According to a report by Which? It’s been said that budget cuts have left some local authorities struggling to enforce food hygiene standards. The report also found that in some areas, more than a third of restaurants, takeaways and shops are failing to comply with food hygiene standards. Pat Perry, Executive Chairman at leading health and safety experts, Perry Scott Nash digs under the surface of these figures.
The Which? report ranked councils on their food hygiene enforcement performance based on: compliance levels amongst high and medium risk businesses, the percentage of premises yet to receive a risk rating and the number of food hygiene inspections and follow ups that were required but not carried out.
Whilst these latest figures tell us that health and safety visits are down by 6.8%, perhaps it highlights the fact that visits are targeting outlets that are thought to be underperforming? After all, what’s the point in regularly visiting a low risk business, or any other business that has demonstrated great food safety competence ahead of others that food safety professionals deem to present the public with greater risk?
Perhaps these diminishing numbers are a true representation, and this type of targeting, based on outlets that require more attention, would no doubt skew results. But another school of thought, is that local authorities are relying too much on the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme to force the premises to fix things themselves, in some cases ahead of regular inspections. Carrot and Stick comes to mind – but can we take that chance with public health?
In the study, London authorities scored particularly badly, making-up six of the bottom ten lowest ranked councils. But is it really a surprise that London ranked so badly? It’s likely that they have one of the highest number and a greater density of high/medium risk premises.
However, budget cuts will, of course, lead to priorities and choices will need to be made – some things have to give, and it looks like food inspections is one. The London Borough of Bexley reportedly undertook no official hygiene sampling in 2012/13, a claim Bexley refutes. Is it yet more unnecessary scaremongering? Or priorities in action?
Recently, a BBC report suggested that mandatory display was the way forward. This is of course already in place in Wales, but is it necessary in England? The more discussion/debate/awareness the general public are exposed to, the more savvy they become, so that they either check on an app, on a website or just realise that a non-display will invariably mean a bad rating.
The one question I’d like to raise is whether money may be better spent, or indeed claims for a new pot of cash could be justified, for setting out a consumer awareness campaign around the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme / Scores on the Doors to achieve this? I’d also pose the question around transparency - should there be more detail shown in the rating? For example, give a rating for food safety and hygiene, for structural compliance and for confidence in management.
Opinion would seem to be divided on whether or not there should be mandatory display. People seem split between concerns over consistency etc to make it mandatory in its current guise, but should perceived inconsistency get in the way of getting health and safety to the forefront of the consumers mind’s when making a purchasing decision, or should government push ahead with a scheme that starts with uniform levels of training for inspectors and adds emphasis on the need for even handedness.
Either way, from bloggers and social media, to avid viewers of the likes of MasterChef, everyone is a bit more food savvy these days and the authorities needs to realise the public’s thirst for knowledge and transparency will need quenching in time – the question is, through what scheme, this, or another one?
