Food Act report 2013 Making it safer 4 Clinical review of area mental health services 1997-2004 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer This report has been developed as required under the Food Act 1984 (s. 7C).
To receive this publication in an accessible format phone 1300 364 352 using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email: [email protected]
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.
© State of Victoria, October 2014
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au). It is a condition of this licence that you credit the State of Victoria as author.
Except where otherwise indicated, the images in this publication show models and illustrative settings only, and do not necessarily depict actual services, facilities or recipients of services.
This work is available at: www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety
Printed by Impact Digital, Brunswick on sustainable paper (1411008) ISSN 2200–1220 (Print) ISSN 2200–1239 (Online) Minister’s foreword
An effective food safety system is essential to protect While the core work of regulating food businesses and Victorians’ health and prosperity. It is also vital in enabling enforcing of the Food Act has continued, the Streatrader our state to assure the safety and quality of food products system, which has provided online registration/notification for international trade. for food vans and stalls, is one of the highlights of 2013. Streatrader marked its first birthday by exceeding the Victoria has made great strides in food safety policy most optimistic predictions of trader uptake. This online and regulation. In recent years major changes to the statewide registration scheme for food vans and stalls, Food Act 1984 and the Food Standards Code have launched in October 2012, was expected to cater been implemented. Microbiological surveillance of food for 5,000 vendors. By December 2013, 12,996 food being sold across the state is being upgraded to enable businesses and community groups had taken advantage electronic reporting of laboratory statistics about the of the option of operating anywhere in Victoria from any analysis of food. Another major focus is on training for number of premises, under the one approval. local government officers who administer the Act in order to encourage a consistent approach across all The department also strengthened the state’s food safety municipalities in the state. audit system in 2013. Improved guidance has been provided to food safety auditors certified under the The education of food handlers about how to handle Food Act. This included guidance on consistent and food for sale safely is also important for the community effective conduct of statutory audits of food businesses and businesses. There is help in person and also online to that handle unpackaged high-risk food. assist food premises to meet their food safety obligations. And there have been big steps in public information, I am pleased to recommend this report to all those education and communication on food safety. with an interest in the performance of our food safety regulatory system. As a result, Victoria’s food safety regulatory system is science-based, risk-based and proportionate. It uses information to enhance knowledge and to improve food safety overall. It seeks to minimise the occurrence of foodborne hazards.
In all this, Victoria has been part of a global trend towards a focus on prevention, harmonisation and transparency. The Hon. David Davis MP However, we must remember that food safety is never a static, permanent attribute of our food supply. The safety Minister for Health and quality of our food supply requires all players – food producers, processors, retailers and households – to shoulder their own food safety responsibilities at all steps in the food chain every day. From the Municipal Association of Victoria
By any measure, the production, sale and consumption We welcome the close connection of local government of food is huge in Victoria, with more than six billion meals with other Victorian Government agencies involved in eaten each year, more than $7 billion generated in food food safety regulation, particularly the relationship with exports, and employment of more than 230,000 people. the Department of Environment and Primary Industries In national terms, 47 per cent of Australia’s prepared food that is emerging, such as collaborating to introduce a products are produced in Victoria. Many thousands of new national egg standard. We look forward to continuing large, medium and small-scale businesses’ reputations to participate with the Victorian Food Regulators Forum depend on being regarded as suppliers of safe, high-quality on behalf of local government. food, both for their domestic markets and, increasingly, We also look forward to continuing to work with the their international markets. Minister for Health and his department on food safety As a consequence, it is very important that Victoria’s regulation reform. Although many of the major reforms councils, as the main regulators of food retailers, introduced in 2009 have now been delivered, the ever- administer their regulatory responsibilities in an effective changing food industry and evolving business practices way. This should both minimise the incidence of mean that the partnership between state and local foodborne illness and reduce unnecessary regulatory governments is as important as ever. costs for businesses. It is no easy task. The nature of food production, together with the way food is handled and consumers’ vulnerability to illness, introduce many components of risk. A wide range of food handling activities need to be assessed as part of the regulatory inspections councils undertake. Rob Spence A highlight of 2013 has been the wholehearted take-up Chief Executive Officer of the Streatrader online registration system for temporary Municipal Association of Victoria and mobile food premises. The MAV project-managed this work in partnership with the Department of Health. Technological solutions to problems seem easy in concept, but in reality building this IT system, which is used by many thousands of businesses and community organisations and officers from all of Victoria’s 79 councils in real-time 24/7, was a great feat.
Transparency in relation to councils’ regulatory activities was also ongoing in 2013 and the MAV thanks councils for their extensive cooperation in reporting their regulatory activity data to the Department of Health.
Councils’ involvement in food safety regulation provides an important local touchstone with food businesses, which is particularly valuable for small- to medium-sized businesses. In 2013 council officers spent considerable time and effort with food business proprietors providing advice about how they can meet their regulatory responsibilities to provide safe food for sale. Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Contents
About us 1 About this report 2 Victoria’s food industry 3 Food safety regulation in Victoria 4 Highlights 6 Food safety incidents 9 Food premises registrations and notifications 15 Fixed food premises 18 Temporary and mobile food premises 25 Compliance and enforcement approaches 51 Surveillance and science 63 Evidence for policy 67 Workforce 73 Communication 77 National scene 83 Appendices 89 Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations 90 Appendix 2: Governance 95 Appendix 3: Functions, accountabilities and legislation 97 Appendix 4: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, region and municipality, Victoria, 99 as at December 2013 Appendix 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, region and municipality type, Victoria, 102 as at December 2013 Appendix 6: Municipalities by number of class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, Victoria, 105 as at December 2013 Appendix 7: Class 1–3 fixed food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, Victoria 2013 108 Appendix 8: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by Department of Health region 111 and municipality in which their principal councils were located, Victoria, as at December 2013 Appendix 9: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises with a Streatrader account 115 by month, region and municipality, Victoria, 2013 Appendix 10a: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises by initial registration, class, region 119 and municipality, as at December 2013 Appendix 10b: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises by renewed registration, class, region 123 and municipality, as at December 2013 Appendix 11: Class 4 temporary and mobile food premises by initial notification and principal council, 127 Victoria, as at December 2013 Appendix 12: Number of municipalities in which temporary and mobile proprietors operated by region, 131 Victoria, 2013 Appendix 13: Offences under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, 132 Victoria, 2013 Appendix 14: Resources and publications 135 Appendix 15: Major food safety and related committees 136 Appendix 16: Websites 143 Appendix 17: Acronyms and abbreviations 144 Appendix 18: Glossary of terms 145 References 150 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
List of figures
Figure 1: Incidents and complaints reported to the Department of Health, Victoria, 2013 11 Figure 2: Class 1–3 fixed premises registrations, Victoria, as at December 2013 18 Figure 3: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by Department of Health region, Victoria, as at December 2013 18 Figure 4a: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by metropolitan municipality, Victoria, 2013 22 Figure 4b: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by regional municipality, Victoria, 2013 23 Figure 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises per 10,000 population in Victoria, as at December 2013 24 Figure 6: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises, Victoria, as at December 2013 38 Figure 7: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by Department of Health region 39 in which principal councils were located, Victoria, as at December 2013 Figure 8: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by premises type and class, Victoria, 2013 40 Figure 9: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by proprietor type and class, Victoria, 2013 41 Figure 10: Number of Streatrader accounts by month, Victoria, 2013 42 Figure 11: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises by registration status (initial and renewed), Victoria, 43 as at December 2013 Figure 12: Class 4 temporary and mobile food premises by initial notification, Victoria, as at December 2013 44 Figure 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications where proprietors 45 own more than one premises, Victoria, as at December 2013 Figure 14: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by month, Victoria, 2013 46 Figure 15: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by class and month, Victoria, 2013 46 Figure 16: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by premises type and month, 48 Victoria, 2013 Figure 17: Municipalities with temporary and mobile premises proprietors who operated in two or more 49 municipalities, Victoria, 2013 Figure 18: Department of Health food safety website users by month, 2012 and 2013 80 Figure 19: Visits to Department of Health food safety pages by new and returning users, 2013 80 Figure 20: Joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system 85 List of tables
Table 1: Victoria’s food industry 3 Table 2: Highlights for 2013 6 Table 3: Reports received by laboratories of notifiable microorganisms under 10 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, 2013 Table 4: Examples of food complaints, 2013 11 Table 5: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2013 14 Table 6: Typical food premises classifications under theFood Act 1984 17 Table 7: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class and region, Victoria, as at December 2013 19 Table 8: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by municipality type and class, Victoria, as at December 2013 20 Table 9: Streatrader snapshot, 2013 30 Table 10: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by class, Victoria, as at December 2013 39 Table 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by premises type and class, Victoria, 2013 41 Table 12: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by proprietor type and class, Victoria, 2013 42 Table 13: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises by registration status, class and type, Victoria, 44 as at December 2013 Table 14: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises per single registration/notification, Victoria, 45 as at December 2013 Table 15: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by class and month, Victoria, 2013 47 Table 16: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by premises type and month, Victoria, 2013 48 Table 17: Number of municipalities in which temporary and mobile premises proprietors operated, Victoria, 2013 50 Table 18: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by number of food premises in relation to which the 58 conviction was recorded, for each offence, and by number and type of offence, Victoria, 2013 Table 19: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by type of convicted persons and type of food premises 60 to which the conviction relates, Victoria, 2013 Table 20: Convictions for offences under the Food Act 1984 by type of food premises where the offences occurred, 61 Victoria, 2013 Table 21: Food premises where Food Act 1984 offences have been committed at which a prosecution resulted 62 in a conviction by municipality and region, Victoria, 2013 Table 22: Food safety website pages viewed more than 10,000 times, 2013 81 Table 23: FSANZ applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment, 2013 86 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
About us
Department of Health – key roles and responsibilities Food Safety and Regulation Unit The Food Safety and Regulation Unit is part of the Health Protection Branch of the Victorian Department of Health.
The unit’s role is to protect the community from food-related harm, to support public health through strategic regulatory policy analysis and development and to influence thinking, policy and programs to achieve a healthier community.
Organisation The Food Safety and Regulation Unit comprises four principal teams: Regulation and Incident Management; Systems and Program Development; Policy, Coordination and Strategic Planning; and Evidence.
Functions The unit’s functions include:
• policy and strategy for food safety and food regulation • data collection and analysis and the procurement and • supporting the Minister for Health – Victoria’s lead management of statewide data systems (this includes minister on the Australia New Zealand Ministerial coordinating and undertaking food surveillance) Forum on Food Regulation (FoFR) – including • stakeholder liaison and management intra- and inter-departmental coordination • advice, tools and information for the public, • inter-jurisdictional policy and project work – local government and food businesses including membership of the Food Regulation • research and technical analysis to support the Standing Committee (FRSC), its subcommittee, above activities the Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation • providing guidance, frameworks, tools and education (ISFR), and other committees under the framework of for local government and food safety auditors the Intergovernmental Food Regulation Agreement • approving food safety auditors, food analysts and • food safety risk assessment, incident investigation and food safety program templates response where there are regional, statewide or national • publishing the register of convictions implications – including food recalls (in conjunction • publishing an annual report on Food Act activities with the Chief Health Officer and the department’s • setting requirements for food surveillance Epidemiology and Surveillance team where illness sampling numbers. is involved) • complaint investigations regarding possible breaches The Food Safety and Regulation Unit works closely with of Victoria’s Food Act 1984 and the Food Standards the department’s Epidemiology and Surveillance team Code – for example, food and beverage labelling and the Office of the Chief Health Officer, especially • specific statutory olesr required to be performed under where outbreaks of illness are suspected to be foodborne. the Food Act and Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 The unit also works with the department’s Water and Environmental Health teams to assess potential food safety risks.
1 About this report
Welcome to the Victorian Department of Health’s 2013 • In October 2012 Streatrader, the department’s online annual report on food safety regulation under the Victorian way for proprietors to obtain approval to operate food Food Act 1984. The Act provides the regulatory framework vans, stalls, vending machines and water transport for the food industry to ensure that food sold in Victoria is vehicles, went live. We are pleased to report on safe, suitable and correctly labelled. temporary1 food premises for the first time in this report.
In 2013 the department progressed a major work program This report, our third, presents information on the number to continue embedding wide-ranging amendments to the and nature of food premises regulated under the Food Act. Food Act into practice. It also covers food safety incidents, complaints and some enforcement actions for breaches under the Act. The changes, which came into force in July 2010 and were implemented in three phases from July 2010 to The data underpinning this information better enable the July 2011, give Victoria a food regulatory system that department and councils to identify emerging food safety is able to respond to current issues but is also evolving risks that have the potential to impact on public health. strategically to meet future challenges. In turn, better information provides a sound foundation for risk assessments on which food safety policy and The system seeks to better protect public health by enforcement decision making can be based. reducing the risk of foodborne illness. It also seeks to protect consumers from unsanitary, unwholesome, Our work and achievements would not meet the high mislabelled or adulterated food. It contributes to the standard expected of us without the efforts of staff in local economy by maintaining consumer confidence in councils who shoulder responsibility for administering the the food system and providing a sound regulatory Food Act. We are grateful for their professionalism and foundation for domestic and international trade in food. commitment, together with their ability to respond to the implications of the changing legislative environment and A statewide data collection, and new system functionality, to apply that to the quality work they do every day. ushered in by the amended Food Act, are vital resources for monitoring the system: The department also thanks the Municipal Association of Victoria, as the peak body for local government, for its • Since July 2010 the department has published details close cooperation throughout the long and challenging of convictions for offences under the Food Act on its process of food regulatory reform. In particular, thanks are website. For further details see
2 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Victoria’s food industry
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. Farm It is the largest food processing state in Australia and the producers and equipment manufacturers and chemical, food industry is tremendously important to its economy. packaging and logistics companies contribute significantly Many large multinational firms have processing and to the growth and sustainability of the food industry. manufacturing facilities in Victoria. Victoria also has a diverse supply of high-quality raw ‘Around 232,000 Victorians are ingredients and seamless access to fast-growing markets. employed in food businesses regulated It is fortunate in being a net food exporter by a significant under the Food Act …’ margin, with many opportunities in international markets. It has key markets in New Zealand, China, South East Asia The state is also home to a large number of small- and India and is also well positioned to supply out-of-season to medium-sized food businesses. Employment in produce to northern hemisphere trading partners due to food-related industries is especially crucial to the the advantage of opposing seasons. prosperity of regional and rural communities. The food industry (Table 1) is supported by a robust Around 232,000 Victorians are employed in food regulatory framework, further enhancing product integrity. businesses regulated under the Food Act, including food manufacture, processing and food service. They are contributing to one of Victoria’s most resilient and profitable industries.
Table 1: Victoria’s food industry2
Turnover Consumption 21.4 per cent of total manufacturing industry3 19.1 per cent of household expenditure on $32.9 billion retail food turnover food and drink 2.2 per cent increase compared with 2010–11
Retail Employment4 $32.9 billion total: Around 232,000 people (15 per cent of 63 per cent supermarket and grocery stores workforce) in food manufacturing, wholesale, 13 per cent cafés and restaurants retail and service sector 12 per cent take-away food outlets 47 per cent of Australia’s prepared food Six per cent liquor retailing products Six per cent other food retail
Agriculture5 Farmers markets6 73,750 employed in agricultural food production 90 in 2011: $227 million turnover per year 22 in 2004
Food exports Food premises registered under the Around $7 billion;7 42 per cent of Australia’s air Food Act (class 1–3) freight exports of food and beverages All types: 56,690 Fixed: 44,655 Temporary and mobile: 12,035
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 in Victoria
Food premises Primary producers The Food Act establishes the regulatory framework The Food Act also governs some areas of primary to ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe, suitable production. For example, the Department of Environment and complies with the requirements of the Food and Primary Industries (DEPI) has a key role in regulating Standards Code. It applies to food businesses such egg production. as manufacturers, retailers, cafés and restaurants, PrimeSafe is responsible for the meat industry and as well as services that serve food such as hospitals the seafood sector, while Dairy Food Safety Victoria and residential aged care services. The 79 councils regulates dairy farms and dairy processing and manufacture. across the state regulate these food businesses primarily Licensing, guidance and enforcement of the standards though registration of premises, monitoring compliance, affecting these sectors is within the province of these providing education and advice, and taking enforcement regulators under their own industry-specific Acts, action where necessary. Local government therefore backed up by the Food Act. has responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of the majority of food businesses in the state, except for All of these regulators have powers under legislation meat, seafood and dairy retailers, which are regulated to address noncompliance though enforcement action. by specialised regulators. If these routine powers prove to be insufficient to address any serious danger to public health from food, the The purpose of this legislation is to protect and promote Food Act enables additional steps to be taken by the the health of Victorians. Where this involves regulation, Department of Health. For example, the Chief Health the legislation enables the use of the least burdensome Officer may recall unsafe food from the marketplace. intervention reasonably necessary to achieve the outcome sought. This is the case whether the actual regulation is carried out by the department or by other agencies (such as local government or statutory authorities). ‘The level of regulation for each class is matched to the degree of risk.’ Golda Hanzekovic, Deli Manager, Knox Shopping Centre. The Food Act adopts a proportionate approach. The nature of a food, together with the way it is handled and the vulnerability to illness of the persons eating the food, determines the degree of risk.
Based on these factors, four classes of food premises are established under the Food Act – from the highest risk (class 1) through to the lowest risk (class 4). Food premises are classified by municipal councils under this framework. The level of regulation for each class is matched to the degree of risk. For example, only those businesses that handle unpackaged high-risk food must have a food safety supervisor. Minimal regulation applies to businesses that handle low-risk food.
4 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Victorian food regulator roles and collaboration The Victorian Food Regulators Forum oversees a The MOU and information about the forum can be memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the accessed at
Aoife Kehill, Shire of Yarra Ranges Environmental Health Officer, and Cellar Hand, Aaron Hancock. Routine inspection at Coldstream Hills Winery.
5 Highlights
In 2013 the department pushed ahead with a range of innovative programs and initiatives. These consolidated food safety gains flowing from major amendments to the Food Act that took effect progressively in 2010 and 2011.
In addition to our ongoing work, highlights for 2013 included Streatrader’s first full year of operation and new food safety audit arrangements, including an updated approval processes, training for auditors and a new edition of the food safety auditor handbook.
Table 2 gives a snapshot of the changes, challenges and achievements for 2013.
Table 2: Highlights for 2013
Policy and legislation
Jan– More than 56,000 food premises were regulated under Victoria’s Food Act 1984 Dec 12,996 proprietors who owned 13,765 food premises had an account on Streatrader, the department’s new online system for registering/notifying food vans, stalls, food vending machines and water transport vehicles; 50 per cent of these were community groups
Proprietors lodged 33,363 statements of trade on Streatrader representing 214,407 trading days
The department published five advisory bulletins to help councils administer the Food Act
The Victorian Food Regulators Forum (Department of Health, PrimeSafe, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and Municipal Association of Victoria) met four times
Jan Health ministers agreed to a single, interpretive front-of-pack labelling system for manufactured or processed foods to help consumers make informed food choices and foster innovative industry
The department participated in development of a new food standard to regulate nutrition content claims and health claims on food labels and in advertisements; this became law in 2013
Health ministers agreed to a new standard on country of origin labelling to include all unpackaged meat products
Mar The Statute Law Amendment (Director’s Liability) Act 2013 amended the Food Act (among others) so that where a corporation criminally breaches the Act its directors are not automatically liable unless they failed to exercise due diligence
The Final report: inquiry into the impact of food safety regulation on farms and other businesses was released by the Rural and Regional Committee, Parliament of Victoria
Jul New Primary Production and Processing Standard 4.2.6 under the Food Standards Code commenced in relation to seed sprouts
Sep The Victorian Government released its response to the Inquiry into the Impact of Food Safety Regulation on Farms and Other Businesses; it supported local councils resuming responsibility for auditing all butchers
6 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Advice and education
Jan– 49,273 people visited dofoodsafely – the department’s online learning program for food handlers,9 representing Dec 1.73 million page views
Feb 153 council health staff attended the Environmental Health Professionals Australia (EHPA) food safety conference
Mar– 24 students undertook the new Certificate IV in Local Government (Health and Environment) at Swinburne Nov University in order to work as low-risk food safety technicians within their councils
May The department released a poison mushroom warning for Victoria as autumn conditions provided ideal growing conditions for death cap and yellow staining mushrooms
The department released a third edition of its Handbook for approved food safety auditors
56 environmental health officers and low-risk food safety technicians were trained in the use of infringement notices as part of their orientation to new roles
Jun A Chief Health Officer advisory bulletin on egg safety for restaurants, cafés and caterers was released in English, Arabic, simplified Chinese and Vietnamese
Jul The department released advice for councils on how a change to the Food Standards Code allowing dogs into outdoor eating areas affected infringements and penalties
Aug More than 280 participants attended the department’s Local Government Food Safety Forum at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre
Dec The department released an allergy warning on a Christmas pudding incorrectly labelled as not containing nuts
Investigations and enforcement
Jan– The department acted on 407 laboratory notifications of pathogens in foods under thePublic Health and Dec Wellbeing Act 2008
The department acted on 299 complaints and enquiries about food and/or food premises
The department acted on 286 mandatory reports pertaining to food under the Food Act
The department actioned 40 food recalls
Feb The department presented an update on food safety auditing to environmental health officers at the annual EPHA forum
May/Jul The department hosted a forum for approved auditors on their role in the food safety audit system in May (a follow-up session was held in July to clarify issues raised in relation to the new auditor handbook)
May 56 environmental health officers and low-risk food safety technicians attended the department’s annual, one-day orientation sessions for new officers; the program covered all aspects of food safety relevant to these roles
Jun The joint Department of Health/Dairy Food Safety Victoria investigation into a multi-jurisdictional outbreak of listeriosis associated with soft cheeses, which commenced in November 2012, was concluded
Convictions under the Food Act were recorded against 32 companies or individuals in relation to 26 food premises; the companies and individuals were found guilty of a total of 505 offences
7 Food surveillance
Jan– 29 food analysts, associated with nine laboratories, maintained authorisation to analyse food samples collected Dec under the Food Act
Feb New statewide food sampling regulatory requirements were declared (Gazette No. G 2 10 Jan 2013)
May 35 authorised public food analysts attended an annual update
Knowledge
Jan– All of Victoria’s 79 councils were able to report against the statewide data collection on Food Act activities Dec 43 councils continued participation in Local Government Victoria’s Performance Reporting Framework pilot designed to provide comprehensive performance information
23 businesses maintained their own registered food safety program templates with the department
26 food safety program templates were registered by the department; five templates were updated to new major versions
Mar The department endorsed one new research proposal under the Food Safety Evidence for Policy program funding round; six commissioned studies submitted their final reports
Apr– 19 council officers completed the one-week Environmental Health Legal Management Course to improve the Sep skills needed when taking legal action over Food Act offences
Communication
Jan– The department responded to almost 15,000 food safety enquires: 4,344 calls and around 1,800 emails to the Dec general advice service and 8,280 calls and more than 500 emails to the time-limited service established to help food premises and councils in the transition to Streatrader
12 information flyers, guides and bulletins for councils, business and the community were published
156,726 visitors viewed 922,293 webpages on the department’s Food Safety website
The department’s online register of convictions for offences under the Food Act was its 12th most visited food safety webpage with 14,596 visits.
8 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Food safety incidents
Culturing food to detect bacteria. 9 Food safety incidents
Microorganisms identified in food Under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, laboratories Salmonella comprised the majority of notifications for must notify the department when they detect certain the year at 232 (57 per cent). Of these, almost half pathogenic microorganisms in food or drinking water. (125 – 46 per cent) involved samples of raw meat, Table 3 shows reports of all notifiablepathogens for example, chicken, which had been tested by food received during 2013. businesses as part of their routine quality assurance programs. None of these comprised a health risk or Schedule 5 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations required any follow-up action. Excluding these there 2009 specifies the pathogens that must be reported and were 107 Salmonella notifications compared with 139 the manner in which it must be done. for Listeria monocytogenes. Significantly fewer Listeria When it receives such notifications, the department’s monocytogenes reports overall were received in 2013 Regulation and Incident Management team conducts compared with the two previous years. In 2011 and a risk assessment in each case to determine the 2012 the majority of notifications were for Listeria appropriate course of action. This will include referral monocytogenes at 292 (63 per cent) and 228 to the appropriate food regulator (such as the local (60 per cent), respectively.10 council, Dairy Food Safety Victoria or PrimeSafe) or direct investigative follow-up by the department Table 3: Reports received by laboratories of notifiable with the company involved to ensure a prompt and microorganisms under Public Health and Wellbeing appropriate public health response. This may also Act 2008, 2013 include recall of food from the marketplace. Pathogen No. %
Risk assessments take into account factors such as: Salmonella spp. 232 57% the species, type and level of microorganism present; Listeria monocytogenes 139 34% whether the food is raw, ready-to-eat, unsealed or packaged; whether the food can or cannot support E. coli 25 6% the growth of the microorganism; and whether the Vibrio spp. 9 2% food has been sold to the public. Campylobacter spp. 2 < 1% The department acted on 407 notifications of pathogens Cryptosporidium spp. 0 0% in food in 2013. Cyclospora spp. 0 0% Of the 407 pathogen notifications in 2013: Giardia cysts 0 0% • 291 (71 per cent) resulted from testing conducted by food businesses according to their licensing Hepatitis A 0 0% obligations with Dairy Food Safety Victoria or Norovirus 0 0% PrimeSafe, or under their internal food safety Total 407 100% and quality assurance programs • 46 (11 per cent) were the result of Victorian council food sampling • 70 (17 per cent) were the result of testing by the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture (these tests were a combination of the imported food inspection program and the E. coli and Salmonella monitoring program (ESAM)) • two notifications subsequently esultedr in food recalls.
10 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Incident and complaint management The department received and responded to 299 complaints Table 4: Examples of food complaints, 2013 about food or food premises in 2013. This represents an Complaint Examples increase of 77 or 26 per cent compared with 2012 when type 222 complaints were received. In addition, staff responded to 4,344 calls to the department’s food safety hotline and Physical Glass fragments in imported jar of olives around 1,800 emails to the food safety inbox. Metal blade in imported can of salmon
Figure 1 shows food complaints and incidents reported Insect larvae in packaged almonds to the department in 2013 according to type. Labelling Noncompliant geographical indications Figure 1: Incidents and complaints reported to the – use of the word ‘tequila’ on product not made in Tequila Department of Health, Victoria, 2013 Health claims breaches on tea
Noncompliant nutrition information panel on packaged powdered egg
Allergens Undeclared peanuts in packaged pastry product – resulted in recall
Anaphylactic response to a macaroon that contained undeclared dairy – resulted in recall
Allegation of gluten in gluten-free bread – testing showed none present
Physical contamination 87 (29%) The complaints came from various sources, predominantly Labelling – other than allergens 69 (23%) members of the public. Most pertained to isolated, once-off Microbiological contamination 51 (17%) incidents from local council-registered premises such as Other (for example, foreign objects in food or the cleanliness of food premises. unhygienic premises 46 (14%) In accordance with standard protocol, the department Chemical contamination 24 (8%) referred these to council environmental health officers Allergen 22 (7.3%) for follow-up investigation. Total 299 (100%) The department generally has a more hands-on role in
investigating labelling and allergen complaints where foods Table 4 gives examples of the types of complaints are manufactured in Victoria and distributed beyond a local received during 2013. area. 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, and PrimeSafe, which is responsible for meat and seafood.
In any investigation, the initial focus is on responding to public health risks. Where it may be dangerous if the food is consumed, complaints and incidents are treated as urgent and dealt with as a priority.
11 As food companies transcend borders, all states and Mandatory reporting of food-related territories cooperate to act on food incidents and illness, death or injury complaints quickly and efficiently. For example, a food product may be manufactured in one state Under Australian consumer law, suppliers of consumer and the company’s head office may be located in goods and related services are required to report deaths, another in which it does not manufacture food at all. serious injuries or illnesses associated with consumer goods. This requirement is known as mandatory reporting Where a complaint needs to be investigated or a food and all participants in the supply chain of a consumer good recall considered, different levels of government in different are required to comply with the reporting requirement. jurisdictions may need to work together. For example, This includes retailers, distributors, installers, importers a Victorian food manufacturer may have inadvertently or manufacturers of the consumer goods in question. omitted peanuts from the ingredients list on the label of one of its foods. As this would be a public health risk If a food business becomes aware of an illness, injury in breach of the Food Standards Code, an immediate or death related to the use of food, the business must consumer-level food recall would be initiated. report this to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) using an online form on the ACCC The department and the relevant local council would website. The electronic notification is automatically sent to contact the manufacturer to determine how this happened the relevant state or territory food regulator for assessment and to ensure that any necessary corrective action and the necessary action. is taken. The council would also consider possible enforcement action. In 2013 the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit received 286 mandatory reports. Of these reports, If, however, the Victorian manufacturer made the 180 (71 per cent) did not meet the mandatory reporting product under contract to a food company whose requirements because: head office was located in another state, for example, New South Wales, then following investigation by the • they were incorrectly reporting an issue that was not relevant Victorian council, the recall would be instigated a food safety risk (for example, a customer cut his or by the New South Wales company under the advisement her hand opening a canned product), or of the New South Wales Food Authority. • the report did not include sufficient information for follow-up and this information could not be readily To facilitate the referral process, all states and territories obtained.12 have agreed to function under the ‘home state rule’, which provides for a clear, cooperative referral mechanism Of the remaining 106 reports, 96 (34 per cent) were where a trace-back of a food complaint implicates another deemed to be isolated incidents that had been adequately jurisdiction. The department assists local councils with this responded to by the business receiving the complaint. referral process. Seven (two per cent) related to two food recalls (six reports were lodged for one recall and one for another) that were The department is accountable to the Victorian Parliament actioned by the department. One was actioned by the for its handling of complaints. In 2013 the department relevant local council and a prosecution ensued. A further met the required performance standard of an average report was referred to the relevant regulator in another of 24 hours from notification of a food complaint to state for follow-up action. commencement of appropriate action.11
12 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
The department investigated one report in which a complainant, who is allergic to nuts, reported purchasing When there’s a food recall a ready-to-eat product at a café after asking whether it Food recalls are instigated by the food business contained nuts. with primary responsibility for the supply of an unsafe or unsuitable food; this can include importers, The customer reported that the waiter advised that it manufacturers or wholesalers. Recalls may be initiated contained only traces of nuts and claimed she then as a result of a consumer complaint or company or suffered an allergic response because there were nuts government testing and are conducted to ensure throughout the product as an ingredient. foods that pose a health risk are removed from the The department contacted the food premises to reiterate distribution chain. the difference between nuts as an ingredient and nuts at Food recalls involve all three tiers of government. trace levels and to ensure that staff were aware of this. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Food recalls an independent statutory authority, coordinates the recall. State and territory officers are the conduit The food industry in Victoria is huge by any measure. between the business instigating the recall and FSANZ. Victorians eat more than six billion meals every year13 They also advise local councils of the recall. Each local and only around 0.03 per cent of these meals cause some government is responsible for disseminating the recall form of foodborne illness.14 These estimates include a large to affected food businesses and for follow-up action number of mild cases that are not reported. In 2013 more required as a result of the recall. than 55,000 food premises were regulated under Victoria’s There are two types of food recall: Food Act. The state’s retail food turnover amounted to trade- or consumer-level food recalls. around $32.9 million and food exports were valued at $7 billion. • Trade-level recall
The chances of getting food poisoning are low when A trade-level recall is conducted before the food has the volume of food consumed is considered. However, been sold directly to consumers. It typically involves it is important to try to prevent the associated suffering recovery of the product from distribution centres, and cost through correct food-handling techniques from wholesalers and the food service sector such as production, to point of sale, to consumption. caterers and restaurants.
The food industry is responsible for manufacturing, • Consumer-level recall importing and selling safe food. Where food poses a A consumer-level recall is the most extensive type public health risk, the food company responsible for of recall and involves recovering the product from that food needs to remove it from the marketplace all points in the distribution chain right through to through a food recall. consumers. The business conducting the recall will notify consumers through public notices that are usually placed in major newspapers. With the increasing prominence of the internet and social media, determining the most effective way to notify consumers of a food recall is a growing challenge for the food industry and government.
Ways to further utilise the internet and social media are being investigated; however, this remains a challenge.
Information about recalls is available on the FSANZ website at
13 In 2013 a total of 40 food recalls were instigated by Death caps are responsible for 90 per cent of all Australian food companies compared with 60 recalls in mushroom poisoning deaths – a single mushroom is 2012.15 Twenty-two of these 40 recalls were instigated sufficient to kill an adult. These are widespread across by Victorian companies. Melbourne and Victorian regional areas and are usually found near deciduous trees, especially oaks. They are Table 5 shows the reasons for food recalls in 2013, with most common a week or two after good rains in summer undeclared allergens being the most common reason for and early autumn but can appear any time from January recall this year, followed by microbiological contamination. to June. Table 5: Food recalls by reason for recall, Victoria, 2013 While commercially sold mushrooms are safe, poisonings Instigated occur when people gathering wild mushrooms by Victorian inadvertently pick and eat toxic species. In Australia company The department’s website advises people who suspect No. % No. % they or their children have eaten these mushrooms not Undeclared allergen 17 42.5% 9 23.0% to wait for symptoms to occur before seeking medical (including gluten) assistance. The sooner treatment can begin, the better the chances of survival. Microbiological 12 30.0% 6 15.0% contamination Allergy warning on Christmas pudding Foreign matter in food 7 17.5% 4 10.0% A Christmas pudding that was not labelled as containing Chemical 2 5.0% 1 3.0% nuts prompted another Chief Health Officer warning in 2013. contamination The alarm was raised by a customer who was about to Labelling (other than 1 2.5% 1 3.0% undeclared allergen) share the pudding with a friend. The friend, who had a nut allergy, noticed that it contained nuts and it was not eaten. Packaging fault 1 2.5% 1 3.0% The puddings were recalled by the company as soon as Total 40 100% 22 57.0% the problem was discovered. Consumers were asked to return the puddings to the bakeries at which they Mushroom poisoning health warning purchased them to receive a full refund.
Once again this year, autumn conditions created ideal There were no reports of ill health associated with these growing conditions for poisonous mushrooms. In May puddings. Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Rosemary Lester, Peanuts, and to a lesser extent brazil nuts, almonds and issued a warning urging people to avoid gathering wild hazelnuts, cause acute allergy in some people. Because mushrooms because of the risk of collecting poisonous these can be life-threatening, under the Food Standards varieties that may look like edible varieties. Code16 allergens must be advised to customers either ‘Death caps are responsible for on the food package or at the request of the customer. 90 per cent of all mushroom poisoning deaths …’ The warning coincided with the arrival of the mushrooming season. The state’s most dangerous varieties are the death cap fungus (Amanita phalloides) and the yellow staining mushroom (Agaricus xanthodermus).
14 Food premises registrations and notifications
Street food in the City of Yarra. 15 Food premises registrations and notifications
Preventive approach Council roles The Food Act adopts a preventive approach to food safety. Municipal councils have substantial responsibilities for It groups food premises into four classes, and sets out administering and enforcing the Food Act. They register different food safety requirements for each class based and inspect food businesses that operate permanent on the food safety risks of its highest risk food-handling sites. Known as fixed premises, these premises sell, activity. The classes range from highest risk (class 1) store, manufacture, package or transport food for human such as a nursing home, to lowest risk (class 4) such as a consumption (including liquor). They do not register newsagency selling pre-packaged confectionery (Table 6). premises that mainly handle raw meat, poultry or seafood because these are licensed and inspected High-risk food by PrimeSafe, while dairy premises are licensed by Dairy Food Safety Victoria. The nature of a food, together with the way it is handled and the vulnerability to illness of the Councils register and inspect temporary food premises person eating the food, determines food safety risk. such as stalls. For large councils, this includes numerous The terms ‘high risk’ and ‘low risk’ are used in this major festivals conducted annually in their municipalities, report for ease of reference. High-risk foods should as well as a large number of once-off or occasional stalls. be taken to refer to foods that require more careful While we have previously reported on mobile premises, handling to keep them safe. This usually involves statistics for temporary food premises are presented in temperature control (refrigeration and/or cooking this report for the first time. to a sufficiently high temperature) to control or Councils also register and inspect mobile food premises kill the pathogens that can cause food poisoning. such as food vans and carts.
Under the statewide scheme, which was fully implemented The level of regulation is largely determined by the in 2012, food vans and stalls need only a single registration microbial hazards posed by food handling at the premises. (class 1–3) or notification (class 4), regardless of how many The greater the chance of something going wrong municipalities they trade in. during the food handling process, and the greater the potential impact on people’s health, the higher the level of Councils conduct food sampling programs, which involve regulation. purchasing a statutory number of foods from premises in the municipality and having samples analysed to assess Under the Food Act, class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must food safety and compliance with standards. register annually with the responsible council. On a once-off basis, class 4 premises must notify the relevant council of ‘Councils also have an active role the basic details of the food premises such as business in educating the community about type, the nature of the business, types of food handled, and its address and contact details. food safety.’ Providing information and advice to food handlers during premises visits is a major priority for council environmental health officers. Many councils also offer food handling information seminars and regular newsletters for food premises. Councils also have an active role in educating the community about food safety.
16 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Councils respond to customer requests and complaints about food hygiene, contamination, suspected food poisoning and food handling.
Finally, councils are responsible for acting on all food recalls advised by the Department of Health, and referring information to the relevant food business.
Food stall at East Meets West Lunar New Year Festival, City of Maribyrnong.
Table 6: Typical food premises classifications under the Food 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, 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
17 Fixed food premises
Distribution and status Of the eight health department regions,18 Melbourne’s North & West Metropolitan Region had the highest During 2013 a total of 44,655 fixed food premises were concentration of class 1–3 fixed food premises in the registered with Victorian councils (class 1, 2 and 3). state (31 per cent) in 2013 (Figure 3). In part, this reflects Among class 1, 2 and 3 premises, 68 per cent were located the presence of large numbers of food manufacturing in metropolitan Melbourne and the remaining 32 per cent in and processing businesses in this region. The region, non-metropolitan municipalities (Figure 2). which spans the northern and western suburbs from the Melbourne CBD to the outer northern and western suburbs, Figure 2: Class 1–3 fixed premises registrations, is also the most populous. The Southern Metropolitan Victoria,* as at December 2013 Region, which is home to a quarter of the state’s population, ranked second with 22 per cent of all registered class 1–3 fixed food premises. Not surprisingly only 15 per cent of such food premises were in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, which is more residential in character.
Fixed class 1–3 food premises were more evenly distributed in regional Victoria, with five per cent based in Grampians region, six per cent in each of Gippsland and Hume regions and seven per cent in Loddon Mallee. 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 these premises in 2013. Melbourne metropolitan 30,488 (68%) Figure 3: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by Non-metropolitan Victoria 14,167 (32%) Department of Health region, Victoria, as at December 2013 Victoria 44,655 (100%)
* Note: This figure includes initial registrations and renewals of registrations.
Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling activities, these businesses notify councils about the nature of their activities on a once-off basis. They do not need to re-notify and councils are not required to contact them annually to ascertain whether they are still operating. This applies to all class 4 premises, whether they operate from a fixed or temporary site or from a mobile van or cart.
This means that data on the total number of fixed class 4 food premises that actively traded in Victoria in 2013 are not exact. For example, some of the premises recorded Eastern Metropolitan 6,887 (15%) in council systems may have ceased to operate. Some North & West Metropolitan 13,994 (31%) councils record only new notifications, while others choose Southern Metropolitan 9,607 (22%) to contact existing proprietors and update their status. Barwon-South Western 3,536 (8%) Gippsland 2,635 (6%) Statistics on fixed class 4 food premises are therefore Grampians 2,259 (5%) not included in this report.17 For further explanation, Hume 2,644 (6%) see Appendix 1. Loddon Mallee 3,093 (7%) Victoria 44,655 (100%)
18
Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Table 7 shows class 1–3 fixed food premises in each Department of Health region by class in 2013. Five per cent of these food premises were classified by councils as class 1. The corresponding figures were 71 per cent as class 2 and 23 per cent as class 3.
The great majority of food premises in Victoria were class 2 premises at 31,879 (71 per cent). These premises 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.
Table 7: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class and region, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registrations Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Department of Health region No. % No. % No. % No. % Melbourne metropolitan Eastern 478 7% 4,395 64% 2,014 29% 6,887 100% North & West 651 5% 10,573 76% 2,770 20% 13,994 100% Southern 570 6% 6,875 72% 2,162 23% 9,607 100% Subtotal 1,699 6% 21,843 72% 6,946 23% 30,488 100% Non-metropolitan Victoria Barwon-South Western 157 4% 2,529 72% 850 24% 3,536 100% Gippsland 116 4% 1,972 75% 547 21% 2,635 100% Grampians 112 5% 1,554 69% 593 26% 2,259 100% Hume 128 5% 1,833 69% 683 26% 2,644 100% Loddon Mallee 134 4% 2,148 69% 811 26% 3,093 100% Subtotal 647 5% 10,036 71% 3,484 25% 14,167 100% Victoria 2,346 5% 31,879 71% 10,430 23% 44,655 100%
See Appendix 4 for a breakdown by municipality.
19 In 2013 class 2 food premises represented a slightly higher Gippsland and Loddon Mallee regions had the lowest proportion of all class 1–3 fixed food premises in the North (four per cent) compared with an average for the state & West Metropolitan and Gippsland regions compared with of five per cent. Class 1 premises handle high-risk foods other regions (76 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively) for vulnerable people such as hospital patients, residents compared with an average for the state of 71 per cent. of nursing homes, Meals on Wheels clients and children in long day care. As mentioned, large numbers of food manufacturing and processing businesses are located in the North & West Class 3 premises handle unpackaged low-risk foods or Metropolitan Region. In addition to the City of Melbourne, pre-packaged high-risk foods and occasional community it includes three large inner metropolitan municipalities groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods – for example, bakeries, (Darebin, Moreland and Yarra) that are popular milk bars, flour mills and service stations. An average of entertainment and dining precincts. 23 per cent of all class 1– 3 fixed food premises across the state were assessed as class 3. In metropolitan Gippsland is one of Victoria’s long-established and best Melbourne, this compared with a low of 20 per cent known food tourism destinations, with many of its food in the North & West Metropolitan Region and a high premises using fine produce to produce locally made of 29 per cent in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, gourmet foods. There are also more than 40 cellar doors which is strongly residential in character. open to the public in the region. Table 8 compares class 1–3 fixed food premises that Predictably, the proportion of class 1 food premises was were registered with councils across groupings of similar reasonably similar across all regions, ranging from four municipalities types during 2013. These are municipalities to seven per cent of all class 1–3 fixed premises. Eastern that share similar characteristics such as location and Metropolitan Region had the highest proportion of these population density.19 premises (seven per cent) while Barwon-South Western,
Table 8: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by municipality type and class, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registrations Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Council groups No. % No. % No. % No. % Metropolitan Inner metropolitan 933 5% 13,975 75% 3,760 20% 18,668 100% Middle 315 7% 2,998 66% 1,253 27% 4,566 100% Interface* 464 6% 5,035 67% 1,996 27% 7,495 100% Subtotal 1,712 6% 22,008 72% 7,009 23% 30,729 100% Non-metropolitan Regional city 349 5% 4,569 70% 1,599 25% 6,517 100% Large shires 171 4% 3,171 73% 1,006 23% 4,348 100% Small shires 114 4% 2,131 70% 816 27% 3,061 100% Subtotal 634 5% 9,871 71% 3,421 25% 13,926 100% Victoria 2,346 5% 31,879 71% 10,430 23% 44,655 100%
* Note: The term ‘interface councils’ refers to a self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area, face similar issues and work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, City of Hume, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire. See Appendix 5 for a breakdown of municipality type by council.
20 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Council environmental health officer preparing a food contact surface swab during a food premises inspection.
‘Food Act enforcement activities The greater presence of class 3 premises in these entail considerable time and effort …’ municipalities may simply reflect the larger numbers of towns and settlements to be served by small businesses The proportion of food premises in each class varied compared with inner Melbourne with its plethora of class 2 somewhat across municipality type. It was broadly similar cafés and restaurants. It could also be due to other factors for class 1 premises, ranging between four and seven per such as the relatively lower cost of overheads for food cent of all class 1–3 fixed food premises. Large and small premises in the suburbs and regional towns and cities. shires had the smallest proportion of class 1 premises On average, small rural shires had slightly more class 3 (four per cent, respectively), while middle metropolitan premises than other rural municipalities – 27 per cent of municipalities had the highest proportion (seven per cent). all class 1–3 food premises compared with 25 per cent in Inner metropolitan municipalities had a higher proportion regional cities and 23 per cent in large shires – although of class 2 premises compared with other municipality these differences are not marked. types. In inner metropolitan municipalities, class 2 premises Food Act enforcement activities entail considerable time represented 75 per cent of all class 1–3 premises. and effort, especially for councils with large numbers of The average for the state was 71 per cent, with middle food premises and small councils with small workforces and interface metropolitan municipalities having the lowest spread across air and water quality, immunisation, disease proportion (66 and 67 per cent, respectively). This was control, environmental protection and noise control in not surprising given the concentration of food service addition to food safety. businesses such as cafés and restaurants in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. Among Victoria’s 79 councils in 2013, 10 metropolitan municipalities (13 per cent) and Greater Geelong The corresponding figures for class 3 premises in 2013 City Council had more than 1,200 food premises and were a low of 20 per cent in inner metropolitan municipalities 30 non-metropolitan councils (38 per cent) had fewer than compared with a high of 27 per cent in each of the middle 300 premises. The remaining 38 councils had between and interface metropolitan municipalities and in small shires. 301 and 1,200 premises (48 per cent) (Figure 4a and 4b).
Figures for each municipality are available at Appendix 6.
21 Figure 4a: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by metropolitan municipality, Victoria, 2013
Class 1 1–300 Class 2 1–300 301–600 601–900 901–1200 1200 +
Class 3 1–300 301–600 Total 1–300 301–600 601–900 901–1200 1200 +
22 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Figure 4b: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by regional municipalitiy, Victoria, 2013
Class 1 1–300 Class 2 1–300 301–600 601–900 901–1200 1200 +
Class 3 1–300 301–600 Total 1–300 301–600 601–900 901–1200 1200 +
23 There are substantially more class 1–3 fixed site food The Gippsland Region, located in the south-east of premises per 10,000 persons in non-metropolitan regions Victoria, had the highest rate of class 1–3 fixed food than in metropolitan regions (Figure 5). For premises of premises per 10,000 persons in the state (101), while these classes during 2013, there was an average of the Eastern Metropolitan Region had the lowest (66). 27 more per 10,000 persons in non-metropolitan regions Gippsland also had slightly more such premises than than in metropolitan regions. The corresponding figure the average for non-metropolitan regions (101 compared for class 2 premises was 19 premises. with 98 per 10,000 persons). This region is home to a Figure 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises per 10,000 diverse range of food products and production systems population in Victoria, as at December 2013 which, along with its many food premises, play a major role in the region’s economy and contribute significantly 120 to the Victorian economy.20 In recent years value-added processing for both national and international markets 100 99 99 101 98 95 has increased. 80 These figures also show the significance of the food sector 78 79 71 to rural economies. Many food manufacturing enterprises 66 60 – such as canning or making foods from locally grown produce – are located in rural and regional Victoria. 40 Interest in fresh seasonal foods and gourmet foods is also high and continues to grow. Many non-metropolitan 20 municipalities actively promote food tourism, for example, Premises per 10,000 population Premises 0 winery/restaurants and outlets for boutique jams, preserves, honey and baked goods. In recent years
Hume rural councils have also reported significant numbers Victoria Eastern Western
Southern of sole proprietors or community groups engaged in Gippsland Grampians
Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan small, home-based food enterprises. North & West North & West Barwon-South Loddon Mallee North & West Metropolitan Region had a greater proportion Department of Health region of food premises than other metropolitan regions (78 per 10,000 persons) compared with Southern (71) and Eastern (66) metropolitan regions. Neighbourhoods in the predominantly residential Eastern Metropolitan Region have comparatively fewer local cafés and restaurants.
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.
See Appendix 7 for a breakdown by municipality.
24 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Temporary and mobile food premises
Streatrader – online solution for mobile food vans and stalls Street food has increased enormously in popularity in recent years. Farmers’ markets, food stalls and vans in almost every town and suburb offer a range of cuisine. Community groups raise much-needed funds through sausage sizzles and the sale of other foods. Even restaurants are joining in on the street food trend by opening outdoor food marquees and vans.
In common with fixed sites, the Food Act regulates temporary and mobile food premises. Under the Act, making and selling food brings certain responsibilities; all food businesses and community groups that sell food must handle food safely.
Temporary food premises come in many guises including marquees, stalls or other structures that are not permanently fixed to a site from which food is sold. They can be seen trading everywhere from major Ice cream van, City of Maribyrnong. commercial events with thousands of attendees such as the Formula 1 Grand Prix, to farmers’ markets, to small-scale fundraisers such as school fêtes.
In recent years mobile food premises have also proliferated and various food vans, coffee carts and caravans now trade on the streets, adding to Victoria’s vibrant food culture.
Food vending machines and a small number of water transport vehicles are also a feature of this landscape. Private water carters transport and sell drinking water for human consumption in areas with non-reticulated water supplies. They have a legal obligation to ensure the water they supply is protected from contamination. Because their activities are low-risk, they are classified as class 3 food premises for the purposes of the Food Act. Food vending machines are also minimally regulated under the Food Act.
25 The Streatrader system Streatrader is an online registration system for • allows proprietors to renew their annual registrations proprietors to register food stalls, food vans, water and print their certificates of registration (class 1–3) transport vehicles and food vending machines. • enables proprietors to lodge, print and email Local government is the regulator of these statements of trade anytime and have them ‘food premises’. Since October 2012 this has immediately available to councils occurred under Streatrader – the statewide single • allows proprietors to update their contact and registration scheme established under the Food Act. premises details and food handling activities Who is it for? at any time. • Businesses and community groups that sell food … for councils from stalls, vans or vending machines. Councils use Streatrader, rather than their own record • Councils that regulate food premises under keeping systems, to assess and approve applications. the Food Act. The department provides and manages the information What does it do? technology infrastructure for Streatrader as it is a statewide system. … for businesses and community groups The aim of this online system is to enable proprietors Whenever these proprietors wish to sell food, to manage their registrations easily and efficiently, they can now register or notify quickly and easily while giving councils the necessary information under the Food Act through Streatrader. about an operator’s activities and food safety history. Once an application has been accepted and processed Councils use Streatrader to: by the registering council, these businesses can trade anywhere in Victoria. The trader does not need to apply • assess and approve applications and receive again to any other council for permission to operate. payment of fees online All they need to do is lodge information about where • manage their workloads, for example, and when they will be trading via a Food Act when to inspect and when to send out statement of trade. registration renewal notices This application process was initially paper-based. • monitor information about temporary and mobile Streatrader supersedes this. Online and user-friendly, premises operating in their areas, including their the system employs ‘smart forms’ to make questions compliance histories and enforcement actions taken easier for applicants to answer. Streatrader can be by any council through access to real-time reports. used any time of day or night with no need to go to the The new system also applies to private drinking water council office – a welcome feature for busy proprietors transport vehicle operators who must register their and community volunteers. vehicles under the Food Act. Because their activities are The system also: low-risk, the minimum level of regulation necessary to protect consumers applies to these class 3 operators. • automatically determines food premises’ business classifications under the Food Act Food vending machines, which are also minimally • alerts proprietors to their regulatory obligations regulated under the Food Act, are also included in Streatrader. • puts proprietors in touch with their principal council (registering council) – the council they will deal mostly with
26 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Regulating street food Developing Streatrader was a complex project. The requirement for a comprehensive web-based system Statistics on food vans and stalls operating in Victoria for two types of users – that is, proprietors (business are available via Streatrader for the first time and we are and community groups) and councils – added significant pleased to present an in-depth picture of this growing complexity. The system had to accommodate the new sector in this report. We also include several council case four-tier food premises classification system designed studies that show the practical impact of Streatrader on to better match the level of regulation to the level of council practices and workloads and the benefits it is food safety risk. It had to accommodate multiple trading delivering for food businesses and community groups. scenarios such as a food van or stall only, or a proprietor In response to recommendations by the Victorian seeking registration of a food van or stall in association Competition and Efficiency Commission, the amended with a fixed premises (for example, a café or shop). Food Act established a single statewide registration After enormous efforts on the part of all involved, it was scheme for food van and stalls, water transport vehicles satisfying that the online system worked well from the day and food vending machines in 2011. The system was it went live. Streatrader went live in October 2012 and its paper-based at first while the enabling software for a success is demonstrated by the 12,996 proprietors who highly innovative solution for managing regulation of have opened an account on Streatrader. In 2013 these this rapidly growing sector was developed. included 5,406 newly registered premises (class 1–3) ‘Proprietors have welcomed the and 6,821 newly notified premises (class 4). In all, 13,765 premises have been listed. scheme, which has dramatically reduced the time and costs of Streatrader – the first year complying with their Food Act Temporary and mobile food premises comprise 31 obligations.’ per cent of all premises regulated under the Food Act; The department developed Streatrader through a the majority are of course fixed premises. Community productive partnership with the MAV, which project- organisations involved in selling food have a significant managed the building of the system. It is an online system stake in this sector and represented 50 per cent of that enables proprietors to register (class 2–3) or notify registered/notified premises in 2013. Food stalls are (class 4) about temporary and mobile food premises and operated either by community groups raising funds for water transport vehicles in Victoria. charity or by not-for-profit organisations such as sporting clubs selling food from a kiosk. In contrast to the regular, The new system streamlines the regulatory process for high-volume activities of commercial proprietors, these both councils and vendors. It has resulted in savings activities are generally occasional, small-scale and mostly for proprietors and community groups and improved involve only low-risk foods. accountability; it should deliver better food safety outcomes. The majority of proprietors on Streatrader operated in a single municipality (6,567 – 74 per cent). Proprietors have welcomed the scheme, which has Among the balance, 26 per cent (2,350) enjoyed dramatically reduced the time and costs of complying the benefits of a single registration that enabled them with their Food Act obligations. The system makes it to operate at multiple locations anywhere in the state. quick and easy to renew their registrations online and Twelve per cent of proprietors (1,521) who owned more to lodge Food Act statements of trade advising councils than one premises operating in any municipality took of where and when they will be operating. For councils, advantage of the option of operating under a single Streatrader streamlines administrative processes and registration. Ninety-four per cent (8,354) of proprietors provides necessary information about an operator’s operated in up to five municipalities, with six per cent activities and food safety history. (563) trading in more than five municipalities. A very small number (eight) were active in more than 30 municipalities.
27 Whittlesea: New system, better practice Aim What Council does differently as a result of Whittlesea City Council was keen to implement Streatrader Streatrader effectively and to improve its own The implementation of Streatrader has enabled some practice at the same time. key changes in the way that Council works.
Approach As Streatrader was a brand new system, Council took the opportunity to ‘roll’ registration renewals for A specific council officer is allocated to maintaining the temporary and mobile food premises, based on the Streatrader system along with our administrative staff. date when the stall or van is first registered. This enables Council to double-check systems in place for proprietors, confirm details and identify groups that The advantage of ‘rolling’ registration is that it spreads need to obtain any permits under local laws. Council’s workload over the year, whereas previously all renewals were due in December. We ensured that relevant staff were trained to use the system. Proprietors receive renewal notifications and reminders in advance through Streatrader. Challenges It is easy for council staff to monitor incoming Council worked hard to register proprietors on registrations and our work overall. Streatrader at the outset as there were large numbers to be transitioned. Council regularly attends Streatrader user-group meetings for information on system updates and Initially some community group office bearers were not to discuss issues that neighbouring councils are comfortable using computers, but with assistance from also having. Council during initial registration they are now confident to submit statements of trade without assistance. Council no longer needs to report statistics to the Department of Health about its Food Act activities in Benefits for community groups relation to food vans and stalls as Streatrader enables Council offered staff assistance and computer access the department to generate this data directly from to proprietors who required help registering or notifying the system. their activities on Streatrader. As many community We are keen to have more systems that function groups already attend meetings at Council buildings like Streatrader. they were easy to access. Ralph Mertins, Team Leader, Whittlesea City Council As a result, community and business proprietors have quickly adapted to using the system and most groups are now able to manage their accounts effectively.
Streatrader captures more information than our previous system and enables public users and Council to communicate easily with each other.
As Streatrader was implemented from scratch, Council was not locked into a certain payment structure. As a result, community groups are able to submit notifications to which no fees apply.
28 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Improved council monitoring Wodonga: Supporting food safety Because they are portable and frequently operate outside compliance normal business hours, it was challenging for councils to Aim monitor food vans and stalls prior to Streatrader. Councils had no information about these proprietors’ compliance Wodonga Rural City Council aimed to use the new histories outside of their own municipalities. Because there Streatrader system to support good food safety was no alert system in place, it could even be difficult to compliance among food vans and stalls. keep up with proprietors operating in their municipalities. Approach Streatrader was developed to streamline this process. Council’s approach was to use the system correctly For councils, it meant moving away from their own from the outset to gain the full benefits from it. separate systems onto a statewide system and thinking To achieve this, we allocated responsibility for and working in a very different way. maintaining the system to a designated staff member. Streatrader makes the Food Act compliance histories Challenges of temporary and mobile proprietors available to councils Like any new system, the Streatrader system took in real time wherever they trade across the state. This is some getting used to for proprietors and council. one of the principal food safety benefits of the system With growing familiarity, and the addition of system and requires councils to work together to make sure enhancements, proprietors are comfortable with the information on the system is up to date and to jointly system and tell Council they like using it. monitor compliance among food vans and stalls moving across municipal boundaries. This was challenging for The system works well when all councils are using many councils initially. For example, it could mean relying it fully. on a statutory inspection done by another council rather than repeating the inspection. What Council does differently as a result of Streatrader Despite initial misgivings in some cases, councils worked Being able to check the compliance history of hard to enable the statewide system to come into being. businesses and print statement of trade information Nevertheless, it was soon clear that access to proprietors’ has been very useful for our environmental health compliance histories enables council environmental officers. Not only does this functionality provide a health officers to focus attention on areas of greatest risk good audit trail, it also assists Council to identify to public health, for example, poor performers or new unregistered premises and to prioritise and conduct entrants who need additional food safety advice. inspections. We are extremely grateful to council officers for their major Half of our food premises now make their registration contributions to ensuring Streatrader worked effectively payments online through Streatrader, allowing from its first day. Table 9 gives an overview of the system’s applications and renewals to be processed more first full year of operation. efficiently. This has been convenient for proprietors and has also reduced front counter contact with proprietors for our environmental health officer and customer service team.
Susan Bennett, Team Leader, Environmental Health, Wodonga Rural City Council
29 Table 9: Streatrader snapshot, 2013* Notes: Location and status * The items in this table are not mutually exclusive and cannot be totalled. Premises total 13,765 ** Food vending machines are also minimally regulated under the Food Location Act. These data are not included in this report. † A proprietor may operate more than one premises. Metropolitan Melbourne 71% ‡ These premises were entered in 2012 when Streatrader went live. Non-metropolitan Victoria 29% Premises types** 13,765 Temporary 87% Mobile 12% Water transport vehicles < 1% Proprietors† 12,996 Ownership 1 premises 82% 2 premises 10% 3 or more premises 8% Owned more than 1 premises 12% and opted for a single registration Type Business 50% Community group 50% Registrations (class 2–3) 6,712 Initial 81% Renewal 20% Notifications (class 4) 7,053 Initial in 2013 97% Initial and existing Oct–Dec 2012‡ 3% Proprietors total 12,996 (businesses and community groups) With a Streatrader account 12,996 Actively traded in 2013 8,917 Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated 1 74% 2–5 20% More than 5 6% Trading days total 214,169 Business 94% Community groups 6% Department of Health advice service responses Telephone enquires 8,280 Email enquires > 500
30 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Port Phillip: Managing large food events The City of Port Phillip hosts many festivals and events • As an automated online system, Streatrader makes each year, including the Formula 1 Grand Prix and it easier for temporary and mobile food premises St Kilda Festival. Both events attract thousands of to comply with their Food Act registration and visitors to our municipality and involve large numbers notification requirements. It also means that class of mobile and temporary food premises. 2 and 3 proprietors register only once and pay one fee to their principal council regardless of how many Approach municipalities they operate in. The Grand Prix and St Kilda Festival are both • Fees can be paid quickly and easily online. well-established events. This has allowed Council • Proprietors can submit trading dates and places to develop good working relationships with the up to a year ahead at one time, instead of separately relevant stakeholders to ensure that food safety for each event. is effectively managed. What Council does differently as a result of The benefit of experience has allowed Council’s Streatrader approach to managing food safety at large events to progress over the years, with the most recent Prior to Streatrader, checking mobile proprietors’ improvements arising from the introduction of compliance histories before an event was difficult. Streatrader. This meant that council officers often had to deal with food safety issues when they attended the event and Our environmental health officers manage Streatrader to notify the organisers subsequently. applications and queries on a rotational basis, and large events such as the Grand Prix and St Kilda Festival Our environmental health officers can now use are allocated a dedicated officer for the duration of Streatrader to prepare before the event takes place. the event. Once proprietors submit statements of trade, Council checks the notes and inspections entered by other Challenges councils in whose municipalities the trader has operated Managing food safety at major events has always previously. Based on this information, our officers can been a large task and, prior to the introduction of contact their counterparts at other councils to discuss Streatrader, officers spent a great deal of time following any compliance issues. up registration documents and contacting proprietors This preparation greatly assists council officers on the for further information. ground when attending large-scale events because Streatrader has made it much easier for officers to deal they can focus attention on areas of greatest risk such with large numbers of applications. With registration and as proprietors who have poor compliance histories. compliance history data recorded against the premises, Obviously as time goes on and more compliance the need to contact operators has decreased. information is added to the system, this function Benefits for business will become more useful. Mounting large-scale food events is challenging for the Douglas Martin, Coordinator Health Services, organisers and for the food premises that operate at Port Phillip City Council them. Streatrader has meant benefits and efficiencies for both.
31 Scope Uptake exceeds expectations Under the statewide system, one council must be primarily Initial modelling estimated that the new system would responsible for approving a business’s food handling need to cater for up to 5,000 businesses operating in an operations at its temporary or mobile premises. Known average of four municipalities in any one year. Uptake of as the principal council (or registering council), this is Streatrader has exceeded all expectations. As mentioned, the council that is the registering authority. The principal in the year to December 2013, 12,996 proprietors had council registers the food van or stall for the state. In used Streatrader to enter 13,765 food premises in the this sense, it is acting for all other councils in whose system. Streatrader has yielded new information about municipalities it will trade. This council, together with this growing food industry sector. all ‘trading councils’, are responsible for monitoring the business.
Statewide single registration can include all of a proprietor’s temporary or mobile food premises and an associated fixed site if they have one and choose to combine it with their registration. Whether a food business operates at a single site, has multiple food stalls or vans, and/or trades at different locations, the registration granted by the principal council allows class 2 or 3 premises to operate for up to 12 months. If a stall or van is class 4, it can trade anywhere in Victoria on an ongoing basis once the principal council accepts its once-off notification. Maribyrnong City Council Environmental Health Officer Sue Strati ‘Uptake of Streatrader has exceeded checking food temperatures at the Footscray Celebrates event. all expectations.’ Once registered or notified, operators of these portable food premises must inform all relevant councils about where and when they plan to trade. They do this by lodging a Food Act statement of trade via Streatrader covering their principal council and each council in whose municipality their vans or stalls will be operating.
Statements of trade ensure a business’s principal council understands the extent of its operations, and can answer any questions asked by relevant trading councils about its registration/notification and compliance history. Businesses risk a fine if they fail to lodge a statement of trade within five days prior to commencing trading in a municipality.
32 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Southern Grampians: Community food fundraisers Aim • assistance with food premises registrations and In Southern Grampians Shire, many volunteers are notifications to Council involved in food events that raise much needed funds. • demonstrations and hands-on practice such as Along with food businesses, Council wanted to support using and calibrating a probe thermometer and these groups to meet their Food Act obligations and to defrosting food make a smooth transition to the new Streatrader system. • assistance with maintaining essential food safety records. Approach Since implementing the Food Act amendments, We decided to take an educative approach and visited community groups’ and food businesses’ knowledge a number of events such as fêtes and markets, to work and awareness of food safety has increased. closely with community groups. They are better able to comply with the Food Act, We also provided time for community groups and and registrations are increasing every year, which business proprietors to meet with environmental benefits the local economy. health officers who could assist them with their questions and issues. What Council does differently as a result of Streatrader Challenges Council is now: The major challenge was dealing with misunderstandings • more aware of the amount and type of trading in relation to: in its municipality • safe food handling • inspecting community groups and businesses • legislative requirements, including registering or more effectively notifying food activities with Council • promoting the fact that Council is here to help • correct use and implementation of important food businesses and community groups safety records. • liaising more closely with community groups and Many community groups rely heavily on volunteers who associations in the shire, including church and work in the food industry. This can result in fatigue for recreational leaders. these volunteers and may lead to them disengaging from Businesses and community groups want to do the the group. As fewer volunteers are available to share the right thing when handling, preparing and selling food. work, this can have a flow-on effect for the community. Members of the community want to see their Council devoted time to working with community environmental health officers out inspecting food groups and businesses to show them how the Food premises as this gives them confidence about the Act changes and the Streatrader system can make safety of their food. compliance easier. Our work to implement the Food Act amendments Benefits for businesses and community groups and Streatrader prompted Council to address issues To build skills and confidence, Council provided training by ‘thinking outside the square’ at times. sessions for community groups and businesses. These Pauline Porter, Environmental Health Coordinator, practical sessions, which were offered after hours and Southern Grampians Shire Council run in a kitchen, focused on:
33 Enhancements and support Savings for mobile vans and stalls Streatrader’s first full year of operation was extremely The new scheme replaces the former system under which busy for the department and councils as supports were proprietors needed separate registrations to operate in put in place to ensure that it operated effectively and different municipalities. As a single registration now applies met business and community user needs. statewide, Streatrader is delivering big savings to food van and stall operators. The department set up a dedicated telephone and email support service for vendors and council officers. In 2013 ‘Streatrader … demonstrated a the support line responded to 8,280 calls and around substantial saving of $3.1 million 500 emails. As users gain familiarity with the system and the useability of the system is improved, this level per annum [to food businesses].’ of service will no longer be necessary and it is planned The system has also freed up council officers to focus on to wind it down in 2014. food safety issues that pose a greater risk to public health. In May, following several months’ operation, the The full benefits will manifest over time as councils become department engaged web experts to conduct usability more familiar with the concept of a registration applying testing to improve users’ experience of Streatrader. across the entire state and more comfortable with relying System issues and opportunities for improvement on business inspections conducted by other councils were identified through: when a business is operating elsewhere.
• involving businesses and community groups that The next council in whose municipality the business trades conduct food fundraising activities in the user testing can follow up on any noncompliance that was detected of the system and seeking feedback on the information by the previous council. On the other hand, if the business they would like to see on the Streatrader website was originally found to be compliant, the second council • collating feedback from public and council users may not need to duplicate the process by re-inspecting the through the Streatrader support line same business. It can instead focus its resources on other more pressing areas. • identifying issues through discussion with department officers and system developers. A regulatory change measurement report was completed on Streatrader in June 2013. This is a mandatory The web usability experts recommended a number of Department of Treasury and Finance requirement enhancements. These were made at a modest expense and is part of the Victorian Government’s Red Tape and have improved the useability and effectiveness of Reduction Program, which aims to minimise the costs the system and reduced user reliance on Streatrader associated with regulatory requirements and processes. support services. The changes included improvements The Streatrader assessment was based on 7,500 to user account management, introducing an events businesses and demonstrated a substantial saving of module that makes lodging statements of trade easier, $3.1 million per annum. If conducted on recent figures, and a communications module for councils that makes these red tape savings are expected to save in excess communication through Streatrader easier. The updated of $5 million per annum to food businesses. version of the Streatrader website was launched in December 2013.
34 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Whitehorse: Risk management Aim What Council does differently as a result At Whitehorse City Council we took advantage of of Streatrader Streatrader to check the Food Act compliance histories Streatrader is an effective tool for communicating of temporary and mobile food premises coming into with event organisers who lodge statements of trade the municipality. for each event.
Approach Council receives statements of trade directly from food business and community groups without having to wait Council incorporated an educational program into our on event organisers to pass on the information. annual Food Hygiene Assessment System information sessions. We included Streatrader information at festival Streatrader provides Council with information on information sessions conducted prior to major events. inspections and on premises’ food safety performance. We held meetings with community groups based in Council uses this data to focus resources on businesses the municipality, including Rotary clubs. We published that have not yet been inspected or that have a history articles in Council’s Food For Thought publication. of poor performance in other municipalities.
Benefits for businesses Our environmental health officers can share the details of Commercial operators transitioned to Streatrader any poor performance observed during inspections with successfully. Council found that the majority lodged other councils by uploading photographs, seizure notes, statements of trade soon after they applied to event inspection reports and other observations to the system. organisers to attend the event. Streatrader also allows inspecting councils to send alerts We find that the Streatrader system motivates food to principal councils notifying them of specific areas of businesses to improve their performance because noncompliance. they are aware that their food safety performance Although the number of temporary and mobile food is recorded and is accessible by other councils in premises trading in the municipality has increased whose municipalities they operate. steadily, Streatrader has made it easier to manage The advent of Streatrader also gave Council an each event because: opportunity to meet with the Whitehorse Asian • food businesses are proactively lodging statements Business Association and the Melbourne Taiwanese of trade Chamber of Commerce to discuss their proprietors’ • the system streamlines communication about poor educational needs. performing proprietors with their principal councils Introducing these two major event organisers to the • the past histories of proprietors intending to operate Streatrader concept at an early stage meant they in the municipality are readily accessible on the system. understood the purpose of the new system and the Streatrader has allowed Council to apply a risk requirement for their stallholders to lodge statements management framework to temporary and mobile of trade for future events. premises. Access to compliance check and performance histories assists Council to allocate education and enforcement resources where they are most needed.
Leanne Johnson, Senior Environmental Health Officer/ Quality Assurance Coordinator, Whitehorse City Council
35 Reporting power The Streatrader system provides real-time information relating to food vans and stalls. This is enormously useful to councils that administer the Food Act. The system includes a powerful reporting tool that meets the department’s and councils’ reporting requirements under the Food Act and will support changing business needs into the future. It allows councils and the department to access standard reports and to customise new reports online quickly and easily.
Face-to-face advice Although Streatrader does not replace face-to-face advice from council environmental health officers, it is a useful tool that saves both time and money. As always, vendors are encouraged to contact their council health departments for advice about food safety or regulation.
Adapting regulation to changing market conditions in this City of Boroondara Environmental Health Officers, Zenita O’Neill and growing sector has contributed to Victoria’s vibrant and Will Carroll, bagging a routine food sample at a local café. diverse food culture.
Temporary stall exhibiting speciality teas, City of Melbourne.
36 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Benalla: Streatrader education Aim Benefits for businesses and community groups At Benalla Rural City Council we took an educational Streatrader has given businesses and community groups approach to assist temporary and mobile food premises access to a simpler and more cost-effective process for to use the new online Streatrader system autonomously. registering/notifying temporary and mobile food premises and for advising councils of their trading activities. Approach The educational approach we took assisted businesses We mailed information on the Streatrader system to all to move seamlessly to the Streatrader system. proprietors of temporary and mobile food premises and community groups. Community groups without internet access have relied on Council to manage their Streatrader accounts. To enable a smooth transition, the letters included their Communication, education and personal assistance Streatrader usernames and passwords as well as a have strengthened relationships between our brochure and ‘quick guide’ produced by the department. environmental health officers and community groups. We invited all potential Streatrader users to attend a Groups are now more likely to approach council officers small group education session on getting started with with any issues and to discuss food safety prior to Streatrader and provided attendees with internet access organising an event. during the sessions. What Council does differently as a result of Council also ran two food safety training courses in Streatrader 2013 to introduce business and community groups Council makes time available to individuals or groups to Streatrader. who are new to Streatrader and who need assistance Challenges to register and manage their accounts. The main challenges were creating community As a statewide system that enables councils to work awareness about the new system and ensuring all together, Streatrader has demonstrated the potential temporary and mobile food premises whose principal importance of field-based internet access technology addressees are in the municipality were captured on and inspection software for use by environmental Streatrader. health officers.
Another challenge was ensuring that all proprietors were Council officers have also identified the need for access lodging statements of trade for events both within the to food safety support materials for immediate electronic municipality and in other municipalities. transmission to proprietors during site visits.
We addressed this through education in the field Streatrader gives field access to the previous at a number of events. compliance histories of all premises trading temporarily within the municipality. Environmental health officers should ideally be able to check this important information just prior to conducting inspections at events.
Kim Morrison, Environmental Health Officer, Benalla Rural City Council
37 Premises distribution, class and type Figure 6: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises,* Victoria, as at December 2013
Temporary and mobile food premises defined For the purposes of the Food Act, temporary premises are tents, stalls or other structures that are not permanently fixed to the site from which food is sold. They may also be permanent structures, such as a community hall, that is not owned or leased by the food business that operates the premises and in which food is handled for sale or from which food is sold on an occasional basis. Mobile food premises are vehicles such as a food van or coffee cart.
During 2013 a total of 13,765 temporary and mobile Melbourne metropolitan 9,834 (71%) food premises were registered with Victorian councils Non-metropolitan Victoria 3,931 (29%) (class 2 and 3) or were reported by councils as having Victoria 13,765 (100%) notified their class 4 food handling activities (Figure 6). * Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and For 71 per cent of these, their principal council was water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises recorded at a metropolitan Melbourne address and the operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit remaining 29 per cent in non-metropolitan municipalities. organisations. These figures are similar to those for fixed premises, 68 per cent of which were located in metropolitan Just over half of these food vans or stalls were class 4 Melbourne and the remaining 32 per cent in premises (51 per cent) serving only low-risk foods or non-metropolitan Victoria. operating simple sausage sizzles or cake stalls (Table 10). There were no class 1 businesses among these The remaining 49 per cent comprised equal proportions premises, as these types of premises (for example, of class 2 and 3 premises, handling higher risk foods that hospitals, long-day childcare centres and aged care need temperature control at all times to keep them safe facilities) are not temporary or mobile. (class 2), or unpackaged low-risk foods, pre-packaged high-risk foods, or occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods (class 3).
The number of food vans and stalls reflects the recent growth in farmers’ and other markets. It also reflects the significance of fundraising events conducted by community groups. While large numbers of such events take place, most community groups are low-volume proprietors conducting only one or two events a year.
38 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Table 10: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by class, Victoria, as at December 2013
Temporary food premises Mobile food premises
Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total
Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
2,702 20% 2,561 19% 6,772 49% 12,035 87% 647 5% 802 6% 281 2% 1,730 13% 13,765 100%
* Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
While some temporary and mobile food premises trade Figure 7: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* in more than one municipality, under the Food Act they by Department of Health region in which principal must register (class 2 and 3) or notify (class 4) with a single councils were located, Victoria, as at December 2013 council, which becomes their principal or registering council. In effect, this is the council they will mostly deal with in relation to managing their registrations/notifications.
In 2013 councils in the North & West Metropolitan Region served as the principal councils for the largest proportion of temporary and mobile food premises in Victoria (28 per cent) (Figure 7). This region comprises several large inner city municipalities such as Melbourne, Moreland and Darebin. The corresponding figures for the other metropolitan regions were 25 per cent for Southern Metropolitan Region and 18 per cent for Eastern Metropolitan Region.
Among the non-metropolitan councils, those in the Hume Eastern Metropolitan 2,478 (18%) and Loddon Mallee regions were the principal councils North & West Metropolitan 3,860 (28%) for the largest proportion of these food premises; each Southern Metropolitan 3,496 (25%) with eight per cent of all such premises. Bendigo in the Barwon-South Western 560 (4%) Gippsland 475 (3%) Loddon Mallee Region is also home to many local festivals Grampians 770 (6%) and markets. The corresponding figures for the remaining Hume 1,045 (8%) regions were the Grampians at six per cent, Barwon-South Loddon Mallee 1,081 (8%) Western at four per cent and Gippsland Region at three Victoria 13,765 (100%) per cent.
Councils may also be ‘trading councils’, as distinct to * Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises principal councils, for food vans or stalls. For example, operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit in the Southern Metropolitan Region, Port Phillip City organisations. Council hosts a range of festivals and food and wine events while Dandenong is home to a large Chinese New Year celebration. In addition to local proprietors, these events are attended by a significant number of interstate proprietors as well as Victorian premises whose principal councils are elsewhere.
See Appendix 8 for a breakdown by municipality.
39 The great majority of temporary and mobile food premises Figure 8: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food registered with Streatrader in 2013 were temporary premises* by premises type** and class, Victoria, 2013 premises (87 per cent) such as stalls and tents and the 7,000 occasional use of a hall. The corresponding figure for mobile premises such as vans and carts was 12 per cent. 6,000 6,772 Substantially less than one per cent were water transport vehicles (Figure 8 and Table 11). 5,000 Across all premises types (that is, temporary and mobile), 51 per cent (7,053) were class 4 premises. Of the 4,000 temporary premises, the majority were class 4 premises 3,000 (56 per cent). 2,702 In contrast, very few class 4 premises were mobile Number of premises 2,000 2,561 (four per cent) compared with class 2 (19 per cent) and class 3 proprietors (23 per cent). This reflects 1,000 281 the commercial nature of mobile premises. Class 2 802 647 mobile premises mainly serve high-risk foods that need 0 Temporary Mobile temperature control to keep them safe, for example, burgers, rice dishes and tacos. Class 3 premises serve Premises type foods that are not commonly associated with food Class 2 poisoning (such as coffee, packaged muffins biscuits Class 3 or pies in their original packaging). Class 4
Well under one per cent of all temporary and mobile Notes: * Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water proprietors were class 3 water transport vehicles. transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises These private businesses, which transport and sell operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit drinking water for human consumption in areas with organisations. ** The figures for mobile premises include 23 water transport vehicles, non-reticulated water supplies, are classed as food which are class 3 food premises under the Food Act. premises for the purposes of the Food Act.
The intent of major amendments to the Food Act in 2010 and 2011 was to ease the regulatory burden for proprietors conducting low-risk food handling activities in a variety of settings without compromising food safety. These figures suggest that this has been achieved for a substantial number of food businesses and community groups that fall into class 3 and 4 which, by definition, are involved only in lower risk food handling activities.
40 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Table 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by premises type and class, Victoria, 2013
Temporary food Mobile food Water transport Class premises premises vehicle** Total
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Class 2 2,702 81% 647 19% 0 0% 3,349 100%
Class 3 2,561 76% 779 23% 23 < 1% 3,363 100%
Class 4 6,772 96% 281 4% 0 0% 7,053 100%
Total 12,035 87% 1,707 12% 23 < 1% 13,765 100%
Notes: * Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. ** The Food Act classifies all water transport vehicles as class 3.
Half of all temporary and mobile food premises that traded Not surprisingly, the Food Act classifications of these in Victoria in 2013 were operated by businesses (6,906), premises were inversely proportional. Sixty-six per cent of while the remaining half represented community group temporary and mobile food premises operated by business activities (6,859) (Figure 9 and Table 12). proprietors were class 2, compared with only 34 per cent of those conducted by community groups (Table 12). Figure 9: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food The corresponding figures for class 3 premises were premises* by proprietor type and class, Victoria, 2013 67 per cent and 33 per cent, respectively. Only 35 per cent 5,000 of business premises were class 4 premises compared with 65 per cent for community groups. 4,500
4,000 4,617 This reflects the higher risk food handling activities typically mises
e undertaken by businesses whose food activities generate 3,500 regular income. In comparison, community group events
ed pr 3,000 are generally small-scale and operate for a few days each 2,500 year or on a single occasion for a particular event. gister 2,000 ‘Cook and serve’ activities are those where food is cooked 2,436 2,246 2,224 at the site to be eaten straight away — for example, 1,500 hamburgers and other meats, or eggs that are cooked 1,000 umber of re and served immediately. While these are usually class 2 N 1,125 500 1,117 activities, an exception has been made for community 0 groups. Where groups sell cook and serve foods at Businesses Community groups occasional events of up to two days at a time, they are Premises type classified as class 3, rather than class 2 food premises. Class 2 The exception recognises the importance of community Class 3 group activities and the low overall food safety risks of Class 4 these small-scale activities.
Businesses 6,906 (50%) Community groups 6,859 (50%) Victoria 13,765 (100%) * Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
41 Table 12: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by proprietor type and class, Victoria, 2013
Business Community group Total
No. % No. % No. %
Class 2 2,224 66% 1,125 34% 3,349 100%
Class 3 2,246 67% 1,117 33% 3,363 100%
Class 4 2,436 35% 4,617 65% 7,053 100%
Victoria 6,906 50% 6,859 50% 13,765 100%
* Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
Figure 10 shows the rapid uptake of the Streatrader An awareness campaign developed with the MAV was system by temporary and mobile food proprietors successful in bringing the new system to proprietors’ throughout 2013. attention. In addition, many council officers promoted the statewide system at a local level and offered proprietors Figure 10: Number of Streatrader accounts* practical assistance such as help with lodging application by month, Victoria, 2013 forms and statements of trade. Many event organisers 14,000 have started to include information about Streatrader in their guides for proprietors, which has further encouraged 12,000
12,555 12,996 uptake of the system. 11,891
11,032
10,000
10,318 As a result, proprietors with a Streatrader account 9,656
8,000 9,075
8,602 increased by 42 per cent over the course of 2013. 7,838 6,000 7,264 While the system benefits all proprietors, those who operated 6,450
5,499 a number of premises in different municipalities took 4,000 advantage of the new arrangements most enthusiastically. 2,000 They now require only one approval and are able to quickly and easily lodge statements of trade online, including Number of Streatrader accounts 0 multiple dates for a particular market, in one transaction. Jul Apr Jan Oct Jun Feb Mar Sep Nov Dec Aug May
Cumulative by month By December 2013, a total of 12,996 proprietors had an account with Streatrader. Sixty-nine per cent of these * Note: A single Streatrader account (one registration) may include (8,917) actively traded in 2013. multiple premises. The department also ran training sessions and introduced To support the changeover to a statewide system in ongoing user groups for councils. These have increased October 2012, the department prepared a suite of council awareness of the benefits of the system and have materials such as quick guides and guidance notes for been a source of feedback to the department on how the councils and businesses. A Streatrader telephone helpline system can be improved. has operated since the system launch and continues to support public users of the system. These initiatives have The department also provided Streatrader brochures to helped to ensure that everyone has immediate access to Bunnings, which hosts a large number sausage sizzles run consistent information about the new arrangements. by community groups to raise funds. Bunnings routinely advises community groups about Streatrader and requires ‘… proprietors with a Streatrader them to provide a copy of their statements of trade to account increased by 42 per cent show they have gone through the required process. over the course of 2013.’ See Appendix 9 for a breakdown by municipality.
42 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Initial and renewed Figure 11: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food registrations/notifications premises* by registration status (initial and renewed), Victoria, as at December 2013 For class 2 and 3 temporary and mobile food premises, 3,000 Figure 11 and Table 13 show the number of premises that were registered under the Food Act and recorded in the 2,500 2,705 2,701
Streatrader system for the first time in 2013 compared mises e with those that renewed their registrations in that year. 2,000 Of the total 6,717 class 2 and 3 premises registered, ed pr almost three-quarters were initial registrations. 1,500
This is a hangover from the new Streatrader system, gister 1,000 which will resolve in 2014. All proprietors registering in the new Streatrader system in 2013 were necessarily 500 coded as ‘initial registrations’. While a proportion of these 644 622 umber of re proprietors had prior registrations with Victorian councils, N 0 this data is contained in separate council systems and Initial Renewed was not accessible for this report. Figure 11 also shows Registration status that 644 class 2 and 662 class 3 premises renewed their registrations in 2013. These represent premises that Class 2 Class 3 registered in Streatrader between October and December
2012 and whose renewals were due in 2013. Class 2 total 3,349 (50%) See Appendices 10a and 10b for breakdowns by Class 3 total 3,363 (50%) Class 2 and 3 total 6,712 (100%) municipality.
* Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
Table 13 shows these premises by class although the caveat discussed above also applies to these figures.
43 Table 13: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises* by registration status, class and type, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registration Premises type Initial registration renewed Total
No. % No. % No. %
Temporary Class 2 2,199 81% 503 19% 2,702 100%
Class 3 2,074 81% 487 19% 2,561 100%
Mobile Class 2 506 78% 141 22% 647 100%
Class 3 606 78% 173 22% 779 100%
Water transport vehicle** Class 3 21 91% 2 9% 23 100%
Total 5,406 81% 1,306 19% 6,712 100%
Notes: * Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. ** Drinking water is classified as a food under the Food Act. For the purposes of the Act, all water transport vehicles are class 3 food premises.
Due to the lower risks inherent in their food handling Figure 12: Class 4 temporary and mobile food activities, class 4 proprietors are not required to register premises by initial notification, Victoria, as at under the Food Act. They must instead notify councils of December 2013 their activities on a once-off basis. Figure 12 shows that 900 6,821 class 4 temporary and mobile premises notified
councils of their food handling activities for the first time 800 838 via the Streatrader system in 2013. These data, which are 700 a true reflection of initial class 4 notifications for the period,
641 600 show the peaks of activity in the warmer months that are 629 611 594 587 565 559 typical of these temporary and mobile food premises. 500 524
They reflect large numbers of community groups 484 400 452 conducting low-risk food events such as cake stalls
and sausage sizzles. 300 337
See Appendix 11 for a breakdown by municipality. Number of food premises 200 100
0 Jul Apr Oct Jan Jun Feb Mar Aug Sep Nov Dec May
Initial notifications by month
Victoria 6,821 (100%)
* Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
44 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Multiple premises with Table 14: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food single registrations premises per single registration/notification,* Victoria, as at December 2013 Streatrader gives proprietors who have more than one Number of premises temporary or mobile food premises the option of combining per registration No. % all premises into a single registration and paying a single fee. This can include any combination of premises types 1 6,703 81% – food vans, stalls and fixed premises. 2 846 10%
Eighty-one per cent of all registrations/notifications covered 3 121 1% a single premises in 2013 while 15 per cent covered to up 4 365 4% to four premises. A small proportion covered more than four premises (four per cent) (Figure 13 and Table 14). 5 16 < 1% 6 75 1% Figure 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications* where proprietors 7 8 < 1% owned more than one premises, Victoria, as at 8 26 < 1% December 2013 9 8 < 1% 900 10 14 < 1% 800 11 2 < 1% 700 gistrations 12 8 < 1% 600 13 0 0 500 14 4 < 1% 400 15 8 < 1% 300 16+ 24 < 1% 200 Total 8,228 100% 100 * Note: Includes registrations of temporary food premises and mobile Number of food premises re Number of food premises 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16+ food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes registrations of premises operated by business proprietors and community and Premises owned not-for-profit organisations.
* Note: Includes registrations of temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes registrations of premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
45 Trading days Figure 14 shows that temporary and mobile premises Here again, these figures suggest that this has been traded for a total of 214,407 days in 2013. The marked achieved for temporary and mobile food premises increase in trading days throughout the year reflects the proprietors. Together, class 3 and 4 premises conducting increasing uptake of the Streatrader system by proprietors. lower risk food handling activities contributed the great It is likely that the total number of trading days in 2013 majority of total trading days (84 per cent; 181,074 days) exceeded those shown in Figure 14. Once all proprietors in 2013. have made the transition to the Streatrader system, On their own, class 3 premises – which typically serve more complete data will be available. unpackaged low-risk foods, pre-packaged high-risk foods Figure 15 and Table 15 show trading days for temporary or occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods – and mobile food premises in each class. contributed the majority of all trading days (68 per cent) in 2013. The corresponding proportions for class 4 were As mentioned, the intent of major amendments to the 16 per cent and 15 per cent for class 2. Food Act in 2010 and 2011 was to ease the regulatory burden for proprietors conducting low-risk food handling activities in a variety of settings without compromising food safety.
Figure 14: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and Figure 15: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by month, Victoria, 2013 mobile food premises* by class and month, Victoria, 2013
30,000 18,000 16,000 25,000
26,753 14,000
24,947
20,000 23,225 12,000
21,737
21,267
10,000 15,000 18,317
16,661 8,000 15,831
14,284 6,000 10,000 13,617
10,861 4,000 Number of trading days Number of trading days 5,000
6,907 2,000
0 0 Jul Apr Oct Jan Oct N ov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sep Jul Aug Jun Feb Mar Nov Sep Aug May
Dec
Trading month Trading month
Class 2: 33,095 (15%) Victoria 214,407 (100%) Class 3: 146,010 (68%) * Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; Class 4: 35,064 (16%) excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business Victoria: 214,169 (100%) proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. * Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
46 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Table 15: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by class and month, Victoria, 2013
Registrations Notifications Total
Month Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
No. % No. % No. % No. %
January 791 11% 4,538 66% 1,578 23% 6,907 100%
February 1,075 10% 8,026 74% 1,757 16% 10,858 100%
March 1,387 10% 9,817 72% 2,404 18% 13,608 100%
April 1,620 11% 10,478 73% 2,181 15% 14,279 100%
May 2,191 14% 11,171 71% 2,465 16% 15,827 100%
June 2,669 16% 10,935 66% 3,052 18% 16,656 100%
July 3,107 17% 12,275 67% 2,914 16% 18,296 100%
August 3,566 17% 14,309 67% 3,357 16% 21,232 100%
September 3,912 18% 14,293 66% 3,494 16% 21,699 100%
October 3,777 16% 15,878 68% 3,531 15% 23,186 100%
November 4,332 17% 16,320 66% 4,257 17% 24,909 100%
December 4,668 17% 17,970 67% 4,074 15% 26,712 100%
Total 33,095 15% 146,010 68% 35,064 16% 214,169 100%
* Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
Cook, Christina Galgano, Casa Elda Viccori Aged Care, City of Yarra.
47 Among temporary and mobile food premises, mobile vans Figure 16: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and and carts contributed the greatest proportion of trading mobile food premises* by premises type and month, days in 2013 (73 per cent) compared with other premises Victoria, 2013 types (Figure 16 and Table 16). 18,000 Activity in this sector of the market appears to have grown 16,000 rapidly in recent years and comprises mostly commercial 14,000
operators. These are typically high-volume proprietors 12,000 who trade frequently, as for many this is their main source of income. 10,000 8,000 The corresponding figure for temporary premises, such as market stalls, was 22 per cent and five 6,000 4,000
per cent for water transport vehicles. Number of trading days 2,000
0 Aug Sep Jul Oct N ov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Trading month
Temporary: 47,423 (22%) Mobile: 155,590 (73%) Water transport vehicle: 10,756 (5%) Victoria: 214,169 (100%)
* Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
Table 16: Trading days by class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by premises type and month, Victoria, 2013 Premises type Water transport Month Temporary Mobile vehicle Total No. % No. % No. % No. % January 1,448 21% 5,258 76% 201 3% 6,907 100% February 1,807 17% 8,633 80% 418 4% 10,858 100% March 2,823 21% 10,121 74% 664 5% 13,608 100% April 2,586 18% 10,973 77% 720 5% 14,279 100% May 2,921 18% 12,162 77% 744 5% 15,827 100% June 4,053 24% 11,451 69% 1,152 7% 16,656 100% July 3,954 22% 13,720 75% 622 3% 18,296 100% August 4,741 22% 15,802 74% 689 3% 21,232 100% September 5,099 23% 15,880 73% 720 3% 21,699 100% October 5,103 22% 17,278 75% 805 3% 23,186 100% November 6,368 26% 16,981 68% 1,560 6% 24,909 100% December 6,520 24% 17,731 66% 2,461 9% 26,712 100% Total 47,423 22% 155,990 73% 10,756 5% 214,169 100%
* Note: Includes temporary food premises and mobile food premises; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations.
48 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
These data are compiled from Food Act statements of trade, which premises lodge in Streatrader to ensure councils know where and when they will be trading. Businesses risk a fine if they fail to lodge a statement of trade within five days prior to trading in a municipality.
Trading across municipalities In 2013 almost three-quarters of temporary and mobile food premises operated in only one municipality (Figure 17 and Table 17). Overall, 94 per cent traded in five municipalities or fewer. Among the small proportion of proprietors who were active in more than five municipalities, four per cent operated in six to 10 Remi Pham and Mehdy Frihi sell pizza in the Melbourne CBD from their chrome caravan as part of a three month trial. municipalities and only two per cent in more than six. (Photo: 774 ABC Melbourne). While the Streatrader system has brought a range of benefits for all temporary and mobile food venders, the 26 per cent whose businesses took them to more than one municipality in 2013 enjoyed the convenience and savings of a single registration process and fee that enabled them to operate anywhere in the state for 12 months.
See Appendix 12 for a breakdown by region.
Figure 17: Municipalities with temporary and mobile premises proprietors* who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria, 2013
1,200 1,200
1,000 1,000
800 800
600 600
400 400
Number of proprietors 200 Number of proprietors 200
0 0 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+
Number of municipalities Number of municipalities
* Note: In the Streatrader system, all premises operated by a single proprietor are recorded in a single registration. The data in this table is a count of registrations, which is a proxy for the number of discrete proprietors.
49 Table 17: Number of municipalities in which Major benefits temporary and mobile premises proprietors* operated, Victoria, 2013 In 2013 continued implementation of Streatrader and improvements to the system were a major focus for the Proprietors department and councils. This work has identified the size and trading frequency of the temporary and mobile food No. of municipalities No. % sector at a state level for the first time. It has provided 1 6,567 74% councils with a framework and tools to cooperate with each other to regulate these premises across the state, 2 1,024 11% which will contribute to better food safety outcomes. 3 382 4% Finally, it has resulted in significant savings to industry 4 230 3% and proprietors, exceeding the commitment made by government in response to the Victorian Competition 5 151 2% and Efficiency Commission review. Subtotal 8,354 94% For more information go to 6–10 356 4%
11–15 121 1%
16–20 42 < 1%
21–25 27 < 1%
26–30 9 < 1%
31+ 8 < 1%
Subtotal 563 6%
Total 8,917 100%
* Note: In the Streatrader system, all premises operated by a single proprietor are recorded on a single registration. The data in this table is a count of registrations, which is a proxy for the number of discrete proprietors.
50 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Compliance and enforcement approaches
Healthy snack time at Mornington Kindergarten. Cook, Nikki Dempster, in discussion with Mornington Peninsula 51 Environmental Health Officer, Becky Harman, during a routine inspection. Compliance and enforcement approaches
Promotion of food safety is the key priority under the Cost-effective compliance and enforcement arrangements Food Act and during inspections council environmental are important to all food premises. As many food businesses health officers advise food premises proprietors about their transcend local, state and national borders, a consistent food handling practices and how to comply with the laws. regulatory approach across Victoria is also desirable. To complement this educative approach, councils have a range of enforcement options. Food safety advice ‘… a consistent regulatory approach As they always have, councils continue to provide advice across Victoria is also desirable.’ to proprietors and community groups about how to handle food safely. They now have the authority to focus Mandatory council inspections of food premises or an their enforcement efforts on food premises that pose audit by an approved third-party auditor21 are required greater risks to public health. For example, councils under the Food Act to ensure premises are complying may charge fees for follow-up inspections for repeated with the Act, the applicable food safety standards and noncompliance by a food business because these the Food Standards Code. Discretionary council businesses require more council time and effort in inspections may be conducted: if councils have monitoring than compliant operators. concerns about food businesses; in response to any complaints; or as random spot checks. ‘… councils have less need to resort to costly, time-consuming prosecutions Food Act breaches for less serious breaches.’ Whenever a law is breached, councils will decide what To further strengthen food safety risk management, course of action to take. Often the solution is to explain council chief executive officers may also temporarily to the proprietor how to comply. Education and assistance close premises or stop particular food handling activities may be all that is required, especially when the operator until significant public health problems are rectified. wishes to do the right thing. Depending upon a range of factors such as the seriousness of the breach, the risk From March 2011 a new mid-range enforcement power of harm and whether there is a history of compliance was introduced. Councils may issue on-the-spot fines for or noncompliance, other enforcement actions may be a range of less serious food safety or hygiene offences. appropriate. Discretion must be exercised as to which tool This means councils have less need to resort to costly, in the enforcement hierarchy to use. A range of remedies time-consuming prosecutions for less serious breaches. under the Food Act is available to councils as the primary Councils now collect a standard suite of data and report enforcement agencies at the local level. These include: to the department on a quarterly basis. In time, these data • giving a warning with a report about what needs will provide an overview of compliance checks conducted to be done to comply on food premises by councils in the course of their work. • 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.
52 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Audit and assessment To reflect the less serious nature of the breach, penalties for infringements are typically lower than the penalty The compliance regime for class 1, 2 and 3 premises imposed by a court on conviction. involves some combination of independent food safety audit, assessment and inspection by a council officer. Because infringement notices depart from the standard Food premises are checked once or twice each year, practice of court hearings to enforce breaches of the depending on their classification and whether a food safety law, their use is limited to suitable clear-cut offences. program is in place. This is to ensure the proprietor is The Attorney-General’s guidelines to the Infringements complying with applicable food safety standards. In view Act 2006 set out when an offence is appropriate to be of the lower food safety risks involved, the compliance an infringement offence. Maintenance of proportionality regime for class 4 premises involves discretionary council between the relatively minor, clear-cut nature of inspection if a complaint is received or for a spot check. infringement offences and the penalty they attract reinforces a sense of fairness in the system. Consistency The Food Act sets out a range of requirements to ensure of approach across councils is also important to public food is safe to eat. It is an offence to breach these understanding and confidence in enforcement. requirements. For example, it is an offence to sell unsafe food or to fail to comply with the Food Standards Code. ‘Councils view infringement notices Mandatory food safety standards include keeping food as a useful tool for mid-level offences free of contamination, ensuring kitchens are clean, and where there is no immediate threat to keeping high-risk food under temperature control to prevent harmful pathogens from multiplying. The Act public health.’ also contains some regulatory offences. For instance, To promote consistent use and application by all councils, it is an offence for a class 1, 2 or 3 food premises to the department routinely provides guidance and in-service operate without registration. training to brief council officers on issuing infringement notices under the Act. In 2013, 56 environmental health Infringements officers and food safety technicians were trained in the The Food Act empowers councils to issue infringement use of infringement notices as part of their orientation to notices for certain food safety or hygiene offences as new roles. part of a graduated system of enforcement options. The training emphasised the importance of official warnings Infringement notices are a useful tool for councils because prior to issuing a notice and the need to be flexible and they allow them to deal more readily with straightforward to deal with special circumstances fairly. This training is food safety or hygiene problems in accordance with the conducted annually to make sure new officers and those nature and gravity of the offence. returning to the workforce can become familiar with the requirements for issuing infringement notices. While infringement offences apply on a statewide basis, council officers have discretion as to when it is appropriate Councils view infringement notices as a useful tool for to issue notices. In practice, they are useful for mid-level mid-level offences where there is no immediate threat to offences where education or a warning is not sufficient but public health. Most will still prefer to resolve many issues where an offence is not so serious as to warrant a criminal through educational support to food premises. prosecution. Offences for which infringement notices may be issued are By offering a prompt, straightforward method for a food listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. For more information see business to make amends for an offence without needing
53 Surf Coast Shire compliance approach Surf Coast Shire has adopted a graduated, The seizure notice addresses the immediate risk by proportionate approach to ensuring compliance withdrawing unsafe food from sale, the section 19 with the Food Act. order directs the business to rectify the problems, and the infringement notice imposes a penalty. In 2013 Council issued a section 19W order, 12 section 19(2) orders, nine infringement notices Further inspections of premises at which Council and three seizure notices under the Food Act. has taken this approach have identified improved These enforcement actions related to a range compliance, except in one case that showed no breaches, including those that were more serious. improvement and Council subsequently issued a section 19(3) closure order. When a breach is identified, Council’s environmental health officers select a proportionate enforcement Where the public health risk is severe, Council may response that will provide an incentive for the business use multiple enforcement tools even if a business to rectify all issues identified and to prioritise food safety does not have a history of poor compliance. in future. Council is also reviewing its food safety policies with Council officers may also use multiple enforcement tools a view to providing positive rewards to encourage at the same time. For example, an infringement notice better food businesses performance. (fine) may be issued concurrently with a section 19 order This is consistent with approaches adopted by (remedial action) in line with departmental guidelines. other Victorian councils and the New South Wales In deciding how best to work with noncomplying Food Authority. businesses, officers assess a business’s level of noncompliance and culpability against risks to Adam Lee, Coordinator Environmental Health, public health. Surf Coast Shire
For example, in a business multiple enforcement actions may be employed in relation to serious breaches. Seizures, section 19(2) orders and infringement notices may be issued simultaneously to businesses that have extremely poor cleaning and maintenance practices.
54 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Other action for serious breaches The requirement applies to all class 1 food premises (such as nursing homes, hospitals and childcare centres Where a council has serious concerns about a food that serve unpackaged high-risk food to the elderly, premises, it may suspend or revoke the premises’ the sick and the very young) as well as to class 2 food registration until those concerns are addressed. In 2013 premises that choose to have a non-standard food there were no instances where councils took this action. safety program, such as manufacturers. Independent Under the Act, an alternative approach is for council to food safety programs offer food premises flexibility to tailor direct that the business take steps to ensure adequate their programs specifically to their food handling activities. hygiene and food handling at the premises. As part of this An audit checks both the adequacy of a business’s order, the chief executive officer may temporarily close a food safety program and whether it is following all food premises or stop particular food handling activities parts of its program. Businesses also rely on these in the meantime, where this is necessary to protect public audits to gauge their compliance. health. In such serious cases, the business may only resume operations once the problems have been fixed. The audit system provides assurance that food safety auditors certified under the Food Act are working in a In 2013 councils notified the department of the closures consistent and reliable manner. Auditors must have a of four premises. There was one closure in each of the thorough knowledge of the hazards involved in handling metropolitan cities of Greater Dandenong, Monash and unpackaged high-risk food, be able to determine whether Melbourne and one in Campaspe, a large rural shire north a business is complying with the national food safety of Melbourne on the Murray River. standards, and have the ability to certify whether the This relatively recent power complements councils’ food safety program adequately identifies and addresses longstanding authority to order a clean-up of a food the food safety risks at the site. premises or other steps to ensure safe food handling Typically auditors will meet with the premises’ food safety conditions. supervisors to discuss the relevant food safety standards The temporary closure of a food premises is a more and legislation and how the audit will be conducted. significant step that can only be ordered by a council They may do an inspection to familiarise themselves chief executive officer when it is clear that food should with food handling at the premises. They will review not be sold from the site until improvements are made. relevant documentation and may interview staff about their knowledge of the food safety program. The department also has powers to address serious breaches. It can temporarily close food premises, On finalising their reports, auditors usually meet with where this is necessary to reduce a risk to public health. premises staff to discuss the outcomes of the audit and No such orders were authorised in 2013. to hand over the audit report. Corrective actions, if any, will be discussed in detail so that the proprietors fully Improving food safety audit understand what is required. Audits in the Victorian system Auditors must also provide an audit certificate to relevant councils. As councils are ultimately responsible for Food safety audits of class 1 and class 2 premises registering food premises, they must be confident that that have independent food safety programs are auditors are thoroughly and competently auditing all a fundamental part of Victoria’s food safety system.22 aspects of premises’ food handling activities. Councils In addition to the annual council inspection, audits cannot register or re-register a food premises without a must be conducted annually by Department of Health- favourable audit certificate. Where an auditor reports that approved food safety auditors. a premises has failed to remedy critical non-conformance, ‘Businesses also rely on these audits councils will respond immediately. to gauge their compliance.’
55 Auditor forums and revised handbook The revised handbook also highlights the need to improve In April 2013 the department released a new edition of its communication between auditors and council officers auditor handbook. Last revised in 2005, the third edition so that compliance costs for businesses, and ultimately is more comprehensive and is intended to provide greater residents, are minimised. certainty for auditors and councils about their respective Access the handbook at food safety roles.
The department used a multifaceted approach to get • Where a corporation breaches a statutory requirement, news of the changes to audit requirements out. that corporation should be held liable. Food Safety and Regulation Unit staff presented to • Directors should not be criminally liable for the offence environmental health officers at the EPHA’s annual forum of the corporation as a matter of course or by blanket in February. In April, the revised handbook was sent to imposition of liability across an entire Act. all auditors and the department hosted two forums for • Making the director criminally liable for a breach of the auditors on their roles. In August, a detailed bulletin on law by the corporation should be confined to situations audit was released to all councils recommending that where: councils update their procedures to align with the revised audit provisions.
56 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
– there are compelling public policy reasons for Prosecutions for serious breaches doing so (for example, in terms of the potential for significant public harm that might be caused Overview by the particular corporate offending) Prosecutions for food safety breaches are typically – liability of the corporation on its own is not likely initiated when there has been serious noncompliance to sufficiently promote compliance or a repeated failure to comply with food laws and when – it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the lower level means of enforcement are not appropriate. director to be liable. A court then decides whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty of These principles were to be implemented in all states the offence. In cases where a court finds a person guilty, and territories and were applied in developing modernised the court must then decide what sentence to impose. provisions in the Victorian Food Act. In serious cases it may impose a conviction, with or The amended Food Act now includes an updated form of without some other sentencing order. the directors’ liability for offences where they are important Since 2010 councils have been required under the for food safety. Food Act to report certain information about prosecutions. The revised Act now focuses on areas such as: The department has published on its website the details of businesses or individuals who have been prosecuted • food handling breaches, for example, selling unsafe and found guilty of an offence under the Act that is serious food or failing to comply with the Food Standards Code enough for the court to record a conviction. • failures to comply with an order requiring the business to remedy food handling or hygiene breaches. The Act requires each conviction to be retained on the register for 12 consecutive months. Ordinarily, a conviction The director is liable for such breaches by their company. under the Act is dealt with in open court – typically in However, they still have a defence if they can prove on the Magistrate’s Court. The purpose of the register is to the balance of probabilities that they have exercised due increase the opportunity for a court’s decision to become diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. more widely known. This makes information about Consistent with the COAG principles, the Act now sets noncompliance with the Act more readily available to the out in more detail the factors a court may consider when public. The Food Act register of convictions is available deciding whether the director has exercised due diligence. on the department’s website at
• fair • protect public health by promoting compliance with the Act • ensure the law is enforceable in practice • encourage due diligence.
57 Convictions and convicted persons Types of offences Convictions were recorded against 32 companies or Most of the convictions were for breaches of s. 16 of the individuals in relation to 26 food premises operating in Food Act (a failure to comply with the Food Standards Victoria during 2013 (Table 18). The companies and Code). The majority of these were breaches of Standard individuals were found guilty of a total of 505 offences 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements. under the Food Act. The tables in this report include only These offences ranged from failure to store food properly offences for which a conviction was recorded. A company or keep pests out, to failure to maintain clean food may be charged with offences under the Act if the company premises, and keep fixtures, fittings and equipment in a is the proprietor of the food business. An individual may be good state of repair. These offences and the number of charged if he or she is the proprietor of the business, or is premises to which they related are set out in Table 18 a director of a proprietor company, or is involved in the and described in more detail in Appendix 13. management of the business. The types of convicted persons in this reporting period are set out in Table 19.
Table 18: 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, 2013
Type of offence No. of food No. of premises offences Unsafe food S8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render 2 2 the food unsafe S11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsafe 4 5 S11(2) – Sell unsafe food 3 4 Falsely described food S10A – Causing food intended for sale to be falsely described where the person 2 2 responsible ought reasonably to know that a consumer of the food who relies on the description is likely to suffer physical harm Unsuitable food S12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsuitable 4 6
S12(2) – Sell unsuitable food 1 1 Food not meeting buyer’s expectations S14(1) – Selling food not of the nature or substance demanded by the purchaser 1 1 S16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code Standard 1.2.2: Food identification requirements 2 2 Standard 1.2.3: Mandatory warnings and advisory statements and declarations 1 1 Standard 1.2.5: Date marking of packaged food 2 3 Standard 1.4.4: Prohibited and restricted plants and fungi 1 1 Standard 3.2.2: Food safety practices and general requirements 22 334 Standard 3.2.3: Food premises and equipment 20 93
58 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Type of offence No. of food No. of premises offences S16(2) – Food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code Selling food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code 2 4 S19 – Failure to comply with an order Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition, 9 14 and alter or improve the premises as specified 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 8 10
S19GB – Details of food safety supervisor Fail to give the council written details of the name, qualifications etc. of current food 1 1 safety supervisor for the premises within seven days Other offences relating to food safety programs and supervisors 5 14 S29 – Offences with respect to authorised officers (e) Contravene or fail to comply with a lawful direction or order 1 1 (g) Attempt to obstruct an authorised officer in the exercise of their powers 1 1 S35A(1) – Unregistered food premises Operate a food business at premises not registered with the council 5 5 Victoria – 505
* Note: 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 may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act.
59 Convicted persons Table 19: Convictions for offences* under the An individual may be charged if: Food Act 1984 by type of convicted persons and type of food premises to which the conviction relates, • he or she is the proprietor of the business, or Victoria, 2013 • he or she is a director or is otherwise involved in the management of a company, when the No. of Proportion Convicted convicted of total company is the proprietor of the business. persons type persons convictions The types of convicted persons in this reporting period Individual – proprietor/manager are set out in Table 19. Restaurant/café 3 Take-away 1 Retail grocery 2 Bakery (bread, pies, cakes) 2 Function venue 0 Manufacturer 1 Subtotal 9 28% Individual – director of proprietor company Restaurant/café 7 Take-away 0 Retail grocery 0 Bakery (bread, pies, cakes) 0 Function venue 0 Manufacturer 0 Subtotal 7 22% Company – proprietor Restaurant/café 11 Take-away 3 Retail grocery 0 Bakery (bread, pies, cakes) 0 Function venue 2 Manufacturer 0 Subtotal 16 50% Total 32 100%
* Note: 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 may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act.
60 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Types of premises Penalties Food premises are categorised under the Food Act as The penalties imposed in 2013, in addition to the recording fixed (for example, a restaurant, shop or manufacturing of a conviction, comprised fines ranging from $1,000 to factory), temporary (for example, a market stall) or mobile $69,600. (for example, a van). All convictions recorded for offences The highest penalty imposed related to offences including: under the Food Act in 2013 were for offences that handling food for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to occurred at fixed premises (Table 20). render, the food unsafe (s. 11(1)); causing food to be falsely Table 20: Convictions for offences* under the described where the seller ought reasonably to know that Food Act 1984 by type of food premises a consumer of the food relying on the description is likely where the offences occurred, Victoria, 2013 to suffer physical harm (s. 10A(1)); and contravening or failing to comply with a lawful direction or order (s. 29(e)). Premises at which offences occurred that led to convictions being recorded The lowest penalty in the range ($1,000) was imposed on two individuals, one for failing to comply with the Proportion Food Standards Code by offering for food for sale that No. of of total Type of food premises premises premises contained a prohibited part of a plant or fungus (s. 16(1)), and the other for operating a food business without being Fixed registered with a council (s. 35A), failing to ensure that Restaurant/café 15 the food safety program was kept at the premises (s. 19F), failure to comply with two provisions of the Take-away 4 Food Standards Code (s. 16(1)) and contravening an Retail grocery 2 order to put the food premises into a clean and sanitary Bakery (bread, pies, cakes) 2 condition (s. 19(7)).
Function venue 2 The median fine imposed was $10,500.
Manufacturer 1
Subtotal 26 100%
Mobile (for example, van) 0 0
Temporary (for example, market stall) 0 0
Total 26 100%
* Note: 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 may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act.
61 Prosecuting councils In 2013 prosecutions under the Food Act resulting in convictions were brought by 17 councils across six of the department’s eight regions (Table 21).
Table 21: Food premises where Food Act 1984 offences* have been committed at which a prosecution resulted in a conviction by municipality and region, Victoria, 2013
Department of Health No. of No. of region premises convictions Barwon-South Western 1 1 Moyne (S) 1 1 Eastern Metropolitan 9 9 Boroondara (C) 2 2 Maroondah (C) 1 1 Monash (C) 2 2 Whitehorse (C) 4 4 Gippsland 0 0 Grampians 0 0 Hume 1 2 Wodonga (RC) 1 2 Loddon Mallee 2 4 Greater Bendigo (C) 2 4 North & West Metropolitan 6 6 Brimbank (C) 1 1 Darebin (C) 1 1
Hobsons Bay (C) 2 2 Melbourne (C) 1 1 Whittlesea (C) 1 1 Southern Metropolitan 7 10
Greater Dandenong (C) 2 2 Kingston (C) 1 2 Mornington Peninsula (S) 1 1 Port Phillip (C) 1 2 * Note: There may be more than one offence per food premises. For example, a company which is the proprietor of the food business Stonnington (C) 2 3 and its director may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Food Act. Victoria 26 32 C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire
62 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Surveillance and science
City of Monash Environmental Health Officer, Bethany Ham, sealing a routine food sample taken at the Monash Medical Centre kitchen, Clayton. 63 Surveillance and science
Food safety surveillance in Victoria Food safety is never a static, permanent attribute of the no simple recipe for preventing all foodborne illness, food chain. Outbreaks inevitably occur in Victoria and in the establishment of an effective food control system similarly advanced economies in spite of modern food is the key element in the process. Routine food safety laws, a sophisticated surveillance system and science- surveillance, which monitors the safety of food offered for based risk-management instruments. While there is sale in Victoria, is one of the building blocks of this system.
Our surveillance system The vision for a preventive system that manages • All councils use a standard food sampling form that foodborne hazards from farm to fork relies on many allows foods to be described on the basis of risks components. One is Victoria’s food surveillance system. and ensures comparability of data transmitted to the laboratories for analysis. Purpose • Each year approved laboratories electronically To search for organisms or other contaminants in foods transmit de-identified statistics of 10,000 laboratory and drinks offered for sale in Victoria that can cause analyses of food samples derived from these reports illness so that action can be taken to prevent or reduce to the department. The department’s Food Safety and their impact. Regulation Unit’s staff analyse these data, and identify emerging issues and trends. Councils also receive Who the data and take appropriate action in the food • Under the Food Act, Victoria’s 79 local governments businesses. must regularly carry out food sampling in local food • Regional sampling groups and the department premises to ensure the safety of food sold. periodically conduct surveillance surveys that • Twenty-nine public food analysts, associated with target high-risk foods and high-risk food premises. nine laboratories, are approved by the department These regional and statewide studies identify areas to analyse the samples collected by councils and of success and common risks that require action to prepare reports for them. or further investigation. • As the registering authorities, councils retain • The department hosts a meeting of approved analysts responsibility for following up concerns identified each year to enable sharing of information on the in the laboratory results. latest developments such as emerging techniques, How new applications and standards, and a look into • The department declares the numbers of samples the future. each council must take and submit for analysis • As part of the department’s annual local government each year and these are published in the Victorian forum, environmental health officers are provided Government Gazette.23 with food surveillance updates and professional • To ensure a high level of surveillance in class 1 facilities development. that serve food to vulnerable people – such as • Through the Implementation Sub-Committee for aged care homes, hospitals and kindergartens Food Regulation, the department contributes to – the declaration also mandates how many samples monitoring the Australian and New Zealand food must be taken from these premises. supply to ensure it is safe and that foods comply with standards for microbiological contaminants, pesticide residue limits and chemical contamination.24
64 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Statewide surveillance survey As well as assessing businesses’ food handling practices, – egg safety microbiological analysis was conducted on this small sample of eggs. Analysis of the 4,000 whole egg samples Eggs are rich in protein, vitamins and antioxidants and for Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli and faecal coliforms are a major part of the Australian diet. Each year Victoria showed that the microbiological and physical quality produces more than 90 million dozen eggs. We consume of eggs was satisfactory. Salmonella bacteria were not around 213 per person per year and the remainder are detected in any of the egg samples. Unsafe levels of E. coli exported or eaten as egg products or ingredients in and faecal coliforms were detected in only one sample. other foods.25,26 Where premises returned unsatisfactory sample results, Statewide surveillance surveys generally target high-risk council officers took follow-up action to ensure proprietors foods and high-risk food premises. Egg safety was chosen remedied the problems promptly. Education was all that this year due to increasing Salmonella notifications over was required at most businesses. Where this failed, the past decade – markedly since 2010. Salmonellosis a graduated suite of enforcement tools was available infection from raw and undercooked egg products remains to councils. a risk and it is not feasible to eliminate it all together. A report on the results of the survey was published in Temperature abuse and incorrect storage of raw egg foods December 2013 along with a brochure for environmental increase the likelihood of illness and have been observed health officers containing key messages from the survey from time to time during routine inspections by council and practical advice to help businesses continue to use officers. For these reasons, the department initiated an and handle eggs safely. extensive study of egg safety and handling practices across Victorian food businesses. Salmonella summit update ‘… environmental health officers from In October 2012 Victoria hosted a national summit to 43 local councils collected more than develop a plan to arrest increasing rates of Salmonella 4,000 eggs …’ infection across a range of commodities. Two projects that came out of the summit are now underway. From March to May 2013 environmental health officers from 43 local councils collected more than 4,000 eggs Salmonella and Campylobacter – both caged and free range – from 688 food businesses attribution study across Victoria. For many years the Food Act has This study is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage required councils to regularly sample foods in their own project that includes partners from the Australian National municipalities; however, this was the second statewide University (principal researcher Martyn Kirk), New South survey coordinated by the department as part of its Wales Food Authority, Food Standards Australia New revamped food safety surveillance system. A questionnaire Zealand, Primary Industries and Regions South Australia, was also included in the study to collect information on the Hunter New England Public Health Unit, Tasmanian use, storage and preparation of eggs at food premises. Department of Health and South Australia Health.
The survey found that most proprietors and food The project aims to develop a methodology for Australia handlers understood how to handle and store eggs to better attribute the source of infections from Salmonella safely. It recommended that environmental health officers and Campylobacter by adapting modelling techniques continue to provide food businesses with advice on best developed overseas. The concept is to compare strains practice in egg safety. It also reminded food businesses of Salmonella that occur in human illness with those found to discard cracked or dirty eggs and to ensure they are in major food/environmental sources in order to describe kept in the correct temperature range. the proportion of human cases that come from the various sources.
65 It is intended that the outcomes of the research on human Public analysts’ forum illness and the source of illness will provide evidence for any additional regulatory controls or measures that may The department’s annual update for analysts was held in be beneficial to reduce human illness associated with May and was attended by 30 participants. The program food consumption in Australia. this year covered progress on developing the food surveillance database, regional surveillance activities, Integrated surveillance scoping study and the temporary and mobile premises registration The 2012 summit recommended development of system and Streatrader. It also provided an opportunity integrated surveillance systems in each jurisdiction for analysts to ask questions, discuss problems and that would incorporate statistics on human health, animal provide feedback to the department on their experiences health and food surveillance. with the new systems and settings being developed. As a result of this meeting, a password-secure webpage This study aims to provide information to assist bidders to communicate directly with analysts was created. in preparing and submitting quotes for determining the feasibility of integrating surveillance from these fields to inform food safety regulatory activity in Victoria.
Integration of these data was first publicly proposed in the Blair report into food regulation in 1998.27 More recently the issue has been discussed nationally at the Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation (then known as the Implementation Subcommittee or ISC), and a report was commissioned in 2009 to investigate the feasibility of integrating these data. Since that report was accepted by the ISC, the issue has not been taken up at a national level.
The primary objective of this work is to identify existing surveillance data collected by industry regulators or other bodies throughout the different sectors of the food chain. The study will assess models for integrating data and barriers to sharing the data. It will report to the department on all issues regarding the feasibility of integrating these data in Victoria.
66 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Evidence for policy
City of Greater Dandenong Environmental Health Officer, Terry Martin (left), inspecting, Kez’s Kitchen, Dandenong. 67 Food Safety Supervisor Emma Carp (centre) looks on as Mena Fung Nho Jong packs biscuits. Evidence for policy
New and completed projects 1. Class 3 food businesses: Evaluation of food safety practices, skills and knowledge, 2013 Applied research funded under the department’s In a repeat of a study commissioned in 2010 prior to Food Safety Evidence for Policy program continued major changes to the Food Act, Campbell Research to produce results in 2013. and Consulting was commissioned to assess knowledge This ongoing program has two main streams of work: of food safety and regulatory requirements among 300 projects arising from departmental activities and class 3 food premises across Victoria. Telephone surveys knowledge and projects arising from a call for proposals. of food handlers were supplemented by 15 observational A steering committee, chaired by the department and site visits. including eminent food safety specialists, oversees this Overall, the evaluation found there was a good level of program, which commenced in 2010. Funded from within knowledge of safe food handling and that this knowledge existing resources, the program is dedicated to shedding was consistently put into practice as it applied to each light on critical issues in food safety policy and regulation. business. However, food handlers in class 3 premises were One new project was funded and completed in 2013. not as familiar with regulations as with food safety practice. Five others submitted their final reports. At the same time, the overall level of knowledge about food safety and food safety regulations among class 3 businesses has fallen since the benchmark study in 2010. However, knowledge of requirements relevant to the operation of each business remained unchanged. There was little change in overall knowledge of contamination or specific aspects of safe food handling.
Although food safety supervisors are no longer mandatory in class 3 food businesses, nine out of 10 businesses reported having a staff member who had undertaken some form of food safety training.
Businesses were conscious of food safety issues that specifically related to their work. For example, those businesses that sold hot food were aware of the temperature at which hot food could potentially become dangerous. This was also the case for businesses that stored chilled food.
Explicit awareness of the change in regulatory requirements for class 3 food premises in 2010 was low. The intention of these changes was to reduce compliance costs for these businesses. However, the study found that many businesses have continued practices established when they were classified as class 2 food premises.
For example, businesses indicated that the temperature of potentially hazardous foods should be checked at every delivery. Site visits confirmed that the temperature of stored food was frequently checked twice a day.
68 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
‘The study confirmed that 2. Salmonella Typhimurium: environmental health officers remain factors affecting persistence on eggs the primary source of information and Salmonellosis in Australia has been linked to eggs and egg products. Outbreaks are often caused by specific advice about food safety practice.’ types of Salmonella.
Compliance was generally embedded in everyday In this study commissioned in 2011, the project team practice and was not identified as a burden. Instances investigated the hypothesis that Salmonella serotypes that of greater than the minimum compliance requirements cause egg-related outbreaks might have particular traits being observed were driven by a combination of franchise that provide them with an enhanced ability to survive in requirements, other regulatory regimes and habit. Where and on eggs under Australian egg production conditions. businesses were aware of changes to the regulations, these were considered to be an improvement. Although the project found no differences in the ability of different Salmonella serotypes to grow in egg contents or The study confirmed that environmental health officers attach to and survive on egg surfaces, it identified a few remain the primary source of information and advice about key findings that may provide useful information to the food safety practice. It identified increased use of the industry and public health authorities. internet among class 3 businesses, making this a useful channel for future communication. Departmental material, • As Salmonella can grow very rapidly in egg contents, such as the new Food safety guide for class 3 food particularly at higher temperatures, eggs and egg businesses, was rated as useful and easy to understand. contents should be stored at temperatures of less than 7° C (which is the minimum temperature for growth of In businesses with staff who speak English as a second Salmonella in food). language, the need for food safety information in simplified • For at least some Salmonella serotypes, attachment to Chinese was most frequently nominated, followed by eggs was slightly less at lower temperatures therefore Vietnamese and Arabic. Many of the department’s food holding eggs at lower temperatures and removing any safety materials are translated into these languages. contamination as soon as possible may help reduce the number of Salmonella cells that can attach to egg surfaces. • Storing eggs at refrigeration temperatures (4° C) will limit the risk of any Salmonella contaminating egg surfaces surviving for more than four weeks.
This project was conducted by a research team from CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences and the University of Melbourne Microbiological Diagnostic Unit: Catherine McAuley, Lesley Duffy, John Coventry, Geoff Hogg and Narelle Fegan. The team has submitted a paper to the Journal of Health Protection for peer review and publication.
69 3. Genetic fingerprinting of Listeria and 4. Rapid identification of biomarkers associated Salmonella – how different is different? with persistent Listeria monocytogenes isolates Researchers from The University of Melbourne have in food processing environments submitted a paper on their work on the genetic profiling Listeria monocytogenes is an important foodborne of bacterial isolates to the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. pathogen that causes a life-threatening disease known as listeriosis. Rapid, sensitive and reproducible methods As reported in our 2012 report, genetic profiling is a for the detection and subtyping of L. monocytogenes fundamental tool for investigating foodborne outbreaks are of great value for epidemiological investigations of and the persistence of bacteria in food processing outbreaks and for source tracking of the pathogen in environments. This project investigated the use of the food processing environments. molecular typing method MLVA28 to profile Salmonella and Listeria by determining the number of copies of a This project was conducted by Enzo Palombo and repeat sequence at a set of pre-specified sites in the Snehal Jadhav from Swinburne University. The work bacterial genome. investigated the applicability of MALDI-TOF MS29 as a single system to detect and subtype L. monocytogenes The results confirmed the utility of MLVA for identifying isolates obtained from food processing environments. clusters of related isolates and ruling out unlinked isolates. The results obtained indicate that, after standardisation In particular, the study illuminates the relationship between of culture conditions, MALDI-TOF MS can be a rapid MLVA profiles and underlying genomic variation, and and reliable detection and subtyping technique. suggests novel analysis methods and metrics with which to assess the extent of ‘difference’ between isolates on the basis of MLVA fingerprinting data.
Salmonellosis is the most common cause of food poisoning in Victoria. The bacteria are common in water, soil, raw meats and seafood and on factory and kitchen surfaces. Even where rigorous food safety precautions are in place, they are exceptionally hard to manage.
These results are important because they provide confidence that current molecular typing methods are sufficiently robust for investigation and attribution of sources in foodborne outbreak investigations but that the ability to discriminate between strains is dependent on the type of organisms assessed.
The project was conducted by Kathryn Holt from The University of Melbourne Microbiology and Immunology Department and Geoff Hogg from the university’s Microbiological Diagnostic Unit, Public Health Laboratory. The findings were presented to other researchers and the Evidence for Policy Steering Committee at a meeting in 2013.
70 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
5. Food safety in the home – online survey 6. Food safety and CALD communities Nearly a thousand people responded to the department’s In 2013 the department commissioned research to online food safety survey, which was promoted on the inform the development of food safety resources for Better Health Channel and at the Better Homes and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Gardens show. Most respondents were well-educated, The research objectives were to gain an understanding of employed women, aged 40 years or older. participants’ attitudes, knowledge and behaviour in relation to food safety, both where and how participants get their The results of this survey supported the findings of a information on cooking, food and food safety, and their commissioned study completed by Colmar Brunton in 2012: preferred methods of obtaining this information. • The majority of respondents reported always following basic food safety practices when cooking and preparing ‘CALD audiences need more information food. on storing and preparing food …’ • 55 per cent never use a thermometer when cooking Overall, the results indicate a high level of awareness of meat and seafood dishes. safe food-handling practices among CALD communities. • 67 per cent thaw frozen meat correctly; but 21 per cent On the whole, current practices discussed with these thaw frozen meat incorrectly, on the kitchen sink, with groups reflect recommended approaches. juices running down the drain. The findings suggest that CALD audiences need more • Only 58 per cent of respondents correctly identified that information on storing and preparing food, especially leftovers should be refrigerated once the steam stops as recommended practice differs significantly from rising. Nineteen per cent believed leftovers should be participants’ experiences overseas where they tended to left on the bench for several hours until they are cold, shop and prepare food each day rather than buying in bulk. and 17 per cent believed they should be refrigerated straight away. In particular, the research highlighted knowledge gaps • 29 per cent wrongly believed that vegetarian leftovers in relation to: that have been refrigerated at below 5° C for one week • storing raw meats, poultry and seafood at the bottom are safe to eat. of the fridge and why this is important • The vast majority (more than 95 per cent) of respondents • the period of time within which frozen foods should correctly identified most high-risk foods; however, only be consumed 62 per cent identified cooked rice or pasta and only • the recommended time from the purchase of meat, 73 per cent identified prepared salads as high-risk. poultry and seafood to their being refrigerated or frozen Finally, the survey identified that most people source their • safe defrosting of food and the importance of not food safety information from food packaging, followed by refreezing thawed foods the internet (via their preferred search engine), the Better • identifying high-risk foods Health Channel and other government websites. • the ‘temperature danger zone’ of 5° C and 60° C and the dangers of storing food outside this temperature range for more than four hours • reheating foods thoroughly so they are steaming (above 75° C) or boiling • the importance of using a different chopping board for meat, poultry, seafood and vegetables, and why this is a food safety concern.
The study identified limited information needs in relation to cleaning among CALD respondents as many of the practices discussed reflect those recommended.
71 Catering for community events is an important aspect of Science forum food preparation in CALD communities and much pride is associated with this. Participant responses suggest At the invitation of the department’s Evidence for Policy opportunities to highlight information on keeping food for program, food technologists, microbiologists, statisticians, catering purposes in the correct temperature zone and psychologists and social researchers gathered for a reheating it to the correct temperatures. one-day forum at Southbank in March 2013. ‘… strong evidence is essential to good food regulation.’ The day brought together an eager audience and six researchers from among those who have completed projects commissioned by the department to address issues and problems plaguing the food regulatory system in Victoria and nationally.
Presenters came from the CSIRO, a leading market research consultancy, the universities of Melbourne and Tasmania and SARDI – the South Australian Government’s principal primary industries research organisation. While their topics ranged widely, the common thread was that strong evidence is essential to good food regulation.
The audience of 50 were also treated to an overview of the Evidence for Policy program and its importance as a Department of Health priority.
Lively discussion followed each presentation, with attendees also making the most of the opportunity to City of Darebin Environmental Health Officer, Maribel Alfaro, on an inspection visit, Northland Shopping Centre. speak directly with the researchers during the breaks.
72 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Workforce
Melbourne City Council Senior Environmental Health Officer, Angela Minglis, with Spanish Donut proprietor, Roberto Silva, at Victoria Market. 73 Workforce
Low-risk food safety technicians trained In 2013, 22 low-risk food safety technicians graduated from the Certificate IV in Local Government (Health and Environment), a new course tailored to council needs and offered by Swinburne University.
The certificate course was developed to train existing council employees to assist environmental health officers (EHOs) in conducting low-risk work and to free up EHOs to focus on higher risk activities within councils. The course also offered a pathway for graduates who wish to pursue a university degree in environmental health at Swinburne University.
At the conclusion of the course, Gary Smith, who heads Low-risk food safety technicians’ graduation, March 2014. the department’s Food Safety Systems and Program • a low-risk role limited to low-risk activities Development team, acknowledged councils for their • a cadetship, similar in its early stages to the low-risk strong support and commended the students on their role but in which candidates study to become fully commitment and passion for learning. He also thanked competent EHOs Yarra City Council for hosting the students, who spent • a fully authorised food safety officer where a person a number of hours shadowing the city’s EHOs as they is appointed, without limit, as an authorised officer undertook class 3 inspections. Thanks also went to for the purposes of the Food Act. Swinburne University for delivering the training and to the presenters, Paula Rashio, Leanne Johnson and In August 2012 the department launched a project to Jeremy Draper, who engaged and taught the students develop and deliver training specifically for low-risk food so well. Students will attend a graduation ceremony safety technicians. A set of common base skills and in Melbourne in March 2014. knowledge were identified and matched to units offered through the Vocational Education and Training sector. The course comprised 14 days of intensive, face-to-face They included subjects from the Certificate IV in training, with topics including: food safety; communication Local Government (Health and Environment) package. techniques; legal authority; occupational health and safety; The department appointed Swinburne University to working in local government; monitoring and control develop and customise the training to meet council needs standards for accommodation and swimming pools; and 24 students enrolled following an expression of water sampling and routine reporting; and routine interest sent to all councils. Further training was necessary inspections of non-food premises. Students also to complete the low-risk technician skill set requirements, undertook site visits with volunteer metropolitan councils and local councils undertook responsibility for these. and participated in work-based training and assessment. Materials for certain subjects were developed by experienced EHOs, who also shared their expertise by delivering some of the training.
The genesis of the course dates to March 2012 when the department published draft environmental health technician guidelines specific to food safety work. The guidelines, which were intended to support councils to make informed decisions about appointing food safety technicians, proposed three models:
74 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
In the witness box The National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) developed and conducted nine training courses across the state throughout June 2012 to assist EHOs and food Withstanding legal scrutiny course analysts to discharge their statutory responsibilities under In 2013 councils derived the full benefits of innovative the Food Act. training delivered in 2012 on taking legal action under The course was designed to improve participants’ the Food Act. understanding of the Australian legal system, including The course assisted EHOs and food analysts the role of the ‘expert’ analyst, the practices required for involved in prosecutions to discharge their analytical testing to be admitted into legal argument, and Food Act responsibilities. how to implement these requirements in relation to specific Nine courses were conducted across Victoria testing regimes. in June 2012. ‘Successful prosecution hinges on More than 140 EHOs and laboratory staff attended. a demonstrably unbroken chain of Councils are now reporting greater confidence in their custody in relation to a contaminated ability to mount successful prosecutions for serious sample …’ breaches under the Food Act. Councils are responsible for commencing legal action in relation to alleged breaches of the Act. The basis of the Victorian law takes breaches of the Food Act seriously and prosecution is often bacterial or other contamination of those in breach are criminally liable. In 2013 cases taken a food sample detected at analysis. Effective sampling to court by Victorian councils resulted in convictions being by EHOs is essential for analysis to be effective and a recorded against 32 companies or individuals in relation to failure in either results in a lack of information to assist 26 food premises. the legal process. Considering the thousands of premises selling food As such, councils must understand and have confidence in and the volume of food products sold, prosecutions the analytical results. They must be sure that all procedures, are thankfully relatively small in number. Nevertheless, from sample receipt to sample preparation to sample where lesser enforcement efforts cannot remedy serious analysis, have been carried out correctly, and that the threats to public health, recourse through the courts analyst will be able to withstand cross-examination. is the option of last resort. To this end the course delivered a refresher to EHOs As prosecution is a time-consuming and expensive on these aspects of laboratory practice and procedures exercise for local councils, it is important that cases do not and sought to equip them to ask the right questions fail due to avoidable procedural defects. Past experiences of their analysts and to check that results are useable of legal proceedings prompted the need for a tailored for prosecution purposes. Because the analyst may be training course for EHOs and food analysts who find called to give evidence on the analytical result, the course themselves in the witness box from time to time. also covered the expectations of the analyst in the court The benefits of the new course funded by the department environment. in 2012 were realised by Victorian councils in 2013 as staff The course facilitator, who has extensive experience made use of new insights and better evidence-gathering both in forensic science and in the witness box, stressed skills to prepare for prosecutions of food premises posing that EHOs must be ready to detail in court their actions serious threats to public health. in taking samples, making notes, taking photographs and videos, and conducting temperature checks.
75 complete your forms. Streatrader will guide you through the process until online, one time you’re ready to hit the lodge button. An informative case study charted the progress of a sample to a laboratoryPlease and through remember the laboratory. It that youHow did will food need handlers use dofoodsafely? Go to the Streatrader website – showed that many people are involved – council officers, • 49,273 users visited dofoodsafely in 2013, couriers, receptionto staff comply and food analysts with – and thatany roadsidegenerating trading 66,962 visits and 1,734,248 page views. https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.aupeople can be the weakest link in the chain of evidence. • On average, users stayed on the site for Participants also orheard planning that all documents laws and notes in – the council12:45 minutes where and viewed 26 pages per session. You will be directed to Business Victoriaincluding training records and other peripheral materials • 61 per cent of users were first time visitors – can be requestedyou as part plan of discovery to or trade. may be to the site. Online, where you will create your subpoenaed as part of the court procedure. New registration and The facilitator also observed that, while courts rarely login (unless you already have one, in quarrel with the science, disputes over operational aspects are common. Successful prosecution hinges Dofoodsafely is primarily designed for young people which case you just simply fill in your on a demonstrably unbroken chain of custody in relation who would like to work, or are already working, in the notification website for to a contaminated sample and ensuring that all evidence food industry. As a web-enabled program, participants username and password). Once your is admissible in court. can complete the course at any time and over multiple sessions if they wish. In 2013 the 49,273 users clocked Participant feedback on the course was overwhelmingly up a total of 66,962 sessions on the site. temporary and mobile login details are complete you will positive. Those whoFor attended more the sessions information conducted in email an actual courtroom agreed that there was no better place The program includes six modules and a final quiz automatically enter the Streatrader to focus on [email protected] evidence. covering the basics of handling food safely. Designed to be informative and entertaining, it uses simple language food businesses website. Now you are ready to or phone 1300 085 767and graphics or contact rather than words wherever possible. Participants who score more than 90 per cent on your principal council.the quiz are awarded a certificate. As in previous years, a majority of users were visiting the site for the first time (61 per cent), indicating that dofoodsafely continued to reach new participants. The relatively high proportion of returning visitors (39 per cent) suggests that people found dofoodsafely useful, with many returning to complete additional modules or as a refresher.
In 2013 users viewed more than 1.7 million pages – an average of 26 pages each. They spent significant time Trainees attended Withstanding Legal Scrutiny courses in an on the site (average 12.45 minutes), suggesting they had actual courtroom. sufficient time to complete modules of interest from among the six topic areas offered.
Online learning – dofoodsafely Safe food handling is critical for any food business and In 2013 more than 49,000 people used dofoodsafely – all food handlers need to know how the work they do can the department’s free online learning program for food affect food safety. In an industry where staff turnover is handlers. This represents an increase of 25 per cent high, dofoodsafely is meeting an important need. compared with the previous year when there were 36,871 users.30 Over the life of the program, since its launch just before Christmas 2009, almost 135,000 visitors have logged into the program.
76
https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au Food Act report 2013 Making it safer complete your forms. Streatrader will guide you through the process until online, one time you’re ready to hit the lodge button.
Go to the Streatrader website – Please remember that you will need https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au to comply with any roadside trading Communication You will be directed to Business Victoria or planning laws in the council where Online, where you will create your you plan to trade. New registration and login (unless you already have one, in which case you just simply fill in your notification website for username and password). Once your complete your forms. Streatrader will login details are complete you will For more information email temporary and mobileguide you through the process until online, one time automatically enter the Streatrader [email protected] you’re ready to hit the lodge button. website. Now you are ready to or phone 1300 085 767 or contact food businesses Go to the Streatrader website – Please remember that you will need your principal council. https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au to comply with any roadside trading You will be directed to Business Victoria or planning laws in the council where Online, where you will create your you plan to trade. New registration and login (unless you already have one, in which case you just simply fill in your notification website for username and password). Once your login details are complete you will For more information email temporary and mobile automatically enter the Streatrader [email protected] website. Now you are ready to or phone 1300 085 767 or contact food businesses your principal council.
77
https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au
https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au Communication
Advice lines How can I keep food safe in my business / at my community group In 2013 the department answered nearly 15,000 queries food fundraiser / at home? to its food safety hotlines. Depending on the query, the department provides The department’s general telephone and email advice advice to callers on the phone and through its website services provide prompt, authoritative advice and referrals on everything from food allergies, to hygienic food about food safety concerns. In 2013 this service answered preparation, to laws on taking assistance animals more than 6,000 queries to these hotlines (4,344 telephone into food premises. calls and more than 1,790 emails). A separate advice line to assist food premises and councils in the transition to Does my business have to have Streatrader answered 8,280 calls and around 500 emails a food safety program? in 2013. A food safety program is a written plan that details how a business or community group will manage the safety of the The majority of queries to the general advice service were food it prepares, serves or sells. By law, class 1 and class 2 from the public, but the service is also used by the food food premises must maintain a food safety program industry. An outline of what people most wanted to know appropriate to their food activities. You can use one of and the advice they typically received from staff follows. the department’s registered food safety program templates Who do I contact to complain about food to create your own food safety program. Alternatively, or a food premises? you can employ someone to write an independent food Contact the local council responsible for the area in safety program tailored to your activities. which the food outlet is located. Ask to speak with an Does the Food Standards Code environmental health officer. They have the power to affect my business? investigate food complaints and take action against those The Food Standards Code is collection of bi-national found responsible for any problems found. Your complaint standards designed to promote consistency in Australia’s may protect others from the same problem. and New Zealand’s food laws. It lists requirements What do I need to know about starting up for foods such as additives, food safety, labelling and a food business? genetically modified foods. These standards are given To protect public health, you must comply with the food force through state legislation. The code can be viewed on laws, including the Food Act 1984. The department the FSANZ website at
78 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
My food business/home has been affected To access the Better Health Channel go to by an emergency (such as a bushfire, flood
The service, which operates from 9 am to 5 pm weekdays, The key message of the campaign was ‘Don’t let food can be contacted via the Food Safety hotline on toll-free poisoning spoil the celebration this summer. Follow these 1300 364 352 or by email to
Fact sheets, videos and an interactive quiz cover a wide Our food premises audience’s experience on the site is variety of food safety issues – from tips for keeping food an opportunity to increase confidence in the department’s safe, to food allergies, to pesticides used in food production. resources and advice. They also need to find what they are looking for quickly and easily. Relevant at any time of year, this information is supplemented by seasonal advice and campaigns such Visitors to the food safety site increased markedly in 2013, as the poisonous mushroom season and food safety while the number of page views was down compared with precautions for enjoying outdoor eating in summer. the previous year (Table 22). Decreased page views may simply reflect intensive use of the site in 2012 when food Better Health Channel officers periodically review all premises and councils were consolidating major changes content on the site based on advice from the relevant to the Food Act that took effect in 2011 and 2012. experts – in this case from its Food Safety and Regulation Unit colleagues. This ensures all resources are up to date In 2013, the holiday season aside, visits were more evenly and locally relevant. spread throughout the year compared with the previous year (Figure 18). The Better Health Channel makes important food safety information widely and easily accessible to a large public A majority of users were repeat visitors returning to the audience, and complements the department’s specialist site for new information or as a refresher. However, nearly website for food businesses and council officers who 40 per cent were first-time visitors, which indicates that enforce the Food Act. the site is reaching new audiences (Figure 19).
79 Figure 18: Department of Health food safety website Figure 19: Visits to Department of Health food safety users by month, 2012 and 2013 pages by new and returning users, 2013
25,000 16,000
14,000 20,000 12,000
15,000 10,000
8,000 bsite visits 10,000 bsite visits 6,000 We We 4,000 5,000 2,000
0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct N ov Dec Jul Aug Sep Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Oct N ov Dec Month Month 2012 Returning user 2013 2013 New user 2013
How many people visited the How engaged were visitors to the site? food safety website? • On average in 2013 visitors viewed 4.15 pages • 156,726 people visited the website in 2013, per visit and stayed on the site for 4:09 minutes generating 222,162 visits and 922,293 per visit. page views. • Each month 13,062 visitors viewed 76,858 pages. • Visitors increased by 26 per cent compared with 2012. • Page views were down by 64 per cent compared with 2012. • On average each month, 18,513 visitors viewed What were our users looking for? 76,858 pages in 2013. In 2012, 13,610 visitors • Visitors came to
80 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Table 22: Food safety website pages viewed more than Guide for class 3 food businesses 10,000 times, 2013 Class 3 food premises are those whose main activities Page involve the sale of foods not commonly associated with Pages with more than 10,000 views views food poisoning. This includes the supply or handling of Food safety homepage 80,074 unpackaged low-risk foods, or sale of pre-packaged /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety potentially hazardous foods that need refrigeration Food safety program templates 47,211 to keep them safe. Milk bars, convenience stores, /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/templates bakeries and most service stations fall into class 3.
Starting a food business 24,905 Prior to major amendments to the Food Act in 2010, /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/foodbus these businesses were classified as class 2 and were Food safety at home 23,503 required to have a food safety program. /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/home/athome Due to their lower risk food handling activities compared Single approval for temporary and mobile 21,771 with class 2 premises, the regulatory requirements of food premises to operate in Victoria /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/mobile class 3 businesses under the Food Act have been eased. In place of a food safety program, they now maintain Food premises classification and registration 21,523 minimum records relating to their food handling activities. /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/class The records relate, for example, to food suppliers and Food business information 18,596 temperature controls and are intended to be used by /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/index businesses to monitor food safety and to demonstrate Food safety: training, skills and knowledge 18,513 that these practices are routinely followed. /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/skills_ knowledge/index In March 2013 the department published a new guide for class 3 businesses. The guide is designed to help business Regulations and legislation 15,792 /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory operators understand both their responsibilities under the _info/index Food Act and the steps to follow to ensure food safety. The guide also explains the minimum food safety records Food safety supervisor requirements 15,174 /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/skills_ they must keep and includes templates of the records, knowledge/fss which can be copied for use. Keeping food safe 15,132 Council environmental health officers have reported that /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/keeping the new guide is especially helpful for new businesses but Register of convictions 14,596 has also been a useful refresher for existing businesses. /health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_ The Food safety guide for food businesses: Class 3 it is info/register available at
81 Environmental health dashboard The department will also undertake formal online The department currently uses a number of password- consultations with officers through this facility. protected websites to provide information to environmental health officers in Victoria’s 79 councils. Guidance published The department is responsible for providing advice How many officers visited EHO and guidance to councils to support local government secure website? and promote a consistent approach for Food Act administration. It also provides guidance to other parties • 495 EHOs visited the secure site in 2013, with a role to play in food safety regulation (such as generating 2,020 visits and 14,761 page views. auditors) and to food premises to make it easier for • Six per cent of users were first-time visitors them to comply with their food safety obligations. to the site. • On average each month 1,567 visitors viewed During 2013 the department published several major 14,761 pages. guidelines about the Food Act. An instrument establishing the minimum number of food samples to be taken from relevant food premises classes was made under the Act and published in the Government How engaged were council officers visitors Gazette: with the site? • Victorian Government Gazette, Declaration under • On average, council officers visited 7.31 pages section 32A of the Food Act 1984, Food sampling per visit and stayed on the site for 4:25 minutes requirements, No. G 2, Thursday, 10 January 2013. per visit. A bulletin for councils and a revised handbook on audit • On average each month 41 officers viewed of food premises as required under the Food Act were 1,230 pages. published:
• Food Act 1984 bulletin 21, Audit. Advice for councils, August 2013 • Handbook for food safety auditors, third edition, In 2013 initial work began to develop an interactive web April 2013. ‘dashboard’ for EHOs and managers, which is expected to result in vastly improved functionality. Four further Food Act bulletins for councils were published:
The new dashboard will pull together different views • Register of convictions. Update on required of information relevant to EHOs’ work from across the documentation, February 2013 department’s large website into a single place. This means • Bulletin 19, Criminal liability of directors, March 2013 officers will log in using a single password and view a • Bulletin 20, Food Standards Code, infringements and page that organises and presents information in a way penalties, July 2013 that is easy to find and links directly to high-use and • Bulletin 23, Enforcement options for food safety priority content such as items that require urgent action. program breaches, November 2013.
The dashboard will allow users to join relevant groups For a full list of publications, see Appendix 14. and will give them access to other group members’ contact details. Officers will be able to personalise their dashboards to link to tools, data and information relevant to their own specific work and interests, be it food safety, tobacco control, air and water quality, immunisation or emergency management.
82 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
National scene
83 National scene
Intergovernmental agreement The forum is supported by the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC), whose role is to coordinate policy An intergovernmental agreement between Commonwealth, advice and ensure a nationally consistent approach to state and territory governments underpins the food the implementation and enforcement of food standards. regulatory scheme in Australia (Figure 20). The scheme The FRSC comprises senior officials of departments involves all three levels of Australian governments and for which the ministers represented on the forum have New Zealand. Under the scheme, Australian states and portfolio responsibility. The Implementation Sub-Committee territories still administer their own food Acts. However, for Food Regulation reports to the FRSC and oversees a those Acts are based on a model national food Act and consistent approach to implementing and enforcing food incorporate national food standards automatically as laws regulation and standards. of their jurisdictions. The intergovernmental agreement aims to provide a Food Standards Code national system of safe food controls. Its purpose is to: The Food Standards Code is a collection of bi-national • protect public health and safety standards designed to promote national consistency • reduce regulatory burden on the food industry in Australia’s and New Zealand’s food laws. It lists • harmonise Australian domestic and export standards requirements for foods such as additives, food safety, with international standards labelling and genetically modified foods. Enforcement • provide cost-effective compliance and enforcement and interpretation of the code is the responsibility of state arrangements and territory agencies within Australia and New Zealand. • provide a consistent regulatory approach. Food standards development Australia New Zealand Food Treaty The Food Standards Code comprises food standards that are developed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand In addition to the agreement, a treaty is in place (FSANZ). between the Australian and New Zealand governments. The treaty seeks to: FSANZ is an independent statutory authority that is managed by a board whose members are appointed by • reduce unnecessary barriers to trade the Commonwealth Government. In addition to developing • adopt a joint system of food standards all domestic food standards, the role of FSANZ extends to • provide for the timely development, matters such as coordinating national food surveillance and adoption and review of food standards food recall systems, working with international agencies • facilitate information sharing. responsible for food regulation, and developing codes of conduct and guidance materials for the food industry. Bi-national governance The development of food standards, reviews of existing The regulation of food safety in Australia and New Zealand standards and variations to those standards stem either is overseen by the Legislative and Governance Forum from applications made to FSANZ, from proposals of on Food Regulation. The forum membership comprises FSANZ’s own initiative, or in response to a request food ministers from each Australian jurisdiction and New made by the Legislative and Governance Forum Zealand. It is responsible for developing food regulatory on Food Regulation. policy and guidelines and for promoting a consistent approach to food standards compliance and enforcement. This responsibility requires all members of the forum to balance public health and safety objectives with the need to produce and deliver food to the public efficiently and with minimal regulation.
84 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Figure 20: Joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system
Food Regulation Treaty between Australia’s Food Regulation Agreement Australia and New Zealand
Legislative and Governance Forum Model Food Act provisions on Food Regulation
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act State and territory food Acts
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Standing Committee
Implementation Sub-committee Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code on Food Regulation
The forum, whose membership comprises representatives The Department of Health coordinates whole-of-government from all Australian Governments and the New Zealand input into this process, drawing upon in-house expertise in Government, is chaired by the Commonwealth food microbiology, food technology, toxicology, chemistry, Parliamentary Secretary for Health. It is established nutrition and dietetics, as well as expertise that exists under an intergovernmental agreement between the within the Department of Environment and Primary Commonwealth and Australia’s states and territories, Industries and its agencies PrimeSafe and Dairy Food and a treaty between the governments of New Zealand Safety Victoria, and other state government departments and Australia. Part of the forum’s role is to develop and agencies. policy guidelines that FSANZ must have regard to when In 2013 FSANZ released 16 applications and proposal developing or revising food standards. It also has general assessment reports for public comment. These included oversight of the implementation of standards. applications for approval to amend standards to permit Public consultation is an important part of the food the addition of various substances to food, a proposal standards development process and FSANZ encourages to review the Food Standards Code and variations to written comments from interested individuals and standards applying to infant formula products (Table 23). organisations about applications and proposals. These comments, which can relate to issues such as regulatory impact, safety and risk assessment and technical matters, assist FSANZ to assess applications and proposals.
85 Table 23: FSANZ applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment, 2013
Application/proposal Application A1083 – Maximum residue limits for blueberries and raspberries Proposal P1025 – Code revision Application A1085 – Food derived from reduced lignin lucerne KK179 Application A1081 – Food derived from herbicide-tolerant soybean event SYHTOH2 Application A1087 – Food derived from insect-protected soybean line DAS-81419-2 Application A1080 – Food derived from herbicide-tolerant cotton line MON88701 Consultation paper – Qualifying criteria for nutrition content claims about dietary fibre Application A1075 – Quillaia extract as a food additive P1028 – Infant formula products Application A1089 – Food derived from herbicide-tolerant canola line DP-073496-4 Application 1088 – Sodium hydrosulphite as a food additive Application A1077 – Fungal chitosan as a processing aid Proposal P274 – Review minimum age labelling of foods for infants Proposal P1014 – Primary production and processing standard for meat and meat products Proposal P1022 – Primary production and processing requirements for raw milk products Proposal P1017 – Criteria for Listeria monocytogenes microbiological limits for foods
New or amended food standards are approved by the FSANZ National bodies board and then submitted to the forum for its consideration. The forum can ask the FSANZ board to review its decision The department also participates in national committees or to approve a standard or variation to a standard. FSANZ working groups that inform the development of standards publishes the standard in the Commonwealth Government or other regulatory measures, the implementation of Gazette and registers it as a law, which is then automatically standards, or which coordinate activities or communications. adopted by reference, and without amendment, into They cover a wide range of areas such as: Australian state and territory food laws. • point-of-sale nutrition information In 2013 the forum was notified of 16 applications and • front-of-pack labelling proposals to approve amendments to the Food Standards • imported food labelling compliance Code. A total of eleven applications and proposals were • health nutrition and related claims gazetted, including the Nutrition, Health and Related • food safety management Claims Standard, which was gazetted in January. • food incident response Information on standards development can be found on • food medicine interface the FSANZ website at
See Appendix 15 for further details.
86 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Raw milk product laws developments Call for a level playing field Standard 4.2.4 is the part of the Food Standards Code Laws for selling milk products that deals with pasteurisation of milk. When it was Historically in Australia drinking raw milk and eating raw first developed, the Standard specified the processing milk products, such as cheese, have been considered requirements for milk, as well as other dairy products to present an unacceptable health risk to the population. (such as cheese, butter, cream and yoghurt) with which Heat treatment of milk and milk products to destroy dairy processing businesses must comply. The Standard harmful bacteria has therefore been mandated by required that milk sold as liquid milk or used in the Australian food law – the Food Standards Code – as an manufacture of these dairy products (except cheese) important public health measure. In recent years; however, be pasteurised or equivalently processed.33 a number of issues have emerged that have prompted Cheese production was dealt with under a separate clause the standard-setting body, the FSANZ, to examine the in this Standard, where alternative processing requirements requirements for milk and milk products in the code. to pasteurisation were permitted for cheese production, That is, could an acceptable level of public health and including thermisation (in combination with ripening) and safety be achieved through alternative processing and/or curd cooking in combination with ripening and maximum production measures to those specified in the code? moisture content.34
What is raw milk? A separate Standard, 4.2.4A, was developed in 2009 to provide for the sale of specific cheeses (Gruyère, Sbrinz Raw milk is milk that has not undergone any heat or Emmental cheese as well as Roquefort) that had been treatment such as pasteurisation or thermisation. processed using alternate methods that did not align with The pasteurisation process effectively kills bacteria those in Standard 4.2.4. These alternate methods were that cause diseases such as typhoid fever, those set out in French or Swiss regulations and related tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis to imported cheese products. While the Standard allowed and campylobacteriosis. It has been used in Australia for the importation and sale of these cheeses in Australia, since the early 1900s, becoming law in the 1940s it did not allow for the domestic production of the same and standard practice in the 1950s. styles of cheese. This has raised concerns both about a non-level playing field for Australian producers and that Public health and safety this approach is discriminatory. There is no way of telling by taste, sight or smell that raw National laws under review milk contains harmful bacteria. Pasteurisation of our milk In 2003 FSANZ received three applications to amend the supply was adopted as a public health and safety measure code to allow raw milk products. They can be viewed in to prevent people from becoming sick and suffering from full on the FSANZ website and are summarised below: serious illness and potential long-term effects such as kidney damage, meningitis and septicaemia. • A514 Raw cows’ milk – a member of the public sought to permit the sale of unpasteurised drinking milk for The adverse health impacts are greatest for people with perceived health benefits weak immune systems including: those with a pre-existing health condition that has weakened their immune systems; • A530 Cheddar cheeses – a cheese trading company young children; the foetuses of pregnant women; and sought to permit the sale of raw milk cheddar cheeses those aged over 65 years when the function of the (specific products of Britain) immune system declines. • A531 Raw milk cheese – a cheese trading company sought to permit the production and sale of any cheese type made from unpasteurised milk, provided that the cheese meets European Union or Codex microbiological, physical and chemical standards.
87 In seeking to address these applications and the issues • Category 1 – products for which the properties and/or raised by the inconsistency of requirements for domestic processing factors eliminate pathogens that may have and imported products as well as in consumer and been present in the raw milk, for example, very hard industry applications, FSANZ developed a proposal grating cheeses made with raw milk to vary the Food Standards Code in relation to the • Category 2 – products for which the properties and/ production, processing and sale of raw milk and raw or processing factors may allow survival of pathogens milk products. To better understand raw milk consumers’ that may have been present in the raw milk but do not behaviour, risk perceptions and motivations, FSANZ support the growth of these pathogens, for example, commissioned an exploratory study of raw milk consumers Roquefort cheese made with raw milk in 2009. The final report, titled Raw milk: consumer • Category 3 – products for which the intrinsic properties behaviour and attitudes, March 2009, can be found and/or processing factors are likely to allow the survival on the FSANZ website. of pathogens that may have been present in the raw Proposal P1007 – Primary production and processing milk and may support the growth of these pathogens, requirements for raw milk products – involved a process for example, very soft cheeses or raw drinking milk. that began in 2008. The intent was to address issues in Proposal P1007 concluded that raw milk products could relation to the production and sale of raw milk products be processed with an acceptable level of public health risk in Australia arising from inconsistent legislation currently where there are combinations of specific production and applying to domestic and imported dairy products, processing controls in place. applications to FSANZ to permit raw milk products, FSANZ has subsequently assessed that Category 1 and any public health and safety issues from consumption products align with the existing requirements in the of raw milk products. Food Standards Code35 so are therefore permitted. A first assessment report was released for comment Further work on determining whether Category 2 products in December 2009. This informed the development of can be permitted is continuing through Proposal P1022 – the second assessment report, which included a draft Primary production and processing requirements for raw variation to the Food Standards Code, and was published milk products. Proposal P1022 has been prepared for comment in August 2011. At this time, FSANZ sought to assess the requirements for the safe production of submissions on a draft variation to Standard 4.2.4 – raw milk products where it can be demonstrated that: Primary production and processing standard for • the intrinsic physico-chemical characteristics of the raw dairy products – and published an associated report. milk product do not support the growth of pathogens FSANZ received 73 written submissions from stakeholders • there is no net increase in pathogen levels in both industry and consumer groups advocating during processing. for production of raw milk as well as from food safety regulators in governments across Australia, New Zealand Officers working in the Victorian Department of Health, and the European Union. The full submissions are available Department of Environment and Primary Industries and for public view on the FSANZ website. Dairy Food Safety Victoria are providing comment to FSANZ in their ongoing technical work for Proposal P1022. Under Proposal 1007, FSANZ developed three categories of raw milk products. These have been defined by the The FSANZ discussion papers and assessment reports for effect processing factors and product properties of the Proposal P1007 and Proposal P1022 can be found on the final product have onpathogen growth and survival FSANZ website at
88 Appendices
89 Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations
This report has been developed as required under • class 4 – other low-risk food handling activities, the Food Act 1984 (s. 7C). including pre-packaged low-risk food.
Data sources, specifications and limitations and other Class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must register annually, explanatory notes about the data presented in this report while class 4 premises are required to notify councils are described here. on a once-off basis.
All food premises Areas outside municipalities (fixed, temporary and mobile) Food premises data relating to Victoria’s six alpine resorts are included in the figures for the municipalities that Reporting period manage food safety compliance at these resorts, that is: Data presented for food premises registrations and • Indigo Shire – Mount Hotham Alpine Resort and notifications were reported for the period 1 January Falls Creek Alpine Resort to 31 December 2013. • Mansfield Shire – Mount Stirling Alpine Resort and Note that there are some exclusions and these Mount Buller Alpine resort are discussed below. • Baw Baw Shire – Mount Baw Baw Alpine Resort • Murrindindi Shire – Lake Mountain Alpine Resort. Food Act dataset Data for French Island are listed in the figures for the The Department of Health Food Act Dataset, first Bass Coast Shire. published in 2009 and updated from time to time, provides a common set of concepts, data elements and Laboratory notifications edit/validation rules that define activities carried out under Data on laboratory notifications of pathogens under the Food Act. The terminology is aligned to the concepts Schedule 5 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations and provisions in the Food Act as amended in July 2010. 2009 were supplied from the Department of Health Food This includes a new premises classification system and Safety and Regulation Unit’s Regulatory and Incident associated regulatory requirements and the compliance Management program files. arrangements for each class. Complaints The Food Act Dataset and the requirements for reporting to the department reflect reforms to the Act and practices Data on food complaints were supplied from the that are designed to improve food safety regulation. Department of Health Food Safety and Regulatory Unit’s The use of a common set of data elements across all Regulatory and Incident Management program files. council municipalities is intended to promote a consistent Food recalls approach to administering the Act across the state, Data on food recalls were sourced from the Department of as provided in s. 7A of the Act. Health Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s Regulatory and Food premises classification Incident Management Recalls Register.
Under the Food Act, food premises are classified according Food premises closures by councils to the public health risks involved in food handling: Under s. 19 of the Food Act, a council may temporarily • class 1 – high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable order the closure of a food premises until major or ongoing to food-related illness problems relating to adequate hygiene and food handling • class 2 – high-risk foods that need correct temperature at the premises are remedied. Such an order would be control at all times to keep them safe issued where necessary to protect public health. In such • class 3 – unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged serious cases, the business may only resume operations high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook once the problems have been fixed. and serve’ foods
90 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
These data were supplied from the Department of Health Web and dofoodsafely learning program Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s Regulatory and Incident statistics Management program files based on information reported Data relating to website and dofoodsafely visits in 2013 by councils. were generated in May 2014 using Google Analytics, Convictions a service offered by Google that generates detailed statistics about website traffic and traffic sources – The tables in this report are based on information provided see
The department also maintains a register of convictions While we have reported on fixed and mobile food premises for offences under the Food Act or the Regulations. in previous reports, statewide statistics on temporary The Act requires councils to provide information about premises have not previously been available. The new convictions in matters that they have prosecuted or in Streatrader software application, introduced in October relation to premises that they have registered or that 2012 to administer Victoria’s statewide registration/ are in their municipalities. These are then added to the notification scheme for temporary and mobile food department’s register. The Act also permits the Secretary premises, is now used for all temporary and mobile food to obtain information from other sources for the purpose premises. During 2013, data cleaning to remove duplicate of ensuring that the information on the register is reliable records from Streatrader was undertaken and system and verified. enhancements were implemented. Data for this report were extracted at different time points as the new suite The tables in this report include only offences for which of reports were developed and refined. As a result, a conviction was recorded. there may be small discrepancies across the reports. It excludes all Victorian food premises in relation to Note that tables in this report may not add to which prosecutions for offences under the Food Act 100 per cent due to rounding. were brought by councils, where the matter has been decided by the court during 2013:
• and the outcome was a finding of guilt but where no conviction was recorded • with a finding of not guilty, or where the charges were withdrawn or struck out.
To access the register of convictions go to
91 Fixed food premises Exclusion As a consequence of the above, the total number of fixed Source class 4 food premises that actively traded in Victoria in The data repository managed by the Department of Health 2013 is not known. For example, some of the premises receives data transmitted electronically from Victorian recorded in council systems may have ceased to operate. councils each quarter. All councils submitted the required Some councils record only new notifications, while others fixed premises data electronically in an Excel spreadsheet choose to contact existing proprietors and update their or as an XML file. status. Statistics about these fixed premises are therefore excluded from this report. Registrations and notifications It was possible to report these statistics in previous annual Inclusions reports because when the new Food Act food premises The data includes a count of all fixed class 1–3 fixed food classification system was introduced in 2010–2012 all premises registered with councils as required under the councils assessed the classifications of all premises in the Food Act as at 31 December 2013 regardless of the date course of implementation. Accordingly, data on class 4 of initial registration or renewal of registration. It includes premises were complete at that time. premises that were registered for the first time during the period, as well as premises that renewed their registration. Missing data
Unless otherwise stated, the data represent a count of the At this stage the data system has no facility for recording number of class 1–3 premises by class with a registration missing data in relation to fixed food premises – that is, status of New, Renewal or Transfer recorded in the period. where a ‘0’ shows in a council data report, it may mean either that there was no result for the period, or that there Exclusions is missing data. The fixed premises data excludes the following items: Estimated Resident Population Registrations 1 January to 30 December Data on the Estimated Resident Population (ERP) is Data relating to any fixed food premises registered to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Catalogue councils at any time between 1 January and 30 December 3218.0 Regional population growth Australia, released 2013 but whose registration was no longer current as at on 30 August 2013. 31 December 2013 were not available and are therefore ERP is the official estimate of the Australian population, excluded. based on usual place of residence. The ABS releases New versus renewed registrations versions of the ERP for different geographic levels throughout the year and the ERP is updated several Data cannot be published separately at this stage times before the final version is available. Population for new and renewed registrations of fixed premises. totals for statistical local areas, local government areas, Treatment of fixed class 4 food premises statistical districts and remoteness areas are released in March each year. Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling activities, these businesses notify councils of the basic details of the food premises – such as business type, the nature of the business, types of food handled and their address and contact details – on a once-off basis. They do not need to re-notify and councils are not required to contact them annually to ascertain whether they are still operating. This applies to all class 4 premises, whether they operate from a fixed or temporary site or from a mobile van or cart.
92 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Temporary and mobile food premises Initial registrations and renewals Initial registrations refer to class 2–3 food premises Source that registered with a council under the Food Act for The statistics in this report draw on information entered the first time during the period. Registrations must be into Streatrader by food business and community renewed annually. These reports represent a count of group system users and council officers in Victoria’s newly registered premises in 2013 and premises that 79 municipalities. Streatrader is a customised software had renewed their registrations in that year, as at application developed by the department and used by 31 December 2013. councils to administer Victoria’s statewide registration/ notification scheme for temporary and mobile food premises. Initial notifications Initial notifications refer to class 4 food premises that Registrations and notifications notified a council of their food handling activities under Premises and trader types the Food Act for the first time during the period. The statistics in this report include temporary premises, These reports are a count of newly notified premises, mobile premises and water transport vehicles. Food as at December 2013. vending machines are excluded. Treatment of class 4 premises Premises operated by businesses, community groups Statistics on active class 4 temporary and mobile food and not-for-profit organisations are included. premises are routinely collected via Streatrader and are included in this report. In contrast to fixed food premises Premises class, time periods and status (see earlier explanation), this is possible because these These reports represent a count of food premises with a premises must routinely inform councils of where and registration (class 2–3) or notification (class 4) under the when they will be trading (as distinct to being required to Food Act recorded in Streatrader, as at December 2013. notify councils under the Food Act before they commence The specified period applies to all statistics, except where trading). They do this by lodging Food Act statements it is noted that a count is cumulative for the period 1 of trade in the Streatrader system. Because these data January to 31 December 2013. are entered directly by proprietors into a statewide data Unless otherwise stated, the following are included: system, comparisons may be made between councils. • class 2–3 premises with a registration status of Principal (registering) council New, Renewal or Transfer as recorded in the period Under Victoria’s statewide system for registration/ • class 4 premises with a notification recorded. notification of a food van or stall, one council must be primarily responsible for and approve a business’s/ Total registrations/notifications community organisation’s food handling operations These reports are a count of food premises registrations at its portable premises. (class 2–3) or notifications (class 4) under the Food Act recorded in Streatrader as at December 2013. This Known as the principal council (or registering council), differs from reports in which premises is the denominator; this is the council a food business will deal with most that is, there may be more than one food premises per in the future. In effect, the principal council registers the registration. food van or stall for the state and therefore on behalf of all other councils in whose municipalities it will trade. Premises per registration/notification It is responsible, together with those ‘trading councils’, These reports are a count of food premises included under for monitoring compliance. It can take enforcement each registration (class 2–3) and notification (class 4) action where this is required. recorded in Streatrader, as at 31 December 2013.
93 A business/community group’s principal council is the Trading days council in whose municipality it prepares or stores food Trading days represent a count of days on which food that is to be sold at a van, stall or vending machine, premises traded during a specified period, for example, or if food is not usually prepared or stored beforehand, a particular month or year. One premises may trade on it is the municipality in which the equipment for a stall one or many days throughout the year. These reports are is usually stored, or the food van or water transport a cumulative count of all days on which premises traded vehicle is usually garaged. in Victoria during 2013. If neither of these apply it is the municipality in which Cross-council trading the usual business address is located or, if the premises has such a place (that is, where food is usually stored or These reports are a cumulative count of municipalities prepared, or equipment is stored, or a food van or water in which a trader operated over the course of 2013. transport vehicle is usually garaged) or has a business Each trader has a single registration/notification that address but it is not in Victoria, the principal council is in permits him or her to operate anywhere across the state. the municipality in which the food van, water transport There may one or more premises per registration. vehicle, stall or vending machine will first operate in Victoria.
Place of registration/notification A premises is classed as metropolitan or non-metropolitan based on the location of the principal council with which it has a registration/notification, as at 31 December 2013.
Similarly, a premises’ Department of Health region is based on the address of its principal council.
Streatrader account holders When a food premises registration or notification is approved (class 2–3) or accepted (class 4) by a council, the Streatrader system allocates a unique account reference number to each trader. Reports on account holders are a count of all proprietors with an account on Streatrader, including those who traded in the period and those who did not, as at 31 December 2013. There may be more than one food premises per account.
Trader/proprietor This relates to a person or company with a temporary or mobile food premises registration (class 2–3) or notification (class 4) under the Food Act recorded in Streatrader, as at 31 December 2013. This term is interchangeable with the term ‘Streatrader account holder’ as each trader/proprietor has a single Streatrader account that may or may not cover more than one food premises.
94 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 2: Governance
Food regulation system Administration of the Food Act Food regulation in Victoria is managed by two state in Victoria government departments, two state statutory authorities The principal state Act that controls the sale of food in and 79 local councils. The Commonwealth Government Victoria is the Food Act 1984. also has a key role. Local councils and the Department of Health jointly The three levels of government share responsibility for administer the Food Act. Under the Act, food business developing and administering food regulation within a owners are legally responsible to ensure that food sold framework that endeavours to harmonise regulatory to customers is safe and suitable to eat. requirements relating to a widely dispersed and varied food industry. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the wholesomeness and purity of food sold in Victoria. It does this by: The Commonwealth, state and territory governments jointly develop national food standards, which are • setting out offences for breaches of the food laws and embodied in the Food Standards Code. These standards the applicable penalties and defences are given force through state legislation that allocates, • providing the means through which the Food Standards in Victoria’s case, significant enforcement responsibility Code is applied as the law in Victoria (it includes the to local government. national food safety standards developed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand) Victoria has two principal streams of food safety regulation. • establishing a food premises classification system and The first applies to the sale of food and some aspects of enforcement powers, including emergency powers, primary production. These are governed by the Food Act where there are immediate threats to public health 1984 (Vic). It also focuses on the general manufacturing • providing the means through which municipal councils sectors. The second applies to the primary production, regulate food businesses. manufacture and transport for sale of meat, seafood and dairy products, which are regulated through industry-specific Acts. Ministerial directions and council actions The 79 councils administer the Food Act with its objectives of ensuring food is safe and suitable for Victoria has a devolved regulatory system in which each human consumption, avoiding misleading conduct of the 79 councils has responsibility for administering the and giving effect to national food standards. Act in its municipality. As such, it is important to have a statutory mechanism that can be invoked, if required, The Department of Health’s Food Safety and Regulation to ensure significant policy issues are addressed in a Unit also has some regulatory responsibilities, along with consistent way across the state. its policy advisory role. Dairy Food Safety Victoria regulates the dairy sector and PrimeSafe regulates meat and Section 7E of the Food Act enables the Minister for Health seafood. Consumer Affairs Victoria regulates misleading to issue directions to councils. conduct, as does the Australian Competition and In practice it is envisaged that such a power would only be Consumer Commission. exercised as a last resort where cooperative measures or the release of statewide guidance by the department are insufficient, for example, if a council has failed to act of its own accord to remedy a significant systemic problem.
Before issuing a direction, the Minister must consider the objectives of the Food Act and consult with local government or the relevant peak representative body (that is, the Municipal Association of Victoria).
95 To promote public accountability, a copy of any ministerial Performance measures direction must be included in the department’s annual report on food regulation. A direction to a specified council The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit reports must also be published in the council’s annual report along to the Victorian Parliament on the following outputs, which with action taken by the council as a result. appear in Budget paper 3: Service delivery. The paper outlines departmental output statements detailing the The Minister for Health did not issue any directions to goods and services that government departments intend councils under s. 7E in 2013. to deliver in each year. These include the following: In practice, a consultative approach between the different Calls to food safety hotlines food safety regulators tends to be most effective. Along with Victorian food regulators, the Municipal Association of The department measures the number of calls made to its Victoria is a signatory to a memorandum of understanding food safety hotlines by consumers and food businesses outlining the parties’ respective roles and responsibilities. who have questions and complaints regarding food safety This provides an opportunity to collaborate and clarify a legal requirements and practice. number of aspects of council administration. The food safety hotline provides a service to respond to general food and food safety enquiries.
Calls to food safety hotlines that are answered The department also measures the extent to which it is meeting the community’s needs with respect to responding to queries about food safety.
Complaints responses The average time taken from notification of a food complaint to commencement of appropriate action is measured.
Also measured is the responsiveness of the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit to complaints and referrals. The Food Safety and Regulation Unit is responsible for investigating food complaints, conducting referrals and initiating enforcement action where a public health risk is identified.
96 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 3: Functions, accountabilities and legislation
Food Safety and Regulation Unit The food safety teams manage numerous interrelated projects deriving from a multi-year work program to The Food Safety and Regulation Unit is part of the Health implement and embed the major changes to the Food Protection Branch of the Victorian Department of Health. Act. Ongoing work includes: investigating alleged food The unit’s role is to protect the community from safety incidents; initiating and coordinating food recalls; food-related harm, to support public health through responding to public health incidents and emergencies; strategic regulatory policy analysis and development handling enquiries and complaints; gathering and analysing and to influence thinking, policy and programs to data; undertaking research; public reporting; providing achieve a healthier community. information; providing education and tools to promote food safety and compliance with food laws; and The unit’s food safety teams are responsible for performing the department’s statutory functions administering the Food Act 1984, which applies to (for example, approval of food safety templates and most food businesses in the state. The Act aims to food safety auditors and maintaining the statewide ensure food is safe and suitable for human consumption, register of convictions of food businesses). to prevent misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food and to provide for the application in Victoria of the Food regulation statutory framework Food Standards Code. As food safety and regulation is multidimensional and is shared across all three levels of Food premises government, the unit works with a range of partners in The Food Act establishes the regulatory framework carrying out its functions. to ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe, suitable Under the Food Act, councils are the regulators of food and complies with the requirements of the Food businesses in their municipalities, while the department is Standards Code. It applies to food businesses such as responsible for food policy and regulatory issues of regional, manufacturers, retailers, cafés and restaurants, as well statewide or national significance. The department has a as facilities that serve food such as hospitals and aged statutory role of providing guidance to councils to promote care facilities. the consistent administration of the Food Act across the The 79 councils across the state regulate these food state and for publishing data relating to the Act’s businesses, primarily though registration of premises, administration. monitoring compliance, providing education and advice, The Minister for Health is Victoria’s lead minister on the and taking enforcement action where necessary. Local Australia and New Zealand Forum on Food Regulation. government therefore has responsibility for the day-to-day The Minister is required to vote on behalf of Victoria on regulation of the majority of food businesses in the state. all food standards and national policy proposals and The purpose of legislation is to protect and promote takes a whole-of-government position to the forum. the health of Victorians. Where this involves regulation, A key function of the unit is to support the Minister by the legislation enables the use of the least burdensome conducting research and analysis and providing advice intervention reasonably necessary to achieve the outcome and recommendations to the government on all national sought. This is the case whether the actual regulation food policy and regulatory proposals. The unit participates is carried out by the department or by other agencies in a whole-of-government food regulation group to ensure (such as local government or statutory authorities). comprehensive advice to government and manages a The Food Act adopts a proportionate approach. substantial intergovernmental work program. The nature of food, together with the way it is handled, and the vulnerability to illness of the persons eating the food, determines the degree of risk.
97 Based on these factors, four classes of food premises The current parties to the MOU are: are established under the Act – from the highest risk • the Department of Health (class 1) through to the lowest risk (class 4). Food premises • the Municipal Association of Victoria are classified by municipal councils under this framework. (representing councils) The level of regulation for each class is matched to the • Dairy Food Safety Victoria degree of risk. For example, only those businesses that handle unpackaged high-risk food must have a food safety • PrimeSafe. supervisor. Minimal regulation applies to businesses that The MOU and information about the forum can be handle only low-risk food. accessed at
Victorian food regulator roles and collaboration Other legislation of particular relevance to the unit’s work: The Victorian Food Regulators Forum oversees a • Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cwlth) memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the • Freedom of Information Act 1982 Victorian agencies involved in food safety administration • Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and enforcement. The MOU clarifies the roles, • Public Administration Act 2004 responsibilities and arrangements for cooperation • Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 between Victoria’s food regulators, including data • Quarantine Act 1908 (Cwlth). sharing and referrals. Its overall aim is to ensure food safety and protect public health by strengthening collaboration. The forum also provides an opportunity for sharing lessons about best practice in regulation.
98 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 4: Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class, region and municipality, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 258 (74%) 82 (23%) 351 (100%) Corangamite (S) 10 (7%) 94 (64%) 44 (30%) 148 (100%) Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 141 (74%) 40 (21%) 190 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 89 (5%) 1,260 (71%) 422 (24%) 1,771 (100%) Moyne (S) 5 (2%) 151 (66%) 74 (32%) 230 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 60 (78%) 15 (19%) 77 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 122 (75%) 35 (21%) 163 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 11 (4%) 218 (71%) 78 (25%) 307 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (5%) 225 (75%) 60 (20%) 299 (100%) Subtotal 157 (4%) 2,529 (72%) 850 (24%) 3,536 (100%) Eastern Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 91 (8%) 760 (69%) 245 (22%) 1,096 (100%) Knox (C) 72 (7%) 570 (57%) 360 (36%) 1,002 (100%) Manningham (C) 55 (9%) 412 (65%) 166 (26%) 633 (100%) Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 422 (59%) 232 (33%) 713 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (64%) 377 (30%) 1,260 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 70 (7%) 729 (70%) 241 (23%) 1,040 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (5%) 696 (61%) 393 (34%) 1,143 (100%) Subtotal 478 (7%) 4,395 (64%) 2,014 (29%) 6,887 (100%) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 14 (4%) 307 (81%) 58 (15%) 379 (100%) Baw Baw (S) 14 (2%) 451 (80%) 101 (18%) 566 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 26 (6%) 305 (73%) 88 (21%) 419 (100%) Latrobe (C) 36 (7%) 365 (68%) 133 (25%) 534 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 11 (4%) 220 (74%) 65 (22%) 296 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (3%) 324 (73%) 102 (23%) 441 (100%) Subtotal 116 (4%) 1,972 (75%) 547 (21%) 2,635 (100%)
99 Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Grampians Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 92 (63%) 46 (32%) 145 (100%) Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 587 (75%) 142 (18%) 783 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 90 (70%) 30 (23%) 128 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 171 (56%) 127 (42%) 305 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 68 (78%) 13 (15%) 87 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 141 (64%) 73 (33%) 221 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (5%) 115 (66%) 51 (29%) 174 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 100 (58%) 64 (37%) 171 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 64 (63%) 35 (35%) 101 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 47 (84%) 7 (13%) 56 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 79 (90%) 5 (6%) 88 (100%) Subtotal 112 (5%) 1,554 (69%) 593 (26%) 2,259 (100%) Hume Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 161 (73%) 51 (23%) 221 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 84 (66%) 38 (30%) 127 (100%) Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (7%) 334 (67%) 130 (26%) 498 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (4%) 102 (66%) 47 (30%) 155 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 115 (68%) 52 (31%) 170 (100%) Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 165 (68%) 63 (26%) 241 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (4%) 252 (75%) 70 (21%) 336 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (3%) 131 (74%) 41 (23%) 177 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 5 (5%) 81 (73%) 25 (23%) 111 (100%) Towong (S) 4 (8%) 42 (81%) 6 (12%) 52 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 206 (64%) 102 (32%) 321 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 160 (68%) 58 (25%) 235 (100%) Subtotal 128 (5%) 1,833 (69%) 683 (26%) 2,644 (100%) Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 354 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 82 (77%) 16 (15%) 106 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 51 (53%) 41 (43%) 96 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 48 (5%) 645 (71%) 212 (23%) 905 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 105 (76%) 31 (22%) 139 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 256 (69%) 101 (27%) 373 (100%) Mildura (RC) 20 (3%) 400 (68%) 169 (29%) 589 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 135 (61%) 83 (37%) 223 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 154 (71%) 52 (24%) 216 (100%) Subtotal 134 (4%) 2,148 (69%) 811 (26%) 3,093 (100%)
100 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) North & West Metropolitan Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 469 (66%) 185 (26%) 707 (100%) Brimbank (C) 63 (6%) 734 (71%) 230 (22%) 1,027 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 808 (73%) 243 (22%) 1,111 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 30 (5%) 468 (73%) 140 (22%) 638 (100%) Hume (C) 57 (6%) 705 (69%) 257 (25%) 1,019 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 513 (70%) 186 (26%) 729 (100%) Melbourne (C) 62 (2%) 2,946 (86%) 411 (12%) 3,419 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 273 (70%) 86 (22%) 391 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 45 (6%) 621 (77%) 142 (18%) 808 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 986 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 19 (5%) 221 (63%) 109 (31%) 349 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 51 (6%) 556 (70%) 183 (23%) 790 (100%) Wyndham (C) 48 (6%) 527 (70%) 173 (23%) 748 (100%) Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,032 (81%) 200 (16%) 1,272 (100%) Subtotal 651 (5%) 10,573 (76%) 2,770 (20%) 13,994 (100%) Southern Metropolitan Bayside (C) 45 (7%) 465 (77%) 97 (16%) 607 (100%) Cardinia (S) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 511 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (9%) 703 (66%) 270 (25%) 1,065 (100%) Frankston (C) 60 (9%) 474 (68%) 158 (23%) 692 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 60 (7%) 573 (68%) 210 (25%) 843 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 65 (5%) 808 (67%) 339 (28%) 1,212 (100%) Kingston (C) 68 (6%) 827 (69%) 302 (25%) 1,197 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 69 (6%) 869 (70%) 300 (24%) 1,238 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 855 (81%) 162 (15%) 1,052 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 981 (82%) 162 (14%) 1,190 (100%) Subtotal 570 (6%) 6,875 (72%) 2,162 (23%) 9,607 (100%) Victoria 2,346 (5%) 31,879 (71%) 10,430 (23%) 44,655 (100%)
* Note: Includes class 1–3 fixed food premises; excludes class 4 fixed premises. B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire
101 Appendix 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class, region and municipality type, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Metropolitan Metropolitan inner Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 469 (66%) 185 (26%) 707 (100%) Bayside (C) 45 (7%) 465 (77%) 97 (16%) 607 (100%) Boroondara (C) 91 (8%) 760 (69%) 245 (22%) 1,096 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 808 (73%) 243 (22%) 1,111 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 60 (7%) 573 (68%) 210 (25%) 843 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 30 (5%) 468 (73%) 140 (22%) 638 (100%) Kingston (C) 68 (6%) 827 (69%) 302 (25%) 1,197 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 513 (70%) 186 (26%) 729 (100%) Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 422 (59%) 232 (33%) 713 (100%) Melbourne (C) 62 (2%) 2,946 (86%) 411 (12%) 3,419 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (64%) 377 (30%) 1,260 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 45 (6%) 621 (77%) 142 (18%) 808 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 986 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 855 (81%) 162 (15%) 1,052 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 981 (82%) 162 (14%) 1,190 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 70 (7%) 729 (70%) 241 (23%) 1,040 (100%) Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,032 (81%) 200 (16%) 1,272 (100%) Subtotal 933 (5%) 13,975 (75%) 3,760 (20%) 18,668 (100%) Metropolitan middle Brimbank (C) 63 (6%) 734 (71%) 230 (22%) 1,027 (100%) Frankston (C) 60 (9%) 474 (68%) 158 (23%) 692 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 65 (5%) 808 (67%) 339 (28%) 1,212 (100%) Knox (C) 72 (7%) 570 (57%) 360 (36%) 1,002 (100%) Manningham (C) 55 (9%) 412 (65%) 166 (26%) 633 (100%) Subtotal 315 (7%) 2,998 (66%) 1,253 (27%) 4,566 (100%) Interface Cardinia (S) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 511 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (9%) 703 (66%) 270 (25%) 1,065 (100%) Hume (C) 57 (6%) 705 (69%) 257 (25%) 1,019 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 273 (70%) 86 (22%) 391 (100%) Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 165 (68%) 63 (26%) 241 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 69 (6%) 869 (70%) 300 (24%) 1,238 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 19 (5%) 221 (63%) 109 (31%) 349 (100%) Whittlesea (C) 51 (6%) 556 (70%) 183 (23%) 790 (100%) Wyndham (C) 48 (6%) 527 (70%) 173 (23%) 748 (100%)
102 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (5%) 696 (61%) 393 (34%) 1,143 (100%) Subtotal 464 (6%) 5,035 (67%) 1,996 (27%) 7,495 (100%) Metropolitan subtotal 1,712 (6%) 22,008 (72%) 7,009 (23%) 30,729 (100%) Non-metropolitan Regional cities Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 92 (63%) 46 (32%) 145 (100%) Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 587 (75%) 142 (18%) 783 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 48 (5%) 645 (71%) 212 (23%) 905 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 89 (5%) 1,260 (71%) 422 (24%) 1,771 (100%) Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (7%) 334 (67%) 130 (26%) 498 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 141 (64%) 73 (33%) 221 (100%) Latrobe (C) 36 (7%) 365 (68%) 133 (25%) 534 (100%) Mildura (RC) 20 (3%) 400 (68%) 169 (29%) 589 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 154 (71%) 52 (24%) 216 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 206 (64%) 102 (32%) 321 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (5%) 225 (75%) 60 (20%) 299 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 160 (68%) 58 (25%) 235 (100%) Subtotal 349 (5%) 4,569 (70%) 1,599 (25%) 6,517 (100%) Large shires Baw Baw (S) 14 (2%) 451 (80%) 101 (18%) 566 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 354 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 258 (74%) 82 (23%) 351 (100%) Corangamite (S) 10 (7%) 94 (64%) 44 (30%) 148 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 26 (6%) 305 (73%) 88 (21%) 419 (100%) Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 141 (74%) 40 (21%) 190 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 256 (69%) 101 (27%) 373 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (4%) 252 (75%) 70 (21%) 336 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (5%) 115 (66%) 51 (29%) 174 (100%) Moyne (S) 5 (2%) 151 (66%) 74 (32%) 230 (100%) South Gippsland (S) 11 (4%) 220 (74%) 65 (22%) 296 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 122 (75%) 35 (21%) 163 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 11 (4%) 218 (71%) 78 (25%) 307 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (3%) 324 (73%) 102 (23%) 441 (100%) Subtotal 171 (4%) 3,171 (73%) 1,006 (23%) 4,348 (100%)
103 Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Council groups No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Small shires Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 161 (73%) 51 (23%) 221 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 14 (4%) 307 (81%) 58 (15%) 379 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 84 (66%) 38 (30%) 127 (100%) Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 82 (77%) 16 (15%) 106 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 51 (53%) 41 (43%) 96 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 90 (70%) 30 (23%) 128 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 171 (56%) 127 (42%) 305 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 68 (78%) 13 (15%) 87 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (4%) 102 (66%) 47 (30%) 155 (100%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 105 (76%) 31 (22%) 139 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 115 (68%) 52 (31%) 170 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 135 (61%) 83 (37%) 223 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (3%) 131 (74%) 41 (23%) 177 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 100 (58%) 64 (37%) 171 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 64 (63%) 35 (35%) 101 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 60 (78%) 15 (19%) 77 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 5 (5%) 81 (73%) 25 (23%) 111 (100%) Towong (S) 4 (8%) 42 (81%) 6 (12%) 52 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 47 (84%) 7 (13%) 56 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 79 (90%) 5 (6%) 88 (100%) Subtotal 114 (4%) 2,131 (70%) 816 (27%) 3,061 (100%) Non-metropolitan subtotal 634 (5%) 9,871 (71%) 3,421 (25%) 13,926 (100%) Victoria 2,346 (5%) 31,879 (71%) 10,430 (23%) 44,655 (100%)
* Note: Includes class 1–3 fixed food premises; excludes class 4 fixed premises. B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire
104 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 6: Municipalities by number of class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class, Victoria, as at December 2013
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) More than 1,200 Melbourne (C) 62 (2%) 2,946 (86%) 411 (12%) 3,419 (100%) Greater Geelong (C) 89 (5%) 1,260 (71%) 422 (24%) 1,771 (100%) Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,032 (81%) 200 (16%) 1,272 (100%) Monash (C) 77 (6%) 806 (64%) 377 (30%) 1,260 (100%) Mornington Peninsula (S) 69 (6%) 869 (70%) 300 (24%) 1,238 (100%) Greater Dandenong (C) 65 (5%) 808 (67%) 339 (28%) 1,212 (100%) Stonnington (C) 47 (4%) 981 (82%) 162 (14%) 1,190 (100%) Yarra Ranges (S) 54 (5%) 696 (61%) 393 (34%) 1,143 (100%) Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 808 (73%) 243 (22%) 1,111 (100%) Boroondara (C) 91 (8%) 760 (69%) 245 (22%) 1,096 (100%) Port Phillip (C) 35 (3%) 855 (81%) 162 (15%) 1,052 (100%) Subtotal 689 (4%) 11,821 (75%) 3,254 (21%) 15,764 (100%) 901 to 1,200 Kingston (C) 68 (6%) 827 (69%) 302 (25%) 1,197 (100%) Casey (C) 92 (9%) 703 (66%) 270 (25%) 1,065 (100%) Whitehorse (C) 70 (7%) 729 (70%) 241 (23%) 1,040 (100%) Brimbank (C) 63 (6%) 734 (71%) 230 (22%) 1,027 (100%) Hume (C) 57 (6%) 705 (69%) 257 (25%) 1,019 (100%) Knox (C) 72 (7%) 570 (57%) 360 (36%) 1,002 (100%) Moreland (C) 61 (6%) 700 (71%) 225 (23%) 986 (100%) Greater Bendigo (C) 48 (5%) 645 (71%) 212 (23%) 905 (100%) Glen Eira (C) 60 (7%) 573 (68%) 210 (25%) 843 (100%) Moonee Valley (C) 45 (6%) 621 (77%) 142 (18%) 808 (100%) Ballarat (C) 54 (7%) 587 (75%) 142 (18%) 783 (100%) Subtotal 690 (6%) 7,394 (69%) 2,591 (24%) 10,675 (100%) 601 to 900 Whittlesea (C) 51 (6%) 556 (70%) 183 (23%) 790 (100%) Wyndham (C) 48 (6%) 527 (70%) 173 (23%) 748 (100%) Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 513 (70%) 186 (26%) 729 (100%) Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 422 (59%) 232 (33%) 713 (100%) Banyule (C) 53 (7%) 469 (66%) 185 (26%) 707 (100%) Frankston (C) 60 (9%) 474 (68%) 158 (23%) 692 (100%) Hobsons Bay (C) 30 (5%) 468 (73%) 140 (22%) 638 (100%) Manningham (C) 55 (9%) 412 (65%) 166 (26%) 633 (100%) Bayside (C) 45 (7%) 465 (77%) 97 (16%) 607 (100%) Mildura (RC) 20 (3%) 400 (68%) 169 (29%) 589 (100%)
105 Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Latrobe (C) 36 (7%) 365 (68%) 133 (25%) 534 (100%) Cardinia (S) 29 (6%) 320 (63%) 162 (32%) 511 (100%) Subtotal 516 (7%) 5,391 (68%) 1,984 (25%) 7,891 (100%) 301 to 600 Baw Baw (S) 14 (2%) 451 (80%) 101 (18%) 566 (100%) Greater Shepparton (C) 34 (7%) 334 (67%) 130 (26%) 498 (100%) Wellington (S) 15 (3%) 324 (73%) 102 (23%) 441 (100%) East Gippsland (S) 26 (6%) 305 (73%) 88 (21%) 419 (100%) Melton (S) 32 (8%) 273 (70%) 86 (22%) 391 (100%) Bass Coast (S) 14 (4%) 307 (81%) 58 (15%) 379 (100%) Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 256 (69%) 101 (27%) 373 (100%) Campaspe (S) 15 (4%) 264 (75%) 75 (21%) 354 (100%) Colac Otway (S) 11 (3%) 258 (74%) 82 (23%) 351 (100%) Nillumbik (S) 19 (5%) 221 (63%) 109 (31%) 349 (100%) Moira (S) 14 (4%) 252 (75%) 70 (21%) 336 (100%) Wangaratta (RC) 13 (4%) 206 (64%) 102 (32%) 321 (100%) Surf Coast (S) 11 (4%) 218 (71%) 78 (25%) 307 (100%) Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 171 (56%) 127 (42%) 305 (100%) Warrnambool (C) 14 (5%) 225 (75%) 60 (20%) 299 (100%) Subtotal 255 (4%) 4,065 (71%) 1,369 (24%) 5,689 (100%) Less than 300 South Gippsland (S) 11 (4%) 220 (74%) 65 (22%) 296 (100%) Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 165 (68%) 63 (26%) 241 (100%) Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 160 (68%) 58 (25%) 235 (100%) Moyne (S) 5 (2%) 151 (66%) 74 (32%) 230 (100%) Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 135 (61%) 83 (37%) 223 (100%) Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 161 (73%) 51 (23%) 221 (100%) Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 141 (64%) 73 (33%) 221 (100%) Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 154 (71%) 52 (24%) 216 (100%) Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 141 (74%) 40 (21%) 190 (100%) Murrindindi (S) 5 (3%) 131 (74%) 41 (23%) 177 (100%) Moorabool (S) 8 (5%) 115 (66%) 51 (29%) 174 (100%) Northern Grampians (S) 7 (4%) 100 (58%) 64 (37%) 171 (100%) Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 115 (68%) 52 (31%) 170 (100%) Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 122 (75%) 35 (21%) 163 (100%) Indigo (S) 6 (4%) 102 (66%) 47 (30%) 155 (100%) Corangamite (S) 10 (7%) 94 (64%) 44 (30%) 148 (100%) Ararat (RC) 7 (5%) 92 (63%) 46 (32%) 145 (100%)
106 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Registrations Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total Number of premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 105 (76%) 31 (22%) 139 (100%) Golden Plains (S) 8 (6%) 90 (70%) 30 (23%) 128 (100%) Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 84 (66%) 38 (30%) 127 (100%) Strathbogie (S) 5 (5%) 81 (73%) 25 (23%) 111 (100%) Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 82 (77%) 16 (15%) 106 (100%) Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 64 (63%) 35 (35%) 101 (100%) Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 51 (53%) 41 (43%) 96 (100%) Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 (100%) Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 79 (90%) 5 (6%) 88 (100%) Hindmarsh (S) 6 (7%) 68 (78%) 13 (15%) 87 (100%) Queenscliffe (B) 2 (3%) 60 (78%) 15 (19%) 77 (100%) West Wimmera (S) 2 (4%) 47 (84%) 7 (13%) 56 (100%) Towong (S) 4 (8%) 42 (81%) 6 (12%) 52 (100%) Subtotal 196 (4%) 3,208 (69%) 1,232 (27%) 4,636 (100%) Victoria 2,346 (5.3%) 31,879 (71.4%) 10,430 (23.4%) 44,655 (100%)
* Note: Includes class 1–3 fixed food premises; excludes class 4 fixed premises. B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire
107 Appendix 7: Class 1–3 fixed food premises by number and rate per 10,000 persons, Victoria 2013
Rate per 10,000 Premises class persons Estimated Department of Health Resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 region Council Population No. No. No. Total Barwon-South Colac Otway (S) 20,735 11 258 82 351 169 Western Corangamite (S) 16,387 10 94 44 148 90 Glenelg (S) 19,777 9 141 40 190 96 Greater Geelong (C) 218,361 89 1,260 422 1,771 81 Moyne (S) 16,221 5 151 74 230 142 Queenscliffe (B) 3,099 2 60 15 77 248 Southern Grampians (S) 16,399 6 122 35 163 99 Surf Coast (S) 27,354 11 218 78 307 112 Warrnambool (C) 32,968 14 225 60 299 91 Subtotal 371,301 157 2,529 850 3,536 95 Eastern Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 168,293 91 760 245 1,096 65 Knox (C) 154,653 72 570 360 1,002 65 Manningham (C) 117,019 55 412 166 633 54 Maroondah (C) 108,104 59 422 232 713 66 Monash (C) 179,740 77 806 377 1,260 70 Whitehorse (C) 158,992 70 729 241 1,040 65 Yarra Ranges (S) 149,031 54 696 393 1,143 77 Subtotal 1,035,832 478 4,395 2,014 6,887 66 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 30,592 14 307 58 379 124 Baw Baw (S) 44,366 14 451 101 566 128 East Gippsland (S) 43,154 26 305 88 419 97 Latrobe (C) 73,929 36 365 133 534 72 South Gippsland (S) 27,819 11 220 65 296 106 Wellington (S) 42,289 15 324 102 441 104 Subtotal 262,149 116 1972 547 2,635 101 Grampians Ararat (RC) 11,355 7 92 46 145 128 Ballarat (C) 96,972 54 587 142 783 81 Golden Plains (S) 19,426 8 90 30 128 66 Hepburn (S) 14,751 7 171 127 305 207 Hindmarsh (S) 5,794 6 68 13 87 150 Horsham (RC) 19,658 7 141 73 221 112 Moorabool (S) 29,346 8 115 51 174 59 Northern Grampians (S) 11,969 7 100 64 171 143 Pyrenees (S) 6,756 2 64 35 101 149
108 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Rate per 10,000 Premises class persons Estimated Department of Health Resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 region Council Population No. No. No. Total West Wimmera (S) 4,217 2 47 7 56 133 Yarriambiack (S) 7,115 4 79 5 88 124 Subtotal 227,359 112 1,554 593 2,259 99 Hume Alpine (S) 12,138 9 161 51 221 182 Benalla (RC) 13,729 5 84 38 127 93 Greater Shepparton (C) 62,352 34 334 130 498 80 Indigo (S) 15,377 6 102 47 155 101 Mansfield (S) 8,067 3 115 52 170 211 Mitchell (S) 36,244 13 165 63 241 66 Moira (S) 28,675 14 252 70 336 117 Murrindindi (S) 13,434 5 131 41 177 132 Strathbogie (S) 9,660 5 81 25 111 115 Towong (S) 5,940 4 42 6 52 88 Wangaratta (RC) 27,236 13 206 102 321 118 Wodonga (C) 36,626 17 160 58 235 64 Subtotal 269,478 128 1,833 683 2,644 98 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 6,364 5 56 31 92 145 Campaspe (S) 36,954 15 264 75 354 96 Central Goldfields (S) 2,582 8 82 16 106 84 Gannawarra (S) 10,394 4 51 41 96 92 Greater Bendigo (C) 103,722 48 645 212 905 87 Loddon (S) 7,526 3 105 31 139 185 Macedon Ranges (S) 43,493 16 256 101 373 86 Mildura (RC) 52,204 20 400 169 589 113 Mount Alexander (S) 17,868 5 135 83 223 125 Swan Hill (RC) 20,972 10 154 52 216 103 Subtotal 312,079 134 2,148 811 3,093 99
109 Rate per 10,000 Premises class persons Estimated Department of Health Resident Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 region Council Population No. No. No. Total North & West Banyule (C) 123,544 53 469 185 707 57 Metropolitan Brimbank (C) 193,665 63 734 230 1,027 53 Darebin (C) 144,086 60 808 243 1,111 77 Hobsons Bay (C) 88,165 30 468 140 638 72 Hume (C) 178,027 57 705 257 1,019 57 Maribyrnong (C) 76,589 30 513 186 729 95 Melbourne (C) 105,381 62 2,946 411 3,419 324 Melton (S) 117,951 32 273 86 391 33 Moonee Valley (C) 113,254 45 621 142 808 71 Moreland (C) 156,163 61 700 225 986 63 Nillumbik (S) 62,651 19 221 109 349 56 Whittlesea (C) 169,471 51 556 183 790 47 Wyndham (C) 179,438 48 527 173 748 42 Yarra (C) 80,607 40 1,032 200 1,272 158 Subtotal 1,788,992 651 10,573 2,770 13,994 78 Southern Bayside (C) 96,824 45 465 97 607 63 Metropolitan Cardinia (S) 80,084 29 320 162 511 64 Casey (C) 267,892 92 703 270 1,065 40 Frankston (C) 131,542 60 474 158 692 53 Glen Eira (C) 138,810 60 573 210 843 61 Greater Dandenong (C) 144,680 65 808 339 1,212 84 Kingston (C) 149,976 68 827 302 1,197 80 Mornington Peninsula (S) 150,777 69 869 300 1,238 82 Port Phillip (C) 99,891 35 855 162 1,052 105 Stonnington (C) 100,682 47 981 162 1,19 118 Subtotal 1,361,158 570 6,875 2,162 9,607 71 Victoria 5,628,348 2,346 31,879 10,430 44,655 79
* Note: Includes class 1–3 fixed food premises; excludes class 4 fixed premises. B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire
110 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total No. 232 394 328 627 130 368 799 496 208 172 204 169 129 153 343 152 236 211 188 2,478 (%) (3%) (4%) (9%) (4%) (3%) (8%) (7%) (5%) (14%) (22%) (11%) (15%) (32%) (11%) (10%) (13%) (12%) (14%) (29%) (12%) Subtotal 8 4 32 10 72 71 19 14 69 22 17 22 19 22 28 17 10 54 No. 296 157 (%) (2%) (1%) (7%) (1%) (3%) (1%) (1%) (2%) (3%) (2%) (1%) (1%) (0%) (1%) (3%) (2%) (3%) (3%) (0%) (1%) Class 4 4 2 7 4 3 5 6 3 2 2 0 2 5 7 6 7 0 by Department of 23 32 10 * No. Notifications (%) (3%) (2%) (6%) (5%) (4%) (1%) (3%) (4%) (3%) (1%) (6%) (1%) (5%) (5%) (2%) (4%) (1%) (8%) (29%) (19%) Class 3 7 6 5 2 9 6 3 1 8 7 7 9 3 Mobile food premises 20 33 24 10 35 204 143 No. (%) (9%) (9%) (1%) (5%) (8%) (2%) (5%) (1%) (3%) (5%) (1%) (6%) (2%) (6%) (7%) (4%) (1%) (0%) (2%) Registrations (10%) Class 2 2 9 4 7 8 3 3 9 2 0 21 29 31 10 60 40 10 10 14 19 No. (%) (86%) (97%) (78%) (89%) (85%) (96%) (91%) (68%) (89%) (90%) (96%) (87%) (97%) (88%) (86%) (92%) (93%) (95%) (71%) (88%) Subtotal No. 200 384 256 556 111 354 730 339 186 155 196 147 125 134 130 315 219 201 134 2,182 (53%) (58%) (49%) (47%) (59%) (51%) (35%) (48%) (54%) (65%) (48%) (59%) (61%) (67%) (40%) (51%) (58%) (79%) (36%) (52%) (%) 77 97 79 61 68 Class 4 124 227 162 294 189 279 239 112 111 100 103 174 138 167 No. 1,287 Notifications (8%) (5%) (9%) (%) (20%) (16%) (21%) (20%) (22%) (13%) (16%) (12%) (26%) (12%) (14%) (10%) (14%) (17%) (17%) (21%) (18%) Class 3 7 79 53 75 65 34 21 54 21 18 15 21 60 40 20 39 18 Temporary food premises Temporary 130 458 179 No. (%) (7%) (7%) (21%) (21%) (24%) (34%) (19%) (13%) (22%) (15%) (22%) (10%) (32%) (24%) (17%) (14%) (20%) (25%) (13%) Registrations (18%) Class 2 27 90 35 40 23 45 26 28 16 48 81 41 14 27 78 58 41 No. 132 437 272 Principal council Yarra Ranges (S) Yarra Maribyrnong (C) Metropolitan Eastern (C) Boroondara Subtotal Melbourne (C) Knox (C) North & West Banyule (C) Melton (C) Manningham (C) Brimbank (C) Moonee Valley (C) Moonee Valley Maroondah (C) Maroondah Darebin (C) Darebin (C) Moreland Monash (C) Nillumbik (C) Hobson’s Bay (C) Hobson’s Whitehorse (C) Whittlesea (C) Hume (C) Health region and municipality in which their principal councils were located, Victoria, as at December 2013 Appendix 8: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises
111 (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 8 Total 50 64 15 76 66 95 14 No. 481 316 236 430 133 369 323 460 172 235 670 267 375 3,496 9,834 3,860 (%) (3%) (5%) (5%) (5%) (8%) (3%) (5%) (9%) (17%) (14%) (25%) (17%) (28%) (10%) (20%) (16%) (27%) (28%) (15%) (10%) (29%) (10%) (11%) (12%) Subtotal 7 2 3 3 2 4 80 10 12 75 37 20 32 12 36 47 11 60 27 41 37 No. 356 466 1,118 (%) (1%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (5%) (2%) (0%) (3%) (2%) (3%) (1%) (2%) (1%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (14%) Class 4 6 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 4 0 5 4 1 6 2 2 57 11 77 11 17 No. 166 Notifications (%) (1%) (6%) (3%) (6%) (2%) (3%) (4%) (3%) (3%) (3%) (2%) (4%) (9%) (3%) (7%) (5%) (6%) (4%) (10%) (25%) (12%) (13%) (12%) (12%) Class 3 3 3 8 2 1 2 2 2 5 1 Mobile food premises 47 27 16 10 14 14 21 30 11 24 12 173 548 171 No. (%) (6%) (2%) (8%) (2%) (0%) (9%) (3%) (3%) (4%) (7%) (8%) (2%) (0%) (1%) (2%) (4%) (6%) (7%) (4%) (4%) (6%) Registrations (13%) (12%) (16%) Class 2 5 4 4 0 2 1 6 0 2 1 27 37 17 10 13 11 21 13 15 11 23 No. 126 404 218 (%) (83%) (97%) (86%) (95%) (75%) (83%) (72%) (95%) (95%) (90%) (80%) (84%) (92%) (97%) (73%) (95%) (91%) (72%) (85%) (90%) (71%) (90%) (89%) (88%) Subtotal 6 43 96 61 12 64 64 68 10 No. 401 306 224 355 349 291 424 125 224 610 226 338 3,140 8,716 3,394 (53%) (36%) (56%) (51%) (25%) (51%) (30%) (42%) (29%) (45%) (20%) (58%) (57%) (45%) (48%) (58%) (57%) (52%) (61%) (31%) (29%) (50%) (49%) (48%) (%) 2 3 4 28 40 27 44 30 82 49 Class 4 255 113 121 218 108 146 264 136 381 164 116 No. 1,736 4,863 1,840 Notifications (8%) (%) (17%) (21%) (16%) (18%) (50%) (18%) (20%) (23%) (26%) (19%) (33%) (12%) (19%) (26%) (21%) (18%) (15%) (17%) (34%) (29%) (20%) (19%) (17%) Class 3 8 4 5 9 4 42 79 26 15 97 62 89 17 13 49 14 45 81 65 Temporary food premises Temporary 709 667 121 129 No. 1,834 (%) (0%) (5%) (6%) (26%) (13%) (23%) (30%) (39%) (26%) (27%) (14%) (15%) (26%) (17%) (17%) (16%) (25%) (14%) (14%) (41%) (14%) Registrations (20%) (21%) (23%) Class 2 0 4 5 2 7 61 58 30 19 83 11 71 17 30 39 17 93 65 No. 695 144 887 108 128 2,019 Principal council Dandenong (C) Subtotal Queenscliffe (B) Queenscliffe Wyndham (C) Frankston (C) Metropolitan total Metropolitan Southern Grampians (S) Yarra (C) Yarra Glen Eira (C) Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) Surf Coast (S) Subtotal Kingston (C) Corangamite (S) Warrnambool (C) Warrnambool Southern Bayside (C) Mornington Peninsula (S) Geelong (C) Cardinia (S) Cardinia Port Phillip (C) Glenelg (S) Casey (C) Stonnington (C) Moyne (S)
112 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 13 44 71 46 28 20 72 24 72 25 99 14 83 40 37 32 No. 153 475 131 560 133 228 148 140 770 (%) (7%) (9%) (3%) (2%) (4%) (9%) (1%) (7%) (3%) (23%) (18%) (25%) (17%) (27%) (29%) (24%) (15%) (12%) (16%) (14%) (10%) (24%) (13%) (19%) (14%) Subtotal 3 8 2 1 1 5 7 3 2 1 4 9 1 11 64 12 12 12 62 36 11 16 10 No. 107 111 (%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (3%) (6%) (0%) (5%) (6%) (0%) (8%) (7%) (0%) (5%) (3%) (0%) (4%) (2%) (3%) (10%) (10%) Class 4 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 8 4 0 8 1 0 4 2 4 0 17 12 13 26 No. Notifications (%) (4%) (2%) (3%) (0%) (4%) (8%) (1%) (9%) (8%) (4%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (3%) (5%) (8%) (5%) (15%) (16%) (15%) (17%) (10%) (19%) Class 3 6 2 7 2 2 0 1 3 1 4 6 1 6 0 0 0 7 2 1 Mobile food premises 26 45 10 21 15 35 No. (%) (2%) (8%) (2%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (8%) (1%) (2%) (7%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (4%) (9%) (6%) Registrations (12%) (13%) (13%) Class 2 3 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 4 0 21 50 28 13 50 No. (%) (93%) (77%) (82%) (91%) (97%) (98%) (96%) (91%) (75%) (73%) (83%) (71%) (76%) (88%) (85%) (84%) (86%) (99%) (90%) (76%) (93%) (97%) (87%) (81%) (86%) Subtotal 10 36 69 45 27 15 60 17 22 61 83 12 82 36 28 31 No. 142 411 119 453 121 166 112 130 659 (52%) (46%) (55%) (51%) (49%) (67%) (39%) (29%) (45%) (43%) (49%) (25%) (39%) (36%) (43%) (54%) (14%) (66%) (35%) (57%) (61%) (31%) (49%) (48%) (48%) (%) 6 9 6 9 2 79 24 67 35 31 11 39 98 35 58 31 53 55 14 21 85 10 Class 4 233 269 367 No. Notifications (7%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (%) (18%) (15%) (31%) (17%) (13%) (36%) (26%) (20%) (13%) (11%) (22%) (20%) (33%) (20%) (29%) (25%) (15%) (22%) (21%) (16%) (20%) Class 3 3 6 4 8 0 5 4 6 2 0 2 40 12 89 10 34 29 33 24 20 21 31 28 Temporary food premises Temporary 100 151 No. (%) (9%) (8%) (7%) (31%) (17%) (21%) (36%) (10%) (17%) (24%) (46%) (14%) (32%) (10%) (43%) (40%) (14%) (10%) (66%) (23%) (15%) (20%) Registrations (16%) (17%) (18%) Class 2 8 6 2 8 6 6 6 5 2 9 78 12 22 95 48 39 17 11 21 10 16 14 21 35 No. 141 Principal council Subtotal Moorabool (S) Benalla (RC) Subtotal Grampians Ararat (RC) Northern Grampians (S) Indigo (S) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) Ballarat (C) (S) Pyrenees Mansfield (S) Baw (S) West WimmeraWest (S) Golden Plains (S) Mitchell (S) East Gippsland (S) Hepburn (S) (S) Yarriambiack Moira (S) Latrobe (C) Latrobe Hindmarsh (S) Subtotal South Gippsland (S) Horsham (RC) Hume Alpine (S)
113 (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 41 49 30 46 28 40 62 57 51 43 No. 226 111 115 130 281 258 150 3,931 1,045 1,081 13,765 (%) (3%) (3%) (4%) (4%) (5%) (12%) (18%) (23%) (32%) (11%) (22%) (10%) (13%) (23%) (12%) (31%) (16%) (16%) (13%) (16%) (15%) Subtotal 5 9 1 3 2 1 2 7 7 51 37 14 63 25 19 14 16 No. 612 171 159 1,730 (%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (4%) (2%) (0%) (5%) (1%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (6%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (2%) (4%) (2%) (10%) Class 4 5 0 0 0 5 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 11 37 13 23 No. 115 281 Notifications (%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (5%) (2%) (4%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (5%) (5%) (9%) (6%) (6%) (7%) (7%) (12%) (10%) (10%) (16%) (16%) Class 3 0 3 0 2 5 0 0 8 2 6 5 8 7 Mobile food premises 11 14 69 29 12 79 802 254 No. (%) (8%) (5%) (3%) (1%) (5%) (4%) (7%) (4%) (4%) (5%) (0%) (6%) (2%) (0%) (6%) (6%) (5%) (5%) Registrations (13%) (16%) (16%) Class 2 4 2 1 1 7 2 1 7 0 4 1 8 0 29 18 65 21 10 57 No. 243 647 (%) (82%) (88%) (97%) (77%) (97%) (68%) (89%) (96%) (78%) (90%) (96%) (87%) (95%) (77%) (88%) (69%) (84%) (84%) (87%) (84%) (85%) Subtotal 40 36 29 78 44 27 38 48 50 35 36 No. 175 108 116 874 218 233 131 922 3,319 12,035 (45%) (27%) (90%) (35%) (55%) (27%) (64%) (52%) (47%) (76%) (75%) (45%) (28%) (48%) (51%) (49%) (28%) (49%) (49%) (43%) (55%) (%) 22 11 27 79 61 31 83 24 21 68 11 30 29 25 12 Class 4 446 132 196 594 No. 1,909 6,772 Notifications (7%) (7%) (%) (19%) (17%) (32%) (23%) (18%) (26%) (15%) (10%) (17%) (28%) (15%) (12%) (14%) (20%) (44%) (49%) (19%) (17%) (18%) Class 3 2 2 9 7 7 38 35 26 24 12 43 26 25 11 10 19 20 Temporary food premises Temporary 203 184 727 No. 2,561 (%) (0%) (7%) (4%) (6%) (20%) (26%) (11%) (18%) (17%) (15%) (14%) (25%) (40%) (15%) (25%) (16%) (12%) (12%) Registrations (22%) (13%) (17%) Class 2 0 9 8 4 9 3 8 5 5 58 12 21 43 11 38 16 14 No. 225 144 683 2,702 Principal council Loddon (S) Wodonga (RC) Wodonga Victoria Murrindindi (S) Shepparton (C) Macedon Ranges (S) Subtotal Strathbogie (S) Mildura (RC) Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) Towong (S) Towong Mount Alexander (S) Buloke (S) Wangaratta (RC) Wangaratta Swan Hill (RC) Campaspe (S) Wellington (S) Wellington Subtotal Central Goldfields (S) Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan total Gannawarra (S) * Note: Includes temporary food premises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. and community not-for-profit operated by business proprietors and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises * mobile food premises Note: Includes temporary food premises, C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
114 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer % Dec (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) No. 141 228 121 273 338 541 170 170 205 400 160 252 437 141 349 678 411 189 217 263 322 2,349 3,657 % Nov (99%) (98%) (93%) (97%) (96%) (97%) (97%) (99%) (98%) (98%) (94%) (98%) (97%) (98%) (96%) (96%) (97%) (93%) (98%) (97%) (98%) (97%) (97%) No. 139 224 113 265 324 526 165 168 201 392 151 248 422 138 336 652 399 176 212 256 314 2,276 3,545 % Oct (87%) (93%) (88%) (93%) (91%) (95%) (92%) (95%) (98%) (93%) (90%) (89%) (92%) (93%) (93%) (89%) (93%) (85%) (92%) (90%) (91%) (93%) (91%) No. 123 293 212 107 253 306 513 157 162 201 372 144 225 404 131 325 603 383 160 199 237 2,173 3,337 % Sep (82%) (87%) (88%) (79%) (85%) (86%) (82%) (89%) (88%) (86%) (94%) (88%) (79%) (83%) (89%) (88%) (88%) (78%) (82%) (75%) (87%) (87%) (84%) 96 No. 115 281 201 233 225 277 481 150 147 192 353 127 208 389 124 307 531 336 141 188 2,043 3,059 % Aug (67%) (82%) (81%) (78%) (81%) (78%) (77%) (85%) (84%) (79%) (89%) (81%) (73%) (73%) (86%) (79%) (85%) (74%) (75%) (62%) (82%) (81%) (78%) 94 94 No. 263 185 222 206 259 460 142 134 182 325 117 183 374 112 295 503 310 118 178 1,912 2,844 % Jul (59%) (79%) (73%) (72%) (74%) (77%) (70%) (81%) (79%) (75%) (83%) (77%) (68%) (67%) (80%) (75%) (80%) (69%) (68%) (54%) (76%) (77%) (72%) 83 87 No. 253 166 203 202 236 437 135 127 170 307 108 170 349 106 280 466 281 103 166 1,805 2,630 % Jun (53%) (75%) (68%) (63%) (70%) (76%) (64%) (77%) (78%) (70%) (80%) (73%) (63%) (62%) (76%) (63%) (77%) (63%) (65%) (47%) (74%) (73%) (67%) Cumulative totals 75 76 89 89 No. 240 155 190 199 218 416 132 119 163 290 100 155 332 269 430 266 161 1,714 2,450 % May (48%) (73%) (60%) (62%) (58%) (66%) (72%) (62%) (73%) (75%) (66%) (77%) (68%) (58%) (57%) (70%) (60%) (75%) (61%) (43%) (69%) (69%) (63%) 68 70 93 85 82 No. 235 408 142 181 189 209 395 128 113 158 271 143 306 262 250 150 1,618 2,320 % Apr (40%) (69%) (45%) (57%) (55%) (55%) (69%) (58%) (66%) (71%) (64%) (71%) (61%) (55%) (51%) (65%) (53%) (72%) (55%) (38%) (64%) (64%) (56%) 57 66 88 75 72 No. 223 306 130 151 182 195 358 121 108 146 244 128 286 250 226 138 1,500 2,050 % Mar (32%) (68%) (39%) (52%) (48%) (50%) (66%) (53%) (62%) (65%) (61%) (69%) (56%) (53%) (46%) (61%) (48%) (68%) (52%) (24%) (59%) (59%) (51%) 45 58 84 67 45 by month, region and municipality, Victoria, 2013 by month, region and municipality, No. 218 266 118 136 173 178 338 111 103 142 222 116 268 239 214 128 1,388 1,881 ** % Feb (26%) (61%) (34%) (46%) (36%) (45%) (61%) (48%) (57%) (59%) (47%) (62%) (47%) (44%) (39%) (57%) (36%) (63%) (45%) (20%) (54%) (53%) (45%) 37 43 80 70 98 51 38 No. 196 231 104 123 161 161 307 100 127 187 248 221 185 117 1,242 1,643 % Jan (17%) (57%) (25%) (36%) (27%) (31%) (56%) (42%) (52%) (52%) (40%) (58%) (39%) (37%) (31%) (49%) (28%) (58%) (38%) (13%) (47%) (47%) (37%) 24 81 33 84 88 68 59 78 39 25 No. 101 182 172 148 141 279 119 156 216 201 155 1,093 1,356 Brimbank (C) North & West Banyule (C) Whittlesea (C) Melbourne (C) Nillumbik (C) Maribyrnong (C) Subtotal Moreland (C) Moreland Maroondah (C) Maroondah Hume (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Yarra Moonee Valley (C) Moonee Valley Subtotal Manningham (C) Hobson’s Bay (C) Hobson’s Whitehorse (C) Melton (C) Yarra (C) Yarra Knox (C) (C) Darebin Monash (C) Wyndham (C) Metropolitan Eastern (C) Boroondara Principal council Appendix 9: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* with a Streatrader account
115 % Dec (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 8 76 19 41 78 35 98 No. 259 131 511 676 314 523 262 246 176 198 121 167 242 8,835 2,829 % Nov (97%) (97%) (98%) (95%) (94%) (98%) (90%) (98%) (96%) (85%) (94%) (94%) (97%) (98%) (97%) (96%) (95%) (97%) (95%) (96%) (100%) (100%) 8 74 19 37 66 33 95 No. 250 128 488 642 295 511 258 236 165 194 117 160 230 8,543 2,722 % Oct (92%) (86%) (97%) (91%) (75%) (88%) (93%) (80%) (94%) (91%) (67%) (83%) (82%) (93%) (92%) (93%) (92%) (93%) (91%) (89%) (90%) (100%) 6 70 19 33 52 29 91 No. 222 127 464 224 602 276 486 245 224 145 183 112 154 8,070 2,560 % Sep (89%) (75%) (91%) (84%) (88%) (63%) (82%) (89%) (61%) (88%) (86%) (56%) (83%) (75%) (87%) (85%) (86%) (86%) (85%) (82%) (84%) (100%) 5 68 19 25 44 29 85 No. 104 195 119 429 214 557 258 463 231 211 132 168 144 7,488 2,386 % Aug (87%) (95%) (81%) (68%) (89%) (78%) (84%) (63%) (75%) (85%) (54%) (82%) (79%) (50%) (77%) (68%) (79%) (79%) (83%) (79%) (78%) (78%) 5 66 18 98 22 39 27 77 No. 175 116 397 203 530 236 442 215 195 120 156 139 6,972 2,216 % Jul (76%) (89%) (77%) (65%) (89%) (70%) (80%) (63%) (72%) (78%) (44%) (77%) (73%) (40%) (77%) (60%) (70%) (71%) (80%) (73%) (74%) (72%) 5 58 17 93 18 31 27 69 No. 168 116 359 193 498 225 410 201 179 105 141 133 6,485 2,050 % Jun (75%) (89%) (71%) (61%) (83%) (65%) (76%) (63%) (65%) (73%) (34%) (74%) (71%) (33%) (74%) (56%) (62%) (70%) (78%) (69%) (70%) (68%) Cumulative totals 5 57 17 86 14 26 26 98 61 No. 157 109 332 184 470 203 383 193 175 139 130 6,089 1,925 % May (70%) (89%) (69%) (56%) (81%) (60%) (72%) (63%) (60%) (70%) (29%) (71%) (67%) (24%) (74%) (55%) (55%) (63%) (76%) (65%) (66%) (64%) 5 53 17 84 12 19 26 96 54 No. 127 144 106 306 175 187 366 449 187 166 125 5,744 1,806 % Apr (72%) (61%) (89%) (68%) (49%) (78%) (51%) (65%) (63%) (51%) (67%) (22%) (68%) (60%) (24%) (74%) (48%) (50%) (59%) (58%) (63%) (58%) 5 9 46 17 82 19 26 85 49 No. 121 128 102 262 158 159 349 427 177 148 116 5,181 1,631 % Mar (70%) (58%) (84%) (65%) (47%) (76%) (46%) (61%) (63%) (44%) (65%) (17%) (64%) (55%) (23%) (74%) (45%) (44%) (56%) (54%) (61%) (54%) 5 7 44 16 79 99 18 26 80 43 No. 117 122 236 147 137 338 411 167 135 110 4,784 1,515 % Feb (66%) (57%) (79%) (60%) (43%) (69%) (37%) (57%) (63%) (33%) (59%) (15%) (56%) (50%) (23%) (71%) (38%) (37%) (48%) (48%) (57%) (47%) 5 6 43 15 72 91 18 25 66 36 96 No. 111 112 190 137 105 307 386 148 122 4,204 1,319 % Jan (63%) (53%) (58%) (26%) (56%) (35%) (65%) (28%) (48%) (63%) (22%) (52%) (10%) (45%) (39%) (22%) (69%) (31%) (37%) (40%) (53%) (37%) 5 4 40 11 46 68 91 85 68 95 17 24 30 74 No. 106 141 117 271 360 117 3,499 1,050 Geelong (C) Corangamite (S) Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) Stonnington (C) Surf Coast (S) Port Phillip (C) Southern Grampians (S) Metropolitan total Metropolitan Mornington Peninsula (S) Dandenong (C) Queenscliffe (B) Queenscliffe Kingston (C) Casey (C) Subtotal Moyne (S) Subtotal Glen Eira (C) Cardinia (S) Cardinia Warrnambool (C) Warrnambool Glenelg (S) Frankston (C) Southern Bayside (C) Principal council
116 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer % Dec (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 24 87 77 46 79 13 44 14 41 61 17 22 29 23 30 67 No. 140 110 330 109 115 836 125 411 102 % Nov (96%) (99%) (99%) (96%) (96%) (99%) (93%) (98%) (94%) (97%) (95%) (92%) (94%) (99%) (86%) (93%) (96%) (97%) (91%) (97%) (95%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 23 86 76 44 79 13 41 14 39 61 16 19 27 22 29 61 No. 135 109 323 103 112 814 115 392 101 % Oct (92%) (98%) (94%) (88%) (87%) (96%) (84%) (77%) (93%) (94%) (93%) (91%) (90%) (93%) (92%) (83%) (94%) (97%) (86%) (90%) (96%) (93%) (85%) (93%) (85%) 22 85 72 40 76 92 10 41 13 99 38 56 16 99 19 26 22 28 57 No. 123 309 104 781 104 351 % Sep (83%) (94%) (86%) (86%) (76%) (94%) (74%) (62%) (91%) (89%) (71%) (83%) (83%) (83%) (74%) (87%) (94%) (83%) (77%) (83%) (96%) (83%) (81%) (88%) (78%) 8 20 82 66 35 74 81 40 10 91 95 34 92 53 16 85 17 24 22 25 54 No. 121 295 738 321 % Aug (71%) (93%) (78%) (82%) (74%) (92%) (62%) (60%) (91%) (86%) (57%) (81%) (79%) (78%) (70%) (84%) (94%) (80%) (73%) (52%) (91%) (70%) (79%) (85%) (70%) 8 8 21 17 81 63 34 73 66 40 88 91 32 87 51 16 82 16 15 21 53 No. 109 284 710 286 % Jul (87%) (67%) (90%) (74%) (77%) (74%) (89%) (54%) (45%) (89%) (83%) (57%) (79%) (75%) (76%) (64%) (77%) (94%) (79%) (68%) (52%) (63%) (76%) (82%) (62%) 7 8 20 16 78 59 34 70 50 39 86 86 31 80 47 16 81 15 15 19 51 No. 103 275 684 256 % Jun (87%) (67%) (71%) (64%) (66%) (74%) (85%) (54%) (35%) (89%) (80%) (57%) (79%) (68%) (73%) (61%) (75%) (94%) (77%) (64%) (52%) (53%) (73%) (77%) (55%) Cumulative totals 7 8 20 16 62 90 51 34 67 38 39 86 78 30 76 46 16 79 14 15 16 49 No. 265 643 226 % May (78%) (58%) (68%) (62%) (64%) (65%) (77%) (54%) (28%) (89%) (79%) (43%) (76%) (63%) (73%) (58%) (72%) (94%) (75%) (59%) (52%) (40%) (73%) (73%) (51%) 7 6 18 14 59 87 49 30 61 31 39 83 72 30 72 44 16 77 13 15 12 49 No. 260 611 209 % Apr (61%) (69%) (46%) (64%) (59%) (56%) (59%) (75%) (54%) (24%) (80%) (76%) (36%) (72%) (61%) (66%) (48%) (72%) (82%) (70%) (28%) (50%) (27%) (69%) (45%) 7 5 8 8 14 46 11 56 82 43 27 59 26 35 78 70 27 60 44 14 71 11 No. 184 252 573 % Mar (52%) (69%) (38%) (54%) (56%) (51%) (46%) (70%) (24%) (31%) (75%) (75%) (67%) (14%) (57%) (61%) (44%) (69%) (71%) (63%) (41%) (28%) (20%) (41%) (64%) 9 4 2 9 8 6 12 46 47 78 39 21 55 26 33 73 66 25 55 42 12 64 No. 170 246 532 % Feb (43%) (61%) (21%) (52%) (46%) (45%) (43%) (66%) (24%) (31%) (59%) (72%) (63%) (14%) (53%) (44%) (38%) (57%) (71%) (58%) (41%) (17%) (13%) (36%) (58%) 5 4 2 9 5 4 10 41 45 65 35 20 52 26 26 69 61 18 48 35 12 59 No. 150 236 489 % Jan (7%) (30%) (58%) (13%) (41%) (44%) (40%) (28%) (57%) (24%) (23%) (59%) (67%) (54%) (47%) (37%) (31%) (46%) (65%) (47%) (18%) (17%) (10%) (32%) (52%) 7 3 3 1 4 5 3 39 36 62 31 13 45 26 26 59 54 15 39 28 11 48 No. 132 222 435
Hindmarsh (S) Moira (S) Subtotal West WimmeraWest (S) Hepburn (S) South Gippsland (S) Mitchell (S) Pyrenees (S) Pyrenees Golden Plains (S) Latrobe (C) Latrobe Mansfield (S) Northern Grampians (S) Ballarat (C) Indigo (S) East Gippsland (S) Moorabool (S) Grampians Ararat (RC) Baw (S) Benalla (RC) Horsham (RC) Subtotal Murrindindi (S) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) Hume Alpine (S) Yarriambiack (S) Yarriambiack Principal council
117 % Dec (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 60 79 44 64 31 28 48 34 72 31 56 No. 104 908 357 209 107 456 4,161 1,330 12,996 % Nov (97%) (94%) (98%) (86%) (94%) (96%) (98%) (92%) (95%) (98%) (85%) (97%) (97%) (96%) (96%) (97%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 58 74 43 89 64 29 27 44 29 70 31 56 No. 875 356 205 102 445 4,012 1,289 12,555 % Oct (95%) (91%) (91%) (96%) (80%) (92%) (90%) (98%) (96%) (94%) (90%) (93%) (96%) (76%) (94%) (90%) (91%) (92%) (92%) (94%) 57 72 40 54 83 59 28 27 43 26 68 28 No. 834 350 196 100 437 3,821 1,253 11,891 % Sep (90%) (86%) (84%) (93%) (71%) (81%) (87%) (93%) (86%) (89%) (79%) (80%) (91%) (59%) (81%) (84%) (85%) (84%) (85%) (88%) 54 68 37 52 74 52 27 24 38 86 20 58 26 No. 761 331 185 415 3,544 1,167 11,032 % Aug (85%) (86%) (82%) (88%) (63%) (73%) (65%) (90%) (75%) (84%) (73%) (80%) (86%) (50%) (72%) (77%) (79%) (78%) (80%) (84%)
51 68 36 49 65 47 20 21 35 86 17 52 24 No. 709 320 176 393 3,346 1,111 10,318 % Jul (85%) (84%) (73%) (82%) (57%) (67%) (61%) (87%) (57%) (81%) (69%) (73%) (82%) (50%) (67%) (74%) (74%) (79%) (75%) (76%) 51 66 32 46 59 43 19 16 33 78 17 48 23 No. 679 312 170 374 9,656 1,054 3,171
% Jun (80%) (80%) (70%) (80%) (52%) (64%) (61%) (84%) (46%) (78%) (65%) (67%) (77%) (47%) (61%) (74%) (70%) (75%) (72%) (72%) Cumulative totals 48 63 31 45 54 41 19 13 31 72 16 44 23 No. 997 650 299 162 353 9,075 2,986
% May (78%) (77%) (68%) (79%) (49%) (63%) (58%) (81%) (43%) (76%) (65%) (63%) (75%) (44%) (54%) (71%) (66%) (72%) (69%) (69%) 47 61 30 44 51 40 18 12 31 67 15 39 22 No. 960 629 288 158 342 8,602 2,858
% Apr (75%) (77%) (61%) (75%) (44%) (55%) (55%) (75%) (39%) (73%) (48%) (56%) (71%) (38%) (46%) (61%) (60%) (67%) (64%) (64%) 19 45 61 27 42 46 35 17 11 23 60 13 33 No. 895 578 266 153 325 7,838 2,657 % Mar (55%) (67%) (72%) (57%) (68%) (42%) (53%) (42%) (71%) (25%) (69%) (40%) (51%) (67%) (18%) (42%) (56%) (63%) (58%) (60%) 7 6 17 40 57 25 38 44 34 13 19 55 30 No. 840 527 254 145 307 7,264 2,480 % Feb (39%) (60%) (61%) (55%) (63%) (36%) (52%) (39%) (61%) (21%) (61%) (31%) (46%) (64%) (18%) (35%) (50%) (57%) (52%) (54%) 6 6 12 36 48 24 35 37 33 12 15 49 25 No. 752 469 216 128 291 6,450 2,246 % Jan emises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. and community not-for-profit operated by business proprietors and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises emises, mobile food premises (35%) (60%) (52%) (43%) (48%) (29%) (47%) (26%) (57%) (21%) (56%) (27%) (35%) (58%) (15%) (21%) (42%) (51%) (44%) (48%) 8 6 5 11 36 41 19 27 30 30 13 37 15 No. 675 398 202 117 263 5,499 2,000 oprietors with an account actively traded in 2013. Includes temporary food pr Not all pr
Loddon (S) Subtotal Gannawarra (S) Swan Hill (RC) Central Goldfields (S) Loddon Mallee Wangaratta (RC) Wangaratta Mount Alexander (S) Victoria Campaspe (S) Subtotal Towong (S) Towong Mildura (RC) Non- metropolitan total Buloke (S) Wodonga (RC) Wodonga Strathbogie (S) Macedon Ranges (S) Bendigo (C) Wellington (S) Wellington Shepparton (C) Principal council
Notes: * ** C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
118 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 79 68 37 85 49 77 47 46 48 86 50 No. 140 165 213 143 164 238 170 493 105 199 1,012 1,690 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (<1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (<1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) by initial Class 3 * 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (5%) (8%) (5%) (6%) (8%) (8%) (14%) (43%) (16%) (31%) (22%) (31%) (60%) (28%) (14%) (13%) (28%) (26%) (35%) (20%) (11%) (22%) (18%) Subtotal 8 3 8 6 4 9 19 29 35 44 19 15 48 11 63 15 13 12 17 17 No. 225 142 312 (%) (5%) (4%) (8%) (8%) (1%) (6%) (9%) (5%) (3%) (4%) (9%) (8%) (2%) (9%) (8%) (28%) (10%) (10%) (58%) (11%) (15%) (17%) (18%) Initial registrations Class 3 7 6 3 2 5 5 7 3 7 7 4 8 7 1 7 19 17 15 18 24 No. 181 138 129 Mobile food premises (%) (9%) (1%) (0%) (8%) (4%) (2%) (5%) (8%) (3%) (4%) (6%) (3%) (4%) (15%) (20%) (16%) (20%) (18%) (13%) (17%) (19%) (12%) (11%) Class 2 2 0 6 4 4 3 8 6 8 9 3 2 12 10 18 29 14 44 10 30 39 10 No. 183 (%) (95%) (57%) (92%) (83%) (66%) (95%) (78%) (69%) (40%) (72%) (86%) (87%) (94%) (92%) (72%) (74%) (65%) (80%) (92%) (89%) (86%) (78%) (81%) Subtotal 39 34 94 66 34 96 66 99 34 34 31 69 46 70 No. 157 177 156 786 122 430 184 121 1,373 (%) (48%) (35%) (54%) (40%) (37%) (44%) (20%) (14%) (26%) (41%) (42%) (35%) (51%) (37%) (30%) (35%) (31%) (24%) (36%) (47%) (37%) (40%) (35%) Class 3 7 79 24 20 85 53 72 17 62 70 32 54 73 14 16 15 21 18 37 52 No. 404 172 589 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (47%) (22%) (38%) (43%) (29%) (51%) (58%) (55%) (14%) (31%) (44%) (52%) (43%) (56%) (43%) (39%) (33%) (56%) (56%) (42%) (49%) (38%) (46%) Class 2 78 15 14 92 41 84 49 27 34 52 34 45 20 18 16 48 28 33 69 No. 382 258 111 784 Whitehorse (C) Hobson’s Bay (C) Hobson’s Principal council Nillumbik (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Yarra Hume (C) Metropolitan Eastern (C) Boroondara Whittlesea (C) Subtotal Maribyrnong (C) Knox (C) Wyndham (C) North & West Banyule (C) Melbourne (C) Manningham (C) Yarra (C) Yarra Brimbank (C) Melton (C) Maroondah (C) Maroondah Subtotal Darebin (C) Darebin Moonee Valley (C) Moonee Valley Monash (C) Moreland (C) Moreland registration, class, region and municipality, as at December 2013 registration, class, region and municipality, Appendix 10a: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises
119 (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 6 8 Total 56 27 72 28 12 69 50 27 45 87 22 No. 110 123 169 178 133 225 141 3,840 1,138 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) Class 3 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (5%) (6%) (0%) (6%) (33%) (14%) (13%) (29%) (25%) (15%) (29%) (26%) (12%) (31%) (58%) (10%) (25%) (38%) (32%) (19%) (26%) (16%) Subtotal 2 2 4 8 3 0 8 9 2 7 15 16 25 20 22 22 41 72 26 21 No. 718 181 (%) (7%) (4%) (7%) (4%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (4%) (2%) (6%) (9%) (33%) (17%) (19%) (22%) (20%) (24%) (13%) (20%) (14%) (11%) (15%) Initial registrations Class 3 2 8 1 8 3 2 2 0 7 3 5 1 3 16 13 11 26 33 11 11 No. 410 100 Mobile food premises (%) (0%) (6%) (4%) (7%) (1%) (8%) (5%) (0%) (8%) (4%) (5%) (8%) (7%) (21%) (10%) (22%) (11%) (33%) (13%) (18%) (18%) (17%) Class 2 0 7 1 8 1 6 1 9 7 0 5 4 1 4 11 15 15 39 15 81 10 No. 308 (%) (67%) (55%) (93%) (57%) (72%) (71%) (75%) (53%) (51%) (56%) (93%) (61%) (42%) (42%) (66%) (68%) (75%) (39%) (68%) (65%) (67%) (56%) Subtotal 9 6 4 95 25 68 20 49 28 25 92 19 78 35 15 No. 106 144 156 151 133 956 3,115 (%) (40%) (37%) (46%) (53%) (32%) (42%) (44%) (51%) (16%) (48%) (51%) (38%) (31%) (32%) (38%) (50%) (32%) (36%) (67%) (38%) (33%) (43%) Class 3 9 5 8 4 8 4 44 10 56 38 75 35 13 90 50 75 14 45 33 18 No. 484 1,477 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (46%) (56%) (41%) (42%) (39%) (33%) (41%) (20%) (40%) (44%) (37%) (32%) (11%) (62%) (52%) (25%) (30%) (32%) (43%) (34%) (41%) Class 2 4 5 2 7 0 51 15 50 30 11 69 14 20 12 66 42 76 88 45 17 No. 472 1,638 Glen Eira (C) Principal council Southern Grampians (S) Metropolitan total Metropolitan Kingston (C) Southern Bayside (C) Surf Coast (S) Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) Mornington Peninsula (S) Cardinia (S) Cardinia Warrnambool (C) Warrnambool Corangamite (S) Port Phillip (C) Casey (C) Subtotal Geelong (C) Stonnington (C) Dandenong (C) Glenelg (S) Subtotal Frankston (C) Moyne (S) Queenscliffe (B) Queenscliffe
120 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 7 9 Total 65 14 43 18 59 10 35 28 18 82 17 57 30 11 25 18 28 37 16 30 20 16 No. 321 204 117 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (14%) Subtotal 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (14%) Class 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (5%) (0%) (8%) (4%) (6%) (9%) (9%) (4%) (5%) (0%) (33%) (43%) (36%) (33%) (11%) (40%) (34%) (16%) (14%) (39%) (10%) (19%) (27%) (10%) (36%) (19%) (20%) Subtotal 2 6 3 0 3 5 1 2 1 5 6 1 5 7 1 5 3 8 1 7 0 5 72 44 21 47 28 No. (%) (2%) (0%) (3%) (4%) (0%) (6%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (6%) (5%) (6%) (0%) (9%) (28%) (29%) (15%) (33%) (16%) (18%) (17%) (22%) (20%) (36%) (11%) Initial registrations Class 3 1 5 2 9 0 3 1 1 0 1 5 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 6 1 4 0 5 30 23 19 15 No. Mobile food premises (%) (2%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (9%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (14%) (20%) (11%) (11%) (24%) (16%) (20%) (17%) (11%) (13%) (13%) (10%) Class 2 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 5 3 1 4 2 2 0 3 0 0 42 21 12 28 13 No. (%) (95%) (67%) (57%) (64%) (67%) (86%) (96%) (89%) (58%) (66%) (94%) (91%) (80%) (91%) (76%) (61%) (96%) (86%) (81%) (73%) (95%) (89%) (50%) (78%) (77%) (100%) (100%) Subtotal 4 6 7 41 12 10 38 30 27 16 68 54 16 52 24 10 19 11 27 32 13 22 19 58 16 No. 160 246 (%) (0%) (0%) (70%) (29%) (17%) (40%) (34%) (44%) (66%) (39%) (56%) (25%) (40%) (59%) (39%) (63%) (36%) (24%) (75%) (57%) (31%) (50%) (43%) (31%) (14%) (44%) (39%) Class 3 2 3 4 4 4 6 0 5 0 5 2 90 30 20 23 11 10 29 33 10 22 19 21 21 15 28 No. 124 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (26%) (29%) (50%) (60%) (31%) (22%) (20%) (57%) (33%) (33%) (26%) (35%) (53%) (17%) (55%) (52%) (61%) (21%) (30%) (50%) (23%) (95%) (46%) (69%) (36%) (34%) (38%) Class 2 2 9 6 2 7 6 6 5 6 6 8 7 5 70 11 18 16 39 21 30 13 11 11 19 30 11 No. 122 Subtotal Murrindindi (S) Principal council Horsham (RC) Hume Alpine (S) Grampians Ararat (RC) Shepparton (C) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) Moorabool (S) Benalla (RC) Strathbogie (S) Ballarat (C) Baw (S) Northern Grampians (S) Indigo (S) Golden Plains (S) East Gippsland (S) Pyrenees (S) Pyrenees Mansfield (S) Hepburn (S) Latrobe (C) Latrobe West WimmeraWest (S) Mitchell (S) Hindmarsh (S) South Gippsland (S) Yarriambiack (S) Yarriambiack Moira (S) Subtotal
121 (%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 7 3 Total 59 37 24 16 57 28 22 22 12 18 90 No. 422 136 394 5,406 1,566 (%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (1%) (2%) (1%) (13%) (< 1%) Subtotal 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 1 0 21 14 No. (%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (1%) (2%) (1%) (13%) (< 1%) Class 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 1 0 21 14 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (4%) (34%) (27%) (37%) (14%) (44%) (16%) (36%) (23%) (14%) (17%) (17%) (30%) (33%) (21%) (28%) (25%) (23%) Subtotal 1 1 7 9 5 3 2 3 1 20 10 50 10 27 97 No. 109 394 1,112 (%) (8%) (4%) (0%) (9%) (9%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (17%) (21%) (19%) (21%) (23%) (11%) (11%) (15%) (13%) (12%) Initial registrations Class 3 3 1 0 3 5 6 5 2 0 2 8 0 10 29 60 50 No. 606 196 Mobile food premises (%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (5%) (6%) (9%) (17%) (19%) (15%) (14%) (25%) (14%) (17%) (21%) (33%) (12%) (13%) (11%) Class 2 7 0 1 4 4 4 0 1 2 1 1 10 21 49 19 47 No. 198 506 (%) (63%) (73%) (96%) (63%) (86%) (44%) (84%) (64%) (77%) (77%) (83%) (83%) (69%) (67%) (71%) (74%) (76%) (79%) Subtotal 6 7 2 37 27 23 86 48 18 17 17 10 15 62 No. 279 322 1,158 4,273 (%) (44%) (51%) (42%) (32%) (29%) (25%) (35%) (32%) (55%) (27%) (50%) (67%) (27%) (67%) (39%) (38%) (36%) (38%) Class 3 2 4 9 6 6 2 26 19 10 43 20 12 12 24 No. 154 597 154 2,074 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (19%) (22%) (54%) (32%) (57%) (19%) (49%) (32%) (23%) (50%) (33%) (17%) (42%) (32%) (36%) (40%) (41%) Class 2 8 4 3 9 5 4 3 0 emises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. and community not-for-profit operated by business proprietors and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises emises, mobile food premises 11 13 43 28 11 38 No. 125 561 168 2,199 Includes temporary food pr Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) Principal council Buloke (S) Mildura (RC) Towong (S) Towong Campaspe (S) Mount Alexander (S) Wangaratta (RC) Wangaratta Central Goldfields (S) Swan Hill (RC) Wellington (S) Wellington Gannawarra (S) Subtotal Wodonga (RC) Wodonga Loddon (S) Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan total Subtotal Macedon Ranges (S) Victoria
* C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
122 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 22 13 52 12 19 22 31 12 62 13 20 113 147 253 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (0%) Class 3 by renewed * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (0%) (48%) (25%) (47%) (56%) (24%) (52%) (17%) (15%) (38%) (35%) (25%) (28%) Subtotal 2 0 3 9 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 5 2 5 0 7 0 25 27 16 37 72 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (31%) (11%) (12%) (56%) (29%) (17%) (15%) (15%) (15%) (14%) (15%) Class 3 Renewed registrations 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 3 0 16 14 21 37 No. Mobile food premises (9%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (17%) (25%) (37%) (12%) (23%) (23%) (20%) (14%) (%) Class 2 2 9 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 13 16 35 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (52%) (75%) (53%) (75%) (44%) (48%) (95%) (83%) (92%) (85%) (62%) (91%) (65%) (74%) (72%) Subtotal 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 27 10 85 15 21 10 57 11 20 13 No. 109 181 (%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (29%) (25%) (40%) (33%) (29%) (32%) (42%) (39%) (23%) (15%) (36%) (35%) (37%) (31%) Class 3 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 9 7 0 0 5 3 2 0 8 7 0 15 45 54 24 78 No. Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (23%) (50%) (47%) (35%) (11%) (19%) (64%) (42%) (53%) (62%) (46%) (55%) (30%) (37%) (41%) Class 2 0 6 9 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 5 8 6 0 6 0 12 40 14 55 33 12 No. 103 Hobson’s Bay (C) Hobson’s Principal council Nillumbik (C) Metropolitan Eastern (C) Boroondara Whittlesea (C) Whitehorse (C) Hume (C) Yarra Ranges (S) Yarra Knox (C) Maribyrnong (C) Wyndham (C) Melbourne (C) Manningham (C) Subtotal Maroondah (C) Maroondah Melton (C) Yarra (C) Yarra Monash (C) North & West Banyule (C) Moonee Valley (C) Moonee Valley Subtotal Moreland (C) Moreland Brimbank (C) Darebin (C) Darebin registration, class, region and municipality, as at December 2013 registration, class, region and municipality, Appendix 10b: Class 2–3 temporary and mobile food premises
123 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 33 14 23 62 62 35 28 54 79 87 60 28 965 103 565 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (< 1%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (< 1%) Class 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (13%) (19%) (13%) (24%) (54%) (17%) (16%) (38%) (11%) (36%) (23%) (21%) Subtotal 1 0 0 1 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12 20 15 18 21 13 33 12 226 117 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (10%) (29%) (39%) (14%) (24%) (11%) (15%) (13%) (19%) (13%) Class 3 Renewed registrations 0 0 0 6 1 2 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 10 11 14 10 21 72 130 No. Mobile food premises (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (10%) (10%) (29%) (14%) (10%) (14%) (21%) (10%) (20%) (%) Class 2 1 0 0 6 0 1 0 3 4 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 96 10 11 12 45 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (81%) (93%) (87%) (43%) (87%) (46%) (83%) (84%) (62%) (89%) (64%) (90%) (76%) (61%) (79%) (100%) (100%) Subtotal 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 50 13 20 15 54 13 85 33 66 54 60 25 21 No. 738 448 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (29%) (71%) (48%) (44%) (14%) (53%) (36%) (45%) (49%) (36%) (33%) (32%) (24%) (50%) (37%) (26%) (40%) Class 3 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 8 5 18 10 11 33 10 46 14 39 31 20 No. 357 225 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (52%) (21%) (39%) (56%) (29%) (34%) (11%) (38%) (34%) (26%) (67%) (57%) (39%) (40%) (39%) (35%) (39%) Class 2 0 0 3 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 10 21 39 19 27 23 40 16 13 No. 381 223
Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) Principal council Surf Coast (S) Glen Eira (C) Latrobe (C) Latrobe Southern Bayside (C) Corangamite (S) Warrnambool (C) Warrnambool Kingston (C) Cardinia (S) Cardinia Geelong (C) Mornington Peninsula (S) Subtotal Glenelg (S) Port Phillip (C) Casey (C) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) Moyne (S) Stonnington (C) Baw (S) Subtotal Dandenong (C) East Gippsland (S) Queenscliffe (B) Queenscliffe Metropolitan total Metropolitan Frankston (C) Southern Grampians (S)
124 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 0 0 0 8 7 0 6 0 0 7 2 7 0 4 2 0 4 0 8 10 21 56 27 20 46 10 35 140 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (29%) (20%) (14%) (19%) (55%) (26%) (40%) (14%) (13%) (14%) (14%) (18%) (24%) (100%) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 5 10 11 12 34 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (29%) (14%) (25%) (13%) (14%) (14%) (14%) (11%) (100%) Class 3 Renewed registrations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 5 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 16 No. Mobile food premises (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (20%) (30%) (15%) (22%) (40%) (14%) (13%) (%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (80%) (71%) (86%) (45%) (81%) (74%) (60%) (88%) (86%) (86%) (82%) (86%) (76%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Subtotal 0 8 0 6 0 0 8 5 6 2 0 9 4 0 0 4 6 0 7 0 6 0 46 18 22 34 30 No. 106 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (63%) (17%) (40%) (71%) (30%) (63%) (30%) (50%) (50%) (20%) (13%) (71%) (34%) (48%) (48%) (35%) Class 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 5 0 27 10 17 14 49 12 No. Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (38%) (83%) (40%) (71%) (14%) (15%) (19%) (43%) (50%) (50%) (40%) (75%) (14%) (51%) (34%) (38%) (41%) Class 2 (100%) 0 3 0 5 0 0 4 5 1 2 0 8 3 5 2 0 0 2 4 0 6 0 1 0 19 20 57 18 No. Mitchell (S) Wangaratta (RC) Wangaratta Principal council Yarriambiack (S) Yarriambiack Moira (S) Hepburn (S) Wellington (S) Wellington South Gippsland (S) Murrindindi (S) Hindmarsh (S) Subtotal Horsham (RC) Subtotal Shepparton (C) Moorabool (S) Wodonga (RC) Wodonga Grampians Ararat (RC) Hume Alpine (S) Northern Grampians (S) Strathbogie (S) Pyrenees (S) Pyrenees Ballarat (C) Benalla (RC) Towong (S) Towong West WimmeraWest (S) Subtotal Golden Plains (S) Indigo (S) Mansfield (S)
125 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Total 0 0 8 5 0 5 9 12 21 10 70 341 No. 1,306 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (20%) (< 1%) (< 1%) Subtotal 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (20%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) Class 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 No. Water transport vehicles Water (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (25%) (20%) (29%) (70%) (22%) (17%) (26%) (24%) (29%) Subtotal 0 0 2 1 0 6 7 0 2 2 88 20 314 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (25%) (20%) (14%) (30%) (22%) (13%) (13%) (17%) Class 3 Renewed registrations 0 0 2 1 0 3 3 0 2 1 43 12 173 No. Mobile food premises (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (14%) (40%) (13%) (11%) (11%) (%) Class 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 8 0 0 1 45 141 No. (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (75%) (80%) (71%) (30%) (80%) (78%) (83%) (74%) (76%) (70%) Subtotal 0 0 6 4 0 3 4 7 15 49 10 No. 252 990 (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (63%) (20%) (24%) (30%) (20%) (78%) (67%) (38%) (37%) (43%) Class 3 0 0 5 1 0 5 3 1 7 8 30 No. 130 487 Temporary food premises Temporary (%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (13%) (60%) (48%) (60%) (17%) (26%) (39%) (27%) Class 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 2 10 19 No. 122 503 emises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. and community not-for-profit operated by business proprietors and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises emises, mobile food premises Includes temporary food pr Principal council Loddon (S) Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) Victoria Macedon Ranges (S) Buloke (S) Mildura (RC) Mount Alexander (S) Campaspe (S) Subtotal Swan Hill (RC) Central Goldfields (S) Non-metropolitan total Non-metropolitan Gannawarra (S)
* C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
126 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 66 66 79 81 99 102 282 140 128 107 229 229 192 279 106 185 176 247 118 174 105 1,291 1,899 Dec (3%) (3%) (9%) (5%) (2%) (7%) (4%) (3%) (6%) (5%) (4%) (6%) (0%) (6%) (1%) (8%) (2%) (5%) (3%) (3%) (7%) (6%) (4%) 3 9 6 1 8 9 8 4 4 8 0 1 2 4 6 3 7 12 16 11 19 74 67 Nov (8%) (9%) (4%) (6%) (5%) (0%) (8%) (6%) (5%) (5%) (5%) (4%) (7%) (9%) (10%) (11%) (14%) (10%) (14%) (10%) (15%) (10%) (11%) 6 4 0 6 9 4 4 10 31 11 18 13 12 11 15 11 25 25 18 91 17 12 171 Oct (9%) (9%) (6%) (5%) (6%) (6%) (5%) (8%) (6%) (8%) (8%) (15%) (17%) (11%) (12%) (10%) (10%) (11%) (10%) (12%) (14%) (12%) (11%) 9 8 3 8 5 8 42 12 18 13 25 20 27 12 19 21 13 10 11 11 13 106 202 Sep (3%) (7%) (5%) (6%) (7%) (8%) (6%) (9%) (7%) (6%) (2%) (8%) (12%) (11%) (10%) (10%) (15%) (13%) (18%) (11%) (21%) (15%) (10%) 9 7 4 5 8 2 12 10 12 22 17 28 16 14 16 12 14 21 19 21 16 127 158 Aug (7%) (4%) (6%) (7%) (9%) (9%) (6%) (8%) (8%) (8%) (6%) (8%) (9%) (6%) (3%) (8%) (9%) (13%) (11%) (10%) (15%) (11%) (11%) 5 4 6 7 9 7 6 3 13 19 16 11 16 35 12 23 15 10 28 10 20 104 171 Jul (5%) (7%) (6%) (6%) (9%) (7%) (4%) (9%) (1%) (6%) (6%) (8%) (8%) (6%) (7%) (7%) (6%) (7%) (4%) (6%) (7%) (18%) (12%) 5 8 8 6 1 8 8 7 4 20 12 10 15 10 12 16 15 10 18 80 10 11 134 Initial notifications Jun (9%) (5%) (7%) (2%) (8%) (7%) (7%) (7%) (8%) (5%) (4%) (8%) (9%) (5%) (3%) (5%) (6%) (9%) (5%) (8%) (6%) (13%) (10%) 9 3 5 7 5 4 8 6 6 5 5 15 10 17 15 21 10 10 31 15 10 102 115 (8%) (9%) (5%) (3%) (6%) (3%) (4%) (9%) (6%) (8%) (9%) (2%) (6%) (4%) (6%) May (9%) (11%) (20%) (14%) (10%) (15%) (15%) (10%) 3 3 4 2 8 2 4 6 11 57 11 12 31 24 42 10 11 27 19 11 10 121 187 Apr (5%) (7%) (4%) (2%) (2%) (9%) (7%) (3%) (9%) (5%) (6%) (6%) (8%) (9%) (4%) (8%) (7%) (11%) (31%) (10%) (11%) (10%) (11%) 5 5 1 2 2 9 5 9 4 20 20 15 59 26 12 18 15 10 15 10 11 145 128 Mar (4%) (4%) (9%) (5%) (6%) (6%) (9%) (5%) (9%) (7%) (7%) (8%) (9%) (15%) (11%) (13%) (17%) (10%) (15%) (25%) (16%) (20%) (10%) 7 7 5 6 7 7 19 14 39 24 10 20 24 11 11 21 13 16 20 12 11 129 175 Feb (9%) (5%) (7%) (9%) (9%) (8%) (8%) (23%) (13%) (11%) (10%) (13%) (11%) (14%) (11%) (17%) (11%) (11%) (12%) (12%) (13%) (10%) (12%) 6 8 7 9 8 8 15 14 26 24 10 10 32 15 20 30 26 20 35 15 18 129 227 Jan (8%) (4%) (3%) (9%) (4%) (5%) (8%) (7%) (7%) (7%) (9%) (8%) (8%) (5%) (9%) (7%) (6%) (9%) (15%) (11%) (12%) (10%) (17%) 5 4 8 3 9 7 8 7 8 9 20 10 21 20 21 18 83 14 10 13 22 10 164 Principal council Darebin (C) Darebin Melton (C) Whitehorse (C) Wyndham (C) Hobson’s Bay (C) Hobson’s Moonee Valley (C) Moonee Valley Metropolitan Eastern (C) Boroondara Yarra Ranges (S) Yarra Yarra (C) Yarra Hume (C) Moreland (C) Moreland Knox (C) North & West Banyule (C) Subtotal Subtotal Maribyrnong (C) Nillumbik (C) Manningham (C) Brimbank (C) Melbourne (C) Whittlesea (C) Maroondah (C) Maroondah Monash (C) Appendix 11: Class 4 temporary and mobile food premises* by initial notification and principal council, Victoria, as at December 2013
127 Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 3 6 2 48 50 44 71 27 28 27 107 130 262 132 271 168 371 246 110 109 1,688 4,878 Dec (4%) (5%) (4%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (7%) (3%) (7%) (8%) (0%) (4%) (4%) (7%) (4%) (8%) (5%) (5%) (8%) (14%) (14%) 2 5 2 4 0 0 2 2 4 4 0 9 2 4 9 10 85 22 18 14 16 226 Nov (7%) (0%) (7%) (7%) (8%) (6%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (4%) (3%) (9%) (8%) (10%) (21%) (10%) (21%) (17%) (11%) (25%) (15%) (14%) 5 5 3 0 1 9 3 9 7 0 1 3 22 15 37 23 10 27 22 17 145 407 Oct (5%) (6%) (9%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (7%) (6%) (5%) (8%) (9%) (7%) (5%) (8%) (7%) (9%) (9%) (13%) (18%) (100%) 6 5 3 4 5 0 0 8 0 9 5 8 2 2 6 9 23 16 29 22 116 424 Sep (5%) (4%) (0%) (7%) (4%) (7%) (8%) (0%) (8%) (7%) (4%) (7%) (8%) (8%) (9%) (7%) (10%) (20%) (10%) (17%) (12%) (11%) 5 5 2 9 7 0 1 2 1 0 1 8 9 16 19 14 19 14 29 18 141 426 Aug (6%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (7%) (4%) (0%) (9%) (9%) (0%) (9%) (21%) (18%) (10%) (15%) (13%) (14%) (10%) (14%) (10%) (10%) 3 9 4 7 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 22 25 17 12 23 35 23 11 15 169 444 Jul (6%) (7%) (0%) (6%) (7%) (2%) (7%) (1%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (5%) (6%) (6%) (6%) (13%) (14%) (11%) (17%) (11%) (22%) (11%) 6 6 7 5 5 0 1 8 2 2 3 2 0 6 5 7 30 19 25 23 102 316 Initial notifications Jun (4%) (4%) (4%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (7%) (5%) (0%) (8%) (7%) (9%) (7%) (7%) (7%) (7%) (10%) (15%) (11%) (15%) 2 4 2 4 7 0 0 4 4 0 9 0 4 8 19 15 19 28 16 10 117 334 (4%) (6%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (7%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (8%) May (8%) (9%) (6%) (10%) (11%) (18%) (10%) (10%) (10%) (11%) 2 6 5 0 0 0 9 3 9 5 0 0 9 2 15 26 16 36 17 12 142 450 Apr (8%) (1%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (4%) (4%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (6%) (4%) (4%) (3%) (0%) (6%) (8%) (4%) (11%) (11%) 4 0 4 0 0 7 1 5 0 0 9 1 3 1 0 10 31 13 24 12 105 378 Mar (0%) (0%) (4%) (9%) (4%) (8%) (0%) (6%) (7%) (8%) (9%) (9%) (13%) (20%) (17%) (15%) (11%) (11%) (12%) (15%) (10%) (10%) 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 7 8 9 4 10 20 23 12 31 13 39 30 173 477 Feb (8%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (5%) (9%) (8%) (33%) (19%) (15%) (17%) (14%) (25%) (15%) (15%) (19%) (18%) (18%) (16%) (13%) (100%) 4 0 3 2 4 0 4 0 5 5 4 25 22 23 37 42 55 37 20 19 267 623 Jan (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (7%) (2%) (2%) (0%) (8%) (8%) (4%) (6%) (6%) (3%) (2%) (7%) (8%) (6%) (15%) (12%) (10%) (14%) 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 7 3 3 1 11 15 17 13 20 28 20 15 126 373 Principal council Warrnambool (C) Warrnambool Subtotal total Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Colac Otway (S) Glenelg (S) Glen Eira (C) Subtotal Corangamite (S) Southern Bayside (C) Moyne (S) Kingston (C) Geelong (C) Cardinia (S) Cardinia Queenscliffe (B) Queenscliffe Mornington Peninsula (S) Casey (C) Southern Grampians (S) Port Phillip (C) Dandenong (C) Surf Coast (S) Stonnington (C) Frankston (C)
128 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 9 6 6 3 29 55 76 59 37 41 10 32 32 11 24 16 54 60 66 35 21 24 23 11 87 243 111 382 Dec (0%) (0%) (3%) (3%) (5%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (5%) (8%) (6%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (5%) (5%) (15%) (10%) (11%) (10%) (13%) (13%) (45%) 0 0 2 2 2 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 1 0 3 7 0 2 3 3 5 0 1 11 20 Nov (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (5%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (6%) (5%) (4%) (0%) (9%) (12%) (11%) (17%) (16%) (12%) (12%) (17%) (17%) (33%) (18%) (14%) 2 0 9 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 7 8 6 1 1 4 0 1 34 18 34 16 Oct (9%) (3%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (9%) (9%) (3%) (5%) (8%) (9%) (0%) (10%) (17%) (24%) (22%) (13%) (22%) (33%) (13%) (13%) (15%) (10%) (18%) (18%) (17%) (12%) (10%) 3 5 2 9 9 0 2 4 2 2 0 1 3 2 8 6 1 1 2 2 2 0 10 30 10 12 39 15 Sep (3%) (2%) (2%) (5%) (7%) (9%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (3%) (5%) (3%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (12%) (10%) (11%) (12%) (11%) (38%) (29%) (16%) (11%) 1 1 9 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 3 1 8 7 2 0 0 26 13 24 14 Aug (0%) (7%) (3%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (3%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (8%) (4%) (9%) (8%) (3%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (6%) (10%) (13%) (14%) (22%) (11%) 3 0 5 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 9 1 2 5 5 2 5 1 0 0 1 0 27 23 19 Jul (7%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (4%) (7%) (3%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (9%) (33%) (14%) (13%) (13%) (15%) (11%) 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 8 4 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 18 11 23 35 10 Initial notifications Jun (3%) (4%) (3%) (2%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (4%) (0%) (9%) (9%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (8%) (7%) (14%) (20%) (16%) (11%) (13%) (10%) (17%) (67%) 1 2 2 1 5 2 2 0 5 1 0 0 1 4 0 2 5 6 6 6 1 0 0 0 2 8 19 28 (0%) (3%) (7%) (8%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (5%) (6%) (5%) (9%) (9%) (0%) (2%) May (8%) (9%) (11%) (10%) (13%) (16%) (11%) (18%) (21%) (25%) (20%) (29%) 0 6 2 4 3 3 1 4 5 1 0 0 2 8 5 4 5 3 2 1 7 2 1 0 2 19 13 33 Apr (7%) (9%) (3%) (6%) (3%) (4%) (3%) (9%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (3%) (8%) (32%) (11%) (10%) (10%) (11%) (50%) (33%) (18%) (17%) (13%) (10%) 2 5 4 4 1 1 8 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 2 2 6 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 19 29 Mar (5%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (8%) (0%) (6%) (8%) (5%) (6%) (0%) (8%) (9%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (5%) (7%) (24%) (25%) (13%) (11%) (13%) (12%) 7 3 0 1 0 8 4 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 3 5 3 2 0 2 3 1 0 5 0 9 12 26 Feb (0%) (9%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (4%) (10%) (14%) (17%) (33%) (18%) (14%) (13%) (13%) (11%) (14%) (13%) (15%) (16%) (12%) 3 8 7 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 3 0 4 8 7 3 3 0 3 0 0 8 6 0 1 10 15 45 Jan (2%) (6%) (0%) (9%) (8%) (0%) (9%) (8%) (2%) (8%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (9%) (2%) (12%) (40%) (16%) (11%) (33%) (13%) (11%) (10%) (17%) (16%) (26%) (10%) (12%) 1 4 5 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 5 5 1 4 2 2 2 0 0 5 5 7 6 2 24 14 46 20 Principal council Indigo (S) Hindmarsh (S) Grampians Ararat (RC) Subtotal Shepparton (C) West WimmeraWest (S) Mansfield (S) Horsham (RC) Gippsland Bass Coast (S) Ballarat (C) Strathbogie (S) Yarriambiack (S) Yarriambiack Mitchell (S) Moorabool (S) Baw (S) Golden Plains (S) Towong (S) Towong Hume Alpine (S) Subtotal Moira (S) Northern Grampians (S) East Gippsland (S) Hepburn (S) Benalla (RC) Murrindindi (S) Pyrenees (S) Pyrenees Latrobe (C) Latrobe South Gippsland (S)
129 Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 27 81 11 34 25 64 25 12 30 80 10 604 199 145 452 1,943 6,821 Dec (0%) (5%) (9%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (3%) (6%) (6%) (5%) (5%) (19%) (12%) (13%) (10%) 0 9 7 0 1 0 0 3 1 4 2 1 35 12 23 111 337 Nov (5%) (1%) (0%) (4%) (3%) (4%) (5%) (8%) (3%) (9%) (5%) (8%) (8%) (6%) (11%) (17%) (10%) 3 1 0 6 1 1 3 2 2 1 7 1 28 10 25 158 565 Oct (9%) (0%) (9%) (0%) (9%) (11%) (10%) (12%) (13%) (20%) (20%) (10%) (11%) (10%) (11%) (11%) (13%) 3 1 0 5 6 5 0 3 9 1 67 19 10 19 58 217 641 Sep (4%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (9%) (8%) (0%) (7%) (8%) (9%) (12%) (15%) (12%) (16%) (10%) (30%) (10%) 1 0 0 8 5 3 6 4 1 0 8 3 45 23 47 161 587 Aug (7%) (8%) (3%) (6%) (5%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (8%) (9%) (6%) (15%) (36%) (20%) (10%) 2 4 5 2 5 3 0 1 0 8 0 48 16 12 27 150 594 Jul (0%) (7%) (0%) (8%) (3%) (4%) (8%) (0%) (8%) (9%) (9%) (7%) (6%) (10%) (16%) (10%) (20%) 0 6 0 1 1 2 0 3 6 2 53 20 11 10 27 168 484 Initial notifications Jun (4%) (6%) (6%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (4%) (0%) (7%) (4%) (0%) (5%) (6%) (7%) (4%) 1 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 3 0 33 11 12 19 118 452 (9%) (5%) (9%) (0%) (8%) (0%) (4%) (0%) May (8%) (9%) (9%) (8%) (11%) (10%) (28%) (11%) (33%) 3 4 1 0 7 7 2 4 0 3 0 57 14 17 37 161 611 Apr (4%) (9%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (8%) (7%) (9%) (5%) (8%) (8%) (8%) (36%) (21%) (16%) (10%) (12%) 7 4 7 0 0 4 1 2 4 1 1 47 13 18 52 146 524 Mar (7%) (9%) (6%) (8%) (9%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (8%) (9%) (9%) (8%) (14%) (17%) (10%) (10%) (19%) 6 1 2 2 6 0 0 5 8 1 5 56 20 10 35 152 629 Feb (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (21%) (11%) (38%) (17%) (27%) (16%) (15%) (11%) (12%) (13%) (13%) 0 0 4 0 2 8 0 1 17 16 13 31 12 79 59 215 838 Jan (7%) (0%) (9%) (4%) (8%) (8%) (0%) (7%) (8%) (0%) (8%) (9%) (14%) (13%) (26%) (10%) (10%) emises, mobile food premises and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises operated by business proprietors and community and not-for-profit organisations. and community not-for-profit operated by business proprietors and water transport vehicles; excludes vending machines. Includes premises emises, mobile food premises 6 0 3 1 5 2 0 2 0 7 20 15 10 56 43 186 559 Includes temporary food pr Principal council Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan total Total Macedon Ranges (S) Buloke (S) Mildura (RC) Wangaratta (RC) Wangaratta Campaspe (S) Mount Alexander (S) Wellington (S) Wellington Central Goldfields (S) Swan Hill (RC) Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) Wodonga (RC) Wodonga Gannawarra (S) Subtotal Subtotal Loddon (S)
* C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
130 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer Total (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 899 619 558 297 414 2,787 6,130 1,978 2,625 8,917 1,527 31+ (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) 3 2 5 0 0 0 4 1 8 1 0 (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) 26–30 (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) 1 0 8 0 0 5 1 2 0 9 1 (0%) (1%) (0%) 21–25 (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) 6 0 3 1 9 2 0 2 21 10 27 (1%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (1%) (1%) 16–20 (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) (< 1%) 3 5 2 7 1 0 9 11 31 15 42 (2%) (2%) (2%) (1%) (1%) (1%) (1%) (1%) (2%) (1%) (1%) 11–15 7 2 46 17 10 75 10 27 33 15 121 (3%) (6%) (6%) (4%) (5%) (3%) (6%) (3%) (5%) (4%) (4%) 6–10 25 23 37 86 30 91 17 47 132 224 356 5 (1%) (2%) (3%) (1%) (2%) (2%) (1%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) Number of municipalities 9 2 53 10 98 20 28 12 42 28 151 4 (2%) (2%) (6%) (2%) (3%) (2%) (3%) (3%) (3%) (2%) (3%) 9 9 85 17 35 44 15 57 44 145 230 3 (5%) (4%) (6%) (3%) (7%) (4%) (8%) (4%) (5%) (4%) (4%) 20 33 37 68 37 23 63 150 232 101 382 2 (8%) (12%) (13%) (12%) (12%) (10%) (15%) (13%) (11%) (12%) (11%) 48 75 78 65 44 310 714 242 269 203 1,024 1 (69%) (80%) (64%) (74%) (70%) (76%) (67%) (73%) (74%) (71%) (75%) 287 717 399 388 199 operated by region, Victoria, 2013 6,567 1,990 4,577 1,462 2,001 1,114 * system, all premises operated by a single proprietor are recorded on a single registration. The data in this table is a count of registrations, which is a proxy for the number of discrete proprietors. for the number of discrete which is a proxy The data in this table is a count of registrations, on a single registration. recorded are operated by a single proprietor Streatrader system, all premises Note: In the
Total Subtotal Non-metropolitan Non-metropolitan Barwon-South Western Loddon Mallee Subtotal Hume Southern Grampians North & West North & West Gippsland Heath department region Metropolitan Eastern * Appendix 12: Number of municipalities in which temporary and mobile proprietors B = Borough; C = City; RC Rural S Shire B = Borough;
131 Appendix 13: Offences* under the Food Act 1984 that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2013
No. of Type of offence* offences S8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render the food unsafe 2 S10A – Causing food intended for sale to be falsely described where ought reasonably to know that a 2 consumer of the food who relies on the description is likely to suffer physical harm S11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsafe 5 S11(2) – Sell food that is unsafe 4 S12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a way that will render, or is likely to render, it unsuitable 6 S12(2) – Sell food that is unsuitable 1 S14(1) – Selling food not of the nature or substance demanded by the purchaser 1 S16(1) – Fail to comply with the Food Standards Code Standard 1.2.2: Food identification requirements 2 Standard 1.2.3: Mandatory warnings and advisory statements and declarations 1 Standard 1.2.5: Date marking of packaged food 3 Standard 1.4.4: Prohibited and restricted plants and fungi 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 140 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 50 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 40 Fail to maintain easily accessible hand washing facilities; fail to maintain at or near each hand wash 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 microorganisms to the hands • Standard 3.2.2, Clause 24(1) (c) and (d) – pests 34 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 20 Fail to ensure eating and drinking utensils were in a clean and sanitary condition; fail to ensure that 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 13 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 • 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
132 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
No. of Type of offence* offences • Standard 3.2.2, Clause 3(1) – food handlers’/supervisors’ knowledge and skill 8 Fail to ensure persons undertaking or supervising food handling operations have skills in, and knowledge of, food safety and food hygiene matters • Standard 3.2.2, Clause 15 – hygiene of food handlers 5 Fail to ensure food handlers, whenever washing their hands, use the hand washing facilities provides, thoroughly clean their hand using soap or other effective means and warm running water, and thoroughly dry hands on a single-use towel or in another way that is not likely to transfer pathogenic microorganisms to the hands • Standard 3.2.2, Clause 9 – food packaging 1 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 23 – single use items 4 Fail to take all practicable measures to ensure single use items: do not come into contact with food if they are contaminated or reasonably suspected to be contaminated, are protected from the likelihood of contamination until use, and are not re-used • Standard 3.2.2, Clause 8(5) – displaying food 2 Fail, when displaying food, to take all practicable measures to protect the food from the likelihood of contamination; fail to ensure the display of food is effectively supervised so that any food likely to have been contaminated is removed from display without delay • Standard 3.2.2, other food handling offences 10 Standard 3.2.3: Food premises and equipment • Standard 3.2.3, Clause 12 – fixtures, fittings and equipment; food contact surfaces 17 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 12 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 – 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; fail to ensure walls and ceilings are able to be effectively cleaned and, to the extent that is practicable, be unable to provide for the harbourage of pests • Standard 3.2.3, Clause 15 – adequate storage for non-food items 9 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
133 No. of Type of offence* offences • Standard 3.2.3 Clause 5 – sewage disposal 6 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 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 1 Fail to have a lighting system that provides sufficient natural/artificial light for the activities on the food premises • Standard 3.2.3, Clause 3 – design and construction of food premises 14 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 11 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) – Food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code Selling or advertising food that does not comply with the Food Standards Code 4 S19 – 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 premises 14 as specified. 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 10 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 14 S29 – Offences with respect to authorised officers (e) Contravene or fail to comply with a lawful direction or order 1 (g) 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 5 Victoria 505
* Note: There may be more than one: • offence per proprietor or food premises • conviction per premises, that is, the proprietor was convicted of offences on two separate occasions. Convictions were recorded against 32 companies or individuals in relation to 26 food premises operating in Victoria during this period. The companies or individuals were found guilty of a total of 505 offences under the Victorian Food Act 1984 or the regulations. In most cases, they were convicted of multiple offences.
134 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 14: Resources and publications
2013 Title Audience Description Jan Victorian Government Gazette No. G 2, General The declaration under the Food Act 1984 setting out Thursday 10 January 2013, Food sampling and the new statewide food sampling regime for councils requirements (4pp, online) business Feb So, you want to run a food business? A guide Business Guide for those thinking of buying or starting a food for Victorians (6pp, online) business on how Victorian laws, particularly the food laws, affect food businesses, how to meet their obligations and where to get more help and information Food Act 1984 bulletin, Register of convictions. Councils Clarification of information that councils are required Update on required documentation (1p, online) to provide to the department under the Food Act in relation to food premises convictions Mar Food safety guide for food businesses, class 3 Business Guide to help class 3 businesses understand their legal (43pp, online) responsibilities under the Food Act and the steps to follow to ensure food safety Food Act 1984 Bulletin 19, Criminal liability Councils Update on prosecutions by councils of officers for of directors (5pp, online) breach of the Food Act committed by a body corporate, for example, the prosecution of a director for an offence by their company following changes to the Stature Law Amendment (Director’s Liability) Act 2013 Apr Handbook for approved food safety auditors. Auditors Comprehensive guidance about the food premises Food Act 1984 (Vic). Third edition (98pp, online) Councils audit process under the Food Act Jun Egg safety information for restaurants, cafes Business Chief Health Officer advisory to restaurateurs, and caterers – in English, Arabic, simplified café owners and caterers regarding proper storage, Chinese and Vietnamese (2pp, online) handling and preparation of raw eggs and raw egg products How much do you know about food safety? General Food safety poster promoting dofoodsafely – the (poster) department’s online learning program for food handlers Jul Always wash hands with soap when preparing General Food safety poster food (poster) Cook food properly (poster) General Food safety poster Avoid the temperature danger zone (poster) General Food safety poster If in doubt, throw it out! (poster) General Food safety poster Food Act 1984 Bulletin 20, Food Standards Councils Update on changes to the Food Standards Code – Code, infringements and penalties (4pp, online) relating to bringing dogs into eating areas and the receipt of food Aug Food Act 1984 bulletin 21, Audit. Advice for Councils Update on Food Act requirements regarding audits councils (11pp, online) Sep Food safety supervisors and training. Business Advice for business proprietors about their obligations Requirements for food businesses (5pp, online) and the responsibilities and required skills and Also in Arabic, simplified Chinese and knowledge of their food safety supervisors Vietnamese (5pp, online) List of analysts approved under the Food Act Analysts Names and contact details of approved food analysts 1984 (4pp, online) and the analyses they are authorised to perform under the Food Act
135 Appendix 15: Major food safety and related committees
Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity National committees COAG Legislative Department 1. To develop domestic Council of Minister for Health As Victorian and Governance of Health and food regulatory policy Australian (lead) Government Forum on Food Ageing (Food and policy guidelines Governments Minister for representatives Regulation (FoFR) Regulation for setting domestic (COAG) Environment and Secretariat) food standards Formerly known Primary Industries as Australia New 2. To adopt, amend or Pauline Ireland As Department Zealand Food reject standards and of Health, Regulation Ministerial to request that these Victoria Council (ANZFRMC) be reviewed senior official 2 meetings/year supporting Minister for Health Food Regulation Department To provide policy advice Minister for Pauline Ireland As Department Standing Committee of Health and to the Forum on Food Health (lead) of Health, (FRSC) of FoFR Ageing (Food Regulation (FoFR) Minister Victoria 3 meetings/year Regulation for Primary representative Secretariat) Industries Implementation Department To develop or assist in the Food Regulation Milena Canil As Department Sub-Committee for of Health and development of guidelines Standing of Health, Food Regulation Ageing (Food on consistent enforcement Committee Victoria (ISFR) Regulation of food regulations that aim (FRSC) of FoFR representative 3 meetings/year Secretariat) to minimise cost to industry and meet the objective of minimum effective regulation Front of Pack Department To steer work plan Minister for Pauline Ireland As Victorian Labelling Steering of Health and in relation to the Health and FRSC Committee Ageing (Food implementation of the Ageing and representative 12 meetings/year Regulation recommendations of the Food Regulation Secretariat) Blewett review of food Standing labelling law and policy Committee (FRSC) Government Food Department 1. To ensure accurate Implementation Violette Lazanas As Department Communicator’s of Health and and consistent food Sub-Committee of Health, Group (ISFR Ageing (Food safety messages are on Food Victoria Working Group) Regulation communicated to the Regulation representative 1 meeting and 2 Secretariat) public and stakeholders (ISFR) teleconferences/year 2. To enable sharing of current media issues information between jurisdictions 3. To share communication materials between jurisdictions
136 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Coordinated Department To provide a strategic Implementation Paul Goldsmith As Department Food Survey Plan of Health and overview to the national Sub-Committee of Health, Working Group Ageing (Food system for cooperative for Food Victoria (ISFR Working Regulation and collaborative actions Regulation representative Group) Secretariat) on food surveys, testing, (ISFR) 1 meeting/year, monitoring, epidemiological and teleconferences studies, research, as required surveillance and intelligence gathering National Food Department To develop and maintain Implementation Fiona Jones As Department Incident Response of Health and a national protocol to Sub-Committee of Health, Protocol Working Ageing (Food respond to food incidents for Food Victoria Group (ISFR Regulation in a consistent and Regulation representative Working Group) Secretariat) coordinated manner (ISFR) 1 meeting/year, and teleconferences as required Food Surveillance Department 1. To identify opportunities Implementation Paul Goldsmith As Department Network of Health and for cross-jurisdictional Sub-Committee of Health, 4 teleconferences/ Ageing (Food involvement and for Food Victoria year, and additional Regulation facilitate collaboration Regulation representative teleconferences Secretariat) 2. To identify (ISFR) as required circumstances in which a national or cross- jurisdictional approach will be efficient and effective 3. To prioritise areas for action 4. To optimise information sharing Food Medicine Department To provide regulatory clarity Implementation Fiona Jones As Department Interface Working of Health and around products that could Sub-Committee of Health Group (ISFR Ageing (Food be food or therapeutic for Food Victoria Working Group) Regulation goods Regulation representative Meetings as required Secretariat) (ISFR) Working Group on Department 1. To assist in the Implementation Milena Canil As Department Health Nutrition and of Health and development of Food Sub-Committee Cameron Laidlaw of Health, Related Claims (ISFR Ageing (Food Standards Code for Food Victoria Working Group) Regulation standards Regulation representatives 4 meetings/year Secretariat) 2. To provide input (ISFR) with respect to implementation and enforcement issues
137 Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Expert Advisory Department To work with Food Implementation John Ward As Department Group on Analytical of Health and Standards Australia Sub-Committee of Health, Methods Ageing (Food New Zealand (FSANZ) for Food Victoria 1 meeting/year Regulation on the standards Regulation representative Secretariat) development process in (ISFR) order to advise on fit for purpose analytical methods FRSC Caffeine Department To review the ministerial Food Regulation John Ward As Department Working Group of Health and policy guidelines on Standing of Health, 2 meetings/year Ageing (Food caffeine in food Committee of Victoria Regulation FOFR representative Secretariat) Independent Review Department To review impacts and Food Regulation Candida As Department of the mandatory of Health and outputs of the fortification Standing D’Menzie- of Health, fortification of bread Ageing (Food standards Committee Bunshaw Victoria 2 meetings/year Regulation (FRSC) of FoFR representative Secretariat) and Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council (AHMAC)
Working Group Department To develop a strategy Food Regulation Pauline Ireland As working on High Level of Health and – high-level principles Standing (chair) group chair Monitoring and Ageing (Food – for monitoring and Committee Milena Canil As Department Enforcement Regulation enforcement of food (FRSC) of FoFR Violette Lazanas of Health, Strategy for Food Secretariat) labelling in Australia Victoria Labelling representatives (Joint ISFR/FRSC working Group) Meetings and teleconferences as required Principles and Department To advise the Department Food Regulation Pauline Ireland As Department Protocols Working of Health and of Health and Ageing Food Standing Milena Canil of Health, Group Ageing (Food Regulation Secretariat Committee Victoria Meetings as required Regulation regarding the operation of (FRSC) of FoFR representative Secretariat) FoFR and FRSC Strategic Plan Department To develop and oversee Food Regulation Pauline Ireland As Department Working Group of Health and the implementation of the Standing of Health, (FRSC Working Ageing (Food Strategic plan 2013–2017; Committee Victoria Group) Regulation the strategic plan is (FRSC) of FoFR representative Secretariat) reviewed by FRSC Meetings and every 12 months teleconferences as required
138 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Food Safety Department To review the Food safety Food Regulation Milena Canil As Department Management of Health and management policy Standing Violette Lazanas of Health, Working Group Ageing (Food guideline with a particular Committee Victoria Meetings as required Regulation focus on the adequacy (FRSC) of FoFR representative Secretariat) and appropriateness of its guidance in relation to the general food service sector and closely related retail sector Jurisdictional Forum Food To engage in the standards FSANZ board John Ward As Department Meetings and Standards setting process prior to Violette Lazanas of Health, teleconferences Australia an assessment for an Victoria as required New Zealand application or proposal representative (FSANZ) being finalised and provided to the FSANZ board Advisory Committee Food To consider requests made FSANZ board John Ward As Department on Novel Foods Standards by industry to FSANZ for of Health, Meetings and Australia novel food status and to Victoria teleconferences New Zealand identify those substances representative as required (FSANZ) that require a pre-market risk assessment (via Application)
139 Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Local Government Department 1. Annual reporting Food Regulation Gary Smith As Department Working Group of Health and information provided Standing of Health, (ISFR Working Ageing (Food by jurisdictions to Committee Victoria Group) Regulation ISFR using consistent (FRSC) of FoFR representative Secretariat) reporting terminology, Meetings and including: teleconferences as required – reporting on application of ISFR national policy such as enforcement guidelines, complaint guidelines, inspection frequency – reporting on general compliance/ enforcement statistics – food business profile and regulation services profile 2. High-level principles for nationally-consistent food premises inspection 3. Develop a central repository for collations of available resources for interpretation of the Food Standards Code Environmental Environmental To discuss regulatory Environmental Gary Smith As Department Health Professional Health food safety issues Health of Health, Australia (EHPA) Professional Professional Victoria Food Special Interest Australia Australia representative Group (SIG) 12 meetings/year Food Microbiology Standards To review and revise Standards Heather Haines As Department (FT–035) Australia standard Australian Australia of Health, Two meetings per analytical methods for Victoria year, teleconferences detecting microorganisms representative as required in food
140 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity State committees Victorian Food Department To discuss regulatory Minister for Pauline Ireland As Department Regulators Forum of Primary food safety issues across Health of Health, 6 meetings/year Industries, all agencies Minister Victoria Victoria for Primary representative Industries Health Claims Department of To develop a Victorian Assistant Milena Canil As Department Implementation – Health, Victoria plan for implementing Director, Food Violette Lazanas of Health, Victoria Working the Nutrition, Health and Safety and Victoria Cameron Laidlaw Group Related Claims Standards Regulation, representatives Meetings as required (1.2.7) Department of Health Department of Department of To discuss regulatory Assistant Pauline Ireland As Department Health/Municipal Health, Victoria food safety issues relevant Director, Food Dianne Scott of Health, Association of – chaired by to local government Safety and Gary Smith Victoria Victoria (MAV) Food Municipal Regulation, representatives Philip Montalto Safety Committee Association Department Meetings as required of Victoria of Health and Chief Executive, MAV Food Technology Food To serve as an interface Food John Ward As Department Association of Technology with industry on standard Technology of Health, Australia (FTAA) Association development Association Victoria Technical Sub- of Australia of Australia representative committee Meetings as required
141 Convening Meeting department/ attendance organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Department of Department To provide feedback on Department of Rosemary As MAV Health – MAV of Health – the department’s statutory Health, MAV Hancock, MAV representatives Local Government chaired by Food Act annual reports (chair)
Food Act Activities Municipal Pauline Sanders, Reporting Working Association MAV Group of Victoria Philip Montalto, As Department 1 meeting per year Gary Smith of Health, Victoria representatives
Susannah Milne, As council Bendigo environmental Alan Watson, health officers East Gippsland Malcolm Ramsay, Hobsons Bay, Sam Salamone, Knox Foti Beratis, Maribyrnong Nandor Kovacs, Melbourne Rhonda Gambetta, Surf Coast Louis Papageorgiou, Whitehorse Peter Wright, Yarra Ranges Streatrader Department of To project manage the Assistant Emma Gaul As Department Project Group Health, Victoria Streatrader project – Director, Food Laura Butera of Health, the online statewide Safety and Victoria 26 meetings/year Cameron registration system Regulation, representatives Huntington for food vans and stalls Department of Health representative and Chief Executive, MAV Allergen testing National To advise on compliance National John Ward As Department Special Interest Measurement issues in relation to Measurement Cameron Laidlaw of Health, Group (SIG) Institute (NMI) standards Institute Victoria 1 meeting/year (Public representatives analytical laboratory)
142 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 16: Websites
Food safety website, Department of Health Gazetted food sampling requirements www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2013/ Better Health Channel: food safety GG2013G002.pdf www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/ Memorandum of understanding between Victorian pages/hl_foodnutrition?open&cat=Food_and_nutrition_-_ agencies involved in food safety enforcement Food_safety www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info/mou Chief Health Officer Office of Local Government, Department of www.health.vic.gov.au/chiefhealthofficer Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure Council health units www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/find-your-local- PrimeSafe council www.primesafe.vic.gov.au Dairy Food Safety Victoria Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 www.dairysafe.vic.gov.au www.legislation.vic.gov.au Department of Health and Ageing Food Regulation Register of convictions under Food Act 1984 Secretariat www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info/register www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ Streatrader foodsecretariat-1 https://streatrader.health.vic.gov.au/public_site dofoodsafely – free online learning program for food Victorian Food Regulators Forum handlers http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/food- dofoodsafely.health.vic.gov.au and-fibre-industries/food-regulators-forum Food Act 1984 Victorian food regulation and legislation www.legislation.vic.gov.au www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/regulatory_info Food Act 1984 offences for which infringement notices may be issued www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/bus/enforce Food business classification tool www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety/foodclass/ Food Labelling Review www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au Food Regulation Secretariat www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ foodsecretariat-1 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 Foodsmart www.foodsmart.vic.gov.au Food Standards Australia New Zealand www.foodstandards.gov.au Food Standards Code www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx
143 Appendix 17: Acronyms and abbreviations
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ANZFA Australia New Zealand Food Authority CALD culturally and linguistically diverse COAG Council of Australian Governments DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (formerly Department of Primary Industries) EHO environmental health officer EHPA Environmental Health Professionals Australia FoFR Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation FRSC Food Regulation Standing Committee FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand MAV Municipal Association of Victoria MOU memorandum of understanding
144 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
Appendix 18: 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. Assessment An assessment involves determining: • if a template has been used to prepare a standard food safety program, whether it is the correct template for the business, and • in all cases, whether the premises is complying with its food safety program and the food safety standards. When conducted by a council, an assessment is a kind of extensive inspection of the food premises, which must include a checking of these matters. 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.
Authorised officer A council-appointed authorised officer for the purposes of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, the Food Act 1984 and/or Health Act 1958. This is an important function and certain compliance and enforcement activities may only be undertaken by authorised officers. 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 food handling activities such as bottled jams or honey. Also covers simple sausage sizzles, most cake stalls, and sessional kindergartens supplying low-risk snacks. These premises are required to notify councils of their food handling activities on a once-off basis; that is, they do not need to re-notify and councils are not required to contact them annually to ascertain whether they are still operating. 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, 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 Also referred to as local governments, councils are the third tier of the Australian political system. There are 79 councils in Victoria, each consisting of between five and 12 councillors who are democratically elected to govern a particular geographic area in the best interests of the local community. See also municipality.
145 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. CALD Refers to culturally and linguistically diverse communities. 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. Discretionary council An inspection of a food premises that is conducted at the discretion of the council. It may be inspection 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. EPHA Environmental Health Professionals Australia (EHPA) is a national organisation that supports environmental health professionals through ongoing education and research and provides ongoing professional development. EHPA is open to anyone who works in or has an interest in environmental health or public health and related fields. Fixed food premises A food premises at a fixed site, as distinct to a van or portable stall or tent. 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 may be fixed, temporary or mobile. 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 on site. 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.
146 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
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 The records class 2 food premises must keep under the Food Act 1984 in order to monitor program records food safety and hygiene in the business. 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, and 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 physical, 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 Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is a 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. 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 A food safety program tailored specifically for the food premises. TheFood Act 1984 safety program describes these 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.
147 Legislative and The body that oversees the regulation of food safety in Australia and New Zealand. Governance Forum on The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council previously performed Food Regulation (FoFR) this role. Mandatory council An inspection of a food premises required under the Food Act 1984 that is conducted by a inspection 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. Municipality Refers to the particular geographic area for which Victoria’s 79 councils are responsible as the third tier of the Australian political system. See also council. NATA The National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) 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. 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 (or Under Victoria’s statewide system for registration/notification of a food van or stall, one council registering council) must be primarily responsible for, and approve, a business’s food handling operations at its portable premises. Known as the principal council (or registering 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 municipalities it will trade. It is responsible, together with those ‘trading councils’, for monitoring compliance. It can take enforcement action where this is required. Proprietor For the purposes of this report, ‘proprietor’ refers to the business, community group or not-for-profit organisation responsible for the operation of a food premises. 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
148 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
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. There are four classes: class 1 to 4. Trading council Refers to any council in whose municipality a temporary or mobile food premises (food van, stall or vending machine) operates and which has registered (class 1–3) or notified councils of its activities via the online Streatrader system. See also principal council. Standard food safety A food safety program is a written plan that shows how the business will ensure the food sold program 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 municipality where their vans or stalls will be operating. Streatrader Streatrader is an online system managed by the department for proprietors to register and notify temporary and mobile food premises and water transport vehicles in Victoria. Temporary food premises Refers to a tent, stall or other structure that is not permanently fixed to a site from which food is sold, or a permanent structure such as a community hall not owned or leased by the food business that operates the premises and in which food is handled for sale, or from which food is sold on an occasional basis. 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. For the purposes of the Food Act 1984, these are class 3 premises.
149 References
1 Previous annual reports include data on mobile food premises.
2 Unless otherwise stated, all figures are from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2013, Australian food statistics, 2011–12, Canberra at
3 Business Victoria website at
4 ibid.
5 Op cit. Business Victoria website.
6 Victorian Farmers’ Market Association Inc., Submission on issues paper to inform development of a national food policy, 22 August 2011 at
7 Op cit. Business Victoria website.
8 Op cit. Business Victoria website.
9 Data relating to dofoodsafely visits were generated in July 2013 using Google Analytics – a service offered by Google that generates detailed statistics about website traffic and traffic sources. See
10 Department of Health, Food Act report 2011 and 2012, Marking a milestone, Melbourne, May 2014.
11 Building for growth, 2013-14 Victorian Budget, Service delivery budget paper no. 3, May 2013.
12 Often the company reporting the incident provides insufficient information to identify either the food product involved, the nature of the issue, or complainants who have refused consent to the release of their details to a regulator. It is not possible to follow-up anonymous complaints.
13 Australian Academy of Science 2008, ‘When bugs have you on the run’,
14 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2007,Simplifying the menu: food regulation in Victoria, final report, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
15 Op cit. Department of Health.
16 Standard 1.2.3 clause 4 Mandatory Warning and Advisory Statements and Declarations.
17 In contrast, the total number of class 4 food vans and stalls is precise because they are required to lodge Food Act statements of trade advising councils of where and when they will be trading.
18 In this report, the term region refers to the Victorian Health Department regions – see
19 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 border the Melbourne metropolitan area, face similar issues and work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, City of Hume, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire.
150 Food Act report 2013 Making it safer
20 Regional Development Australia (March 2014), Gippsland food plan resource document at
21 This applies where food premises have an independent food safety program.
22 As class 3 and class 4 food premises supply or handle only lower-risk foods, they are not required to have a food safety program and do not need to be audited.
23 Gazetted food sampling requirements for each council for 2013 can be viewed at
24 To view the completed food surveys go to the FSANZ website at
25 Kellaway J 2012, Presented at the 23rd Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, New South Wales, 19-22 February 2012.
26 Samiullah S, Roberts JR, Chousalkar, KK 2012, Presented at the 23rd Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, New South Wales, 19-22 February 2012.
27 Commonwealth of Australia, Food Regulation Review Committee1998, Food: a growth industry: report of the food regulation review, Canberra.
28 MLVA refers to Multi-locus Variable copy Numbers of Tandem Repeats.
29 Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionisation Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry.
30 Op cit. Google Analytics.
31 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Victorian Budget, 2012–13 Service delivery, Budget Paper No. 3, Melbourne.
32 Department of Treasury and Finance 2013, Victorian Budget, 2013–14 Service delivery, Budget Paper No. 3, Melbourne.
33. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Clause 15 of Standard 4.2.4.
34. ibid. Clause 16 of Standard 4.2.4.
35. ibid. Clause 15 of Standard 4.2.4.
151 152 4 Clinical review of area mental health services 1997-2004 PRINTER TO CONFIRM SPINE WIDTH