Norovirus 0 (0%) Physical contamination 65 (30%) Verotoxin-producing E. coli (VTEC) 13 Labelling – other than allergen 61 (27%) (3%) Microbiological contamination 25 (11%) Chemical contamination 13 (6%) Total 380 Allergen 13 (6%) (100%) Other (for example, unhygienic premises 45 (20%) Total 222 (100%) Of these 380 pathogen notifications:
• 236 (62 per cent) resulted from testing conducted by food businesses according to their licensing obligations with Dairy Food Safety Victoria or PrimeSafe, or under their internal food safety and quality assurance programs • 83 (22 per cent) were the result of council food sampling • 63 (16 per cent) were the result of testing through the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service imported food inspection program42 • 4 (1 per cent) were associated with foods being sold in the marketplace and subsequently resulted in food recalls.
85 Year in review 2012
Figure 15 gives examples of the types of complaints Particularly where foods are manufactured in Victoria and received for the year. distributed beyond a local area, the department has a more hands-on role regarding investigation of labelling Figure 15: Examples of food complaints, 2012 and allergen complaints. In these cases, the department Complaint Examples assists local councils by liaising with other state and type territory food authorities and other Victorian regulators including Dairy Food Safety Victoria, which regulates Physical Indian meal moth larvae in dried products such as bread, nuts and biscuits dairy food, and PrimeSafe, which is responsible for meat and seafood. Piece of plastic in yoghurt In any complaint investigation, the initial focus is on Piece of glass in springs rolls responding to public health risks. Where it may be Cigarette butt in red kidney beans dangerous if the food is consumed, complaints are Labelling Expired dates on food in a gift hamper treated as urgent and dealt with immediately.
Incorrect labels on imported foods – such The department is accountable to the Victorian Parliament as American confectionery with wrong for its handling of complaints. In 2012 the department nutrition information panel met the required performance standard of an average of 24 hours from notification of a food complaint to Labelling of lemon juice as 100 per cent 43 juice when it contains antioxidant and commencement of appropriate action. preservative Mandatory reporting of serious Allergens Undeclared egg in imported biscuits food harms Undeclared gluten in dumplings On 1 January 2011 an amendment to the Australian Undeclared dairy in imported biscuits Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) Sesame declared on rice crackers that consumer law came into effect. It mandates the reporting contained no sesame by suppliers of serious injury, illness or death associated Chemical Non-permitted additive (sunset yellow) in with consumer goods, including food. Food regulators confectionery did not see the effects of this reporting until the later Pharmaceuticals in imported part of 2011. supplementary sports foods All participants in the supply chain of a consumer good are required to comply with the reporting requirement.
This includes retailers, distributors, installers, importers The complaints came from various sources, predominantly or manufacturers of the consumer goods in question. members of the public. Most pertained to local issues such as foreign objects in food or the cleanliness of food A supplier is required to submit a report within two days premises. In accordance with protocols, the department of becoming aware of such a reportable incident. The referred these to council environmental health officers for reporting obligation applies to a broad range of goods. follow-up investigation. Guidelines prepared by the ACCC in December 2010 ‘Where it may be dangerous if the food indicate that: is consumed, complaints are treated • State and Territory legislation relating to health, food as urgent and dealt with immediately.’ and notifiable diseases requires foodborne infectious diseases to be reported to health authorities. Foodborne infectious diseases are therefore exempted under Regulation 92 from mandatory reporting to the ACCC.
86 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
• Other food-related deaths, serious injury or illness The second report was similar in nature. A person with (for example, anaphylactic reactions and choking on known allergies to egg and milk advised that they had an food-packaging) are not exempted by the Regulations allergic response after consuming a packet of coconut- and the normal reporting criteria apply.44 flavoured cream-coated peanuts. This product was imported and did not have either allergen declared in If a food business becomes aware of such an illness, the ingredients list. Subsequent departmental testing, injury or death related to the use of that food, the business confirmed the presence of both allergens and, accordingly, must report this to the ACCC using an online form on the a consumer-level food recall was instigated to ensure the ACCC website. This notification form is automatically sent product was removed from the marketplace. electronically to the relevant state or territory food regulator for assessment and the necessary action. The mandatory reporting process is still in its infancy in the food sector. Further work is being done in this area Given the many longstanding ways in which safety risks by state and Commonwealth governments and the food associated with food could already be dealt with, it appears industry. This will continue into 2013 to ensure that: that uptake was initially slow, with only nine reports received by the department’s Food Safety Unit in 2011. • only those incidents requiring reporting are reported
By 2012, however, industry was more broadly advised of • sufficient information is included by businesses in these the new requirement by the ACCC and the online reporting reports to enable an investigation to be conducted to mechanism had commenced. confirm whether a regulatory response is required. The department’s Food Safety Unit received 365 Food recalls mandatory reports in 2012. All were assessed. Of these reports 307 (84 per cent) did not meet the mandatory ‘The chances of getting food poisoning reporting requirements either because: are low when the volume of food • they were incorrectly reporting an issue that was not consumed is considered.’ a food safety risk, or The food industry in Victoria is, by any measure, huge. • the report did not include sufficient information for Victorians eat more than six billion meals every year46 and follow-up and this information could not be readily only around 0.03 per cent of these meals cause some obtained.45 form of foodborne illness.47 These estimates include a Of the remaining 58 reports, 50 (14 per cent) were large number of mild cases that are not reported. In 2012, deemed to be isolated incidents that had been adequately 48,435 fixed andmobile food premises were regulated responded to by the business that had received the under Victoria’s Food Act. The state’s retail food turnover complaint and eight appeared to constitute possible food amounted to $32.9 million in 2011 and food exports were safety breaches and were followed up by the department. valued at $7 billion.
Of these eight, two required further action. The outcome The chances of getting food poisoning are low when the was a food recall in both cases. Both of these products volume of food consumed is considered. However, it is were imported and were recalled for the presence of an important to prevent the associated suffering and cost undeclared allergen. The first report was an allegation of an through correct food-handling techniques from production, allergic response to dairy from a child with a known dairy to point of sale, to consumption. allergy after consuming a packet of imported potato crisps. The food industry is responsible for manufacturing, The product did not have dairy listed in the ingredients. importing and selling safe food. Where food poses a The department arranged for product testing which public health risk, the food company responsible for that confirmed the presence of milk as an ingredient and the food needs to remove it from the marketplace though a product was subsequently recalled from the marketplace food recall. in March 2012.
87 Year in review 2012
In 2012 a total of 60 food recalls were instigated by Australian food companies compared with 2011 when there were 67 recalls. Seventeen recalls were instigated by Victorian companies.
Table 16 shows the reasons for food recalls in 2012, with microbiological contamination (45 per cent) and undeclared allergens (19 per cent) the most common reasons for recall this year.
The table includes recalls that were requested by FSANZ but not those that were conducted by councils in response to local issues. It also includes recalls that were initiated as a result of mandatory reporting (described earlier) to the ACCC.
Table 16: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2012
Instigated by Victorian In Australia company No. (%) No. (%) Mornington Peninsula Shire Council EHO Becky Harman checking labelling of unpackaged ingredients in Mornington Microbiological 27 4 kindergarten kitchen. contamination (45%) (7%)
Undeclared allergen 19 9 (including gluten) (32%) (15%)
Foreign matter in food 12 4 (20%) (7%)
Chemical contamination 2 0 (3%) (0%)
Labelling (other than 0 0 undeclared allergen) (0%) (0%)
Total 60 17 (100%) (28%)
Information about recalls is available on the FSANZ website at
88 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food premises registrations and notifications
Preventive approach The Act adopts a preventative approach to food safety. Councils register and inspect mobile food vans and It groups food premises into four classes and sets temporary food premises, such as stalls. out different food safety requirements for each class Councils conduct food sampling programs, which involve based on the food safety risks of its highest risk purchasing a statutory number of foods from premises in food handling activity. the municipality and having samples analysed to assess ‘The greater the chance of something food safety and compliance with standards. going wrong during the food handling They respond to customer requests and complaints about process and the greater the potential food hygiene, contamination, suspected food poisoning and food handling. impact on people’s health, the higher the level of regulation.’ Providing information and advice to food handlers during premises visits is a major priority for council environmental The classes range from highest risk (class 1), such health officers. Many councils also offer food handling as a nursing home, to lowest risk (class 4), such as information seminars and regular newsletters for food a newsagency selling pre-packaged confectionery. premises. Councils also have an active role in educating The level of regulation is largely determined by the the community about food safety. microbial hazards posed by food handling on site. Finally, councils are responsible for acting on all food The greater the chance of something going wrong recalls advised by the Department of Health and referring during the food handling process and the greater information to the relevant premises. the potential impact on people’s health, the higher the level of regulation. Under the Food Act, class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must Hand washing a glittering success register annually with the responsible council. Due to the Bass Coast Shire has been using the GlitterBug lower risk of their food handling activities, on a once-off hand washing kits with UV lights to assist in training basis class 4 premises must notify the relevant council of proprietors in hand washing techniques and to the basic details of the food premises, such as business emphasise the importance of correct food hygiene. type, the nature of the business, types of food handled This has been particularly successful with proprietors and the address and contact details. and/or staff whose first language is not English. Municipal councils have substantial responsibilities for GlitterBug uses fluorescing powder to represent administering and enforcing the Act. They register and ‘pretend’ bacteria. They show as bright spots under inspect food businesses that operate permanent sites. UV light. Known as fixed premises, these premises sell, store, manufacture, package or transport food for human Alex Waldron, Environmental Health Coordinator, consumption (including liquor). They do not do so for Bass Coast Shire Council premises that mainly handle raw meat, poultry or seafood as these are licensed and inspected by PrimeSafe; dairy premises are licensed by Dairy Food Safety Victoria.
89 Year in review 2012
Annual food safety forum for businesses Fine-tuning processes to improve efficiency All attendees at Bayside Council’s annual forum in 2012 In 2012 Wangaratta Council exhausted its supplies of found the practical demonstration of thermometers hard copy food safety programs so, as a service to our very useful. The class 2 food safety program requires new proprietors, we are now providing CDs of the plans thermometers to be calibrated. Many brought their at Council’s expense. This has been well received. own thermometers to be checked and were given A 50 per cent late fee for re-registering food premises a completed Calibration Log for their own records. was introduced in order to reduce the amount of time Con Tsekouras, Environmental Health Coordinator, spent chasing up proprietors who did not renew on Bayside City Council time. Council had already adopted an online process for the payment of renewal fees. This has worked well, Community groups’ education but we will be looking at alternatives for future years to Several times a year, community group information further improve this process. For example, we may use sessions on food safety are run by Benalla Council’s a reply paid envelope, as some of the feedback environmental health coordinator. These popular suggests that once the registration fees are paid online, sessions help community groups, schools and the actual form with current renewal details is forgotten proprietors with staff induction. or becomes a low priority, resulting in a low return rate by proprietors to council. Receipt of this up-to-date Callum Morrison, Environmental Health Coordinator, information, as well as the fee, is necessary for a Benalla Rural City Council renewal of registration.
Food businesses partnerships Ross Cairns, Coordinator Environmental Health, Boroondara Council embraces a proactive, educative Wangaratta Rural City Council approach to food safety regulation. This includes the publication of a quarterly food safety newsletter and Open door approach facilitation of the Food Safety Working Group, composed Warrnambool City Council utilises a proactive regulatory of food business proprietors and council officers. approach focusing on preventing noncompliance through implementing an education-based system. We are proud to work in partnership with our food Working relationships are often established directly with businesses to ensure the safety of our residents and proprietors and an ‘open door’ approach is encouraged the many people who come and dine in Boroondara. to discuss any food safety concerns that may arise. However, where businesses present an unacceptable risk to public health, Council takes immediate action, Environmental health officers regularly attend and including any necessary enforcement action. present at food safety supervisor and hospitality training courses through a local training provider. Nick Lund, Coordinator Public Health, These presentations provide a personal introduction Boroondara City Council to council environmental health officers, highlight the responsibilities of food businesses and increase understanding of Council’s role in monitoring food safety under the Food Act and Food Safety Standards.
A newsletter, FoodNews, is developed and distributed annually. It contains updates on staff, legislation and compliance reminders, as well as current food-related issues.
Mark Handby, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Warrnambool City Council
90 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food premises distribution and status During 2012 a total of 44,016 class 1, 2 and 3 fixed and Over the past decade, the number of food businesses mobile food premises were registered with Victorian in Victoria has increased at a much greater rate than councils (Figure 16). Of these, 69 per cent were located population growth. In early 2001 a departmental survey in metropolitan Melbourne and the remaining 31 per cent identified 38,194 food premises – 21 per cent fewer than in non-metropolitan municipalities. in 2012. During the same period, Victoria’s population increased by an estimated 14 per cent.48 In 2012, 4,419 class 4 food premises were also reported by councils as having notified councils of their food handling In 2012 Melbourne’s North & West Metropolitan Region activities. Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food had the highest concentration of food premises in the handling activities, councils are not required to contact state (Figure 17). Thirty-two per cent of the state’s food these premises annually to ascertain whether they are premises were based in this region. This reflects, in part, still operating and to update their contact details. For this the presence of large numbers of food manufacturing reason, this report may not accurately reflect the total and processing businesses in the region, which spans number of class 4 food premises. the northern and western suburbs from the Melbourne CBD to the outer northern and western suburbs. The Among class 4 premises recorded on council databases, Southern Metropolitan Region, which is home to a quarter 62 per cent were Melbourne-based and 38 per cent were of the state’s population, ranked second with 21 per non-metropolitan. cent of all registered food premises. Sixteen per cent of food premises were in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, reflecting the residential character of this area.
Figure 16: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, Victoria,* as at December 2012** Class 1–3 registrations: 44,016 (100%) Known class 4 notifications: 4,419 (100%)
Melbourne metropolitan 30,566 (69%) Melbourne metropolitan 2,733 (62%) Non-metropolitan Victoria 13,450 (31%) Non-metropolitan Victoria 1,686 (38%)
Total class 1–4 registrations/notifications, Victoria: 48,435
Notes: * This figure includes initial registration and renewals of registration. ** Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted.
91 Year in review 2012
Figure 17: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations High-risk food and notifications by Department of Health region, Victoria,* as at December 2012 Food premises are classified by municipal councils under the Food Act according to the public health risks involved in handling foods.
The nature of food, together with the way it is handled and the vulnerability to illness of the person eating the food, determines food safety risk. The terms ‘high-risk’ and low-risk’ are used in this report for ease of reference. High-risk food should be taken to refer to foods that require more careful handling to keep them safe. This usually involves temperature control (refrigeration and/or cooking to a sufficiently high temperature) to control or kill the pathogens that
can cause food poisoning. Eastern Metropolitan 7,579 (16%) North & West Metropolitan 15,666 (32%) Southern Metropolitan 10,054 (21%) Barwon-South Western 3,794 (6%) Gippsland 2,876 (6%) Grampians 2,405 (5%) Hume 3,056 (6%) Loddon Mallee 3005 (6%) Victoria 48,435 (100%) * Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted.
Food premises were more evenly distributed in regional Victoria, with six per cent of Victoria’s food premises based in each of Gippsland, Hume and Loddon Mallee regions and five per cent in Grampians Region (Figure 17). The Barwon-South Western Region, which covers south-western Victoria and includes the larger regional centres of Geelong and Warrnambool, was home to eight per cent of all food premises in 2012.
Table 17 describes each food premises class with examples of typical food handling activities.
Table 17: Typical food premises classification under theFood Act 1984
Handles Examples
Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable Hospitals, long day childcare centres, nursing homes, to food-related illness meals on wheels
Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature Cafés, caterers, fast food stores, juice bars, control at all times to keep them safe some manufacturers, restaurants, supermarkets
Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods, or pre-packaged Bakeries, milk bars, flour mills, some manufacturers, high-risk foods, occasional community most service stations, some community group activities groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods
Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, Bottle shops, greengrocers, newsagencies, including pre-packaged low-risk food most vending machines, sausage sizzles, cake stalls
92 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 18 shows classifications of fixed premises and mobile The Southern Metropolitan Region includes Casey food premises for each Department of Health region. and Cardinia, which are among the fastest growing municipalities in Australia. Greater Dandenong is Five per cent of these food premises were classified Melbourne’s second largest retail and commercial centre, by councils as class 1. The corresponding figures were with large shopping complexes at Dandenong and 65 per cent as class 2, 21 per cent as class 3 and Keysborough, the Dandenong Market and more than nine per cent as class 4. 50 Asian restaurants and specialty supermarkets. The great majority of food premises in Victoria were The region also hosts a significant number of food classified as class 2 (31,457) which typically handle processing industries. high-risk foods that need correct temperature control Class 3 premises typically handle unpackaged low-risk at all times to keep them safe. This class includes a foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods – for example, wide variety of premises types including cafés, caterers, bakeries, milk bars, flour mills and service stations – and fast food stores, juice bars and some manufacturers, occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods. restaurants and supermarkets. An average of 21 per cent of all food premises across the The North & West Metropolitan and Southern regions state were assessed as class 3. This compared with a low had a markedly higher proportion of class 2 premises of 19 per cent in the North & West and Gippsland regions compared with other regions – 69 per cent in each case, and a high of 26 per cent in the Grampians Region. compared with an average for other regions of 62 per cent. Predictably, the proportion of class 1 food premises was The North & West Metropolitan Region is the state’s most similar across all regions. Slightly more food premises in populous and diverse region and is growing rapidly. It is the Eastern and Southern regions were classified as class home to four of six designated growth areas in Melbourne. 1 compared with other regions – six per cent compared with an average of four per cent for other regions. Class 1 premises handle high-risk foods for vulnerable people such as hospital patients, residents of nursing homes, meals on wheels clients and children in long day care. Many council environmental health teams are using tablets to make inspections more efficient.
93 Year in review 2012
Table 18: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications, by business class and region, Victoria,* as at December 2012 Registrations Notifications Total Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Health region No. % No % No % No % Melbourne metropolitan Eastern 480 6% 4,287 57% 1,868 25% 944 13% 7,579 100% North & West 653 4% 10,735 69% 2,970 19% 1,308 8% 15,666 100% Southern 570 6% 6,923 69% 2,080 21% 481 5% 10,054 100% Subtotal 1,703 5% 21,945 66% 6,918 21% 2,733 8% 33,299 100% Non-metropolitan Victoria Barwon-South Western 157 4% 2,400 63% 787 21% 450 12% 3,794 100% Gippsland 113 4% 1,901 66% 545 19% 317 11% 2,876 100% Grampians 112 5% 1,495 62% 625 26% 173 7% 2,405 100% Hume 126 4% 1,848 61% 685 22% 397 13% 3,056 100% Loddon Mallee* 118 4% 1,868 62% 670 22% 349 12% 3,005 100% Subtotal 626 4% 9,512 63% 3,312 22% 1,686 11% 15,136 100% Total 2,329 5% 31,457 65% 10,230 21% 4,419 9% 48,435 100%
*Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s data are excluded as the information was not submitted. See Appendix 13 for a breakdown by municipality.
Food premises classes and types Table 19 compares food premises that were registered with councils, or that were reported as having notified councils of their food handling activities, across groupings of similar municipalities. ‘Similar councils’ refers to councils that share similar characteristics, such as location and population density.49,50
94 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 19: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations/notifications, by municipality type and business class, Victoria,* as at December 2012 Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Council groups No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Metropolitan Inner metropolitan 934 5% 14,073 68% 3,819 19% 1,809 9% 20,635 100% Middle 314 7% 2,955 64% 1,166 25% 206 4% 4,641 100% Interface** 467 6% 5,079 61% 1,990 24% 742 9% 8,278 100% Subtotal 1,715 5% 22,107 66% 6,975 21% 2,757 8% 33,554 100% Non-metropolitan Regional city 354 5% 4,404 62% 1,558 22% 819 12% 7,135 100% Large shires 153 4% 2,847 65% 862 20% 520 12% 4,382 100% Small shires 107 3% 2,099 62% 835 25% 323 10% 3,364 100% Subtotal 614 4% 9,350 63% 3,255 22% 1,662 11% 14,881 100% Total 2,329 5% 31,457 65% 10,230 21% 4,419 9% 48,435 100%
Notes: * Macedon Ranges Shire Council (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted. ** The term ‘interface councils’ refers to a self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues and work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, Hume City, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire. See Appendix 14 for a breakdown of municipality type by council.
The proportion of food premises in each class varied Food Act enforcement activities entail considerable time across municipality type. It was broadly similar for class and effort, especially for councils with large numbers of 1 premises – between three and seven per cent of all food premises and small councils with small workforces premises. There were greater differences in the profile spread across air and water quality, immunisation, disease of food premises for class 2 and 3 premises across control, environmental protection and noise control in municipality types. For example, 22,107 (66 per cent) addition to food safety. of all class 2 food premises were located in metropolitan Among Victoria’s 79 councils in 2012 eight metropolitan municipalities. Of these, 14,073 (68 per cent) were in municipalities (10 per cent) and Greater Geelong City Melbourne’s inner suburbs where the concentration of Council had more than 1,200 food premises and 32 food service businesses, such as cafés and restaurants, non-metropolitan councils (41 per cent) had fewer than is greatest. The corresponding figure was 61 per cent in 300 premises. The remaining 39 councils had between interface municipalities. 301 and 1,200 premises (Figure 18). Middle metropolitan and small shires had a slightly greater proportion of class 3 premises – 25 per cent in each case, compared with 19 per cent in inner metropolitan municipalities and 20 per cent in large shires. These differences are not marked but may reflect a greater presence of small food businesses in these areas.
95 Year in review 2012
Figure 18a: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by metropolitan municipality, Victoria, as at December 2012
96 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Figure 18b: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by regional municipality, Victoria,* as at December 2012
*Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s data are excluded as the information was not submitted. See Appendix 15 for a breakdown by municipality.
97 Year in review 2012
There are substantially more food premises per 10,000 Selling packaged meat from a stall persons in non-metropolitan regions than in metropolitan or vehicle regions (Figure 19). During 2012 there was an average of 27 more food premises per 10,000 persons in Permission for traders to sell packaged meats at markets non-metropolitan regions than in metropolitan regions. has been clarified by the making of connected statutory The corresponding rate for class 2 premises was exemptions under the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the 23 premises. Food Act.
These figures show the significance of the food sector to This simplifies the regulatory requirements for operators rural economies. Many food manufacturing enterprises of meat transport vehicles who sell packaged meats at – such as canning or making foods from locally grown farmers markets, fêtes and field days. produce – are located in rural and regional Victoria. Councils are the sole regulators for these market activities. Interest in fresh seasonal foods and gourmet foods is However, PrimeSafe licences meat transport vehicles under also high and continues to grow. Many non-metropolitan the Meat Industry Act and this enables these businesses municipalities actively promote food tourism such as to transport meat, such as from a processor to a shop. wineries/restaurants and outlets for boutique jams, As these operators have their refrigerated vehicle assessed preserves, honey and baked goods. to obtain this licence, the new arrangements automatically Over time, as more data are available about types of food allow them to also sell packaged meat at a market from premises, more will be known about the nature of the food the vehicle if they wish to do so. They do not need to have businesses in different regions. the vehicle inspected by, and registered with, a council under the Food Act before they can trade at a market. Figure 19: Fixed and mobile food premises per 10,000 population in Victoria,* as at December 2012 The paperwork has been kept to a minimum. These operators submit a short, once-off notification form to the 120 relevant council and inform all councils in whose districts they will be trading about when they will be at each market. 100 At the same time under this notification, these traders can 80 also sell pre-packaged, low-risk food, such as bottled preserves or sauces, provided that this food is stored 60 separately from the meat.
40 Prior to these changes, the ability of a meat transport vehicle operator to sell packaged meat at a market was unclear. 20 Other businesses can also sell packaged meat at a market Premises per 10,000 population Premises if they register in the usual fashion with council and inform 0 all affected councils about their trading plans. Hume
Victoria To protect public health, packaged meat sold at markets Eastern Western Southern Gippsland
Grampians must have been processed at a facility with a licence from Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan
North & West 51
Barwon-South PrimeSafe or equivalent authority in another state. Loddon Mallee
Department of Health region
*Note: Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s (Loddon Mallee Region) data are excluded as the information was not submitted. See Appendix 16 for a breakdown by municipality.
98 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Compliance and enforcement approaches
Promotion of food safety is the chief priority under the Food Act and council officers spend much of their time assisting food premises to handle food safely. To complement this educative approach, councils have a range of enforcement options. When faced with an alleged breach of the legislation, officers consider the best response based on the risk to public health, the severity of the problem and the compliance history of the food premises. They may simply provide advice or guidance to educate a food premises proprietor about how to comply. Where this is not sufficient, enforcement action can be taken.
Compliance checks
Corangamite assessments build rapport Focus on high-risk activities in Glen Eira To help premises comply with the Food Act, and in Glen Eira Council introduced a risk-based approach accordance with Corangamite Shire’s commitment to the way food safety assessments are conducted. to food safety monitoring, Council undertakes a Glen Eira assessments are now based on Hazard high frequency of assessments. All registered food Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) methodology, premises are assessed annually, with more than which provides Council with greater flexibility to identify 90 per cent assessed twice a year. Building a rapport and manage the risks posed by each food premises. with proprietors encourages them to work with Council This change places greater emphasis on high-risk to implement any required changes and results in a process steps in comparison with lower risk compliance- high level of compliance. based items and has provided significant benefits for both council and business. Lyall Bond, Manager Environment and Emergency, Corangamite Shire Council Each business assessed using the new approach now gains an overall risk rating of high, medium or low. Frankston risk management approach This rating then determines the timeframe for follow-up Frankston Council implemented a stronger risk inspections and provides a guide to environmental management approach in relation to inspection of food health officers on the need and type of enforcement premises during 2012. This has led to an increased sanctions that should be considered (proportionate focus on premises at which serious food safety to risk). noncompliance was identified at a previous assessment. Proprietors are now provided with clearer guidance Any premises previously assessed as having a serious about food safety risks that exist within their businesses food safety breach is now subject to an additional and whether those risks are being effectively managed assessment later in the year. The aim is to ensure and controlled. The new system enables businesses to adequate food safety practices are being maintained efficiently allocate resources to control risks in order of by the business. priority. Food handling staff can now be more effectively Lyle Clauscen, Environmental Health Coordinator, educated about critical risk areas that require continual Frankston City Council monitoring and review.
Stuart Symes, Acting Manager Public Health, Glen Eira City Council
99 Year in review 2012
Loddon’s one-on-one help on food safety Fall in noncompliance at Knox programs In 2012 Knox Council continued with the system of With regard to food, 2012 saw Loddon Shire focus charging for repeat inspections required to follow up on our community groups, with additional assistance ongoing non-conformance with the Food Act and being provided to meet Food Act obligations. This Standards. Follow-up inspection non-conformance included contacting unregistered community groups and has fallen from 15.7 per cent to 11.8 per cent. providing detailed one-on-one instruction on the Sam Salamone, Coordinator Health Services, use of food safety programs. Knox City Council Teresa Arnup, Manager Environmental Health, Loddon Shire Council Prevention is better for Vic Market Food labelling compliance has been an ongoing concern Limited enforcement action needed for Melbourne City Council’s Health Services department. at Mt Buller The failure of some food businesses to label repackaged Mt Buller Alpine Resort food premises are not within food is of particular concern. Health Services recognised Mansfield Shire but are registered and inspected by the need to assist food businesses to provide safe and shire officers. The high intensity of use during the correctly labelled food and decided to work with food three-month trading period for these premises poses businesses at the Queen Victoria Market. particular challenges for Council as it means that inspections cannot be spread throughout the year.
Council has been pleased with the results of inspections and assessments at almost all food premises. This has resulted in the need for only limited enforcement actions to improve performance.
Kevin Murphy, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mansfield Shire Council
Social media food auctions in Mildura The project focused on improving labelling compliance of re-packaged foods at the dairy produce section of One challenge Mildura Council has faced in the past the market through a supportive, educative approach. 12–18 months has been regulating businesses that A detailed communication strategy ensured that key want to prepare meals and dishes, such as fried rice messages were passed on and a ‘labelling toolkit’ or lasagne, from a home kitchen and sell them auction developed. The toolkit provided proprietors with the style on Facebook and similar social internet sites. As a information necessary to produce their own labels result of a number of these type of enquires, we altered without the need to buy expensive software or hire our home registrations policy – which was designed for consultants. A subsequent workshop, attended by more market selling only – to include proprietors selling food than 80 per cent of the target group, provided positive to individuals and not just catering for groups of people. feedback about both the workshop and the toolkit. Jacinta Mclean, Environmental Health Officer, Health Services officers will continue to monitor labelling Mildura Rural City Council compliance at the market to fully gauge the impact of the project.
Russell Webster, Manager Health Services, Melbourne City Council
100 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Enforcement actions Infringements The Act sets out a range of requirements to ensure food is From March 2011 councils have been able to start the safe to eat. It is an offence to breach these requirements. work of establishing systems to issue infringement notices For example, it is an offence to sell unsafe food or to fail to for certain food safety or hygiene offences as part of a comply with the national Food Standards Code. graduated system of enforcement options under the Act. ‘Education and assistance may be all Infringement notices are a useful tool for councils as they that is required, especially when the allow them to deal more readily with straightforward food safety or hygiene problems in accordance with the nature operator wishes to do the right thing.’ and gravity of the offence.
The Code contains food safety standards that must be met In practice, they are useful for mid-level offences, where by food businesses when they handle food for sale. The education or a warning is not sufficient but where an Act also contains some regulatory offences. For instance, offence is not sufficiently serious to commence a criminal it is an offence for a class 1, 2 or 3 food premises to prosecution. operate without registration. By offering a prompt, straightforward method for a Whenever a law is breached, the relevant law enforcement food business to make amends for an offence without agency must decide what course of action to take. Often going to court, the infringement notice system aims to the solution is to explain to the business how to comply. encourage food premises’ compliance with food law. Education and assistance may be all that is required, To reflect the less serious nature of the breach, penalties especially when the operator wishes to do the right for infringements are typically lower than the penalty thing. Depending upon a range of factors, such as the imposed by a court on conviction. seriousness of the breach, the risk of harm and whether Offences for which infringement notices may be issued are there is a history of compliance or noncompliance, other listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. For more information see enforcement actions may be appropriate. Discretion must
• giving a warning with a report about what needs to be done to comply • issuing an infringement notice if the breach is an infringement offence • issuing various notices under the Act that require remedial steps to be taken within a specified timeframe • temporarily ordering the closure of a food premises until major or ongoing problems are fixed • suspending or refusing to renew registration in a serious case • prosecuting the proprietor of the business.
101 Year in review 2012
Action for serious breaches Useful where education fails Where a council has serious concerns about a food Frankston Council’s environmental health officers are premises, there are a range of options available to address utilising the new infringement notice provisions of the the risk to public health. These include suspending or Food Act, where appropriate, to address food safety revoking the premises’ registration until those concerns risks in cases where previous educative measures are addressed. In 2012 there were no instances where have been unsuccessful. The most common offences councils took this action. have been failure to maintain the cleanliness of the premises and failure to register a food business. An alternative approach is for council to direct (under the Act) that the business take steps to ensure adequate Lyle Clauscen, Environmental Health Coordinator, hygiene and food handling at the premises. As part of this Frankston City Council order, the CEO may temporarily close a food premises Late payers fined or stop particular food handling activities, where this is The introduction of infringement notices enabled necessary to protect public health. In such serious cases, Casey Council to issue notices to food premises the business may only resume operations once the with a history of late payment of registration problems have been fixed. renewals. Official warnings were issued to first time In 2012 councils closed 10 Victorian food premises, offenders; however, repeat offenders were issued with all of which were classified as class 2 (Table 20). infringements. The city believes this is a proportionate response to this offence. Table 20: Food premises closures by councils for serious breaches of the Food Act 1984 s. 19 (3), Caroline Bell, Manager Community Safety, Victoria, 2012 Casey City Council No. of premises Infringement notices – Department of Health region closed food safety incentive Class 2 As Surf Coast Shire has developed processes, Barwon-South Western environmental health officers have become more comfortable and familiar with the various compliance Moyne 1 and enforcement tools available under the Food Act. Eastern Metropolitan 0 Infringement notices have become a beneficial tool. Although not used frequently, they do provide an Gippsland 0 incentive for a noncompliant food business to improve Grampians 0 its practices to meet the requirements of the Act. Hume
Adam Lee, Coordinator Environmental Health, Moira 1 Surf Coast Shire Loddon Mallee
Greater Bendigo 1
North & West Metropolitan
Wyndham 1
Hobsons Bay 6
Southern Metropolitan 0
Victoria 10
102 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
‘… temporary closure of a food Prosecutions for serious breaches premises is a more significant step that Overview can only be ordered by a council CEO’ Prosecutions for food safety breaches are typically initiated This power was conferred on councils in 2010 and when there has been serious noncompliance or a repeated complements councils’ existing powers to order a failure to comply with food laws and when lower-level clean-up of a food premises, or other steps, to ensure means of enforcement are not appropriate. A court then safe food handling conditions. The temporary closure of a decides whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt food premises is a more significant step that can only be that the person charged is guilty of the offence. In cases ordered by a council CEO when it is clear that food should where a court finds a person guilty, the court must then not be sold from the site until improvements are made. decide what sentence to impose. In serious cases it may impose a conviction, with or without some other The Department of Health’s Chief Health Officer is available sentencing order. to advise councils on temporary closures when required and also has these powers to address serious breaches. Under the Food Act since 2010 councils have been required to report certain information about prosecutions to the department. As required under the Act, the department Take-away food premises closure has published on its website the details of businesses or In January 2012 Northern Grampians council officers individuals who have been prosecuted and found guilty investigated a food poisoning outbreak from a take- of an offence that is serious enough for the court to record away food premises that affected nine people, six of a conviction. whom were disability clients living at a Department of Health special residential unit. One person was The Act requires each conviction to be retained on the hospitalised. register for 12 consecutive months. Ordinarily, a conviction under the Act is dealt with in open court – typically in The investigation found that a food safety program the Magistrate’s Court. The purpose of the register is to was not being implemented well at this new business increase the opportunity for a court’s decision to become and the premises had no qualified food safety more widely known. This makes information about supervisor. Training had been booked in the previous noncompliance with the Act more readily available to the year; however, we discovered during the investigation public. The Food Act register of convictions is available that it had not been completed. Support was received on the department’s website at
103 Year in review 2012
Successful prosecutions More matters in court During 2012, Boroondara Council successfully The number of food matters placed before the prosecuted three food businesses for a range of Magistrate’s Court significantly increased at Hobsons Bay offences, including failing to protect food from due to the detection of a higher number of noncompliant contamination, poor food handling practices, class 2 premises. A number of prosecutions resulted in structural defects and inadequate cleaning. offenders being found guilty and fined by the court and granted payment plans to give them additional time to The first company was convicted and fined $12,000 pay the fine and costs to Council. and ordered to pay $5,653 in costs; the director was convicted and fined $1,500. The second company Malcolm Ramsay, Public Health Coordinator, was convicted and fined $10,000, ordered to pay Hobsons Bay City Council $3,371 costs and the three directors were each fined (without a conviction being recorded) $3,000. Three businesses prosecuted The third prosecution resulted in the three proprietors Manningham Council has addressed noncompliance of the business each being convicted and fined where it has been detected. Three food businesses $10,000 and ordered to pay $2,141 in costs. were prosecuted for a number of breaches, including attempting to obstruct entry into a rear garage where Nick Lund, Coordinator Public Health, rodent activity was found to have contaminated food Boroondara City Council products used by the business.
Reinforcing food safety standards Travis Fitch, Coordinator Environmental Health, Prosecutions were undertaken by Greater Bendigo Manningham City Council environmental health officers to address serious noncompliance by the food businesses concerned. It is also hoped that this will help reinforce with other businesses that they need to maintain good food safety practices.
Suzanne Walker, Coordinator Food, Tobacco, Infectious Diseases, City of Greater Bendigo
104 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Table 21: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by number of food premises* in relation to which a conviction was recorded, for each offence and by number and type of offence, Victoria, 2012
Type of offence No. of food No. of premises offences Unsafe food Section 8 – Knowingly handle food intended for sale in an unsafe manner 1 1 Section 8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render 4 5 the food unsafe Section 9A – Knowingly sell unsafe food 2 3 Section 11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, 4 4 it unsafe Section 4S11(2) – Sell unsafe food 2 2 Unsuitable food Section 12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, 7 7 it unsuitable Section 12(2) – Sell unsuitable food 6 9 Misleading conduct – packaging/labelling Section 13(3) – Sell food that is packaged or labelled in a way that falsely describes the food 1 1 Section 16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code Date marking of packaged food 1 1 Food safety practices and general requirements 31 317 Food premises and equipment 19 92 Section 16(2) – Selling food that fails to comply with the Food Standards Code Selling or advertising food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code 1 1 Section 16(3) – Packaging/labelling Selling or advertising any food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that contravenes 2 2 a provision of the Food Standards Code Section 17(1) – Proprietor’s name to be affixed to premises Fail to ensure that the proprietor’s name is prominently displayed on food premises 3 4 Section 19(7) – Failure to comply with an order Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition and alter or 11 14 improve the premises as specified Section 19CB(6) – Minimum record keeping Fail, if required to keep minimum records, to ensure that the required records are kept at the 2 2 premises to which they relate Section 19F – No food safety program at the premises Fail to ensure a required food safety program is kept at the premises to which it relates 1 1
105 Year in review 2012
Type of offence No. of food No. of premises offences Section 19GB – Details of food safety supervisor Fail to give the council written details of the name and qualifications or experience of the 1 1 current food safety supervisor for the premises within seven days of being asked to do so by the council Other offences relating to food safety programs and supervisors 9 16 Section 29(g) – Offences with respect to authorised officers Attempt to obstruct an authorised officer in the exercise of their powers 1 1 Section 35A(1) – Unregistered food premises Operate a food business at premises not registered with council 9 10 Victoria --** 494
Notes: Table 22: Convictions for offences under the Food Act * This includes all types of food premises, whether they were fixed 1984 by type of convicted persons and type of food premises, mobile premises, vending machines or temporary premises. premises to which the conviction relates, Victoria, 2012 ** There may be more than one offence per food premises. For example, a company that is the proprietor of the food business and its director No. of Proportion may both be charged with the same types of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act. convicted of total See also Table 22, which shows the type of food premises to which the Convicted persons type persons convictions convictions relate. Individual – proprietor/manager
Restaurant/café 12 An individual may be charged if: Take-away 5 • he or she is the proprietor of the business Retail shop 5 • he or she is a director or is otherwise involved in the management of a company, when the company is the Bakery (bread, pies) 3 proprietor of the business. Subtotal 25 52% The types of convicted persons in this reporting period Individual – director of proprietor company are set out in Table 22. Restaurant/café 4 Take-away 0 Retail shop 0 Bakery (bread, pies) 0 Subtotal 4 8% Company – proprietor Restaurant/café 13 Take-away 2 Retail shop 2 Bakery (bread, pies) 2 Subtotal 19 40% Total 48 100%
106 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Types of offences Types of premises Most of the convictions were for breaches of Food premises are categorised under the Food Act as s. 16 of the Food Act (a failure to comply with the fixed (restaurant, shop, manufacturing factory), temporary Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code). (stall) or mobile (van). All convictions recorded for offences The majority of these were breaches of Standard under the Act in 2012 were for offences which occurred at 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements. fixed premises (Table 23). These offences ranged from failure to store food properly Table 23: Convictions for offences under the or keep pests out, to failure to maintain clean food Food Act 1984 that led to convictions being recorded, premises and keep fixtures, fittings and equipment in by type of food premises at which the offences a good state of repair. These offences and the number occurred, Victoria, 2012 of premises to which they related are set out in Table 21 and described in more detail in Appendix 17. Premises at which offences occurred that led to Business guilty of 20 breaches convictions being recorded – a case study Proportion Type of food of total A food business was fined a substantial sum in a premises No. of premises premises regional Magistrate’s Court after being found guilty of 20 breaches of the Food Act 1984. Fixed Restaurant/café 20 Council health inspectors had visited the premises and noted a build-up of grime on fixtures and fittings, Take-away 8 ants in the kitchen, the hand-wash basin in the Retail shop 7 kitchen not working, and food uncovered and not Bakery 4 date-labelled. (bread, pies, cake) Subsequent inspections found further breaches of the Subtotal 39 100% Act, including flies in the kitchen and raw meat poorly Mobile covered in metal trays; staff were observed not washing their hands between tasks. Van 0 0% Temporary The magistrate noted that the nature of the charges were such that substantial monetary penalties applied. Market stall 0 0%
The magistrate accepted that efforts had been made Total 39 100% to rectify the situation at the premises but that issues such as delays with builders had taken some time.
The proprietor company pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined $22,000. The magistrate was satisfied that all matters are now complied with.
107 Year in review 2012
Penalties Prosecuting councils The penalties imposed in 2012, in addition to the recording In 2012 prosecutions under the Food Act resulting in of a conviction, comprised fines ranging from $900 to convictions were brought by 16 councils across six of the $40,000. eight Department of Health regions (Table 24).
The highest penalty was imposed on five different Table 24: Food premises where Food Act 1984 convicted persons, relating to offences at three separate offences have been committed at which a prosecution premises. The offences included handling food for sale in resulted in a conviction, and the number of convictions a way the seller ought reasonably to know would render in total, by municipality and region, Victoria, 2012 the food unsafe (s. 8A), selling food that the seller ought reasonably to know is unsafe (s. 9A) and breaches of the Department of Health No. of No. of region premises convictions Food Standards Code (s. 16). In the case where s. 8A and s. 9A of the Food Act were breached, cases of Salmonella Barwon-South Western 1 1 were linked to the food served at the premises. Greater Geelong 1 1 The lowest penalty in the range was imposed on an Eastern Metropolitan 11 16 individual for operating a food business without being Boroondara 3 6 registered with a council (s. 35A) and failing to ensure the Knox 1 1 name of the proprietor was prominently displayed at the food premises (s. 17(1)). Manningham 3 3
The median fine imposed was $10,000. Monash 3 5 Whitehorse 1 1 Gippsland – – Grampians 1 2 Ballarat 1 2 Hume – – Loddon Mallee 4 4 Greater Bendigo 4 4 North & West Metropolitan 16 18 Brimbank 4 4 Hobsons Bay 5 5 Melbourne 3 3 Yarra 4 6 Southern Metropolitan 6 7 Glen Eira 1 1 Greater Dandenong 3 3 Kingston 1 2 Stonnington 1 1 Victoria 39 48
To view the department’s register of convictions, go to
108 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food surveillance – how safe is our food supply?
Routine surveillance During this initial phase, the statistics include the number of samples taken, the type of analysis requested and To assess the safety of our food supply, Victoria’s 79 the reasons for taking the sample (for example, as part local governments have a longstanding practice of taking of a survey or in response to a complaint). In future, samples from food and sending them to laboratories for when the full dataset is in place, the system will identify testing. This routine surveillance is critical to ensuring that the types of food safety risks emerging across the state food complies with national standards for microbiological and other trends with the potential to impact on public levels, pesticide residue limits and chemical and other health – for example, the types of contamination found in contamination. particular foods. In turn, it will give local government better ‘From November 2012 testing information to guide their local food safety education and enforcement activities. laboratories began transmitting results of local government food surveillance Risk framework introduced activities directly to the department This framework is risk-based. Food sampling across the for analysis.’ state is now based on the number of registered food In 2011 the department, councils and authorised premises in each municipality, the nature of food handled, laboratories cooperated to be the first jurisdiction to and the vulnerability of the persons consuming the food. In centralise statistics about the results of food samples sent the past, each local government authority was required to for analysis. These changes included: collect three samples per thousand head of population in its district. • increasing food surveillance activities in areas that have greater numbers of food premises For most local governments, the total numbers of food surveillance samples they must collect has declined • new mandatory requirements about the number of food compared with the previous population-based system. samples tested from premises where food is served Conversely, for some metropolitan municipalities with to vulnerable people (class 1 food premises such as in relatively high numbers of restaurants, the required hospitals, childcare centres and nursing homes) number of samples has increased. This is also the case • developing systems for central collation and analysis of in regional areas with significant tourism infrastructure, statistics about food sampling tests conducted in Victoria. such as high numbers of bed and breakfast operators An effective food surveillance system must generate timely and food premises. information that can be used to develop and measure the A number of councils also choose to take additional outcomes of regulation on food and food contamination samples. and to educate the public. From November 2012, testing laboratories began transmitting statistics derived from These sweeping changes to the state’s food surveillance the results of local government food surveillance activities system were enabled by changes to the Food Act directly to the department for analysis. prompted by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission report on food regulation in Victoria.52
Gazetted food sampling requirements for each council53 for 2012 can be viewed at
109 Year in review 2012
About food surveillance Regional food surveillance surveys 2012 Examples of regional surveys conducted in 2012 Victoria’s food surveillance program is designed to are outlined below. control and prevent food hazards. It is a key component of the state’s food safety assurance program and Pre-packed sandwiches, January 2012 aims to find out the safety of our food supply. Pre-packed sandwiches are a convenient and healthy When a problem is identified as part of a survey food option for consumers but can be contaminated with potential pathogens, such as Salmonella spp. Council may: or Listeria monocytogenes, if they are not prepared • visit the vendors concerned hygienically. • require vendors to dispose of unsafe food items A total of 174 samples of pre-packed sandwiches • advise the vendors of what action is needed available in small to medium size food businesses were before they can resume preparing and selling food, submitted for analysis by five councils. Council officers for example, a clean-up also recorded information about food safety practices • temporarily close the premises, if this is necessary in preparing and storing these foods. to protect public health Overall, the microbiological hygiene of the pre-packed • make a follow-up visit to make sure the problems sandwiches was satisfactory. However, storage are promptly rectified temperatures were of concern at nearly 20 per cent of • take follow-up samples for analysis food premises. Follow-up by council officers ensured • in the case of serious breaches, take further that these issues were promptly addressed. samples for a prosecution. Ready-to-eat sushi rolls, January 2012 Regional sampling Sushi rolls require a high level of handling of both raw and cooked ingredients and are classified as hazardous In departmental regions, a number of regional surveillance foods. To prevent the rice hardening and loss of flavour, groups have been successful in coordinating their they are often kept at temperatures between 5 °C and sampling efforts and generating valuable information for 60 °C. This requires alternative controls, which are regional health officers, staff in the department’s Food specified in the food safety program template, to be Safety and Regulation Unit and food surveillance officers closely followed. in other jurisdictions. In this survey conducted by councils in the North & Coordination of activities at a regional level allows relatively West Metropolitan Region, 146 ready-to-eat sushi roll large numbers of defined samples to be taken under samples were analysed. Overall, the microbiological standardised testing protocols. This allows more useful hygiene of the rolls was satisfactory. Two samples had inferences about the hygiene of the food types or the unsatisfactory levels of E. coli. Inadequate monitoring premises to be made. of the time unrefrigerated sushi rolls were kept out on Successful regional sampling activities have included display was the main area of concern, as this can allow a survey of ready-to-eat delicatessen meats in 2009, bacteria to grow. surveys of the microbiological quality of ready-to-eat These results indicate that sushi in these regions is of a cut fruit, of products containing raw eggs and of the good hygienic standard. However, the survey allowed hygiene of vitamisers used to prepare meals in aged council environmental health officers to identify potential care premises in 2010. problems and they have worked with the premises Practical advice for council environmental health officers where results were unsatisfactory to explain how to about sampling and use of questionnaires is posted on improve the handling and storage of sushi rolls. the department’s dedicated website.
110 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Seed sprouts under the Bi-national food monitoring spotlight statewide and surveillance Victoria’s first statewide survey assessed the To complete the food monitoring and surveillance picture microbiological quality of seed sprout products sold across all levels of government, the Victorian Department and used by small businesses and supermarkets across of Health is part of a bi-national food regulatory system. Victoria from March to May 2012. The survey was The department, with other government agencies in conducted because on occasion people in Australia Australia and New Zealand, monitors the food supply to and overseas have become ill after eating seed sprouts. ensure it is safe and that foods comply with standards for microbiological contaminants, pesticide residue limits and Environmental health officers from 35 local councils chemical contamination. across Victoria collected 298 bean sprout samples. The samples included packaged and unpackaged ‘The intent is earlier and better products including alfalfa sprouts, bean sprouts, analysis of the microbiological and mung beans, lentils, bean shoots and mixed products. All samples submitted were analysed for Salmonella chemical quality of food being sold spp. Escherichia coli and Listeria spp. across the state.’ ‘…most proprietors and food-handlers The Implementation Sub-Committee (ISC) designs understood how to store and handle and maintains an approach to food regulation that is collaborative and consistent between all Australian states seed sprouts safely’ and territories and New Zealand. One part of this approach Salmonella was not detected in any of the seed sprout is to conduct surveillance and monitoring activities, such products. However, E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes as analytical food surveys, to monitor the food supply were detected in some samples, including packaged and gather data to inform either new or existing food samples. Of the 94 packaged samples analysed, five had standards. These activities are led and managed by unsatisfactory E. coli levels. Listeria spp. were detected agencies in Australia or New Zealand, with input from other in 12 packaged samples, of which one was Listeria jurisdictions (including the Victorian Department of Health) monocytogenes. The survey findings suggested the need in the planning, design, food sampling and/or food analysis for improvement in temperature control in some areas. for the survey. The outcomes of each survey and any follow-up activities are agreed and managed by ISC. An accompanying questionnaire showed that most proprietors and food-handlers understood how to store FSANZ oversees the surveillance and monitoring and handle seed sprouts safely. Even in premises where component of the ISC work plan. poor practices were identified, the microbiological results To view the current ISC Coordinated food survey plan, of these samples were satisfactory. or see the list of completed surveys, go to the FSANZ All participating councils followed up food businesses website at
111 Year in review 2012
National summit on Salmonella There was discussion about whether the sources of Salmonella identified through the small number of Salmonella bacteria have been known to cause illness outbreaks investigated can, by analogy, be assumed to for more than 100 years and it is difficult, if not impossible, be the likely source in isolated cases involving one or to eradicate them from the human food chain. a few individuals which are not able to be investigated. In October, Victoria hosted a national summit to work out This is important because being able to attribute infections a plan to arrest increasing rates of Salmonella infection to a cause – for example, to contamination of eggs that have been monitored by public health authorities for at production – makes it possible to effectively target the past decade. The meeting was facilitated by ABC prevention and control measures. Health Report broadcaster Dr Norman Swan. It brought Focus on affected industries together more than ninety stakeholders who would not ordinarily interact, including food industry representatives, The meeting discussed management of Salmonella in epidemiologists, food safety and agricultural regulators a range of industries, including those handling fresh and food safety researchers. Victorian Minister for Health produce, meat, dairy and eggs. Representatives from food Hon David Davis MLC and Parliamentary Secretary for service peak industry bodies, food safety educators and Agriculture Hon Dr Bill Sykes MP attended the meeting, consumers were invited to the summit but were unable along with representatives from the New Zealand Ministry to attend. Participants agreed on the need to provide of Primary Industries. information about the risks of salmonellosis to these groups. New resources on food safety risks for consumers Cases on the rise are needed and existing materials need to be better ‘Notifications of salmonellosis have publicised. To do this effectively, it was acknowledged that food regulators need to take steps to gain a better increased over the past decade and understanding of community and home food safety noticeably since 2010.’ practices that may be impacting on salmonellosis rates.
Two days of presentations and discussions probed the Forum for regulators and industry possible reasons for the increase in reported cases and The summit also provided a rare forum for Victorian the existing and emerging risks in depth. The summit policymakers and regulators to discuss food safety issues made 11 recommendations ultimately designed to assist with industry representatives. The Victoria Department of in the control of salmonellosis. Health will set up ongoing forums involving industry and At the meeting food regulators and scientists involved in OzFoodNet to continue sharing important information human and animal health and food surveillance drew on on food safety practices and policy. their different experiences and knowledge. Need to synthesise data Notifications of salmonellosis have increased over the past The summit recommended development of integrated decade and noticeably since 2010. For every case notified, surveillance systems in each jurisdiction that would it is estimated that around seven more go unreported. The incorporate statistics on human health, animal health and majority of outbreaks – as distinct to isolated cases – in food surveillance. Subject to appropriate privacy, access which a source is identified, involve Salmonella Typhimurium and use protocols, it is recognised that this would improve bacteria, which are more commonly associated with food control of foodborne illness by bringing together data produced in restaurants and private homes. More than half that currently sits in different systems. From this meeting, of these outbreaks are believed to be caused by eating Victoria will work to develop an integrated state-based raw or lightly cooked eggs, but studies that would test this system that could act as a pilot for a future national system. have not been done in Australia. The meeting participants agreed that undertaking work to further investigate this matter would help to target regulatory surveillance to the areas of greatest risk to consumers.
112 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Sampling training for councils The Chief Health Officer issued a Health Alert in April, and a media release followed, to alert the community to two Another significant change in Victoria has been the of the state’s most dangerous varieties – the death cap separation of ‘surveillance’ samples from samples taken (Amanita phalloides) and the yellow staining mushroom for other reasons (in response to complaints or audit (Agaricus xanthodermus). or inspection issues) or to verify that problems in food premises have been rectified. A surveillance sample is not The department also provided advice to local governments taken for the purposes of a prosecution. encouraging a risk assessment approach in areas where the death cap might be found in season. Local councils The department has also engaged the National were asked to consider issuing seasonal warnings in areas Association of Testing Authorities to deliver training to where these mushrooms have been known to grow and update the skills of environmental health officers and to where community members are known to seek out straw provide training to current students of public health. This mushrooms. Information in appropriate languages for local training, Effective Food and Water Sampling Techniques cultural groups and use of seasonal signage in risk areas for Victorian Environmental Health Officers, is designed to were among the suggested measures. ensure that environmental health practitioners’ skills are up to date. The session covers the application of appropriate The death cap is extremely toxic and is responsible for sampling equipment selection, conditions to achieve 90 per cent of all mushroom poisoning deaths. Sadly, representative samples and preserve sample integrity at least six people have died and at least 12 have fallen during collection, storage and transit, how to conduct ill after eating death cap mushrooms in Australia in the representative sampling in accordance with a sampling past decade. In 2012 there were two deaths in Canberra plan and legislative requirements. This training will support and two in Victoria from death cap mushrooms. an improved food surveillance program in Victoria. This mushroom is widespread across Melbourne. It appears any time from January to June, but is most Mushroom poisoning – common a week or two after good rains in summer and advice on risk assessment early autumn. They are usually found under oak trees, but mycologists and toxicologists are currently concerned Autumn conditions in 2012 created the ideal growing that the death cap may develop the ability to grow in conditions for poisonous mushrooms, prompting the association with other trees, particularly Australian natives department to publish information on its website warning and thereby spread dramatically. about the risks of picking and consuming dangerous mushrooms. For more information, see the Department of Health website at
113 Year in review 2012
Evidence on emerging food safety risks
Always seeking improvements Projects underway An important role for the department is identifying emerging food safety risks and developing strategies Rapid identification of biomarkers and policies to improve the management of these risks. associated with persistent Listeria The Food Safety Evidence for Policy Program manages monocytogenes isolates in food projects that address priority food safety risks for the processing environments Victorian (and Australian) food consumer where gaps Progress: MALDI-TOF (matrix-assisted laser in knowledge affect our ability to control hazards. desorption time of flight) technology is increasingly ‘…the program is dedicated to used in rapid identification of bacteria. This project is developing the use of the technology for tracking generating new knowledge in areas pathogens in the food processing environment, as where there are critical gaps in food rapid results provide industry with effective tools for safety evidence’ controlling contamination in plants. Since the call for submissions for the first funding round in Principal researcher: Associate Professor September 2010, three projects have been completed and Enzo Palombo, Swinburne University of Technology a further four are underway. In some cases, these projects Final report due: Late 2013 are co-funded by the Department of Health and other organisations. Risk evaluation of norovirus and hepatitis A virus in fresh Australian produce The program is guided by a steering committee that Progress: The research is at an early stage. comprises external scientific and policy representatives, An experimental design has been developed as well as representatives from other departmental units, and samples of produce are being assayed including Communicable Diseases Control and Prevention but results are pending. and Environmental Health. The committee assesses priorities for research funding and publishes these priorities Principal researchers: Lina Landinez, in an open invitation for researchers to submit research Dr Cath McLeod, Dr Andreas Kiermeier, South proposals. Australian Research and Development Institute
For more information go to Final report due: Late 2014
114 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Completed projects Genetic fingerprinting of Listeria and Salmonella – how different is different? Identifying levers of change in food handling The Microbiological Diagnostic Unit Public Health practice in the home Laboratory at the University of Melbourne investigated The aim of this project was to find out what motivates genetic profiling of bacterial isolates. Genetic profiling is people to handle food safely in the home. It focused a fundamental tool for investigating foodborne outbreaks on serving and storing salads, using chopping boards and the persistence of bacteria in food processing and drying dishes and utensils. It looked at identifying environments. This project investigated the use of consumer food handling practices that contribute genetic analysis to profile Salmonella and Listeria by to illness and developing strategies to improve these determining the number of copies of a repeat sequence practices. The researchers carried out ethnographic at a set of pre-specified sites in the bacterial genome. observations of 15 selected Victorians as they prepared Salmonellosis is the most common cause of food food in their homes, as well as an online survey of poisoning in Victoria. The bacteria are common in water, 500 people to obtain a broader, population-based soil, raw meats and seafood and on factory and kitchen perspective of safe food handling behaviour. surfaces. Even where rigorous food safety precautions The final report has been received. The findings of this are in place, they are exceptionally hard to manage. work are being used to develop better communication Most people recover from the infection within a week tools for consumers. A Better Health Channel survey without treatment. However, in the very young, in older and focus groups with culturally and linguistically diverse people and among those who are very ill, hospitalisation groups in relation to food handling practices have been may be needed and deaths are not uncommon. conducted. The aim is to supplement dofoodsafely – the department’s online food handler learning program The detection of bacteria in food or food processing – and to add materials to the department’s Better Health environments is not necessarily dangerous to human Channel and food safety websites. health and, in itself, is rarely enough to prove a link with foodborne infection. One aim of this study is to Principal researcher: Mr David Spicer, Colmar Brunton contribute to our understanding about whether bacteria found in particular foods are actually causing disease in patients.
The final report has been accepted. The findings will be presented to other researchers and the Evidence for Policy Steering Committee at a meeting in 2013.
Principal researcher: Dr Kathryn Holt, The University of Melbourne
115 Year in review 2012
Investing in workforce
Cook Chill safety training for councils Multilingual sessions on food safety ‘Cook Chill’ involves cooking meals until they are almost In 2012 Monash City Council’s Public Health Unit done and then rapidly chilling them. It enables large held a series of training sessions on food handling amounts of food to be prepared for use later after thawing. for local businesses. The sessions were facilitated by It is increasingly used by nursing homes, hospitals and Chisholm Institute, a registered training provider, and caterers. It must be performed correctly to ensure the were conducted in Cantonese and Mandarin as well food remains safe to eat. as English. The training was provided at a subsidised In 2012, 10 training sessions on auditing a Cook Chill rate. Council received very positive feedback from process at a food business, delivered in Warrnambool, those who attended. Ballarat, Shepparton, Warragul, Melbourne and Noel Davey, Acting Coordinator Public Health, Dandenong, were attended by 128 council environmental Monash City Council health officers. This great response and demand for more sessions has resulted in the training being extended into Tackling fear of food safety regulation 2013. Five more sessions will be delivered, including in Southern Grampians environmental health staff Bendigo. In total, 137 council environmental health officers provided non-profit organisations, such as church have attended the 13 sessions offered since 2011. groups, school canteens and local hall groups, with training sessions on food handling and food safety program/records at the organisations’ meeting places. The tailored food safety training was designed to dampen non-profit groups’ fear of food regulation so that members feel comfortable handling food safely and completing their food safety records.
Pauline Porter, Environmental Health Coordinator, Southern Grampians Shire Council
Food safety forums The department continued its active professional development program for council health staff during 2012. In October 230 council officers attended a departmental forum on new standards for primary production and processing, the new statewide registration system for food vans and stalls, managing outbreaks and the national food regulation system.
116 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Environmental health technicians In developing the draft guidelines, the department to boost workforce consulted extensively with the Municipal Association of Victoria, Environmental Health Australia, industry/employer A 2005 review of the environmental health workforce in groups, the Australian Services Union and councils Victoria, commissioned by the department, identified an themselves, including senior managers, environmental insufficient supply of suitably qualified environmental health health officers and technicians. officers as a barrier to enforcing food legislation. Similar The draft guidelines build on the work of the Environmental concerns have been echoed in studies in other states. Health Committee (enHealth),54 which developed the Under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, each council Environmental health officer skills and knowledge must appoint at least one environmental health officer. This matrix. The nationally agreed matrix describes the appointment means that these officers are empowered to skills and knowledge required to support the breadth undertake inspections of food premises and other tasks as of environmental health activities undertaken by an authorised officers under the Food Act. environmental health officer. enHealth has also developed implementation advice to support application of the matrix. Following extensive planning and consultation, in March The technician role descriptions in the Victorian guide are 2012 the department released draft guidelines to support based on relevant components of the national matrix. councils to make informed decisions about appointing environmental health technicians to undertake food The draft guidelines: safety work. • define the job models and related skills, knowledge The Food Act establishes a system of food premises and training for food technician roles classification that more closely aligns regulatory inspections • outline a basic set of workforce planning steps to with risk. It also now gives councils the option of appointing determine whether the appointment of an environmental staff as authorised officers who are not qualified to perform health technician is an appropriate response to the full range of roles assigned to environmental health workload demands and how to select the appropriate officers. Candidates must be suitably qualified or trained job model to undertake the tasks of an authorised officer. The draft • describe the organisational capacity required to support guidelines are designed to deepen and strengthen the and mentor competent technicians. environmental health workforce at the same time as supporting councils to appoint suitable staff to administer Councils that are considering appointing environmental food law. health technicians can use the draft guidelines in conjunction with their own risk assessments. The guideline explains how councils can adopt an approach that best Food safety technician appointed meets their needs, which may be to appoint a suitable The Department of Health’s Environmental health person as an authorised officer generally under the Act, technician (food safety) guidance for local government, or only for limited purposes or activities listed in the Act. Draft – March 2012 guided Council through the The guidelines will remain in draft form before being process of appointing an environmental health trainee reviewed and revised in the light of experience by councils (technician) with limited Food Act authorisation. and the department. Appointment of the trainee, whose authorisation is limited to lower risk premises (class 3 and 4 ), has provided Council’s sole authorised environmental health officer with the opportunity to devote additional time to high-risk food-related matters.
Pauline Porter, Environmental Health Coordinator, Southern Grampians Shire Council
117 Year in review 2012
Online food handler learning – dofoodsafely Education for new food handlers Benalla Council welcomed dofoodsafely, the The Department of Health’s much-awarded online learning Department of Health’s free, internet-based learning program for food handlers, dofoodsafely, continued program, which we recommended regularly to all to reach a wide market in 2012. Launched just before community groups and food premises proprietors Christmas 2009, 18,504 people had visited the site by its taking on new staff. first birthday. In 2012 that figure rose to 36,871 unique Callum Morrison, Environmental Health Coordinator, visitors for the year, representing an 18 per cent increase Benalla Rural City Council in visitors compared with 2011.55 Darebin runs safe food handling sessions on a 36,871 people visited dofoodsafely in 2012 quarterly basis to improve the knowledge and food- Visits Unique visitors Total page views handling practices of people who work in Darebin 50,796 36,871 1,562,379 food businesses. Businesses that are not able to attend are referred to dofoodsafely, the department’s online learning tool. Pages per visit Average visit % new visits 36.76 duration (mins) 59.20 Ellie Mandritis, Coordinator Health and Urban 14:33 Protection Unit, City of Darebin
In 2012 the 36,871 unique visitors accessed the site The majority of visitors to the site were visiting for the first 50,796 times. They viewed 1,562,379 pages – 37 pages time (59.2 per cent), indicating that dofoodsafely continued each on average. They spent significant time on the site to reach new participants. The relatively high proportion (average 14 minutes). While this is less than the average of returning visitors (40.8 per cent) is a positive indication for 2011 (16.5 minutes), it suggests that visitors were suggesting that people find the dofoodsafely a useful spending sufficient time to select and complete relevant resource and continually returned to complete additional modules from among the six topic areas offered. Traffic modules or to find information. on the site was heaviest between January and April.
118 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Communications
Advice lines top 10 The department set up the Streatrader Helpline in October 2012 to assist food van and stall proprietors ‘Our trained customer service officers and council officers make the transition to the new online and food scientists dealt with more approval system. The service had taken calls from 1,596 than 9,500 queries to the food safety people by the end of the year. hotlines in 2012.’ Food safety website – The 10 most frequent queries to our general food safety 2.6 million page views advice lines were about: The department’s food safety website is a key source of 1. complaints regarding food premises cleanliness information for councils, food businesses and community or hygiene and not-for-profit groups who run food fundraisers. It is 2. starting a food business one of the largest sites on the health.vic.gov domain. 3. training for food safety supervisors or food handlers There were 163,328 visitors to the food safety website 4. contact details for registered training organisations during 2012 (Table 25). Of these, 59 per cent were new 5. advice and flyers on food safety rather than returning visitors. An average of 13,611 people 6. how to obtain a food safety program template per month visited the site with visits fairly evenly distributed 7. Australian food standards throughout the year. February was the busiest month 8. food labelling with 15,142 visitors, while December was the quietest 9. what to do in food emergencies, such as a with 11,101. power outages, food left out of the refrigerator, All councils’ websites also provide information for food food past its date-marked period premises and the public on food safety, regulation and 10. importing and/or exporting food. how to access advice. Our trained customer service officers and food scientists dealt with more than 9,500 queries to our food safety Web help for new businesses hotlines in 2012. Of these, 4,144 queries were telephone Many people consider the food industry when queries on a wide range of topics (4,479 in 2010, trying to set up their own food and accommodation 4,182 in 2011). Staff also responded to more than businesses. One of the most viewed parts of Benalla 4,000 email enquiries. Council’s website is a food area that has numerous Callers and email correspondents were also referred to links to Department of Health documents. additional information and advice on the department’s Callum Morrison, Environmental Health Coordinator, food safety website, or to their local council health units Benalla Rural City Council for follow-up, where needed.
The food safety hotline, on toll-free 1300 364 352 or by email to
The service provides callers with prompt, authoritative advice and referrals on their food safety concerns. The department is accountable to the Victorian Parliament for its handling of calls to the hotline. The performance target for calls that are answered is 96 per cent.56 In 2011–12 the department answered 99 per cent of these calls.57
119 Year in review 2012
In total, visitors viewed 2,574,392 pages, almost double Table 26: Food safety website pages viewed more than the number of page views compared with the previous 10,000 times, 2012 year (1,195,313 in 2011). Pages with > 10,000 views Page views Visitors viewed an average of 15.8 pages each and spent No. an average of 35 seconds per page visited. Food safety home page 75,511 Table 25: Visits to the Department of Health
May 14,132 58 Food business information 17,263
Sep 13,096 59 Food safety: training, skills and knowledge 16,411
120 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Guidance published Community group temporary and The department is responsible for providing advice and mobile food premises template guidance to councils to support local government and – class 2 promote a consistent approach to Food Act administration. Community service strengthens communities and This can also make it easier for businesses to comply. connects people; community groups also raise much During 2012, the department published a major guide needed funds for a wide variety of causes. for council users of the Streatrader system along with a In February 2012 the department published a food safety fact sheet and posters. These materials assisted councils guide for community groups organising fundraising activities to promote the new online system for food van and stall that choose to prepare and sell high-risk foods such as approvals to businesses and community groups. curries, pasta or sandwiches from food vans and stalls. Two instruments were made under the Act and published The colourful, user-friendly guide provides comprehensive in the Government Gazette: information on the food safety steps community groups • Sale of packaged meat at markets, No. S 337 need to take to meet their regulatory obligations. The guide Thursday 11 October 2012 has also proved popular with councils, who are using it to • Exemption for retail and catering (relating to stamping of assist community groups with their events. eggs), No. S 387 Wednesday 21 November 2012. The Community group temporary and mobile food A related Department of Environment and Primary premises template – class 2 is available on the Industries declaration was made: department’s website at
Advice was also published for businesses and community groups to ensure the law is clear.
For a full list of publications released in 2012 see Appendix 4.
121 Year in review 2012
The challenge of automated temperature monitoring Food spoilage and food pathogen growth due to poor temperature control during storage is a constant worry for food business owners and staff as they try to make sure they are providing fresh, safe food to customers.
The department developed a guide to remote monitoring of temperatures in food storage units in response to requests from food businesses wishing to use the new remote temperature monitoring technology. As there are many different types of remote monitoring systems on the market, the document aims to guide businesses on the essential elements of a system.
Automated temperature monitoring can help a business check to make sure food is being stored at the correct temperature so it is safe to eat. Systems can monitor refrigerator and freezer temperatures at different locations and log live temperature information at a central point. They also provide alerts if temperatures go outside set parameters so that businesses can store products at the optimum temperature and see less spoilage. This enables businesses to respond rapidly to equipment failures, power failures and other unforseen events to reduce wastage and keep food safe.
If a business is relying on automated monitoring rather than checking temperatures of equipment manually with a thermometer, the proprietor needs to be assured that the equipment is effective and can record the results of the temperature checks completed. This document assists them to do this.
Businesses wishing to use this technology must also consult their local councils. The guide assists the council to work with the business to ensure the remote monitoring works as intended.
Councils are using the guide to help businesses decide if the technology is right for their food handling activities and can meet regulatory requirements. The guide has been released as a draft so that it can be ‘field tested’ by businesses and councils.
The draft Guide to remote monitoring of temperatures in food storage units – Version 1 is available on the department’s website at
122 In your municipality
Melbourne City Council Senior EHO Angela Minglis: market stalls inspection visit. 123 As the level of government closest to local communities, councils across Victoria are diverse and this is one of their great strengths. In addition to the ongoing work of Ballarat (C) administering and enforcing the Food Act, in partnership 2011 2012 with the department, local government has played an integral role in implementing the changes to the Act. Estimated resident population 95,007 96,972 This chapter highlights initiatives in 2011 and 2012 Food premises per 10,000 persons 93 81 from councils’ perspectives. Food premises classification Further council reports appear in the body of the report. 2011 2012 Class 1 51 Class 2 510 Class 1 54 Class 2 572 As this report may not fully reflect the total number of class Class 3 104 Class 4 214 Class 3 142 Class 4 22 4 food premises (see Appendix 1), comparisons of profiles Total 879 Total 790 across municipality types for class 4 premises should not be made.
For more information about local councils go to
124 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
During the development phase, the team had extensive discussions on different scenarios. These discussions also aimed to agree on risk and related outcomes that Bass Coast (S) would be applied to inspections and assessments 2011 2012 based on criteria specified by the Department of Health. The checklist has been successfully introduced into Estimated resident population 30,024 30,592 the team’s inspection process and is being reviewed Food premises per 10,000 persons 126 132 periodically to ensure it is meeting the required outcomes. Food premises classification It has also been integrated into our registration system to 2011 2012 allow for improved data reporting and targeting of food Class 1 9 Class 2 274 Class 1 11 Class 2 287 safety resources. Class 3 46 Class 4 48 Class 3 47 Class 4 60 2012: Forearmed on heat waves and Total 377 Total 405 power blackouts 2011: Transition to new food premises In 2012 Banyule’s Health Services team liaised with every classifications registered food business to raise their awareness of In 2011 changes to the food premises classification heat waves. As part of a public health initiative, all food system and the introduction of statewide registrations businesses were made aware of Council’s Heat Wave Plan. led to a reappraisal of the registration fees to be paid by Council’s Health Services Unit promoted the importance of businesses, with adjustments made. staying healthy in the heat and encouraged all proprietors of food businesses in Banyule to provide free (tap) drinking As a service to the community, Bass Coast Shire Council water to their customers during summer. In addition to continues to inspect temporary food premises and food helping their customers’ health, information about food vehicles at major events. safety and power outages were also provided via 2012: Improving enforcement Council’s website. To improve enforcement, we have begun issuing During summer Council’s environmental health officers infringement notices for food safety breaches and focused their visits on educating food businesses about the Community Safety Department has appointed a how to keep unrefrigerated food safe during warm weather prosecutions officer dedicated to dealing with legal and the storage of food during power blackouts. The team proceedings. also monitored power blackouts in the municipality during heat health alert days in a proactive measure to assist Alex Waldron, Environmental Health Coordinator, food proprietors with advice. Further information about Bass Coast Shire Council food safety was also provided in the Council’s FoodNews publication.
Karly Maurer, Acting Coordinator Health Services, Banyule City Council Baw Baw (S) 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 43,416 44,366 Food premises per 10,000 persons 120 123 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 14 Class 2 416 Class 1 14 Class 2 425 Class 3 86 Class 4 7 Class 3 103 Class 4 5 Total 523 Total 547
125 Bayside (C) Benalla (RC) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 96,101 96,824 Estimated resident population 13,754 13,729 Food premises per 10,000 persons 68 76 Food premises per 10,000 persons 110 114 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 48 Class 2 455 Class 1 53 Class 2 456 Class 1 5 Class 2 72 Class 1 5 Class 2 84 Class 3 97 Class 4 53 Class 3 101 Class 4 127 Class 3 53 Class 4 21 Class 3 38 Class 4 29 Total 653 Total 737 Total 151 Total 156
2012: Annual Food Safety Forum 2011: Automatic pesticide dispenser problem More than 40 representatives from local businesses Routine inspections by Council’s environmental health attended Council’s annual Food Safety Forum in coordinator identified the appearance in the municipality of June 2012. All rated it as very good to excellent. poorly placed automatic pesticide dispensers that had not been installed by licensed pest controllers. While the labels Topics discussed included: recommend placement over doorways, the dispensers • The Activity Log is part of the Food safety program for were often not placed appropriately and could potentially retail and food service businesses, no. 1, version 2. result in the spraying of staff, food, utensils and food Its use can highlight deficiencies in the way a recipe contact surfaces. is prepared and help the business work out what A number of hotels, restaurants bakeries and small food corrective actions it needs to take to ensure food premises were sold these devices. is safe for customers. • Information was provided about the statewide Allergic reactions to these types of chemicals are rare but registration system for food vans and market stalls and the warnings on the label about appropriate use are clear. the Streatrader system. Businesses were advised of The council ensured the business operators reviewed the the registration process and assistance was offered to position and use of these devices. Some have relocated those selling food at events, including festivals, fêtes the devices, some have been removed and some are no and sports. longer in use. In addition, the practices of the pest control • The Department of Health’s information sheet on egg operators were reported to the Department of Health. safety for class 2 premises was explained. A key focus 2012: Education for new food handlers was the risks associated with serving lightly cooked or Streatrader, the new electronic system to enable statewide raw eggs. registration of food vans and market stalls was introduced Con Tsekouras, Environmental Health Coordinator, in late 2012. It generated many enquiries during this initial Bayside City Council phase. Council staff have assisted community groups that are not familiar with applying online and who have come into Council for support.
126 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
During the year, several public accommodation businesses were identified. As these are in unsewered areas reliant on private water supplies, Council is working to ensure water Buloke (S) supply is of an appropriate standard for the preparation 2011 2012 of food. Estimated resident population 6,462 6,364 Callum Morrison, Environmental Health Coordinator, Food premises per 10,000 persons 234 168 Benalla Rural City Council Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 6 Class 2 56 Class 1 5 Class 2 56 Boroondara (C) Class 3 76 Class 4 13 Class 3 31 Class 4 15 Total 151 Total 107 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 166,818 168,293 2011: Floods – a challenge for food safety Food premises per 10,000 persons 75 76 The floods in our region in 2011 provided challenges for Food premises classification the Shire including difficulties getting tradespeople and resources to assist food premises in completing any 2011 2012 requirements outlined in their inspection reports. Class 1 95 Class 2 733 Class 1 89 Class 2 734 By working together, many premises throughout the Class 3 240 Class 4 176 Class 3 233 Class 4 228 Shire have made some great improvements and have Total 1,244 Total 1,284 a better understanding of their responsibilities as proprietors of food businesses.
2012: New starter Brimbank (C) A full-time council environmental health officer was appointed in 2012. The focus for the year was to ensure 2011 2012 all food premises were inspected and compliant with Estimated resident population 191,084 193,665 their food safety obligations. Food premises per 10,000 persons 59 51 This raised some challenges as many businesses needed Food premises classification advice. Council worked with the premises to identify what 2011 2012 items needed to be completed to ensure they became Class 1 62 Class 2 700 Class 1 62 Class 2 710 compliant. Class 3 215 Class 4 150 Class 3 216 Class 4 2 Total 1,127 Total 990 Kia Hooke, Environmental Health Officer, Buloke Shire Council
127 Campaspe (S) Cardinia (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 36,665 36,954 Estimated resident population 75,573 80,084 Food premises per 10,000 persons 127 96 Food premises per 10,000 persons 83 64 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 15 Class 2 261 Class 1 15 Class 2 264 Class 1 25 Class 2 319 Class 1 29 Class 2 320 Class 3 100 Class 4 88 Class 3 75 Class 4 0 Class 3 182 Class 4 105 Class 3 162 Class 4 0 Total 464 Total 354 Total 631 Total 511
2011: Prompt assistance to flood-affected 2011: Food safety emergency food businesses The February 2011 floods that impacted on the Cardinia The Shire of Campaspe experienced extensive inundation community required the environmental health team to call in the floods that affected a majority of the state in January on its collective emergency management skills to attend 2011. In the town of Rochester, all but one registered to many locations to address public health concerns. premises was directly affected by floodwaters. Council These included flooded septic tank systems, an increase environmental health officers inspected all affected in mosquitoes, and mould in flood-affected properties. premises and worked with the proprietors to ensure Food premises that were flooded or affected by power they were able to recommence operation in a relatively outages were attended to advise the business about short period of time. We provided advice on appropriate what to do next. cleaning, disposal of affected food stuffs, and the need to ensure all electrical equipment was checked by a licensed 2012: All systems go electrician prior to use. The rollout of the new Streatrader program for temporary food events has involved all Health Unit staff. There has As part of our education approach, two newsletters, titled been a concerted effort, including: Food News Bulletin, were prepared and distributed to all registered food businesses in the shire. The newsletters • attending training sessions and workshops so they can primarily focused on common themes identified during use the system inspections, as well as the flood response, implementation • updating council systems of the Food Act changes, pest control, record-keeping • changing or developing policies and procedures to requirements, appropriate use of sanitisers and effective ensure the program would be implemented smoothly hand washing. within Cardinia Hayley Sutton, Acting Environmental Health Coordinator, • communicating with proprietors to help prepare them Campaspe Shire Council for the new system. At the completion of the 2011 calendar year, a number of food premises had failed to renew their registrations for 2012. The Environmental Health team endeavoured to contact each proprietor who had not renewed. Several infringement notices were issued to those who had failed to meet requirements.
128 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Cardinia is currently looking into incorporating the The City encouraged the Department of Health to develop a capability to issue renewal application forms by email food safety program template for Dari-speaking proprietors. and to receive them electronically into its IT system. While the population is small, the environmental health Payment options for the 2014 registration renewals will officers felt it would improve food safety outcomes overall. incorporate the Council online payment system to provide Caroline Bell, Manager Community Safety, proprietors with an additional avenue to pay their annual Casey City Council registration fees.
Glenn Howard, Team Leader Environmental Health, Cardinia Shire Council Central Goldfields (S) 2011 2012 Casey (C) Estimated resident population 12,551 12,582 2011 2012 Food premises per 10,000 persons 112 85 Estimated resident population 260,404 267,892 Food premises classification Food premises per 10,000 persons 42 43 2011 2012 Class 1 7 Class 2 94 Class 1 6 Class 2 87 Food premises classification Class 3 14 Class 4 25 Class 3 14 Class 4 0 2011 2012 Total 140 Total 107 Class 1 91 Class 2 647 Class 1 92 Class 2 701 Class 3 274 Class 4 81 Class 3 271 Class 4 92 2012: Improved business compliance Total 1,093 Total 1,156 Annual inspections for this year were again conducted at 2012: New fee payment options renewal time with the hand delivery of application forms. Businesses had a higher level of compliance overall, Population growth continued in Casey, resulting in increased however there were still those that required numbers of registered food premises in 2012. New further education and follow up. shopping centres opened throughout the municipality and there was a major extension to Westfield Fountain Gate. Laura Blow, Environmental Health Officer, Central Goldfields Shire Council The rollout of Streatrader, the new system to support the statewide registration system of food vans and stalls, was a new area for users to navigate at first; however, it is now well established.
Council’s registration renewal notices were externally reviewed. This resulted in redevelopment of the notices to make them easier for food proprietors to complete. New payment options, including BPay and Post Billpay, were introduced and have reduced the number of overdue registrations.
129 Colac Otway (S) Darebin (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 20,578 20,735 Estimated resident population 143,057 144,086 Food premises per 10,000 persons 168 160 Food premises per 10,000 persons 78 75 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 10 Class 2 229 Class 1 11 Class 2 243 Class 1 63 Class 2 778 Class 1 60 Class 2 779 Class 3 54 Class 4 53 Class 3 64 Class 4 14 Class 3 156 Class 4 112 Class 3 223 Class 4 12 Total 346 Total 160 Total 1,109 Total 1,074
2012: Darebin’s food-handler training available in Chinese In 2012 the City of Darebin’s Health Protection Unit Corangamite (S) provided nine information sessions on safe food handling 2011 2012 for 163 participants. The sessions were provided free Estimated resident population 16,504 16,387 of charge and businesses were able to choose from six Food premises per 10,000 persons 124 96 sessions. In recognition of the needs of Darebin’s CALD community, one session was held in Cantonese and Food premises classification Mandarin with the information aimed at restaurants 2011 2012 and take-away food businesses preparing sushi and Class 1 11 Class 2 126 Class 1 9 Class 2 83 Chinese-style products. Class 3 41 Class 4 26 Class 3 50 Class 4 16 Total 204 Total 158 The information sessions were most suitable for people who had recently started, returned to, or were considering 2012: Staged food premises assessments working in, the food industry. They were especially valuable Council faces challenges other than food safety work, such for casuals, part-time staff and volunteers. as emergency relief. Conducting food safety assessments The sessions were interactive and included basic food throughout the year allows us to allocate work to ensure safety, a hand washing exercise, a food premises that all food premises are visited. assessment and group discussion. Everyone was A quarterly food safety newsletter is distributed to class 2 awarded a Certificate of Attendance and received and 3 premises to keep them up-to-date with regulatory food safety pamphlets, posters and other items. changes, recent food safety issues and to answer Ellie Mandritis, Coordinator Health and frequently asked questions. The newsletters are an Urban Protection Unit, City of Darebin important source of information for proprietors and staff on current issues and refresh their knowledge of common workplace practices, such as food handling.
Lyall Bond, Manager Environment and Emergency, Corangamite Shire Council
130 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
East Gippsland (S) Glen Eira (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 42,793 43,154 Estimated resident population 137,566 138,810 Food premises per 10,000 persons 77 95 Food premises per 10,000 persons 72 65 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 24 Class 2 225 Class 1 25 Class 2 300 Class 1 56 Class 2 585 Class 1 57 Class 2 599 Class 3 73 Class 4 9 Class 3 79 Class 4 8 Class 3 225 Class 4 121 Class 3 212 Class 4 29 Total 331 Total 412 Total 987 Total 897
Frankston (C) Glenelg (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 130,055 131,542 Estimated resident population 19,843 19,777 Food premises per 10,000 persons 50 51 Food premises per 10,000 persons 89 120 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 58 Class 2 444 Class 1 57 Class 2 468 Class 1 6 Class 2 133 Class 1 8 Class 2 142 Class 3 130 Class 4 15 Class 3 137 Class 4 4 Class 3 13 Class 4 24 Class 3 43 Class 4 45 Total 647 Total 666 Total 176 Total 238
Gannawarra (S) 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 10,461 10,394 Food premises per 10,000 persons 69 117 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 1 Class 2 28 Class 1 4 Class 2 51 Class 3 27 Class 4 16 Class 3 41 Class 4 26 Total 72 Total 122
131 2011: Focus on staffing and fee model Highlights of the year in Greater Bendigo:
Golden Plains (S) • A new approach to achieving statutory responsibilities 2011 2012 was established with a unit restructure that split the Estimated resident population 18,917 19,426 environmental health team into two areas: Team 1 Food premises per 10,000 persons 63 73 Wastewater and Environment and Team 2 Food Tobacco and Infectious Diseases. Food premises classification • A new model for registration fees was introduced for 2011 2012 Food Act premises – businesses pay 80 per cent of the Class 1 2 Class 2 85 Class 1 8 Class 2 89 costs of regulation, with the remaining 20 per cent met Class 3 25 Class 4 8 Class 3 34 Class 4 10 by Council. Total 120 Total 141 • Council decided to exempt fees for community groups 2012: Streatrader compliance assistance to promote their activities; 120 community groups registered with Council received this benefit. Reviews of food premises’ classification was an ongoing task in 2012. This is to ensure businesses are complying • A high turnover of staff and attracting experienced with the risk-based requirements in the Act, which are staff to regional areas remained an issue. Most staff linked to the food that is handled. were recent university graduates (La Trobe University Environmental Health course based in Bendigo) and The other main area of work related to the introduction of needed training about how to carry out their work. Streatrader in late 2012 and completing the changeover to the statewide registration system for food vans and 2012: Home cooking ventures in Bendigo stalls. Being situated between two large municipalities, • More event and market inspections were conducted we have many community groups who operate in another due to the changing nature of food production. municipality. Education and training on how and when to • Implementing Food Act reporting and Streatrader use Streatrader commenced and will be ongoing to help were both significant areas. community groups. • A large number of people wanting to make cakes and Michelle Newman, Senior Environmental Health Officer, other food items to earn extra money caused Greater Golden Plains Shire Council Bendigo Council to look into safe preparation at home of food for sale. • Involvement with food security networks, food sharing and community gardens featured high on the Council Greater Bendigo (C) agenda. 2011 2012 Suzanne Walker, Coordinator Food, Tobacco, Infectious Diseases, City of Greater Bendigo Estimated resident population 101,868 103,722 Food premises per 10,000 persons 95 100 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 47 Class 2 615 Class 1 49 Class 2 664 Class 3 185 Class 4 118 Class 3 180 Class 4 146 Total 965 Total 1,039
132 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Officers spent considerable time providing information to all business proprietors, especially community organisations, Greater Dandenong (C) on the changes to the Food Act. We also provided information through our bi-annual newsletters and a 2011 2012 PowerPoint presentation on food safety at events. Estimated resident population 142,591 144,680 The challenges during this year largely related to Food premises per 10,000 persons 96 84 implementation of the legislative changes, and their impact, Food premises classification given the large number of food premises in our municipality. 2011 2012 Class 1 64 Class 2 852 Class 1 64 Class 2 798 2012: Tablet app for food premises Class 3 257 Class 4 194 Class 3 304 Class 4 48 assessments Total 1,367 Total 1,214 Greater Geelong’s Health Services developed and designed a tablet app to upload statistics about assessments. The app is now in use by all field staff.
In conjunction with Council’s Aged and Disability Services, Greater Geelong (C) Health Services surveyed premises about food availability, including difficulties for residents in some areas in obtaining 2011 2012 low-cost nutritional food. School canteens were also Estimated resident population 215,151 218,361 surveyed on the nutritional categories of food for sale. Food premises per 10,000 persons 98 84 Health Services made a submission, and appeared Food premises classification before, the Victorian Parliamentary inquiry into Food safety 2011 2012 regulation on farms and other businesses. This was a good Class 1 94 Class 2 1,177 Class 1 92 Class 2 1,145 opportunity to provide a local government perspective on Class 3 494 Class 4 354 Class 3 411 Class 4 185 council’s role and food safety expertise. Total 2,119 Total 1,833 Changes to legislation have continued to require 2011: Review of senior citizens clubs and adjustments. For example, implementation of Streatrader kindergartens led to some uncertainty initially, especially amongst community groups. Red tape reduction has merit, but In 2011 Council commenced a review of all senior citizens does require Council to allocate sufficient resources to clubs and kindergartens in the municipality. This involved make it work effectively. talks at their committee meetings and visits to premises. Health Services has been involved in early planning for By adopting a low-key approach, we worked with Armstrong Creek, a new regional area being developed individual clubs to tailor the transition to the registration south of the current urban area. When fully established process to their operational modes. We decided to register over the next 10–15 years, a further 70,000 population all our senior citizens clubs. Registration of kindergartens will be located in this area. (undertaking sessional activities in Council facilities) is not required. However, we visited them to assist their staff to Adrian Holbrook, Coordinator Health Services, help them understand Food Act requirements and how to City of Greater Geelong handle food for children safely.
During the year we agreed to provide health services to a small neighbouring council for a period of time. Tailoring our business to the needs of a small council was challenging but rewarding, especially while also working through the legislative changes that were being rolled out.
133 Greater Shepparton (C) Hepburn (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 61,737 62,352 Estimated resident population 14,506 14,751 Food premises per 10,000 persons 90 86 Food premises per 10,000 persons 241 225 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 33 Class 2 314 Class 1 34 Class 2 300 Class 1 7 Class 2 159 Class 1 7 Class 2 145 Class 3 121 Class 4 86 Class 3 113 Class 4 92 Class 3 135 Class 4 49 Class 3 122 Class 4 58 Total 554 Total 539 Total 350 Total 332
2012: Aged care food sampling In March 2012 many small towns north of Shepparton were affected by floods. Environmental health officers attended recovery centres daily in several locations and Hindmarsh (S) dealt with more than 200 inquiries from affected property 2011 2012 owners regarding septic tank functions. This increased Estimated resident population 5,870 5,794 workload placed great demand on our Environmental Food premises per 10,000 persons 145 128 Health team over many months of the recovery phase. Food premises classification Whilst meeting this challenge, the team has also 2011 2012 undertaken the following food safety activities over Class 1 6 Class 2 56 Class 1 6 Class 2 56 the year. Class 3 12 Class 4 11 Class 3 12 Class 4 0 • Our food sampling program focused on aged care Total 85 Total 74 premises. The results indicated that two out of 34 samples were found to be marginal or unsatisfactory. Visits to these premises to investigate the poor results, followed by re-sampling, returned satisfactory results. Hobsons Bay (C) The sampling program also focused on kebabs, with 2011 2012 all results found to be satisfactory. Estimated resident population 87,348 88,165 • A Food for Thought newsletter was distributed to all proprietors during the year. The newsletter included Food premises per 10,000 persons 75 69 food sampling results, egg safety, sale of food at events Food premises classification and markets and a food safety quiz. 2011 2012 Lisa Eade, Team Leader Environmental Health, Class 1 29 Class 2 420 Class 1 28 Class 2 447 Greater Shepparton City Council Class 3 125 Class 4 80 Class 3 128 Class 4 7 Total 654 Total 610
134 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2011: Hobsons Bay food safety awards 2011: Rising to a challenge In the 2010–11 registration year, 367 (61 per cent) Council produced and sent out a quarterly newsletter to premises in our municipality qualified for the Council’s all food businesses and community groups to keep them Food Safety Awards. Awards are presented to five updated of changes and to regularly communicate food category winners and announced in the local papers safety messages. and through Council’s website. As more information about changes to the Food Act The software program used by staff has been enhanced so became available from the Department of Health, the field inspection module includes follow-up functionality Council passed this on to food businesses – especially and a new suite of service reports. This will make it easier as it relates to the reclassification of some registrations. for Council to monitor whether a noncompliant business We also commenced work on implementing the quarterly has fixed food safety breaches. reporting on Food Act activities, including being able to 2012: Better IT tools for food safety deliver the reports via the department’s electronic gateway. Council’s Healthy Choices for Children program web 2012: Streatrader incorporated into content was improved with more recipes included to Council processes encourage proprietors to provide healthy menu options The introduction of Streatrader in late 2012 required for children. Council to adapt its processes and incorporate this new The Council is developing a new software system to database into existing processes for managing statewide better manage the processing of infringement notices registrations of food vans and stalls. issued under the Food Act and the Public Health and Quarterly Food Act activities are being emailed to Wellbeing Act. the Department of Health pending completion of the Malcolm Ramsay, Public Health Coordinator, changeover to automated reporting. Hobsons Bay City Council Council produced and sent out a quarterly newsletter to all food businesses and community groups to keep them updated on changes and to communicate food safety messages.
Horsham (RC) All food premises registered with Council were inspected, 2011 2012 with a good compliance rate. Estimated resident population 19,540 19,658 Council also supported the placement of a La Trobe Food premises per 10,000 persons 123 113 University environmental health student for 10 weeks. Food premises classification The student observed practical field work and completed 2011 2012 the task of updating the environmental health content for Class 1 7 Class 2 128 Class 1 7 Class 2 136 our Council website. Class 3 80 Class 4 25 Class 3 76 Class 4 4 Luke Mitton, Environmental Health Officer, Total 240 Total 223 Horsham Rural City Council
135 2012: Hume’s complete food safety approach Our environmental health officers have been diligently Hume (C) delivering a range of statutory and non-statutory food safety 2011 2012 activities, ensuring our registered premises are meeting their food safety requirements and are providing safe food. Estimated resident population 175,063 178,027 Food premises per 10,000 persons 66 69 Officers have been conducting on-site meetings with proprietors to provide them with a better understanding of Food premises classification their responsibilities and to build professional relationships. 2011 2012 This exercise is resulting in better compliance and food Class 1 54 Class 2 666 Class 1 56 Class 2 730 safety outcomes for the community. Class 3 236 Class 4 205 Class 3 258 Class 4 176 Total 1,161 Total 1,220 Two editions of Hume Food News were prepared and sent out to all food business throughout the year. This 2011: Hume goes wireless informative newsletter for all food handlers within Hume To assist with Food Act surveillance activities, Council City Council provides businesses with up-to-date commenced a rollout of mobile computing (tablets) and legislative information and various other food safety web-based software for environmental health officers. articles. The newsletter also provides advice on The objectives were to build capacity while enhancing improving business practices. productivity, ensuring that records contain information Tony Gullone, Coordinator Public Health, Hume City Council that is clear.
The tablets allow officers to access food premises’ registration details on site, record food safety assessments, determine the compliance levels of each Indigo (S) food business and collate data. They also assist officers 2011 2012 by reducing time spent on administration, which frees up Estimated resident population 15,376 15,377 time for further visits to food businesses. Food premises per 10,000 persons 117 156 Mobile internet cards give field staff access to Council’s Food premises classification network, which ensures registered premises’ files are always accurate, complete and accessible for reporting 2011 2012 purposes. At the conclusion of a food premises Class 1 3 Class 2 125 Class 1 6 Class 2 144 assessment, environmental health officers either fax or Class 3 43 Class 4 9 Class 3 70 Class 4 20 email reports, along with any other relevant information, Total 180 Total 156 to proprietors. 2012: Long-standing environmental health The cards also provide mobile internet access so that officer retires environmental health officers have rapid access to food Indigo Shire Council experienced an unusual challenge this safety information, such as the Department of Health’s year on the retirement of environmental health officer, Kim website. While onsite at an event, environmental health Felton, after 31 years with Council. Losing 30 years of local officers can access legislation, council procedures, forms knowledge is a huge gap to fill. Despite this hurdle, officers and information sheets. When the Streatrader database managed to perform 415 food premises inspections over for temporary and mobile food premises comes online in the shires of Indigo and Towong, as well as completing their 2012, environmental health officers will be able to access usual work regarding septic systems and tobacco complaints. it from any location. Kimberley Warne, Team Leader Building and Environmental Health, Indigo Shire Council
136 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Kingston (C) Knox (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 147,915 149,976 Estimated resident population 154,097 154,653 Food premises per 10,000 persons 75 85 Food premises per 10,000 persons 76 66 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 66 Class 2 855 Class 1 69 Class 2 801 Class 1 71 Class 2 564 Class 1 71 Class 2 564 Class 3 184 Class 4 1 Class 3 300 Class 4 106 Class 3 361 Class 4 171 Class 3 361 Class 4 23 Total 1,106 Total 1,276 Total 1,167 Total 1,019
2011: On track in Kingston 2011: Better compliance at Knox • Changes to Council’s information technology systems In a busy year in 2011, Council: were introduced to meet the Department of Health’s • conducted proprietor information sessions that raised new reporting requirements on Food Act activities. allergen awareness among Knox food premises • Council’s environmental health officers conducted proprietors information sessions and presentations to volunteers • introduced a user-pay system for continued non- and schools on safe food handling. conformance at follow-up inspections (the intervention • Council complied with Food Act requirements to inspect showed a reduction in continued non-conformance all registered food premises. from 31.9 to 15.7 per cent) • The food sampling program was completed for the year, • released two publications to Knox proprietors updating with the appropriate number of samples submitted for them on key food safety issues analysis. • continued with Knox’s Going for Gold food compliance 2012: All council requirements met rewards program The main new challenge faced by Council has been the • conducted activities focused on sustainable and changeover to Streatrader, the system for statewide nutritious food consumption at Council’s two registration of food vans and stalls. Officers also assisted major festivals the public to use the system. • contributed to spreading the safe food message at local community events. Council’s environmental health officers conducted further information sessions and presentations to volunteers and 2012: Going for gold schools on safe food handling. In 2012 Council:
Council continued to meet Food Act requirements and • conducted food handler sessions for Knox food inspect all registered food premises. premises to facilitate transition to Streatrader, the newly The food sampling program was completed for the year introduced system to support statewide registration and with Council exceeding the number of samples required notification of mobile and temporary food premises to be submitted for analysis. • released two publications to Knox proprietors which updated them on key food-related issues, including a Dusan Ivanic, Team Leader Environmental Health, main focus on transition to Streatrader for applicable Kingston City Council Knox mobile and temporary food premises • continued with Knox’s Going for Gold food compliance rewards program, while working with the Healthy
137 Together Knox team to develop the Knox Eat Smart More than 100 participants attended, representing a wide program to be rolled out in 2013. The Eat Smart variety of community groups and non-profit organisations, Program aims to promote both safe food handling ranging from sporting clubs, resident groups and and nutritious eating neighbourhood houses. They were eager to develop their • conducted activities at Council’s two major festivals skills in and knowledge of food handling responsibilities for with a focus this year on sustainable and nutritious their respective community groups. food consumption for our aged community Teresa Pugliese, Acting Coordinator Health Services, • contributed to spreading the safe food message at Latrobe City Council local community events and smaller interest groups • released two newsletters on opportunities and challenges implementing changes to the Food Act and how Council managed them. Loddon (S) Sam Salamone, Coordinator Health Services, 2011 2012 Knox City Council Estimated resident population 7,514 7,526 Food premises per 10,000 persons 174 153 Food premises classification Latrobe (C) 2011 2012 Class 1 3 Class 2 88 Class 1 3 Class 2 84 2011 2012 Class 3 30 Class 4 10 Class 3 28 Class 4 0 Estimated resident population 73,564 73,929 Total 131 Total 115 Food premises per 10,000 persons 71 89 Food premises classification 2011: Worst flood since 1900 In January 2011 Loddon Shire experienced the worst 2011 2012 Class 1 33 Class 2 270 Class 1 36 Class 2 373 flood on record since 1900. More than 30 per cent of the Class 3 103 Class 4 113 Class 3 159 Class 4 87 Shire was impacted by flood waters and all businesses Total 519 Total 655 were affected. The floods diverted Council staff from their day-to-day duties for an extended period of time. After 2012: Understanding food handling for the flood, Council’s environmental health officer assisted community groups several registered food premises to establish temporary Latrobe City’s Health Services team worked with the facilities to allow them to re-establish normal operations Community Development team to deliver a free forum in as quickly as possible. April, titled Understanding food handling for community 2012: Rebuilding after floods groups and non-profit organisations. The forum covered Councils’ environmental health officer attended to all the following topics: aspects of environmental health during 2012, including • food handling legislative responsibilities providing assistance to premises rebuilding from the • food delivery, storage and display 2011 floods.
• why food safety? Assistance was also provided to any operator contacting • cleaning and sanitising Council for help with the new Streatrader system. • food handing Teresa Arnup, Manager Environmental Health, • personal hygiene Loddon Shire Council • food contamination.
138 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Macedon Ranges (S) Manningham (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 42,780 43,493 Estimated resident population 116,958 117,019 Food premises per 10,000 persons Data not available Food premises per 10,000 persons 65 64 Food premises classification Data not available Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011: Macedon Ranges data management Class 1 57 Class 2 430 Class 1 60 Class 2 415 overhaul Class 3 163 Class 4 110 Class 3 148 Class 4 129 The amendments to the Food Act highlighted the Total 760 Total 752 limitations of Council’s existing database system. Fortunately this was a catalyst to upgrade to a new 2011: Five-star food in Manningham database and, although the migration of the data was a In addition to rolling out the new Food Act amendments, long and difficult process with limited resources, it has Manningham’s environmental health officers continued enabled us to drastically improve our data management assessing businesses in line with Council’s five-star awards capabilities. This has seen many benefits for proprietors, program. A five-star award is only presented to businesses the public and our staff. considered excellent operators and leaders within our local food industry that achieve a score of 95 per cent or above 2012: New database yielding efficiencies during a comprehensive, risk-based assessment. In 2011, Council’s new database has enabled the introduction of 32 per cent of Manningham’s businesses received the productivity enhancements and improved management award to display in their shops and were also recognised capability to ensure that noncompliance matters are in local newspapers and on Council’s website. The five actioned on time. It also has the capability to accept online businesses achieving the highest scores were recognised registration payments. This has greatly assisted proprietors by the Mayor and presented with a plaque and a $250 to pay their registrations on time and has yielded gift voucher. The average score for all medium to high-risk efficiencies in council administration. food businesses was 88 per cent.
We are looking to expand on the use of the new database Environmental health officers also participated in regional to tablet format over the coming financial year to further sampling, including the microbiological surveillance of roast enhance our environmental health service. meats in bain maries and custard products.
Council has also reviewed relevant policies and operating A prosecution of a food business for a range of food safety procedures to ensure consistency amongst officers within breaches was initiated. the food safety legislative framework. 2012: Five-star businesses Michael Dyt, Coordinator Environmental Health, Macedon Ranges Shire Council Manningham City Council continued with its five-star food safety scheme which awards businesses that achieve high scores during a comprehensive, risk-based assessment. In 2012 the assessments resulted in an average of 84 per cent for medium to high risk food businesses.
Noncompliance has also been addressed.
139 Officers also participated in regional sampling, including the microbiological surveillance of cooked, pre-mixed sandwich fillings. Maribyrnong (C) Travis Fitch, Coordinator Environmental Health, 2011 2012 Manningham City Council Estimated resident population 75,297 76,589 Food premises per 10,000 persons 107 106 Food premises classification Mansfield (S) 2011 2012 Class 1 31 Class 2 516 Class 1 30 Class 2 522 2011 2012 Class 3 165 Class 4 94 Class 3 178 Class 4 79 Estimated resident population 8,031 8,067 Total 806 Total 809 Food premises per 10,000 persons 296 201 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 2 Class 2 115 Class 1 3 Class 2 111 Maroondah (C) Class 3 40 Class 4 81 Class 3 48 Class 4 0 2011 2012 Total 238 Total 162 Estimated resident population 107,144 108,104 2011: Overcoming reporting problems Food premises per 10,000 persons 74 71 Council was able to conduct and report on inspections Food premises classification and assessments undertaken during the year within its 2011 2012 municipal district and also at Mt Buller. It was pleased Class 1 61 Class 2 404 Class 1 60 Class 2 404 with the results observed at premises. Class 3 210 Class 4 118 Class 3 195 Class 4 107 Total 793 Total 766 A key activity during the year was working through how to ensure the smooth online reporting of Food Act activities 2012: Cutting edge in customer access to the Department of Health. In the early stages the focus was on addressing technical issues that tend to arise with During 2012, Maroondah’s Community Health Team electronic reporting. commenced a number of initiatives to improve customer access to services through online applications. One Temporary food registrations – approximately 200 – are such initiative was the development of an online booking not captured at this stage. This area is a popular tourist process for community food handling seminars. destination and festivals, markets and fundraising events are a regular occurrence. These will be able to be reported Previously customers were required to call the Community via a new statewide system being implemented by the Health team to book a place and pay either at a customer department in 2012. service centre or cash at the selected session. Customers can now book a place at a seminar online. 2012: Food sampling focus They may book for multiple people or a group, pay Work on online reporting of our Food Act activities continued. online and receive a receipt and booking confirmation Food sampling was fully implemented during the year with with seminar details. This is much simpler for customers Council sampling local food businesses’ produce and and council. The system will be advertised through participating in regional and state surveys. Maroondah’s Community Health food newsletter The Cutting Edge. Kevin Murphy, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mansfield Shire Council
140 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
The Cutting Edge was revamped to become more attractive and engender greater community and small business interaction while providing informative and educational Melton (S) food information. It was also opened up to any community 2011 2012 member who wished to receive it. The newsletter was developed with the plan for recipients to receive it Estimated resident population 112,168 117,951 electronically rather than in the current paper format. Food premises per 10,000 persons 38 33
Corinne Bowen, Team Leader Community Health, Food premises classification Maroondah City Council 2011 2012 Class 1 32 Class 2 251 Class 1 32 Class 2 264 Class 3 77 Class 4 63 Class 3 89 Class 4 0 Total 423 Total 385 Melbourne (C) 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 100,611 105,381 Mildura (RC) Food premises per 10,000 persons 391 422 2011 2012 Food premises classification Estimated resident population 51,848 52,204 2011 2012 Class 1 * Class 2 * Class 1 60 Class 2 3,155 Food premises per 10,000 persons 95 125 Class 3 * Class 4 * Class 3 580 Class 4 653 Food premises classification Total 3,934 Total 4,448 2011 2012 Class 1 17 Class 2 278 Class 1 21 Class 2 371 * Note: The data were not submitted in a format that enabled Class 3 175 Class 4 21 Class 3 171 Class 4 87 presentation of food premises classes. Total 491 Total 650 2011 and 2012: New IT system 2011: Greater food safety knowledge Health Services worked closely with Council’s Business following floods Information Services branch to develop functional specifications for a new IT system to replace the bespoke PRISM database. In November 2010 a tender was advertised requesting applications from IT companies to develop a new system to meet the requirements of the functional specifications. The system was approved by Council in June 2011. Implementation commenced in 2012.
Council produces an informative quarterly newsletter, Flood-affected food business. Table Talk, for hospitality and food businesses in the The year 2011 for Mildura Rural City Council started, City of Melbourne. The newsletter provides businesses as it did with many Victorian councils, with flooding and with up-to-date legislative information and food safety emergency response and recovery activities. In terms of articles, as well as advice on improving business practices food safety, Council was fortunate in that, unlike many and future directions for the hospitality industry. flooded areas, the whole municipality was not cut off Russell Webster, Manager Health Services, from supplies and many businesses were still operating Melbourne City Council without much risk to food safety. In saying that, however, the damage caused by the rain to fresh produce had
141 significant impacts, which flowed through to many other 2011 and 2012: Reporting running smoothly sectors in the municipality. The uploading of quarterly reports as part of new While the floods were a great challenge they also provided Department of Health reporting requirements on council opportunities, such as closer working relationships with Food Act activities has proceeded well. Feedback from affected businesses. This has helped build lasting working the department enabled us to rectify errors in our data relationships and greater understanding of safe food reported about classifications of food premises and food requirements. safety programs.
2012: Systems and information upgrade Inspections did not reveal any serious issues at food premises. In 2012 we re-introduced the use of newsletters to help better communicate messages to food proprietors. Bruce Boxer, Environmental Health Coordinator, In particular, the focus was on changes with temporary Mitchell Shire Council food premises, mobile trading and Streatrader.
With the new material being supplied by the Department of Health, we found it was easier to upgrade our own systems and information. Referring customers to the Moira (S) department’s website and printed materials also meant 2011 2012 that they were getting a consistent message across Estimated resident population 28,435 28,675 municipalities. Food premises per 10,000 persons 153 156 Jacinta Mclean, Environmental Health Officer, Food premises classification Mildura Rural City Council 2011 2012 Class 1 14 Class 2 218 Class 1 15 Class 2 245 Class 3 79 Class 4 123 Class 3 68 Class 4 120 Total 434 Total 448 Mitchell (S) 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 35,092 36,224 Food premises per 10,000 persons 70 70 Monash (C) Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 177,970 179,740 Class 1 12 Class 2 164 Class 1 12 Class 2 162 Food premises per 10,000 persons 73 76 Class 3 51 Class 4 18 Class 3 57 Class 4 24 Food premises classification Total 245 Total 255 2011 2012 Class 1 73 Class 2 752 Class 1 77 Class 2 806 Class 3 330 Class 4 151 Class 3 377 Class 4 99 Total 1,306 Total 1,359
142 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2012: Excellence in food safety Council continued to conduct assessments of premises under the Act. More than 800 assessments of class 1 and Moorabool (S) class 2 premises were undertaken throughout the year. 2011 2012 Council also has a Golden Plate Awards program which Estimated resident population 28,600 29,346 recognises food premises that provide excellence in food Food premises per 10,000 persons 87 78 safety. Almost half of the assessed food businesses in Food premises classification these classifications achieved the highest rating of five stars. There was also a significant decrease in the number 2011 2012 of food premises that achieved two stars or less, indicating Class 1 8 Class 2 113 Class 1 8 Class 2 131 Class 3 90 Class 4 39 Class 3 79 Class 4 11 the program is having a positive effect on food safety. Total 250 Total 229 Noel Davey, Acting Coordinator Public Health,
Monash City Council 2011: All-in-one food safety records book popular In 2011 Moorabool Shire Council environmental health officers continued to work with premises to implement Moonee Valley (C) the new changes of the Food Act. Once again, the 2011 2012 Environmental Health Unit developed and posted out Estimated resident population 112,270 113,254 two issues of Food Matters, a food safety newsletter, Food premises per 10,000 persons 84 68 to all food businesses in the shire. Food premises classification Council also continued to sell annual food safety program 2011 2012 records book to proprietors throughout 2011. The record Class 1 48 Class 2 627 Class 1 46 Class 2 600 books proved popular with food business as a convenient Class 3 144 Class 4 119 Class 3 127 Class 4 1 and easy-to-use document, containing all the required Total 938 Total 774 food safety records in the one book. Faye Laskaris, Environmental Health Officer, Moorabool Shire Council
2012: Action on contaminated drinking water In 2012 Moorabool Shire Council sampled drinking water from food premises with supplies from tank and bore water throughout the shire to assess compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011. The bacteria E. coli was detected in one rain water tank water supply. A follow-up sample confirmed the contamination and the food business proprietor was directed to carry out immediate actions to disinfect the water supply and render the water safe for human consumption. Further investigation led to the source of contamination and action was taken to secure the water supply from future contamination.
Rose Longley, Environmental Health Officer, Moorabool Shire Council
143 Council is a keen to support the vibrancy of these areas and has introduced a Mobile and Temporary Food Moreland (C) Premises policy to augment residents’ and visitors’ experience of the area. This policy is now being reviewed 2011 2012 due to the popularity of the concept and requests for some Estimated resident population 155,087 156,163 locations exceeding what can be accommodated. Food premises per 10,000 persons 71 63 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 62 Class 2 717 Class 1 61 Class 2 700 Class 3 202 Class 4 121 Class 3 225 Class 4 5 Total 1,102 Total 991
2011: Change and diversity The municipality is experiencing strong development with Food van in operation. the replacement of old industrial sites by new residential Pauline Magee, Manager Urban Safety, developments. These changes bring challenges and Moreland City Council opportunities, with more people enjoying the diverse and vibrant culture of the municipality and its proximity to the city.
A key focus is working with multilingual proprietors and those from other countries where food regulatory Mornington Peninsula (S) frameworks differ or do not exist. We devote significant 2011 2012 time to working with proprietors to explain how to handle food safely. Estimated resident population 149,156 150,777 Food premises per 10,000 persons 77 77 2012: Bars and eateries flourishing Food premises classification Moreland’s food premises range from retail operations to 2011 2012 food manufacturing, all with a very multicultural flavour. Class 1 62 Class 2 733 Class 1 66 Class 2 824 The commercial areas of the municipality are heavily Class 3 217 Class 4 133 Class 3 275 Class 4 0 concentrated along Sydney Road in both Brunswick Total 1,145 Total 1,165 and Coburg, as well as on Lygon Street, East Brunswick and the Glenroy shopping precinct. 2012: Best Bites program awarded
New development opportunities are being realised, with The Shire’s Best Bites Food Guide Program has been the conversion of industrial sites to residential and mixed recognised at national and state levels for its innovative uses. This pattern of urban renewal is most prominent in approach to healthy and sustainable food business East Brunswick, Brunswick and Coburg. The major source practices. of additional dwellings and households in the city are in the Launched in November 2011 with 144 participating larger redevelopment sites and through infill and medium food businesses, Best Bites is a food business incentive density development in existing residential areas. scheme. Businesses that achieve a food safety rating of The influx of a new and larger clientele has seen the more than 90 per cent are offered free assessment and emergence of new and rejuvenated bars, eateries, gourmet certification in the areas of healthy eating, tobacco/alcohol food outlets and entertainment venues. This has resulted service, waste/recycling, energy/water efficiency and access. in an increase in the activity of our unit with rewarding long term results.
144 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Mount Alexander (S) 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 17,803 17,868 Food premises per 10,000 persons 99 128 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 5 Class 2 70 Class 1 5 Class 2 138 Class 3 59 Class 4 42 Class 3 85 Class 4 1 Total 176 Total 229
2012: Food safety sessions for volunteers Council’s environmental health officers worked with the Mount Alexander Volunteer Network to provide food safety sessions for community groups. These sessions also covered requirements under the Food Act.
Tracey Watson, Senior Environmental Health Officer, In August 2012, the program was a finalist in two Mount Alexander Shire Council categories of the Tidy Towns Sustainable Communities Awards. In September, it was national winner in the Environmental Economic Innovation Category at the Economic Development Australia National Awards for Economic Development Excellence. Moyne (S) 2011 2012 More than 300 food businesses are currently participating in the program. Estimated resident population 16,175 16,221 Food premises per 10,000 persons 117 132 The shire continued working with food vendors, market and event organisers to maintain food safety standards Food premises classification and assist vendors with their Streatrader registrations. 2011 2012 Two free information sessions were held for food Class 1 6 Class 2 119 Class 1 6 Class 2 136 businesses and community groups, with around Class 3 42 Class 4 23 Class 3 64 Class 4 8 40 attendees. These sessions were also attended Total 190 Total 214 by EnergySafe representatives who gave informative presentations on gas safety. A special edition of the shire’s Food for Thought newsletter was also sent to all food vendors and community groups.
Peter O’Brien, Senior Environmental Health Officer, Mornington Peninsula Shire
145 Murrindindi (S) Northern Grampians (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 13,174 13,434 Estimated resident population 11,942 11,969 Food premises per 10,000 persons 185 170 Food premises per 10,000 persons 92 152 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 4 Class 2 197 Class 1 5 Class 2 140 Class 1 4 Class 2 43 Class 1 7 Class 2 91 Class 3 25 Class 4 18 Class 3 47 Class 4 36 Class 3 51 Class 4 12 Class 3 61 Class 4 23 Total 244 Total 228 Total 110 Total 182
2011: Neighbouring municipalities lend a hand during floods In January, our municipality was severely affected by floods Nillumbik (S) and landslides. These events predominantly impacted on 2011 2012 food and accommodation premises in Halls Gap; however, Estimated resident population 62,595 62,651 damage was sustained throughout the municipality. Food premises per 10,000 persons 55 59 Food premises classification 2011 2012 Class 1 19 Class 2 230 Class 1 20 Class 2 204 Class 3 96 Class 4 0 Class 3 114 Class 4 29 Total 345 Total 367
2011 and 2012: Consistent administration of infringement notices Food stores in flood, December 2011. The small environmental health team at Nillumbik Shire Assistance was received from other municipalities, Council has focused on developing and implementing including Yarra Ranges Shire, Ararat Rural City and Moyne clear policy and procedures to administer the Food Shire, to support the post-impact assessment process and Act. One particular area of improvement has been the provide advice to registered premises and landowners. consistent administration of infringement notices. During the year, investigations of gastroenteritis outbreaks Council also invested in the development of mobile were conducted at two class 1 food premises (aged technology to undertake food inspections. This work, care facilities). Neither of these outbreaks was linked to which is still continuing, has improved the consistency the kitchen or food areas – both were suspected viral and quality of inspection results. gastroenteritis. However, as a precaution, standard practices were followed to clean all areas. The team has also been focused on continuing improvement across all areas of responsibility in the To enable Council to complete its work with other Environmental Health portfolio. food businesses in the district, in December 2011 an environmental health officer was contracted to assist Stephen Meloury, Coordinator Environmental Health, with annual inspections. Nillumbik Shire Council Michelle Wood, Team Leader Public Health and Wellbeing, Northern Grampians Shire Council
146 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Port Phillip (C) Pyrenees (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 97,854 99,891 Estimated resident population 6,727 6,756 Food premises per 10,000 persons 133 110 Food premises per 10,000 persons 152 154 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 35 Class 2 875 Class 1 35 Class 2 885 Class 1 2 Class 2 45 Class 1 2 Class 2 57 Class 3 199 Class 4 193 Class 3 177 Class 4 0 Class 3 37 Class 4 18 Class 3 37 Class 4 8 Total 1,302 Total 1,097 Total 102 Total 104
2011 and 2012: Port Phillip inspections 2011: Ensuring safe food in old buildings – fewer complaints, greater compliance Pyrenees has approximately 100 food premises, Port Phillip publishes two editions of SCOOP each year, both fixed and temporary. a food safety newsletter for food businesses within the Generally speaking, our food business proprietors do their municipality. best to ensure their products are safe and suitable for The increased inspection regime delivered by City of human consumption. Some premises are in old buildings Port Phillip in 2010 – supported by our updated policy that in many cases were not purpose built for food. and procedures – yielded some excellent food safety This presents challenges for these businesses, as they outcomes in 2011 and 2012. must handle food safely within these structures.
In addition to the annual assessment of class 2 premises, Wineries are our largest manufacturing group, with most an additional routine inspection (plus follow-up inspections, of them located in the Pyrenees wine region. where required) was performed at 80 per cent of our 830 class 2 premises in 2012. 2012: Steady as she goes at Pyrenees Food premises numbers in the shire stayed steady this In 2012 we also measured a significant improvement year, with a number changing hands while a few closed in compliance within food premises, a reduction in and others opened. enforcement action required, as well as a reduction in the number of verified complaints from the public. Alex Serrurier, Environmental Health Officer, Pyrenees Shire Council Doug Martin, Coordinator Health Services, Port Phillip City Council
147 Queenscliffe (B) South Gippsland (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 3,054 3,099 Estimated resident population 27,506 27,819 Food premises per 10,000 persons 305 252 Food premises per 10,000 persons 100 132 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 2 Class 2 63 Class 1 2 Class 2 57 Class 1 12 Class 2 206 Class 1 13 Class 2 220 Class 3 14 Class 4 14 Class 3 15 Class 4 4 Class 3 52 Class 4 4 Class 3 62 Class 4 72 Total 93 Total 78 Total 274 Total 367
2012: Home kitchens increasing The Borough of Queenscliffe’s approach to achieving compliance with the Food Act uses a model which has been proven to work well in a number of municipalities. Southern Grampians (S) The strong relationships that have been forged between 2011 2012 environmental health officers within the Barwon-South Estimated resident population 16,510 16,399 Western Region have helped to improve consistency of Food premises per 10,000 persons 130 145 food standards across council boundaries. Food premises classification Implementation of Streatrader was a new area for council. 2011 2012 The number of registrations for domestic kitchens appears Class 1 6 Class 2 126 Class 1 6 Class 2 121 to be on the increase. The management of domestic Class 3 47 Class 4 36 Class 3 40 Class 4 71 kitchens can sometimes be a juggling act between Total 215 Total 238 compliance with the Food Standards Code (and the 2011: New tools assist with increasing workload exemptions) and ensuring that the planning requirements under the definition of ‘home occupation’ are met. • A full-time environmental health trainee (technician) was recruited to assist Council to implement its Food Act Competing priorities will always be an issue for the sole responsibilities. Council mentors these trainees while environmental health practitioner. However, recently there they complete their Environmental Health university has been a number of risk management tools which, degrees on a part-time basis. combined with experience, help council make appropriate • A new food premises safety inspection rating system for health-based decisions. proprietors and Council’s internal use was implemented. James McDonald, Environmental Health Officer, It rates businesses based on whether or not they are Borough of Queenscliffe compliant, and the seriousness of any noncompliance. • Council commenced use of new Food Act registration forms to capture food premises classification and other Food Act regulatory information.
148 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
• Council’s food premises records and database were integrated to comply with Food Act reporting requirements. Environmental health staff spent extensive Strathbogie (S) time checking data, interacting with the software 2011 2012 provider and Council’s IT and records departments to ensure food regulatory information is being captured Estimated resident population 9,622 9,660 within Council’s electronic system. Food premises per 10,000 persons 169 112 • Non-profit group Food Act registrations and notifications Food premises classification increased by 20 per cent in 2011. 2011 2012 • Implementation of a food premises schedule to ensure Class 1 4 Class 2 80 Class 1 4 Class 2 80 sampling activities are undertaken during inspections Class 3 24 Class 4 55 Class 3 24 Class 4 0 where possible assisted with managing the increasing Total 163 Total 108 work load arising from the number of premises. 2012: Food for thought e-newsletter 2012: Increased transparency and Council takes a proactive educational approach to food communication safety to ensure compliance and maintenance of the food Implementation of the online Streatrader statement of trade safety standards. Where informal action could not achieve system has increased transparency and communication compliance, Council took appropriate steps, such as between Council and temporary and mobile food business issuing an infringement notice, or an order under s. 19 operators and event organisers. of the Food Act requiring the business to fix hygiene Environmental health staff have assisted applicants to problems. These premises have since complied. provide the information required so they can operate their The quarterly Food for thought e-newsletter was emailed temporary or mobile food businesses across the state. to all food business operators to inform them of new Pauline Porter, Environmental Health Coordinator, initiatives and seasonal updates. We have received Southern Grampians Shire Council excellent feedback from stakeholders and will be implementing the initiative beyond 2012.
Streatrader, the new system to enable statewide registration of food vans and stalls, was used by council Stonnington (C) from late 2012. There was the usual settling in process at 2011 2012 first during the rollout. The system is now well established. Estimated resident population 99,118 100,682 Being located more than 150 kilometres from Melbourne, Food premises per 10,000 persons 135 133 Council has faced challenges transporting food samples for analysis. We have now managed to secure a local Food premises classification courier to ensure samples meet statutory time frames. 2011 2012 Class 1 47 Class 2 893 Class 1 48 Class 2 1,071 Use of tablet technology to conduct food premises Class 3 112 Class 4 285 Class 3 141 Class 4 75 inspections in situ was piloted in 2012. The scheme saves Total 1,337 Total 1,335 time and travel costs across a 3,293 square kilometre municipal area. It is also beneficial where food business operators have immediate enquiries as these can be accessed online at the time of inspection and discussed with the proprietor.
Connor Jackson, Environmental Health Officer, Strathbogie Shire Council
149 Surf Coast (C) Swan Hill (RC) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 26,493 27,354 Estimated resident population 20,830 20,972 Food premises per 10,000 persons 134 130 Food premises per 10,000 persons 124 134 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 9 Class 2 230 Class 1 9 Class 2 241 Class 1 10 Class 2 155 Class 1 10 Class 2 153 Class 3 83 Class 4 34 Class 3 40 Class 4 65 Class 3 36 Class 4 57 Class 3 45 Class 4 74 Total 356 Total 355 Total 258 Total 282
2011: Software helps improve compliance 2011 and 2012: Staffing challenges checks Early in 2011 staff focused mainly on dealing with the To improve the efficiency with which Surf Coast’s floods that occurred in the north-west area. No food Environmental Health Unit assesses compliance with premises were affected in Swan Hill Rural City municipality. the Food Act, Council continued to undertake Food Act As the year progressed, Council had to plan for a staff inspections using its inspection software module. The member to go on maternity leave at the same time system allows for a more professional and consistent as recruiting a new staff member. As a result, Council inspection service for food premises. Where possible, engaged environmental health officer contractors to environmental health officers use this module in the field. assist with keeping on top of the inspection and follow-up Council experienced staff shortages in 2011. To address requirements in 2011 and into 2012. These environmental this it engaged contract environmental health officers to health officers did bring fresh views on various aspects of ensure it fulfilled its obligations under the Food Act. food premises inspections and enforcement.
Council also undertook two prosecutions during 2011. In 2012 we also prepared for the introduction of Streatrader This required significant resources and effort from the and continued to work on the changeover to the statewide environmental health team. The prosecutions resulted in registration scheme for food vans and stalls. We guilty pleas, with one resulting in conviction and in the conducted ongoing education for temporary and mobile other case a conviction was not recorded by the court. premises proprietors, particularly for community groups.
2012: Streatrader education Melanie Bennett, Public Health Services Team Leader, Swan Hill Rural City Council The new Streatrader system was utilised for food safety inspections, notifications/registrations and statements of trade at The Falls Festival which is one of the major and longest running outdoor music festivals in Australia. Through working with the festival organisers, environmental health officers were able to ensure all food premises operators were aware of the new system and how to lodge the appropriate applications for approval.
Adam Lee, Coordinator Environmental Health, Surf Coast Shire
150 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Towong (S) Warrnambool (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 5,958 5,940 Estimated resident population 32,592 32,968 Food premises per 10,000 persons 133 125 Food premises per 10,000 persons 102 106 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 3 Class 2 57 Class 1 3 Class 2 57 Class 1 15 Class 2 226 Class 1 14 Class 2 232 Class 3 14 Class 4 5 Class 3 14 Class 4 0 Class 3 52 Class 4 41 Class 3 60 Class 4 42 Total 79 Total 74 Total 334 Total 348
See report for Indigo Shire Council whose environmental 2012: Food newsletter health officers service the municipality of Towong. A newsletter, FoodNews, is developed and distributed annually to businesses. It contains updates on staff, legislation and compliance reminders, as well as current food related issues. Wangaratta (RC) Mark Handby, Senior Environmental Health Officer, 2011 2012 Warrnambool City Council Estimated resident population 27,110 27,236 Food premises per 10,000 persons 110 135 Food premises classification Wellington (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 13 Class 2 192 Class 1 13 Class 2 208 Class 3 93 Class 4 0 Class 3 100 Class 4 48 Estimated resident population 41,945 42,289 Total 298 Total 369 Food premises per 10,000 persons 97 116 Food premises classification 2011: New Food Act requirements being met 2011 2012 In 2011 all food premises registration forms and Class 1 15 Class 2 252 Class 1 14 Class 2 296 procedures were updated and issued to meet the Class 3 64 Class 4 75 Class 3 95 Class 4 85 new Food Act requirements. Total 406 Total 490 We also commenced registering water carters who deliver potable water; this process went smoothly, with good 2011: Better compliance with record keeping cooperation from our water carters. In 2011 Wellington Shire Council Health Unit implemented a program of providing each class 2 and 3 registered New food sampling books issued by the Department of food business with a printed temperature records booklet. Health have been well received and are now in use for The booklet was mailed out with registration certificate greater transparency. renewals. An increase in compliance by proprietors with The new gastroenteritis guidelines have also been record-keeping requirements has been noted by inspecting incorporated into our processes and procedures. area officers. Ross Cairns, Coordinator Environmental Health, Wangaratta Rural City Council
151 Vacancies arose in the course of the year when two experienced environmental health officers resigned. The remaining officers managed Food Act inspections and West Wimmera (S) waste water installations across the shire until new staff 2011 2012 were recruited. Estimated resident population 4,289 4,217 2012: Registration in a logical sequence Food premises per 10,000 persons 131 140 There was significant flooding in the district in 2012. Food premises classification Environmental health officers responded as part of the 2011 2012 local flood recovery effort in the areas of waste disposal Class 1 2 Class 2 39 Class 1 2 Class 2 42 and testing of drinking water supply. Business and Class 3 13 Class 4 2 Class 3 13 Class 4 2 caravan parks inundated by flood water experienced Total 56 Total 59 power outages resulting in the removal of food products that may have become unsafe to eat due to inadequate refrigeration. The recovery process continued long after the floods had passed.
Council continued to show leadership, take positive action Whitehorse (C) and support each of its food proprietors. Staff provided a 2011 2012 package of information to prospective proprietors seeking Estimated resident population 157,740 158,992 to set up a food business. This enabled operators to see Food premises per 10,000 persons 70 72 the registration requirements laid out in a logical sequence Food premises classification and to plan and cost out their proposals accordingly. 2011 2012 Staff continued to conduct secondary inspections and Class 1 69 Class 2 679 Class 1 69 Class 2 707 follow ups. Touching base in this way offered proprietors Class 3 219 Class 4 133 Class 3 229 Class 4 147 a chance to ask any questions in relation to their business Total 1,100 Total 1,152 activity and processes. 2011: Workshop for poor performers Council conducted a mail-out to stakeholders regarding the introduction of Streatrader, the new online system Whitehorse City Council manages noncompliance under for statewide registration of food vans and stalls. Officers the Act using a schedule for follow-up inspections and disseminated information at markets and community enforcement action. events during routine inspections. Statements of trade Council re-structured its long established five-star rating were received via email or manually processed at the system in 2011 so that it aligns with the Department of customer service counter. Staff supported new users Health’s new inspection result categories. of the system. This successful food premises reward and recognition Dean Graham, Coordinator Environmental Health, program is an additional way to measure premises’ Wellington Shire Council food safety performance and compliance.
Overall, food safety performance for food businesses within Whitehorse remains high, with 89.7 per cent of premises receiving a star rating of satisfactory and above.
Council’s environmental health officers conducted more than 300 noncompliance/follow-up inspections for premises rating one and two stars to ensure risks were managed, compliance was achieved and acceptable food hygiene standards were maintained.
152 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Council also hosted a workshop in March targeting poor-performing food businesses. If a business does not address problems after being Whittlesea (C) given a reasonable opportunity to do so, Council takes 2011 2012 enforcement action under the Act. In 2011 some Estimated resident population 160,371 169,471 businesses were closed until serious problems were Food premises per 10,000 persons 54 57 rectified. Three prosecutions were also instigated for offences under the Food Act. Food premises classification 2011 2012 In late 2011 Council introduced a new registration and Class 1 47 Class 2 520 Class 1 49 Class 2 562 inspection computer-based data management system. Class 3 191 Class 4 105 Class 3 256 Class 4 94 2012: Incentives for food safety Total 863 Total 961 In 2012, under Whitehorse’s successful reward and 2012: IT systems and Food Act database recognition program, 28.4 per cent of food premises were adapted awarded five stars and 35.3 per cent four stars. Overall, 88 per cent of premises were assessed as compliant. In 2012 the main focus for Council’s Health Services was adapting our computer systems to meet the new Food Act Of the 85 premises (12 per cent) which rated requirements. unsatisfactory, council took a range of enforcement actions. This included the temporary closure of premises • This resulted in extensive changes to our registration until problems were fixed and three prosecutions. database to record our Food Act activities in accordance with the Act and report statistics to Environmental health officers conducted more than the department through an automated process. 350 noncompliance/follow-up inspections. Additional • We introduced infringement notices for food safety inspections of these premises were also conducted breaches. This involved updating the Council’s during the year to monitor food safety. infringement program to include the Food Act. Council delivered food safety training to 40 food handlers, It resulted in the creation of a separate health-specific primarily from one and two-star businesses, which module. provided them with a nationally-recognised qualification. • The introduction of Streatrader in late 2012 – the statewide registration system for food vans and stalls A differential fee structure based on food premises’ food – also involved staff changing over to a new system. safety performance was introduced in 2012. This enabled We also assisted some clients to enter their data. cost recovery for additional inspections and rewarded five-star premises through discounted registration fees. Each year Council sends a customer survey alongside registration renewal forms. In 2012 we received 271 Council distributed translated food safety program templates responses. Ninety-eight per cent of applicants rated to businesses and facilitated food safety training in Chinese. assistance received from their environmental health An education campaign for businesses and groups operating officer as either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Ninety-three per temporary premises at events and markets was run. As part cent either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ they had a of the campaign, the Whitehorse Asian Business Association better understanding of Food Act requirements after and Melbourne Taiwanese Chamber of Commerce their inspection/assessment. The surveys also included participated in a review of the Streatrader resources. proprietor comments which are taken into consideration in Council commenced trialling mobile devices to assist the Team’s annual planning sessions at which the service officers with inspections. is reviewed.
Louis Papageorgiou, Coordinator Environmental Health, Neville Kurth, Manager Health, Access and Bushfire Whitehorse City Council Recovery, Whittlesea City Council
153 Wodonga (RC) Wyndham (C) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 36,043 36,626 Estimated resident population 166,038 179,438 Food premises per 10,000 persons 64 63 Food premises per 10,000 persons 46 56 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 13 Class 2 140 Class 1 17 Class 2 153 Class 1 50 Class 2 463 Class 1 57 Class 2 655 Class 3 51 Class 4 28 Class 3 57 Class 4 2 Class 3 143 Class 4 100 Class 3 183 Class 4 116 Total 232 Total 229 Total 756 Total 1,011
2011: Staff on the move 2012: Mobile computing strategy The environmental health team at Wodonga Council During 2012, Wyndham was busy implementing the experienced major staff changes throughout 2011. Streatrader statewide registration program for food vans Despite this, with the help of contracted environmental and stalls, initiating the Unit’s mobile computing strategy health officers whose sole focus was on the Food Act, and continuing work on quality assurance processes and Council was able to meet its statutory requirements for policies. During this period all food sampling programs food inspections. were successfully completed.
In 2011 the unit took on the important task of recording Council’s mobile computing strategy will enable officers data about its Food Act activities under the statewide to complete all inspection requirements on site and approach, to enable its work to form part of the new provide advice, guidance and a more efficient service Victorian data set. to proprietors. This will also reduce the time spent by officers on administrative processes. 2012: Focus on Streatrader Council conducted inspections of stalls at public events, In June 2012, a new team leader was appointed. One of including Weerama, Werribee Craft Markets, Laverton the first tasks was to start a review of internal processes. Market, Point Cook market and the Italian Markets. In the second half of 2012 there was a shift in focus to This helped ensure compliance with the Food Standards temporary and mobile premises, to implement Streatrader. Code and was an opportunity to further educate stall We answered enquiries from proprietors and community operators about Streatrader. groups about the new system. As part of ongoing support to business and the Susan Bennett, Team Leader Environmental Health, community, Council undertook a number of activities Wodonga City Council to communicate good food handling practices. These included presentations to community, school and CALD groups that participate in various community fêtes and festivals and distribution of newsletters to all food businesses.
Brooke Hutcheon, Coordinator Environmental Health Unit, Wyndham City Council
154 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
2012: Promoting safe handling of eggs In 2012 at Yarra:
Yarra (C) • environmental health officers promoted the safe 2011 2012 handling of eggs Estimated resident population 79,015 80,607 • infringements were issued for some offences and a Food premises per 10,000 persons 187 153 number of food businesses were prosecuted for serious Food premises classification breaches of the food safety standards • further infringements were issued to businesses that 2011 2012 operated from unregistered food premises when they Class 1 42 Class 2 987 Class 1 39 Class 2 951 failed to renew registration after being given a warning Class 3 251 Class 4 195 Class 3 211 Class 4 34 and a reasonable opportunity to reapply Total 1,475 Total 1,235 • use of the statewide Streatrader system was adopted 2011: Busy year at Yarra for mobile and temporary food premises registrations The year was busy as Yarra rolled out the changes to • all premises were inspected, as required under the Food the Food Act. Act and the minimum number of food samples required to be submitted was exceeded once again All registered food premises were inspected during the • quarterly Food News bulletins were issued. year and the minimum number of food samples required under the Act was exceeded. Mark Hoyne, Coordinator, Health Protection, Yarra City Counci The new infringements power was used for the first time. Infringement notices were issued to a number of food premises that had failed to renew their registration and operated a food business from unregistered premises for over three months in the year. In addition, two infringements were issued for noncompliance with food safety standards.
Yarra also used the new power to temporarily close two food premises due to very poor hygiene standards until the premises were brought up to the required standard. Council also undertook a number of prosecutions for unclean food premises.
Council commenced administration of the new single registration process for temporary and mobile food premises.
Yarra was involved in a ready-to-eat salad survey that was undertaken in the North & West Metropolitan Region.
Finally, Yarra continued to issue Food News, a quarterly bulletin for food businesses.
155 Yarra Ranges (S) Yarriambiack (S) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Estimated resident population 148,754 149,031 Estimated resident population 7,153 7,115 Food premises per 10,000 persons 85 84 Food premises per 10,000 persons 129 131 Food premises classification Food premises classification 2011 2012 2011 2012 Class 1 54 Class 2 643 Class 1 54 Class 2 657 Class 1 4 Class 2 77 Class 1 4 Class 2 79 Class 3 362 Class 4 202 Class 3 325 Class 4 211 Class 3 5 Class 4 6 Class 3 5 Class 4 5 Total 1,261 Total 1,247 Total 92 Total 93
2012: High fire danger days an additional 2011: Flood affected food businesses resilient challenge Yarriambiack Shire Council communities were significantly The biggest challenge for Yarra Ranges Council is its large affected during the January 2011 floods. In response, geographical area with a mix of outer metropolitan and Council’s public health services unit shifted its priorities rural areas. to mitigate the risks presented by this natural disaster. This involved increased monitoring of food premises to The high fire danger days in late 2012 prevented the protect public health, combined with increased support environmental health officers from accessing a large to food business owners and staff to ensure compliance area of our municipality. This made it more challenging with the Food Standards Code. to undertake statutory inspections in the last part of the year. Despite this, all statutory inspections were completed Food business owners affected by flooding demonstrated within the calendar year. a resilient attitude and ensured their businesses ‘got back on track’. Implementation and education of proprietors about the new statewide mobile and temporary food premises 2012: Food safety programs system was an important new task. The 2012 year saw the introduction of a quarterly food Council used infringement notices under the Act to enforce safety newsletter. This publication includes extracts the requirement for food premises owners to register for from the Food Standards Code, food safety facts and 2012. This greatly reduced the number of proprietors news on upcoming events or ideas. The Yarriambiack operating unregistered. municipality covers more than 7,500 square kilometres and this presents a challenge for staff to ensure that we Jessica Tindal, Team Leader Health Operations, are available to both the community and food business Yarra Ranges Shire Council proprietors. Council’s newsletter is one way that information can be regularly and efficiently disseminated to those who can benefit from our advice and support.
Our food business proprietors have significantly increased their food safety program compliance. However, ongoing vigilance is important, as some aspects of our hospitality industry require assistance about how to comply, backed up by regular monitoring.
Tim Rose, Coordinator Public Health and Regulatory Services, Yarriambiack Shire Council
156 The national scene
Kez’s Kitchen, Dandenong. 157 This section provides an overview of the national food the Forum to balance public health and safety objectives regulatory system and activities in 2011 and 2012. with the need to produce and deliver food to the public efficiently and with minimal regulation.
Intergovernmental agreement The forum is supported by the Food Regulation Standing An intergovernmental agreement between Commonwealth, Committee (FRSC), whose role is to coordinate policy state and territory governments underpins the food advice and ensure a nationally consistent approach to regulatory scheme in Australia. The scheme involves all the implementation and enforcement of food standards. three levels of Australian government and New Zealand. The membership of the FRSC comprises senior officials Under the scheme, Australian states and territories still of departments for which the ministers represented on the administer their own food Acts. However, those Acts forum have portfolio responsibility. The Implementation are based on a model national food Act and incorporate Sub-Committee for Food Regulation reports to the FRSC national food standards automatically as laws of their and oversees a consistent approach to implementing and jurisdictions. enforcing food regulation and standards.
The intergovernmental agreement aims to provide a national system of safe food controls. Its purpose is to: Food standards FSANZ is an independent statutory authority whose • protect public health and safety board members are appointed by the Commonwealth • reduce regulatory burden on the food industry Government. It develops all food standards that comprise • harmonise Australian domestic and export standards the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The with international standards development of those standards, and variations to existing • provide cost-effective compliance and enforcement food standards, stem either from applications made to arrangements FSANZ or by a proposal of its own initiative. The standards • provide a consistent regulatory approach. are based on scientific and technical criteria consistent with forum policy and are subject to board approval before Australia New Zealand Food Treaty being reviewed by the forum. FSANZ is also responsible for coordinating national food surveillance and recall systems, In addition to the agreement, a treaty is in place between conducting research, working with other national food the Australian and New Zealand governments. The treaty agencies and international agencies, reviewing existing seeks to: food standards and developing codes of conduct with the • reduce unnecessary barriers to trade food industry. • adopt a joint system of food standards • provide for the timely development, Food Standard Code adoption and review of food standards The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is • facilitate the sharing of information. collection of bi-national standards designed to promote national consistency in Australia’s and New Zealand’s Bi-national governance food laws. It lists requirements for foods such as The regulation of food safety in Australia and New additives, food safety, labelling and genetically modified Zealand is overseen by the Legislative and Governance foods. Enforcement and interpretation of the Code is the Forum on Food Regulation.58 The forum membership responsibility of state and territory agencies within Australia comprises food ministers from each Australian jurisdiction and New Zealand (below). and New Zealand. It is responsible for developing food regulatory policy and guidelines, and for promoting a consistent approach to food standards compliance and enforcement. This responsibility requires all members of
158 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system
Food Regulation Treaty between Australia’s Food Regulation Agreement Australia and New Zealand
Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act Model Food Act provisions
Food Standards Australia New Zealand State and Territory Food Acts
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code Food Regulation Standing Committee
Implementation Sub-committee on Food Regulation
Food standards development 2011 In 2011 FSANZ released 23 applications and proposal The Department of Health coordinates the assessment reports for public comment, including: whole-of-Victorian Government input into the national Food Standards Code. This is in response to proposals • the assessment of potential zoonotic hazards and risks raised by FSANZ and applications made to FSANZ to arising from dogs in outdoor dining areas amend the Code. • approval for genetically modified foods Departmental staff with expertise in food microbiology, • new food additives food technology, toxicology, chemistry, nutrition and • country of origin labelling for unpackaged meat dietetics contribute to comments to FSANZ and to products (sheep, beef and poultry) the preparation of ministerial briefings on proposed • primary production and processing requirements amendments to the Code. for raw milk products • irradiation of food products as a quarantine measure.
In preparing the submissions, the department sought advice on applications and proposals from other Victorian government departments and agencies.
159 The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit met National bodies all critical timelines in responding to all application and The department also participates in national committees or proposal assessment reports. working groups that inform the development of standards or The Forum on Food Regulation was notified of 21 of the other regulatory measures, the implementation of standards, 23 applications and proposals seeking to amend the or which coordinate activities or communications. They Food Standards Code.59 cover a wide range of areas, such as:
During 2011 FSANZ also released a consultation paper • point of sale nutrition information asking for feedback about the proposed approach to • front of pack labelling examining potential hazards in fresh horticultural produce • imported food labelling compliance and current practices to manage those hazards. • health nutrition and related claims 2012 • food safety management • food incident response In 2012 FSANZ released 29 applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment, including: • food medicine interface • government food communications • requirements for making nutrition and health claims • food survey planning • approvals for genetically modified foods • food surveillance • extensions to the country of origin standard • food analysis expert advice. (for unpackaged meat products) • approvals to add a number of substances to food (that is, food additives).
In preparing the submissions, the department sought advice on applications and proposals from other Victorian government departments and agencies.
The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit met all critical timelines in responding to all application and proposal assessment reports.
The Forum on Food Regulation was notified of 20 of the 29 applications and proposals seeking to amend the Food Standards Code, including removing the restrictions on the presence of companion dogs in outdoor dining areas (amending clause 24 of Standard 3.2.2 – Food Safety Practices and General Requirements). FSANZ assessed the potential zoonotic hazards and risks arising from dogs in outdoor dining areas. It found negligible risk to humans and commenced work to remove the prohibition from the Food Standards Code.
Further information on standards development can be found on the FSANZ website at
160 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Labelling logic contains 61 recommendations spanning key Food labelling laws themes, including: FSANZ develops food labelling laws that are included • the policy drivers of food labelling in the Food Standards Code and enforced by local, • principles and criteria to guide government decision state and territory agencies. making on regulatory intervention Currently, food labels on manufactured foods must • public health and safety provide food safety information such as use-by • new technologies dates and nutrition information panels outlining what • consumer value issues nutrients are in the food. There are also fair trading • label presentation laws that require labels to be truthful. • compliance and enforcement.
The laws aim to make it easier for people to make Wide-ranging changes recommended decisions about the nutritional value of the food they Recommendations included high-level in-principle buy and eat. proposals, such as a conceptual framework to guide Food labelling standards for Australia and New decision making on the level of government intervention Zealand are set out in the Australia and New Zealand related to food labelling issues, and a nutrition policy to Food Standards Code. See
Food labelling plays a critical role as the primary interface Government response between food manufacturers and consumers. While labels Many of the issues canvassed in Labelling logic have offer finite space, there are increasing demands from challenged governments for a long time. They reflect health advocates and consumers for them to contain tensions between consumer demand for information on more information. The battle for space on the label has food labels, industry desire to maximise the marketing intensified and, over recent years, food labelling policy potential of labels and the need for a strategic approach and standards have evolved in a sporadic fashion as to food labelling regulation. Differing views on the extent to governments try to protect consumers and ensure fair which food labels should serve a preventative health role, marketing in an appropriate and practical manner. As as well as consumers’ values and ethics, also underpin part of the Council of Australian Governments National these tensions. Seamless Economy reform agenda, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council60 In December 2011 the Forum on Food Regulation commissioned a review of food labelling law and policy provided its response to Labelling logic. Food ministers in 2009. supported the majority of the report’s 61 recommendations and have agreed to develop a single interpretive More than 550 stakeholders attended public consultation front-of-pack labelling system by December 2012 forums and almost 7,000 submissions from governments, through a coordinated approach. industry, consumer groups and the public expressed a range of views about the role of food labelling. The terms of reference, written submissions and the report are available at
161 162 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendices
Boroondara City Council EHO Will Carroll preparing a food premises surface swab for laboratory testing. 163 Appendices 2011 and 2012
164 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations
This report has been developed as required under the electronic system to support statewide registration of Food Act 1984 (s. 7C). temporary and mobile food premises is operational and these data can be captured. Data sources, specifications and limitations and other explanatory notes about the data presented in this report New and renewal of registrations are described in this section. Data cannot be published separately at this stage for new and renewed registrations. Reporting period Data presented for all food premises registrations Foodborne illness and notifications were reported for the periods Data on foodborne illness epidemiology were supplied 1 January and 31 December 2011 and by the Department of Health Communicable Disease 1 January and 31 December 2012, respectively. Prevention and Control Unit. Note that there are some exclusions and these are discussed below. Food premises registrations and notifications Inclusions Source The data includes a count of all fixed and mobile food premises registered or notified to council as required All but one council submitted the required data under the Food Act 1984 as at 31 December 2011, electronically, in an Excel spread sheet, or as an XML file. and 31 December 2012, respectively regardless of The data repository managed by the Department of Health the date of initial registration, notification or renewal of receives data transmitted electronically from Victorian registration. It includes premises that were registered/ councils each quarter. notified for the first time during the period, as well as The Department of Health Food Act Dataset, first premises that renewed their registration. published in 2009 and updated from time to time, provides a common set of concepts, data elements and edit/ Exclusions validation rules that define activities carried out under the Food Act 1984. The terminology is aligned to the concepts The data excludes the following items: and provisions in the Act as amended in July 2010. Registrations/notifications This includes a new premises classification system and 1 January to 30 December associated regulatory requirements and the compliance Data relating to any food premises registered or notified to arrangements for each class. councils at any time between 1 January to 30 December The Food Act Dataset and the requirements for reporting 2011 and 1 January to 30 December 2012, respectively, to the department reflect reforms to the Act and practices but whose registration or notification was no longer that are designed to improve food safety regulation. current as at 31 December 2011 or 31 December 2012, The use of a common set of data elements across all respectively, were not available and are therefore excluded. council municipalities is intended to promote a consistent approach to the administration of the Act across the state, Temporary food premises as provided in s. 7A of the Act. Temporary food premises (food stalls) have been excluded except in tables that relate to convictions under the Food Note that tables may not add to 100 per cent due to Act. These premises have not been recorded in general rounding. council electronic databases and so data are not available. They will be included in future reports, when the planned
165 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Food premises classification Missing data Under the Food Act 1984, food premises are classified For this report, the great majority of councils (77 of 79 according to the public health risks involved in food councils in 2011 and 78 of 79 councils in 2012) were able handling: to report fully against the statewide standard dataset on • class 1 – high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to Food Act activities. Information on Macedon Ranges Shire food-related illness Council’s food premises is not included as these data were • class 2 – high-risk foods that need correct temperature not submitted. In 2011 Melbourne City Council was unable control at all times to keep them safe to stratify food premises by class. • class 3 – unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged Tables and figures which do not include complete high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook breakdowns for these reasons are footnoted. and serve’ foods Work is ongoing so that all councils can report fully in future. • class 4 – other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food. At this stage the data system has no facility for recording missing data – that is, where a ‘0’ shows in a council data See Table 5 for more details. report, it may mean either that there was no result for the Class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must register annually, period, or that there is missing data. while class 4 premises are required to notify councils on a once-off basis. Areas outside municipal districts Unless otherwise stated, the data represent a count of the Food premises data relating to Victoria’s six alpine resorts number of class 1–3 premises by class with a registration are included in the figures for the municipalities that status recorded in the period of New, Renewal or Transfer, manage food safety compliance at these resorts, that is: or any known notification for class 4 premises. • Indigo Shire – Mount Hotham Alpine Resort Treatment of class 4 food premises and Falls Creek Alpine Resort Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling • Mansfield Shire – Mount Stirling Alpine Resort activities, these businesses do not need to re-notify. and Mount Buller Alpine resort Councils are not required to contact them annually to • Baw Baw Shire – Mount Baw Baw Alpine Resort ascertain whether they are still operating. • Murrindindi Shire – Lake Mountain Alpine Resort
This may have led to variability in the way in which Data for French Island is listed in the figures for the notifications are recorded by council and reported Bass Coast Shire. to the department.
• In some cases the data for a council may include Laboratory notifications premises notified in 2011 or 2012 and also in previous Data on laboratory notifications of pathogens under years. Even so, this may not accurately reflect the total Schedule 5 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations number of class 4 food premises in operation, as some 2009 were supplied from Department of Health Food of those recorded in these council systems may have Safety and Regulation Unit Regulatory and Incident ceased to operate. Management program files. • The number of notifications for some councils is low in 2012 compared with 2011. This may be because those Complaints councils have only reported new notifications for 2012 Data on food complaints were supplied from Department to the department. of Health Food Safety and Regulatory Unit Regulatory and For these reasons, notifications should not be compared Incident Management program files. across councils.
166 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food recalls to obtain information from other sources for the purpose of ensuring that the information on the register is reliable Data on food recalls were sourced from the Department of and verified. Health Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s Regulatory and Incident Management Recalls Register. The data only includes convictions in 2011 or 2012. It excludes all Victorian food premises in relation to Food premises closures by councils which prosecutions for offences under the Food Act were brought by councils, where the matter has been Under s. 19 of the Food Act 1984, a council may decided by the court during these years: temporarily order the closure of a food premises until major • and the outcome was a finding of guilt but where or ongoing problems relating to adequate hygiene and no conviction was recorded food handling at the premises are remedied. Such an order would be issued where necessary to protect public health. • with a finding of not guilty, or where the charges were In such serious cases, the business may only resume withdrawn or struck out. operations once the problems have been fixed. To access the register of convictions go to
167 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Limitations of the data Data novelty Councils commenced collecting the data for these reports at a time of major change to the Act. In particular, a four-tier food premises classification system had replaced the previous two-tier system in July 2010. In 2011 new enforcement powers were introduced, along with a new statewide single registration system for temporary and mobile food premises and a new statewide approach to food sampling surveillance.
Councils are also reporting against a new dataset that is significantly different from those that had been used by individual councils over many years. During the data collection periods, upgrades to IT systems to enable councils to collect and report the required data were also being made by some councils.
While councils and departmental staff have endeavoured to ensure that the data presented in this report are complete and accurate, it is likely in the circumstances that the report contains some errors. For example, councils may have or under- or over-reported food premises numbers or compliance activities, or incorrectly recorded a food premises as class 1, 2, 3 or 4 at the time when data was collated for this report.
168 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 2: Governance
Food regulation system The purpose of the Act is to ensure the wholesomeness and purity of food sold in Victoria. It does this by: Food regulation in Victoria is managed by two state government departments, two state statutory authorities • setting out offences for breaches of the food laws and and 79 local councils. The Commonwealth Government the applicable penalties and defences also has a key role. • providing the means through which the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is applied as the law in The three levels of government share responsibility for Victoria (it includes the national Food Safety Standards developing and administering food regulation within a and the Food Standards Code developed by Food framework that endeavours to harmonise regulatory Standards Australia and New Zealand) requirements relating to a widely dispersed and varied • establishing a food premises classification system and food industry. enforcement powers, including emergency powers The Commonwealth and state governments jointly develop where there are immediate threats to public health national food standards, which are embodied in the Food • providing the means through which municipal councils Standards Code. These standards are given force through regulate food businesses. state legislation that allocates, in Victoria’s case, significant enforcement responsibility to local government. Ministerial directions and Victoria has two principal streams of food safety regulation. council actions The first applies to the sale of food and some aspects of Victoria has a devolved regulatory system with each of primary production. These are governed by the Food Act the 79 councils having responsibility for administering 1984 (Vic.). It also focuses on the general manufacturing the Act in its municipality. As such, it is important to have sectors. The second applies to the primary production, a statutory mechanism that can be invoked, if required, manufacture and transport for sale of meat, seafood and to ensure significant policy issues are addressed in a dairy products, which are regulated through industry- consistent way across the state. specific Acts. Section 7E of the Food Act enables the Minister for Health The 79 councils administer the Food Act with its to issue directions to councils. objectives of ensuring food is safe and suitable for human consumption, avoiding misleading conduct and giving In practice it is envisaged that such a power would only be effect to national food standards. exercised as a last resort, where cooperative measures, or the release of statewide guidance by the department, are The Department of Health’s Food Safety Unit also has some insufficient, for example, if a council has failed to act of its regulatory responsibilities, along with its policy advisory own accord to remedy a significant systemic problem. role. Dairy Food Safety Victoria regulates the dairy sector and PrimeSafe regulates meat and seafood. Consumer Before issuing a direction, the minister must consider Affairs Victoria regulates misleading conduct, as does the the objectives of the Food Act and consult with local Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. government or the relevant peak representative body (that is, the Municipal Association of Victoria).
Administration of the Food Act To promote public accountability, a copy of any ministerial in Victoria direction must be included in the department’s annual report on food regulation. A direction to a specified council The principal state Act that controls the sale of food in must also be published in the council’s annual report along Victoria is the Food Act 1984. with action taken by the council as a result. Local councils and the Department of Health jointly In practice, a consultative approach between the different administer the Act. Under the Act, food business owners food safety regulators tends to be most effective. Along are legally responsible to ensure that food sold to with Victorian food regulators, the Municipal Association customers is safe and suitable to eat.
169 Appendices 2011 and 2012
of Victoria is a signatory to a memorandum of Performance measures understanding outlining the parties’ respective roles and responsibilities. This provides an opportunity to collaborate The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit reports and clarify a number of aspects of council administration. to the Victorian Parliament on the following outputs which appear in Budget paper 3: Service delivery. The paper The Minister for Health did not issue any directions to outlines departmental output statements detailing the councils under s. 7E in 2011 or 2012. goods and services that government departments intend to deliver in each year. These include the following: Victorian food agencies’ roles and collaboration Calls to food safety hotlines The department measures the number of calls made to The Victorian Committee of Food Regulators was its food safety hotlines, responding to consumer and food established to strengthen existing arrangements between businesses’ questions and complaints regarding food food regulators. safety legal requirements and practice.
The committee reports to the Minister for Health and the The food safety hotline provides a service to respond to Minister for Agriculture and Food Security. It oversees general food and safety enquiries. a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Victorian agencies involved in food safety enforcement Calls to food safety hotlines that are answered and seeks to protect public health in Victoria through The department also measures the extent to which ensuring a high level of food safety by outlining respective it is meeting the community’s needs with respect to roles and establishing a collaborative approach between responding to queries about food safety. the agencies. Complaints responses The parties to the MOU are: The average time taken from notification of a food • Department of Health complaint to commencement of appropriate action • Municipal Association of Victoria is measured. • Dairy Food Safety Victoria Also measured is the responsiveness of the department’s • PrimeSafe. Food Safety Unit to complaints and referrals. The Food The MOU can be accessed at
170 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 3: Functions, accountabilities and legislation
Food Safety and Regulation Unit Their ongoing work includes investigating alleged food safety incidents, initiating and coordinating food recalls, The Food Safety and Regulation Unit is part of the Health responding to public health incidents and emergencies, Protection Branch of the Wellbeing, Integrated Care and handling enquiries and complaints, gathering and analysing Ageing Division of the Victorian Department of Health. data, undertaking research, public reporting, providing The role of the unit is to protect the community from information, education and tools to promote food safety food-related harm, to support public health through and compliance with food laws and performing the strategic regulatory policy analysis and development and department’s statutory functions (for example approval to influence thinking, policy and programs to achieve a of food safety templates and food safety auditors and healthier community. maintaining the statewide register of convictions of food businesses). The unit’s food safety teams are responsible for administering the Food Act 1984, which applies to most Legislation administered by the unit food businesses in the state. The Act aims to ensure food is safe and suitable for human consumption, to prevent • Food Act 1984 misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food • Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and to provide for the application in Victoria of the national • Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009 Food Standards Code. As food safety and regulation is Other legislation of particular relevance to the unit’s work multidimensional and is shared across all three levels of government, the unit works with a range of partners in • Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Act 1991 carrying out its functions. (Cwlth) • Freedom of Information Act 1982 Under the Act, councils are the regulators of food • Victorian Local Government Act 1989 businesses in their municipalities, while the department • Public Administration Act 2004 is responsible for food policy and regulatory issues of regional, statewide or national significance. The • Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 department has a statutory role of providing guidance to • Quarantine Act 1908 (Cwlth). councils to promote the consistent administration of the Food Act across the state and for publishing data relating to the Act’s administration.
The Minister for Health is Victoria’s lead minister on the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. The Minister is required to vote on behalf of Victoria on all food standards and national policy proposals and takes a whole-of-government position to the Ministerial Council.
A key function of the unit is to support the Minister by conducting research and analysis and providing advice and recommendations to the government on all national food policy and regulatory proposals. The unit participates in a whole-of-government food regulation group to ensure comprehensive advice to government and manages a substantial intergovernmental work program.
The food safety teams manage numerous interrelated projects deriving from a multi-year work program to implement and embed the major changes to the Food Act.
171 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Appendix 4: Resources and publications
Year Title Audience Description 2011 Jan Safe food storage and display in food Business Information for food premises regarding safe food businesses (2pp., online) storage and display Your guide to food safety Public Booklet explaining how simple practices can ensure (16pp., online and print) that the food people buy and take home to prepare remains safe and enjoyable Feb Emergency catering food handlers’ checklist Business Flyer explaining what food handlers need to do to (1p., online) keep food safe Emergency catering supervisors’ checklist Business Flyer explaining what supervisors need to do to keep (1p., online) food safe Food safety and emergency power failure General Flyer explaining how to keep food safe in a (1p., online) power failure Emergency power failure food storage General Checklist for keeping food safe in a power failure checklist (1p., online) Victoria’s food safety audit system Business Food safety audit information for food premises (3pp., online) Information for applicants to be a Food Act Specific Information for applicants to be an analyst under the analyst (1p., online) Food Act 1984 Mar Food Act report 2010 General First annual report – for the calendar year 2010 – (140pp., online and print) on the activities, operations and achievements of the Department of Health and local governments under the Food Act 1984 Apr Developing a class 2 food safety program Template Guide to assist template developers to develop template version 2 (20pp., online) developers an industry-specific class 2 food safety program template Jul Statement of trade for temporary food Business Proforma that temporary food premises proprietors premises – Food Act 1984 (Vic) (2pp., online) Community can use to inform all relevant councils of where and when they will be trading in their districts Statement of trade for mobile food premises – Business Proforma that mobile food premises proprietors can Food Act 1984 (Vic) (2pp., online) and use to inform all relevant councils of where and when community they will be trading in their districts Statement of trade for food vending machines Business Proforma that food vending machine proprietors can – Food Act 1984 (Vic) (2pp., online) use to inform all relevant councils of where they will be trading in their districts Statement of trade for water transport vehicle Business Proforma that water carters can use to inform all – Food Act 1984 (2pp., online) relevant councils that they will be trading in their districts Food vending machines – Statewide Business Flyer explaining changes to the Food Act 1984 registration or notification 4pp.,( online) affecting food vending machines Infringement offences under the Food Act General Summary of offences for which infringement notices 1984 (7pp., online) may be issued under the Food Act Private drinking water carters – Business Advice for private drinking water carters on their Approval to operate in Victoria (3pp., online) changed regulatory requirements under the Food Act
172 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Year Title Audience Description Aug Arabic – Food safety program, No. 1, Business Arabic translation of food safety program – version 2 (107 pp., online) Class 2 retail and food businesses version 1.2 Arabic – Food safety program version 1.2, Business Arabic translation of food safety program – Supplementary practices section (Safe water version 1.2 – Supplementary practices section and food, sushi, Chinese-style roast meats) (46pp., online) Chinese – Food safety program, No. 1, Business Chinese translation of food safety program – version 2 (107pp., online) Class 2 retail and food businesses version 1.2 Chinese – Food safety program version 1.2, Business Chinese translation of food safety program – Supplementary practices section – version 1.2 – Supplementary practices section (Safe water and food, sushi, Chinese-style roast meats) (23pp., online) Chinese – Food safety program template Business Chinese translation of food safety program template records version 2 (62pp., online) records – Class 2 retail and food businesses version 2 Vietnamese – Food safety program, Business Vietnamese translation of food safety program – No. 1, version 2 (114pp., online) Class 2 retail and food businesses version 1.2 Vietnamese – Food safety program – Business Vietnamese translation of food safety program Supplementary practices section version 1.2 template – version 1.2 – Supplementary practices – (Safe water and food, sushi, Chinese-style section roast meats) (46pp., online) Vietnamese – Food safety program template Business Vietnamese translation of food safety program records, No. 1, version 2 (62pp., online) template records – Class 2 retail and food businesses version 2 Sep Donating food to emergency services (1p., Public Advice for the public on the best ways to assist online) during an emergency – published jointly with Australian Red Cross Oct Food safety tips – Class 4 premises – Community Food safety tips for community and Cake stalls (2pp., online) groups not-for-profit cake stalls Guide to food safety regulation for community Community Guide to food safety for community and groups – Cake stalls (2pp., online) groups not-for-profit cake stalls Food safety tips – Class 4 premises – Community Food safety tips for community and Sausage sizzles (2pp., online) groups not-for-profit sausage sizzles Guide to food safety regulation for community Community Guide to food safety for community and groups – Sausage sizzles (2pp., online) groups not-for-profit sausage sizzles Guide to food safety regulation for community Community Overview of food safety and food safety regulation groups – Food fundraisers (5pp., online) groups for community groups Food safety guide for community groups – Community Comprehensive guide to food safety and food safety Class 3 (32pp., online) groups regulation for class 3 community food premises Research project proposal (1p., online) Researchers Application template for proposals to the Evidence for Policy Program, Food Safety and Regulation Unit, Department of Health Nov Food vans and stalls – Single approval to Community Guide to Food Act changes for food vans and stalls operate in Victoria, class 2, 3 and 4 groups (4pp., online)
173 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Year Title Audience Description Dec Information about food vending machines – Business Regulatory advice for class 2 food vending machine class 2 (3pp., online) proprietors Information about food vending machines – Business Regulatory advice for class 3 food vending machine class 3 (2pp., online) proprietors Victorian Government Gazettes Feb Gazette No S 47, 17 Feb 2011, Food Public and The declaration under the Food Act 1984 setting out sampling requirements (8pp, online) business the new statewide food sampling regime for councils Nov Gazette No S 372, 17 Nov 2011, Temporary Public and The declaration under the Food Act 1984 setting out and mobile food premises and food vending business the details about how councils register temporary machines (12pp, online) and mobile food premises and vending machines under the statewide approach 2012 Feb Food safety rules poster (1p., online) General Food safety poster (A4) – includes: cold storage, preparation, cooking food, cooling food, cross- contamination, cleaning Mar Summary: Guide to the Food Act changes General Guide to changes to the Food Act 1984 which came (2pp., online) into force in March 2011 Apr Community group temporary and mobile food Community Template to assist class 2 community groups that premises template – class 2 (40pp., online) groups wish to operate temporary or mobile food premises to create a food safety program Egg safety for restaurants, cafés and caterers Business Food safety advice on proper storage, handling and (2pp., online) preparation of raw eggs and raw egg products May Arabic – Egg safety restaurants, cafés and Business As above, in Arabic caterers (2pp., online) Chinese – Egg safety restaurants, cafés and Business As above, in Chinese caterers (2pp., online) Application for approval to be a food safety Auditors Application for approval to be a (new) food safety auditor under the Food Act (new auditor) auditor under the Food Act 1984 (6pp., online) Application for continuation of approval to Auditors Application for continuation of approval to be a food be a food safety auditor under the Food Act safety auditor under the Food Act (renewal) (6pp., online) Auditor arrangement (6pp., online) Auditors An undertaking completed by applicants who are applying to the Department of Health for approval to audit food businesses under the Food Act 1984 Jul Food handler skills and knowledge General Flyer providing information about the skills and (2pp., online) knowledge required by food handlers under the national Australian Food Safety Standard 3.2.2
174 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Year Title Audience Description Aug Streatrader – Fact sheet for councils Council Introduction to Streatrader – the online system for (2pp., online) traders to register and notify temporary and mobile food premises and water transport vehicles in Victoria Selling packaged meat from a vehicle or stall Business Flyer explaining how the Food Act applies to traders (2pp., online) whose main activity is selling packaged meat from vehicles or stalls (including from a licensed meat transport vehicle at a market) Notification of mobile food premises – Business Proforma for completion by operators of meat licensed meat transport vehicle at markets transport vehicles who sell packaged meat at only - Food Act 1984 (Vic) (5pp., online). markets to notify council of their trading Streatrader User Manual Business A quick guide to the key functionality of Streatrader and – the online system for traders to register and notify community temporary and mobile food premises and water groups transport vehicles in Victoria – and tips about using the system Streatrader – New registration and notification Business Outline of the Streatrader registration and notification website for temporary and mobile food process and website for temporary and mobile food businesses – A5 flyer for business businesses (2pp., online and print) Streatrader – New registration and notification Community Outline of the Streatrader registration and notification website for community groups selling food – groups process and website for community groups A5 brochure community groups (2pp., online conducting temporary and mobile food fundraising and print) activities Streatrader – Council user manual Council A guide for council users of the Streatrader system (141pp., print) Eggs – New laws for selling eggs. Egg Business Information for business on changes to the law for retailers, distributors and wholesalers selling eggs and egg products (1p., online). Streatrader A3 and A4 posters Council Large and small posters promoting new registration (online and print) website for temporary and mobile food sellers. Digital version can be edited by councils for local use Dec Using Streatrader – A quick start guide Business A quick guide for new users of Streatrader on (2pp., online) and lodging a registration application or notification to community council groups Using Streatrader – Business Frequently asked questions and answers regarding Frequently asked questions and how to register or notify a food van or stall using the community Streatrader online registration system groups Guide to remote monitoring of temperatures in Business Guide to remote temperature monitoring of food storage units, version 1 (20pp, online) refrigeration and/or freezer units for class 2 fixed food premises
175 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Year Title Audience Description Victorian Government Gazettes Feb Gazette No. S 36, 14 Feb 2012, Declaration General The declaration under the Food Act 1984 setting out under section 32A of the Food Act 1984. the food sampling requirements for councils Food Sampling Requirements (8pp., online) Oct Gazette, No. S 337, 11 Oct 2012, Sale of General Declaration of exemption for licensed meat transport packaged meat at markets (4pp., online) vehicles from the requirement to be registered under the Food Act when selling packaged meat at markets Nov Gazette, No. S 387, 21 Nov 2012, Exemption General Instrument permitting retailers to sell eggs that are for retail and catering (relating to eggs) not stamped with the egg farmer’s identification (3pp., online) stamp. (This complements the separate exemption for farmers from the requirement to stamp their eggs, which was issued under the Act at the same time by the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries.) It also provides that egg producers do not need to register with their local council to sell eggs from the farm gate. Gazette No. S 392, 22 Nov 2012, Order General Department of Environment and Primary Industries exempting persons from primary production declaration and processing requirements of the Food Standards Code (4pp., online)
176 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 5: Websites
Food safety website, Department of Health Foodsmart www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety www.foodsmart.vic.gov.au
Approved food safety auditors Food Standards Australia New Zealand www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/auditing www.foodstandards.gov.au
Better Health Channel: food safety Food Standards Code www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles. www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx nsf/pages/hl_foodnutrition?open&cat=Food_and_ Gazetted food sampling requirements nutrition_-_Food_safety 2011: www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/ Chief Health Officer GG2011S047.pdf#page=1 www.health.vic.gov.au/chiefhealthofficer 2012: www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2012/ GG2012S036.pdf#page=2 Council health units www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/ Infectious Diseases Epidemiology and Surveillance find-your-local-council (IDEAS) ideas.health.vic.gov.au Dairy Food Safety Victoria www.dairysafe.vic.gov.au Memorandum of understanding between Victorian agencies involved in food safety enforcement Department of Health and Ageing Food Regulation www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info/mou Secretariat www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/ Office of Local Government, Department of Transport, Content/foodsecretariat-1 Planning and Local Infrastructure www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment dofoodsafely – free online learning program for food handlers PrimeSafe dofoodsafely.health.vic.gov.au www.primesafe.vic.gov.au
Food Act 1984 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 www.legislation.vic.gov.au www.legislation.vic.gov.au
Food Act 1984 offences for which Registered food safety auditors infringement notices may be issued www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/auditing www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/enforce Register of convictions under Food Act 1984 Food business classification tool www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info/register www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/foodclass/ Streatrader Food labelling review https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au/public_site www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au Victorian Committee of Food Regulators Food Regulation Secretariat www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info/mou www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/ Victorian food regulation and legislation Content/foodsecretariat-1 www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info Food Safety Evidence for Policy program www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/evidence
Food safety program templates www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/templates
177 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Appendix 6: Acronyms and abbreviations
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
ANZFA Australia New Zealand Food Authority
COAG Council of Australian Governments
DFSV Dairy Food Safety Victoria
DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (formerly Department of Primary Industries).
enHealth Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) is a standing committee of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC). The role of the AHPC is to coordinate a national approach to preventing and responding to public health emergencies, communicable disease (excluding chronic disease) threats and environmental threats to public health, including long-term threats.
FoFR Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation
FRSC Food Regulation Standing Committee
FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system
ISC Implementation Sub-Committee of the Food Standards Standing Committee
LGA local government area
MAV Municipal Association of Victoria
MOU memorandum of understanding
VCEC Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission
VCFR Victorian Committee of Food Regulators
178 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 7: Glossary of terms
Act In this report, unless otherwise specified, ‘the Act’ refers to the VictorianFood Act 1984.
Approved auditor Auditors who are approved by the Department of Health under the Food Act 1984 to audit food premises’ food safety programs. They may be independent private auditors or council officers who are approved to conduct audits on behalf of their councils.
Audit An audit of a food safety program to determine that it is adequate, and that the food premises is compliant with the program and with its obligations under the Food Safety Standards.
Audited whole-of-business A proprietary quality assurance system or code that applies to a specific business as a QA system whole and that is audited. This system or code must be declared (recognised) under the Food Act 1984. A QA food safety program is a program that an approved auditor has certified as being prepared under such a declared system or code, and as complying with the requirements of the Food Act 1984.
Class 1 food premises Premises that predominantly handle high-risk food that is served to vulnerable people in hospitals, childcare centres providing long day childcare, and aged care facilities, such as nursing homes.
Class 2 food premises Premises that handle high-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times – including cooking and storage – to keep them safe.
Class 3 food premises Premises that handle unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, or short-term community group ‘cook and serve’ activities.
Class 4 food premises Premises carrying out only low-risk activities such as bottled jams or honey. Also covers simple sausage sizzles, most cake stalls, and sessional kindergartens supplying low-risk snacks.
Code See Food Standards Code.
Conditional registration A condition placed by a council on a new, renewal or transfer of registration of a food premises.
Community group For the purposes of the Food Act 1984, a community group refers to an organisation that sells food solely for the purposes of raising funds for charity or is a not-for-profit body.
Compliance A situation where regulatory requirements under the Food Act 1984 are met. Food premises or individuals take action to comply with regulatory requirements and councils take action to ensure compliance, such as education, enforcement, prosecution and other tools to change behaviour.
Compliance check A check conducted to investigate whether food premises or individuals are complying with the Food Act 1984. It may be an audit, assessment or inspection depending on the nature of the activities being examined.
Council assessment Where a food safety program template has been used to prepare a standard food safety program, an assessment of a food premises that involves determining whether the correct template is being used by the business, and whether the premises is complying with its food safety program and the food safety standards.
Dairy Food Safety Victoria The independent regulator of Victoria’s dairy industry. (DFSV)
Department In this report, unless otherwise specified, the term ‘the department’ refers to the Victorian Department of Health.
179 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Discretionary council An inspection of a food premises that is conducted at the discretion of the council. It may inspection be conducted because the council has concerns about the food business, or in response to any complaints received about the premises, or it may be a random spot check.
dofoodsafely A free Department of Health online learning program to give food handlers the basic knowledge they need to prepare and handle food safely.
Enforceable undertaking An administrative sanction available to deal with labelling breaches of the Food Act 1984. To achieve this, the food business proprietor usually promises to take a specified action within an agreed timeframe to remedy the breach. This promise may be enforced in the Magistrate’s Court by the regulator if the proprietor does not comply with the terms of the undertaking.
Food Act 1984 The principal state Act that controls the sale of food in Victoria. Under the Act, food business owners must ensure food sold to customers is safe and suitable to eat. In this report, unless otherwise specified, the terms the‘ Act’ and ‘the Food Act’ refer to this Act.
Food business For Food Act 1984 purposes, a business, enterprise or activity (other than those involved in primary production) that involves handling of food sold or intended for sale.
Food business Web-enabled tool that assists councils to consistently classify food premises as either class classification tool 1, 2, 3 or 4 for Food Act 1984 purposes. The tool describes a wide range of food business activities and applies a classification of 1 to 4 according to the food safety risk of each activity.
Food handling The making, manufacturing, producing, collecting, extracting, processing, storing, transporting, delivering, preparing, treating, preserving, packing, cooking, thawing, serving or displaying of food.
Food premises For the purposes of the Food Act 1984 this refers to any premises at, on or from which food is sold or handled with the intention that it be sold, except primary food production premises.
Food premises The Food Act 1984 groups food premises into four classes and sets out different food safety classification system requirements for each class based on the food safety risks of its highest risk food handling activity. The classes range from highest risk (class 1) to lowest risk (class 4). The level of regulation is largely determined by the microbial hazards posed by food handling onsite. The greater the chance of something going wrong during the food handling process and the greater the potential impact on people’s health, the higher the level of regulation.
Food recall A request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a food product due to the discovery of safety issues. A recall may be mandatory or voluntary.
Food safety Refers to a food supply that does not endanger consumer health through biological, chemical and/or other contaminants. Food safety and quality control ensures the desirable characteristics of food are retained through the cycle of production, handling, processing, packaging, distribution, preparation and sale.
Food safety program A documented plan developed by a business that describes how it will manage food safety through the identification and control of hazards in the production, manufacturing and handling of food as described in the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. The plan also specifies the records that the business maintains to demonstrate the implementation of the plan and actions taken to keep food safe.
Food safety program The records class 2 food premises must keep under the Food Act 1984 in order to monitor records food safety and hygiene in the business.
180 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Food safety supervisor Under the Food Act 1984 class 1 and most class 2 businesses must have a food safety supervisor whose role is to supervise food handling in the business, make sure that all staff understand how to handle food safely and are following the food safety program.
Food safety surveillance The surveillance of food for chemical and microbiological contaminants. In Victoria, the department monitors the safety of food in the food chain in conjunction with local governments and associated laboratories. Under the Food Act 1984, food analysts regularly test food samples submitted by councils for pathogens that can cause food poisoning. There is a coordinated approach to food sampling across the state.
FoodSmart An online Department of Health approved food safety program template designed to allow class 2 food service and food retail businesses to complete their own food safety program. FoodSmart may also be suitable for some food manufacturing businesses.
Food Standards Code The Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code is collection of bi-national standards designed to promote national consistency in Australia’s and New Zealand’s food laws. It lists requirements for foods such as additives, food safety, labelling and genetically modified foods. Enforcement and interpretation of the Code is the responsibility of state/territory departments and food agencies within Australia and New Zealand.
FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FZANZ) is a statutory authority operating under the Commonwealth Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. This authority develops, in conjunction with all states, territories and industry, standards for food composition, labelling and contaminants, including microbiological limits, that apply to all foods produced or imported for sale in Australia and New Zealand. These standards cover the food supply chain – from farm-gate to plate – for both the food manufacturing industry and primary producers. Under the Food Act 1984, businesses are required to comply with these standards.
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, or HACCP, is a systematic preventive approach to food safety and allergenic, chemical and biological hazards in production processes that can cause the finished product to be unsafe. It also designs measurements to reduce these risks to a safe level.
High-risk food The nature of food, together with the way it is handled and the vulnerability to illness of the person eating the food, determines food safety risk. The terms ‘high-risk’ and ‘low-risk’ are used in this report for ease of reference. High-risk food should be taken to refer to foods that require more careful handling to keep them safe. This usually involves temperature control (refrigeration and/or cooking to a sufficiently high temperature) to control or killpathogens that can cause poisoning.
Independent food safety A food safety program tailored specifically for the food premises. The Food Act 1984 program describes them as ‘non-standard food safety programs’. They are often referred to as proprietary or independent programs.
Infringement notice An infringement notice requires payment of a fine as a penalty for breaking the law. Since 1 March 2011 infringement notices may be issued in Victoria for certain hygiene or handling breaches under the Food Act 1984. The list of infringement offences are contained in Schedule 1 of the Act.
Initial registration The initial grant of registration to a food premises by the responsible council.
Interface councils A self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues and that work together on various matters.
181 Appendices 2011 and 2012
Legislative and Governance The body that oversees the regulation of food safety in Australia and New Zealand. Forum on Food Regulation The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) (FoFR) previously performed this role.
Mandatory council An inspection of a food premises required under the Food Act 1984 that is conducted by inspection the council for purposes including ensuring that the premises is complying with the Act and the applicable food safety standards and the Food Standards Code.
Minimum records class 3 The simple records class 3 food premises must keep under the Food Act 1984 in order to monitor food safety and hygiene at the premises.
Mobile food premises A food premises that is a vehicle, for example, a food van or coffee cart.
NATA The National Association of Testing Authorities is responsible for accrediting laboratories, inspection bodies, calibration services, producers of certified reference materials and proficiency testing scheme providers throughout Australia. It is also Australia’s compliance monitoring authority for the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice.
Noncompliance A situation where a food premises or individual does not follow the regulatory requirements under the Food Act 1984.
Notification Once-off requirement under the Food Act 1984 for a class 4 food premises to inform the responsible council of the basic details of a food premises, such as business type, nature of business, food types handled, physical address and contact details.
OzFoodNet OzFoodNet was established by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing in 2000 as a collaborative initiative with Australia’s state and territory health authorities to provide better understanding of the causes and incidence of foodborne disease in the community and to provide an evidence base for policy formulation.
Pathogen A bacterium, virus or other microorganism that can cause disease.
PrimeSafe A statutory authority operating under the Meat Industry Act 1993 and Seafood Safety Act 2003 to regulate the safety of meat, poultry and seafood.
Principal council Under Victoria’s statewide system for registration/notification of a food van or stall, one council must be primarily responsible and approves a business’s food handling operations at its portable premises. Known as the ‘principal council’, this is the council a food business will deal with most in the future. In effect, the principal council registers the food van or stall for the state and therefore on behalf of all other councils in whose districts it will trade. It is responsible, together with those ‘trading councils’, for monitoring compliance. It can take enforcement action where this is required.
Register of convictions Section 53D of the Food Act 1984 requires the Secretary to the Department of Health to keep a register of convictions for offences under the Food Act or the regulations. Section 53E requires that register to be published on a Department of Health website. See
Registering council Under the Food Act 1984 municipal councils are responsible for classifying food premises within their municipal districts.
Registration Requirement under the Food Act 1984 for class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register with the responsible council.
182 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Risk-based classification Under the Food Act 1984, food premises classification is based on the type of food handled or produced by the business and is largely determined by the microbial hazards posed by food handled on site, that is, the more potential for things to go wrong during a business’s food handling processes, and the greater the impact on people’s health when food becomes hazardous during the food handling process, the higher the classification. This risk-based approach enables resources to be targeted to the areas where they are most needed and will prove most effective. It involves a series of steps to identify and assess food safety risks and then apply appropriate measures to control these risks.
Standard food safety A food safety program is a written plan that shows how the business will ensure the food program sold is safe. A standard food safety program is prepared using a template that has been registered with the Department of Health. It is a more straightforward and inexpensive approach for businesses compared with employing someone to prepare an independent (proprietary) food safety program tailored specifically for the business.
Statement of trade Once the principal council grants statewide registration/notification to food vans or stalls, proprietors must inform all relevant councils about their trading intentions. At least five days before trading, they must lodge a Food Act statement of trade in each council district where their vans or stalls will be operating.
Streatrader Streatrader is an online system managed by the department for traders to register and notify temporary and mobile food premises and water transport vehicles in Victoria.
Temporary food premises Generally refers to a tent, stall or other structure that is not permanently fixed to a site from which food is sold.
Transfer of registration The transfer of registration of a food premises to the new proprietor.
Water transport vehicle A vehicle used by a private water carter to transport water that is intended for human consumption or for purposes connected with human consumption.
183 Appendices 2011
184 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 8: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, region and municipality, Victoria,* as at December 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) 10 (3%) 229 (66%) 54 (16%) 53 (15%) 0 (0%) 346 (100%) Corangamite (S) 11 (5%) 126 (62%) 41 (20%) 26 (13%) 0 (0%) 204 (100%) Glenelg (S) 6 (3%) 133 (76%) 13 (7%) 24 (14%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 94 (4%) 1,177 (56%) 494 (23%) 354 (17%) 0 (0%) 2,119 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 119 (63%) 42 (22%) 23 (12%) 0 (0%) 190 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (2%) 63 (68%) 14 (15%) 14 (15%) 0 (0%) 93 (100%) Southern 6 (3%) 126 (59%) 47 (22%) 36 (17%) 0 (0%) 215 (100%) Grampians (S) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 230 (65%) 83 (23%) 34 (10%) 0 (0%) 356 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 15 (4%) 226 (68%) 52 (16%) 41 (12%) 0 (0%) 334 (100%) Subtotal 159 (4%) 2,429 (60%) 840 (21%) 605 (15%) 0 (0%) 4,033 (100%) Eastern Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 95 (8%) 733 (59%) 240 (19%) 176 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,244 (100%) Knox (C) 71 (6%) 564 (48%) 361 (31%) 171 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,167 (100%) Manningham (C) 57 (8%) 430 (57%) 163 (21%) 110 (14%) 0 (0%) 760 (100%) Maroondah (C) 61 (8%) 404 (51%) 210 (26%) 118 (15%) 0 (0%) 793 (100%) Monash (C) 73 (6%) 752 (58%) 330 (25%) 151 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,306 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 679 (62%) 219 (20%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,100 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 643 (51%) 362 (29%) 202 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,261 (100%) Subtotal 480 (6%) 4,205 (55%) 1,885 (25%) 1,061 (14%) 0 (0%) 7,631 (100%) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 9 (2%) 274 (73%) 46 (12%) 48 (13%) 0 (0%) 377 (100%) Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 416 (80%) 86 (16%) 7 (1%) 0 (0%) 523 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 24 (7%) 225 (68%) 73 (22%) 9 (3%) 0 (0%) 331 (100%) Latrobe City (C) 33 (6%) 270 (52%) 103 (20%) 113 (22%) 0 (0%) 519 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 12 (4%) 206 (75%) 52 (19%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 274 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 252 (62%) 64 (16%) 75 (18%) 0 (0%) 406 (100%) Subtotal 107 (4%) 1,643 (68%) 424 (17%) 256 (11%) 0 (0%) 2,430 (100%) Grampians Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 100 (65%) 45 (29%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 153 (100%) Ballarat (C) 51 (6%) 510 (58%) 104 (12%) 214 (24%) 0 (0%) 879 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 2 (2%) 85 (71%) 25 (21%) 8 (7%) 0 (0%) 120 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 159 (45%) 135 (39%) 49 (14%) 0 (0%) 350 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 56 (66%) 12 (14%) 11 (13%) 0 (0%) 85 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 128 (53%) 80 (33%) 25 (10%) 0 (0%) 240 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (3%) 113 (45%) 90 (36%) 39 (16%) 0 (0%) 250 (100%)
185 Appendices 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Northern 4 (4%) 43 (39%) 51 (46%) 12 (11%) 0 (0%) 110 (100%) Grampians (S) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 45 (44%) 37 (36%) 18 (18%) 0 (0%) 102 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 39 (70%) 13 (23%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 56 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 77 (84%) 5 (5%) 6 (7%) 0 (0%) 92 (100%) Subtotal 100 (4%) 1,355 (56%) 597 (24%) 385 (16%) 0 (0%) 2,437 (100%) Hume Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (67%) 49 (20%) 24 (10%) 0 (0%) 246 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 72 (48%) 53 (35%) 21 (14%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Greater 33 (6%) 314 (57%) 121 (22%) 86 (16%) 0 (0%) 554 (100%) Shepparton (C) Indigo (S) 3 (2%) 125 (69%) 43 (24%) 9 (5%) 0 (0%) 180 (100%) Mansfield (S) 2 (1%) 115 (48%) 40 (17%) 81 (34%) 0 (0%) 238 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 164 (67%) 51 (21%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 245 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (3%) 218 (50%) 79 (18%) 123 (28%) 0 (0%) 434 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 4 (2%) 197 (81%) 25 (10%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 244 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (2%) 80 (49%) 24 (15%) 55 (34%) 0 (0%) 163 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (72%) 14 (18%) 5 (6%) 0 (0%) 79 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 192 (64%) 93 (31%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 298 (100%) Wodonga (C) 13 (6%) 140 (60%) 51 (22%) 28 (12%) 0 (0%) 232 (100%) Subtotal 115 (4%) 1,838 (60%) 643 (21%) 468 (15%) 0 (0%) 3,064 (100%) Loddon Mallee* Buloke (S) 6 (4%) 56 (37%) 76 (50%) 13 (9%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (3%) 261 (56%) 100 (22%) 88 (19%) 0 (0%) 464 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 7 (5%) 94 (67%) 14 (10%) 25 (18%) 0 (0%) 140 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 1 (1%) 28 (39%) 27 (38%) 16 (22%) 0 (0%) 72 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 47 (5%) 615 (64%) 185 (19%) 118 (12%) 0 (0%) 965 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 88 (67%) 30 (23%) 10 (8%) 0 (0%) 131 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (100%) Mildura (RC) 17 (3%) 278 (57%) 175 (36%) 21 (4%) 0 (0%) 491 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (3%) 70 (40%) 59 (34%) 42 (24%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 155 (60%) 36 (14%) 57 (22%) 0 (0%) 258 (100%) Subtotal 111 (4%) 1,645 (58%) 702 (25%) 390 (14%) 0 (0%) 2,848 (100%) North & West Metropolitan Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 446 (57%) 178 (23%) 106 (14%) 0 (0%) 781 (100%) Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 700 (62%) 215 (19%) 150 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,127 (100%) Darebin (C) 63 (6%) 778 (70%) 156 (14%) 112 (10%) 0 (0%) 1,109 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 29 (4%) 420 (64%) 125 (19%) 80 (12%) 0 (0%) 654 (100%)
186 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Hume (C) 54 (5%) 666 (57%) 236 (20%) 205 (18%) 0 (0%) 1,161 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 31 (4%) 516 (64%) 165 (20%) 94 (12%) 0 (0%) 806 (100%) Melbourne (C)** 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3,934 (100%) 3,934 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 251 (59%) 77 (18%) 63 (15%) 0 (0%) 423 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 48 (5%) 627 (67%) 144 (15%) 119 (13%) 0 (0%) 938 (100%) Moreland (C) 62 (6%) 717 (65%) 202 (18%) 121 (11%) 0 (0%) 1,102 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 230 (67%) 96 (28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 345 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 47 (5%) 520 (60%) 191 (22%) 105 (12%) 0 (0%) 863 (100%) Wyndham (C) 50 (7%) 463 (61%) 143 (19%) 100 (13%) 0 (0%) 756 (100%) Yarra (C) 42 (3%) 987 (67%) 251 (17%) 195 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,475 (100%) Subtotal 590 (4%) 7,321 (47%) 2,179 (14%) 1,450 (9%) 3,934 (25%) 15,474 (100%) Southern Metropolitan Bayside (C) 48 (7%) 455 (70%) 97 (15%) 53 (8%) 0 (0%) 653 (100%) Cardinia (S) 25 (4%) 319 (51%) 182 (29%) 105 (17%) 0 (0%) 631 (100%) Casey (C) 91 (8%) 647 (59%) 274 (25%) 81 (7%) 0 (0%) 1,093 (100%) Frankston (C) 58 (9%) 444 (69%) 130 (20%) 15 (2%) 0 (0%) 647 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 56 (6%) 585 (59%) 225 (23%) 121 (12%) 0 (0%) 987 (100%) Greater 64 (5%) 852 (62%) 257 (19%) 194 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,367 (100%) Dandenong (C) Kingston (C) 66 (6%) 855 (77%) 184 (17%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,106 (100%) Mornington 62 (5%) 733 (64%) 217 (19%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,145 (100%) Peninsula (S) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 875 (67%) 199 (15%) 193 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,302 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 893 (67%) 112 (8%) 285 (21%) 0 (0%) 1,337 (100%) Subtotal 552 (5%) 6,658 (65%) 1,877 (18%) 1,181 (12%) 0 (0%) 10,268 (100%) Victoria 2,214 (5%) 27,094 (56%) 9,147 (19%) 5,796 (12%) 3,934 (8%) 48,185 (100%)
Notes: Food Act 1984 food premises classification * The total number of premises for Loddon Mallee Region does not Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times was not submitted. to keep them safe ** As Melbourne City Council in North & West Metropolitan Region was Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, unable to stratify food premises data by class, its food premises are occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods listed under the column showing class not available. Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register low-risk food. annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify Legend the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and (B) Borough contact details on a once-off basis. (C) City Council (S) Shire Council (RC) Rural City
187 Appendices 2011
Appendix 9: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, region and municipality type, Victoria,* as at December 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Metropolitan Inner metropolitan Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 446 (57%) 178 (23%) 106 (14%) 0 (0%) 781 (100%) Bayside (C) 48 (7%) 455 (70%) 97 (15%) 53 (8%) 0 (0%) 653 (100%) Boroondara (C) 95 (8%) 733 (59%) 240 (19%) 176 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,244 (100%) Darebin (C) 63 (6%) 778 (70%) 156 (14%) 112 (10%) 0 (0%) 1,109 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 56 (6%) 585 (59%) 225 (23%) 121 (12%) 0 (0%) 987 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 29 (4%) 420 (64%) 125 (19%) 80 (12%) 0 (0%) 654 (100%) Kingston (C) 66 (6%) 855 (77%) 184 (17%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,106 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 31 (4%) 516 (64%) 165 (20%) 94 (12%) 0 (0%) 806 (100%) Maroondah (C) 61 (8%) 404 (51%) 210 (26%) 118 (15%) 0 (0%) 793 (100%) Melbourne (C)** 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3,934 (100%) 3,934 (100%) Monash (C) 73 (6%) 752 (58%) 330 (25%) 151 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,306 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 48 (5%) 627 (67%) 144 (15%) 119 (13%) 0 (0%) 938 (100%) Moreland (C) 62 (6%) 717 (65%) 202 (18%) 121 (11%) 0 (0%) 1,102 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 875 (67%) 199 (15%) 193 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,302 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 893 (67%) 112 (8%) 285 (21%) 0 (0%) 1,337 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 679 (62%) 219 (20%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,100 (100%) Yarra (C) 42 (3%) 987 (67%) 251 (17%) 195 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,475 (100%) Subtotal 876 (4%) 10,722 (52%) 3,037 (15%) 2,058 (10%) 3,934 (19%) 20,627 (100%) Middle metropolitan Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 700 (62%) 215 (19%) 150 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,127 (100%) Frankston (C) 58 (9%) 444 (69%) 130 (20%) 15 (2%) 0 (0%) 647 (100%) Greater Dandenong 64 (5%) 852 (62%) 257 (19%) 194 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,367 (100%) (C) Knox (C) 71 (6%) 564 (48%) 361 (31%) 171 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,167 (100%) Manningham (C) 57 (8%) 430 (57%) 163 (21%) 110 (14%) 0 (0%) 760 (100%) Subtotal 312 (6%) 2,990 (59%) 1,126 (22%) 640 (13%) 0 (0%) 5,068 (100%) Interface Cardinia (S) 25 (4%) 319 (51%) 182 (29%) 105 (17%) 0 (0%) 631 (100%) Casey (C) 91 (8%) 647 (59%) 274 (25%) 81 (7%) 0 (0%) 1,093 (100%) Hume (C) 54 (5%) 666 (57%) 236 (20%) 205 (18%) 0 (0%) 1,161 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 251 (59%) 77 (18%) 63 (15%) 0 (0%) 423 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 164 (67%) 51 (21%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 245 (100%) Mornington 62 (5%) 733 (64%) 217 (19%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,145 (100%) Peninsula (S) Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 230 (67%) 96 (28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 345 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 47 (5%) 520 (60%) 191 (22%) 105 (12%) 0 (0%) 863 (100%)
188 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Wyndham (C) 50 (7%) 463 (61%) 143 (19%) 100 (13%) 0 (0%) 756 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 643 (51%) 362 (29%) 202 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,261 (100%) Subtotal 446 (6%) 4,636 (59%) 1,829 (23%) 1,012 (13%) 0 (0%) 7,923 (100%) Metropolitan subtotal 1,634 (5%) 18,348 (55%) 5,992 (18%) 3,710 (11%) 3,934 (12%) 33,618 (100%) Non-metropolitan Regional cities Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 100 (65%) 45 (29%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 153 (100%) Ballarat (C) 51 (6%) 510 (58%) 104 (12%) 214 (24%) 0 (0%) 879 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 47 (5%) 615 (64%) 185 (19%) 118 (12%) 0 (0%) 965 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 94 (4%) 1,177 (56%) 494 (23%) 354 (17%) 0 (0%) 2,119 (100%) Greater Shepparton 33 (6%) 314 (57%) 121 (22%) 86 (16%) 0 (0%) 554 (100%) (C) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 128 (53%) 80 (33%) 25 (10%) 0 (0%) 240 (100%) Latrobe (C) 33 (6%) 270 (52%) 103 (20%) 113 (22%) 0 (0%) 519 (100%) Mildura (RC) 17 (3%) 278 (57%) 175 (36%) 21 (4%) 0 (0%) 491 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 155 (60%) 36 (14%) 57 (22%) 0 (0%) 258 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 192 (64%) 93 (31%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 298 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 15 (4%) 226 (68%) 52 (16%) 41 (12%) 0 (0%) 334 (100%) Wodonga (C) 13 (6%) 140 (60%) 51 (22%) 28 (12%) 0 (0%) 232 (100%) Subtotal 340 (5%) 4,105 (58%) 1,539 (22%) 1,058 (15%) 0 (0%) 7,042 (100%) Large shires Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 416 (80%) 86 (16%) 7 (1%) 0 (0%) 523 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (3%) 261 (56%) 100 (22%) 88 (19%) 0 (0%) 464 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 10 (3%) 229 (66%) 54 (16%) 53 (15%) 0 (0%) 346 (100%) Corangamite (S) 11 (5%) 126 (62%) 41 (20%) 26 (13%) 0 (0%) 204 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 24 (7%) 225 (68%) 73 (22%) 9 (3%) 0 (0%) 331 (100%) Glenelg (S) 6 (3%) 133 (76%) 13 (7%) 24 (14%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (3%) 218 (50%) 79 (18%) 123 (28%) 0 (0%) 434 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (3%) 113 (45%) 90 (36%) 39 (16%) 0 (0%) 250 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 119 (63%) 42 (22%) 23 (12%) 0 (0%) 190 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 12 (4%) 206 (75%) 52 (19%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 274 (100%) Southern 6 (3%) 126 (59%) 47 (22%) 36 (17%) 0 (0%) 215 (100%) Grampians (S) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 230 (65%) 83 (23%) 34 (10%) 0 (0%) 356 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 252 (62%) 64 (16%) 75 (18%) 0 (0%) 406 (100%) Subtotal 150 (4%) 2,654 (64%) 824 (20%) 541 (13%) 0 (0%) 4,169 (100%)
189 Appendices 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Small shires Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (67%) 49 (20%) 24 (10%) 0 (0%) 246 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 9 (2%) 274 (73%) 46 (12%) 48 (13%) 0 (0%) 377 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 72 (48%) 53 (35%) 21 (14%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Buloke (S) 6 (4%) 56 (37%) 76 (50%) 13 (9%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 7 (5%) 94 (67%) 14 (10%) 25 (18%) 0 (0%) 140 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 1 (1%) 28 (39%) 27 (38%) 16 (22%) 0 (0%) 72 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 2 (2%) 85 (71%) 25 (21%) 8 (7%) 0 (0%) 120 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 159 (45%) 135 (39%) 49 (14%) 0 (0%) 350 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 56 (66%) 12 (14%) 11 (13%) 0 (0%) 85 (100%) Indigo (S) 3 (2%) 125 (69%) 43 (24%) 9 (5%) 0 (0%) 180 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 88 (67%) 30 (23%) 10 (8%) 0 (0%) 131 (100%) Mansfield (S) 2 (1%) 115 (48%) 40 (17%) 81 (34%) 0 (0%) 238 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (3%) 70 (40%) 59 (34%) 42 (24%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 4 (2%) 197 (81%) 25 (10%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 244 (100%) Northern 4 (4%) 43 (39%) 51 (46%) 12 (11%) 0 (0%) 110 (100%) Grampians (S) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 45 (44%) 37 (36%) 18 (18%) 0 (0%) 102 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (2%) 63 (68%) 14 (15%) 14 (15%) 0 (0%) 93 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (2%) 80 (49%) 24 (15%) 55 (34%) 0 (0%) 163 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (72%) 14 (18%) 5 (6%) 0 (0%) 79 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 39 (70%) 13 (23%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 56 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 77 (84%) 5 (5%) 6 (7%) 0 (0%) 92 (100%) Subtotal 90 (3%) 1,987 (59%) 792 (24%) 487 (15%) 0 (0%) 3,356 (100%) Non-metropolitan subtotal 580 (4%) 8,746 (60%) 3,155 (22%) 2,086 (14%) 0 (0%) 14,567 (100%) Victoria 2,214 (5%) 27,094 (56%) 9,147 (19%) 5,796 (12%) 3,934 (8%) 48,185 (100%)
Notes: Food Act 1984 food premises classification * The total number of premises does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Council premises as the information was not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times ** As Melbourne City Council was unable to stratify food premises data by to keep them safe class, its food premises are listed under the column showing class not Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, available. occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify low-risk food. the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such Legend as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire Council (RC) Rural City
190 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 10: Municipalities by number of fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, Victoria,* as at December 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Number of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 food premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) More than 1200 Melbourne (C)** 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3,934 (100%) 3,934 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 94 (4%) 1,177 (56%) 494 (23%) 354 (17%) 0 (0%) 2,119 (100%) Yarra (C) 42 (3%) 987 (67%) 251 (17%) 195 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,475 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 64 (5%) 852 (62%) 257 (19%) 194 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,367 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 893 (67%) 112 (8%) 285 (21%) 0 (0%) 1,337 (100%) Monash (C) 73 (6%) 752 (58%) 330 (25%) 151 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,306 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 875 (67%) 199 (15%) 193 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,302 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 643 (51%) 362 (29%) 202 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,261 (100%) Boroondara (C) 95 (8%) 733 (59%) 240 (19%) 176 (14%) 0 (0%) 1,244 (100%) Subtotal 504 (3%) 6,912 (45%) 2,245 (15%) 1,750 (11%) 0 (0%) 15,345 (100%) 901–1200 Knox (C) 71 (6%) 564 (48%) 361 (31%) 171 (15%) 0 (0%) 1,167 (100%) Hume (C) 54 (5%) 666 (57%) 236 (20%) 205 (18%) 0 (0%) 1,161 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 62 (5%) 733 (64%) 217 (19%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,145 (100%) Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 700 (62%) 215 (19%) 150 (13%) 0 (0%) 1,127 (100%) Darebin (C) 63 (6%) 778 (70%) 156 (14%) 112 (10%) 0 (0%) 1,109 (100%) Kingston (C) 66 (6%) 855 (77%) 184 (17%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,106 (100%) Moreland (C) 62 (6%) 717 (65%) 202 (18%) 121 (11%) 0 (0%) 1,102 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 679 (62%) 219 (20%) 133 (12%) 0 (0%) 1,100 (100%) Casey (C) 91 (8%) 647 (59%) 274 (25%) 81 (7%) 0 (0%) 1,093 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 56 (6%) 585 (59%) 225 (23%) 121 (12%) 0 (0%) 987 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 47 (5%) 615 (64%) 185 (19%) 118 (12%) 0 (0%) 965 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 48 (5%) 627 (67%) 144 (15%) 119 (13%) 0 (0%) 938 (100%) Subtotal 751 (6%) 8,166 (63%) 2,618 (20%) 1,465 (11%) 0 (0%) 13,000 (100%) 601–900 Ballarat (C) 51 (6%) 510 (58%) 104 (12%) 214 (24%) 0 (0%) 879 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 47 (5%) 520 (60%) 191 (22%) 105 (12%) 0 (0%) 863 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 31 (4%) 516 (64%) 165 (20%) 94 (12%) 0 (0%) 806 (100%) Maroondah (C) 61 (8%) 404 (51%) 210 (26%) 118 (15%) 0 (0%) 793 (100%) Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 446 (57%) 178 (23%) 106 (14%) 0 (0%) 781 (100%) Manningham (C) 57 (8%) 430 (57%) 163 (21%) 110 (14%) 0 (0%) 760 (100%) Wyndham (C) 50 (7%) 463 (61%) 143 (19%) 100 (13%) 0 (0%) 756 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 29 (4%) 420 (64%) 125 (19%) 80 (12%) 0 (0%) 654 (100%) Bayside (C) 48 (7%) 455 (70%) 97 (15%) 53 (8%) 0 (0%) 653 (100%) Frankston (C) 58 (9%) 444 (69%) 130 (20%) 15 (2%) 0 (0%) 647 (100%) Cardinia (C) 25 (4%) 319 (51%) 182 (29%) 105 (17%) 0 (0%) 631 (100%)
191 Appendices 2011
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Number of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 food premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Subtotal 508 (6%) 4,927 (60%) 1,688 (21%) 1,100 (13%) 0 (0%) 8,223 (100%) 301–600 Greater Shepparton (C) 33 (6%) 314 (57%) 121 (22%) 86 (16%) 0 (0%) 554 (100%) Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 416 (80%) 86 (16%) 7 (1%) 0 (0%) 523 (100%) Latrobe (C) 33 (6%) 270 (52%) 103 (20%) 113 (22%) 0 (0%) 519 (100%) Mildura (RC) 17 (3%) 278 (57%) 175 (36%) 21 (4%) 0 (0%) 491 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (3%) 261 (56%) 100 (22%) 88 (19%) 0 (0%) 464 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (3%) 218 (50%) 79 (18%) 123 (28%) 0 (0%) 434 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 251 (59%) 77 (18%) 63 (15%) 0 (0%) 423 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 252 (62%) 64 (16%) 75 (18%) 0 (0%) 406 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 9 (2%) 274 (73%) 46 (12%) 48 (13%) 0 (0%) 377 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 230 (65%) 83 (23%) 34 (10%) 0 (0%) 356 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 159 (45%) 135 (39%) 49 (14%) 0 (0%) 350 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 10 (3%) 229 (66%) 54 (16%) 53 (15%) 0 (0%) 346 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 230 (67%) 96 (28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 345 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 15 (4%) 226 (68%) 52 (16%) 41 (12%) 0 (0%) 334 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 24 (7%) 225 (68%) 73 (22%) 9 (3%) 0 (0%) 331 (100%) Subtotal 266 (4%) 3,833 (61%) 1,344 (21%) 810 (13%) 0 (0%) 6,253 (100%) 300 or less Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 192 (64%) 93 (31%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 298 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 12 (4%) 206 (75%) 52 (19%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 274 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 155 (60%) 36 (14%) 57 (22%) 0 (0%) 258 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (3%) 113 (45%) 90 (36%) 39 (16%) 0 (0%) 250 (100%) Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (67%) 49 (20%) 24 (10%) 0 (0%) 246 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 164 (67%) 51 (21%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 245 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 4 (2%) 197 (81%) 25 (10%) 18 (7%) 0 (0%) 244 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 128 (53%) 80 (33%) 25 (10%) 0 (0%) 240 (100%) Mansfield (S) 2 (1%) 115 (48%) 40 (17%) 81 (34%) 0 (0%) 238 (100%) Wodonga (C) 13 (6%) 140 (60%) 51 (22%) 28 (12%) 0 (0%) 232 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (3%) 126 (59%) 47 (22%) 36 (17%) 0 (0%) 215 (100%) Corangamite (S) 11 (5%) 126 (62%) 41 (20%) 26 (13%) 0 (0%) 204 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 119 (63%) 42 (22%) 23 (12%) 0 (0%) 190 (100%) Indigo (S) 3 (2%) 125 (69%) 43 (24%) 9 (5%) 0 (0%) 180 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (3%) 70 (40%) 59 (34%) 42 (24%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Glenelg (S) 6 (3%) 133 (76%) 13 (7%) 24 (14%) 0 (0%) 176 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (2%) 80 (49%) 24 (15%) 55 (34%) 0 (0%) 163 (100%) Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 100 (65%) 45 (29%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 153 (100%)
192 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Other Total Class not Number of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 available** Class 1–4 food premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Buloke (S) 6 (4%) 56 (37%) 76 (50%) 13 (9%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 72 (48%) 53 (35%) 21 (14%) 0 (0%) 151 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 7 (5%) 94 (67%) 14 (10%) 25 (18%) 0 (0%) 140 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 88 (67%) 30 (23%) 10 (8%) 0 (0%) 131 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 2 (2%) 85 (71%) 25 (21%) 8 (7%) 0 (0%) 120 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 4 (4%) 43 (39%) 51 (46%) 12 (11%) 0 (0%) 110 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 45 (44%) 37 (36%) 18 (18%) 0 (0%) 102 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (2%) 63 (68%) 14 (15%) 14 (15%) 0 (0%) 93 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 77 (84%) 5 (5%) 6 (7%) 0 (0%) 92 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 56 (66%) 12 (14%) 11 (13%) 0 (0%) 85 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (72%) 14 (18%) 5 (6%) 0 (0%) 79 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 1 (1%) 28 (39%) 27 (38%) 16 (22%) 0 (0%) 72 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 39 (70%) 13 (23%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 56 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Subtotal 185 (3%) 3,256 (61%) 1,252 (23%) 671 (13%) 0 (0%) 5,364 (100%) Victoria 2,214 (5%) 27,094 (56%) 9,147 (19%) 5,796 (12%) 3,934 (0%) 48,185 (100%)
Notes: Food Act 1984 food premises classification * The total number of premises does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Council premises as the information was not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times ** As Melbourne City Council was unable to stratify food premises data by to keep them safe class, its food premises are listed under the column showing class not Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, available. occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify low-risk food. the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such Legend as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire Council (RC) Rural City
193 Appendices 2011
Appendix 11: Fixed and mobile food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, Victoria,* as at December 2011
Premises classification Department Estimated Rate per of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class not 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. available** Total persons Barwon-South Colac Otway (S) 20,578 10 229 54 53 0 346 168 Western Corangamite (S) 16,504 11 126 41 26 0 204 124 Glenelg (S) 19,843 6 133 13 24 0 176 89 Greater Geelong (C) 215,151 94 1,177 494 354 0 2,119 98 Moyne (S) 16,175 6 119 42 23 0 190 117 Queenscliffe (B) 3,054 2 63 14 14 0 93 305 Southern Grampians (S) 16,510 6 126 47 36 0 215 130 Surf Coast (S) 26,493 9 230 83 34 0 356 134 Warrnambool (C) 32,592 15 226 52 41 0 334 102 Subtotal 366,900 159 2,429 840 605 0 4,033 110 Eastern Boroondara (C) 166,818 95 733 240 176 0 1,244 75 Metropolitan Knox (C) 154,097 71 564 361 171 0 1,167 76 Manningham (C) 116,958 57 430 163 110 0 760 65 Maroondah (C) 107,144 61 404 210 118 0 793 74 Monash (C) 177,970 73 752 330 151 0 1,306 73 Whitehorse (C) 157,740 69 679 219 133 0 1,100 70 Yarra Ranges (S) 148,754 54 643 362 202 0 1,261 85 Subtotal 1,029,481 480 4,205 1,885 1,061 0 7,631 74 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 30,024 9 274 46 48 0 377 126 Baw Baw (S) 43,416 14 416 86 7 0 523 120 East Gippsland (S) 42,793 24 225 73 9 0 331 77 Latrobe (C) 73,564 33 270 103 113 0 519 71 South Gippsland (S) 27,506 12 206 52 4 0 274 100 Wellington (S) 41,945 15 252 64 75 0 406 97 Subtotal 259,248 107 1,643 424 256 0 2,430 94 Grampians Ararat (RC) 11,297 7 100 45 1 0 153 135 Ballarat (C) 95,007 51 510 104 214 0 879 93 Golden Plains (S) 18,917 2 85 25 8 0 120 63 Hepburn (S) 14,506 7 159 135 49 0 350 241 Hindmarsh (S) 5,870 6 56 12 11 0 85 145 Horsham (RC) 19,540 7 128 80 25 0 240 123 Moorabool (S) 28,600 8 113 90 39 0 250 87 Northern Grampians (S) 11,942 4 43 51 12 0 110 92 Pyrenees (S) 6,727 2 45 37 18 0 102 152 West Wimmera (S) 4,289 2 39 13 2 0 56 131 Yarriambiack (S) 7,153 4 77 5 6 0 92 129 Subtotal 223,848 100 1,355 597 385 0 2,437 109
194 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Premises classification Department Estimated Rate per of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class not 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. available** Total persons Hume Alpine (S) 12,103 9 164 49 24 0 246 203 Benalla (RC) 13,754 5 72 53 21 0 151 110 Greater Shepparton (C) 61,737 33 314 121 86 0 554 90 Indigo (S) 15,376 3 125 43 9 0 180 117 Mansfield (S) 8,031 2 115 40 81 0 238 296 Mitchell (S) 35,092 12 164 51 18 0 245 70 Moira (S) 28,435 14 218 79 123 0 434 153 Murrindindi (S) 13,174 4 197 25 18 0 244 185 Strathbogie (S) 9,622 4 80 24 55 0 163 169 Towong (S) 5,958 3 57 14 5 0 79 133 Wangaratta (RC) 27,110 13 192 93 0 0 298 110 Wodonga (C) 36,043 13 140 51 28 0 232 64 Subtotal 266,435 115 1,838 643 468 0 3,064 115 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 6,462 6 56 76 13 0 151 234 Campaspe (S) 36,665 15 261 100 88 0 464 127 Central Goldfields (S) 12,551 7 94 14 25 0 140 112 Gannawarra (S) 10,461 1 28 27 16 0 72 69 Greater Bendigo (C) 101,868 47 615 185 118 0 965 95 Loddon (S) 7,514 3 88 30 10 0 131 174 Macedon Ranges (S)* 42,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mildura (RC) 51,848 17 278 175 21 0 491 95 Mount Alexander (S) 17,803 5 70 59 42 0 176 99 Swan Hill (RC) 20,830 10 155 36 57 0 258 124 Subtotal 308,782 111 1,645 702 390 0 2,848 92 North & West Banyule (C) 122,722 51 446 178 106 0 781 64 Metropolitan Brimbank (C) 191,084 62 700 215 150 0 1,127 59 Darebin (C) 143,057 63 778 156 112 0 1,109 78 Hobsons Bay (C) 87,348 29 420 125 80 0 654 75 Hume (C) 175,063 54 666 236 205 0 1,161 66 Maribyrnong (C) 75,297 31 516 165 94 0 806 107 Melbourne (C)** 100,611 0 0 0 0 3,934 3,934 391 Melton (S) 112,168 32 251 77 63 0 423 38 Moonee Valley (C) 112,270 48 627 144 119 0 938 84 Moreland (C) 155,087 62 717 202 121 0 1,102 71 Nillumbik (S) 62,596 19 230 96 0 0 345 55 Whittlesea (C) 160,371 47 520 191 105 0 863 54 Wyndham (C) 166,038 50 463 143 100 0 756 46 Yarra (C) 79,015 42 987 251 195 0 1,475 187 Subtotal 1,742,727 590 7,321 2,179 1,450 3,934 15,474 89
195 Appendices 2011
Premises classification Department Estimated Rate per of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class not 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. available** Total persons Southern Bayside (C) 96,101 48 455 97 53 0 653 68 Metropolitan Cardinia (S) 75,573 25 319 182 105 0 631 83 Casey (C) 260,404 91 647 274 81 0 1,093 42 Frankston (C) 130,055 58 444 130 15 0 647 50 Glen Eira (C) 137,566 56 585 225 121 0 987 72 Greater Dandenong (C) 142,591 64 852 257 194 0 1,367 96 Kingston (C) 147,915 66 855 184 1 0 1,106 75 Mornington Peninsula 149,156 62 733 217 133 0 1,145 77 (S) Port Phillip (C) 97,854 35 875 199 193 0 1,302 133 Stonnington (C) 99,118 47 893 112 285 0 1,337 135 Subtotal 1,336,333 552 6,658 1,877 1,181 0 10,268 77 Victoria 5,533,754 2,214 27,094 9,147 5,796 3,934 48,185 87
Notes: Food Act 1984 food premises classification * The total number of premises does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Council premises as the information was not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times ** As Melbourne City Council was unable to stratify food premises data by to keep them safe class, its food premises are listed under the column showing class not Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, available. occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify low-risk food. the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such Legend as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire Council (RC) Rural City
196 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 12: Offences* under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2011
Type of offence No. of offences
Unsafe food
Section 8 – Knowingly handle food intended for sale in an unsafe manner 1
Section 8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render the 4 food unsafe
Section 11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsafe 2
Section 11(2) – Sell food that is unsafe 3
Unsuitable food
Section 12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsuitable 6
Section 12(2) – Sell food that is unsuitable 2
Unsafe food
Section 16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code
Food safety programs
Fail to set out the food safety program in a written document and retain that document at the food premises; 8 fail to comply with the food safety program in that adequate food safety records were not kept
Food safety practices and general requirements
• Standard 3.2.2, Clauses 19 and 21 – maintaining clean premises and fixtures in good repair 87 Fail to maintain the food premises and all fixtures, fittings and equipment having regard to its use, to a standard of cleanliness where there was no accumulation of food waste, dirt, grease or other visible matter and fail to maintain the food premises, fixtures, fittings and equipment in a good state of repair and working order having regard to their use
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 6 – storage of food 55 Fail to store food so as to protect it from the likelihood of contamination; fail to ensure the environmental conditions under which food is stored will not adversely affect its safety and suitability; fail, when storing potentially hazardous food, to store food under temperature control
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 24(1) (c) and (d) – pests 33 Fail to take all practicable measures to prevent pests entering the food premises and/or to eradicate and prevent the harbourage of pests on the food premises
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 17 – hand washing facilities 40 Fail to maintain easily accessible hand washing facilities; fail to maintain at or near each hand washing facility, a supply of warm running water and soap or other items that may be used to thoroughly clean hands; fail to ensure hand washing facilities are only used for the washing of hands, arms and face; fail to maintain at or near each hand washing facility single use towels or other means of effectively drying hands that are not likely to transfer pathogenic micro-organisms to the hands
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 7 – processing safe and suitable food 14 Fail to take all practicable measures to process only safe and suitable food; and when processing food, to take all necessary steps to prevent the likelihood of food being contaminated
197 Appendices 2011
Type of offence No. of offences
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 20 – clean utensils and food contact surfaces 16 Fail to ensure eating and drinking utensils were in a clean and sanitary condition; fail to ensure any food contact surfaces of equipment were in a clean and sanitary condition whenever food that will come into contact with the surface is likely to be contaminated
• Standard 3.2.2, Clauses 15, 18 – smoking; washing hands 13 Fail to not smoke in areas in which food is handled; fail to ensure that food handlers washed their hands whenever their hands were likely to be a source of contamination of food; fail to take all practicable measures to ensure all people on the food premises of the food business do not smoke in areas where there are unprotected food or surfaces likely to come into contact with food, do not contaminate food, and do not sneeze, blow or cough over unprotected food surfaces likely to come into contact with food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 13 – food/surfaces handling 2 Fail to take all reasonable measures not to handle food or surfaces likely to come into contact with food in a way that is likely to compromise the safety and suitability of food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 22 – lack of food thermometer 10 Fail to have temperature measuring device readily accessible, that can accurately measure the temperature of potentially hazardous food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 23(b) – potential contamination 4 Fail to take all practicable measures to protect from contamination single use items that were intended to come into contact with food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 8(5) – displaying food 4 • Fail, when displaying potentially hazardous food, to display it under temperature control
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 3(1) – food handlers’/supervisors’ knowledge and skill 11 Fail to ensure that persons undertaking or supervising food handling operations have skills in, and knowledge of, food safety and food hygiene matters
Standard 3.2.3: Food premises and equipment
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 10(1) and (2) – suitable floors 17 Fail to ensure floors are designed in a way that is appropriate for the activities conducted on the food premises; fail to have floors that were able to be effectively cleaned or unable to absorb grease, food particles and water, or laid so that there is no ponding of water
• Standard 3.2.3 Clause 5 – sewage disposal 7 Fail to have a sewage and waste water disposal system that will effectively dispose of all sewage and waste water on the food premises, and be constructed and located so that there is no likelihood of the sewage and water polluting the water supply or contaminating food
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 15 – adequate storage for non-food items 8 Fail to have adequate storage facilities for the storage of items that are likely to be the source of contamination of food, including chemicals, clothing and personal belongings
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 11(2) and (3) – fixtures, fittings, equipment; walls and ceilings 13 Fail to provide walls and ceilings where they are necessary to protect food from contamination; fail in that walls and ceilings were not sealed to prevent the entry of dirt, dust and pests nor were they able to be effectively and easily cleaned; fail to ensure fixtures, fittings and equipment are fit for their intended use
198 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Type of offence No. of Appendices 2012 offences
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 6(a) and (b) – garbage 5 Fail to adequately contain the volume and type of garbage and recyclable matter on food premises; fail to provide facilities for the storage of garbage that enclosed the garbage necessary to keep pests and animals away from it
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 12 – fixtures, fittings and equipment; food contact surfaces 9 Fail to have fixtures, fittings and equipment adequate for the production of safe and suitable food; that are fit for their intended use; that are designed, constructed, located and installed so that there is no likelihood they can cause food contamination, and are able to be effectively cleaned; fail to have food contact surfaces of fixtures, fittings and equipment able to be easily cleaned and, if necessary, sanitised, if there is a likelihood that they will cause contamination
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 14 – hand washing facilities 2 Fail to have hand washing facilities that are located where they can be easily accessed by food handlers; fail to have hand washing facilities that are permanent fixtures, or connected or otherwise provided with a supply of warm, running potable water
Section 16(3) – Packaging/labelling
Selling or advertising any food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that contravenes a provision of the 3 Food Standards Code
Section 19 – Fail to comply with an order
Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition and alter or improve the 12 premises as specified.
Section 19F – No food safety program at the premises
Fail to ensure a required food safety program is kept at the premises to which it relates 6
Section 19GB – Details of food safety supervisor
Fail to give the council written details of the name and qualifications or experience of the current food safety 1 supervisor for the premises within seven days of being asked to do so by the council
Section 35(1)/s. 35A(1) – Unregistered food premises
Operate a food business at premises not registered with the council 11
Victoria 409
*Note: There may be more than one: • offence per proprietor or food premises • conviction per premises (for example, a company that is the proprietor of the food business and its director may both be charged with the same types of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act). Convictions were recorded against 42 companies or individuals in relation to 29 food premises operating in Victoria during 2011. The companies or individuals were found guilty of a total of 409 offences under the Victorian Food Act 1984 or the regulations. In most cases, they were convicted of multiple offences.
199 Appendices 2012
200 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 13: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, region and municipality, Victoria,* as at December 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Barwon-South-Western Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 243 (73%) 64 (19%) 14 (4%) 332 (100%) Corangamite (S) 9 (6%) 83 (53%) 50 (32%) 16 (10%) 158 (100%) Glenelg (S) 8 (3%) 142 (60%) 43 (18%) 45 (19%) 238 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,145 (63%) 411 (22%) 185 (10%) 1,833 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 136 (64%) 64 (30%) 8 (4%) 214 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 57 (73%) 15 (19%) 4 (5%) 78 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (3%) 121 (51%) 40 (17%) 71 (30%) 238 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 241 (68%) 40 (11%) 65 (18%) 355 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (4%) 232 (67%) 60 (17%) 42 (12%) 348 (100%) Subtotal 157 (4%) 2,400 (63%) 787 (21%) 450 (12%) 3,794 (100%) Eastern Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 89 (7%) 734 (57%) 233 (18%) 228 (18%) 1,284 (100%) Knox (C) 71 (7%) 564 (55%) 361 (35%) 23 (2%) 1,019 (100%) Manningham (C) 60 (8%) 415 (55%) 148 (20%) 129 (17%) 752 (100%) Maroondah (C) 60 (8%) 404 (53%) 195 (26%) 107 (14%) 766 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (59%) 377 (28%) 99 (7%) 1,359 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 707 (61%) 229 (20%) 147 (13 %) 1,152 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 657 (53%) 325 (26%) 211 (17%) 1,247 (100%) Subtotal 480 (6%) 4,287 (57%) 1,868 (25%) 944 (13%) 7,579 (100%) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 287 (71%) 47 (12%) 60 (15%) 405 (100%) Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 425 (78%) 103 (19%) 5 (1%) 547 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 25 (6%) 300 (73%) 79 (19%) 8 (2%) 412 (100%) Latrobe (C) 36 (6%) 373 (57%) 159 (24%) 87 (13%) 655 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 13 (4%) 220 (60%) 62 (17%) 72 (20%) 367 (100%) Wellington (S) 14 (3%) 296 (60%) 95 (19%) 85 (17%) 490 (100%) Subtotal 113 (4%) 1,901 (66%) 545 (19%) 317 (11%) 2,876 (100%) Grampians Ararat (RC) 7 (4%) 97 (55%) 44 (25%) 30 (17%) 178 (100%) Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 572 (72%) 142 (18%) 22 (3 %) 790 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 89 (63%) 34 (24%) 10 (7%) 141 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 145 (44%) 122 (37%) 58 (18%) 332 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (8%) 56 (76%) 12 (16%) 0 (0%) 74 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 136 (61%) 76 (34%) 4 (2%) 223 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (4%) 131 (57%) 79 (35%) 11 (5%) 229 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 91 (50%) 61 (34%) 23 (13%) 182 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 57 (55%) 37 (36%) 8 (8%) 104 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (3%) 42 (71%) 13 (22%) 2 (3%) 59 (100%)
201 Appendices 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 79 (85%) 5 (5%) 5 (5%) 93 (100%) Subtotal 112 (5%) 1,495 (62%) 625 (26%) 173 (7%) 2,405 (100%) Hume Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (66%) 49 (20%) 26 (11%) 248 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 84 (54%) 38 (24%) 29 (19%) 156 (100%) Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 300 (56%) 113 (21%) 92 (17%) 539 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (3%) 144 (60%) 70 (29%) 20 (8%) 240 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 111 (69%) 48 (30%) 0 (0 %) 162 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 162 (64%) 57 (22%) 24 (9%) 255 (100%) Moira (S) 15 (3%) 245 (55%) 68 (15%) 120 (27%) 448 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (2%) 140 (61%) 47 (21%) 36 (16%) 228 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (4%) 80 (74%) 24 (22%) 0 (0%) 108 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (77%) 14 (19%) 0 (0%) 74 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 208 (56%) 100 (27%) 48 (13%) 369 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (8%) 153 (67%) 57 (25%) 2 (1%) 229 (100%) Subtotal 126 (4%) 1,848 (61%) 685 (22%) 397 (13%) 3,056 (100%) Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (52%) 31 (29%) 15 (14%) 107 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 0 (0%) 354 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 6 (6%) 87 (81%) 14 (13%) 0 (0%) 107 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (3 %) 51 (42%) 41 (34%) 26 (21%) 122 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 49 (5%) 664 (64%) 180 (17%) 146 (14%) 1,039 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (3%) 84 (73%) 28 (24%) 0 (0%) 115 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (100%) Mildura (RC) 21 (3%) 371 (57%) 171 (26%) 87 (13%) 650 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 138 (60%) 85 (37%) 1 (0%) 229 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 153 (54%) 45 (16%) 74 (26%) 282 (100%) Subtotal 118 (4%) 1,868 (62%) 670 (22%) 349 (12%) 3,005 (100%) North & West Metropolitan Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 456 (58%) 182 (23%) 100 (13%) 791 (100%) Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 710 (72%) 216 (22%) 2 (0%) 990 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (6%) 779 (73%) 223 (21%) 12 (1%) 1,074 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 28 (5%) 447 (73%) 128 (21%) 7 (1%) 610 (100%) Hume (C) 56 (5%) 730 (60%) 258 (21%) 176 (14%) 1,220 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 522 (65%) 178 (22%) 79 (10 %) 809 (100%) Melbourne (C) 60 (1%) 3,155 (71%) 580 (13%) 653 (15%) 4,448 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 264 (69%) 89 (23%) 0 (0%) 385 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 46 (6%) 600 (78%) 127 (16%) 1 (0%) 774 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 5 (1%) 991 (100%)
202 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Total Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Health region No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Nillumbik (S) 20 (5%) 204 (56%) 114 (31%) 29 (8%) 367 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 49 (5%) 562 (59%) 256 (27%) 94 (10%) 961 (100%) Wyndham (C) 57 (6%) 655 (65%) 183 (18%) 116 (12%) 1,011 (100%) Yarra (C) 39 (3%) 951 (77%) 211 (17%) 34 (3%) 1,235 (100%) Subtotal 653 (4%) 10,735 (69%) 2,970 (19%) 1,308 (8%) 15,666 (100%) Southern Metropolitan Bayside (C) 53 (7%) 456 (62%) 101 (14%) 127 (17%) 737 (100%) Cardinia (S) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 0 (0%) 511 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (8%) 701 (61%) 271 (23%) 92 (8%) 1,156 (100%) Frankston (C) 57 (9%) 468 (70%) 137 (21%) 4 (1%) 666 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 57 (6%) 599 (67%) 212 (24%) 29 (3%) 897 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 64 (5%) 798 (66%) 304 (25%) 48 (4%) 1,214 (100%) Kingston (C) 69 (5%) 801 (63%) 300 (24%) 106 (8%) 1,276 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 66 (6%) 824 (71%) 275 (24%) 0 (0%) 1,165 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 885 (81%) 177 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,097 (100%) Stonnington (C) 48 (4%) 1,071 (80%) 141 (11%) 75 (6%) 1,335 (100%) Subtotal 570 (6%) 6,923 (69%) 2,080 (21%) 481 (5%) 10,054 (100%) Victoria 2,329 (5%) 31,457 (65%) 10,230 (21%) 4,419 (9%) 48,435 (100%)
*Notes: The total number of premises for Loddon Mallee Region does not Food Act 1984 food premises classification: include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information was Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register to keep them safe annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food. Legend (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire (RC) Rural City
203 Appendices 2012
Appendix 14: Fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, region and municipality type, Victoria,* as at December 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Metropolitan Inner metropolitan Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 456 (58%) 182 (23%) 100 (13%) 791 (100%) Bayside (C) 53 (7%) 456 (62%) 101 (14%) 127 (17%) 737 (100%) Boroondara (C) 89 (7%) 734 (57%) 233 (18%) 228 (18%) 1,284 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (6%) 779 (73%) 223 (21%) 12 (1%) 1,074 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 57 (6%) 599 (67%) 212 (24%) 29 (3%) 897 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 28 (5%) 447 (73%) 128 (21%) 7 (1%) 610 (100%) Kingston (C) 69 (5%) 801 (63%) 300 (24 %) 106 (8%) 1,276 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 522 (65%) 178 (22%) 79 (10%) 809 (100%) Maroondah (C) 60 (8%) 404 (53%) 195 (26%) 107 (14%) 766 (100%) Melbourne (C) 60 (1%) 3,155 (71%) 580 (13%) 653 (15%) 4,448 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (59%) 377 (28%) 99 (7%) 1,359 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 46 (6%) 600 (78 %) 127 (16%) 1 (0%) 774 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 5 (1%) 991 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 885 (81 %) 177 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,097 (100%) Stonnington (C) 48 (4%) 1,071 (80%) 141 (11 %) 75 (6%) 1,335 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 707 (61%) 229 (20%) 147 (13%) 1,152 (100%) Yarra (C) 39 (3%) 951 (77 %) 211 (17%) 34 (3%) 1,235 (100%) Subtotal 934 (5%) 14,073 (68 %) 3,819 (19 %) 1,809 (9%) 20,635 (100%) Middle metropolitan Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 710 (72%) 216 (22%) 2 (0%) 990 (100%) Frankston (C) 57 (9%) 468 (70%) 137 (21%) 4 (1%) 666 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 64 (5%) 798 (66%) 304 (25%) 48 (4%) 1,214 (100%) Knox (C) 71 (7%) 564 (55%) 361 (35%) 23 (2%) 1,019 (100%) Manningham (C) 60 (8%) 415 (55%) 148 (10%) 129 (17%) 752 (100%) Subtotal 314 (7%) 2,955 (64%) 1,166 (25%) 206 (4%) 4,641 (100%) Interface** Cardinia (S) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 0 (0%) 511 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (8%) 701 (61%) 271 (23%) 92 (8%) 1,156 (100%) Hume (C) 56 (5%) 730 (60%) 258 (21%) 176 (14%) 1,220 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 264 (69%) 89 (23%) 0 (0%) 385 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 162 (64%) 57 (22%) 24 (9 %) 255 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 66 (6%) 824 (71%) 275 (24%) 0 (0%) 1,165 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 20 (5%) 204 (56%) 114 (31%) 29 (8%) 367 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 49 (5%) 562 (59%) 256 (27%) 94 (10%) 961 (100%) Wyndham (C) 57 (6%) 655 (65%) 183 (18%) 116 (12%) 1,011 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 657 (53%) 325 (26%) 211 (17%) 1,247 (100%) Subtotal 467 (6%) 5,079 (61 %) 1,990 (24%) 742 (9 %) 8,278 (100%) Metropolitan subtotal 1,715 (5%) 22,107 (66%) 6,975 (21%) 2,757 (8%) 33,554 (100%)
204 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Non-metropolitan Regional cities Ararat (RC) 7 (4%) 97 (55%) 44 (25%) 30 (17%) 178 (100%) Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 572 (72%) 142 (18%) 22 (3%) 790 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 49 (5%) 664 (64%) 180 (17 %) 146 (14%) 1,039 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,145 (63%) 411 (22%) 185 (10%) 1,833 (100%) Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 300 (56%) 113 (21%) 92 (17%) 539 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 136 (61%) 76 (34%) 4 (2%) 223 (100%) Latrobe (C) 36 (6%) 373 (57 %) 159 (24%) 87 (13 %) 655 (100%) Mildura (RC) 21 (3%) 371 (57%) 171 (26%) 87 (13%) 650 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 153 (54%) 45 (16%) 74 (26%) 282 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 208 (56%) 100 (27%) 48 (13%) 369 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (4%) 232 (67%) 60 (17%) 42 (12%) 348 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 153 (67%) 57 (25%) 2 (1%) 229 (100%) Subtotal 354 (5%) 4,404 (62%) 1,558 (22%) 819 (12%) 7,135 (100%) Large shires Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 425 (78%) 103 (19%) 5 (1%) 547 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 0 (0%) 354 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 243 (73%) 64 (19%) 14 (4%) 332 (100%) Corangamite (S) 9 (6%) 83 (53%) 50 (32%) 16 (10%) 158 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 25 (6%) 300 (73%) 79 (19%) 8 (2%) 412 (100%) Glenelg (S) 8 (3 %) 142 (60%) 43 (18 %) 45 (19%) 238 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (100%) Moira (S) 15 (3%) 245 (55%) 68 (15%) 120 (27%) 448 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (4%) 131 (57%) 79 (35%) 11 (5%) 229 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 136 (64%) 64 (30%) 8 (4%) 214 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 13 (4%) 220 (60%) 62 (17%) 72 (20%) 367 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (3%) 121 (51%) 40 (17%) 71 (30%) 238 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 241 (68%) 40 (11%) 65 (18%) 355 (100%) Wellington (S) 14 (3%) 296 (60%) 95 (19%) 85 (17%) 490 (100%) Subtotal 153 (4%) 2,847 (65%) 862 (20%) 520 (12%) 4,382 (100%) Small shires Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (66%) 49 (20%) 26 (11%) 248 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 287 (71%) 47 (12%) 60 (15%) 405 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 84 (52%) 38 (24%) 29 (19%) 156 (100%) Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (52 %) 31 (29%) 15 (14 %) 107 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 6 (6%) 87 (81%) 14 (13%) 0 (0%) 107 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (3%) 51 (42%) 41 (34%) 26 (21%) 122 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 89 (63%) 34 (24%) 10 (7%) 141 (100%)
205 Appendices 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 145 (44%) 122 (37%) 58 (18%) 332 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (8%) 56 (76%) 12 (16%) 0 (0.0%) 74 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (3%) 144 (60%) 70 (29%) 20 (8%) 240 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (3%) 84 (73%) 28 (24%) 0 (0%) 115 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 111 (69%) 48 (30%) 0 (0%) 162 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 138 (60%) 85 (37%) 1 (0%) 229 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (2%) 140 (61%) 47 (21%) 36 (16%) 228 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 91 (50%) 61 (34%) 23 (13%) 182 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 57 (55%) 37 (36%) 8 (8%) 104 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 57 (73%) 15 (19%) 4 (5%) 78 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (4%) 80 (74%) 24 (2%) 0 (0%) 108 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (77%) 14 (19%) 0 (0%) 74 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (3%) 42 (71%) 13 (22%) 2 (3%) 59 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 79 (85%) 5 (5%) 5 (5%) 93 (100%) Subtotal 107 (3%) 2,099 (62%) 835 (25%) 323 (10%) 3,364 (100%) Non-metropolitan subtotal 614 (4%) 9,350 (63%) 3,255 (22%) 1,662 (11%) 14,881 (100%) Victoria 2,329 (5 %) 31,457 (65%) 10,230 (21%) 4,419 (9%) 48,435 (100%)
Notes: Food Act 1984 food premises classification: * The total number of premises does not include Macedon Ranges Shire Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Council premises as the information was not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times ** Interface councils refer to a self-selected group of local governments to keep them safe that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, and that work together on various matters. The interface councils are occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, Hume City, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of low-risk food. Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire. Legend The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify (B) Borough the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such (C) City Council as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and (S) Shire contact details on a once-off basis. (RC) Rural City
206 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 15: Municipalities by number of fixed and mobile food premises registrations and notifications by business class, Victoria,* as at December 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) More than 1,200 Melbourne (C) 60 (1%) 3,155 (71%) 580 (13%) 653 (15%) 4,448 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,145 (63%) 411 (22%) 185 (10%) 1,833 (100%) Yarra (C) 39 (3%) 951 (77%) 211 (17%) 34 (3%) 1,235 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 64 (5%) 798 (66%) 304 (25%) 48 (4%) 1,214 (100%) Stonnington (C) 48 (4%) 1,071 (80%) 141 (11%) 75 (6%) 1,335 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (59%) 377 (28%) 99 (7%) 1,359 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 885 (81%) 177 (16%) 0 (0%) 1,097 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (4%) 657 (53%) 325 (26%) 211 (17%) 1,247 (100%) Boroondara (C) 89 (7%) 734 (57%) 233 (18%) 228 (18%) 1,284 (100%) Subtotal 558 (4%) 10,202 (68%) 2,759 (18%) 1,533 (10%) 15,052 (100%) 901–1,200 Knox (C) 71 (7%) 564 (55%) 361 (35%) 23 (2%) 1,019 (100%) Hume (C) 56 (5%) 730 (60%) 258 (21%) 176 (14%) 1,220 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 66 (6%) 824 (71%) 275 (24%) 0 (0%) 1,165 (100%) Brimbank (C) 62 (6%) 710 (72%) 216 (22%) 2 (0%) 990 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (6%) 779 (73%) 223 (21%) 12 (1%) 1,074 (100%) Kingston (C) 69 (5%) 801 (63%) 300 (24%) 106 (8%) 1,276 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 5 (1%) 991 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 69 (6%) 707 (61%) 229 (20%) 147 (13%) 1,152 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (8%) 701 (61%) 271 (23%) 92 (8%) 1,156 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 57 (6%) 599 (67%) 212 (24%) 29 (3%) 897 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 49 (5%) 664 (64%) 180 (17%) 146 (14%) 1,039 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 46 (6%) 600 (78%) 127 (16%) 1 (0%) 774 (100%) Subtotal 758 (6%) 8,379 (65.7%) 2,877 (22.6%) 739 (5.8%) 12,753 (100%) 601–900 Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 572 (72%) 142 (18%) 22 (3%) 790 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 49 (5%) 562 (59%) 256 (27%) 94 (10%) 961 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 522 (65%) 178 (22%) 79 (10%) 809 (100%) Maroondah (C) 60 (8%) 404 (53%) 195 (26%) 107 (14%) 766 (100%) Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 456 (58%) 182 (23%) 100 (13%) 791 (100%) Manningham (C) 60 (8%) 415 (55%) 148 (20%) 129 (17%) 752 (100%) Wyndham (C) 57 (6%) 655 (65 %) 183 (18%) 116 (12%) 1,011 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 28 (5%) 447 (73%) 128 (21%) 7 (1%) 610 (100%) Bayside (C) 53 (7%) 456 (62%) 101 (14%) 127 (17%) 737 (100%) Frankston (C) 57 (9%) 468 (70%) 137 (21%) 4 (1%) 666 (100%) Cardinia (C) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 0 (0%) 511 (100%) Subtotal 530 (6%) 5,277 (63%) 1,812 (22%) 785 (9%) 8,404 (100%)
207 Appendices 2012
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 301–600 Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 300 (56%) 113 (21%) 92 (17%) 539 (100%) Baw Baw (S) 14 (3%) 425 (78%) 103 (19%) 5 (1%) 547 (100%) Latrobe (C) 36 (6%) 373 (57%) 159 (24%) 87 (13%) 655 (100%) Mildura (RC) 21 (3%) 371 (57%) 171 (26%) 87 (13%) 650 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 0 (0%) 354 (100%) Moira (S) 15 (3%) 245 (55%) 68 (15%) 120 (27%) 448 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 264 (69%) 89 (23%) 0 (0%) 385 (100%) Wellington (S) 14 (3%) 296 (60%) 95 (19%) 85 (17%) 490 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 287 (71%) 47 (12%) 60 (15%) 405 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 9 (3%) 241 (68%) 40 (11%) 65 (18%) 355 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 145 (44%) 122 (37%) 58 (18%) 332 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 243 (73%) 64 (19%) 14 (4%) 332 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 20 (5%) 204 (56%) 114 (32%) 29 (8%) 367 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (4%) 232 (68%) 60 (17%) 42 (12%) 348 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 25 (6%) 300 (73%) 79 (19%) 8 (2%) 412 (100%) Subtotal 278 (4%) 4,190 (63%) 1,399 (21%) 752 (11%) 6,619 (100%) 300 or less Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 208 (56%) 100 (27%) 48 (13%) 369 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 13 (4%) 220 (60%) 62 (17%) 72 (20%) 367 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (4%) 153 (54%) 45 (16%) 74 (26%) 282 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (4%) 131 (57%) 79 (35%) 11 (5%) 229 (100%) Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 164 (66%) 49 (20%) 26 (11%) 248 (100%) Mitchell (S) 12 (5%) 162 (64%) 57 (22%) 24 (9%) 255 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (2%) 140 (61%) 47 (21%) 36 (16%) 228 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 136 (61%) 76 (34%) 4 (2%) 223 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 111 (69%) 48 (30%) 0 (0%) 162 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 153 (67%) 57 (25%) 2 (1%) 229 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (3%) 121 (51%) 40 (17%) 71 (30%) 238 (100%) Corangamite (S) 9 (6%) 83 (53%) 50 (32%) 16 (10%) 158 (100%) Moyne (S) 6 (3%) 136 (64%) 64 (30%) 8 (4%) 214 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (3%) 144 (60%) 70 (29%) 20 (8%) 240 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 138 (60%) 85 (37%) 1 (0%) 229 (100%) Glenelg (S) 8 (3%) 142 (60%) 43 (18%) 45 (19%) 238 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 4 (4%) 80 (74%) 24 (22%) 0 (0%) 108 (100%) Ararat (RC) 7 (4%) 97 (55%) 44 (25%) 30 (17%) 178 (100%) Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (52%) 31 (29%) 15 (14%) 107 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (3%) 84 (54%) 38 (24%) 29 (19%) 156 (100%)
208 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Registrations Notifications Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1–4 Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Central Goldfields (S) 6 (6%) 87 (81%) 14 (13%) 0 (0%) 107 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (3%) 84 (73%) 28 (24%) 0 (0%) 115 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 89 (63%) 34 (24%) 10 (7%) 141 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 91 (50 %) 61 (34%) 23 (13%) 182 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 57 (55%) 37 (36%) 8 (8%) 104 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 57 (73%) 15 (19%) 4 (5%) 78 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (4%) 79 (85%) 5 (5%) 5 (5%) 93 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (8%) 56 (76%) 12 (16%) 0 (0%) 74 (100%) Towong (S) 3 (4%) 57 (77%) 14 (19%) 0 (0%) 74 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (3%) 51 (42%) 41 (34%) 26 (21%) 122 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (3%) 42 (71%) 13 (22%) 2 (3%) 59 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S)* 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (100%) Subtotal 205 (4%) 3,409 (61%) 1,383 (25%) 610 (11%) 5,607 (100%) Victoria 2329 (5%) 31,457 (65%) 10,230 (21%) 4,419 (9%) 48,435 (100%)
*Notes: The total number of premises for Loddon Mallee Region does not Food Act 1984 food premises classification: include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information was Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register to keep them safe annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food. Legend (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire (RC) Rural City
209 Appendices 2012
Appendix 16: Fixed and mobile food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, Victoria,* 2012
Premises classification Estimated Rate per Department of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Total 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. no. persons Barwon-South Colac Otway (S) 20,735 11 243 64 14 332 160 Western Corangamite (S) 16,387 9 83 50 16 158 96 Glenelg (S) 19,777 8 142 43 45 238 120 Greater Geelong (C) 218,361 92 1,145 411 185 1,833 84 Moyne (S) 16,221 6 136 64 8 214 132 Queenscliffe (B) 3,099 2 57 15 4 78 252 Southern Grampians (S) 16,399 6 121 40 71 238 145 Surf Coast (S) 27,354 9 241 40 65 355 130 Warrnambool (C) 32,968 14 232 60 42 348 106 Subtotal 371,301 157 2,400 787 450 3,794 102 Eastern Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 168,293 89 734 233 228 1,284 76 Knox (C) 154,653 71 564 361 23 1,019 66 Manningham (C) 117,019 60 415 148 129 752 64 Maroondah (C) 108,104 60 404 195 107 766 71 Monash (C) 179,740 77 806 377 99 1,359 76 Whitehorse (C) 158,992 69 707 229 147 1,152 72 Yarra Ranges (S) 149,031 54 657 325 211 1,247 84 Subtotal 1,035,832 480 4,287 1,868 944 7,579 73 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 30,592 11 287 47 60 405 132 Baw Baw (S) 44,366 14 425 103 5 547 123 East Gippsland (S) 43,154 25 300 79 8 412 95 Latrobe (C) 73,929 36 373 159 87 655 89 South Gippsland (S) 27,819 13 220 62 72 367 132 Wellington (S) 42,289 14 296 95 85 490 116 Subtotal 262,149 113 1,901 545 317 2,876 110 Grampians Ararat (RC) 11,355 7 97 44 30 178 157 Ballarat (C) 96,972 54 572 142 22 790 81 Golden Plains (S) 19,426 8 89 34 10 141 73 Hepburn (S) 14,751 7 145 122 58 332 225 Hindmarsh (S) 5,794 6 56 12 0 74 128 Horsham (RC) 19,658 7 136 76 4 223 113 Moorabool (S) 29,346 8 131 79 11 229 78 Northern Grampians (S) 11,969 7 91 61 23 182 152 Pyrenees (S) 6,756 2 57 37 8 104 154 West Wimmera (S) 4,217 2 42 13 2 59 140 Yarriambiack (S) 7,115 4 79 5 5 93 131 Subtotal 227,359 112 1,495 625 173 2,405 106
210 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Premises classification Estimated Rate per Department of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Total 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. no. persons Hume Alpine (S) 12,138 9 164 49 26 248 204 Benalla (RC) 13,729 5 84 38 29 156 114 Greater Shepparton (C) 62,352 34 300 113 92 539 86 Indigo (S) 15,377 6 144 70 20 240 156 Mansfield (S) 8,067 3 111 48 0 162 201 Mitchell (S) 36,244 12 162 57 24 255 70 Moira (S) 28,675 15 245 68 120 448 156 Murrindindi (S) 13,434 5 140 47 36 228 170 Strathbogie (S) 9,660 4 80 24 0 108 112 Towong (S) 5,940 3 57 14 0 74 125 Wangaratta (RC) 27,236 13 208 100 48 369 135 Wodonga (C) 36,626 17 153 57 2 229 63 Subtotal 269,478 126 1,848 685 397 3,056 113 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 6,364 5 56 31 15 107 168 Campaspe (S) 36,954 15 264 75 0 354 96 Central Goldfields (S) 12,582 6 87 14 0 107 85 Gannawarra (S) 10,394 4 51 41 26 122 117 Greater Bendigo (C) 103,722 49 664 180 146 1,039 100 Loddon (S) 7,526 3 84 28 0 115 153 Macedon Ranges (S)* 43,493 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mildura (RC) 52,204 21 371 171 87 650 125 Mount Alexander (S) 17,868 5 138 85 1 229 128 Swan Hill (RC) 20,972 10 153 45 74 282 134 Subtotal 312,079 118 1,868 670 349 3,005 96 North & West Banyule (C) 123,544 53 456 182 100 791 64 Metropolitan Brimbank (C) 193,665 62 710 216 2 990 51 Darebin (C) 144,086 60 779 223 12 1,074 75 Hobsons Bay (C) 88,165 28 447 128 7 610 69 Hume (C) 178,027 56 730 258 176 1,220 69 Maribyrnong (C) 76,589 30 522 178 79 809 106 Melbourne (C) 105,381 60 3,155 580 653 4,448 422 Melton (S) 117,951 32 264 89 0 385 33 Moonee Valley (C) 113,254 46 600 127 1 774 68 Moreland (C) 156,163 61 700 225 5 991 63 Nillumbik (S) 62,651 20 204 114 29 367 59 Whittlesea (C) 169,471 49 562 256 94 961 57 Wyndham (C) 179,438 57 655 183 116 1,011 56 Yarra (C) 80,607 39 951 211 34 1,235 153 Subtotal 1,788,992 653 10,735 2,970 1,308 15,666 88
211 Appendices 2012
Premises classification Estimated Rate per Department of Health resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Total 10,000 region Council population No. No. No. No. no. persons Southern Metropolitan Bayside (C) 96,824 53 456 101 127 737 76 Cardinia (S) 80,084 29 320 162 0 511 64 Casey (C) 267,892 92 701 271 92 1,156 43 Frankston (C) 131,542 57 468 137 4 666 51 Glen Eira (C) 138,810 57 599 212 29 897 65 Greater Dandenong (C) 144,680 64 798 304 48 1,214 84 Kingston (C) 149,976 69 801 300 106 1,276 85 Mornington Peninsula (S) 150,777 66 824 275 0 1,165 77 Port Phillip (C) 99,891 35 885 177 0 1,097 110 Stonnington (C) 100,682 48 1,071 141 75 1,335 133 Subtotal 1,361,158 570 6,923 2,080 481 10,054 74 Victoria 5,628,348 2,329 31,457 10,230 4,419 48,435 86
*Note: The total number of premises for Loddon Mallee Region does not Food Act 1984 food premises classification: include Macedon Ranges Shire Council premises as the information was Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness not submitted. Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times The Food Act 1984 requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register to keep them safe annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 Other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food. Legend (B) Borough (C) City Council (S) Shire (RC) Rural City
212 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Appendix 17: Offences* under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2012
Type of offence No. of offences
S8 – Knowingly handle food intended for sale in an unsafe manner 1
S8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render the food 5 unsafe
S9A – Knowingly sell unsafe food 3
S11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsafe 4
S11(2) – Sell food that is unsafe 2
S12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsuitable 7
S12(2) – Sell food that is unsuitable 9
S13(3) – Sell food that is packaged or labelled in a way that falsely describes the food 1
S16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code:
Standard 1.2.5: Date marking of packaged food
Standard 1.2.5, Clause 3 – sell food past its use-by date 1
Standard 3.2.2: Food safety practices and general requirements
• Standard 3.2.2, Clauses 19 and 21 – maintaining clean premises and fixtures in good repair 130 Fail to maintain the food premises and all fixtures, fittings and equipment having regard to its use, to a standard of cleanliness where there was no accumulation of food waste, dirt, grease or other visible matter and fail to maintain the food premises, fixtures, fittings and equipment in a good state of repair and working order having regard to their use
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 6 – storage of food 47 Fail to store food so as to protect it from the likelihood of contamination; fail to ensure the environmental conditions under which food is stored will not adversely affect its safety and suitability; fail, when storing potentially hazardous food, to store food under temperature control
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 17 – hand washing facilities 42 Fail to maintain easily accessible hand washing facilities; fail to maintain at or near each hand washing facility, a supply of warm running water and soap or other items that may be used to thoroughly clean hands; fail to ensure hand washing facilities are only used for the washing of hands, arms and face; fail to maintain at or near each hand wash facility single use towels or other means of effectively drying hands that are not likely to transfer pathogenic micro-organisms to the hands
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 24(1) (c) and (d) – pests 38 Fail to take all practicable measures to prevent pests entering the food premises and/or to eradicate and prevent the harbourage of pests on the food premises
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 20 – clean utensils and food contact surfaces 19 Fail to ensure eating and drinking utensils were in a clean and sanitary condition; fail to ensure any food contact surfaces of equipment were in a clean and sanitary condition whenever food that will come into contact with the surface is likely to be contaminated
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 7 – processing safe and suitable food 17 Fail to take all practicable measures to process only safe and suitable food; and when processing food, to take all necessary steps to prevent the likelihood of food being contaminated
213 Appendices 2012
Type of offence No. of offences
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 22 – lack of food thermometer 7 Fail to have temperature measuring device readily accessible, that can accurately measure the temperature of potentially hazardous food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 3(1) – food handlers’/supervisors’ knowledge and skill 6 Fail to ensure that persons undertaking or supervising food handling operations have skills in, and knowledge of, food safety and food hygiene matters
• Standard 3.2.2, Clauses 15, 18 – smoking; washing hands 6 Fail to not smoke in areas in which food is handled; fail to ensure that food handlers washed their hands whenever their hands were likely to be a source of contamination of food; fail to take all practicable measures to ensure all people on the food premises of the food business do not smoke in areas where there are unprotected food or surfaces likely to come into contact with food, do not contaminate food and do not sneeze, blow or cough over unprotected food surfaces likely to come into contact with food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 9 – food packaging 2 Fail to use only material that is not likely to cause food contamination; fail to ensure that there was no likelihood that food may become contaminated during the packaging process
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 13 – food/surfaces handling 1 Fail to take all reasonable measures not to handle food or surfaces likely to come into contact with food in a way that is likely to compromise the safety and suitability of food
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 10 – transporting food 1 Fail when transporting food to protect all food from the likelihood of contamination
• Standard 3.2.2, Clause 8(5) – displaying food 1 Fail, when displaying food, to take all practicable measures to protect the food from the likelihood of contamination
Standard 3.2.3: Food premises and equipment
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 12 – fixtures, fittings and equipment; food contact surfaces 28 Fail to have fixtures, fittings and equipment adequate for the production of safe and suitable food; that are fit for their intended use; that are designed, constructed, located and installed so that there is no likelihood they can cause food contamination and are able to be effectively cleaned; fail to have food contact surfaces of fixtures, fittings and equipment able to be easily cleaned and, if necessary, sanitised, if there is a likelihood that they will cause contamination
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 10(1) and (2) – suitable floors 18 Fail to ensure floors are designed in a way that is appropriate for the activities conducted on the food premises; fail to have floors that were able to be effectively cleaned or unable to absorb grease, food particles and water, or laid so that there is no ponding of water
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 11(2) and (3) – fixtures, fittings, equipment; walls and ceilings 16 Fail to provide walls and ceilings where they are necessary to protect food from contamination; fail in that walls and ceilings were not sealed to prevent the entry of dirt, dust and pests nor were they able to be effectively and easily cleaned; fail to ensure fixtures, fittings and equipment are fit for their intended use
214 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
Type of offence No. of offences
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 15 – adequate storage for non-food items 7 Fail to have adequate storage facilities for the storage of items that are likely to be the source of contamination of food, including chemicals, clothing and personal belongings; fail to ensure storage facilities are located where there is not likelihood of stored items contaminating food contact surfaces
• Standard 3.2.3 Clause 5 – sewage disposal 4 Fail to have a sewage and waste water disposal system that will effectively dispose of all sewage and waste water on the food premises and be constructed and located so that there is no likelihood of the sewage and water polluting the water supply or contaminating food
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 6(a) and (b) – garbage 4 Fail to adequately contain the volume and type of garbage and recyclable matter on food premises; fail to provide facilities for the storage of garbage that enclosed the garbage necessary to keep pests and animals away from it
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 7 – ventilation 3 Fail to have sufficient natural or mechanical ventilation to effectively remove fumes, smoke, steam and vapours from the food premises
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 8 – lighting 3 Fail to have a lighting system that provides sufficient natural/artificial light for the activities on the food premises
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 4 – water supply 3 Fail to have an adequate supply of water
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 3 – design and construction of food premises 3 Fail to ensure that the design and construction of the food premises are appropriate for the activities for which the premises are used and fail to provide adequate space for those activities and for the fixtures, fitting and equipment used for those activities
• Standard 3.2.3, Clause 14 – hand washing facilities 3 Fail to have hand washing facilities that are located where they can be easily accessed by food handlers; fail to have hand washing facilities that are permanent fixtures, or connected or otherwise provided with a supply of warm, running potable water
S16(2) – Selling food that fails to comply with the Food Standards Code
Selling or advertising food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code 1
S16(3) – Packaging/labelling
Selling or advertising any food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that contravenes a provision of the 2 Food Standards Code
S17(1) – Proprietor’s name to be affixed to premises
Fail to ensure that the proprietor’s name is prominently displayed on food premises 4
S19(7) – Failure to comply with an order
Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition and alter or improve the 14 premises as specified
215 Appendices 2012
Type of offence No. of offences
S19CB(6) – Minimum record keeping
Fail, if required to keep minimum records, to ensure that the required records are kept at the premises to which 2 they relate
S19F – No food safety program at the premises
Fail to ensure a required food safety program is kept at the premises to which it relates 1
S19GB – Details of food safety supervisor
Fail to give the council written details of the name and qualifications or experience of the current food safety 1 supervisor for the premises within seven days of being asked to do so by the council
Other offences relating to food safety programs and supervisors 16
S29(g) – Offences with respect to authorised officers
Attempt to obstruct an authorised officer in the exercise of their powers 1
S35A(1) – Unregistered food premises
Operate a food business at premises not registered with the council 10
Victoria 494
*Note: There may be more than one: • offence per proprietor or food premises • conviction per premises (for example, a company that is the proprietor of the food business and its director may both be charged with the same types of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act). Convictions were recorded against 48 companies or individuals in relation to 39 food premises operating in Victoria during this period. The companies or individuals were found guilty of a total of 494 offences under the Victorian Food Act or the regulations. In most cases, they were convicted of multiple offences.
216 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
References
1 Unless otherwise stated, all figures are from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2013, Australian food statistics, 2011–12, Canberra at
2 Business Victoria website at
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 Victorian Farmers’ Market Association Inc, Submission on issues paper to inform development of a national food policy, 22 August 2011 at
6 Op cit. Business Victoria website.
7 The number of temporary food premises regulated under the Act (for example, food stalls) will be able to be reported in future reports after the Streatrader system has been fully utilised for a sufficient time by councils.
8 Op cit. Business Victoria website.
9 All data relating to dofoodsafely visits were generated in July 2013 using Google Analytics –
10 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission,Unlocking Victorian tourism. An Inquiry into Victoria’s tourism industry, Final report, June 2011.
11 These new areas were not contemplated when the Commonwealth and the states and territories agreed to implement nationally consistent food legislation via their Food Acts.
12 DPI is now part of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (Victoria).
13 Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2011), Regulation Impact Statement Proposal P301, Primary Production and Processing Standard for Eggs and Egg Products.
14 Department of Environment and Primary Industries website at
15 Victoria Government Gazettes, No. S 387 Wednesday 21 November 2012, Exemption for retail and catering at
16 Based on the higher food safety risks of class 1, 2 and 3 food premises, the Food Act requires these premises to have a current registration with Council. Due to their lower food safety risks, class 4 premises must lodge a notification form with Council. This notification is once-off. It is ongoing and does not need to be renewed.
17 Hall G, Yohannes K, Raupach J, Becker N, Kirk M 2008, ‘Estimating community incidence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections, Australia.’ Emerg Infect Dis; 14:1601–1609.
18 Refers to a common source outbreak in which the exposure period is relatively brief so that all cases occur within one incubation period.
19 Refers to foods that can carry an agent from a reservoir to a susceptible host.
217 20 Department of Health, A guide for the management and control of gastroenteritis outbreaks in aged care, special care, health care and residential care facilities, Communicable Disease Prevention and Control Unit, 2010.
21 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Victorian Budget, 2013–13 Service delivery, Budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
22 Australian Academy of Science 2008, ‘When bugs have you on the run’ at
23 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2007,Simplifying the menu: Food regulation in Victoria, Final report, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
24 For the reasons outlined, there may be some over-counting of food vans in 2011.
25 This report includes data on all class 4 food premises recorded on council databases, including those notified in 2011 and in previous years.
26 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia at
27 In this report, the term region refers to Victorian Health Department regions – see
28 Melbourne City Council was unable to stratify its food premises data by business class.
29 Council groupings are those used by Local Government Victoria based on self-selection into the categories by councils. Criteria for the groupings are not published but include things such as population and budget. Within these groupings, interface councils refer to councils that face similar issues and that work together on various matters. Interface councils border the Melbourne metropolitan area. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, Hume City, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire.
30 This authorisation was made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.
31 Standard Plate Count refers to a common microbiological test that indicates the number of bacterial colonies growing on a medium after a given period of incubation. This count can sometimes be used to indicate the microbial quality of the food or ingredient in question. The significance of SPCs varies markedly according to the type of food product and the processing it has received. An examination of the microbiological quality of a food should not be based on SPCs alone. The significance of high SPCs cannot truly be made without identifying the microorganisms that predominate or without other microbiological testing.
32 Data relating to dofoodsafely visits were generated in December 2013 using Google Analytics
33 Auditor General Victoria 2002, Management of food safety in Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, p. 6.
34 Op. cit. (2007) Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, pp. 230–31.
35 Department of Treasury and Finance 2010, Victorian Budget, 2010–11 Service delivery, Budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
36 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Victorian Budget, 2012–13 Service delivery, Budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
37 Department of Health and Ageing 2005, Foodborne Illness in Australia annual incidence circa 2000, Australian Government, Canberra.
38 Hall G, Yohannes K, Raupach J, Becker N, Kirk M 2008, ‘Estimating community incidence of Salmonella, Campylobacter and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections, Australia’, Emerg Infect Dis, no. 14, pp. 1601–1609.
218 Food Act report 2011 and 2012 Marking a milestone
39 Refers to a common source outbreak in which the exposure period is relatively brief so that all cases occur within one incubation period.
40 Refers to foods that can carry an agent from a reservoir to a susceptible host.
41 Op cit. (2010), Department of Health.
42 Now the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
43 Department of Treasury and Finance 2013, Building for growth, 2013–14 Victorian Budget, Service delivery budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
44 See the ACCC website at
45 Often the reporting company does not provide the details of the person who has complained to them about the food product because the complainant refused consent to the release of their details to a regulator. It is usually not possible to follow up an anonymous complaint of this nature.
46 Op. cit. (2008) Australian Academy of Science.
47 Op. cit. (2007) Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
48 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, ‘Demography, Victoria 2001’, cat. 3311.2, accessed 31/8/2011 at
49 Council groupings are those used by Local Government Victoria based on self-selection into the categories by councils. Criteria for the groupings are not published but include things such as population and budget. Within these groupings, interface councils refer to councils that face similar issues and that work together on various matters. Interface councils border the Melbourne metropolitan area. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, Hume City, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire.
50 As this report may not fully reflect the total number of class 4 food premises (see Appendix 1), comparisons of profiles across municipality types for class 4 premises should not be made.
51 For more information see the department’s flyer Selling packaged meat from stall or van, November 2012 at
52 Op. cit. (2007), Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
53 Victoria Government Gazette, Declaration under section 32A of the Food Act 1984, Food sampling requirements, No. S 36, Tuesday 14 February 2012.
54 The Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) is a standing committee of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) whose role is to coordinate a national approach to preventing and responding to public health emergencies and communicable disease and environmental health threats. AHPPC is chaired at Deputy Secretary level by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
219 55 Data relating to dofoodsafely visits were generated in December 2013 for the period 1 December 2011 to 1 December 2012 using Google Analytics
56 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Victorian Budget 2012–13, Service Delivery, Budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
57 Department of Treasury and Finance 2013, Building for growth, Victorian Budget 2013–14, Service Delivery, Budget paper no. 3, Melbourne.
58 The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) previously performed this role.
59 Notifying the Forum on Food Regulation of an application or proposal begins the process by which food ministers deliberate on whether or not to accept an amendment to the Code.
60 In February 2011 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to establish a new council system. As part of the new system, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council became the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation.
220 PRINTER TO PLEASE ADVISE SPINE WIDTH