The Food Act report 2014
State of food safety
Page 1 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
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, Department of Health and Human Services May 2016
ISSN 2200–1239 (Online)
Available at www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/food-safety
(1602001)
Page 1 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Message from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
With more than 66,000 food businesses subject to the Food Act 1984 operating in Victoria, the challenging food safety mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services and our co- regulators in local government is immediately apparent. Victoria has implemented major reforms via the regulatory framework of the Food Act 1984 to ensure that the Victorian community can have confidence in the safety of the food they eat, whether they’re in a nursing home, a café or buying food from a vending machine. Food businesses are classified into groups based on the risk they present to public health and safety and are regulated in accordance with these ratings. Food businesses deemed high risk are, for example, required to have food safety programs documenting their procedures to keep the food they prepare and sell safe. Councils report business compliance and enforcement activities to the department which provides a statistical profile of the performance of the food regulatory system. In 2014 the department embarked on a major work program to achieve a more consistent regulatory approach across local government. This work responds to food business requests and a Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission recommendation1 and will demand different ways of thinking and working for the department, local governments and food businesses. The approach to food safety in Victoria also moved forward in a number of other important areas. Among the highlights for 2014 was the launch of a new food sampling app that improved council food safety surveillance practice and yielded better data. A new video and interactive website helps community volunteers conducting food fundraisers to understand their food safety obligations and a major campaign targeting home cooks tackled safe food handling in the home; home is where most cases of food poisoning occur. Throughout the 2014 departmental staff worked with our state and national counterparts to ensure that the public health response to food safety incidents and outbreaks was faster, better coordinated and more effective. I take pleasure in recommending the Food Act report 2014: State of food safety to all interested parties.
Kym Peake Secretary Department of Health and Human Services
1 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2007, Simplifying the menu: food regulation in Victoria, final report, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 2
Message from the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Association of Victoria
In collaboration with the Department of Health, the work of the local councils in 2014 enhanced Victoria’s reputation as a leader in food safety regulation and ensured that public health and safety remained the utmost priority. Of particular interest this year were steps towards more sophisticated risk assessment in relation to the 66,000 food premises regulated under the state’s Food Act 1984. In common with similar jurisdictions, Victoria is moving away from a traditional ‘tick-a-box’ approach to assessing business compliance with the Act and the Food Standards Code in favour of a HACCP-based risk- and outcomes-based approach. The desired outcome is that actions taken by councils in response to food business noncompliance reflect the inherent level of food safety risk and are outcomes based, procedurally fair and consistent across the state. This report includes new information on council compliance assessment and enforcement action. While not yet flawless, these statistics offer a first glimpse of business performance and council activity across the state. They give cause for confidence in the food sector and in councils’ success in bringing poor performers back into line. Another striking feature this year was the extraordinary growth of the street food sector. In 2014 the number of coffee carts, food vans and market stalls swelled to more than 20,000 – an increase of 54 per cent compared to the previous year. For these premises, Streatrader, the department’s online business system for temporary and mobile food premises, has dramatically reduced the time and costs of complying with their food safety obligations. At the same time, Streatrader has assisted councils to manage this substantial additional workload through streamlining the registration/notification process and providing access to traders’ compliance histories at all locations. Most importantly, this enabled council officers to focus their efforts on food businesses that pose greater risks to public health and safety. Confidence and trust in the safety of foods sold in Victoria rests on such work. The roles of the department and councils in protecting consumers, regulating the food industry, enforcing food safety standards and using the best scientific advice to underpin risk management decisions have never been more important.
Rob Spence Chief Executive Officer Municipal Association of Victoria
Page 3 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Contents
Message from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services ...... 2
Message from the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Association of Victoria ...... 3
About us ...... 10 Department of Health ...... 10 Councils ...... 10
About this report ...... 12 Scope ...... 12
The national scene ...... 14 Intergovernmental agreement ...... 14
Food safety regulation in Victoria ...... 18
Year in review ...... 19 From principles to practice ...... 19 Risk management matters ...... 21 The challenges ...... 22
Working together ...... 27 Shared responsibility ...... 27 Working with co-regulator PrimeSafe ...... 28 Working with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and local councils ...... 29
Innovation ...... 36 Digital advances ...... 36 Food safety at community events – new resources ...... 39
Food safety incidents ...... 42
Food premises registrations and notifications ...... 48 Risk-based food premises classification ...... 48 Industry sector, premises type and location ...... 51 Premises class and business type ...... 59
Compliance and enforcement approaches ...... 66 Enforcement overview class 1–3 fixed food premises ...... 71 Surveillance and science ...... 76 Surveillance surveys ...... 79
Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations ...... 83
Appendix 2: Functions, governance and legislation ...... 90 Food regulation system ...... 90 Food Act 1984 ...... 90 Roles ...... 91
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 4
Councils ...... 91 Primary producer regulators...... 92 Minister for Health ...... 92 Food Safety and Regulation Unit, Department of Health ...... 92 Chief Health Officer ...... 93 Legislation administered by the Food Safety and Regulation Unit ...... 93
Appendix 3: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, region and municipality, Victoria 2014 ...... 94
Appendix 4: Municipalities by number of class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, Victoria 2014 ...... 97
Appendix 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by municipality type and class Victoria 2014 ...... 100
Appendix 6: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications by class, region and municipality in which their principal councils were located, Victoria 2014 ...... 104
Appendix 7: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications by proprietor type, class and municipality, Victoria 2014 ...... 109
Appendix 8: New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises notifications by principal council, Victoria 2014 ...... 114
Appendix 9: Compliance checks conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014 ...... 118
Appendix 10: Compliance checks conducted at class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises...... 122
Appendix 11: Enforcement action by councils for offences in relation to class 1–3 food fixed premises by class and municipality, Victoria 2014 ...... 125
Appendix 12: Offences under the Act that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2014 ...... 131
Appendix 13: Major food safety related committees 2014 ...... 135
Appendix 14: Resources and publications 2014 ...... 142
Appendix 15: Glossary of terms ...... 144
Page 5 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
List of figures
Figure 1: Joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system ...... 15
Figure 2: Food sector regulated under the Act, Victoria ...... 17
Figure 3: Streatrader screenshot: example of responsive technology ...... 38
Figure 4: Incidents and complaints reported to the Department of Health, Victoria 2014 (Total 248) ...... 44
Figure 5: Class 1–3 food premises* registrations by premises type and location,** Victoria, 2014 (Total 54,746) ...... 50
Figure 6: Class 1–3 food premises* registrations by class, type and location,** Victoria 2014 ...... 51
Figure 7: Class 1–3 food premises* by industry sector and location,** Victoria 2014 ...... 52
Figure 8: Class 1–3 food premises* by industry sector and type, Victoria 2014 ...... 53
Figure 9: Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by municipality type, 2014 (Total 45,230) ...... 54
Figure 10: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by class and proprietor type, Victoria 2014 (Total 21,183) ...... 59
Figure 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* with a Streatrader account** by month, Victoria 2014 ...... 60
Figure 12: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications held by proprietors, Victoria 2014 (Total 15,432) ...... 60
Figure 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food retail/service premises* trading days by month, Victoria 2014 (Total 130,861) ...... 61
Figure 14: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile community group food premises* trading days by month, Victoria 2014 (Total 16,490) ...... 62
Figure 15: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 3,130) ...... 63
Figure 16: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food retail/service premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 2,576) ...... 64
Figure 17: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile community group premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 634) ...... 64
Figure 18: New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises notifications by premises type and month, Victoria 2014 (Total 4,130) ...... 65
Figure 19: Class 1 and 2 food premises* by type of FSP and premises category, Victoria 2014 (Total 39,194) ...... 66
Figure 20: Compliance checks* conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total 50,884) ...... 68
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 6
Figure 21: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* at which council compliance checks** were conducted, 2014 (Total 5,349) ...... 70
Figure 22: Offences* resulting in convictions by premises type, Victoria 2014 (Total 253) ...... 74
Figure 23: Type of food premises in relation to which convictions were recorded, Victoria 2014 (Total 25) ...... 75
Figure 24: Proprietors convicted, Victoria 2014 (Total 26) ...... 75
Figure 25: Food premises in relation to which convictions were recorded by municipality, Victoria 2014 (Total 25) ...... 76
Figure 26: Statutory food surveillance samples*† taken from class 1–3 food premises by councils for laboratory testing for food pathogens, Victoria 2014** ...... 78
Figure 27: Statutory food surveillance tests conducted on food samples by type of testing,* Victoria 2014 (Total 7,061) ...... 79
Page 7 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
List of tables
Table 1: FSANZ applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment, 2014 ...... 16
Table 2: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission recommendations implemented ...... 20
About the national auditor scheme ...... 34
Table 2: Reports received by the department from laboratories of notifiable microorganisms in food under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, 2014 ...... 42
Table 4: Food recalls by reason for recall, 2014 ...... 43
Table 5: Examples of food complaints, Victoria 2014 ...... 44
Table 6: Food safety warnings, Victoria 2014 ...... 47
Table 7: Typical food premises classifications under the Act ...... 48
Table 8: Snapshot of class 1–4 fixed, temporary and mobile food premises,* Victoria, 2014 ...... 49
Table 9: Snapshot of class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises,* Victoria, 2014 ...... 55
Table 10: Growth in temporary and mobile food premises* by class and proprietor type, Victoria, 20132014 ...... 58
Table 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications per single registration, Victoria 2014 ...... 62
Table 12: Outcomes of compliance checks* conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total 50,884) ...... 68
Table 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* compliance overview,** Victoria 2014 (Total 5,349) ...... 71
Table 14: Overview of enforcement action taken by councils for Act offences by class 13 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total premises 45,230) ...... 72
Table A: Fixed food premises (class 1–3) ...... 83
Table B: Temporary and mobile food premises (class 2–4) ...... 85
Table C: All food premises types (fixed, temporary and mobile) – common specifications ...... 87
Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class,** region and municipality ...... 94
Municipalities by number of class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class* ...... 97
Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by municipality type and class** ...... 100
Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications by class, region and municipality in which their principal councils were located ...... 104
Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications by proprietor type, class and municipality, 2014 ...... 109
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 8
New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises* notifications by principal council, Victoria 2014 ...... 114
Compliance checks*+ conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014 ...... 118
Compliance checks* conducted at class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014 ...... 122
Enforcement action* by councils for offences in relation to class 1–3 food fixed premises by class and municipality, 2014 ...... 125
Offences* under the Act that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2014 ...... 131
Major food safety related committees 2014 ...... 135
13.1 National committees 2014 ...... 135
13.2 State committees 2014 ...... 140
Resources and publications ...... 142
Glossary of terms ...... 144
Page 9 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
About us
Department of Health
The Department of Health’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s role is to protect the community from food-related harm, to support public health through strategic regulatory policy development, and to influence thinking, policy and programs to achieve a healthier community.
The Food Safety and Regulation Unit, part of the Health Protection Branch, the Department of Health, provides: • policy and strategy advice for food safety and food regulation • supports the Minister for Health in her role as Victoria’s lead minister on the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (FoFR) – including intra- and inter-departmental coordination • inter-jurisdictional policy and project work – including membership of the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC), its subcommittee – the Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation (ISFR) – and other committees under the framework of the Intergovernmental Food Regulation Agreement • food safety risk assessment, incident investigation and response where there are regional, statewide or national implications – including food recalls (in conjunction with the Chief Health Officer and the department’s Epidemiology and Surveillance Team where illness is involved) • complaint investigations regarding possible breaches of Victoria’s Food Act 1984 and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) – for example, food and beverage labelling • data collection and analysis and the procurement and management of statewide data systems (this includes coordinating and undertaking food surveillance) • stakeholder liaison and engagement • research and technical analysis to support food safety activities • approvals for food safety auditors, food analysts and food safety program (FSP) templates • advice, guidance, frameworks, tools and education for stakeholders, including the public, local government and food safety auditors • the register of convictions • requirements for setting food surveillance sampling numbers. The Food Safety and Regulation Unit works closely with the department’s Epidemiology and Surveillance team and the Office of the Chief Health Officer, especially where outbreaks of illness are suspected to be food-borne. The unit also works with the department’s Water and Environmental Health teams to assess potential food safety risk arising from events such as algal blooms.
Councils Victorian municipal councils have substantial responsibilities for administering and enforcing the Food Act 1984 (the Act). They register and inspect food businesses that sell, store, manufacture, package or transport food for human consumption (including liquor). 2 Councils register and inspect businesses that operate from permanent venues (known as fixed premises), temporary food premises such as stalls, and mobile food premises such as food vans and
2 Premises that mainly handle raw meat, poultry or seafood are licensed and inspected by PrimeSafe, while dairy premises are licensed by Dairy Food Safety Victoria.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 10 carts. For large councils, the latter includes numerous major festivals conducted annually in their municipalities, as well as a large number of one-off or occasional stalls. Under Streatrader – an online statewide scheme implemented in 2012 – food vans and stalls need only a single registration (class 1–3) or notification (class 4) regardless of how many municipalities they trade in. Councils conduct food sampling programs which involves collecting a minimum number of foods from class 1 and 2 premises in the municipality and having the samples analysed to assess food safety and compliance with the standards. Providing information and advice to food handlers during premises visits is a high priority for council environmental health officers (EHOs). Many councils also offer food handling information seminars and regular newsletters for food premises proprietors and staff. Councils play an active role in educating the community about food safety and responding to customer complaints about food hygiene, contamination, suspected food poisoning and food handling. Finally, councils act on food recalls advised by the Department of Health and referring information to the relevant food business.
Page 11 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
About this report
Food businesses are responsible for ensuring the food they prepare, handle and sell is safe and suitable for consumption. They must comply with stringent regulations and standards and the food regulatory system is designed to ensure these obligations are met.
Scope This report has been developed as required under s. 7C of the Act and examines the performance of Victoria’s food regulatory system in 2014. It presents information on the number and nature of food premises regulated under the Act as well as on food safety incidents, complaints, compliance activities and enforcement actions taken by councils for breaches of the Act. The data provides a strong foundation for food safety policy and enforcement decision making.
Department of Health and Human Services The report refers to developments and activities undertaken during the calendar year 2014 when the Department of Health and Human Services was two separate departments (that is, the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services). For the purposes of this report, 'the department' refers to the Department of Health as it was during the 2014 calendar year. Future annual reports will refer to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Data sources, specifications and limitations Sources, specifications and limitations of data items used in this report are described at Appendix 1.
Data about administration of the Act by councils In addition to councils reporting their Act data to the department, the Victorian Government established requirements under the Local Government Act 1989 for councils to report in their own annual reports about their performance across a range of areas. There are a total of 70 quantitative measures, and 24 qualitative checklist measures to cover the variety of activities carried out by councils. Four of the measures are about food safety administration: • the cost of food safety regulation • the follow up of noncompliant food premises • the completion of mandatory annual food safety assessments of premises that handle unpackaged potentially hazardous food timeliness in responding to complaints. All of the items in the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework were developed in consultation with councils over the last year. Reporting is required for 201415. Further information is available at the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure website on the Governance and Accountability page. Go to:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 12
Acknowledgements Our work and achievements would not meet the high standard expected of us without the efforts of local council officers who administer the Act. We are grateful for their professionalism, commitment and the quality of the work they do every day. The department would like to thank the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), as the peak body for local government, for its continued close cooperation on food safety regulation. Thanks are also due to the Department of Health-MAV Local Government Food Act Activities Working Group which provided valuable advice on the scope and contents of the report (see membership at Appendix 13).
Page 13 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
The national scene
Intergovernmental agreement An intergovernmental agreement between Commonwealth, state and territory governments underpins the food regulatory scheme in Australia. The scheme involves all three levels of Australian governments and New Zealand. Under the scheme, Australian states and territories administer their own food acts that are based on a national model and incorporate national food standards automatically as laws in their jurisdictions. The intergovernmental agreement aims to provide a national system of safe food controls. Its purpose is to: • protect public health and safety • reduce regulatory burden on the food industry • harmonise Australian domestic and export standards with international standards • provide cost-effective compliance and enforcement arrangements • provide a consistent regulatory approach.
Australia New Zealand Food Treaty In addition to the agreement, a treaty is in place between the Australian and New Zealand governments. The treaty seeks to: • reduce unnecessary barriers to trade • adopt a joint system of food standards • provide for the timely development, adoption and review of food standards • facilitate information sharing.
Bi-national governance The regulation of food safety in Australia and New Zealand is overseen by FoFR (Figure 1). It is responsible for developing food regulatory policy and guidelines and for promoting a consistent approach to food standards compliance and enforcement. This responsibility requires all members of the FoFR to balance public health and safety objectives with the need to produce and deliver food to the public efficiently and with minimal regulation. The FoFR is supported by the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) whose role is to coordinate policy advice and ensure a nationally consistent approach to the implementation and enforcement of food standards. The FRSC comprises senior officials of departments for which the ministers represented on the forum have portfolio responsibility. The Implementation Sub-Committee for Food Regulation reports to the FRSC and oversees a consistent approach to implementing and enforcing food regulation and standards.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 14
Figure 1: Joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system
The Code The Code sets legal requirements for the labelling, composition, safety, handling, and primary production and processing of food. Food standards are developed jointly by the governments of Australia, Australian states and territories, and New Zealand. These food standards are designed to: • ensure that food is safe and suitable for human consumption • prevent misleading conduct associated with the sale of food • provide adequate information to enable consumers to make an informed choice • provide an effective regulatory framework within which the food industry can work efficiently. Enforcement and interpretation of the Code is the responsibility of state and territory agencies within Australia, and New Zealand.
Food standards development The Code comprises food standards that are developed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). FSANZ is an independent statutory authority that is managed by a board whose members are appointed by the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing, in consultation with FoFR. In addition to developing all domestic food standards, the role of FSANZ extends to matters such as coordinating national food surveillance and food recall systems, working with international agencies responsible for food regulation, and developing codes of conduct and guidance materials for the food industry. The development of food standards, reviews of existing standards and variations to those standards stem either from applications made to FSANZ, from proposals of FSANZ’s own initiative, or in response to a request made by the FoFR. Public consultation is an important part of the food standards development process and FSANZ encourages written comments from interested individuals and 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.
Page 15 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
The Department of Health coordinates whole-of-Victorian government input into this process, drawing upon in-house expertise in food microbiology, food technology, toxicology, chemistry, nutrition and dietetics, as well as expertise that exists within the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and its agencies PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria, and other state government departments and agencies. In 2014 FSANZ released 13 applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment. These included applications for approval to amend standards to permit the addition of various substances to food, a proposal to review the Code and variations to standards applying to infant formula products (Table 1).
Table 1: FSANZ applications and proposal assessment reports for public comment, 2014
Proposal Description Proposal P1016 Hydrocyanic acid in apricot kernels and other foods Proposal P1017 Criteria for Listeria monocytogenes microbiological limits for foods Proposal 1022 Primary production and processing requirements for raw milk products Proposal P1029 Maximum level for tutin in honey Proposal P1030 Health claims – formulated supplementary foods and electrolyte drinks Proposal P1033 Code maintenance XII Proposal P1034 Managing chemical migration from packaging into food Proposal P1035 Gluten claims about foods containing alcohol Application 1088 Sodium hydrosulphite as a food additive Application A1091 Enzyme nomenclature change – carboxyl proteinase to aspergillopepsin I and II Application A1092 Irradiation of specific fruits and vegetables Application A1094 Food derived from herbicide tolerant cotton line DAS – 81910-7 Application A 1096 Xylanase from bacillus licheniformis as a processing aid
New or amended food standards are approved by the FSANZ Board and then submitted to the forum for its consideration. The forum can ask the FSANZ Board to review its decision to approve a standard or variation to a standard. FSANZ publishes the standard in the Commonwealth Government Gazette and registers it as a law, which is then automatically adopted by reference, and without amendment, into Australian state and territory food laws. Information on standards development can be found on the FSANZ website. Go to:
National bodies The department also participates in national committees or working groups that inform the development of standards or other regulatory measures, the implementation of standards, or which coordinate activities or communications. They cover a wide range of areas such as: • point-of-sale nutrition information • health star rating advisory committee – formerly ‘front-of-pack labelling’ • health nutrition and related claims • food safety management
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 16
• food incident response • food medicine interface • government food communications • food regulation surveillance and monitoring • food analysis expert advice.
See Appendix 13 for further details of food related committees.
Victoria's food industry
At the heart of Victoria’s food industry are some of the highest food safety standards in the world, reflecting the strong track record of government and business working in partnership.
Victoria’s food industry continues to grow both domestically and internationally. It is a major employer of a highly-skilled workforce. The state enjoys superior infrastructure, a reliable and efficient transport network and strong research and development credentials. The state’s food manufacturing sector is worth around $84.9 billion each year (Figure 2).3 Food processing is a high-value manufacturing industry which enables local value-adding to agricultural production in the state. The corresponding figure for food retailing is $141.4 billion and for the restaurant, café and bar sector, $43.9 billion. Victoria exports food to more than 100 countries worldwide. Food exports total $31.8 billion per year, making Victoria the largest exporter of food and beverages in Australia. Major export markets include New Zealand, Japan, China, USA, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Middle East, South Korea and the United Kingdom. In 2014 Victoria conducted the largest ever trade missions from Australia. Over 200 leading Victorian companies along with senior State Government Ministers visited China, the Middle East, Turkey and India to explore new trade and investment opportunities as part of two major trade missions. This created new opportunities for Victorian food and beverage businesses to access emerging markets. Figure 2 presents a simplified description and approximate output values of the food sector regulated under Victoria’s Act.
Figure 2: Food sector regulated under the Act, Victoria4
3 Department of Agriculture 2014, Australian food statistics 2012-2013, CCBY 3.0
4 ibid
Page 17 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Food safety regulation in Victoria
The Victorian Food Act 1984 provides the regulatory framework to ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe, suitable and correctly labelled. It applies to food manufacturers and retailers, cafés and restaurants, as well as premises that serve food to vulnerable population groups such as hospitals and kindergartens.
Food premises Victoria’s 79 councils have responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of the majority of food businesses in the state (except for meat, seafood and dairy retailers, which are regulated by specialised regulators under their own industry-specific Acts). Councils regulate food businesses primarily though registration of premises, monitoring compliance, providing education and advice, and taking enforcement action where necessary. The Act establishes offences for the sale of unsafe food. Under the Act, food businesses must register with councils, be regularly monitored and ensure staff are adequately trained. Some premises must also prepare food safety programs5 that identify relevant food safety hazards and the steps that will be taken to address potential hazards. The Act adopts a proportionate approach. The nature of a food, together with the way it is handled and the susceptibility to illness of those eating it, determines the degree of risk. Based on these factors, four classes of food premises are established under the 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. The Act also governs some areas of primary production. For example, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries 6 has a key role in regulating egg production. All the regulators have legislative powers to address noncompliance though enforcement action. If these routine powers prove to be insufficient to address any serious danger to public health from food, the Act enables additional steps to be taken by the Department of Health. For example, the Chief Health Officer may recall unsafe food from the marketplace.
Victorian food regulator collaboration The Victorian Food Regulators’ Forum oversees a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Victorian agencies involved in food safety administration and enforcement. The MOU clarifies the roles, responsibilities and arrangements for cooperation between Victoria’s food regulators, including data sharing and referrals. Its overall aims are to ensure food safety and protect public health by strengthening collaboration. The parties to the MOU in 2014 were: • Department of Health • Municipal Association of Victoria (representing councils) • Dairy Food Safety • PrimeSafe Victoria (meat and seafood).
5 This applies only to food premises conducting higher risk food handling activities, that is, class 1 and 2.
6 Now the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 18
Year in review
From principles to practice It is seven years since a Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) inquiry recommended a major overhaul of food safety regulation in this state.7 In that time an enormous amount has been achieved in translating the principles and recommendations contained in the VCEC report into practice. In addition, a range of new, non-statutory tools and programs are promoting learning and information-sharing within the food regulatory system and helping to build public confidence in the quality and the integrity of the process. While the work is ongoing, the result to date is a sound food regulatory system which is broadly accepted and better able to achieve its intended policy objectives and encourage food industry innovation. The state’s regulatory instruments are commensurate with the food safety problems they seek to address and are designed to target businesses in which risks to public health and safety are highest.
Simplifying the menu – VCEC milestones met A perception of over-regulation, especially of small business and the not-for-profit sector, prompted the VCEC inquiry into food regulation. Other ‘hot button’ issues included inconsistency of regulatory approach, capacity and commitment among councils, ‘naming and shaming’ of poor performing food businesses and food labelling. The VCEC found that the food regulatory system was working well but could be improved. In response to VCEC’s recommendations, a major work program through 200814 has resulted in changes to food regulatory policy and the Act, a new model of partnership among food regulators, a new data collection and automated reporting systems, and a wide range of non-regulatory programs and resources to support the regulatory system. Of the 34 VCEC recommendations applicable to the department, the Government accepted 19 in full and 13 in principle or in part. The remaining two were not supported.8 The first step towards implementing the VCEC reforms was to amend the Act to ensure the statutory framework governing food regulation was sound. This involved preparation of the Food Amendment (Regulation Reform) Bill 2009. Following an extensive public consultation processes, the amended Act passed through the Victorian Parliament with bi-partisan support and took effect from July 2010.
New departmental responsibilities and resources By the end of 2014, the six recommendations with end dates had been implemented.9 Twenty-seven recommendations related to departmental responsibilities and included a range of new functions. Initiatives implemented to address these are summarised in Table 2.10
7 Op cit. Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
8 Recommendation 8.8, 9.3.
9 Recommendations 8.5, 8.6, 8.11, 10.1, 10.2, 12.3.
10 Recommendations 8.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.10, 9.2, 9.6, 9.8, 10.3, 10.4, 11.2, 12.3.
Page 19 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Table 2: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission recommendations implemented
Area Implementation Governance • Participating in the Committee of Victorian Food Regulators and entering a Memorandum of Understanding with co-food regulators, Dairy Food Safety
Victoria, PrimeSafe and the Municipal Association of Victoria. Performance • Establishing and managing a food dataset and database to monitor local monitoring government performance in relation to their obligations under the Act. and • Publishing annual reports on registrations and compliance and enforcement accountability activity under the Act. • Developing and maintaining a register of convictions under the Act that is accessible to the public on the Food Safety and Regulation Unit website. Risk • Managing new food sampling arrangements (via government gazettal every two management years) under which local governments target surveillance to areas of risk. • Monitoring pathogens in foods based on regular reporting by laboratory-based food analysts. • Preparing risk assessment and enforcement guidelines for councils, as well as new enforcement tools – such as infringement notices – and training the council workforce to apply them consistently. • Developing food safety assessment and inspection guidelines for councils and training EHOs on conducting risk-based inspections. • Conducting and/or commissioning research to generate evidence to inform (or amend) policy and regulatory interventions. • Developing and managing a single registration/notification system (the online Streatrader system) for temporary and mobile food premises. • Registering drinking water carters. Professional • Training council officers on food sampling and improving data collection via development paper-based systems and an online app.
Science- A range of recommendations have been implemented11 which affirm or expand the based risk roles and functions of the department in relation to: assessment • encouraging a risk-based approach to Act enforcement by councils across Victoria in which sanctions are proportionate to food safety risk • streamlining and improving flexibility for medium and low-risk food businesses in how they achieve compliance with their Act obligations (through guidelines, updated FSP templates and improved information) • improving the food business audit system for high-risk businesses through annual auditor forums and increased scrutiny of auditor performance • improving food safety and regulatory information for food businesses • providing more guidance and advice for local government on performance issues • instigating programs to improve food handler and consumer food safety awareness, knowledge and practice.
Shared responsibilities Our food safety regulatory system is the shared responsibility of local, state and national governments. A number of VCEC recommendations related to Victoria’s participation in key national
11 Recommendations 8.1, 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 10.1, 10.2.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 20 fora that operate under the Food Regulation Agreement to which the Victorian Premier is a signatory, that is, the FoFR, the FRSC and the ISFR.
Red tape reduction As the Victorian Government was already seeking to reduce the regulatory burden for business and not-for-profit organisations, VCEC examined ways to streamline regulatory requirements and encourage innovation without jeopardising food safety. It proposed that regulatory effort be focused on higher-risk activities (such as serving food to vulnerable groups), while lightening the administrative burden for lower-risk activities (such as community events involving food) and improving monitoring and analysis to identify and target problem areas. The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit achieved a saving for businesses of $19 million as a first round of red tape reduction, mostly through simplifying its FSP template for class 2 food service and retail businesses. The department provided the new template (Version 2) at no cost to approximately 30,000 Victorian food businesses during the 2010/11 financial year. From July 2014 further savings have been achieved by streamlining the record-keeping requirements in the template for these businesses (Version 3). It is estimated that the savings for businesses from this initiative amount to $32 million.
What’s next? While Victoria’s food regulatory framework already works well, it can be further improved through well- managed innovation and productive working relationships between regulators and the regulated food sector. Like all food authorities, the department faces the ongoing challenge of making best use of finite resources. With major reforms in place and bedding down, the department will evaluate and prioritise its food safety functions and programs in 2015. Its statutory functions will remain a priority while innovative ways to continue programs – such as evidence for policy, professional development for local government EHOs and information for businesses and the community/not-for-profit sector – will be sought. The overriding priority will always be protecting public health and safety. To access the VCEC inquiry report and the Victorian Government response, go to the Completed Inquiries page at:
Risk management matters
A risk-based approach to food safety regulation
In a risk-based approach to food safety regulation, EHOs focus on the risks associated with businesses’ noncompliance with food laws, rather than on the legal ‘rules’ in isolation.
This approach allows council officers to tailor their compliance and enforcement actions in proportion to risk to public health and safety. Typically, more severe sanctions would be used to address situations where the risks associated with noncompliance are highest. Conversely, a lighter touch, perhaps only advice on how to fix the problem, would be justified where the risk is relatively low.
Page 21 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
In consultation with councils, the department has developed a risk-based compliance assessment guide and training syllabus for council EHOs. A guide to enforcement options available under the Act is being drafted concurrently. This decision tool is designed to assist council officers to select the most appropriate sanction to address specific noncompliances in proportion to food safety risks.
Stable, predictable regulation There are many benefits that arise from councils regulating food businesses at the point where food is sold. Inconsistency of local government approaches to compliance and enforcement in relation to food businesses in like circumstances, however, has been a recurrent theme of successive audits of Victoria’s food regulatory system since 2002. When the VCEC inquiry examined this issue in 2006,12 it echoed the need for greater consistency and for regulation to be aligned to the level of food safety risk. For example, the report noted that officers from the same council had sometimes issued conflicting compliance instructions to the same business. Not surprisingly, VCEC recommended that the department provide guidance for councils on ways to achieve a consistent approach to assessment of food premises’ compliance with food law.13 Action on this recommendation required amendment of the Act to give the department a new statutory role of providing guidance to councils. When the amended Act came into effect, the department began work to bring coherence and consistency to the way food premises’ compliance is achieved across the state. In Victoria’s devolved food regulatory system, each of 79 local councils has responsibility for administering the Act in its municipality. As such, effective communication is essential. Throughout 2014 a working group comprising members of the Environmental Health Professionals Australia Food Special Interest Group assisted the department to scope a project to ensure that communication across councils was consistent. Subsequent consultation with all councils focused on current practice and identifying principles, approaches and mechanisms that could promote consistent application and enforcement of the Act and the national Food Safety Standards.
The challenges Food laws have traditionally consisted of legal definitions of unsafe food, prescriptive enforcement tools for removing such food from markets and penalties for those responsible. In Victoria, as elsewhere, food laws have generally not provided food regulators with a clear mandate and authority to prevent food safety problems. For food businesses operators, especially owner operators working long hours, the challenge of food safety is that it is time consuming. As a result, it is tempting to focus on ‘keeping the Council happy’ rather than on proactively controlling food safety risks within the business. The traditional approach has involved checking each business against a detailed set of legislative ‘rules’ and ranking all items – low and high-risk – on a par. The volume of activity is significant – in 2014 council officers and approved food safety auditors conducted 56,223 compliance checks at food premises across the state. However, the focus of inspections has not necessarily been on the activities and food safety controls necessary to prevent food-borne illness. In Victoria, as in similar jurisdictions, it is increasingly apparent that this approach does not focus sufficiently on the severity of food safety risks posed by noncompliant businesses. Nor does it guide
12 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2007, Simplifying the menu: food regulation in Victoria, final report, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. 13 Ibid. Recommendation 9.1, p209.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 22 decision making on sanctions which are appropriate to the level of risk, or which are likely to be effective.
New risk- and outcomes-based framework Work in 2014 focused on developing a draft compliance assessment guide and a training syllabus to assist councils. The guide will offer practical advice on applying a risk- and outcomes-based approach across a wide range of food businesses. New or updated online tools have also been prepared. These include a food atlas of the risk profiles of non-traditional foods, a library on food-related outbreaks, a typology of premises and food handling activities associated with food pathogens, and a guide to common noncompliances against each of the Food Safety Standards in order of severity.
Enforcement hierarchy Concurrently, the department is developing a guide for councils on the enforcement options available under the Act. The guide will provide a sophisticated, yet user-friendly decision-making framework for EHOs dealing with Act noncompliances. For example, when officers have identified and assessed the risks associated with a noncompliance, the guide will assist them to select the most appropriate enforcement tool which is in proportion to the specific breach. For example, if the likelihood that food will be contaminated is low, the framework will recommend low-level sanctions, such as advice or a warning. Conversely, where a breach poses an immediate or serious public health risk, a high-level sanction, such as seizure of food or temporary closure of the premises, will be recommended. The enforcement framework will also include model templates for Act orders and notices designed to achieve further consistency across councils.
Changing practice Moving to a risk-based approach means shifting the focus of inspections and assessments to evaluating how well proprietors are managing the food safety risks relevant to their businesses. The amended Act gave council officers greater discretion to deal with food businesses in breach of food law. It also gave businesses more flexibility in how they meet their obligations. As businesses increasingly expect a similar approach to food regulation by councils across the state, this poses a new challenge for local governments and the department. Cultural change will be needed at all levels to end fragmentation and inconsistency and to build an effective system. This will require collaboration and openness between the department and councils and cooperation among council officers across council boundaries.
Glen Eira City Council risk management: Leading change in risk based compliance One council which has fundamentally shifted its thinking and practice on food safety risk is Glen Eira City Council. When the VCEC report into food safety regulation was published, this council saw the opportunity to improve the way it conducts food safety assessments. In common with other councils, its approach has traditionally been compliance focused rather than risk-based. This involved officers assessing 60 compliance items which were all weighted equally. Each item was scored as 0, 1 or 2 depending on the level of compliance. Proprietors were given limited guidance on food safety priorities and these varied from officer to officer. As items were not weighted in proportion to risk, Glen Eira City Council realised that assessment results were not always a true representation of public health risk. For example, many lowly-rated businesses were not high risk, and it was possible for a high-risk business to achieve a
Page 23 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety relatively high compliance rating. As a result, council resources were not necessarily being allocated to areas of highest risk. Most aspects of the process were managed at environmental health officer discretion, including the inspection schedule, follow up inspections and sampling. Similarly, sanctions were largely based on the officer’s and/or manager’s discretion and were applied on a case-by-case basis without a clear procedure. Over six years, the Glen Eira City Council has made substantial investments in personnel, processes and technology to help mitigate and control food safety risks in local businesses. Work began in 2008 with a number of team meetings and workshops to encourage staff to thinking differently and gradually evolved into the leading practice regime that exists today. The risk-based approach to assessment now in place at Glen Eira features: • a validated risk assessment tool incorporating a risk matrix • a colour-coded results template for proprietors which makes it clear which processes pose greatest risk to public health and enables businesses to prioritise their efforts and resources • a hierarchy of sanctions based on the level of risk within a business.
Council’s approach and supporting tools are flexible enough to account for individual business’ circumstances and to support the work of their highly qualified EHOs. The new approach helps ensure that serious risks are identified and mitigated immediately. Glen Eira City Council is also less reliant on infringement notices and prosecutions to enforce food laws.
What is done differently? The approach is based on assessment of the food process steps specific to each business. It is rooted in HACCP and internationally accepted risk management principles, and takes into account the likelihood and consequences of microbiological, chemical and/or physical contamination. At the completion of each compliance assessment visit, council officers provide each premises with a robust, quantitative assessment of risk management at the business and a compliance ‘score’ (which enables comparisons over time). Each premises is assigned an overall risk rating of ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ and officers use a purpose-designed risk management tool to prioritise monitoring of premises based on these outcomes.
Food safety in the stars The approach also features a range of financial and promotional incentives to encourage best practice. Food businesses that achieve a low-risk ‘5-star’ food safety rating based on their assessment results receive certificates for display at the premises, discounted council registration fees, publicity on the council’s website and phone app and recognition of their achievements through council’s annual Food Business Awards ceremony. To assess the impact of its risk management approach and tools, council routinely audits a sample of class 1 and 2 businesses and has seen a pleasing shift in businesses’ risk scores. A range of initiatives is also in place to ensure the system is fair and transparent, treats local businesses consistently and that EHOs are accountable for their decisions. Also in place is a procedure manual, a peer review process, monthly review of a sample of food safety assessments and an independent appeals and review procedure for businesses. Glen Eira’s model was presented by officers at an international food safety conference in 2011 and more recently to representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration during their 2014 visit to Victoria.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 24
To err is ‘normal’: Hobsons Bay City Council’s study of noncompliance Research commissioned by Hobsons Bay City Council in 2014 found that the key reason for Act noncompliance by some class 2 food premises was that proprietors regard Orders that are issued following an inspection as a ‘normal’ outcome of the inspection process when, in fact, they are formal written directions to remedy breaches of the Act. To explore and understand proprietors’ motivations and experiences in relation to Act compliance, in- depth interviews were conducted with managers and chefs at 12 noncompliant premises, including a bakery, take-away outlets, cafés and restaurants. The study found that participants believed they had sufficient working knowledge of the Act, however their knowledge appeared to be anecdotal rather than specific. Food safety was considered to be largely ‘common sense’ and the ability to recite the specific requirements of the Act was seen as neither useful nor necessary. The three key factors underpinning noncompliance with the Act among study participants were identified as: • Gap in perceptions of noncompliance: Proprietors saw infringement notices issued by Council as part of a process preceding escalation, rather than as a failure. They frequently viewed feedback provided by Council in Act orders as trivial, for example, the need to clean non-food handling areas. • Lack of motivation: While Council was motivated to reduce infringements, proprietors saw receiving Act orders as part of the normal process of infringement and had little motivation to avoid them. Proprietors were, however motivated to handle food safely at their premises. • Discontinuity: Proprietors viewed the compliance regime as a series of disconnected inspections and orders, rather than as a system that promotes learning and continuous improvement. They also perceived a lack of consistency in inspection standards from one occasion and one officer to the next.
Council has applied the conclusions of this small, qualitative study by aligning its communications with proprietors with the study findings. It is working to increase proprietor motivation to comply through more systemic monitoring of points of failure at premises and better support systems. It has revised its framework of inspection outcomes for various categories of noncompliance so that, following inspections, EHOs score premises against a standard scale which corresponds with a hierarchy of follow-up actions and sanctions. For example, a compliance score of 7482 out of 100 means a premises is noncompliant and will receive an Act order with an additional onsite follow-up visit within three months. To facilitate an appropriate change in behaviour, Council’s team leader allocates a client manager – an environmental health officer with the appropriate experience and skill set – to all major/critical noncompliant premises for 1218 months. The additional assistance has raised premises’ level of compliance and increased understanding of their Act obligations. Once compliant, premises return to a general pool and are randomly allocated an environmental health officer to complete the annual compliance check. In accordance with Council’s internal audit recommendation, compliant premises are allocated to a different environmental health officer at intervals of not less than two years. Council will continue to monitor changes in proprietor attitudes and rates of noncompliance over time and adjust its compliance program accordingly.
Page 25 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Managing food safety: a new template
Food safety programs
Under the Act, high-risk food businesses operating in Victoria (class 1 and 2) must have a food safety program. Food safety programs document what food businesses will do to ensure their food is safe for human consumption. FSPs are intended to protect public health by helping businesses meet and maintain safe food handling practices.
A standard FSP is prepared using a template that is registered with the department. This is a more straightforward and inexpensive approach for businesses compared to employing someone to prepare an independent FSP tailored specifically to the business.
Cafés and restaurants are enjoying simpler record-keeping requirements and an updated FSP template. The department released an updated FSP template for class 2 retail and food service business in June 2014. The template has been thoroughly overhauled following consultations with businesses and councils. The template is now easier to use and includes important new information, including advice on allergies and labelling, and handling raw eggs and raw egg products. Information on handling food safely has been improved and up-to-date information for food vans and stalls included. Review of the template was partly prompted by the introduction of shorter, simpler record-keeping requirements for class 2 businesses which were introduced as part of a government commitment to reducing regulatory burden for businesses. The updated template is suitable for all retail and food service class 2 premises, including cafés and restaurants. Businesses with related class 2 activities, for example at a premises and off-site, can now use the template for all their class 2 activities. For example, it can be used where a restaurant also provides off-site catering or prepares food at a fixed site and sells it from a market stall. The FSP template for class 2 retail and food service businesses no.1, version 3 can be downloaded at no cost or purchased in hard copy. For more details, go to the Food Safety section of the department’s website at:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 26
Working together
Collaboration between regulators and cooperative relationships with the food industry are vital for food safety advancement. A consumer-focused, science-based approach to food safety recognises that no single agency is as effective as our combined efforts.
Shared responsibility Ensuring a safe food supply for consumers is a top priority for Victoria. However, increasingly complex global food production and trade arrangements make this a challenging task. Victoria was an active participant in national, state and local fora concerned with developing and maintaining effective, modern food control systems throughout 2014. Food safety is a complex policy area that involves both public and private sector incentives and controls. This means that management of food safety risk must encompass a mix of private and public responsibility.
Regulators Under Australia’s food regulatory framework, responsibilities are devolved to a range of co-regulators and agencies.14 Together, national, state and local governments provide policy, regulation and oversight. While each has a clearly defined role and mandate, working effectively together to integrate activities and manage issues which intersect their respective responsibilities is an integral part of protecting consumers both within and outside Victoria. Furthermore, working together on specific issues provides a way of learning from each other and sharing resources. The newly gazetted Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims is an example of regulators working together for better public health outcomes.
Private sector The private sector is responsible for ensuring the food it produces is safe and suitable for consumption. The market responds to the public regulatory system, for example, by finding ways to comply efficiently. Industry can also choose to exceed safety-related regulatory requirements to improve shelf life or gain reputational and competitive advantage.
Food labelling on health claims to become law
Food labelling and the Code The Code regulates nutrition and health claims on food labels and in advertising. In January 2013, this standard became binding and obliges food businesses to back their claims with credible scientific evidence. Food businesses were given a three-year transition period to ensure that all foods sold complies with the new regulations. From January 2016 food businesses wishing to make voluntary claims must comply with the new standard.
Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims of the Code is designed to ensure that claims made on food labels or in advertising are true and scientifically substantiated.
14 See the section titled ‘Food safety regulation in Victoria’ for details.
Page 27 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
The new food labelling standard covers claims referring to nutrient content, nutrient function, enhanced function, and reduction of disease risk and maintenance of normal health. Strict criteria for making a claim are set out in the standard. • Nutrition content claims are associated with specific nutrients within the food, for example ‘low in fat’ or ‘gluten free’. Permitted nutrition content claims are listed in the standard, however foods may need to meet certain conditions in order to make specific nutrition content claims. • Health claims link particular nutrients or substances in foods with effects on health (for example ‘calcium for strong bones’), to serious disease (‘a diet high in calcium for persons over 65 may reduce the risk of osteoporosis’), or to biomarkers of serious disease (‘phytosterols may reduce blood cholesterol’). In order to make health claims, most foods must meet specific criteria based on a calculation associated with their composition.
The new standard is intended to give consumers confidence that nutrition or health claims are backed by credible scientific evidence. The standard should also assist consumers to understand the health benefits of nutrients in foods and to decide which products are suitable for them. Food businesses will be able to use the new health and nutrition claims permissions to promote their products to their best advantage. The new standard is also expected to support the development of innovative foods for health. Health claims will only be permitted if they have been pre-approved by FSANZ and subsequently listed in the Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard, or have been substantiated by food businesses according to requirements within the standard. To ensure that foods high in saturated fat, sugar or salt do not make health claims, they will only be permitted on foods that meet qualifying criteria. To access Standard 1.2.7 – Nutrition, Health and Related Claims of the Code go to the Australian Government ComLaw website, which can be found at:
Industry guidance for compliance Food regulation authorities in Australia and New Zealand worked together through the ISFR to develop strategies to achieve a consistent approach in the way the standard is implemented, interpreted and enforced across jurisdictions. ISFR has also produced a guidance document to assist food businesses in complying with the standard.
Working with co-regulator PrimeSafe
Combating listeriosis
About listeria Listeriosis – a serious infection caused by eating food contaminated by the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes – is an important public health problem in Australia. The disease primarily affects older adults, pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. It is uncommon but can be fatal in these groups. While the risk may be reduced by safe food preparation, processing, consumption, and storage, the bacteria are notoriously hard to eliminate and can live in food processing plants for many years, including at refrigeration temperatures.
The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit worked with PrimeSafe – the regulatory body responsible for meat and seafood – to deliver PrimeSafe’s first workshop program outlining the changes to Standard 1.6.1 of the Code for Listeria monocytogenes.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 28
This standard specifies the microbiological food safety criteria which determine the acceptability of food for sale. In this case, the criteria for Listeria monocytogenes limits in ready-to-eat foods were updated to take into account changes to the primary production and processing requirements for raw milk products reported on in last year’s report. In 2014 the department delivered two workshops for Victorian meat industry representatives in Melbourne (in Attwood and South Melbourne). The Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s presentation covered the symptoms of listeriosis, the susceptibility to infection of different vulnerable groups, the science behind the new standard and data on notifications of food in which this pathogen is detected. The presentations also included a discussion of the food safety monitoring and surveillance activities undertaken by local government officers in collaboration with the department. These activities provided good evidence of the safety of the food available to Victorian consumers and helped identify potential compliance problems that would benefit from a coordinated response. The variation to Standard 1.6.1 will take effect in February 2015.15
Seafood supply chain food safety risks In 2014 PrimeSafe examined food safety risks through the various seafood supply chains for Victorian seafood. This was in response to the findings of the Rural and Regional Parliamentary Committee inquiry into food safety. The department contributed to this review to assist PrimeSafe ensure that regulatory responses in this sector are reasonable and proportionate to risk.
Working with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and local councils
Every egg stamped to trace Salmonella A national Primary Production and Processing Standard for Eggs and Egg Product was endorsed by FoFR and came into force in November 2012.16 The standard covers all on-farm and processing activities involved in the production of eggs for human consumption. It aims to reduce food safety hazards associated with the primary production and processing (pulping) of eggs for sale. One of its requirements is for producers to stamp individual eggs with a unique identifier so they can be traced back to the place of production in the event of a food poisoning outbreak. Egg stamping has advantages for consumers, retailers and producers. If there is a food safety, or any other quality problem, the source of the eggs can be quickly traced and the problem addressed at the source. This avoids many farms being involved in a possible recall until the problem eggs are traced.
Assistance to comply The new requirements cover chicken, duck and quail eggs produced for human consumption and all egg producers from large scale commercial to small ‘home’ producers. In recognition of the time needed by the egg industry to plan and purchase egg-stamping equipment, a two-year exemption was made for all Victorian chicken egg producers at the time the new standard came into effect. A two-year exemption was also made for egg retailers, exempting them from the requirement to sell only stamped eggs.
15 Standard 1.6.1 Food Standards as amended, taking into account amendments up to Food Standards (Proposal P1022 – Primary Production and Processing Requirements for Raw Milk Products) Variation is accessible at
16 Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2011), Regulation Impact Statement Proposal P301, Primary Production and Processing Standard for Eggs and Egg Products.
Page 29 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Both of these exemptions expired in November 2014 and stamping of chicken eggs is now compulsory. Ongoing exemptions remain in place for quail and duck eggs, due to the impracticability of stamping in these situations, and for chicken egg producers with less than 50 chickens.
Egg stamping takes effect Since November 2014, eggs eaten by Victorians have been individually stamped so they can be quickly traced to their source in the event of a food poisoning outbreak. The Department of Health, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries 17 and local councils have worked together to bring this innovation about.
Eggs and salmonella risk
Some cases of salmonella infections and occasional outbreaks of illness have been linked to the consumption of foods containing raw or lightly cooked eggs, or cross-contamination from eggs.
Eggs are a highly nutritious everyday food, but like meat, seafood and dairy products, they have the potential to be hazardous. To reduce the risk of illness, particular care must be taken in the production and processing of eggs and egg products, and when handling them at home or in food businesses, such as cafés and restaurants.
The Department of Environment and Primary Industries, issues egg producers with an egg stamp code that becomes their ‘unique identifier’ and provides guidance for small and large egg producers and egg processors. These materials are available on the Agriculture Victoria website at:
Food businesses’ information needs Fine Food Australia is a trade-only event for the food service, hospitality and retail sectors. It is the largest trade show of its kind in Australia and hosted more than 1,000 food, drink and equipment exhibitors at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre in September 2014. In excess of 27,600 industry professionals attended the four-day show. The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit exhibited at the show to promote food safety messages and collect data from attendees via a quick survey. More than 2,760 attendees completed the survey which gave the department valuable information about how food businesses access food safety information, the format in which they prefer to receive information, and they types of information they are interested in receiving.
Survey respondent profile Among respondents to the survey: • 81 per cent were from Victoria • 25 per cent were from the café/restaurant industry, followed by manufacturing (15 per cent) and catering (13 per cent) • 22 per cent had worked in the food industry for 20 years or more (19 per cent for 6–10 years; 16 per cent for 3–5 years)
17 From November 2014, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries became part of the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 30
• 25 per cent had held one job in the food industry (24 per cent had held two jobs; 19 per cent had six or more jobs) • 63 per cent had visited the department’s food safety website.
Business preferences The survey asked where business operators obtain food safety information. Similar numbers nominated local governments and the Department of Health (34 per cent), while 17 per cent mentioned industry associations. The majority (60 per cent) indicated they would prefer to receive information and updates from government via email, while 20 per cent preferred printed newsletters. Their preferred topics were: • food safety issues (39 per cent) • allergens (17 per cent) • causes of foodborne illness (16 per cent) • cleaning (14 per cent).
The majority of respondents (67 per cent) preferred to receive food safety information in English, followed by Cantonese (23 per cent) and Mandarin (4 per cent). Respondents were also asked what contributes to effective food safety systems in their businesses. The four most common responses were staff training and education; compliance with guidelines, regulations and food safety procedures; a knowledgeable, experienced team; and access to food safety information that is easy to understand and implement. The department and councils will draw on the findings of the survey to update their food safety advice and resources for food business operators.
New version of the Code
The Code The Australia New Zealand food standards system is a cooperative arrangement between the two countries to develop and implement uniform food standards. The Code took effect in 2002 and has enabled innovation in the manufacturing of new food products while ensuring that necessary information is provided for consumers.
The Code sets the standards for food labelling and composition, food safety and hygiene standards, fit-out of food premises as well as primary production standards for all states and territories throughout Australia and New Zealand. The Act requires compliance with the Code and significant penalties apply for noncompliance.
The revised Code is intended to provide greater clarity and certainty to food businesses and enforcement agencies by interacting more effectively with the offence provisions of the state and territory food Acts and reducing uncertainty about the permissions to add substances to food that are in the current code.
Public consultations on the legislative review of the Code in 2013–2014 culminated in the FSANZ Board approving the proposed variation in December 2014. The variation now requires only FoFR approval and gazettal to become law. If endorsed, the revised Code will not change current
Page 31 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety requirements but will restate them to provide greater clarity and certainty to food businesses and enforcement agencies. This should further enhance confidence in the food regulatory system.
Why the Code was revised An audit of the legal efficacy of the Code was conducted following a decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2008 (the Nutricia case).18 The decision in the case questioned the legal efficacy of the Code and highlighted a number of inconsistencies in its enforcement and the application. The audit prompted FSANZ to prepare Proposal P1025 and a revised draft of the Code to address these issues. The intention was that the Code interacts more effectively with the offence provisions of the state and territory food Acts. Following lengthy consultations in 2013 and 2014, Victoria was satisfied that the final proposal addressed the identified issues. The principal changes will include: • a clearer statement of the requirements of the Code; to interact with offence provisions that rely on compliance with such requirements • revised provisions relating to the addition of food additives, processing aids and nutritive substances; to establish an objectively enforceable requirement • revised compositional requirements; to reduce uncertainty about the permissions to add substances to food that are in the current Code • a dictionary of defined terms; to facilitate navigation in the Code.
The review and the consultation also identified other areas of the Code in need of review. These require policy consideration outside the scope of the Proposal P1025 and FSANZ has committed to working with the jurisdictions to prioritise ongoing Code reform. Proposal P1025 can be accessed on the FSANZ website. Go to:
New EHOs welcomed The department offered its annual orientation for local government EHOs (EHOs) in March 2014. This annual event aims to bring officers up to speed with their legislative responsibilities and provides an opportunity to build positive relationships with colleagues in state government roles. The EHO role is diverse and demanding. It covers infectious disease prevention, safe water and air, tobacco reforms, emergency and incident management as well as food safety. Forty-six council officers – a mix of new employees, officers returning to work after extended leave, administrative staff and students – attended the March session, one day of which focused on food safety. The food safety workshop delivered an overview of the food regulatory system and briefed officers on key aspects of their roles in registering food premises, assessing food safety hazards and risks to confirm compliance with the Act, undertaking investigations and directing remedial action, enforcing legal requirements and prosecuting legal cases. The session also covered Streatrader – the department’s online registration system for temporary and mobile food premises – as well as councils’ reporting obligations in relation to their Act activities. Attendees reported that the session gave them a deeper understanding of what is required under the Act. They valued the chance to ‘compare notes’ with peers from other councils and the ample time allowed for questions and discussion.
18 Christine Tumney (NSW Food Authority) v Nutricia Australia Limited [2008] NSWSC 1382.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 32
While the department’s secure website for council officers contains a host of useful information, the orientation was a good way to welcome new and returning staff to their roles and to build relationships face-to-face.
Low-risk food safety technicians graduate Twenty-two low-risk food safety technicians graduating from the Certificate IV in Local Government (Health and Environment) at Swinburne University attended a graduation ceremony in Melbourne in March 2014. Their certificates were presented by the Manager of the department’s Food Safety Systems and Program Development team. The certificate course was developed to train existing council employees to assist EHOs in conducting low-risk work and to free up EHOs to focus on higher-risk activities at council. The course also offers a pathway for graduates who wish to pursue a university degree in environmental health at Swinburne University.
Building a good prosecution case Food business operators convicted of breaching the Act are criminally liable. Where lesser enforcement efforts cannot remedy serious threats to public health, local councils have recourse through the courts as the option of last resort. In 2014 convictions were recorded against 26 companies or individuals in relation to 25 food premises. However, prosecutions are time-consuming and expensive for councils and it is important that cases do not fail due to avoidable procedural defects. Twenty EHOs participated in the Environmental Health Professional Legal Course run by the Environmental Health Professionals Australia and the Department of Health in March 2014. The course was offered for the first time in 2012. It trains participants in investigations and administrative law as well as in managing prosecutions (including gathering evidence), recommending legal action, preparing briefs of evidence and presenting evidence in court. The basis of the prosecution is often bacterial or other contamination of a food sample detected at analysis. Successful prosecution typically hinges on a demonstrably unbroken chain of custody in relation to a contaminated sample and ensuring that all evidence is admissible in court. As such, councils must be sure that all procedures – from sample receipt to sample preparation to sample analysis – have been carried out correctly, and that the analyst will be able to withstand cross- examination. The March course delivered a refresher to EHOs on these aspects of practice and procedure. Participant feedback on the course was overwhelmingly positive, with officers reporting greater confidence in their ability to mount successful prosecutions for serious breaches of the Act. The highlight for many was visiting the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court to witness a range of prosecutions and practice their skills in a mock court scenario.
Local Government Food Safety Forum The department’s annual Local Government Food Safety Forum, which took place on the 910 September 2014 at the Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre, attracted a record 300 attendees from councils across Victoria. This year’s forum covered a broad range of topical food safety issues. Highlights included a case study from the City of Whittlesea on its investigation and response in relation to undeclared allergens in food, and a City of Glen Eira presentation on its risk-based approach to food business compliance assessment.
Page 33 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
The forum also provided an opportunity to meet the new Chief Executive Officers of Dairy Food Safety Victoria (Ms Jennifer McDonald) and PrimeSafe (Dr Brendan Tatham), who recently took up their roles regulating dairy foods and meat and seafood, respectively.
Food safety auditor training
About the national auditor scheme Food safety audits, which check the adequacy of class 1 and class 2 premises’ independent food safety programs and whether they are following all parts of their programs, are fundamental to the food safety system. The national auditor scheme responds to complex food technologies, such as cook-chill and heat treatment, which pose new food safety challenges. There are now four levels of auditor certification and auditors who wish to audit complex high-risk processes must demonstrate additional competencies. The system also streamlines mutual recognition of food safety auditor approvals across states and territories.
Background to changes In December 2003, when the states and territories decided to require mandatory food safety programs in certain high-risk sectors, all agreed that national criteria for determining whether a person was competent to undertake food safety audits was of particular importance. The (then) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry project managed the development of the National Food Safety Auditor (NFSA) scheme. Four levels of auditor certification with additional specific high-risk scopes for processes such as cook-chill and heat treatment were developed and are set out in the NFSA Guideline. The highest is Level 4 for high-risk businesses and all jurisdictions agreed that the minimum requirement for audits should be Level 4. These requirements were finalised in 2004 which allowed time for development of a policy framework and national guidelines for the management and approval of regulatory food safety auditors. The National Food Safety Audit Policy was endorsed by the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in October 2006. The National Regulatory Food Safety Auditor Guideline was developed by the ISFR Committee to support the policy (membership of ISFR comprises all Australian state/territory and New Zealand regulators). The Ministerial Council endorsed a five-year period from October 2006 for the new scheme to be fully implemented. Victoria has a larger auditor workforce than other jurisdictions and the majority of auditors working in the state did not meet the new NFSA minimum qualifications of a Certificate IV in Food Science or equivalent. As such, Victorian auditors were given until April 2014 to upgrade their qualifications. The department has also removed the mandatory requirement for Exemplar Global certification for NFSA Level 4 auditors. Provided applicants can supply the department with the required documentation, they can be approved as auditors under the Victorian Act. This change reflects the intent of the NFSA scheme that an applicant can directly demonstrate whether they are competent to audit utilising the national training framework. Queensland has also taken this approach. By 2014 all food safety auditors working in Victoria had achieved certification under the Act by demonstrating the skills, knowledge and behaviours set out in new national competency standards. The national auditor policy and guideline can be accessed on the Commonwealth Department of Health website. Go to:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 34
For further details of the department’s food safety auditor approval requirements and the Handbook for approved food safety auditors, April 2013, go to the department’s food safety website at:
Page 35 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Innovation
Digital advances
Victoria, a leader in food regulation, science and innovation for the last 150 years, set the trend in the digital environment in 2014 with a suite of new interactive online compliance tools.
More than 150 years ago, the Colony of Victoria passed Australia’s first food act – the Act to prevent the Adulteration of Articles of Food and Drink 1863. Since then, scientific and medical advances have transformed our approach to food regulation. Food regulators have taken on new responsibilities and play a critical role in promoting and protecting public health and safety. With each decade, more is understood about foodborne illness, prevention and the links between nutrition and population health. New technologies have evolved which enable better food processing, packaging, transport and storage. The Code and the Hazards and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system has contributed to reduced levels of contaminants in food. Food safety is communicated to consumers through improved labelling and sophisticated education campaigns. The major impact of regulation on food innovation is increasingly recognised. However, while protecting public health remains paramount, food safety controls are designed to minimise undue harm to industry innovation and competitiveness. The digital environment underpinned much food safety innovation in 2014. A range of new compliance tools and improvements to the interactivity of existing tools and resources for councils, food businesses and consumers have been developed.
City of Whitehorse: Benefits flow from online app The City of Whitehorse Environmental Health Unit inspects up to 1,800 food businesses each year. Over half of these are mandatory inspections of fixed site premises required under the Act. The balance comprises inspections of temporary food premises, follow-ups to assess whether proprietors have taken corrective action and random spot checks. Whitehorse worked with IT provider Open Office to develop an online app to keep track of, and manage, all this activity. Council officers now enter inspection and assessment outcomes into a tablet or notebook onsite at food premises. This has eliminated the additional work of manually entering data, generating letters, notices, certificates and reports, and scanning and registering inspection documents into the Council’s system on return to the office. The app is the latest in a series of information technology innovations which support Whitehorse’s risk-based compliance management scheme. It gives council officers online access to food premises registration details and compliance histories, as well as legislation, practice standards and statewide databases, such as Streatrader. EHOs are able to enter and finalise inspection and assessment results in the field. The council system automatically emails proprietors and generates and prints letters, corrective actions, orders and certificates for each premises. The app also streamlines application of Whitehorse’s five-star reward and recognition program. It calculates and generates a star rating for each premises at the completion of the inspection and allows easy tracking of outstanding noncompliance items. Officers can even photograph noncompliant items and upload them into premises’ inspection reports.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 36
The City of Whitehorse’s innovative information technology strategy has improved its response to food safety risks in the field, including those which pose urgent or serious threats to public health. Several other councils have also introduced specific-purpose apps to improve business operations and record-keeping.
Award-winning food sampling app
The department’s new food sampling app will improve practice and yield better food safety surveillance data. The app won a technology award for excellence in 2014.
Each year EHOs across Victoria collect up to 10,000 food samples which are submitted to food laboratories for analysis. To improve the efficiency of this important legislative requirement, the department, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and the Local Government Information Communications Group has developed a food sampling app. The app allows council officers to take and send photographs of foods to laboratories with the food samples. It automatically populates food businesses’ details from the completed sample forms and sends these to the laboratories and councils. In the laboratory, samples are electronically matched with the transmitted forms for analysis. Between October and December, the department delivered 13 training sessions across the state. Around 190 EHOs attended the sessions where they learned how to use the new app. The sessions also emphasised why it is important that officers complete the food sampling forms correctly and explained how the forms interact with laboratory and departmental food databases. Interested councils introduced the new system in late 2014. The app is expected to improve practice and yield better food safety surveillance data. In August, it won the MAV Technology Award for Excellence in the Collaboration of the Year category. Mr Steven Welsh of Corangamite Shire accepted the award on behalf of the project team and the 40 councils that participated in the pilot.
Page 37 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Streatrader responsive technology
Figure 3: Streatrader screenshot: example of responsive technology
Local governments regulate food vans and stalls and, since October 2012, this has occurred through Streatrader – the department’s statewide online registration scheme established under the Act. Since its inception, the Streatrader system has streamlined the regulatory process, resulted in savings for proprietors and community groups, and improved accountability. Busy street food vendors are increasingly using mobile phones and tablets to renew their registrations under the Act and lodge statements of trade in their Streatrader accounts. New modules that use responsive technology were launched in early 2014 to make this easier for food businesses and councils. The system has exceeded even the most optimistic predictions of trader uptake. There are now more than 20,000 users compared with the 5,000 initially envisaged. The involvement of councils in the development and implementation of Streatrader has been critical to its success. The Streatrader team has been working to make Streatrader easier to use and has implemented a number of system enhancements to improve usability. Throughout 2014 business and council users of Streatrader reaped the benefits of system improvements made in December 2013 when the site was re-designed and new modules using responsive technology were added. These enhancements made it easier for traders to access information about Streatrader from their phones or mobile devices. Other enhancements included the implementation of an events module where events can be pre-loaded into the system making the lodgement of a statement of trade quick and easy for traders. This module also allows councils to easily access lists of traders operating at a specific event. The success of these system improvements is evident in call statistics to the Streatrader support line. Average call time has reduced from six minutes in December 2012 to just three minutes by mid-2014. Streatrader continues to receive positive feedback from regular system users. In particular, users value the fact that it is quicker and easier to access the information they need and to manage their accounts – for example, to apply for or renew their food premises registrations or lodge their statements of trade as required under the Act. The changes to the Streatrader system have also made communication between councils easier.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 38
Throughout 2014 the department continued to support council staff using Streatrader through training, user groups, user documentation, and ongoing system maintenance and enhancement.
Food safety at community events – new resources A new video and interactive website was launched in August 2014 to help volunteers running food fundraisers to understand their food safety obligations. Community groups raise much-needed funds for charity through sausage sizzles, cake stalls and the sale of an increasing variety of other foods. Although their activities are generally occasional and small-scale, half of all 21,183 food stalls and vans operating in Victoria in 2014 were community run. This means food fundraisers are an important feature of the food regulatory landscape. Like food businesses, community groups are legally responsible to handle food safely. While community organisations confirm their willingness to meet their food safety obligations, many report that their volunteers find it hard to navigate the system. In response, the department launched an animated video and interactive website for community groups selling food in Victoria in August 2014. The new resources are designed to help community groups better understand and meet their obligations. Still image from new food safety video for community group fundraisers selling food, 2014
The website covers a wide range of topics, including community groups’ obligations under the Act, classifications of food premises, and situations in which council approval is required. The site includes an interactive tool to help community group volunteers identify the Act classifications of their planned events, as well as a video which outlines the regulatory obligations that apply to different types of food fundraising activities. For first-time users and those whose first language is not English, the site has been designed to be easy to understand and easy to navigate. The department is in the process of adding Arabic, simplified Chinese and Vietnamese subtitles to the video to increase its coverage of these community groups. Councils spend considerable time providing advice to community groups wishing to sell food. The new resources will supplement, rather than replace, this face-to-face contact. A project reference group comprising representatives from the City of Greater Dandenong, Southern Grampians Shire and the department’s Public Health Communications, Digital Strategy and Services and Food Safety and Regulation Units contributed to the project. The department contracted the firm Useability 1 to consult with representatives of community groups in metropolitan and regional centres and their recommendations were incorporated into the final video.
Page 39 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Feedback on new resources
‘I am a trainer with students from all types of food businesses enrolling in Food Safety Supervisor courses. I also fundraise in a school. This site is really clear and helpful with advice on what to do. I will be recommending it to all.’ Name supplied, Registered Training Organisation trainer
‘Community group food fundraisers are important to our community and it is essential that the food they serve is safe. The information and video on the Department of Health website is definitely a valuable educational tool …’ Nick Lund, Manager Health, Active Ageing and Disability Services, Boroondara City Council
‘Your interactive website and video should be popular tools to better educate and inform people of their food safety obligations.’ Christian Stefani, Manager Customer Relations, Corangamite Shire Council
To view the website and video, go to the department’s website, go to:
Community food safety demonstration 'Disaster Chef' made her debut at the November 2014 Maroondah Festival where Maroondah City Council ran a temporary stall to educate festival goers about food safety and hygiene. With delicacies such as Salmonella Sandwiches and Toxic Tiramisu on the menu, a crowd gathered to watch the disasters unfold. Small prizes (some donated by the department) were on offer to anyone who could spot five food safety mistakes being made by the ‘Disaster Chef’. Among these were: • absence of hand washing facilities • food not covered or protected from contamination • cross-contamination from handling raw chicken and bread rolls on the same dirty chopping board • out-of-date food • long hair not tied back • chipped nail polish • unclean uniform • touching face and hair and continuing to handle food • unclean equipment • equipment in disrepair, including a rusty meat cleaver.
People of all ages stopped to find out what was going on at the stall. As well as educating the general public, the stall raised awareness of EHOs’ work with local food businesses to ensure compliance with food laws. Council officers were on site to talk to the public who were shocked to learn that the equipment used at the stall had been seized from local food businesses. Council also distributed posters and brochures on food safety. As the event was fun for all involved and a great success educationally, Council plans to build on it in the future. Naturally, Disaster Chef did not actually serve any food at the demonstration.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 40
‘Shop, store, cook and eat safe’ campaign Victorians were urged to ‘Shop, store, cook and eat safe’ as part of a new departmental campaign targeting safe food practice in the home in September 2014. As part of the campaign, the department launched four short animations to illustrate the importance of handling food safely. ‘Shop, store, cook and eat safe’ features Brian, Bobby, Billy and Bernie bacteria who remind home cooks how to keep bacteria at bay and avoid food poisoning. The animations, which are also available in Arabic, Vietnamese and simplified Chinese, have been shared with councils for use locally in their municipalities. For example, the City of Greater Dandenong arranged for them to be screened in the different languages on the big screen at the Dandenong Plaza. The animations have a useful life beyond the campaign. They are on YouTube and the department’s food safety website, and will be used at World Health Day and during the annual Summer Food Safety campaign. They have also been actively promoted to consumers through relevant networks and at community events. The aim of the animations is to raise awareness of basic food safety practices for people preparing food in the home, especially people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people with low literacy levels. Catering for community events is an especially important aspect of food preparation in culturally and linguistically diverse communities and much pride is associated with this. The department commissioned research in 2013 to inform the development of food safety communications resources for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The findings indicated a high level of awareness of the importance of safe food handling practices among these communities. On the whole, current practices discussed in the research groups reflected recommended approaches. Information on storing and preparing food emerged as most relevant for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences, especially as recommended approaches differ significantly from participants’ experiences overseas where they tend to shop and prepare food each day rather than buying in bulk. Among their key messages, the animations cover keeping food in the correct temperature zone and reheating it to the right temperature. It was also clear that culturally and linguistically diverse audiences prefer audio visual resources. To view the animations, go to the ‘eat safe’ section on the department’s food safety website at:
Page 41 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Food safety incidents
Notifiable microorganisms in food Under the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, laboratories must notify the department when they detect certain pathogenic microorganisms in food or drinking water. Table 2 shows reports of all notifiable pathogens received during 2014. Schedule 5 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009 specifies the pathogens that must be reported and the manner in which it must be done. When it receives such notifications, the department’s Regulation and Incident Management team conducts a risk assessment in each case to determine the appropriate course of action. Risk assessments take into account factors such as: the species, type and level of microorganism present; whether the food is raw, ready-to-eat, unsealed or packaged; whether the food can or cannot support the growth of the microorganism; and whether the food has been sold to the public. Depending on the food sample, this may result in referral to the appropriate food regulator (such as the local council, Dairy Food Safety Victoria or PrimeSafe) or direct investigative follow-up by the department with the company involved to ensure a prompt and appropriate public health response. Some investigations can result in a food recall to ensure that affected food is removed from the marketplace.
Table 2: Reports received by the department from laboratories of notifiable microorganisms in food under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, 2014
Pathogen No. % Listeria monocytogenes 333 58% Salmonella spp. 209 37% Campylobacter spp. 20 4% Vibrio spp. 9 2% E. coli 0 0% Cryptosporidium spp. 0 0% Cyclospora spp. 0 0% Giardia cysts 0 0% Hepatitis A 0 0% Norovirus 0 0% Total 571 100%
The department received 571 notifications of notifiable microorganisms in food in 2014. Of these: • 462 (81 per cent) came from testing conducted by food businesses under their licensing requirements with Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe, or under internal food safety and quality assurance programs • 72 (13 per cent) came from samples obtained for testing by Victorian councils • 22 (four per cent) came from samples obtained for testing by the Department of Agriculture (imported foods) • six (one per cent) came from samples tested by other state and territory food regulators
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 42
nine (two per cent) notifications subsequently resulted in food recalls. Listeria monocytogenes comprised the majority of notifications in 2014, that is, 333 reports (58 per cent). Of the 333 Listeria monocytogenes notifications, around 80 per cent were reports of Listeria monocytogenes detected in dairy foods, meat, seafood and fruit or vegetables which had been tested by the relevant food companies as part of their food safety or quality assurance programs on a test and hold basis. Salmonella made up the vast majority of the remaining laboratory notifications to the department, with a total of 209 (37 per cent) reports submitted. This was slightly less than the figure for 2013, which saw 232 Salmonella notifications reported. Of the 209 Salmonella notifications, 151 (72 per cent) were for raw meat.
Food recalls The food industry is responsible for manufacturing, importing and selling safe food. Where food in the marketplace is unsafe, the food company responsible for that food will most likely need to remove it from the marketplace through a food recall. In 2014 a total of 76 food recalls were instigated by Australian food companies – the highest number of food recalls in more than ten years. Of these, only 17 were instigated by Victorian companies (manufacturers or importers). Table 4 shows the reason for all recalls involving Australian companies in 2014 and whether a Victorian company (food manufacturer or importer) initiated the recall. As in 2013, undeclared allergens were the most common reason for recall, followed by microbiological contamination, comprising 36 per cent of food recalls in 2014.
Table 4: Food recalls by reason for recall, 2014
Instigated Instigated by by Victorian Country of In In Victorian food food origin Australia: Australia: manufacturer: importer: (where Reason for recall No. (%) No. No. imported)
Undeclared allergens UK19, 27 (36%) 5 2 (including gluten) China20 Microbiological 26 (34%) 5 0 - contamination Foreign matter in food 14 (18%) 3 0 - Chemical contamination 3 (4%) 1 0 - Labelling (other than 2 (3%) 121 0 - declared allergens) Packaging fault 4 (5%) 0 0 - Total 76 (100%) 15 2 -
Incident and complaint management The department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit received and responded to 248 food incidents and complaints in 2014. Figure 4 shows these according to the nature of the issue.
19 This UK-manufactured product was a dairy-free dessert, recalled due to the presence of undeclared allergen (dairy).
20 This Chinese product was a pre-prepared meal, recalled due to the presence of undeclared allergens (egg, peanut and sesame).
21 This recall pertained to incorrect labelling, stating ’soda water’, being placed on bottles of tonic water.
Page 43 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
In addition, staff responded to 2,523 emails to the food safety email inbox and 4,603 telephone calls to the food safety hotline.
Figure 4: Incidents and complaints reported to the Department of Health, Victoria 2014 (Total 248)
*Note: Food-medicine 'interface’ refers to products that are not readily identifiable as either food or a therapeutic good. When a product presents at this interface it can be referred for assessment to the Therapeutic Goods Administration via the formally adopted food-medicine interface process. Information about this process and the way it is operationalised was provided to all Victorian local councils in 2014.
Table 5 gives examples of the types of complaints received during 2014.
Table 5: Examples of food complaints, Victoria 2014
Complaint type Examples Physical contamination Piece of plastic found in smallgoods Physical contamination Insect larvae/webbing in seed mix Physical contamination Piece of metal in loaf of bread Address on bottle of spring water is a PO Box rather than a street Labelling breaches address
Labelling breaches Absence of nutrition information panel on package of chocolate Labelling breaches Illegible date marking on chorizo sausage Presence of prohibited pharmaceutical in supplementary sports Chemical foods Chemical Allegation of mushroom poisoning
In 2014, complaints came from various sources, predominantly members of the public. Most complaints pertained to isolated, one-off incidents from local council-registered premises, such as foreign objects in food or the cleanliness of food premises. In accordance with standard protocol, the department referred these to council EHOs for follow-up investigation. The department generally has a coordinating role in the investigation of incidents and complaints where foods that are manufactured in Victoria are distributed beyond a local area; as well as in facilitating the Chief Health Officer to exercise the use of his/her delegated powers under the Act. In these cases, depending on the nature of the issue the department liaises with any relevant state and
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 44 territory food regulators, other Victorian regulators (Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe and local councils). The primary focus of such investigations is to mitigate any risk to public health. To ensure a nationally consistent risk-based approach to food safety matters, the department adheres to the principles of the Australia and New Zealand food regulation enforcement guideline,22 which has been endorsed by all states and territories. This document promotes a graduated approach to enforcement, based on the public health risk presented by the food safety incident. In other words, matters of public health risk are responded to as a matter of priority. As food companies transcend borders, all states and territories cooperate to act on food incidents and complaints quickly and efficiently. For example, a food product may be manufactured in one state and the company’s head office may be located in another in which it does not manufacture food at all. To facilitate the referral process, all states and territories have agreed to function under the ‘home jurisdiction rule’, which provides for a cooperative referral mechanism where a trace-back of a food complaint implicates another jurisdiction. The department assists local councils with this referral process.
Mandatory reporting of food-related illness, injury or death From January 2011 an amendment to Australian consumer law has meant that the suppliers of consumer goods (including food) and related services are required to report deaths, serious injuries or illnesses associated with the use of such goods. This requirement is known as mandatory reporting and all participants in the supply chain are required to comply with the reporting requirement. This includes retailers, distributors, importers or manufacturers of food. If a food business becomes aware of an illness, injury or death related to the use of food, the business must report this to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) using an online form on the ACCC website. The electronic notification is automatically sent to the relevant state or territory food regulator for assessment and the necessary action. In 2014 the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit received 366 mandatory reports. Of these, 243 (66 per cent) did not meet the mandatory reporting requirements because: • they were incorrectly reporting an issue that was not a food safety risk (for example, an injury which resulted from a consumer dropping a product), or the report did not include sufficient information for follow-up and this information could not be readily obtained.23 Of the remaining 123 reports, 90 (73 per cent) were isolated incidents that had been adequately and appropriately responded to by the business receiving the complaint. Twenty-seven reports (26 per cent) related to four food recalls. These were submitted after the recalls in order to meet the mandatory reporting requirements (as opposed to lodgement of the mandatory report resulting in the food recall). A further five reports were referred to other food regulators for follow up investigation and one was investigated directly by the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit. The latter pertained to an alleged allergic response to a pre-packaged cake mix. The department had a number of batches of the product analysed, with the results showing that no undeclared allergens were present.
22 Department of Health, Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Enforcement Guideline, Version 8, Canberra, November 2009. Prepared by the Implementation Sub-Committee for Food Regulation Enforcement Guideline Working Group. See
the release of their details to a regulator. It is usually not possible to follow-up anonymous complaints.
Page 45 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Undeclared allergens in foods Undeclared and unwanted allergens in foods continued to be a high priority food safety issue in 2014. Several instances of restaurant patrons being inadvertently served food containing allergens and suffering allergic reactions came to the department’s attention during the year. Most cases arose from miscommunication between patrons and food premises staff and from lack of staff understanding of food allergies. Fortunately, many food premises are making positive changes to reduce the likelihood of such incidents. Preventive measures include menu disclosure of food allergens, use of separate utensils and equipment to prepare and store foods containing known allergens, and asking patrons about dietary needs when taking orders. A food allergy occurs when the body’s immune system overreacts to an otherwise harmless food such as peanuts, tree nuts, milk or eggs. About one in 10 Australian infants, one in 20 children under five and two in 100 adults have food allergies. Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) are relatively rare but can be life-threatening to susceptible consumers. The Australia New Zealand Code requires food premises to advise consumers of particular allergens on food package labels or at the request of customers. Businesses should also ensure that this information is available to all staff so that customer requests can be answered accurately. As cases can be complex and incidents may be confronted only occasionally, departmental officers work closely with council EHOs to promptly investigate complaints of allergic reactions. The regulatory response depends on whether the food is packaged or unpackaged. Undeclared allergens in packaged foods pose a major safety risk to susceptible people. Where a packaged food may have caused a reaction, it is critical to retrieve some of the product from the consumer; ideally any leftover food and the package and/or an unopened package from the same lot or batch. If the alleged allergen is not declared in the listed ingredients, councils may send the food for laboratory testing, both for the presence and concentration of the allergen of concern. Test results can provide information about the seriousness of the issue and possibly the manufacturing issues that led to the problem. A food recall may be initiated to remove noncompliant food from sale. Work is underway nationally to develop an allergen incident investigation protocol that will provide guidance on all relevant investigative steps and encourage a thorough, consistent approach to investigating allergen complaints across all jurisdictions. When complete, the protocol will be disseminated to councils for review and subsequent implementation. To support implementation, in 2015 the department will host an allergen training session for 200 EHOs to be presented by the Environmental Health Professionals Association.
Chief Health Officer: action on food safety In 2014 the Chief Health Officer issued health warnings for health professionals and the public on salmonellosis, gastroenteritis and poisonous mushrooms, which are outlined in Table 6.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 46
Table 6: Food safety warnings, Victoria 2014
Date Warning Description 13 February Probable A number of people who ate at a Torquay cafe reported Salmonellosis gastroenteritis that was severe in some cases and consistent outbreak with a bacterial cause. One case was confirmed to have Salmonellosis. The department and Surf Coast Shire Council investigated and the restaurant was closed. 3 March Salmonellosis A number of people who ate raw egg products sourced from a and raw eggs Victorian egg supplier developed Salmonellosis. The Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries worked with the producer to ensure that potential risks were addressed and the advisory notice was lifted on 1 April. 30 April Poisonous A warning, coinciding with the arrival of the mushrooming mushroom season, cautioned people to avoid gathering wild mushrooms warning around Melbourne, in rural Victoria and from their own gardens because of the risk of collecting poisonous varieties which can appear very similar to edible varieties. 11 December Gastro cases A warning about the dangers of drinking raw cow’s milk was linked to issued following five cases of gastroenteritis in children who had drinking raw drunk unpasteurised milk. In Victoria, the sale of such milk for milk human consumption is illegal. 24 December Gastro risk A health warning reminded Victorians to practice good personal during festive hygiene inside and out of the home to avoid gastroenteritis over season the Christmas/New Year period.
Page 47 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Food premises registrations and notifications
Risk-based food premises classification The Act adopts a preventive approach to food safety. It groups food premises into four classes and sets out different food safety 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) such as a nursing home, to lowest risk (class 4) such as a newsagency selling pre-packaged confectionery (Table 7). The level of regulation is largely determined by the microbial hazards posed by food handling at the premises. 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. Under the Act, class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must register annually with the responsible council. Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling activities, on a once-off basis these businesses notify the relevant council about the nature of their activities, such as business type, the nature of the business, types of food handled, address and contact details. They do not need to re- notify and councils are not required to undertake an annual inspection or contact them to ascertain whether they are still operating.
Table 7: Typical food premises classifications under the Act
Premises classification Criteria Examples Class 1 High-risk foods for groups most Hospitals, long-day childcare centres, vulnerable to food-related illness nursing homes, Meals on Wheels Class 2 High-risk foods that need correct Cafés, caterers, fast food stores, juice temperature control at all times to bars, some manufacturers, restaurants, keep them safe supermarkets Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods or pre- Bakeries, milk bars, flour mills, some packaged high-risk foods, occasional manufacturers, most service stations, community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ some community group activities foods Class 4 Other low-risk food handling Bottle shops, greengrocers, activities, including pre-packaged newsagencies, most vending machines, low-risk food sausage sizzles, cake stalls fundraisers
Fixed, temporary and mobile food premises (class 1–4) Across Victoria, a total of 66,41324 fixed, temporary and mobile food premises were regulated under the Act in 2014 (Table 8.) Of these, almost a third (21,183) were temporary stalls or mobile vans, of which a little more than half were class 4 (55 per cent). Sixty-nine per cent of all premises were located in metropolitan Melbourne with the remaining 31 per cent trading in non-metropolitan municipalities across the state. In 2014 more than half of all premises (57 per cent) were class 2 premises, such as cafés, caterers, restaurants, supermarkets, fast food stores and some manufacturers. Twenty-two per cent were lower-risk class 3 premises handling only unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, or were community groups serving ‘cook and serve’ foods at fundraisers or at not-for-profit sports
24 This figure excludes class 4 fixed food premises as the numbers of such premises that actively traded in Victoria in 2014 is not known. See Appendix 1 for further explanation.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 48 clubs. Class 4 temporary food stalls or mobile vans engaged in only low-risk food handling activities comprised 18 per cent of all regulated premises. The remaining four per cent were class 1 premises serving high-risk foods to groups most vulnerable to food-related illness, such as hospital patients or children attending kindergarten or long-day care. A total of 21,183 class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises, operated either by commercial proprietors (48 per cent) or community groups (52 per cent), were regulated under the Act in 2014. The majority of these (76 per cent) actively traded during 2014. In contrast to the regular, high-volume activities of commercial proprietors, community group activities were typically occasional, small-scale and involved mostly low-risk foods. Fixed premises made up 68 per cent of all premises. The corresponding figures for temporary premises were 28 per cent and for mobile premises, three per cent. The remaining one per cent of ‘premises’ comprised water transport vehicles which cart water for human consumption in areas with non-reticulated water supplies. The majority of food vans and stalls operated in a single municipality (73 per cent). A further 20 per cent traded in up to five municipalities while only seven per cent operated in more than five municipalities. Throughout the year, food vans and stalls traded for a total of 280,766 days, 94 per cent of which represented business activity, while the remaining six per reflected community group activity. There were 4,133 new notifications of class 4 temporary and mobile premises to councils in 2014.
Table 8: Snapshot of class 1–4 fixed, temporary and mobile food premises,* Victoria, 2014
Type Classification No. % Total premises Class 1–3 fixed and class 2–4 temporary and mobile 66,413 Location** Metropolitan Melbourne 45,825 69% Location** Non-metropolitan Victoria 20,588 31% Premises Class 1 2,656 4% Premises Class 2 37,191 56% Premises Class 3 14,610 22% Premises Class 4, temporary and mobile premises only 11,956 18% Premises type Fixed 45,161 68% Premises type Temporary 18,596 28% Premises type Mobile, excluding water transport vehicles 1,992 3% Premises type Water transport vehicles 664 1% Total temporary and Class 2–4 businesses and community groups mobile premises 21,183 Proprietor type*** Business 10,168 48% Proprietor type*** Community group 11,015 52% Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated 1 municipality 73% Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated 2–5 municipalities 20%
Page 49 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Type Classification No. % Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated More than 5 municipalities 7% Class 2-4 temporary and mobile food premises Total trading days 280,766 Class 2-4 temporary and mobile food premises Business 263,920 94% Class 2-4 temporary and mobile food premises Community groups 16,845 6% Class 2-4 temporary and mobile food premises Initial notifications (class 4) 4,133
Notes: *Excludes: vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act class 4 fixed premises as the total numbers of premises are not precise due to variations in data capture across councils. For further explanation see Appendix 1. **For temporary and mobile food premises, location refers to the address of their principal councils. For further explanation see Appendix 1. ***A proprietor may operate more than one premises. On the Streatrader system, proprietors may choose to combine all of their food premises, including a fixed site if they have one, under a single statewide registration/notification. In contrast, each fixed food premises is registered separately
Premises class, type and location Figure 5 shows class 1, 2 and 3 premises according to their premises type and location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) in 2014.
Figure 5: Class 1–3 food premises* registrations by premises type and location,** Victoria, 2014 (Total 54,746)
Notes: * Includes water transport vehicles (class 3) as mobile premises.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 50
Excludes vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. **For temporary and mobile food premises, location refers to the address of their principal councils.
For further explanation see Appendix 1.
See Appendix 3 (fixed premises) and Appendix 6 (temporary and mobile premises) for a breakdown by municipality. Figure 6 shows that the proportion of class 1, 2 and 3 fixed, temporary and mobile premises was similar regardless of location although, of course, the number of premises in metropolitan Melbourne substantially exceeded those in non-metropolitan Victoria.25
Figure 6: Class 1–3 food premises* registrations by class, type and location,** Victoria 2014
Notes: * Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. The small variation in total premises in Figures 5, 6 and 7 is due to data extraction and council data entry issues. ** For temporary and mobile food premises, location refers to the address of their principal councils.
Industry sector, premises type and location Figure 7 shows class 1–3 food premises (fixed, temporary and mobile) in different industry sectors in metropolitan Melbourne and non-metropolitan Victoria in 2014.
25 By their nature, all class 1 food premises operate as fixed premises.
Page 51 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Figure 7: Class 1–3 food premises* by industry sector and location,** Victoria 2014
Notes: * Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. The small variation in total premises in Figures 5, 6 and 7 is due to data extraction and council data entry issues. ** For temporary and mobile food premises, location refers to the address of their principal councils. Retail and food service premises were the largest category of premises registered under the Act (89 per cent/48,747). A major employer, this sector comprises retail premises that sell direct to the public (for example, bakeries, supermarkets, milk bars, service stations and temporary market stalls). It also includes food service sector institutions and businesses that provide meals which are eaten on or in the vicinity (such as cafés, restaurants, take-away food outlets, caterers, mobile food vans, hospitals and aged care facilities). Food manufacturers and food warehouse/distribution businesses represented a small proportion of all registered food premises in Victoria (six per cent/3,170). This sector comprises food manufacturers26 that produce products for distribution beyond the local area to regional, national or international markets, as well as food wholesalers and importers that warehouse goods pending distribution to other food premises. Thirty-seven per cent (1,179) of these were located in non-metropolitan Victoria which shows the importance of this sector to the rural and regional economy. The corresponding figure for community groups was five per cent (2,844) of all premises. These organisations sell food solely to raise funds for charity or not-for-profit activities, such as sporting club kiosks. Forty per cent (1,145) of these premises were located in non-metropolitan Victoria, indicating the strength of these community activities in rural and regional Victoria compared to metropolitan Melbourne. Figure 8 shows class 1–3 food premises in different industry sectors according to whether they were fixed, temporary or mobile premises.
26 For the purposes of this report, in most cases this excludes manufacturers that primarily sell direct to the public from the premises, for example, bakeries that sell to the local community from their
premises.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 52
Figure 8: Class 1–3 food premises* by industry sector and type, Victoria 2014
*Note: Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. The small variation in total premises in Figures 5, 6 and 7 is due to data extraction and council data entry issues. In 2014 seventeen per cent (9,516) of premises were food stalls or vans. Of the 2,844 food premises operated by community groups, 95 per cent (2,693) were temporary premises, such as food stalls or kiosks, as distinct to mobile premises which accounted for only 5 per cent (151) of community group premises. In contrast, business proprietors operated a total of 6,672 temporary and mobile premises, 71 per cent (4,725) of which were temporary and 29 per cent (1,947) mobile. This illustrates the different characteristics of community and business traders. While community organisations that sell food have a significant stake in the food sector, their activity is generally sporadic and small-scale compared to the regular, high-volume activities of commercial proprietors. It is generally the latter who are able to purchase, fit out and operate food trucks and caravans.
Fixed food premises (class 1–3): Premises distribution and municipality type This section concerns the 45,230 class 1–3 fixed food premises which were registered with councils in 2014. Figure 9 shows these according to the type of municipality in which they were located.
Page 53 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Figure 9: Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by municipality type, 2014 (Total 45,230)
50% 19,090 40%
30%
premises 7,874 20% 6,541 4,803 3,950 food 10% 2,972
Fixed 0% city
Inner shires shires
Middle Interface** Small Large Regional Metropolitan 31,767 (70%) Non‐metropolitan 13,463 (30%)
Notes: * Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act ** The term ‘interface councils’ refers to a self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues and work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, City of Hume, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire. In 2014, 42 per cent (19,090) of these premises were located in Melbourne’s 17 population-dense inner metropolitan municipalities. This reflected in part the concentration of food service businesses, such as cafés and restaurants, in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. Melbourne is growing rapidly with a projected population of up to 7.7 million by 2051.27 Seventeen per cent (7,874) of class 1–3 fixed food premises were registered in municipalities in growth corridors on the fringe of metropolitan Melbourne. Known as ‘interface’ municipalities, these share similar characteristics and face similar issues, including the need to provide infrastructure for new developments and meet the changing needs of the rapidly growing populations. Among the 10 interface municipalities, four had more than 1,000 registered class 1–3 fixed food premises; that is, Mornington Peninsula (1,233), Yarra Ranges (1,161), Casey (1,131) and Hume (1,117) (Appendix 5). Thirty per cent (13,463) of all class 1–3 fixed food premises were registered with non-metropolitan councils. Among these, 12 per cent (1,680) were located in the City of Greater Geelong which is among the largest of Victoria’s 79 councils and is known for its diverse night life, food culture and sports and leisure facilities. An additional 210,000 people are expected to be living in Geelong and surrounding areas by 2050, continuing the urbanisation of Victoria's coastal areas.28 Across the state, 10 municipalities had more than 1,000 registered class 1–3 fixed food premises (Figure 9). Among these, the City of Melbourne (3,428 premises) and large inner metropolitan municipalities – such as Yarra (1,297), Moreland (1,194) and Darebin (1,128) – are also popular entertainment and dining precincts. Appendix 5 shows municipality type for each local government area.
Temporary and mobile food premises (class 2–4): Regulating street food Prior to the launch of Streatrader – the department’s statewide online registration/notification system – councils did not have an accurate picture of the number of temporary and mobile traders active in their municipalities. Nor could they access their compliance histories.
27 Metropolitan Planning Authority, Partners in planning and infrastructure coordination at
28 Ibid.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 54
Streatrader data shows meteoric growth in the street food sector in 2014 when the number of coffee carts, food vans and market stalls swelled to more than 20,000 (Table 8). In fact, 32 per cent of all food premises (class 2–4) regulated under the Act in 2014 were temporary or mobile premises. Of these 88 per cent (18,721) were temporary premises and the remaining 12 per cent (2,462) were mobile.
Table 9: Snapshot of class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises,* Victoria, 2014
Temporary Mobile Activity Description premises premises Total
Class 2–4 temporary 21,183 Total Premises and mobile 18,721 (88%) 2,462 (12%) (100%) Premises type Business 45% 87% 50% Premises type Community group 55% 13% 50% Premises class Class 2 20% 44% 23% Premises class Class 3 20% 41% 22% Premises class Class 4 60% 15% 55% Notifications Initial notification (class 4) 3,985 148 4,133 Proprietors** (businesses With a Streatrader and community groups) account 13,950 1,482 15,432 Proprietors** (businesses and community groups) Actively traded in 2014 72% 83% 73% Premises per registration 1 premises 80% 69% 79% Premises per registration 2 premises 14% 20% 15% Premises per registration 3 or more premises 6% 11% 6% Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated 1 municipality 77% 41% 70% Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated 2–5 municipalities 18% 36% 22% Number of municipalities in which proprietors operated More than 5 municipalities 5% 22% 8% Trading days Total per premises type 41,707 105,644 147,351 Trading days Business 63% 99% 89% Trading days Community groups 37% 1% 11%
Notes: * Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes food vending machine; they are minimally regulated under the Act. ** Proprietors may choose to combine all of their food premises, including a fixed site if they have one, under a single statewide registration/notification on the Streatrader system. In contrast, each fixed food premises is registered separately. Half of all temporary and mobile food premises operated as commercial businesses (10,518), while the remaining half were operated by community groups raising funds for charity or not-for-profit concerns, such as school fêtes (10,665).
Page 55 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Roughly equal proportions of temporary and mobile premises were classified as class 2 and class 3 under the Act (23 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively). However, the substantial majority were class 4 premises (55 per cent). This contrasted markedly with the profile of fixed food premises, of which 72 per cent were class 2 premises and 22 per cent were class 3 (Appendix 3).
Regulated temporary and mobile food premises
The Food Act 1984 regulates several types of temporary and mobile food premises – temporary premises, mobile premises, vending machines and water transport vehicles.
Temporary food premises come in many guises and include 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 commercial events with thousands of attendees, such as the St Kilda Festival, 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. In line with their low food safety risks, vending machines are minimally regulated under the Act. 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. Their activities are low-risk and they are classified as class 3 food premises for the purposes of the Act.
Among temporary premises (as distinct from mobile premises), the greatest proportion were class 4 (60 per cent/11,233). Class 2 and 3 premises accounted for 20 per cent (3,744) in each case. This profile differed substantially from mobile premises, among which only 15 per cent (369) were class 4, and class 2 and class 3 accounted for 44 per cent (1,083) and 41 per cent (1,009), respectively. Because their activities are typically small scale and of limited duration, community groups are exempt from some of the regulatory requirements that apply to food businesses conducting similar activities. As most class 3 activities are low-risk, only simple precautions are usually needed to keep these foods safe. ‘Cook and serve’ activities (such as hamburgers to be eaten at the site straight away) are the exception because there is more chance of harmful bacteria multiplying and causing illness associated with these activities. For this reason, different requirements apply to community group ‘cook and serve’ activities depending on their duration. Both commercial operators handling higher-risk foods and community groups selling mostly low-risk foods at occasional, small-scale events operate temporary and mobile food premises. In 2014, as an average, 50 per cent (10,665) of all temporary and mobile food premises were operated by community groups. While this represented 55 per cent (10,297) all temporary premises, most mobile premises (87 per cent/2,142) were run as businesses. This is not surprising given that community groups mainly operate sausage sizzles and cake stalls and the costs of setting-up and running a food truck or coffee cart can be prohibitive. Some business and community group proprietors operated more than one temporary or mobile food premises so that during 2014 a total of 15,432 proprietors had a Streatrader account. Ninety per cent (13,950) of these were temporary rather than mobile food premises. Among these traders, as an average, 73 per cent actively traded during the year. The figures for mobile premises proprietors show that 83 per cent traded during 2014 compared with 72 per cent of temporary premises proprietors.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 56
As an average, 21 per cent (4,448) of temporary and mobile premises proprietors operated more than one premises, comprising 31 per cent (763) of mobile premises proprietors compared to 20 per cent (3,774) of temporary premises traders.
The Streatrader system
Streatrader is an online registration system for proprietors to register food stalls, food vans, water transport vehicles and food vending machines. Local government is the regulator of these ‘food premises’. Since October 2012 this has occurred under Streatrader – the statewide single registration scheme established under the Act.
Who is it for? • Businesses and community groups that sell food from stalls, vans and vending machines. • Councils that regulate food premises under the Act.
What does it do?
For businesses and community groups: • Proprietors wishing to sell food can register or notify quickly and easily online through Streatrader.
Once an application has been accepted by the registering council, these businesses can trade anywhere in Victoria. The trader does not need to apply again to any other council for permission to operate. All they need to do is lodge information about where and when they will be trading via a statement of trade.
The Streatrader system: • automatically determines food premises’ business classifications under the Act • alerts proprietors to their regulatory obligations • puts proprietors in touch with their principal council (registering council) – the council they will deal mostly with • allows proprietors to renew their annual registrations and print their certificates of registration (class 1–3) • enables proprietors to lodge, print and email statements of trade anytime and have them immediately available to councils • allows proprietors to update their contact and premises details and food handling activities at any time.
For councils: Councils use Streatrader to: • assess and approve applications and receive payment of fees online • manage their workloads, for example, when to inspect and when to send out registration renewal notices monitor information about food vans and stalls operating in their areas, including their compliance histories and enforcement actions taken by any other council.
During 2014 the majority of temporary and mobile premises traders operated in a single municipality (70 per cent/14,828). This was the case for a greater proportion of those with temporary premises (77
Page 57 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety per cent/14,415) compared to mobile premises (41 per cent/1,009). Conversely, only 23 per cent (4,306) of temporary premises proprietors operated in more than one municipality, compared to 58 per cent (1,428) of mobile premises proprietors. These proprietors enjoyed the benefits of a single registration that enabled them to operate at multiple locations anywhere in the state. See Appendix 6 for a breakdown of temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications by class, region and municipality in which their principal councils were located.
Sector growth Throughout 2014 increasing numbers of traders embraced the Streatrader scheme and report that it dramatically reduces the time and costs of complying with their food safety obligations. As it has streamlined the registration/notification process and allows councils to access operators’ compliance histories for all their trading locations, the system has also freed up council officers’ time to focus on food safety issues that pose greatest risk to public health. Table 10 shows an overall increase of 7,418 (54 per cent) in temporary and mobile food premises in 2014 compared to the previous year. Community groups featured strongly in this rapidly growing sector. They operated half of all temporary and mobile premises (10,665) which were predominantly class 4 sausage sizzles or cake stalls raising funds for charities, community groups and sporting clubs (7,821/69 per cent).
Table 10: Growth in temporary and mobile food premises* by class and proprietor type, Victoria, 20132014
Class or Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Total proprietor Year No. No. No. No. Business 2013 2,224 2,246 2,436 6,906 Business 2014 3,402 3,270 3,846 10,518 Business % increase 53% 46% 58% 52% Community group 2013 1,125 1,117 4,617 6,859 Community group 2014 1,436 1,408 7,821 10,665 Community group % increase 28% 26% 69% 55% All premises 2013 3,349 3,363 7,053 13,765 All premises 2014 4,838 4,678 11,667 21,183 All premises % increase 44% 39% 65% 54%
*Note: includes water transport vehicles (class 3) excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Growth during this period was very strong among class 4 premises (65 per cent) reflecting increased popularity of stalls, vans and carts selling low-risk street foods and beverages. Among these, growth in those operated by community groups (69 per cent) substantially exceeded those operated by businesses for profit (58 per cent). Conversely, among premises handling higher risk foods (class 2 and 3), businesses’ premises increased at almost double the rate of community-run enterprises (50 per cent compared to 27 per cent, respectively). Gourmet mobile food vans are a defining part of the culinary scene in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and London and are rapidly becoming an increasingly popular part of Melbourne’s food culture. The number of mobile vans and trucks operating in Victoria grew even more
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 58 steeply – from 1,707 in 2013 to 2,459 in 2014 – an increase of 69 per cent. This reflects a growing appetite for a variety of dining experiences and has created significant opportunities for businesses and consumers alike. In 2014 several councils took steps to attract traders into their municipalities. For example, the City of Melbourne commenced a gourmet food truck trial which approved twelve food trucks to operate in set locations around the city until 30 June 2015. The trial was mounted in response to interest from food truck entrepreneurs and the local community and mirrors the pop-up hospitality and gourmet food truck trends seen in many cities around the world. It was a first step towards making the City of Melbourne more welcoming for food truck operators and more accessible to the hundreds of thousands of residents, workers and visitors who come to the city every day. Events dedicated to food trucks also took place during 2014. These included the Coburg Drive-In Food Truck Festival in June which offered patrons a choice of gourmet foods along with the films. Food Truck Friday at Little Malop Central captured the attention of Geelong residents during the year on the first Friday of each month. The event featured 10 food trucks each week and was accompanied by dining spaces and entertainment during the lunch period.
Premises class and business type Figure 10 shows temporary food premises (18,721/88 per cent) compared to mobile food premises (2,462/12 per cent) according to their Act classification and type of proprietor, that is, business or community group. Fifty per cent of temporary and mobile premises were operated by community groups (10,665) and the great majority of these were temporary class 4 premises (11,667/55 per cent). Premises operated by business proprietors were spread evenly across classes 2 and 3 – that is, 23 per cent were class 2 and 22 per cent were class 3.
Figure 10: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* by class and proprietor type, Victoria 2014 (Total 21,183)
Note: includes water transport vehicles (class 3) excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. See Appendix 7 for a breakdown by municipality.
Page 59 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Streatrader accounts Figure 11 shows the cumulative number of Streatrader accounts for food vans and stalls throughout 2014. There were a total of 14,795 accounts in January 2014 which grew to 21,183 by December that year – an increase of 70 per cent. This reflected the increasing numbers of new traders entering the market.
Figure 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* with a Streatrader account** by month, Victoria 2014
Notes: * Includes all business and community groups, including those with water transport vehicles (class 3) associated with their registrations, but excluding those with associated vending machines. ** A single Streatrader account (one registration) may include multiple premises. Not all proprietors with an account actively traded in 2014. A proprietor may operate more than one premises and may choose to combine all of his or her food premises, including a fixed site if there is one, under a single statewide registration/notification on the Streatrader system. In contrast, each fixed food premises is registered separately. Figure 12 shows the number of registrations/notifications held by proprietors of temporary and mobile premises in 2014. Proprietors operating a single premises comprised 79 per cent (12,175) of all registrations/notifications. Proprietors with two registrations/notifications comprised 15 per cent (2,280), while only six per cent (977) held more than two registrations/notifications.
Figure 12: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications held by proprietors, Victoria 2014 (Total 15,432)
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 60
*Notes: Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Retail and food service business trading days For temporary and mobile retail and food service businesses, Figure 13 shows the number of days on which they traded throughout the year. Of the total of 130,861 trading days, 104,438 (80 per cent) comprised mobile trader activity, with the balance of 26,423 days (20 per cent) made up by temporary premises.
Figure 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food retail/service premises* trading days by month, Victoria 2014 (Total 130,861)
*Note: excludes: water transport vehicles (class 3) food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. Among temporary premises, the number of trading days was highest during the spring and summer months when there are greater numbers of festivals, fêtes and other outdoor events. While some seasonal variation is typical among mobile traders, they are more likely to operate in all weathers. Following the summer months in 2014, Figure 13 shows a small surge in mobile trading at Easter (April) and steady increases each month from June to December. This reflected the large numbers of new mobile premises coming into the market in the second half of the year. The pattern of trading days for temporary and mobile premises varied across premises classes, with almost half of all trading days due to class 3 premises (62,961/48 per cent). These premises sell foods such as gelato, coffee and pre-packaged pies as well as ‘cook and serve’ foods, such as hamburgers, sold for immediate consumption. The corresponding trading days for class 2 and 4 premises were 23 per cent (30,501) and 29 per cent (37,399), respectively.
Community group trading days Figure 14 demonstrates the significant role played by community groups selling food to raise funds for charity or local community sports clubs. Temporary and mobile community group traders operated for a total of 16,490 days in 2014. Of these, 93 per cent (15,284) were due to temporary premises while only seven per cent (1,206) were made up by mobile premises.
Page 61 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Figure 14: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile community group food premises* trading days by month, Victoria 2014 (Total 16,490)
*Note: Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. Seasonal variations similar to those seen among business traders were evident among community- run temporary premises between January and July 2014. The surge in trading days from May to September was due both to not-for-profit sporting club operations – such as BBQs, sausage sizzles and egg and bacon rolls –which are active during the winter months, as well as to significant growth in the number of community groups who recorded their activities in Streatrader for the first time in 2014. For both temporary and mobile premises operated by community groups, the overwhelming majority of trading days (13,565/82 per cent) were contributed by class 4 community premises, nearly all of which were simple sausage sizzles or cake stalls.
Premises per registration/notification On the Streatrader system, all temporary and mobile food premises operated by a proprietor are recorded in a single registration which, for example, means an operator may have five food vans managed under a single registration. Table 10 show registrations (class 2 and 3) and notifications (class 4) per single registration during 2014. A proxy for the number of discrete proprietors, this shows that most temporary and mobile food premises proprietors (79 per cent/12,175) operated only one premise during 2014. Twenty-one per cent (3,256) operated two or more premises with only 251 operating five or more.
Table 11: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications per single registration, Victoria 2014
Premises per registration No. %
1 12,175 79% 2 2,280 15% 3 521 3% 4 205 1% 5+ 251 2% Total 15,432 100% *Note: includes water transport vehicles (class 3)
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 62
excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Premises trading in multiple municipalities Of all temporary and mobile traders active in more than one municipality in 2014, 40 per cent (1,252) traded in only two municipalities while only 17 per cent (796) traded in more than five (Figure 15). Under the Streatrader system, these proprietors now only need to register (class 2 and 3) or notify (class 4) once to operate at multiple locations anywhere in the state on submission of a statement of trade. This has substantially reduced the time and cost of meeting their food safety regulatory obligations. All traders have benefited from Streatrader as it allows them to manage their notifications/registrations quickly and easily online, including updating their details, paying fees, and lodging their statements of trade.
Figure 15: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 3,130)
*Note: excludes: water transport vehicles (class 3) food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. Among temporary and mobile food premises, Figures 16 and 17 show the corresponding figures for retail and food service businesses and community group operators. A greater proportion of businesses proprietors traded in multiple municipalities in 2014 compared to community group traders – for example, of the total of 787 traders who operated in more than five municipalities (Figure 16), 98 per cent (768) were for-profit businesses while only to two per cent (19) were community group traders (Figure 17).
Page 63 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Figure 16: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food retail/service premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 2,576)
*Note: excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act in the Streatrader system, a single registration enables food vendors to operate anywhere in the state for 12 months.
Figure 17: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile community group premises* proprietors who operated in two or more municipalities, Victoria 2014 (Total 634)
*Note: excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. in the Streatrader system, a single registration enables food vendors to operate anywhere in the state for 12 months.
Initial notifications class 4 temporary and mobile premises Figure 18 shows that 4,130 class 4 temporary and mobile food premises notified councils of their activities for the first time in 2014, reflecting the rapid growth in this premises class. The overwhelming majority of these (96 per cent/3,979) were temporary premises.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 64
Figure 18: New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises notifications by premises type and month, Victoria 2014 (Total 4,130)
See Appendix 8 for a breakdown by municipality.
Page 65 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Compliance and enforcement approaches
By law, class 1 and 2 food premises operating in Victoria must maintain a FSP appropriate to their food handling activities.
A FSP is a written plan that details how a business or community group will manage the safety of the food it prepares, serves or sells.
Food safety programs: Fixed, temporary and mobile premises Food premises may use one of the department’s registered FSP templates to create their food safety programs, which is a straightforward, inexpensive approach. Alternatively, premises may employ a suitably qualified person to write an independent FSP tailored to their activities. Figure 19 shows class 1 and 2 food premises according to the type of FSP they used in 2014. Seventeen per cent (6,824) of premises opted for an independent food safety program. The majority of these premises were retail or food service businesses (5,916/87 per cent) but this group also included 823 (12 per cent) food manufacturers and 85 (1 per cent) community groups. Of the 39,194 class 1 and 2 premises that had food safety programs in 2014, 83 per cent (32,370) opted to use the department’s registered templates (Figure 19). Of these, 96 per cent (31,184) were retail or food service businesses and the remaining four per cent (1,186) were community groups. A greater proportion of community group food premises used a registered Department of Health program (93 per cent/1,186) compared to retail and food service businesses (84 per cent/31,184). Due to the specialised nature of their food handling activities, all food manufacturers (878) were required to have independent food safety programs.
Figure 19: Class 1 and 2 food premises* by type of FSP and premises category, Victoria 2014 (Total 39,194)
*Note:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 66
includes fixed, mobile and temporary food premises excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Compliance checks: Class 1–3 fixed food premises Victorian councils have a long history of regularly visiting food premises to check that the food they are selling is safe and correctly labelled. A cost-effective compliance regime is important to food premises and, as many food businesses transcend local, state and national borders, a consistent regulatory approach across Victoria is also desirable. Under the Act, council EHOs are required to check all class 1–3 fixed food premises to assess whether they are compliant with their legal obligations. Depending on the nature of the premises, the compliance regime for class 1, 2 and 3 fixed premises involves a combination of inspection and assessment by a council officer and a food safety audit by an approved auditor. To ensure the proprietor is complying with the applicable food safety standards, food premises are checked once or twice each year; this is determined by their classification.
About compliance checks • Where a food premises has an independent FSP, councils conduct a mandatory inspection/assessment or an audit is conducted by an approved auditor. The auditor checks whether the premises is complying with the Act, the Code and the FSP. Councils may also conduct discretionary inspections if they have concerns about a food business, in response to a complaint, or as random spot check. • A council assessment involves determining if an FSP template has been used to prepare a standard FSP, whether it is the correct template for the business, and whether the premises is complying with the FSP and the Code. • An audit of an FSP is conducted by a Department of Health approved auditor. The audit determines whether the FSP is adequate and whether the food premises is complying with it and with its obligations under the applicable food safety standards of the Code. Under the Act, only class 1 and 2 food premises that have FSPs tailored specifically for the premises (that is, an independent program) require audit. • In view of the lower food safety risks involved, the compliance regime for class 4 premises may involve discretionary council inspection if a complaint is received or for a spot check. • Minimum compliance checks differ for newly registering premises and for transfer and renewal of registrations depending on premises class and the type of FSP they are using, as follows: New registration – class 1 and 2 premises with non-standard FSPs – mandatory inspection by a council officer and audit by an approved auditor – class 2, with standard FSPs, and 3 premises– council inspection – class 4 notification by proprietor to council. Renewal of registration – class 1 premises – audit and council assessment – class 2 premises with non-standard FSPs – audit by an approved auditor – class 2 premises with standard FSPs – council assessment – class 3 premises – council inspection – class 4 – no requirement. Transfer of registration
Page 67 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
– all classes except class 4 – council inspection – class 4 – no requirement.
A total of 50,884 compliance checks of Victoria’s 45,230 fixed food premises were undertaken in 2014, representing 1.1 visits per premises for the year (Figure 20). This included all audits, assessments and inspections undertaken at these premises, including those at premises that had more than one compliance check during the year.
Figure 20: Compliance checks* conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total 50,884)
* Note: Includes mandatory and discretionary audits, assessments and inspections of food premises. Due to data input error and other issues, complete data were not available for all councils. See Appendix 1, Table A for details.
See Appendix 9 for a breakdown by municipality. Table 12 shows the outcomes of the 50,884 compliance checks conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises in 2014. As an average, 82 per cent (41,669) of all checks assessed the premises as ‘compliant’, indicating that they were fully compliant with the Act, their food safety programs or the Food Standards Code, or had only minor deficiencies that did not pose a public health risk. For 16 per cent (8,341) of checks, the outcome was ‘major noncompliance’, indicating a deficiency or breach at the premises that required remedial action but did not pose an immediate, serious threat to public health. For two per cent (874) of checks, the outcome was ‘critical noncompliance’, indicating a deficiency or breach that posed a serious threat to public health. These included situations where there was a serious risk of food being sold or prepared that was unsafe to eat.
Table 12: Outcomes of compliance checks* conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total 50,884)
Major non- Critical non- Compliant compliance compliance Total Premises No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Class 1 premises 2,841 (93%) 186 (6%) 18 (1%) 3,045 (100%) Class 2 premises 30,733 (79%) 7,536 (19%) 811 (2%) 39,080 (100%) Class 3 premises 8,095 (92%) 619 (7%) 45 (1%) 8,759 (100%) Total and compliance average 41,669 (82%) 8,341 (16%) 874 (2%) 50,884 (100%)
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 68
*Note: Includes all mandatory and discretionary audits, assessments and inspections of food premises. Due to data system reporting software and other issues, complete data were not available for all councils. See Appendix 1, Table A for details.
Data shows that the great majority of food businesses (82 per cent) strive for, and achieve, full compliance with their food safety obligations. Councils’ compliance and enforcement powers under the Act are designed to protect consumers from the small proportion food businesses (18 per cent in 2014) that are likely to put public health and safety at risk. Whenever a premises is assessed as noncompliant, council officers take prompt action to mitigate potential risks and remedy the problem. The catalyst for Victoria’s robust food safety regulatory regime was a spate of widely-publicised outbreaks of foodborne illness in the late 1990s. These events, which diminished public confidence in the state’s food supply to some extent, led to major amendments to the Act to encourage food businesses to take greater responsibility for their actions in preparing food. Following the introduction of food safety programs in 2000, further reforms were enacted following calls from food businesses for unnecessary administrative red tape to be removed, and for there to be greater consistency in application of food safety laws across the state. In common with similar jurisdictions, Victoria is continuing the process of strengthening its risk- and outcomes-based approach to food safety compliance assessment. Current initiatives, based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system principles, are featured in the ‘From principles to practice’ section of this report. Without restricting EHOs’ professional judgement and flexibility to take food premises’ particular circumstances into account, the guidelines being prepared as part of this work are designed to promote more consistent compliance and enforcement approaches across councils. The desired outcome is that actions undertaken across the state are: • authorised by law • graduated • outcome based and procedurally fair • accountable and transparent • consistent • proportionate • risk based.
Compliance checks temporary and mobile premises: Sharing compliance information through Streatrader Until the advent of the Streatrader system in late 2012, there was really no way for councils to share compliance information about temporary and mobile food businesses operating in multiple municipalities. Streatrader has made these premises’ full compliance histories available to all councils. Sharing of this information enables councils to review the past performance of traders moving into their districts and focus their compliance efforts on premises that may pose greater risks to public health. If the trader has moved on, Streatrader allows issues identified by one council to be followed up by the next. Traders are aware that their histories are available to all councils and this may prompt poor performers to improve compliance. A total of 5,349 compliance checks were undertaken at temporary and mobile food premises which traded in Victoria during 2014 (Figure 21). This included all audits, assessments and inspections undertaken at temporary and mobile premises, including those which had more than one check during the year.
Page 69 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Figure 21: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* at which council compliance checks** were conducted, 2014 (Total 5,349)
Notes: * includes water transport vehicles (class 3) ** Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act includes all mandatory and discretionary audits, assessments and inspections of food premises.
In interpreting the data, it is important to understand that compliance requirements for temporary and mobile food premises are subject to a different compliance regime than fixed premises. In particular, temporary premises, such as market stalls, typically operate only occasionally and many trade at a number of different locations. In addition, compliance approaches differ somewhat across the state due to council policy approaches and the nature and size of this sector in their municipalities. For these reasons, the rate of compliance checks conducted at these premises will be lower than at fixed food premises.
About compliance requirements of food vans and stalls
Class 2 and 3 mobile premises are subject to similar compliance requirements to fixed premises, that is, an initial inspection and subsequent annual inspection are required for all premises. Provided there are no compliance concerns, for businesses which operate large numbers of class 3 vehicles one annual inspection for every three vehicles may suffice.
There is no requirement for an initial or annual inspection of class 2 and 3 temporary premises by registering councils. The proprietor must provide details on the type of food to be sold and how the food will be kept safe. Inspections may also be undertaken at council discretion.
Many traders have a fixed premises as part of their businesses, for example, home-based businesses. In these cases, many councils use the annual inspection of the fixed component as an opportunity to review and discuss the temporary operation with the trader.
Minimal regulation applies to class 4 food premises as they handle only low-risk food. As such, they are not required to undergo compliance checks.
Table 13 shows the outcomes of compliance checks conducted at class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises in 2014. As an average, 84 per cent (4,515) of checks assessed the premises as ‘compliant’. For 14 per cent (754), the outcome was ‘major noncompliance’, and for one per cent (81),
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 70 the outcome was ‘critical noncompliance’. This pattern of outcomes is similar to that for fixed premises (Table 12).
Table 13: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* compliance overview,** Victoria 2014 (Total 5,349)
Major Critical Compliant noncompliance noncompliance Premises No. and % No. and % No. and % Total No. and % Class 2 premises 2,629 (83%) 476 (15%) 53 (2%) 3,158 Class 3 premises 1,389 (85%) 216 (13%) 25 (2%) 1,630 Class 4 premises 496 (88%) 62 (11%) 3 (1%) 561 Total and compliance average 4,514 (84%) 754 (14%) 81 (1%) 5,349
Notes: *includes water transport vehicles (class 3) Includes all mandatory and discretionary audits, assessments and inspections of food premises. ** excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act. See Appendix 10 for a breakdown by municipality.
Enforcement actions: Act breaches and enforcement Whenever a compliance check indicates that a food premises has breached the law, council officers must decide on a course of action. Often the best solution is to explain to the proprietor how to comply. Education and assistance may be all that is required, especially when the proprietor wishes to do the right thing. Depending upon a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the breach, the risk of harm and whether there is a history of compliance or noncompliance, other enforcement actions may be appropriate. Under the Act, a range of remedies is available to councils as the primary enforcement agencies at the local level. These include, but are not limited to: • 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. Enforcement overview class 1–3 fixed food premises
Food safety advice Councils continued to provide advice to proprietors and community groups about how to handle food safely in 2014. Since amendments to the Act took effect in 2010 and 2011, councils have additional powers to sanction food premises that pose greater risks to public health. For example, they may charge fees for follow-up inspections for repeated noncompliance because such businesses require more council time and effort in monitoring than compliant proprietors.
Page 71 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Orders, directions and prosecutions The information on enforcement actions by councils in this section of the report relates only to fixed food premises. The corresponding information for temporary and mobile food premises is not yet available and the department and councils are working to ensure these data can be reported in future. For the state’s 45,230 class 13 fixed food premises, Table 14 provides an overview of enforcement actions taken for Act offences in 2014. In all, councils took action on 950 occasions. Issuing an order to comply with premises hygiene requirements under s. 19(2) of the Act was the most common action taken by councils (585/62 per cent). The s. 19(2) Order requires the proprietor to rectify the issue within a specified timeframe and/or directs the proprietor to take specific action to ensure that the food sold is safe and suitable. For example, a s. 19(2) Order may be placed on a proprietor to clean the premises within 24 hours. The Order may also state that a cleaning schedule be implemented.
Table 14: Overview of enforcement action taken by councils for Act offences by class 13 fixed food premises, Victoria 2014 (Total premises 45,230)
Action No. Order to comply with premises hygiene requirements, other (s. 19(2)) 585 Infringement notices (various sections) 169 Order for a vending machine or other equipment to comply (s. 19A)* 54 Food seizure (s. 21(1)) 52 Direction to comply with records, training or audit requirements (s. 19W) 41 Prosecutions which resulted in a conviction recorded (various sections)** 26 Premises closure order (s. 19(3)) 12 Order to comply with food handler hygiene requirements (s. 19B) 11 Registrations suspended or revoked 0 Total 950
Notes: *This offence also relates to other equipment within a food premises, not solely to vending machines. ‘Other equipment’ relates to equipment associated with a food premises – fixed, mobile or temporary. **See Figures 21–24 and Appendix 12 for further details.
See Appendix 11 for a breakdown by municipality of general enforcement actions29 and infringement notices for Act offences. Appendix 12 presents a breakdown of convictions by council.
Infringement notices From March 2011 a new mid-range enforcement power has enabled councils to issue on-the-spot fines for a range of less serious food safety or hygiene offences. This means councils have less need to resort to costly, time-consuming prosecutions for less serious breaches. By offering a prompt, straightforward method for a food business to make amends for an offence without going to court, the infringement notice system aims to encourage food premises to comply with food law. While infringement offences apply on a statewide basis, councils may set their own policies on the use of this enforcement tool. Council officers also exercise professional discretion as to when it is
29 General enforcement actions refer to a range of enforcement powers for breaches of various sections of the Act, including directions and orders to comply, premises closures and food seizures.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 72 appropriate to issue notices. In practice, many councils still prefer to resolve issues through educational support to food premises. In 2014 councils recorded issuing a total of 169 infringement notices to fixed food premises, comprising 156 notices (92 per cent) to class 2 premises, 12 (7 per cent) to class 3 premises, and one to a class 1 premises. The latter was reassuring as class 1 premises, by definition, handle food for vulnerable populations, such as hospital patients, nursing home residents and children attending day care centres. However, these figures underestimate the actual number of notices issued as not all councils routinely enter data into their food safety management systems from which data for this report are derived. Offences for which infringement notices may be issued are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. For more information, go to the department’s website at:
Temporary closures, suspensions and revoked registrations Where a council has serious concerns about a food premises, it may suspend or revoke the premises’ registration until those concerns are addressed. If the registration is revoked, the proprietor will need to apply for a new registration. The department was not notified of any registration suspensions or revocations by councils in 2014. Under the Act, an alternative approach is for council to direct the business to take steps to ensure adequate hygiene and food handling at the premises. As part of this order, the council chief executive officer may temporarily close a food premises or stop particular food handling activities where this is necessary to protect public health. Temporary closure of a food premises is a significant step that can only be ordered by a council chief executive officer when it is clear that food should not be sold from the site until improvements are made. In such serious cases, the business may only resume operations once the problems have been fixed and permission to reopen the premises has been granted by council. In 2014 councils notified the department of closures of 12 food premises.30 There were six in the City of Melbourne, two in the City of Glen Eira and one in each of the cities of Boroondara, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong and Whitehorse. This power complements councils’ longstanding authority to order a clean-up of a food premises or other steps to ensure safe food handling conditions. In 2014 a new email inbox to facilitate the notification of closure orders from councils to the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit was set up.
Prosecutions for serious breaches Prosecutions for food safety breaches are typically initiated when there has been serious noncompliance or a repeated failure to comply with food laws and when lower level means of enforcement are not appropriate. A court then decides whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty of the offence. In cases where a court finds a person guilty, the court must then decide what sentence to impose. In serious cases it may impose a conviction, with or without some other sentencing order. Since 2010 councils have been required under the Act to report certain information about prosecutions. The department has published on its website the details of businesses or individuals
30 S. 19(4)(b) of the Act requires councils to notify the department of the making of an order under S. 19(3)(a) or (3)(b) in which council directs that either: a food premises must not be kept or used for the sale, or the handling for sale, or any food; or a food premises must not be kept or used for the preparation of food.
Page 73 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety who have been prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under the Act that is serious enough for the court to record a conviction. The Act requires each conviction to be retained on the register for 12 consecutive months. Ordinarily, a conviction under the Act is dealt with in open court – typically in the Magistrate’s Court. The purpose of the register is to increase the opportunity for a court’s decision to become more widely known. This makes information about noncompliance with the Act more readily available to the public. The register of convictions is available on the department’s website. Go to:
Statistics about convictions The following statistics are based on information provided by councils and related court records.
Convictions and convicted persons Convictions were recorded against 26 companies or individuals in relation to 25 food premises operating in Victoria during 2014. The companies and individuals were found guilty of a total of 253 offences under the Act. The statistics in this report include only offences for which a conviction was recorded. A company may be charged with offences under the Act if the company is the proprietor of the food business. An individual may be charged if he or she is the proprietor of the business, or is a director of a proprietor company, or is involved in the management of the business.
Types of offences and premises Most of the convictions were for breaches of s.16 of the Act (a failure to comply with the Food Standards Code). The majority of these were breaches of Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements. These offences ranged from failure to store food properly or keep pests out, to failure to maintain clean food premises, and keep fixtures, fittings and equipment in a good state of repair. Details of offences are set out in Figures 2225 and are described in more detail in Appendix 12.
Figure 22: Offences* resulting in convictions by premises type, Victoria 2014 (Total 253)
*Note: There may be more than one offence per food premises. For example, a company which is the proprietor of the food business and its director may both be charged with the same type of offences if they are both liable under the Act.
Food premises are categorised under the Act as fixed (for example, a restaurant, shop or manufacturing factory), temporary (for example, a market stall) or mobile (for example, a van). All but
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 74
13 offences for which convictions were recorded under the Act in 2014 occurred at fixed premises; the remaining 13 occurred at temporary premises. The great majority of premises convictions (15 of 25) involved restaurants and cafés (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Type of food premises in relation to which convictions were recorded, Victoria 2014 (Total 25)
Convicted persons An individual may be charged if they are: • the proprietor of the business • the manager of the business or • a director or is otherwise involved in the management of a company, when the company is the proprietor of the business. The types of convicted persons in this reporting period are set out in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Proprietors convicted, Victoria 2014 (Total 26)
Page 75 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Penalties The penalties imposed in 2014, in addition to the recording of a conviction, included fines ranging from $200 to $60,000. In one case, a community corrections order was imposed rather than a fine. The highest fine imposed related to offences including: handling food for sale in a way that the proprietor ought reasonably to have known was likely to render the food unsafe (s. 8A(1)); handling food for sale in a way that would render or be likely to render the food unsuitable (s. 12(1)); and interfering with an article seized under the Act (s. 29(a)). The lowest fine ($200) was imposed for operating a food business at premises not registered with council (s. 35A). The median fine imposed was $10,000.
Prosecuting councils In 2014, prosecutions under the Act resulting in convictions were brought by 13 councils, across five of the department’s eight regions (Figure 25).
Figure 25: Food premises in relation to which convictions were recorded by municipality, Victoria 2014 (Total 25)
Surveillance and science
Statutory testing of food samples An effective food surveillance system must generate timely information that can be used to develop and measure the outcomes of public policy on food and food contamination and to educate the public. In Victoria, this requires a partnership between the department and local government. Since the introduction of the Food Act 1984 in Victoria, council EHOs have undertaken active surveillance of the hygiene and safety of food sold in Victoria.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 76
In 2014, statistics on laboratory analyses of more than 7,000 food samples taken from food premises by council officers were transmitted from the state’s accredited testing laboratories directly to the department for analysis.
Our surveillance system
The vision for a preventive system that manages foodborne hazards from farm to fork relies on many components. One is Victoria’s food surveillance system.
Purpose
To search for organisms or other contaminants in foods and drinks offered for sale in Victoria that can cause illness so that action can be taken to prevent or reduce their impact.
Who • Under the Act, Victoria’s 79 local governments must regularly carry out food sampling at local food premises to ensure the safety of food sold. • Public food analysts associated with laboratories approved by the department analyse the samples collected by councils and prepare reports for them. • As the registering authorities, councils retain responsibility for following up any concerns identified in the laboratory results.
How • The department declares the numbers of samples each council must take and submit for analysis each year and these are published in the Victorian Government Gazette. • To ensure a high level of surveillance in class 1 facilities that serve food to vulnerable people – such as aged care homes, hospitals and kindergartens – the declaration also mandates how many samples must be taken from these premises. • All councils use a standard food sampling form that allows foods to be described on the basis of risks and ensures comparability of data transmitted to the laboratories for analysis. • Each year approved laboratories electronically transmit de-identified statistics of all laboratory analyses of food samples derived from these reports to the department. • Regional sampling groups and the department periodically conduct surveillance surveys that target high-risk foods and high-risk food premises. These regional and statewide studies identify areas of success, as well as common risks that require action or further investigation. • The department hosts a meeting of approved analysts each year to enable sharing of information on the latest developments, such as emerging techniques, new applications and standards, and a look into the future. • As part of the department’s annual local government forum, EHOs are provided with food surveillance updates and professional development. • Through the Implementation Sub-Committee for Food Regulation, the department contributes to monitoring the Australian and New Zealand food supply to ensure it is safe and that foods comply with standards for microbiological contaminants, pesticide residue limits and chemical contamination.31
31 To view the completed food surveys go to the FSANZ website at
Page 77 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
In 2014, 2,388 food premises were registered as class 1 premises which, by definition, handle food for groups in the community who are most vulnerable to food-related illness. These included hospital patients, residents of aged care facilities and children attending day childcare centres. The corresponding figures for class 2 and 3 were 37,554 and 14,804, respectively. Figure 26 shows that around a quarter of all food samples (1,667/24 per cent) taken in 2014 were from class 1 premises which reflects an appropriate risk-management focus by councils. This figure also shows that only six per cent (404) of all samples taken by councils related to investigation of complaints about food premises.
Figure 26: Statutory food surveillance samples*† taken from class 1–3 food premises by councils for laboratory testing for food pathogens, Victoria 2014**
80% 5,413 100% 6,687 90% 70% 80% 60% 70% taken taken
50% 60% 40% 50% samples samples 40% 30% 1,667 30% 20% Food 20% Statutory 10% 10% 404 0% 0% 1
3
and
Class sampling 2
surveillance
Class Complaint Statutory
Food premises classification Purpose of sampling
Notes: *‘Statutory food surveillance samples’ refers to the numbers of samples each council must take and submit for analysis each year. These are declared annually by the Department of Health and published in the Victorian Government Gazette. †The small variation in total samples tested in Figure 25 and 26 may be due to missing data or to the fact that more than one test may apply to a sample. **Information for the Rural City of Ararat and the Shire of Murrindindi is not included as their data were not submitted. ***‘Statutory surveillance’ refers to samples taken by councils for the purposes of routine monitoring and regional and statewide surveillance surveys. ‘Complaint sampling’ refers to samples taken by councils as part of investigation of complaints about food premises from the public or from other food premises operators.
As expected, Figure 27 shows that microbiological risks were the most examined in the food that Victorians consumed in 2014 (95 per cent).
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 78
Figure 27: Statutory food surveillance tests conducted on food samples by type of testing,* Victoria 2014 (Total 7,061)
*Note: Food samples may be tested for the presence of different types of contamination (that is microbiological, chemical or physical), for the presence of undeclared allergens, or to verify the ingredients listed on the nutrition information panels. The 2014 year was the first in which councils were required to report their surveillance testing activities to the department and the reported data show that food sampling is a significant activity for them. Regular statewide and regional surveillance surveys rely on this sampling program to monitor the safety high-risk foods and high-risk food premises in Victoria. These activities during 2014 are detailed below. The department is developing a new data repository and reporting tool to improve its capacity to analyse food sampling data for trends in certain food groups and premises types across Victoria in future.
Surveillance surveys Routine food safety surveillance monitors the safety of food offered for sale in Victoria and is one of the building blocks of the food safety system. The department conducts an annual statewide surveillance survey which generally targets high-risk foods or high-risk food premises.
Temperature control practices statewide Temperature abuse of foods increases the likelihood of illness and is observed from time to time by council officers during routine inspections. For this reason, the department coordinated a statewide survey of temperature control practices in Victorian food businesses in 2014. Thirty-seven (of 79) councils participated, collecting 834 individual food samples from 439 businesses. Microbiological analysis showed satisfactory results for the vast majority of food samples. However, the accompanying food handling questionnaire identified a number of areas in which temperature control of food could be improved in some businesses. These related mainly to the regularity of temperature checks of food, the appropriate use and calibration of thermometers, and record keeping relating to monitoring the temperature of food. Where premises returned unsatisfactory sample results, council officers took follow-up action to ensure proprietors remedied the problems promptly. Education was all that was required at most businesses. Where this failed, a graduated suite of enforcement tools was available to councils.
Page 79 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
To assist EHOs improve food business practice in this area, the department will release its report on the results of the survey to councils in early 2015 along with the key findings and advice. Regional surveillance surveys Regional surveillance surveys in 2014 included the microbiological analysis of gluten-free claims in foods and baked foods containing piped cream and custard.
Piped cream and custard goods in Gippsland Regional food surveillance activities during 2014 included preparation of a surveillance report conducted in the Gippsland region on baked foods containing piped cream and custard.
Regional surveillance surveys
Under the Act councils must regularly sample foods retailed or manufactured in their municipalities. Regular food sampling surveys contribute to food safety by allowing councils to identify microbiological or chemical hazards in ready-to-eat foods and to take steps to address these issues.
To extend the value of these studies, councils in each region work together as part of a regional food surveillance group convened by department’s Regional EHOs.
Surveys typically focus on local issues of concern or interest identified by EHOs in the course of routine inspections. The results are used by the department to monitor food safety risks across the state.
The regional food sampling group had identified issues with the microbiological quality of baked goods – such as éclairs, apple turnovers and custard tarts – prepared by local bakeries that had cream or custard added post-cooking using a reusable piping bag. EHOs visited local food businesses and collected a total of 78 samples of cream and custard as well as 32 swab samples from reusable piping bags that had been cleaned, sterilised and dried. A food handling questionnaire was completed at the same time. The results suggested that these types of foods do not present a significant public health risk in the Gippsland region. Laboratory analysis showed that a small number of samples were unsatisfactory by microbiological analysis indicating that food handling and storage practices at some premises could be improved. EHOs contacted these premises to ensure that the proprietors understood and acted promptly to rectify the problem. The results of swab samples on the reusable piping bags indicated that the cleaning, sterilisation and drying processes were not completely effective at some premises. As a result of environmental health officer follow-up, most premises decided to use only disposable piping bags. The results compared well with the findings of similar studies in NSW and the Eastern Metropolitan Region of Victoria.
Gluten-free foods in Hume region During 2014, the department’s Hume Region conducted a survey looking at compliance surrounding gluten-free foods. EHOs from six councils in the Hume region collected a total of 64 food samples from local food businesses that carried a gluten-free claim. This gluten-free claim was most commonly verbal (39 per cent), followed by advertised with signage (23 per cent), printed on the package (20 per
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 80 cent), or printed on the menu (18 per cent). Sampled foods included a broad range of cakes, desserts, slices, breads, and savoury meat or vegetarian meals. Laboratory testing confirmed that 95 per cent of these samples contained no detectable gluten. However, three (five per cent) of the samples contained detectable levels of gluten. In these instances, follow-up action was taken by council officers to address this issue. This survey provided a snapshot of the accuracy of gluten-free food claims in the Hume region with the vast majority of foods sampled containing no detectable gluten.
Regional surveillance meetings During 2014, officers of the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit attended a number of regional food surveillance group meetings as well as regional meetings of the Environmental Health Professional Association, a professional association for EHOs. The meetings provided departmental staff with an opportunity to collaborate with regional colleagues on food surveillance issues of interest across the state. Specific state and regional food surveillance surveys were discussed at the meetings, along with region-specific food safety issues and concerns.
Safe handling of seed sprouts
Due to continuing concerns about the safe handling of seed sprouts in Australia and elsewhere, data collected for a 2012 survey on the use of these products in Victorian businesses were reanalysed in 2014 and a paper submitted for publication in a specialist food science journal.
Seed sprouts are a popular ready-to-eat food sprouted from a wide range of seeds, such as alfalfa, radish, snow peas and mung beans. These foods pose a unique set of food safety issues (relating to the sprouting process that occurs under conditions that are favourable to the growth of microorganisms) and have been linked to serious outbreaks of foodborne illness in Australia and overseas. Data collected across Victoria for the department’s 2012 survey provided a valuable snapshot of the microbiological status of seed sprouts and food handling practices relating to these products in Victorian businesses. In view of the importance of this issue, the department reanalysed the data in 2014 and a paper based on these findings has been accepted for publication in an international, peer- reviewed, specialist food science journal. This and previous surveys detected E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes in these products. As there is potential for microbiological contamination, producers, retailers and food premises need to ensure they have food safety systems in place to reduce risks. The department published a report on the statewide survey along with an alert for businesses and EHOs on correct temperature control and storage conditions. In 2013 Victoria also participated in development of a new Primary Production and Processing Standard for seed sprouts. The standard, which came into effect in July 2013, established regulatory measures to reduce the likelihood of foodborne illness occurring due to consumption of seed sprouts. The standard imposes through-chain obligations on primary producers and processors – from the farm to sale to the consumer – and has been incorporated into the Code.
Bacterial pathogens in cheese studied
A study commissioned by the department has contributed to better understanding of the growth of
Page 81 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
bacterial pathogens in cheese. Predictive models developed as a result of the project will become part of decision-support software for use in containing deadly Listeria monocytogenes bacteria in food factories.
In 2011, the department commissioned the University of Tasmania to undertake work to better understand the behaviour of foodborne pathogens in a range of different cheeses. In 2014 the researchers submitted a detailed scientific report on studies completed to address the objectives of the project. The study simulated pathogen growth, inactivation and persistence in model cheese systems and measured the physical and chemical properties of different cheese types. Based on these results, the researchers developed a database of parameters in dairy products that may influence pathogen survival and developed and validated models which describe the effects of environmental parameters on pathogen viability in a wide range of cheeses. With the possible exception of Feta‐style cheeses and cheeses that involve a cooking step (for example, hard grating cheese), the study also demonstrated that the safety of cheeses is dominated by the hygienic quality of the milk used to make the cheese, not by the ability of processes to eliminate pathogens. Predictive models developed as a result of the project will become part of decision support software for use in containing Listeria monocytogenes in food factories. The findings will also provide food authorities with evidence on which to base regulatory decisions. To access a summary of the report email the department’s Food Safety and Regulation Unit at [email protected].
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 82
Appendix 1: Data sources, specifications and limitations
This report has been developed as required under s. 7C of the Food Act 1984. Data sources, specifications, limitations and other explanatory notes about the data presented in this report are described here. As data on fixed food premises on the one hand, and temporary and mobile food premises on the other, are drawn from different sources, these are described in Tables A and B, respectively. Data specifications which apply to all premises types are described in Table C.
Table A: Fixed food premises (class 1–3)
Specifications Description Date range 1 January to 31 December 2014 Data Department of Health’s food dataset (as amended from time to time) provides a specifications common set of concepts, data elements and edit/validation rules that define activities carried out under the Act. The terminology is aligned to the concepts and provisions in the Act. The use of the food dataset across all municipalities is intended to promote a consistent approach to administering the Act across the state, as provided in s. 7A of the Act. Inclusions Class 1–3 food premises Registrations: A count of all class 1–3 fixed food premises: • registered with Victorian councils as required under the Act as at 31 December 2014, regardless of the date of initial registration or renewal • operated by businesses, community groups and not-for-profit organisations • with a registration status of ‘New’, ‘Renewal’ or ‘Transfer’, unless otherwise stated. Compliance activity: A count of all compliance checks conducted in relation to class 1, 2 and 3 fixed food premises. Compliance checks are undertaken to assess compliance with the Act, the Code(code) and premises’ food safety programs (FSP). Compliance checks include: • An audit conducted by a Department of Health-approved food safety auditor. Audits are conducted on all class 1 and 2 food premises that have a non- standard FSP (that is, an FSP tailored specifically for the food premises). Class 1 and 2 food premises, are required to be audited once within a 12-month period. The audit determines whether the FSP is adequate and whether the premises is complying with it and with its obligations under the Act and the code. • A council assessment conducted by a council officer once in a 12-month period of all class 1 and 2 premises with a standard FSP (an FSP prepared using a department-approved template). An assessment determines if the food premises is complying with the Act, the code and its FSP. • An inspection of a food premises conducted by a council officer to examine if a food premises is complying with the Act and the code. An inspection can be conducted in relation to any food premises regardless of the food premises classification. However, a class 3 premises must be inspected at least once within a 12-month period. Enforcement actions: A count of actions taken under the Act in relation to food
Page 83 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Specifications Description premises in order to prevent or reduce the possibility of a serious danger to public health, or to mitigate the adverse consequences of a serious danger to public health. Enforcement actions comprise: • General enforcements which refer to a range of directions, orders and actions permitted under the Act, such as, a direction to comply with records, training or audit requirements, an order to close a food premises, or seizure of food. • Infringement notices which refer to notices issued by councils for various mid-level breaches of the Act or the Code without the need for prosecution. A list of infringement offences is contained in Schedule 1 to the Act. • Prosecutions which refer to legal proceedings taken by councils or the department for serious breaches of the Act. Exclusions Class 4 fixed food premises: The number of class 4 fixed food premises that actively traded in Victoria in 2014 is not known. Due to the lower risk of class 4 premises’ food handling activities, these businesses are only required to notify councils of their basic details – such as business type, the nature of the business, types of food handled and their address and contact details – on a once-off basis. Councils are not required to contact them annually to ascertain whether they are still operating. For these reasons, data on class 4 fixed food premises are excluded from this report. New versus renewed food premises registrations: The data cannot be reported separately at this stage. Registrations 1 January to 30 December: Data in this report relate to fixed food premises registered with councils as at 31 December 2014. Data exclude food premises that were operating but closed during the year before that date. Features and Missing and incomplete fixed premises data: 74 of 79 councils were able to limitations of the report fully against the department’s food dataset in relation to fixed food premises data operating in their municipalities in 2014: • Murrindindi Shire Council’s fixed food premises data for the year are not included as these were not submitted due to council-related IT issues. • Other councils: Due to data system or reporting software issues, the following data were not available in time for publication: • Melbourne City Council, quarters 1 and 2 • Macedon Ranges Shire, quarter 3 • East Gippsland Shire, quarter 4 • Gannawarra Shire, quarter 4. Work is ongoing so that all councils can report fully in future. Variances: In this report, there is a variance of up to 10% in the data for: • Knox City Council due a technical issues experienced by the Department of Health’s reporting software • East Gippsland Shire Council due to technical issues experienced by the Council’s reporting software. Zero versus missing values: At this stage, the data system has no facility for recording missing data – that is, where a ‘0’ shows in a council data report, it may mean either that there was no result for the period, or that there are missing data. Rounding: Tables in this report may not add to 100 per cent due to rounding. Sources Quarterly council reports: Councils are required to report their Act activities to the department on a quarterly basis. These reports contain details relating to the numbers of food premises and any events that occurred at the premises during the quarter, such as an inspection or enforcement action. For a full list of activities that are required to be reported, refer to the Victorian Government Gazette No. S 375
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 84
Specifications Description Friday 17 September 2010 at
Table B: Temporary and mobile food premises (class 2–4)
Specifications Description Date ranges As at 31 December 2014, except where noted the count is cumulative for the period 1 January to 31 December 2014. Data These are outlined in: specifications • Department of Health food dataset, as previously described. • Department of Health Streatrader system documentation. 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. Inclusions Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises Registrations and notifications: A count of temporary and mobile premises and water transport vehicles recorded in Streatrader and comprising: • class 2–3 premises with a registration status of ‘New’, ‘Renewal’ or ‘Transfer’ as recorded in the period • class 4 premises with a notification recorded. Unless otherwise stated, the data indicate category type, that is, business or community group/not-for-profit organisation. Note: premises type is ‘temporary’ or ‘mobile’. Class 2–4 registrations/notifications: A count of food premises registrations (class 2–3) or notifications (class 4) under the Act recorded in the Streatrader system as at 31 December 2014. This differs from reports in which premises is the denominator; that is, there may be more than one food premises per registration. Class 4 premises: A count of class 4 temporary and mobile food premises which traded in 2014. In contrast to class 4 fixed food premises (see earlier explanation) these premises must routinely inform councils of where and when they will be trading. They do this by lodging Act statements of trade in the Streatrader system. Because these data are entered directly by proprietors into a statewide data system, comparisons may be made between councils. Class 4 – Initial notifications: A count of class 4 premises that notified a council of their food selling activities under the Act for the first time during the period. Community groups which refer to: a. not-for-profit bodies, or b. persons or unincorporated groups of persons undertaking food handling activities solely for the purposes of raising funds for charitable purposes. Streatrader account holders: A count of all business and community group proprietors with an account on the department’s online Streatrader system, including those who actively traded in 2014 and those who did not. There may be more than one food premises per account. This includes those with water transport vehicles associated with their registrations, but excludes those with vending machines associated with their registrations.
Page 85 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Specifications Description Streatrader accounts: A count of all accounts held by businesses and community groups on Streatrader, including those who are actively trading and those who are not. This includes those with water transport vehicles associated with their registrations, but excludes those with vending machines associated with their registrations. The business or community group that holds the account and associated registration or notification, and all associated food premises, is referred to as the trader or proprietor. These terms are therefore interchangeable. Trading days: A count of days on which temporary or mobile food businesses intended to trade within a specified period, for example, a particular month or year. One premise may trade on one or many days throughout the year. These reports are a cumulative count of all days on which premises traded in Victoria during 2014. Actively traded in 2014: A count of businesses or community groups that submitted at least one Act statement of trade in 2014. Cross-council trading: A cumulative count of municipalities in which a trader operated over the course of 2014. Each trader has a single registration/notification that permits him or her to operate anywhere across the state. There may be one or more premises per registration. Principal (registering) council: The principal council is the council the trader needs to register with to sell food in Victoria. This is determined with reference to the following: • If the business or community group already has a fixed premises registered with a council, it must register its temporary or mobile premises with the same council. • If the business or community group has a place where it routinely prepares or stores food, it is required to register with the council in whose municipality these activities are taking place. • If all food handling activities take place at the mobile or temporary premises, the business or community group must register with the council in whose municipality its mobile food premises is garaged, or where the equipment for its temporary food premises is stored. • If none of these are applicable, the business or community group must register with the council in whose municipality its main business address is located. 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. The council can take enforcement action when deemed appropriate. Compliance activity: A count of mandatory and discretionary compliance checks conducted on temporary and mobile food premises (including water transport vehicles) to check whether they are complying with their food safety obligations. In many cases temporary premises, such as market stalls, operate occasionally and at many different locations. Accordingly, at a state level, the compliance (inspection) requirements are different for these premises than for fixed premises. In addition, compliance approaches may differ across councils. In summary: • Mobile vehicles have very similar compliance/inspection requirements to fixed premises whereby an initial inspection and an annual inspection are required for all class 2 and 3 premises. For businesses with large numbers of class 3 vehicles – provided there are no compliance concerns – one annual inspection for every three vehicles may be conducted. • Temporary premises – Inspections are at council discretion; there is no requirement for an initial or annual inspection by the registering council for these premises. Many operators have a fixed component to their businesses
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 86
Specifications Description (for example, home-based businesses) and many councils use the annual inspection of the fixed component as an opportunity to review and discuss the temporary operation with the trader. Exclusions Vending machines are defined as food premises under the Act but are minimally regulated due to the low-risk of foods sold. Data on food vending machines are excluded from this report. New versus renewed food premises registrations: These data are available for temporary and mobile food premises but are excluded from this report as they are not meaningful for this premises type – that is, these premises typically open and close but are not generally transferred to other proprietors. Trading days for water transport vehicles: These data are excluded from this report. Features and Missing and incomplete data – enforcement actions: limitations of the Data on temporary and mobile food premises operating in all 79 Victorian data municipalities were available for inclusion in this report, except for enforcement actions taken by councils for breaches of the Act by these premises. The department is working with councils to ensure that these data can be reported in future. Source Data on temporary and mobile food premises are sourced from Streatrader, a customised database and software application developed by the department and used by councils to administer Victoria’s statewide registration/notification scheme for these premises. The data in this report drew on information entered into the Streatrader system by food business and community group system users and council officers in Victoria’s 79 municipalities.
Table C: All food premises types (fixed, temporary and mobile) – common specifications
Specifications Description Food premises The Act classifies food premises according to the public health risks involved in classifications their food handling activities. There are four classes: • class 1 – high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness • class 2 – high-risk foods that need correct temperature control at all times to keep them safe • class 3 – unpackaged low-risk foods or pre-packaged high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods • class 4 – other low-risk food handling activities, including pre-packaged low- risk food. Class 1, 2 and 3 food premises must register annually, while class 4 premises are required to notify councils on a once-off basis. Areas outside Food premises data relating to Victoria’s six alpine resorts are included in the municipalities figures for the municipalities that manage food safety compliance at these resorts, that is: • Indigo Shire – Mount Hotham Alpine Resort and Falls Creek Alpine Resort • Mansfield Shire – Mount Stirling Alpine Resort and Mount Buller Alpine resort • Baw Baw Shire – Mount Baw Baw Alpine Resort • Murrindindi Shire – Lake Mountain Alpine Resort. Data for French Island are listed in the figures for the Bass Coast Shire.
Compliance Compliant, major noncompliance and critical noncompliance: The outcome of check outcomes a compliance check undertaken by an auditor or a council officer is categorised as ‘compliant’, ‘major noncompliance’ or ‘critical noncompliance’.
Page 87 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Specifications Description • Compliant refers to a premises that is fully compliant or where only minor deficiencies that do not pose a public health risk are identified in relation to compliance with the FSP or the Food Standards Code. A number of minor noncompliances, when taken together, may lead to the conclusion that there is a major noncompliance. • Major noncompliance refers to (a) a deficiency or breach that does not, in the particular case, pose an immediate, serious threat to public health at the time at which it has been identified, but which may pose such a threat if no remedial action is taken, or (b) any other serious breach of the Act and or the Code. • Critical noncompliance refers to a deficiency or breach that poses a serious threat to public health. This includes situations where there is a serious risk of food being sold or prepared that is unsafe to eat. Other data Program files, Departmental of Health sources Department of Health Food Safety and Regulation Unit’s Regulatory and Incident Management program files were the source of data on: • Laboratory notifications of pathogens under Schedule 5 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009 • Complaints made to the department about food and/or food premises • Food recalls conducted in Australian and Victoria to remove foods that pose a health risk from the distribution chain • Food premises closures by councils under s. 19 of the Act which enables councils to temporarily order the closure of a food premises to protect public health until major or ongoing problems relating to adequate hygiene and food handling at the premises are remedied. These data are based on information reported by councils. Convictions register, Department of Health The tables in this report are based on information provided by councils and on related court records which were placed on the register of convictions. The register includes prosecutions brought by councils for offences under the Act or the Regulations where a conviction was recorded in 2014. It does not include prosecutions where the outcome: • was a finding of guilt but where no conviction was recorded • was a finding of not guilty, or where the charges were withdrawn or struck out. The Act requires councils to provide information about convictions in matters that they have prosecuted or in relation to premises that they have registered or that are in their municipalities. The Act also permits the Secretary of the department to obtain information from other sources for the purpose of ensuring that the information on the register is reliable and verified. To access the register go to the department’s website at:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 88
Specifications Description routine monitoring and regional and statewide surveillance surveys. • Complaint sampling refers to samples taken by councils as part of investigation of complaints about food premises from the public or other food premises operators. Features and Accuracy and completeness limitations of the While every effort is made to ensure that the data presented in this report are data complete and accurate, the report may contain some errors. For example, councils may have under- or over-reported food premises numbers, or incorrectly recorded a food premises as class 1, 2, 3 or 4 at the time when data were collated for this report. Technical data reporting problems which could not be resolved in time for publication may also affect the data. Missing food sampling data Information for the Rural City of Ararat and the Shire of Murrindindi is not included as these data were not submitted. Rounding Note that tables in this report may not add to 100 per cent due to rounding.
Page 89 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 2: Functions, governance and legislation
Food regulation system In Australia, three levels of government share responsibility for developing and administering food regulation within a framework that endeavours to harmonise regulatory requirements relating to a widely dispersed and varied food industry. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments jointly develop national food standards, which are embodied in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. These standards are given force through state legislation that allocates, in Victoria’s case, significant enforcement responsibility to local government. Food regulation in Victoria is managed by two state government departments, two statutory authorities and 79 local councils. To ensure food safety and the protection of public health, these Victorian regulators come together as the Victorian Food Regulators Forum. The Forum oversees a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that clarifies the roles, responsibilities and arrangements for cooperation between Victoria’s food regulators, including data sharing and referrals. The Forum also provides an opportunity for sharing lessons about best practice in regulation. The current parties to the MOU are: • the Department of Health • the Municipal Association of Victoria (representing councils) • Dairy Food Safety Victoria • PrimeSafe (meat and seafood). The current MOU is being revised to further strengthen collaboration and will: • include the role of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries under the Act in relation to egg production • focus further on ways to prevent regulatory overlap (the current ‘single regulator’ per premises approach will be enhanced) • clarify statutory roles and responsibilities of the various parties in more detail where there is a threat to public health involving food for sale. The MOU and information about the Forum can be accessed at Agriculture Victoria’s website:
Food Act 1984 This is the principal Act that controls the sale of food in Victoria.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 90
A key object of the Act is to ensure that such food is both safe and suitable for human consumption. It does this by: • providing the means through which the Australia New Zealand Code is applied as the law in Victoria • establishing enforcement powers, including emergency powers, where there are immediate threats to public health • setting out offences for breaches of the food laws and the applicable penalties and defences • establishing a food premises classification system and providing the means through which municipal councils regulate food businesses. The Act applies to most food businesses in the state including manufacturers, retailers, cafés and restaurants, as well as facilities that serve food such as hospitals and aged care facilities. Under the Act, food business owners are legally responsible for ensuring that the food they sell to customers is safe and suitable to eat. The Act adopts a proportionate approach to the regulation of the sale of food by enabling the use of the least burdensome intervention reasonably necessary to achieve the outcome sought. This is the case whether the actual regulation is carried out by the Department of Health or by other agencies (such as local government or statutory authorities). 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. Based on these factors, four classes of food premises are established under the Act – from the highest risk (class 1) through to the lowest risk (class 4). Food premises are classified by 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 only pre-packaged, low-risk food.
Roles The Act provides specific roles for councils, primary production regulators, the Department of Health, the department’s Chief Health Officer and the Minister for Health.
Councils Under the Act, Victoria’s 79 councils are the regulators of food businesses in their municipalities. Councils regulate food businesses primarily though registration of premises, monitoring compliance, providing education and advice, and taking enforcement action where necessary. Local government therefore has responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of the majority of food businesses in the state. Councils register and inspect food businesses that sell, store, manufacture, package or transport food for human consumption (including liquor) 32 This includes premises that operate from permanent venues (known as fixed premises), temporary food premises such as stalls, and mobile food premises such as food vans and carts. For large councils, the latter includes numerous major festivals conducted annually in their municipalities, as well as a large number of once-off or occasional stalls. Under Streatrader – an online statewide scheme implemented in 2012 – food vans and stalls need only a single registration (class 1–3) or notification (class 4), regardless of how many municipalities they trade in. Councils conduct food sampling programs, which involve purchasing a ‘statutory number’ of foods from class 1 and 2 premises in the municipality and having samples analysed to assess food safety
32 Premises that mainly handle raw meat, poultry or seafood are licensed and inspected by PrimeSafe, while dairy premises are licensed by Dairy Food Safety Victoria.
Page 91 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety and compliance with standards. The statutory number of samples is derived by the Department of Health on a complex formula based on the number and type of food premises in each council and which is gazetted every two years. Providing information and advice to food handlers during premises visits is a high priority for council EHOs. Many councils also offer food handling information seminars and regular newsletters for food premises proprietors and staff. Councils also have an active role in educating the community about food safety and responding to customer 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.
Primary producer regulators The Act governs some areas of primary production. For example, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries has a key role in regulating egg production. PrimeSafe is responsible for the meat industry and the seafood sector, while Dairy Food Safety Victoria regulates dairy farms and dairy processing and manufacture. Licensing, guidance and enforcement of the standards affecting these sectors is within the province of these regulators under their own industry specific Acts, supported by the Food Act 1984.
Minister for Health The Minister for Health is Victoria’s lead minister on the FoFR. The Minister is required to vote on behalf of Victoria on all food standards and national policy proposals and takes a whole-of- government position to the FoFR. The Victorian Minister for Primary Industries is also a member of the FoFR. In addition to this role, the Minister for Health has specific powers under the Act. For example, with a devolved regulatory system it is important to have a statutory mechanism that can be invoked, if required, to ensure significant policy issues are addressed in a consistent way across the state. Section 7E of the Act enables the Minister for Health to issue directions to councils. It is envisaged that such a power would only be 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. In practice, a consultative approach between the different food safety regulators tends to be most effective. The Minister for Health did not issue any directions to councils under s. 7E in 2014.
Food Safety and Regulation Unit, Department of Health The Food Safety and Regulation Unit, which is part of the Health Protection Branch of the Victorian Department of Health, supports the Minister by conducting research and analysis and providing advice and recommendations to the government on all national food policy and regulatory proposals. The unit participates in a whole-of-government food regulation group to ensure comprehensive advice to government and manages a substantial intergovernmental work program. The unit also manages numerous interrelated projects that stem from the provisions of the Act. That work includes: investigating alleged food safety incidents; initiating and coordinating food recalls; responding to public health incidents and emergencies; handling enquiries and complaints; gathering and analysing data; undertaking research; public reporting; providing information; providing education and tools to promote food safety and compliance with food laws; and performing the department’s statutory functions (for example, approval of food safety templates and food safety auditors, providing
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 92 guidance and information to councils and auditors, and maintaining the statewide register of convictions for offences under the Act). As food safety and regulation is multidimensional and is shared across all three levels of government, the unit works with a range of partners in carrying out its functions.
Chief Health Officer All of the regulators described above have powers under legislation to address noncompliance though enforcement action. If these routine powers prove to be insufficient to address any emerging serious danger to public health from food, the Act enables additional steps to be taken by the Department of Health through the powers available to the Chief Health Officer under the Act (exercising emergency powers delegated by the Secretary of the department) and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
Legislation administered by the Food Safety and Regulation Unit • Food Act 1984 (Victoria) • Food (Forms and Registration) Regulations 2005 • Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 • Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009
Other legislation of particular relevance to the unit’s work: • Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Commonwealth) • Freedom of Information Act 1982 • Victorian Local Government Act 1989 • Public Administration Act 2004 • Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 • Quarantine Act 1908 (Commonwealth).
Page 93 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 3: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by class, region and municipality, Victoria 2014
Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class,** region and municipality
Department of Health Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Metropolitan Eastern Boroondara (C) 85 (7%) 821 (72%) 238 (21%) 1,144 Eastern Metro Knox (C) 69 (7%) 596 (63%) 286 (30%) 951 Eastern Metro Manningham (C) 58 (8%) 478 (66%) 192 (26%) 728 Eastern Metro Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 423 (61%) 216 (31%) 698 Eastern Metro Monash (C) 78 (6%) 776 (64%) 365 (30%) 1,219 Eastern Metro Whitehorse (C) 72 (7%) 742 (70%) 239 (23%) 1,053 Eastern Metro Yarra Ranges (S) 56 (5%) 764 (66%) 341 (29%) 1,161 Eastern Subtotal 477 (7%) 4,600 (66%) 1,877 (27%) 6,954 North and West Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 478 (67%) 186 (26%) 715 North and West Brimbank (C) 67 (6%) 745 (72%) 225 (22%) 1,037 North and West Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 834 (74%) 234 (21%) 1,128 North and West Hobson's Bay (C) 32 (5%) 473 (74%) 135 (21%) 640 North and West Hume (C) 57 (5%) 789 (71%) 271 (24%) 1,117 North and West Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 553 (72%) 183 (24%) 766 North and West Melbourne (C) 64 (2%) 2,981 (87%) 383 (11%) 3,428 North and West Melton (S) 33 (8%) 313 (71%) 93 (21%) 439 North and West Moonee Valley (C) 47 (5%) 717 (78%) 157 (17%) 921 North and West Moreland (C) 66 (6%) 848 (71%) 280 (23%) 1,194 North and West Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 209 (65%) 96 (30%) 324 North and West Whittlesea (C) 52 (6%) 604 (70%) 204 (24%) 860 North and West Wyndham (C) 56 (7%) 579 (69%) 207 (25%) 842 North and West Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,064 (82%) 193 (15%) 1,297 North and West Subtotal 674 (5%) 11,187 (76%) 2,847 (19%) 14,708 Southern Bayside (C) 46 (7%) 498 (78%) 94 (15%) 638 Southern Metro Cardinia (S) 31 (6%) 334 (63%) 162 (31%) 527 Southern Metro Casey (C) 93 (8%) 725 (64%) 313 (28%) 1,131 Southern Metro Dandenong (C) 66 (5%) 844 (65%) 390 (30%) 1,300 Southern Metro Frankston (C) 63 (8%) 529 (67%) 195 (25%) 787 Southern Metro Glen Eira (C) 63 (7%) 621 (68%) 236 (26%) 920 Southern Metro Kingston (C) 69 (7%) 806 (76%) 183 (17%) 1,058
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 94
Department of Health Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Southern Metro Mornington Peninsula (S) 71 (6%) 850 (69%) 312 (25%) 1,233 Southern Metro Port Phillip (C) 36 (3%) 859 (82%) 154 (15%) 1,049 Southern Metro Stonnington (C) 45 (4%) 1,010 (83%) 167 (14%) 1,222 Southern Subtotal 583 (6%) 7,076 (72%) 2,206 (22%) 9,865 Metropolitan Total 1,734 (6%) 22,863 (73%) 6,930 (22%) 31,527 Barwon-South West Colac Otway (S) 9 (3%) 251 (72%) 90 (26%) 350 Barwon-South West Corangamite (S) 10 (5%) 130 (68%) 51 (27%) 191 Barwon-South West Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,236 (74%) 352 (21%) 1,680 Barwon-South West Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 129 (78%) 27 (16%) 165 Barwon-South West Moyne (S) 4 (2%) 119 (73%) 39 (24%) 162 Barwon-South West Queenscliffe (B) 1 (1%) 64 (81%) 14 (18%) 79 Barwon-South West Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 131 (77%) 34 (20%) 171 Barwon-South West Surfcoast (S) 10 (3%) 244 (73%) 80 (24%) 334 Barwon-South West Warrnambool (C) 29 (5%) 445 (77%) 101 (18%) 575 Barwon-South West Subtotal 170 (5%) 2,749 (74%) 788 (21%) 3,707 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 298 (80%) 63 (17%) 372 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 15 (4%) 266 (74%) 77 (22%) 358 Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 26 (7%) 295 (82%) 40 (11%) 361 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 37 (7%) 394 (71%) 123 (22%) 554 Gippsland South Gippsland (S) 11 (3%) 239 (75%) 67 (21%) 317 Gippsland Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 262 (68%) 106 (28%) 383 Gippsland Subtotal 115 (5%) 1,754 (75%) 476 (20%) 2,345 Grampians Ararat (RC) 8 (5%) 100 (68%) 38 (26%) 146 Grampians Ballarat (C) 52 (6%) 614 (74%) 159 (19%) 825 Grampians Golden Plains (S) 2 (1%) 97 (69%) 42 (30%) 141 Grampians Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 167 (55%) 127 (42%) 301 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 8 (8%) 80 (78%) 15 (15%) 103 Grampians Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 134 (66%) 61 (30%) 202 Grampians Moorabool (S) 9 (4%) 132 (65%) 61 (30%) 202 Grampians Northern Grampians (S) 7 (6%) 62 (53%) 48 (41%) 117 Grampians Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 59 (62%) 34 (36%) 95 Grampians West Wimmera (S) 3 (5%) 50 (78%) 11 (17%) 64 Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 76 (86%) 8 (9%) 88 Grampians Subtotal 109 (5%) 1,571 (69%) 604 (26%) 2,284 Hume Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 162 (72%) 54 (24%) 225 Hume Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 79 (66%) 36 (30%) 120 Hume Indigo (S) 7 (3%) 185 (71%) 69 (26%) 261
Page 95 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Department of Health Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Hume Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 132 (71%) 51 (27%) 186 Hume Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 179 (75%) 48 (20%) 240 Hume Moira (S) 14 (7%) 155 (72%) 46 (21%) 215 Hume Murrindindi (S) 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 Hume Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 360 (67%) 140 (26%) 534 Hume Strathbogie (S) 5 (4%) 80 (71%) 27 (24%) 112 Hume Towong (S) 3 (5%) 43 (70%) 15 (25%) 61 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 12 (4%) 199 (71%) 68 (24%) 279 Hume Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 174 (69%) 60 (24%) 251 Hume Subtotal 122 (5%) 1,748 (70%) 614 (25%) 2,484 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 52 (7%) 609 (76%) 136 (17%) 797 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 16 (5%) 245 (71%) 82 (24%) 343 Loddon Mallee Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 74 (76%) 15 (15%) 97 Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 50 (51%) 45 (45%) 99 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 107 (75%) 33 (23%) 143 Loddon Mallee Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 270 (68%) 112 (28%) 398 Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 19 (4%) 333 (68%) 135 (28%) 487 Loddon Mallee Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 141 (65%) 70 (32%) 216 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 146 (69%) 55 (26%) 211 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 138 (5%) 2,031 (70%) 714 (25%) 2,883 Non-metropolitan Total 654 (5%) 9,853 (72%) 3,196 (23%) 13,703 Victoria Total 2,388 (5%) 32,716 (72%) 10,126 (22%) 45,230
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. Notes: *The Act requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 fixed premises, which by definition handle only low-risk foods, are excluded from this report as total numbers of premises are not precise due to variations in data capture across councils. For further explanation see Appendix 1. ** The Act food premises classification: Class 1 Potentially high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Class 2 Potentially high-risk foods which need correct temperature control to keep them safe Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods, or pre-packaged potentially high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods Class 4 Other low-risk food-handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 96
Appendix 4: Municipalities by number of class 1– 3 fixed food premises registrations by class, Victoria 2014
Municipalities by number of class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by class*
Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total Registrations Council No. % No. % No. % No. More than 1,200 Melbourne (C) 64 (2%) 2,981 (87%) 383 (11%) 3,428 More than 1,200 Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,236 (74%) 352 (21%) 1,680 More than 1,200 Dandenong (C) 66 (5%) 844 (65%) 390 (30%) 1,300 More than 1,200 Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,064 (82%) 193 (15%) 1,297 More than 1,200 Mornington Peninsula (S) 71 (6%) 850 (69%) 312 (25%) 1,233 More than 1,200 Stonnington (C) 45 (4%) 1,010 (83%) 167 (14%) 1,222 More than 1,200 Monash (C) 78 (6%) 776 (64%) 365 (30%) 1,219 More than 1,200 Subtotal 456 (4%) 8,761 (77%) 2,162 (19%) 11,379 901 to 1,200 Moreland (C) 66 (6%) 848 (71%) 280 (23%) 1,194 901 to 1,200 Yarra Ranges (S) 56 (5%) 764 (66%) 341 (29%) 1,161 901 to 1,200 Boroondara (C) 85 (7%) 821 (72%) 238 (21%) 1,144 901 to 1,200 Casey (C) 93 (8%) 725 (64%) 313 (28%) 1,131 901 to 1,200 Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 834 (74%) 234 (21%) 1,128 901 to 1,200 Hume (C) 57 (5%) 789 (71%) 271 (24%) 1,117 901 to 1,200 Kingston (C) 69 (7%) 806 (76%) 183 (17%) 1,058 901 to 1,200 Whitehorse (C) 72 (7%) 742 (70%) 239 (23%) 1,053 901 to 1,200 Port Phillip (C) 36 (3%) 859 (82%) 154 (15%) 1,049 901 to 1,200 Brimbank (C) 67 (6%) 745 (72%) 225 (22%) 1,037 901 to 1,200 Knox (C) 69 (7%) 596 (63%) 286 (30%) 951 901 to 1,200 Moonee Valley (C) 47 (5%) 717 (78%) 157 (17%) 921 901 to 1,200 Glen Eira (C) 63 (7%) 621 (68%) 236 (26%) 920 901 to 1,200 Subtotal 840 (6%) 9,867 (71%) 3,157 (23%) 13,864 601 to 900 Whittlesea (C) 52 (6%) 604 (70%) 204 (24%) 860 601 to 900 Wyndham (C) 56 (7%) 579 (69%) 207 (25%) 842 601 to 900 Ballarat (C) 52 (6%) 614 (74%) 159 (19%) 825 601 to 900 Bendigo (C) 52 (7%) 609 (76%) 136 (17%) 797 601 to 900 Frankston (C) 63 (8%) 529 (67%) 195 (25%) 787 601 to 900 Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 553 (72%) 183 (24%) 766 601 to 900 Manningham (C) 58 (8%) 478 (66%) 192 (26%) 728 601 to 900 Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 478 (67%) 186 (26%) 715
Page 97 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total Registrations Council No. % No. % No. % No. 601 to 900 Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 423 (61%) 216 (31%) 698 601 to 900 Hobson's Bay (C) 32 (5%) 473 (74%) 135 (21%) 640 601 to 900 Bayside (C) 46 (7%) 498 (78%) 94 (15%) 638 601 to 900 Subtotal 551 (7%) 5,838 (70%) 1,907 (23%) 8,296 301 to 600 Warrnambool (C) 29 (5%) 445 (77%) 101 (18%) 575 301 to 600 Latrobe (C) 37 (7%) 394 (71%) 123 (22%) 554 301 to 600 Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 360 (67%) 140 (26%) 534 301 to 600 Cardinia (S) 31 (6%) 334 (63%) 162 (31%) 527 301 to 600 Mildura (RC) 19 (4%) 333 (68%) 135 (28%) 487 301 to 600 Melton (S) 33 (8%) 313 (71%) 93 (21%) 439 301 to 600 Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 270 (68%) 112 (28%) 398 301 to 600 Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 262 (68%) 106 (28%) 383 301 to 600 Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 298 (80%) 63 (17%) 372 301 to 600 East Gippsland (S) 26 (7%) 295 (82%) 40 (11%) 361 301 to 600 Baw Baw (S) 15 (4%) 266 (74%) 77 (22%) 358 301 to 600 Colac Otway (S) 9 (3%) 251 (72%) 90 (26%) 350 301 to 600 Campaspe (S) 16 (5%) 245 (71%) 82 (24%) 343 301 to 600 Surfcoast (S) 10 (3%) 244 (73%) 80 (24%) 334 301 to 600 Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 209 (65%) 96 (30%) 324 301 to 600 South Gippsland (S) 11 (3%) 239 (75%) 67 (21%) 317 301 to 600 Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 167 (55%) 127 (42%) 301 301 to 600 Subtotal 338 (5%) 4,925 (71%) 1,694 (24%) 6,957 Less than 300 Wangaratta (RC) 12 (4%) 199 (71%) 68 (24%) 279 Less than 300 Indigo (S) 7 (3%) 185 (71%) 69 (26%) 261 Less than 300 Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 174 (69%) 60 (24%) 251 Less than 300 Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 179 (75%) 48 (20%) 240 Less than 300 Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 162 (72%) 54 (24%) 225 Less than 300 Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 141 (65%) 70 (32%) 216 Less than 300 Moira (S) 14 (7%) 155 (72%) 46 (21%) 215 Less than 300 Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 146 (69%) 55 (26%) 211 Less than 300 Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 134 (66%) 61 (30%) 202 Less than 300 Moorabool (S) 9 (4%) 132 (65%) 61 (30%) 202 Less than 300 Corangamite (S) 10 (5%) 130 (68%) 51 (27%) 191 Less than 300 Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 132 (71%) 51 (27%) 186 Less than 300 Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 131 (77%) 34 (20%) 171 Less than 300 Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 129 (78%) 27 (16%) 165 Less than 300 Moyne (S) 4 (2%) 119 (73%) 39 (24%) 162
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 98
Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total Registrations Council No. % No. % No. % No. Less than 300 Ararat (RC) 8 (5%) 100 (68%) 38 (26%) 146 Less than 300 Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 107 (75%) 33 (23%) 143 Less than 300 Golden Plains (S) 2 (1%) 97 (69%) 42 (30%) 141 Less than 300 Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 79 (66%) 36 (30%) 120 Less than 300 Northern Grampians (S) 7 (6%) 62 (53%) 48 (41%) 117 Less than 300 Strathbogie (S) 5 (4%) 80 (71%) 27 (24%) 112 Less than 300 Hindmarsh (S) 8 (8%) 80 (78%) 15 (15%) 103 Less than 300 Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 50 (51%) 45 (45%) 99 Less than 300 Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 74 (76%) 15 (15%) 97 Less than 300 Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 59 (62%) 34 (36%) 95 Less than 300 Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 Less than 300 Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 76 (86%) 8 (9%) 88 Less than 300 Queenscliffe (B) 1 (1%) 64 (81%) 14 (18%) 79 Less than 300 West Wimmera (S) 3 (5%) 50 (78%) 11 (17%) 64 Less than 300 Towong (S) 3 (5%) 43 (70%) 15 (25%) 61 Less than 300 Murrindindi (S) 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 Less than 300 Subtotal 203 (4%) 3,325 (70%) 1,206 (25%) 4,734 Victoria Total 2,388 (5%) 32,716 (72%) 10,126 (22%) 45,230
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. Notes: *The Act requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 fixed premises, which by definition handle only low-risk foods, are excluded from this report as total numbers of premises are not precise due to variations in data capture across councils. For further explanation see Appendix 1. ** Act food premises classification: Class 1 Potentially high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Class 2 Potentially high-risk foods which need correct temperature control at all times to keep them safe Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods, or pre-packaged potentially high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods Class 4 Other low-risk food-handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food.
Page 99 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 5: Class 1–3 fixed food premises registrations by municipality type and class Victoria 2014
Class 1–3 fixed food premises* registrations by municipality type and class**
Council Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total groups Council No. % No. % No. % No. Metropolitan inner Banyule (C) 51 (7%) 478 (67%) 186 (26%) 715 Metropolitan inner Bayside (C) 46 (7%) 498 (78%) 94 (15%) 638 Metropolitan inner Boroondara (C) 85 (7%) 821 (72%) 238 (21%) 1,144 Metropolitan inner Darebin (C) 60 (5%) 834 (74%) 234 (21%) 1,128 Metropolitan inner Glen Eira (C) 63 (7%) 621 (68%) 236 (26%) 920 Metropolitan inner Hobsons Bay (C) 32 (5%) 473 (74%) 135 (21%) 640 Metropolitan inner Kingston (C) 69 (7%) 806 (76%) 183 (17%) 1,058 Metropolitan inner Maribyrnong (C) 30 (4%) 553 (72%) 183 (24%) 766 Metropolitan inner Maroondah (C) 59 (8%) 423 (61%) 216 (31%) 698 Metropolitan inner Melbourne (C) 64 (2%) 2,981 (87%) 383 (11%) 3,428 Metropolitan inner Monash (C) 78 (6%) 776 (64%) 365 (30%) 1,219 Metropolitan inner Moonee Valley (C) 47 (5%) 717 (78%) 157 (17%) 921 Metropolitan inner Moreland (C) 66 (6%) 848 (71%) 280 (23%) 1,194 Metropolitan inner Port Phillip (C) 36 (3%) 859 (82%) 154 (15%) 1,049 Metropolitan inner Stonnington (C) 45 (4%) 1,010 (83%) 167 (14%) 1,222 Metropolitan inner Whitehorse (C) 72 (7%) 742 (70%) 239 (23%) 1,053 Metropolitan inner Yarra (C) 40 (3%) 1,064 (82%) 193 (15%) 1,297 Metropolitan inner Subtotal 943 (5%) 14,504 (76%) 3,643 (19%) 19,090 Metropolitan middle Brimbank (C) 67 (6%) 745 (72%) 225 (22%) 1,037 Metropolitan middle Dandenong (C) 66 (5%) 844 (65%) 390 (30%) 1,300 Metropolitan middle Frankston (C) 63 (8%) 529 (67%) 195 (25%) 787 Metropolitan middle Knox (C) 69 (7%) 596 (63%) 286 (30%) 951 Metropolitan middle Manningham (C) 58 (8%) 478 (66%) 192 (26%) 728
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 100
Council Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total groups Council No. % No. % No. % No. Metropolitan middle Subtotal 323 (7%) 3,192 (66%) 1,288 (27%) 4,803 Interface*** Cardinia (S) 31 (6%) 334 (63%) 162 (31%) 527 Interface*** Casey (C) 93 (8%) 725 (64%) 313 (28%) 1,131 Interface*** Hume (C) 57 (5%) 789 (71%) 271 (24%) 1,117 Interface*** Melton (S) 33 (8%) 313 (71%) 93 (21%) 439 Interface*** Mitchell (S) 13 (5%) 179 (75%) 48 (20%) 240 Interface*** Mornington Peninsula (S) 71 (6%) 850 (69%) 312 (25%) 1,233 Interface*** Nillumbik (S) 19 (6%) 209 (65%) 96 (30%) 324 Interface*** Whittlesea (C) 52 (6%) 604 (70%) 204 (24%) 860 Interface*** Wyndham (C) 56 (7%) 579 (69%) 207 (25%) 842 Interface*** Yarra Ranges (S) 56 (5%) 764 (66%) 341 (29%) 1,161 Interface*** Subtotal 481 (6%) 5,346 (68%) 2,047 (26%) 7,874 Metropolitan Total 1,747 (5%) 23,042 (73%) 6,978 (22%) 31,767 Regional cities Ararat (RC) 8 (5%) 100 (68%) 38 (26%) 146 Regional cities Ballarat (C) 52 (6%) 614 (74%) 159 (19%) 825 Regional cities Bendigo (C) 52 (7%) 609 (76%) 136 (17%) 797 Regional cities Geelong (C) 92 (5%) 1,236 (74%) 352 (21%) 1,680 Regional cities Horsham (RC) 7 (3%) 134 (66%) 61 (30%) 202 Regional cities Latrobe (C) 37 (7%) 394 (71%) 123 (22%) 554 Regional cities Mildura (RC) 19 (4%) 333 (68%) 135 (28%) 487 Regional cities Shepparton (C) 34 (6%) 360 (67%) 140 (26%) 534 Regional cities Swan Hill (RC) 10 (5%) 146 (69%) 55 (26%) 211 Regional cities Wangaratta (RC) 12 (4%) 199 (71%) 68 (24%) 279 Regional cities Warrnambool (C) 29 (5%) 445 (77%) 101 (18%) 575 Regional cities Wodonga (C) 17 (7%) 174 (69%) 60 (24%) 251 Regional cities Subtotal 369 (6%) 4,744 (73%) 1,428 (22%) 6,541 Large shires Baw Baw (S) 15 (4%) 266 (74%) 77 (22%) 358 Large shires Campaspe (S) 16 (5%) 245 (71%) 82 (24%) 343 Large shires Colac Otway (S) 9 (3%) 251 (72%) 90 (26%) 350 Large shires Corangamite (S) 10 (5%) 130 (68%) 51 (27%) 191 Large shires East Gippsland (S) 26 (7%) 295 (82%) 40 (11%) 361 Large shires Glenelg (S) 9 (5%) 129 (78%) 27 (16%) 165 Large shires Macedon Ranges (S) 16 (4%) 270 (68%) 112 (28%) 398 Large shires Moira (S) 14 (7%) 155 (72%) 46 (21%) 215 Large shires Moorabool (S) 9 (4%) 132 (65%) 61 (30%) 202 Large shires Moyne (S) 4 (2%) 119 (73%) 39 (24%) 162
Page 101 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Council Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total groups Council No. % No. % No. % No. Large shires South Gippsland (S) 11 (3%) 239 (75%) 67 (21%) 317 Large shires Southern Grampians (S) 6 (4%) 131 (77%) 34 (20%) 171 Large shires Surfcoast (S) 10 (3%) 244 (73%) 80 (24%) 334 Large shires Wellington (S) 15 (4%) 262 (68%) 106 (28%) 383 Large shires Subtotal 170 (4%) 2,868 (73%) 912 (23%) 3,950 Small shires Alpine (S) 9 (4%) 162 (72%) 54 (24%) 225 Small shires Bass Coast (S) 11 (3%) 298 (80%) 63 (17%) 372 Small shires Benalla (RC) 5 (4%) 79 (66%) 36 (30%) 120 Small shires Buloke (S) 5 (5%) 56 (61%) 31 (34%) 92 Small shires Central Goldfields (S) 8 (8%) 74 (76%) 15 (15%) 97 Small shires Gannawarra (S) 4 (4%) 50 (51%) 45 (45%) 99 Small shires Golden Plains (S) 2 (1%) 97 (69%) 42 (30%) 141 Small shires Hepburn (S) 7 (2%) 167 (55%) 127 (42%) 301 Small shires Hindmarsh (S) 8 (8%) 80 (78%) 15 (15%) 103 Small shires Indigo (S) 7 (3%) 185 (71%) 69 (26%) 261 Small shires Loddon (S) 3 (2%) 107 (75%) 33 (23%) 143 Small shires Mansfield (S) 3 (2%) 132 (71%) 51 (27%) 186 Small shires Mount Alexander (S) 5 (2%) 141 (65%) 70 (32%) 216 Small shires Murrindindi (S) 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 Small shires Northern Grampians (S) 7 (6%) 62 (53%) 48 (41%) 117 Small shires Pyrenees (S) 2 (2%) 59 (62%) 34 (36%) 95 Small shires Queenscliffe (B) 1 (1%) 64 (81%) 14 (18%) 79 Small shires Strathbogie (S) 5 (4%) 80 (71%) 27 (24%) 112 Small shires Towong (S) 3 (5%) 43 (70%) 15 (25%) 61 Small shires West Wimmera (S) 3 (5%) 50 (78%) 11 (17%) 64 Small shires Yarriambiack (S) 4 (5%) 76 (86%) 8 (9%) 88 Small shires Subtotal 102 (3%) 2,062 (69%) 808 (27%) 2,972 Non- metropolitan Total 641 (5%) 9,674 (72%) 3,148 (23%) 13,463 Victoria Total 2,388 (5%) 32,716 (72%) 10,126 (22%) 45,230
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. Notes: *The Act requires class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register annually with the responsible council. Class 4 food premises must notify the responsible council of the basic details of the food premises, such as business type, nature of business, food types handled, address and contact details on a once-off basis. Class 4 fixed premises, which by definition handle only low-risk foods, are excluded from this report as total numbers of premises are not precise due to variations in data capture across councils. For further explanation see Appendix 1. ** Act food premises classification: Class 1 Potentially high-risk foods for groups most vulnerable to food-related illness Class 2 Potentially high-risk foods which need correct temperature control at all times to keep them safe
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 102
Class 3 Unpackaged low-risk foods, or pre-packaged potentially high-risk foods, occasional community groups’ ‘cook and serve’ foods Class 4 Other low-risk food-handling activities, including pre-packaged low-risk food. ***The term ‘interface councils’ refers to a self-selected group of local governments that border the Melbourne metropolitan area that face similar issues and work together on various matters. The interface councils are Cardinia Shire, City of Casey, City of Hume, Melton Shire, Mitchell Shire, Mornington Peninsula Shire, Nillumbik Shire, City of Whittlesea, City of Wyndham and Yarra Ranges Shire.
Page 103 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 6: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications by class, region and municipality in which their principal councils were located, Victoria 2014
Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications by class, region and municipality in which their principal councils were located Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile premises premises premises premises premises premises premises premises Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Metropolitan 78 (18%) 75 (17%) 289 (65%) 442 (94%) 14 (54%) 6 (23%) 6 (23%) 26 (6%) 468 Eastern Boroondara (C) Eastern Knox (C) 80 (14%) 89 (16%) 383 (69%) 552 (77%) 15 (9%) 138 (85%) 10 (6%) 163 (23%) 715 Eastern Manningham (C) 46 (18%) 80 (31%) 129 (51%) 255 (97%) 4 (44%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) 9 (3%) 264 Eastern Maroondah (C) 34 (10%) 68 (21%) 225 (69%) 327 (91%) 13 (42%) 13 (42%) 5 (16%) 31 (9%) 358 Eastern Monash (C) 100 (24%) 60 (15%) 252 (61%) 412 (94%) 5 (19%) 16 (59%) 6 (22%) 27 (6%) 439 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 133 (25%) 71 (13%) 327 (62%) 531 (98%) 4 (31%) 7 (54%) 2 (15%) 13 (2%) 544 Eastern Yarra Ranges (S) 93 (14%) 102 (15%) 481 (71%) 676 (90%) 40 (53%) 21 (28%) 15 (20%) 76 (10%) 752 Eastern Subtotal 564 (18%) 545 (17%) 2,086 (65%) 3,195 (90%) 95 (28%) 204 (59%) 46 (13%) 345 (10%) 3,540 North and West Banyule (C) 43 (15%) 45 (15%) 208 (70%) 296 (94%) 7 (39%) 7 (39%) 4 (22%) 18 (6%) 314 North and West Brimbank (C) 35 (15%) 28 (12%) 171 (73%) 234 (82%) 24 (47%) 16 (31%) 11 (22%) 51 (18%) 285 North and West Darebin (C) 99 (35%) 49 (17%) 137 (48%) 285 (83%) 32 (55%) 21 (36%) 5 (9%) 58 (17%) 343
North and West Hobson's Bay (C) 46 (19%) 48 (19%) 154 (62%) 248 (85%) 23 (53%) 17 (40%) 3 (7%) 43 (15%) 291 North and West Hume (C) 57 (13%) 70 (16%) 309 (71%) 436 (77%) 70 (55%) 44 (34%) 14 (11%) 128 (23%) 564 North and West Maribyrnong (C) 28 (17%) 13 (8%) 123 (75%) 164 (89%) 13 (62%) 2 (10%) 6 (29%) 21 (11%) 185 North and West Melbourne (C) 492 (34%) 456 (31%) 500 (35%) 1,448 (94%) 50 (52%) 40 (42%) 6 (6%) 96 (6%) 1,544 North and West Melton (S) 25 (11%) 37 (16%) 173 (74%) 235 (87%) 16 (44%) 17 (47%) 3 (8%) 36 (13%) 271 North and West Moonee Valley (C) 70 (25%) 51 (18%) 161 (57%) 282 (95%) 8 (53%) 5 (33%) 2 (13%) 15 (5%) 297
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 104
Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile premises premises premises premises premises premises premises premises Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) North and West Moreland (C) 90 (22%) 80 (20%) 232 (58%) 402 (89%) 23 (46%) 17 (34%) 10 (20%) 50 (11%) 452 North and West Nillumbik (S) 34 (10%) 31 (9%) 271 (81%) 336 (95%) 5 (29%) 8 (47%) 4 (24%) 17 (5%) 353 North and West Whittlesea (C) 97 (25%) 67 (17%) 231 (58%) 395 (89%) 17 (35%) 27 (55%) 5 (10%) 49 (11%) 444 North and West Wyndham (C) 86 (15%) 103 (18%) 378 (67%) 567 (86%) 48 (53%) 26 (29%) 17 (19%) 91 (14%) 658 North and West Yarra (C) 167 (41%) 97 (24%) 140 (35%) 404 (92%) 17 (49%) 16 (46%) 2 (6%) 35 (8%) 439 North and West Subtotal 1,369 (24%) 1,175 (20%) 3,188 (56%) 5,732 (89%) 353 (50%) 263 (37%) 92 (13%) 708 (11%) 6,440 Southern Bayside (C) 54 (18%) 50 (17%) 192 (65%) 296 (93%) 4 (19%) 13 (62%) 4 (19%) 21 (7%) 317 Southern Cardinia (S) 41 (11%) 48 (13%) 275 (76%) 364 (92%) 9 (30%) 15 (50%) 6 (20%) 30 (8%) 394 Southern Casey (C) 66 (11%) 83 (13%) 467 (76%) 616 (85%) 42 (40%) 55 (52%) 9 (8%) 106 (15%) 722 Southern Dandenong (C) 104 (31%) 68 (20%) 163 (49%) 335 (89%) 16 (39%) 19 (46%) 6 (15%) 41 (11%) 376 Southern Frankston (C) 27 (21%) 33 (26%) 67 (53%) 127 (75%) 19 (44%) 15 (35%) 9 (21%) 43 (25%) 170 Southern Glen Eira (C) 79 (24%) 68 (21%) 181 (55%) 328 (95%) 9 (47%) 7 (37%) 3 (16%) 19 (5%) 347 Southern Kingston (C) 69 (14%) 87 (17%) 342 (69%) 498 (90%) 25 (45%) 21 (38%) 9 (16%) 55 (10%) 553 Mornington 100 (14%) 108 (15%) 511 (71%) 719 (91%) 30 (44%) 30 (44%) 8 (12%) 68 (9%) 787 Southern Peninsula (S) Southern Port Phillip (C) 116 (30%) 124 (32%) 153 (39%) 393 (92%) 14 (44%) 10 (31%) 8 (25%) 32 (8%) 425 Southern Stonnington (C) 117 (38%) 54 (17%) 139 (45%) 310 (96%) 7 (54%) 4 (31%) 2 (15%) 13 (4%) 323 Southern Subtotal 773 (19%) 723 (18%) 2,490 (62%) 3,986 (90%) 175 (41%) 186 (43%) 64 (15%) 428 (10%) 4,414 12,913 Metropolitan Total 2,706 (21%) 2,443 (19%) 7,764 (60%) (90%) 623 (42%) 653 (44%) 202 (14%) 1,481 (10%) 14,394 Barwon-South 6 (10%) 20 (34%) 32 (55%) 58 (84%) 4 (36%) 6 (55%) 1 (9%) 11 (16%) 69 West Colac Otway (S) Barwon-South West Corangamite (S) 22 (23%) 14 (15%) 58 (62%) 94 (87%) 9 (64%) 4 (29%) 1 (7%) 14 (13%) 108 Barwon-South West Geelong (C) 28 (18%) 30 (19%) 97 (63%) 155 (69%) 36 (51%) 31 (44%) 4 (6%) 71 (31%) 226 Barwon-South West Glenelg (S) 11 (37%) 6 (20%) 13 (43%) 30 (64%) 3 (42%) 12 (71%) 2 (12%) 17 (36%) 47
Page 105 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile premises premises premises premises premises premises premises premises Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Barwon-South West Moyne (S) 17 (21%) 16 (20%) 47 (59%) 80 (87%) 5 (42%) 5 (42%) 2 (17%) 12 (13%) 92 Barwon-South West Queenscliffe (B) 7 (44%) 3 (19%) 6 (38%) 16 (84%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 3 (16%) 19 Southern Grampians 81 (45%) 43 (24%) 57 (31%) 181 (92%) 13 (87%) 2 (13%) 0 15 (8%) 196 Barwon-South West (S) Barwon-South West Surfcoast (S) 47 (25%) 58 (31%) 83 (44%) 188 (87%) 19 (66%) 5 (17%) 5 (17%) 29 (13%) 217 Barwon-South West Warrnambool (C) 35 (21%) 24 (15%) 105 (64%) 164 (88%) 12 (55%) 9 (41%) 1 (5%) 22 (12%) 186 Barwon-South 254 (26%) 214 (22%) 498 (52%) 966 (83%) 102 (53%) 75 (39%) 17 (9%) 194 (17%) 1,160 West Subtotal Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 14 (19%) 14 (19%) 44 (61%) 72 (84%) 3 (21%) 7 (50%) 4 (29%) 14 (16%) 86 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 21 (13%) 30 (19%) 111 (69%) 162 (78%) 18 (39%) 18 (39%) 10 (22%) 46 (22%) 208 Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 6 (27%) 8 (36%) 8 (36%) 22 (73%) 4 (50%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 8 (27%) 30 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 17 (8%) 29 (14%) 168 (79%) 214 (92%) 7 (39%) 3 (17%) 8 (44%) 18 (8%) 232 Gippsland South Gippsland (S) 47 (22%) 55 (26%) 108 (51%) 210 (95%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%) 1 (9%) 11 (5%) 221 Gippsland Wellington (S) 15 (14%) 16 (15%) 75 (71%) 106 (89%) 4 (31%) 4 (31%) 5 (38%) 13 (11%) 119 Gippsland Subtotal 120 (15%) 152 (19%) 514 (65%) 786 (88%) 37 (34%) 43 (39%) 30 (27%) 110 (12%) 896 Grampians Ararat (RC) 10 (18%) 5 (9%) 40 (73%) 55 (93%) 0 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 (7%) 59 Grampians Ballarat (C) 63 (16%) 50 (13%) 271 (71%) 384 (82%) 34 (40%) 33 (39%) 18 (21%) 85 (18%) 469 Grampians Golden Plains (S) 21 (19%) 33 (30%) 56 (51%) 110 (85%) 9 (45%) 7 (35%) 4 (20%) 20 (15%) 130 Grampians Hepburn (S) 20 (13%) 34 (22%) 102 (65%) 156 (98%) 3 (75%) 0 1 (25%) 4 (3%) 160 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 21 (55%) 5 (13%) 12 (32%) 38 (97%) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (3%) 39 Grampians Horsham (RC) 9 (33%) 7 (26%) 11 (41%) 27 (84%) 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 0 5 (16%) 32 Grampians Moorabool (S) 20 (14%) 34 (23%) 94 (64%) 148 (80%) 17 (45%) 10 (26%) 11 (29%) 38 (20%) 186 Northern Grampians 10 (21%) 17 (36%) 20 (43%) 47 (94%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 3 (6%) 50 Grampians (S) Grampians Pyrenees (S) 9 (14%) 5 (8%) 50 (78%) 64 (93%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 5 (7%) 69
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 106
Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile premises premises premises premises premises premises premises premises Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Grampians West Wimmera (S) 13 (46%) 5 (18%) 10 (36%) 28 (90%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 3 (10%) 31 Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 18 (49%) 6 (16%) 13 (35%) 37 (95%) 1 (50%) 0 1 (50%) 2 (5%) 39 Grampians Subtotal 214 (20%) 201 (18%) 679 (62%) 1,094 (87%) 71 (42%) 61 (36%) 38 (22%) 170 (13%) 1,264 Hume Alpine (S) 9 (17%) 11 (21%) 33 (62%) 53 (85%) 1 (11%) 8 (89%) 0 9 (15%) 62 Hume Benalla (RC) 23 (23%) 26 (26%) 50 (51%) 99 (85%) 3 (18%) 12 (71%) 2 (12%) 17 (15%) 116 Hume Indigo (S) 29 (18%) 52 (32%) 83 (51%) 164 (93%) 3 (25%) 7 (58%) 2 (17%) 12 (7%) 176 Hume Mansfield (S) 26 (34%) 22 (29%) 29 (38%) 77 (83%) 5 (31%) 11 (69%) 0 16 (17%) 93 Hume Mitchell (S) 11 (10%) 27 (23%) 77 (67%) 115 (86%) 10 (53%) 6 (32%) 3 (16%) 19 (14%) 134 Hume Moira (S) 32 (32%) 18 (18%) 50 (50%) 100 (82%) 6 (27%) 12 (55%) 4 (18%) 22 (18%) 122 Hume Murrindindi (S) 25 (16%) 55 (35%) 76 (49%) 156 (92%) 6 (46%) 5 (38%) 2 (15%) 13 (8%) 169 Hume Shepparton (C) 19 (22%) 17 (20%) 50 (58%) 86 (72%) 16 (48%) 13 (39%) 4 (12%) 33 (28%) 119 Hume Strathbogie (S) 3 (4%) 21 (29%) 49 (67%) 73 (91%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 7 (9%) 80 Hume Towong (S) 8 (16%) 7 (14%) 36 (71%) 51 (88%) 5 (71%) 0 2 (29%) 7 (12%) 58 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 21 (26%) 19 (24%) 40 (50%) 80 (66%) 17 (40%) 11 (26%) 14 (33%) 42 (34%) 122 Hume Wodonga (C) 42 (19%) 46 (21%) 135 (61%) 223 (83%) 26 (57%) 12 (26%) 8 (17%) 46 (17%) 269 Hume Subtotal 248 (19%) 321 (25%) 708 (55%) 1,277 (84%) 100 (41%) 98 (40%) 45 243 1,520 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 41 (8%) 60 (12%) 408 (80%) 509 (90%) 28 (49%) 23 (40%) 6 (11%) 57 (10%) 566 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 10 (26%) 9 (24%) 19 (50%) 38 (100%) 0 0 0 0 38 Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 9 (13%) 21 (30%) 41 (58%) 71 (75%) 8 (33%) 14 (58%) 2 (8%) 24 (25%) 95 Central Goldfields 10 (18%) 15 (27%) 30 (55%) 55 (92%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 5 (8%) 60 Loddon Mallee (S) Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 5 (8%) 35 (56%) 22 (35%) 62 (91%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 6 (9%) 68 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 5 (10%) 4 (8%) 43 (83%) 52 (90%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 6 (10%) 58 Loddon Mallee Macedon Ranges (S) 32 (16%) 25 (12%) 146 (72%) 203 (94%) 4 (31%) 6 (46%) 3 (23%) 13 (6%) 216
Page 107 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary Mobile Mobile Mobile Mobile premises premises premises premises premises premises premises premises Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Total Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 88 (19%) 95 (21%) 274 (60%) 457 (81%) 51 (47%) 44 (40%) 14 (13%) 109 (19%) 566 Loddon Mallee Mount Alexander (S) 32 (21%) 18 (12%) 101 (67%) 151 (86%) 13 (52%) 7 (28%) 5 (20%) 25 (14%) 176 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 15 (17%) 16 (18%) 56 (64%) 87 (82%) 7 (37%) 11 (58%) 1 (5%) 19 (18%) 106 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 247 (15%) 298 (18%) 1,140 (68%) 1,685 (86%) 116 (44%) 116 (44%) 32 (12%) 264 (14%) 1,949 Non-metropolitan Total 1,083 (19%) 1,186 (20%) 3,539 (61%) 5,808 (86%) 426 (43%) 393 (40%) 162 (17%) 981 (14%) 6,789 18,721 Victoria Total 3,789 (20%) 3,629 (19%) 11,303 (60%) (88%) 1,049 (43%) 1,046 (42%) 364 (15%) 2,462 (12%) 21,183
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Notes: Under Victoria’s statewide system for registration/notification of a food van or stall, one 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. Includes water transport vehicles as mobile premises. Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 108
Appendix 7: Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises registrations/notifications by proprietor type, class and municipality, Victoria 2014
Class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises* registrations/notifications by proprietor type, class and municipality, 2014 Community Community Community Community Business Business Business Business group group group group Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2-4 Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. Metropolitan Eastern Boroondara (C) 48 (31%) 30 (20%) 75 (49%) 153 (33%) 44 (14%) 51 (16%) 220 (70%) 315 (67%) 468 Eastern Knox (C) 51 (18%) 169 (60%) 63 (22%) 283 (40%) 44 (10%) 58 (13%) 330 (76%) 432 (60%) 715 Eastern Manningham (C) 31 (31%) 44 (44%) 24 (24%) 99 (38%) 19 (12%) 39 (24%) 107 (65%) 165 (63%) 264 Eastern Maroondah (C) 24 (18%) 61 (46%) 47 (36%) 132 (37%) 23 (10%) 20 (9%) 183 (81%) 226 (63%) 358 Eastern Monash (C) 64 (42%) 52 (34%) 36 (24%) 152 (35%) 41 (14%) 24 (8%) 222 (77%) 287 (65%) 439 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 58 (46%) 28 (22%) 40 (32%) 126 (23%) 79 (19%) 50 (12%) 289 (69%) 418 (77%) 544 Eastern Yarra Ranges (S) 89 (25%) 93 (26%) 179 (50%) 361 (48%) 44 (11%) 30 (8%) 317 (81%) 391 (52%) 752 Eastern Subtotal 365 (28%) 477 (37%) 464 (36%) 1,306 (37%) 294 (13%) 272 (12%) 1,668 (75%) 2,234 (63%) 3,540 North and West Banyule (C) 29 (34%) 32 (37%) 25 (29%) 86 (27%) 21 (9%) 20 (9%) 187 (82%) 228 (73%) 314 North and West Brimbank (C) 48 (35%) 37 (27%) 54 (39%) 139 (49%) 11 (8%) 7 (5%) 128 (88%) 146 (51%) 285 North and West Darebin (C) 121 (50%) 65 (27%) 57 (23%) 243 (71%) 10 (10%) 5 (5%) 85 (85%) 100 (29%) 343 North and West Hobson's Bay (C) 49 (40%) 39 (31%) 36 (29%) 124 (43%) 20 (12%) 26 (16%) 121 (72%) 167 (57%) 291 North and West Hume (C) 110 (39%) 84 (30%) 87 (31%) 281 (50%) 17 (6%) 30 (11%) 236 (83%) 283 (50%) 564 North and West Maribyrnong (C) 36 (43%) 13 (15%) 35 (42%) 84 (45%) 5 (5%) 2 (2%) 94 (93%) 101 (55%) 185 North and West Melbourne (C) 500 (37%) 450 (34%) 393 (29%) 1,343 (87%) 42 (21%) 46 (23%) 113 (56%) 201 (13%) 1,544 North and West Melton (S) 30 (27%) 34 (31%) 46 (42%) 110 (41%) 11 (7%) 20 (12%) 130 (81%) 161 (59%) 271 North and West Moonee Valley (C) 21 (30%) 25 (36%) 24 (34%) 70 (24%) 57 (25%) 31 (14%) 139 (61%) 227 (76%) 297
Page 109 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Community Community Community Community Business Business Business Business group group group group Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2-4 Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. North and West Moreland (C) 85 (42%) 62 (31%) 55 (27%) 202 (45%) 28 (11%) 35 (14%) 187 (75%) 250 (55%) 452 North and West Nillumbik (S) 34 (25%) 28 (20%) 76 (55%) 138 (39%) 5 (2%) 11 (5%) 199 (93%) 215 (61%) 353 North and West Whittlesea (C) 79 (39%) 57 (28%) 67 (33%) 203 (46%) 35 (15%) 37 (15%) 169 (70%) 241 (54%) 444 North and West Wyndham (C) 120 (39%) 80 (26%) 107 (35%) 307 (47%) 14 (4%) 49 (14%) 288 (82%) 351 (53%) 658 North and West Yarra (C) 146 (51%) 91 (31%) 52 (18%) 289 (66%) 38 (25%) 22 (15%) 90 (60%) 150 (34%) 439 North and West Subtotal 1,408 (39%) 1,097 (30%) 1,114 (31%) 3,619 (56%) 314 (11%) 341 (12%) 2,166 (77%) 2,821 (44%) 6,440 Southern Bayside (C) 27 (26%) 27 (26%) 49 (48%) 103 (32%) 31 (14%) 36 (17%) 147 (69%) 214 (68%) 317 Southern Cardinia (S) 40 (20%) 47 (24%) 113 (57%) 200 (51%) 10 (5%) 16 (8%) 168 (87%) 194 (49%) 394 Southern Casey (C) 83 (27%) 116 (38%) 107 (35%) 306 (42%) 25 (6%) 22 (5%) 369 (89%) 416 (58%) 722 Southern Dandenong (C) 89 (45%) 60 (30%) 49 (25%) 198 (53%) 31 (17%) 27 (15%) 120 (67%) 178 (47%) 376 Southern Frankston (C) 37 (31%) 46 (39%) 35 (30%) 118 (69%) 9 (17%) 2 (4%) 41 (79%) 52 (31%) 170 Southern Glen Eira (C) 64 (41%) 43 (28%) 48 (31%) 155 (45%) 24 (13%) 32 (17%) 136 (71%) 192 (55%) 347 Southern Kingston (C) 62 (31%) 71 (35%) 70 (34%) 203 (37%) 32 (9%) 37 (11%) 281 (80%) 350 (63%) 553 Mornington Southern Peninsula (S) 101 (30%) 107 (32%) 124 (37%) 332 (42%) 29 (6%) 31 (7%) 395 (87%) 455 (58%) 787 Southern Port Phillip (C) 116 (37%) 118 (38%) 78 (25%) 312 (73%) 14 (12%) 16 (14%) 83 (73%) 113 (27%) 425 Southern Stonnington (C) 86 (48%) 42 (23%) 53 (29%) 181 (56%) 38 (27%) 16 (11%) 88 (62%) 142 (44%) 323 Southern Subtotal 705 (33%) 677 (32%) 726 (34%) 2,108 (48%) 243 (11%) 235 (10%) 1,828 (79%) 2,306 (52%) 4,414 Metropolitan Total 2,478 (35%) 2,251 (32%) 2,304 (33%) 7,033 (49%) 851 (12%) 848 (12%) 5,662 (77%) 7,361 (51%) 14,394
Barwon-South West Colac Otway (S) 8 (19%) 16 (38%) 18 (43%) 42 (61%) 2 (7%) 10 (37%) 15 (56%) 27 (39%) 69 Barwon-South West Corangamite (S) 11 (32%) 10 (29%) 13 (38%) 34 (31%) 20 (27%) 8 (11%) 46 (62%) 74 (69%) 108 Barwon-South West Geelong (C) 55 (31%) 50 (28%) 71 (40%) 176 (78%) 9 (18%) 11 (22%) 30 (60%) 50 (22%) 226 Barwon-South West Glenelg (S) 11 (33%) 12 (36%) 10 (30%) 33 (70%) 3 (21%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%) 14 (30%) 47 Barwon-South West Moyne (S) 13 (28%) 17 (36%) 17 (36%) 47 (51%) 9 (20%) 4 (9%) 32 (71%) 45 (49%) 92
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 110
Community Community Community Community Business Business Business Business group group group group Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2-4 Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. Barwon-South West Queenscliffe (B) 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 10 (53%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 9 (47%) 19 Southern Barwon-South West Grampians (S) 30 (42%) 20 (28%) 22 (31%) 72 (37%) 64 (52%) 25 (20%) 35 (28%) 124 (63%) 196 Barwon-South West Surfcoast (S) 46 (39%) 46 (39%) 27 (23%) 119 (55%) 20 (20%) 17 (17%) 61 (62%) 98 (45%) 217 Barwon-South West Warrnambool (C) 27 (45%) 22 (37%) 11 (18%) 60 (32%) 20 (16%) 11 (9%) 95 (75%) 126 (68%) 186
Barwon-South West Subtotal 209 (35%) 195 (33%) 189 (32%) 593 (51%) 147 (26%) 94 (17%) 326 (57%) 567 (49%) 1,160 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 11 (26%) 13 (30%) 19 (44%) 43 (50%) 6 (14%) 8 (19%) 29 (67%) 43 (50%) 86 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 24 (17%) 44 (31%) 73 (52%) 141 (68%) 15 (22%) 4 (6%) 48 (72%) 67 (32%) 208 Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 9 (33%) 10 (37%) 8 (30%) 27 (90%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 3 (10%) 30 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 14 (19%) 13 (18%) 47 (64%) 74 (32%) 10 (6%) 19 (12%) 129 (82%) 158 (68%) 232 South Gippsland Gippsland (S) 7 (7%) 49 (49%) 43 (43%) 99 (45%) 41 (34%) 15 (12%) 66 (54%) 122 (55%) 221 Gippsland Wellington (S) 11 (22%) 12 (24%) 27 (54%) 50 (42%) 8 (12%) 8 (12%) 53 (77%) 69 (58%) 119 Gippsland Subtotal 76 (18%) 141 (32%) 217 (50%) 434 (48%) 81 (18%) 54 (12%) 327 (71%) 462 (52%) 896 Grampians Ararat (RC) 2 (7%) 4 (14%) 23 (79%) 29 (49%) 8 (27%) 4 (13%) 18 (60%) 30 (51%) 59 Grampians Ballarat (C) 80 (39%) 67 (33%) 57 (28%) 204 (43%) 17 (6%) 16 (6%) 232 (88%) 265 (57%) 469 Grampians Golden Plains (S) 17 (29%) 22 (37%) 20 (34%) 59 (45%) 13 (18%) 18 (25%) 40 (56%) 71 (55%) 130 Grampians Hepburn (S) 15 (14%) 23 (21%) 69 (64%) 107 (67%) 8 (15%) 11 (21%) 34 (64%) 53 (33%) 160 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%) 7 (18%) 21 (66%) 3 (9%) 8 (25%) 32 (82%) 39 Grampians Horsham (RC) 9 (31%) 9 (31%) 11 (38%) 29 (91%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (9%) 32 Grampians Moorabool (S) 33 (32%) 32 (31%) 39 (38%) 104 (56%) 4 (5%) 12 (15%) 66 (80%) 82 (44%) 186 Northern Grampians Grampians (S) 6 (17%) 13 (37%) 16 (46%) 35 (70%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%) 4 (27%) 15 (30%) 50 Grampians Pyrenees (S) 10 (20%) 4 (8%) 36 (72%) 50 (72%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 16 (84%) 19 (28%) 69 Grampians West Wimmera (S) 4 (29%) 5 (36%) 5 (36%) 14 (45%) 10 (59%) 2 (12%) 5 (29%) 17 (55%) 31
Page 111 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Community Community Community Community Business Business Business Business group group group group Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2-4 Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 3 (43%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 7 (18%) 16 (50%) 5 (16%) 11 (34%) 32 (82%) 39 Grampians Subtotal 179 (28%) 183 (28%) 283 (44%) 645 (51%) 106 (17%) 79 (13%) 434 (70%) 619 (49%) 1,264 Hume Alpine (S) 10 (19%) 14 (27%) 28 (54%) 52 (84%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 10 (16%) 62 Hume Benalla (RC) 8 (16%) 22 (44%) 20 (40%) 50 (43%) 18 (27%) 16 (24%) 32 (48%) 66 (57%) 116 Hume Indigo (S) 22 (25%) 30 (34%) 36 (41%) 88 (50%) 10 (11%) 29 (33%) 49 (56%) 88 (50%) 176 Hume Mansfield (S) 25 (36%) 22 (32%) 22 (32%) 69 (74%) 6 (25%) 11 (46%) 7 (29%) 24 (26%) 93 Hume Mitchell (S) 20 (27%) 24 (32%) 30 (41%) 74 (55%) 1 (2%) 9 (15%) 50 (83%) 60 (45%) 134 Hume Moira (S) 12 (18%) 14 (21%) 41 (61%) 67 (55%) 26 (47%) 16 (29%) 13 (24%) 55 (45%) 122 Hume Murrindindi (S) 15 (19%) 22 (29%) 40 (52%) 77 (46%) 16 (17%) 38 (41%) 38 (41%) 92 (54%) 169 Hume Shepparton (C) 25 (30%) 18 (22%) 39 (48%) 82 (69%) 10 (27%) 12 (32%) 15 (41%) 37 (31%) 119 Hume Strathbogie (S) 4 (10%) 15 (38%) 21 (53%) 40 (50%) 1 (3%) 7 (18%) 32 (80%) 40 (50%) 80 Hume Towong (S) 5 (24%) 3 (14%) 13 (62%) 21 (36%) 8 (22%) 4 (11%) 25 (68%) 37 (64%) 58 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 34 (30%) 28 (25%) 51 (45%) 113 (93%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 9 (7%) 122 Hume Wodonga (C) 57 (47%) 31 (25%) 34 (28%) 122 (45%) 11 (7%) 27 (18%) 109 (74%) 147 (55%) 269 Hume Subtotal 237 (28%) 243 (28%) 375 (44%) 855 (56%) 111 (17%) 176 (26%) 378 (57%) 665 (44%) 1,520 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 48 (22%) 53 (24%) 118 (54%) 219 (39%) 21 (6%) 30 (9%) 296 (85%) 347 (61%) 566 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 10 (26%) 6 (n/a) 9 (n/a) 13 (n/a) 28 (74%) 38 Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 17 (19%) 34 (38%) 38 (43%) 89 (94%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 6 (6%) 95 Central Goldfields Loddon Mallee (S) 6 (21%) 9 (32%) 13 (46%) 28 (47%) 5 (16%) 9 (28%) 18 (56%) 32 (53%) 60 Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 4 (14%) 12 (41%) 13 (45%) 29 (43%) 2 (5%) 28 (72%) 9 (23%) 39 (57%) 68 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 4 (12%) 5 (15%) 25 (74%) 34 (59%) 4 (17%) 2 (8%) 18 (75%) 24 (41%) 58 Macedon Ranges Loddon Mallee (S) 19 (20%) 16 (17%) 59 (63%) 94 (44%) 17 (14%) 15 (12%) 90 (74%) 122 (56%) 216
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 112
Community Community Community Community Business Business Business Business group group group group Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Registrations Registrations Notifications Subtotal Department of Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 24 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 2-4 Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 69 (25%) 93 (34%) 109 (40%) 271 (48%) 70 (24%) 46 (16%) 179 (61%) 295 (52%) 566 Mount Alexander Loddon Mallee (S) 31 (32%) 14 (14%) 53 (54%) 98 (56%) 14 (18%) 11 (14%) 53 (68%) 78 (44%) 176 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 21 (24%) 21 (24%) 44 (51%) 86 (81%) 1 (5%) 6 (30%) 13 (65%) 20 (19%) 106 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 223 (23%) 257 (27%) 478 (50%) 958 (49%) 140 (14%) 157 (16%) 694 (70%) 991 (51%) 1,949 Non-metropolitan Total 924 (27%) 1,019 (29%) 1,542 (44%) 3,485 (51%) 585 (18%) 560 (17%) 2,159 (65%) 3,304 (49%) 6,789 Victoria Total 3,402 (32%) 3,270 (31%) 3,846 (37%) 10,518 (50%) 1,436 (13%) 1,408 (13%) 7,821 (73%) 10,665 (50%) 21,183
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Note: Includes water transport vehicles. Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Page 113 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 8: New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises notifications by principal council, Victoria 2014
New class 4 temporary and mobile food premises* notifications by principal council, Victoria 2014
Department of Health JanMar JanMar AprJun AprJun JulSep JulSep OctDec OctDec Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. % No.
Metropolitan Boroondara Eastern (C) 33 (26%) 38 (30%) 24 (19%) 32 (25%) 127 Eastern Knox (C) 34 (30%) 37 (32%) 27 (24%) 16 (14%) 114 Manningham Eastern (C) 10 (29%) 6 (18%) 9 (26%) 9 (26%) 34 Eastern Maroondah (C) 28 (47%) 15 (25%) 9 (15%) 8 (13%) 60 Eastern Monash (C) 33 (42%) 14 (18%) 19 (24%) 12 (15%) 78 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 17 (20%) 25 (29%) 23 (27%) 21 (24%) 86 Yarra Ranges Eastern (S) 52 (35%) 31 (21%) 20 (13%) 46 (31%) 149 Eastern Subtotal 207 (32%) 166 (26%) 131 (20%) 144 (22%) 648
North and West Banyule (C) 29 (28%) 28 (27%) 15 (14%) 32 (31%) 104 North and West Brimbank (C) 16 (25%) 15 (23%) 14 (22%) 20 (31%) 65 North and West Darebin (C) 21 (33%) 14 (22%) 19 (30%) 9 (14%) 63 North and Hobson's Bay West (C) 11 (27%) 9 (22%) 8 (20%) 13 (32%) 41 North and West Hume (C) 35 (31%) 28 (25%) 34 (30%) 16 (14%) 113 North and Maribyrnong West (C) 14 (26%) 19 (36%) 10 (19%) 10 (19%) 53 North and West Melbourne (C) 65 (26%) 48 (20%) 103 (42%) 30 (12%) 246 North and West Melton (S) 8 (13%) 7 (11%) 29 (46%) 19 (30%) 63 North and Moonee Valley West (C) 16 (33%) 13 (27%) 16 (33%) 3 (6%) 48 North and West Moreland (C) 31 (36%) 11 (13%) 22 (26%) 22 (26%) 86 North and West Nillumbik (S) 25 (26%) 18 (19%) 28 (29%) 26 (27%) 97 North and West Whittlesea (C) 12 (17%) 18 (26%) 26 (38%) 13 (19%) 69 North and West Wyndham (C) 47 (33%) 24 (17%) 46 (32%) 25 (18%) 142
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 114
Department of Health JanMar JanMar AprJun AprJun JulSep JulSep OctDec OctDec Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. % No. North and West Yarra (C) 7 (14%) 16 (33%) 16 (33%) 10 (20%) 49
North and West Subtotal 337 (27%) 268 (22%) 386 (31%) 248 (20%) 1,239 Southern Bayside (C) 16 (43%) 4 (11%) 7 (19%) 10 (27%) 37
Southern Cardinia (S) 48 (41%) 28 (24%) 20 (17%) 22 (19%) 118
Southern Casey (C) 49 (28%) 46 (26%) 38 (22%) 42 (24%) 175 Dandenong Southern (C) 23 (31%) 18 (24%) 22 (30%) 11 (15%) 74
Southern Frankston (C) 8 (25%) 7 (22%) 7 (22%) 10 (31%) 32
Southern Glen Eira (C) 21 (40%) 9 (17%) 12 (23%) 10 (19%) 52
Southern Kingston (C) 28 (29%) 33 (34%) 20 (21%) 15 (16%) 96 Mornington Southern Peninsula (S) 56 (34%) 41 (25%) 37 (22%) 32 (19%) 166
Southern Port Phillip (C) 20 (27%) 6 (8%) 16 (22%) 32 (43%) 74 Stonnington Southern (C) 19 (33%) 17 (30%) 15 (26%) 6 (11%) 57 Southern Subtotal 288 (33%) 209 (24%) 194 (22%) 190 (22%) 881 Metropolitan Total 832 (30%) 643 (23%) 711 (26%) 582 (21%) 2,768 Barwon- Colac Otway South West (S) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 15 (54%) 9 (32%) 28 Barwon- Corangamite South West (S) 3 (21%) 5 (36%) 1 (7%) 5 (36%) 14 Barwon- South West Geelong (C) 14 (29%) 11 (23%) 15 (31%) 8 (17%) 48 Barwon- South West Glenelg (S) 11 (92%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 12 Barwon- South West Moyne (S) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) 8 (40%) 3 (15%) 20 Barwon- Queenscliffe South West (B) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 6 Barwon- Southern South West Grampians (S) 5 (28%) 6 (33%) 5 (28%) 2 (11%) 18 Barwon- South West Surfcoast (S) 9 (32%) 4 (14%) 9 (32%) 6 (21%) 28 Barwon- Warrnambool South West (C) 14 (25%) 14 (25%) 18 (32%) 10 (18%) 56 Barwon- South West Subtotal 62 (27%) 47 (20%) 72 (31%) 49 (21%) 230 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 6 (18%) 12 (35%) 11 (32%) 5 (15%) 34 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 24 (49%) 14 (29%) 6 (12%) 5 (10%) 49 East Gippsland Gippsland (S) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 5 (63%) 2 (25%) 8
Page 115 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Department of Health JanMar JanMar AprJun AprJun JulSep JulSep OctDec OctDec Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Gippsland Latrobe (C) 37 (39%) 21 (22%) 22 (23%) 16 (17%) 96 South Gippsland Gippsland (S) 6 (20%) 14 (47%) 4 (13%) 6 (20%) 30 Gippsland Wellington (S) 25 (43%) 18 (31%) 11 (19%) 4 (7%) 58 Gippsland Subtotal 99 (36%) 79 (29%) 59 (21%) 38 (14%) 275 Grampians Ararat (RC) 6 (60%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 10 Grampians Ballarat (C) 20 (23%) 20 (23%) 16 (18%) 32 (36%) 88 Golden Plains Grampians (S) 5 (24%) 7 (33%) 6 (29%) 3 (14%) 21 Grampians Hepburn (S) 3 (10%) 6 (20%) 6 (20%) 15 (50%) 30 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 6 Grampians Horsham (RC) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 5 Grampians Moorabool (S) 14 (44%) 4 (13%) 7 (22%) 7 (22%) 32 Northern Grampians Grampians (S) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 6 (86%) 7 Grampians Pyrenees (S) 4 (27%) 2 (13%) 2 (13%) 7 (47%) 15 West Grampians Wimmera (S) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 3 Yarriambiack Grampians (S) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 5 Grampians Subtotal 58 (26%) 44 (20%) 45 (20%) 75 (34%) 222 Hume Alpine (S) 0 (0%) 4 (36%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 11 Hume Benalla (RC) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 8 (57%) 2 (14%) 14 Hume Indigo (S) 12 (44%) 3 (11%) 4 (15%) 8 (30%) 27 Hume Mansfield (S) 9 (39%) 4 (17%) 6 (26%) 4 (17%) 23 Hume Mitchell (S) 12 (40%) 7 (23%) 5 (17%) 6 (20%) 30 Hume Moira (S) 10 (43%) 3 (13%) 3 (13%) 7 (30%) 23 Hume Murrindindi (S) 6 (35%) 2 (12%) 4 (24%) 5 (29%) 17 Shepparton Hume (C) 3 (16%) 4 (21%) 1 (5%) 11 (58%) 19 Hume Strathbogie (S) 10 (33%) 9 (30%) 7 (23%) 4 (13%) 30 Hume Towong (S) 3 (21%) 4 (29%) 4 (29%) 3 (21%) 14 Wangaratta Hume (RC) 4 (20%) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) 7 (35%) 20 Hume Wodonga (C) 7 (17%) 11 (26%) 17 (40%) 7 (17%) 42 Hume Subtotal 54 (20%) 63 (23%) 60 (22%) 52 (19%) 270 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 24 (23%) 38 (36%) 27 (26%) 16 (15%) 105 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 6
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 116
Department of Health JanMar JanMar AprJun AprJun JulSep JulSep OctDec OctDec Total region Council No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 9 Loddon Central Mallee Goldfields (S) 4 (31%) 3 (23%) 4 (31%) 2 (15%) 13 Loddon Gannawarra Mallee (S) 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 9 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 3 (27%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 1 (9%) 11 Loddon Macedon Mallee Ranges (S) 17 (26%) 7 (11%) 15 (23%) 26 (40%) 65 Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 24 (29%) 22 (27%) 20 (24%) 16 (20%) 82 Loddon Mount Mallee Alexander (S) 14 (34%) 10 (24%) 13 (32%) 4 (10%) 41 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 6 (22%) 10 (37%) 9 (33%) 2 (7%) 27 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 39 (11%) 51 (14%) 63 (17%) 52 (14%) 368 Non- metropolitan Total 219 (16%) 243 (18%) 250 (18%) 183 (13%) 1,365 Victoria Total 624 (15%) 757 (18%) 745 (18%) 576 (14%) 4,133
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Note: Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
Page 117 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 9: Compliance checks conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014
Compliance checks*+ conducted at class 1–3 fixed food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014
Department Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total of Health Council No. % No. % No. % No. region
Metropolitan Boroondara (C) 107 7% 1,135 77% 227 15% 1,469 Eastern
Eastern Knox (C) 106 8% 869 70% 274 22% 1,249 Eastern Manningham (C) 70 7% 736 75% 172 18% 978 Eastern Maroondah (C) 92 9% 720 70% 215 21% 1,027 Eastern Monash (C) 125 10% 769 62% 344 28% 1,238 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 80 6% 1,048 77% 229 17% 1,357 Eastern Yarra Ranges (S) 72 5% 937 71% 315 24% 1,324 Eastern Subtotal 652 8% 6,214 72% 1,776 21% 8,642 North and Banyule (C) 56 5% 851 79% 173 16% 1,080 West North and Brimbank (C) 73 7% 802 74% 209 19% 1,084 West North and Darebin (C) 67 5% 1,112 79% 225 16% 1,404 West North and Hobson's Bay (C) 35 4% 696 79% 149 17% 880 West North and Hume (C) 67 5% 1,066 76% 266 19% 1,399 West North and Maribyrnong (C) 56 6% 730 78% 153 16% 939 West North and Melbourne (C) 31 1% 2,345 93% 157 6% 2,533 West North and Melton (S) 44 11% 276 72% 66 17% 386 West North and Moonee Valley (C) 53 5% 859 83% 118 11% 1,030 West North and Moreland (C) 90 7% 959 75% 227 18% 1,276 West North and Nillumbik (S) 29 11% 161 59% 83 30% 273 West North and Whittlesea (C) 96 8% 848 74% 202 18% 1,146 West North and Wyndham (C) 95 12% 537 66% 181 22% 813 West North and Yarra (C) 47 3% 1,467 86% 198 12% 1,712 West
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 118 Department Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total of Health Council No. % No. % No. % No. region
North and Subtotal 839 5% 12,709 80% 2,407 15% 15,955 West Southern Bayside (C) 68 7% 787 82% 110 11% 965 Southern Cardinia (S) 46 7% 515 73% 145 21% 706 Southern Casey (C) 124 8% 1,101 72% 299 20% 1,524 Southern Dandenong (C) 117 5% 1,513 64% 719 31% 2,349 Southern Frankston (C) 78 9% 629 73% 150 18% 857 Southern Glen Eira (C) 86 7% 900 75% 219 18% 1,205 Southern Kingston (C) 90 8% 807 75% 178 17% 1,075 Southern Mornington Peninsula (S) 83 7% 769 69% 256 23% 1,108 Southern Port Phillip (C) 60 4% 1,457 88% 137 8% 1,654 Southern Stonnington (C) 55 4% 1,316 86% 156 10% 1,527 Southern Subtotal 807 6% 9,794 76% 2,369 18% 12,970
Metropolitan Total 2,298 6% 28,717 76% 6,552 17% 37,567
Barwon- Colac Otway (S) 14 4% 247 76% 62 19% 323 South West
Barwon- Corangamite (S) 17 8% 175 81% 24 11% 216 South West
Barwon- Geelong (C) 103 5% 1,592 78% 335 17% 2,030 South West
Barwon- Glenelg (S) 14 7% 170 79% 30 14% 214 South West
Barwon- Moyne (S) 6 7% 60 69% 21 24% 87 South West
Barwon- Queenscliffe (B) 2 2% 85 85% 13 13% 100 South West
Barwon- Southern Grampians (S) 6 3% 150 84% 23 13% 179 South West
Barwon- Surfcoast (S) 13 3% 338 80% 70 17% 421 South West
Barwon- Warrnambool (C) 25 7% 308 81% 49 13% 382 South West
Barwon- Subtotal 200 5% 3,125 79% 627 16% 3,952 South West
Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 12 3% 394 87% 47 10% 453 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 14 7% 158 78% 30 15% 202
Page 119 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Department Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total of Health Council No. % No. % No. % No. region
Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 42 12% 273 78% 34 10% 349 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 44 7% 445 74% 110 18% 599 Gippsland South Gippsland (S) 14 4% 313 82% 54 14% 381 Gippsland Wellington (S) 19 4% 355 78% 82 18% 456 Gippsland Subtotal 145 6% 1,938 79% 357 15% 2,440
Grampians Ararat (RC) 14 9% 109 71% 30 20% 153
Grampians Ballarat (C) 56 5% 839 80% 149 14% 1,044
Grampians Golden Plains (S) 2 2% 78 80% 18 18% 98
Grampians Hepburn (S) 2 1% 114 79% 29 20% 145
Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 7 16% 34 77% 3 7% 44
Grampians Horsham (RC) 7 4% 135 70% 51 26% 193
Grampians Moorabool (S) 11 5% 173 74% 50 21% 234
Grampians Northern Grampians (S) 8 7% 69 61% 37 32% 114
Grampians Pyrenees (S) 2 5% 30 68% 12 27% 44
Grampians West Wimmera (S) 1 5% 15 79% 3 16% 19
Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 4 5% 64 88% 5 7% 73
Grampians Subtotal 114 5% 1,660 77% 387 18% 2,161
Hume Alpine (S) 7 6% 90 82% 13 12% 110 Hume Benalla (RC) 4 5% 60 77% 14 18% 78 Hume Indigo (S) 9 3% 187 72% 62 24% 258 Hume Mansfield (S) 4 2% 177 79% 42 19% 223 Hume Mitchell (S) 15 7% 165 76% 38 17% 218 Hume Moira (S) 16 9% 134 72% 35 19% 185 Hume Murrindindi (S) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Hume Shepparton (C) 39 8% 354 73% 91 19% 484 Hume Strathbogie (S) 7 6% 91 73% 26 21% 124 Hume Towong (S) 4 6% 47 73% 13 20% 64 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 12 9% 112 81% 14 10% 138 Hume Wodonga (C) 22 8% 198 74% 47 18% 267 Hume Subtotal 139 6% 1,615 75% 395 18% 2,149 Loddon Bendigo (C) 63 7% 736 80% 116 13% 915 Mallee
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 120
Department Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Total of Health Council No. % No. % No. % No. region
Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 5 10% 43 88% 1 2% 49
Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 23 5% 340 80% 63 15% 426
Loddon Mallee Central Goldfields (S) 8 16% 35 71% 6 12% 49
Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 2 7% 20 74% 5 19% 27
Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 3 3% 88 81% 18 17% 109
Loddon Mallee Macedon Ranges (S) 7 4% 147 75% 41 21% 195
Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 25 5% 333 72% 103 22% 461
Loddon Mallee Mount Alexander (S) 4 2% 160 73% 55 25% 219
Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 9 5% 123 75% 33 20% 165
Loddon Subtotal 149 6% 2,025 77% 441 17% 2,615 Mallee
Non- Total 747 6% 10,363 78% 2,207 17% 13,317 metropolitan
Victoria Total 3,045 6% 39,080 77% 8,759 17% 50,884
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Note: Includes all compliance checks, that is, council inspections of class 1–3 food premises, and council assessments and audits of class 1 and 2 premises. +Note: This is the first time this data has been reported and there may be data omissions due to reporting issues.
Page 121 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 10: Compliance checks conducted at class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises
Compliance checks* conducted at class 2–4 temporary and mobile food premises by class, municipality and region, Victoria 2014
Department of Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Class 4 Class 4 Total Health region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Metropolitan Eastern Boroondara (C) 57 (77%) 6 (8%) 11 (15%) 74 Eastern Knox (C) 71 (62%) 36 (32%) 7 (6%) 114 Eastern Manningham (C) 33 (58%) 16 (28%) 8 (14%) 57 Eastern Maroondah (C) 43 (43%) 49 (49%) 9 (9%) 101 Eastern Monash (C) 89 (78%) 21 (18%) 4 (4%) 114 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 31 (63%) 9 (18%) 9 (18%) 49 Eastern Yarra Ranges (S) 150 (56%) 89 (33%) 30 (11%) 269 Eastern Subtotal 474 (61%) 226 (29%) 78 (10%) 778 North and West Banyule (C) 25 (52%) 18 (38%) 5 (10%) 48 North and West Brimbank (C) 69 (68%) 25 (25%) 8 (8%) 102 North and West Darebin (C) 83 (75%) 22 (20%) 6 (5%) 111 North and West Hobson's Bay (C) 67 (57%) 44 (37%) 7 (6%) 118 North and West Hume (C) 205 (72%) 69 (24%) 10 (4%) 284 North and West Maribyrnong (C) 34 (68%) 10 (20%) 6 (12%) 50 North and West Melbourne (C) 403 (72%) 130 (23%) 27 (5%) 560 North and West Melton (S) 28 (56%) 18 (36%) 4 (8%) 50 North and West Moonee Valley (C) 31 (63%) 7 (14%) 11 (22%) 49 North and West Moreland (C) 59 (63%) 26 (28%) 8 (9%) 93 North and West Nillumbik (S) 21 (41%) 25 (49%) 5 (10%) 51 North and West Whittlesea (C) 50 (60%) 27 (32%) 7 (8%) 84 North and West Wyndham (C) 177 (69%) 69 (27%) 11 (4%) 257 North and West Yarra (C) 92 (68%) 37 (27%) 6 (4%) 135 North and West Subtotal 1,344 (67%) 527 (26%) 121 (6%) 1,992 Southern Bayside (C) 4 (19%) 10 (48%) 7 (33%) 21 Southern Cardinia (S) 22 (27%) 38 (46%) 22 (27%) 82 Southern Casey (C) 95 (50%) 84 (44%) 12 (6%) 191 Southern Dandenong (C) 104 (75%) 32 (23%) 2 (1%) 138 Southern Frankston (C) 39 (49%) 35 (44%) 6 (8%) 80 Southern Glen Eira (C) 47 (67%) 15 (21%) 8 (11%) 70 Southern Kingston (C) 85 (60%) 40 (28%) 16 (11%) 141 Southern Mornington Peninsula (S) 106 (58%) 65 (35%) 13 (7%) 184
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 122 Department of Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Class 4 Class 4 Total Health region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Southern Port Phillip (C) 76 (80%) 19 (20%) 0 (0%) 95 Southern Stonnington (C) 54 (79%) 12 (18%) 2 (3%) 68 Southern Subtotal 632 (59%) 350 (33%) 88 (8%) 1,070 Metropolitan Total 2,450 (64%) 1,103 (29%) 287 (7%) 3,840 Barwon-South West Colac Otway (S) 15 (47%) 15 (47%) 2 (6%) 32 Barwon-South West Corangamite (S) 11 (44%) 14 (56%) 0 (0%) 25 Barwon-South West Geelong (C) 40 (55%) 22 (30%) 11 (15%) 73 Barwon-South West Glenelg (S) 9 (33%) 18 (67%) 0 (0%) 27 Barwon-South West Moyne (S) 15 (39%) 17 (45%) 6 (16%) 38 Barwon-South West Queenscliffe (B) 7 (64%) 4 (36%) 0 (0%) 11 Barwon-South Southern Grampians West (S) 12 (86%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 14 Barwon-South West Surfcoast (S) 28 (61%) 18 (39%) 0 (0%) 46 Barwon-South West Warrnambool (C) 37 (64%) 17 (29%) 4 (7%) 58 Barwon-South West Subtotal 174 (54%) 126 (39%) 24 (7%) 324 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 6 (50%) 3 (25%) 3 (25%) 12 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 10 (22%) 17 (37%) 19 (41%) 46 Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 5 (63%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 8 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 4 (24%) 7 (41%) 6 (35%) 17 Gippsland South Gippsland (S) 7 (32%) 10 (45%) 5 (23%) 22 Gippsland Wellington (S) 3 (38%) 4 (50%) 1 (13%) 8 Gippsland Subtotal 35 (31%) 43 (38%) 35 (31%) 113 Grampians Ararat (RC) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 Grampians Ballarat (C) 64 (68%) 19 (20%) 11 (12%) 94 Grampians Golden Plains (S) 6 (18%) 19 (58%) 8 (24%) 33 Grampians Hepburn (S) 4 (22%) 12 (67%) 2 (11%) 18 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 3 Grampians Horsham (RC) 3 (43%) 4 (57%) 0 (0%) 7 Grampians Moorabool (S) 30 (71%) 9 (21%) 3 (7%) 42 Northern Grampians Grampians (S) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6 Grampians Pyrenees (S) 13 (72%) 0 (0%) 5 (28%) 18 Grampians West Wimmera (S) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1
Page 123 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Department of Class 2 Class 2 Class 3 Class 3 Class 4 Class 4 Total Health region Council No. % No. % No. % No. Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 Grampians Subtotal 120 (53%) 71 (31%) 36 (16%) 227 Hume Alpine (S) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%) 9 Hume Benalla (RC) 5 (42%) 4 (33%) 3 (25%) 12 Hume Indigo (S) 7 (23%) 14 (47%) 9 (30%) 30 Hume Mansfield (S) 26 (54%) 16 (33%) 6 (13%) 48 Hume Mitchell (S) 26 (76%) 4 (12%) 4 (12%) 34 Hume Moira (S) 10 (20%) 13 (27%) 26 (53%) 49 Hume Murrindindi (S) 6 (55%) 3 (27%) 2 (18%) 11 Hume Shepparton (C) 24 (40%) 20 (33%) 16 (27%) 60 Hume Strathbogie (S) 5 (56%) 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 9 Hume Towong (S) 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 8 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 27 (59%) 7 (15%) 12 (26%) 46 Hume Wodonga (C) 34 (58%) 22 (37%) 3 (5%) 59 Hume Subtotal 178 (47%) 110 (29%) 87 (23%) 375 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 72 (53%) 55 (41%) 8 (6%) 135 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 12 (21%) 19 (33%) 27 (47%) 58 Central Goldfields Loddon Mallee (S) 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 7 Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 0 (0%) 12 (57%) 9 (43%) 21 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 8 Loddon Mallee Macedon Ranges (S) 4 (25%) 5 (31%) 7 (44%) 16 Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 59 (45%) 49 (37%) 23 (18%) 131 Loddon Mallee Mount Alexander (S) 38 (61%) 13 (21%) 11 (18%) 62 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 10 (31%) 17 (53%) 5 (16%) 32 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 201 (43%) 177 (38%) 92 (20%) 470 Non- Metropolitan Total 708 (47%) 527 (35%) 274 (18%) 1,509 Victoria Total 3,158 (59%) 1,630 (30%) 561 (10%) 5,349
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Notes: Includes all compliance checks, that is, council inspections of class 2–4 premises, and council assessments and audits of class 1 and 2 premises. Includes water transport vehicles (class 3). Excludes food vending machines, which are minimally regulated under the Act.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 124 Appendix 11: Enforcement action by councils for offences in relation to class 1–3 food fixed premises by class and municipality, Victoria 2014
Enforcement action* by councils for offences in relation to class 1–3 food fixed premises by class and municipality, 2014
General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. Metropolitan Eastern Boroondara (C) 0 33 (97%) 1 (3%) 34 (71%) 0 14 (100%) 0 14 (29%) 48 Eastern Knox (C) 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 0 11 (69%) 0 5 (100%) 0 5 (31%) 16 Eastern Manningham (C) 3 (5%) 53 (82%) 9 (14%) 65 (74%) 0 23 (100%) 0 23 (26%) 88 Eastern Maroondah (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern Monash (C) 0 64 (91%) 6 (9%) 70 (97%) 0 0 2 (100%) 2 (3%) 72 Eastern Whitehorse (C) 0 25 (93%) 2 (7%) 27 (96%) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (4%) 28 Eastern Yarra Ranges (S) 0 32 (89%) 4 (11%) 36 (88%) 0 0 5 (100%) 5 (12%) 41 Eastern Subtotal 4 (2%) 217 (89%) 22 (9%) 243 (83%) 0 43 (86%) 7 (14%) 50 (17%) 293 North and West Banyule (C) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 1 North and West Brimbank (C) 0 3 (100%) 0 3 (100%) 0 0 0 0 3 North and West Darebin (C) 0 8 (100%) 0 8 (73%) 0 0 3 (100%) 3 (27%) 11 North and West Hobson's Bay (C) 1 (5%) 20 (95%) 0 21 (66%) 0 11 (100%) 0 11 (34%) 32 North and West Hume (C) 0 0 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 0 0 0 0 2
Page 125 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. North and West Maribyrnong (C) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 North and West Melbourne (C) 0 63 (91%) 6 (9%) 69 (100%) 0 0 0 0 69 North and West Melton (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 North and West Moonee Valley (C) 0 3 (100%) 0 3 (100%) 0 0 0 0 3 North and West Moreland (C) 0 12 (80%) 3 (20%) 15 (100%) 0 0 0 0 15 North and West Nillumbik (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North and West Whittlesea (C) 0 0 0 0 0 4 (100%) 0 4 (100%) 4 North and West Wyndham (C) 0 23 (96%) 1 (4%) 24 (100%) 0 0 0 0 24 North and West Yarra (C) 0 27 (100%) 0 27 (84%) 0 5 0 5 (16%) 32 North and West Subtotal 1 (1%) 161 (93%) 12 (7%) 174 (88%) 0 21 (88%) 3 (13%) 24 (12%) 198 Southern Bayside (C) 0 10 (100%) 0 10 (100%) 0 0 0 0 10 Southern Cardinia (S) 0 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 7 (58%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 0 5 (42%) 12 Southern Casey (C) 0 19 (100%) 0 19 (37%) 0 33 (100%) 0 33 (63%) 52 Southern Dandenong (C) 2 (100%) 0 0 2 (5%) 0 34 (94%) 2 (6%) 36 (95%) 38 Southern Frankston (C) 0 13 (93%) 1 (7%) 14 (100%) 0 0 0 0 14 Southern Glen Eira (C) 0 12 (92%) 1 (8%) 13 (100%) 0 0 0 0 13
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 126 General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. Southern Kingston (C) 1 (1%) 98 (95%) 4 (4%) 103 (100%) 0 0 0 0 103 Southern Mornington Peninsula (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Port Phillip (C) 0 51 (98%) 1 (2%) 52 (95%) 0 3 (100%) 0 3 (5%) 55 Southern Stonnington (C) 0 22 (100%) 0 22 (85%) 0 4 (100%) 0 4 (15%) 26 Southern Subtotal 3 (1%) 231 (95%) 8 (3%) 242 (75%) 1 (1%) 78 (96%) 2 (2%) 81 (25%) 323 Metropolitan Total 8 (1%) 609 (92%) 42 (6%) 659 (81%) 1 (1%) 142 (92%) 12 (8%) 155 (19%) 814 Barwon- South West Colac Otway (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barwon-South West Corangamite (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barwon-South West Geelong (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barwon-South West Glenelg (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barwon-South West Moyne (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barwon-South West Queenscliffe (B) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Barwon-South Southern Grampians West (S) 0 11 (100%) 0 11 (100%) 0 0 0 0 11 Barwon-South West Surfcoast (S) 0 27 (100%) 0 27 (75%) 0 9 (100%) 0 9 (25%) 36 Barwon-South West Warrnambool (C) 0 6 (100%) 0 6 (100%) 0 0 0 0 6
Page 127 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. Barwon- South West Subtotal 0 45 (100%) 0 45 (83%) 0 9 0 9 (17%) 54 Gippsland Bass Coast (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gippsland Baw Baw (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gippsland East Gippsland (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gippsland Latrobe (C) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Gippsland South Gippsland (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Gippsland Wellington (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Gippsland Subtotal 0 3 (100%) 0 3 (100%) 0 0 0 0 3 Grampians Ararat (RC) 0 10 (100%) 0 10 (100%) 0 0 0 0 10 Grampians Ballarat (C) 0 22 (100%) 0 22 (100%) 0 0 0 0 22 Grampians Golden Plains (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Grampians Hepburn (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Grampians Hindmarsh (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians Horsham (RC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians Moorabool (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Grampians Grampians (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians Pyrenees (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians West Wimmera (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians Yarriambiack (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grampians Subtotal 0 34 (100%) 0 34 (100%) 0 0 0 0 34
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 128
General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. Hume Alpine (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Benalla (RC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Indigo (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Mansfield (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Hume Mitchell (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Moira (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Murrindindi (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Shepparton (C) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Hume Strathbogie (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Towong (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Wangaratta (RC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hume Wodonga (C) 0 5 (100%) 0 5 (83%) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (17%) 6 Hume Subtotal 0 7 (100%) 0 7 (88%) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (13%) 8 Loddon Mallee Bendigo (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Buloke (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Campaspe (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Central Goldfields (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Gannawarra (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Loddon (S) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Loddon Mallee Macedon Ranges (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Mildura (RC) 0 5 (100%) 0 5 (56%) 0 4 (100%) 0 4 (44%) 9
Page 129 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
General General General General Infringement Infringement Infringement Infringement enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* enforcements* notices notices notices notices
Department of Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Subtotal Total Health region Council No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. No. No. No. No. Loddon Mallee Mount Alexander (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loddon Mallee Swan Hill (RC) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%) 0 0 0 0 1 Loddon Mallee Subtotal 0 7 (100%) 0 7 (64%) 0 4 (100%) 0 4 (36%) 11 Non- Metropolitan Total 0 96 (100%) 0 96 (87%) 0 14 (100%) 0 14 (13%) 110 Victoria Total 8 (1%) 705 (93%) 42 (6%) 755 (82%) 1 (1%) 156 (92%) 12 (7%) 169 (18%) 924
B = Borough; C = City; RC = Rural City; S = Shire. *Note: Includes ‘general enforcement actions’ which refer to a range of actions taken by councils for breaches of various sections of the Act. Among these are various directions and orders to comply, premises closures, food seizures, revocation or suspension of registration, legal proceedings for breach of undertakings and increases in food premises audit frequency. Excludes convictions for offences under the Act which resulted in a conviction. These are detailed at Appendix 12.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety 130
Appendix 12: Offences under the Act that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2014
Offences* under the Act that resulted in a conviction, by type of offence, Victoria, 2014
No. of Type of offence* offences S. 8A – Handle food in a way that the person ought reasonably to know is likely to render the food unsafe 4 S. 11(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a manner that will render, or is likely to render, it unsafe 3 S. 12(1) – Handle food intended for sale in a manner that will render, or is likely to render, it unsuitable 4 S. 12(2) – Sell food that is unsuitable 2 S. 16(1) – Failure to comply with any requirement imposed on the person by a provision of the Food Standards Code in relation to conduct of a food business or to food intended for sale or food for sale Standard 3.2.2, Clauses 19 and 21 – maintaining clean premises and fixtures in good repair 57 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 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 26 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 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 14 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
Fail to take all practicable measures to prevent pests entering the food 20 premises and/or to eradicate and prevent the harbourage of pests on the food premises
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 131
Standard 3.2.2, Clause 20 – clean utensils and food contact surfaces 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 10 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
Fail to take all practicable measures to process only safe and suitable food; 5 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 Fail to have temperature measuring device readily accessible that can 3 accurately measure the temperature of potentially hazardous food Standard 3.2.2, Clause 3(1) – food handlers’/supervisors’ knowledge and skill 6 Fail to ensure 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 Fail to ensure food handlers, whenever washing their hands, use the hand washing facilities provided, thoroughly clean their hands using soap or other 1 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 8 – displaying food Fail, when displaying food, to take all practicable measures to protect the food 1 from the likelihood of contamination Standard 3.2.2, other food handling offences 3
Standard 3.2.3: Food premises and equipment Standard 3.2.3, Clause 12 – fixtures, fittings and equipment; food contact surfaces 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, 13 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 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 6 effectively cleaned or unable to absorb grease, food particles and water, or laid so that there is no ponding of water
Page 132 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Standard 3.2.3, Clause 11 – fixtures, fittings, equipment; walls and ceilings 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 9 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 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 10 personal belongings; fail to ensure storage facilities are located where there is not likelihood of stored items contaminating food contact surfaces Standard 3.2.3 Clause 5 – sewage disposal 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 6 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 Fail to adequately contain the volume and type of garbage and recyclable 3 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 8 – lighting Fail to have a lighting system that provides sufficient natural/artificial light for 1 the activities on the food premises Standard 3.2.3, Clause 3 – design and construction of food premises 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 1 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 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 3 permanent fixtures, or connected or otherwise provided with a supply of warm, running potable water Standard 3.2.3, Clause 4 – water supply Fail to have adequate supply of water if water is to be used at the food 1 premises for any of the activities conducted on the food premises Standard 3.2.3, Clause 13 – connections for specific fixtures, fittings and equipment Fail to have fixtures, fittings and equipment that use water for food handling 2 and designed to be connected to a water supply connected to an adequate supply of water S. 16(3) – Packaging/labelling Sell or advertise any food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that 2 contravenes a provision of the Code(Standard 1.2.5 Clause 3 – selling food past its use by date) S. 17(1) – Proprietor’s name to be affixed to premises Fail to ensure that the proprietor’s name is prominently displayed on food 1 premises
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 133
S. 19 – Failure to comply with an order Fail to comply with an order to put premises in a clean and sanitary condition, 10 and alter or improve the premises as specified S. 19F – No FSP at the premises 7 Fail to ensure a required FSP is kept at the premises to which it relates S. 29 – Offences with respect to authorised officers (a) Interfere with an article seized under the Act 1 S. 35A(1) – Requirement for food premises to be registered Operate a food business at premises not registered with council 12 S. 35A(1) – Requirement for food premises to be registered Operate a food business while the registration of the premises is suspended 1 Victoria total 248
*Notes: 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. There may also be a proprietor with more than one premises. Convictions were recorded against 26 companies or individuals in relation to 25 food premises operating in Victoria during this period. The companies or individuals were found guilty of a total of 253 offences under the Victorian Food Act 1984 or the regulations. In most cases, they were convicted of multiple offences.
Page 134 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Appendix 13: Major food safety related committees 2014
Major food safety related committees 2014
13.1 National committees 2014
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity COAG Legislative Department of 1. To develop Council of Minister for As Victorian and Governance Health and domestic food Australian Health (lead) Government Forum on Food Ageing (Food regulatory policy and Governments Minister for representatives Regulation (FoFR) Regulation policy guidelines for (COAG) Primary Formerly known as Secretariat) setting domestic food Industries standards As Department Australia and New Senior Manager, of Health, Zealand Food 2. To adopt, amend or Food Safety and Victoria senior Regulation reject standards and to Regulation Unit official Ministerial Council request that these be supporting (ANZFRMC) reviewed Minister for 1 meeting/year Health Food Regulation Department of To provide policy Minister for Senior Manager, As Department Standing Health and advice to the Forum Health (lead) Food Safety and of Health, Committee (FRSC) Ageing (Food on Food Regulation Minister for Regulation Unit Victoria of FoFR Regulation (FoFR) Primary representative 2 meetings/year Secretariat) Industries Implementation Department of To develop or assist in Food Manager, As Department Sub-Committee for Health and the development of Regulation Systems and of Health, Food Regulation Ageing (Food guidelines on Standing Program Victoria (ISFR) Regulation consistent Committee Development, representative 3 meetings/year Secretariat) enforcement of food (FRSC) of FoFR Food Safety and regulations that aim to Regulation Unit minimise cost to industry and meet the objective of minimum effective regulation Front of Pack Department of To steer work plan in Minister for Senior Manager, As Victorian Labelling Steering Health and relation to the Health and Food Safety and FRSC Committee Ageing (Food implementation of the Ageing and Regulation Unit representative 6 meetings/year Regulation recommendations of Food Secretariat) the Blewett review of Regulation food labelling law and Standing policy Committee (FRSC)
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 135
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Government Food Department of 1. To ensure accurate Implementation Senior Policy As Department Communicator’s Health and and consistent food Sub-Committee Analyst, Food of Health, Group (ISFR Ageing (Food safety messages are on Food Safety and Victoria Working Group) Regulation communicated to the Regulation Regulation Unit representative 1 meeting and 2 Secretariat) public and (ISFR) teleconferences/ye stakeholders ar 2. To enable sharing of current media issues information between jurisdictions 3. To share communication materials between jurisdictions Coordinated Food Department of To provide a strategic Implementation Senior Food As Department Survey Plan Health and overview to the Sub-Committee Science Officer, of Health, Working Group Ageing (Food national system for for Food Food Safety and Victoria (ISFR Working Regulation cooperative and Regulation Regulation Unit representative Group) Secretariat) collaborative actions (ISFR) 1 meeting/year, on food surveys, and testing, monitoring, teleconferences as epidemiological required studies, research, surveillance and intelligence gathering National Food Department of To develop and Implementation Manager, As Department Incident Response Health and maintain a national Sub-Committee Regulation and of Health, Protocol Working Ageing (Food protocol to respond to for Food Incident Victoria Group (ISFR Regulation food incidents in a Regulation Management, representative Working Group) Secretariat) consistent and (ISFR) Food Safety and 1 meeting/year, coordinated manner Regulation Unit and teleconferences as required Food Surveillance Department of 1. To identify Implementation Senior Food As Department Network Health and opportunities for cross- Sub-Committee Science Officer, of Health, 4 Ageing (Food jurisdictional for Food Food Safety and Victoria teleconferences/ye Regulation involvement and Regulation Regulation Unit representative ar, and additional Secretariat) facilitate collaboration (ISFR) teleconferences as 2. To identify 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
Page 136 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Food Medicine Department of To provide regulatory Implementation Manager, As Department Interface Working Health and clarity around products Sub-Committee Regulation and of Health Group (ISFR Ageing (Food that could be food or for Food Incident Victoria Working Group) Regulation therapeutic goods Regulation Management, representative Meetings as Secretariat) (ISFR) Food Safety and required Regulation Unit Working Group on Department of 1. To assist in the Implementation Senior Food As Department Nutrition, Health Health and development of Code Sub-Committee Safety Science of Health, and Related Claims Ageing (Food standards for Food Officer, Food Victoria (ISFR Working Regulation 2. To provide input Regulation Safety and representatives Group) Secretariat) with respect to (ISFR) Regulation Unit 4 meetings/year implementation and enforcement issues Expert Advisory Department of To work with Food Implementation Senior Food As Department Group on Analytical Health and Standards Australia Sub-Committee Science Officer, of Health, Methods Ageing (Food New Zealand (FSANZ) for Food Food Safety and Victoria 1 meeting/year Regulation on the standards Regulation Regulation Unit representative Secretariat) development process (ISFR) in order to advise on fit for purpose analytical methods FRSC Caffeine Department of To review the Food Senior Food As Department Working Group Health and ministerial policy Regulation Science Officer, of Health, 2 meetings/year Ageing (Food guidelines on caffeine Standing Food Safety and Victoria Regulation in food Committee of Regulation Unit representative Secretariat) FOFR Independent Department of To review impacts and Food Senior Food As Department Review of the Health and outputs of the Regulation Science Officers - of Health, mandatory Ageing (Food fortification standards Standing Nutrition, Food Victoria fortification of bread Regulation Committee Safety and representative 2 meetings/year Secretariat) (FRSC) of FoFR Regulation Unit and Australian (2) Health Ministers Advisory Council (AHMAC)
Working Group on Department of To develop a strategy Food Director, Health As Department High Level Health and – high-level principles Regulation Review and of Health, Monitoring and Ageing (Food – for monitoring and Standing Regulation (chair) Victoria Enforcement Regulation enforcement of food Committee Senior Manager, representatives Strategy for Food Secretariat) labelling in Australia (FRSC) of FoFR Food Safety and Labelling Regulation Unit (Joint ISFR/FRSC Senior Policy working Group) Analyst, Food 5 meetings/year Safety and Regulation Unit
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 137
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Strategic Plan Department of To develop and Food Senior Manager, As Department Working Group Health and oversee the Regulation Food Safety and of Health, (FRSC Working Ageing (Food implementation of the Standing Regulation Unit Victoria Group) Regulation Strategic plan 2013– Committee representative Secretariat) 2017; the strategic (FRSC) of FoFR 3 meetings/year plan is reviewed by FRSC every 12 months Food Safety Department of To review the Food Food Senior Manager, As Department Management Health and safety management Regulation Food Safety and of Health, Working Group Ageing (Food policy guideline with a Standing Regulation Unit Victoria Meetings as Regulation particular focus on the Committee Senior Policy representative required Secretariat) adequacy and (FRSC) of FoFR Analyst, Food appropriateness of its Safety and guidance in relation to Regulation Unit the general food service sector and closely related retail sector Jurisdictional Food To engage in the FSANZ board Senior Food As Department Forum Standards standards setting Science Officer, of Health, Meetings and Australia New process prior to an Food Safety and Victoria teleconferences as Zealand assessment for an Regulation Unit representative required (FSANZ) application or proposal Senior Policy being finalised and Analyst, Food provided to the FSANZ Safety and board Regulation Unit Advisory Food To consider requests FSANZ board Senior Food As Department Committee on Standards made by industry to Science Officer, of Health, Novel Foods Australia New FSANZ for novel food Food Safety and Victoria Meetings and Zealand status and to identify Regulation Unit representative teleconferences as (FSANZ) those substances that required require a pre-market risk assessment (via Application)
Page 138 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Local Government Department of 1. Annual reporting Food Manager, As Department Working Group Health and information provided Regulation Systems and of Health, (ISFR Working Ageing (Food by jurisdictions to Standing Program Victoria Group) Regulation ISFR using consistent Committee Development, representative Secretariat) reporting terminology, (FRSC) of FoFR Food Safety and Meetings and including: Regulation Unit 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 Manager, As Department Health Professional Health food safety issues Health Systems and of Health, Australia (EHPA) Professional Professional Program Victoria Food Special Australia Australia Development, representative Interest Group Food Safety and (SIG) Regulation Unit 12 meetings/year Food Microbiology Standards To review and revise Standards Manager. As department (FT–035) Australia standard Australian Australia Regulation and of Health, Two meetings per analytical methods for Incident Victoria year, detecting Management, representative teleconferences as microorganisms in Food Safety and required food Regulation Unit
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 139
13.2 State committees 2014
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Victorian Food Department of To discuss regulatory Minister for Senior Manager, As Department Regulators Forum Primary food safety issues Health Food Safety and of Health, 2 meetings/year Industries, across all agencies Minister for Regulation Unit Victoria Victoria Primary representative Industries Health Claims Department of To develop a Assistant Senior Manager, As Department Implementation – Health, Victorian plan for Director, Food Food Safety and of Health, Victoria Working Victoria implementing the Safety and Regulation Unit Victoria Group Nutrition, Health and Regulation, Senior Policy representatives Meetings as Related Claims Department of Analyst, Food required Standards (1.2.7) Health Safety and Regulation Unit Senior Food Safety Science Officer, Food Safety and Regulation Unit Department of Department of To discuss regulatory Assistant Director, Health As Department Health/Municipal Health, food safety issues Director, Food Review and of Health, Association of Victoria – relevant to local Safety and Regulation Victoria Victoria (MAV) chaired by government Regulation, Principle Policy representatives Food Safety Municipal Department of Advisor, Food Committee Association of Health and Safety and Meetings as Victoria Chief Executive, Regulation Unit MAV required Manager, Systems and Program Development, Food Safety and Regulation Unit Senior Food Science Officer, Food Safety and Regulation Unit Food Technology Food To serve as an Food Senior Food As Department Association of Technology interface with Technology Science Officer, of Health, Australia (FTAA) Association of industry on standard Association of Food Safety and Victoria Technical Sub- Australia development Australia Regulation Unit representative committee Meetings as required
Page 140 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Convening Meeting National department/ attendance committees organisation Purpose Accountability Representatives capacity Department of Department of To provide feedback Department of Chair, MAV As MAV Health – MAV Health – on the department’s Health, MAV Policy Advisor, representatives Local Government chaired by statutory annual MAV Food Act Activities Municipal reports Reporting Working Association of Senior Food Group Victoria Science Officer, Food Safety and 1 meeting per year Regulation Unit Manager, Systems and As Department Program of Health, Development, Victoria Food Safety and representatives Regulation Unit As council EHOs from the EHOs following councils/shires: Bendigo East Gippsland Hobsons Bay Knox Maribyrnong Melbourne Surf Coast Whitehorse Yarra Ranges Streatrader Project Department of To project manage Assistant Systems Data As Department Group Health, the Streatrader Director, Food Analyst, Food of Health, 26 meetings/year Victoria project – the online Safety and Safety and Victoria statewide registration Regulation, Regulation Unit representatives
system for food vans Department of Systems and stalls Health Regulatory representative Technical Officer, and Chief Food Safety and Executive, MAV Regulation Unit Environment Health Officer, Food Safety and Regulation Unit Allergen testing National To advise on National Senior Food As Department Special Interest Measurement compliance issues in Measurement Science Officer, of Health, Group (SIG) Institute (NMI) relation to standards Institute Food Safety and Victoria 1 meeting/year (Public Regulation Unit representatives analytical Senior Food laboratory) Safety Science Officer, Food Safety and Regulation Unit
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 141
Appendix 14: Resources and publications 2014
Resources and publications
2014 Title Audience Description Streatrader – registration tool The Streatrader website was further developed for community groups and providing additional ‘how to use’ information, businesses selling food from a Businesses frequently asked questions and other resources Jan– food stall, truck, van or cart Community for business and community groups using the Dec (online portal) Groups system Jan– Practical information for the public on keeping Dec Better Health Channel (online) General food safe and preventing foodborne illness Jan– Environmental health Revamped secure departmental website for EHOs Dec professionals (online portal) Councils and managers working in local councils Details of offences under the Act or the Jan– regulations which resulted in a conviction being Dec Register of convictions (online) General recorded Auditors Auditor arrangements (6pp, Business Agreement between the Department of Health Jan online) Councils and auditors registered under the Act Clean-up guidance for Guidance on reducing the risk of further Listeria monocytogenes contamination following detection of Listeria detection Business monocytogenes contamination. Also available in Apr in food (2pp, online) Councils Arabic, simplified Chinese and Vietnamese Act report 2011 and 2012 – Annual report on councils’ and the department’s Marking a milestone (220pp, activities, operations and achievements in food May print and online) General regulation prepared under s. 7C of the Act FSP template for class 2 retail Updated FSP template, supplementary practices and food service businesses, section and records for retail or food service Jun no. 1, version 3 (75pp, online) Business businesses
Classification tool to help community groups Community groups fundraising understand and meet their food safety obligations events food safety obligations when selling food to raise funds. Designed (3:44 min video, interactive Community especially for first time users and those whose Aug website) groups first language is other than English Keep hands clean and food Updated poster for food handlers for display in Aug safe (poster, A4, online) Business food business kitchens Updated advice on donating ready-to-eat food and Donating food to emergency helping in other ways during emergencies. Aug services (1p, online) General Published jointly with Red Cross. Donating food to charities in Updated advice for food businesses about Aug Victoria (1p, online) Business donating food to charities safely Advice on handling food safely and avoiding food Shop, store, cook and eat safe poisoning (sub-titled in Arabic, simplified Chinese and Sep (4:20 min, animation) General Vietnamese) New app to improve councils’ food sampling Electronic food sampling app practice and yield better food safety surveillance OctDec (online) Councils data
Page 142 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
2014 Title Audience Description Effective interventions for inactivation of hepatitis A on Updated guidance to assist businesses to meet fresh and semi-dried tomatoes their food safety obligations through the Oct (3pp, online) Business production chain Egg stamping laws. Information for restaurants, cafes and other businesses preparing food (1p, Information for these businesses on their Nov online) Business obligations to handle eggs safely Egg stamping laws. Information for retailers selling eggs (1p, Information for these businesses on their Nov online) Business obligations to handle eggs safely
Analysts approved under the Analysts List of individuals authorised to conduct food Nov Act (4pp, online) Councils safety analyses Auditors Food safety auditors (29pp, Business List of approved food safety auditors under the Dec online) Councils Act Personal hygiene for people Updated information for food handlers on their Dec working with food (2pp, online) Business food safety obligations and good personal hygiene Annual report on councils’ and the department’s Food Act report 2013. Making activities, operations and achievements in food Dec it safer (151pp, print and online) General regulation prepared under s. 7C of the Act Advice on risks associated with consuming raw Raw (unpasteurised) milk. (unpasteurised) milk products and an outline of Dec Council advice (2pp, online) Councils council enforcement powers Risks associated with the selling and consumption of raw Advice on illegality of selling raw (unpasteurised) (unpasteurised) milk (2pp, milk and other milk products for human Dec online) Business consumption and associated health risks.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 143
Appendix 15: Glossary of terms
Glossary of terms
Term Definition Act In this report, unless otherwise specified, ‘the Act’ refers to the Victorian Food Act 1984. Approved auditor Auditors who are approved by the Department of Health under the Act to /auditor 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 FSP 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 FSP 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. Australia New Zealand The collection of bi-national standards designed to promote national Food Standards Code consistency in Australia’s and New Zealand’s food laws. It lists requirements (the Code) for food businesses in relation to food safety practices, general requirements and food premises set up and equipment. It also outlines the requirements for foods such as additives, labelling and genetically modified foods. 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. Community group For the purposes of the Act, an organisation that sells food solely for the purpose of raising funds for charity or is a not-for-profit body. Compliance A situation where regulatory requirements under the Act 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.
Page 144 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Term Definition Compliance A check conducted to investigate whether food premises or individuals are assessment complying with the Act. 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. In 2014 there were 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. Council assessment Where a FSP 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 FSP and the food safety standards. Code See Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Dairy Food Safety The independent regulator of Victoria’s dairy industry. Victoria (DFSV) Department of Health The Victorian department responsible for ensuring that food sold in Victoria is (The department) safe, suitable and correctly labelled in the majority of food businesses; that is food manufacturers, retailers, cafés and restaurants, as well as premises that serve food such as hospitals and residential aged care services. Meat, seafood and dairy retailers are regulated by specialised regulators under their own industry-specific Acts (see Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe). Note: This report refers to developments and activities undertaken during the calendar year 2014 when the Department of Health and Human Services was two separate departments (that is, the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services). For the purposes of this report, 'the department' refers to the Department of Health as it was during the 2014 calendar year. Future annual reports covering time periods after 1 January 2015 will refer to the Department of Health and Human Services. Discretionary council An inspection of a food premises that is conducted at the discretion of the inspection council. It may be conducted because the council has concerns about the food business, or in response to any complaints received about the premises, or it may be a random spot check. Environmental Health A national organisation that supports environmental health professionals Professionals Australia through ongoing education and research and provides ongoing professional (EPHA) 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 The principal Act that controls the sale of food in Victoria. Under the Act, food Act) business owners must ensure food sold to customers is safe and suitable to eat. In this report, unless otherwise specified, the terms the ‘Act’ refer to this Act. Food business Under the Act, a business, enterprise or activity (other than those involved in primary production) that involves handling of food sold or intended for sale. 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 Act 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.
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 145
Term Definition Food recall A request to return to the maker a batch or an entire production run of a food product due to the discovery of safety issues. A recall may be mandatory or voluntary. Food safety Refers to a food supply that does not endanger consumer health through biological, chemical and/or other contaminants. Food safety and quality control ensures the desirable characteristics of food are retained through the cycle of production, handling, processing, packaging, distribution, preparation and sale. Food safety program A documented plan developed by a business that describes how it will (FSP) 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 supervisor Under the Act 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 The surveillance of food for physical, chemical and microbiological surveillance contaminants. In Victoria, the department monitors the safety of food in the food chain in conjunction with local governments and associated laboratories. Under the Act, 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. Food Standards A statutory authority operating under the Commonwealth Food Standards Australia New Zealand Australia New Zealand Act 1991. This authority develops, in conjunction with (FSANZ) 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 Act, businesses are required to comply with these standards. Food manufacturers Businesses that produce products for distribution beyond the local area. Distribution may include regional, national or international markets. Foods manufactured are typically sold to wholesalers or retailers for distribution to the public. For the purposes of this report, in most cases this excludes manufacturers that primarily sell direct to the public from the premises, for example, bakeries that sell to the local community from their premises. Hazard Analysis and A management system in which food safety is addressed through the Critical Control Point analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw (HACCP) material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product. 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 kill pathogens that can cause poisoning. Independent FSP A FSP tailored specifically for the food premises. The Act describes these as ‘non-standard food safety programs’. They are often referred to as proprietary or independent programs.
Page 146 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety
Term Definition 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 Act. 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. Legislative and The body that oversees the regulation of food safety in Australia and New Governance Forum on Zealand. The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Food Regulation previously performed this role. (FoFR) Mandatory inspection An inspection of a food premises required under the Act that is conducted by a council for purposes including ensuring that the premises is complying with the Act and the applicable food safety standards and the Food Standards Code. 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. Noncompliance A situation where a food premises or individual does not follow the regulatory requirements under the Act. Notification Once-off requirement under the Act 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 registering council) stall, one 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 S. 53D of the Act requires the Secretary to the Department of Health to keep a register of convictions for offences under the Act or the regulations. S. 53E requires that register to be published on a Department of Health website at:
The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety Page 147
Term Definition Registration Requirement under the Act for class 1, 2 and 3 food premises to register with the responsible council. Retail food premises Food premises that sell direct to the public. They may or may not produce food from raw ingredients for distribution within the immediate local area. For example; supermarkets, temporary market stalls, bakery, fresh pasta premises. Risk-based Under the Act, food premises classification is based on the type of food classification 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. Standard FSP A FSP is a written plan that shows how the business will ensure the food sold is safe. A standard FSP 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) FSP 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 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 Refers to a tent, stall or other structure that is not permanently fixed to a site premises 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. Warehouse/distributor Food premises, where goods that require dry or cold storage are kept pending distribution to other food premises, for example to retail food premises. Includes food wholesalers and importers. 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 Act, these are class 3 premises.
Page 148 The Food Act report 2014: State of food safety