|
|
SUBMISSION TO THE NEW ZEALAND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 2005 Hospitality Association of New Zealand
The Hospitality Association of New Zealand (HANZ) is a voluntary trade association with over 2,100 members nationally. Members come from across the hospitality industry including: · Hotels/Motels/Major Accommodation Providers/Lodges · Taverns/Pubs/Bars/Night Clubs · Restaurants/Cafes · Off-Licences A significant portion of our members’ businesses have a primarily focus on food. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 requires that all premises licensed to sell liquor for consumption on the premises have available a range of food items at all times they are open for the sale of liquor. This requirement means that virtually all of our members (excluding off-licences) have a food component to their business. Food safety is therefore of significant importance to our members. Compliance with food safety legislation is only one of many compliance requirements facing hospitality businesses. The majority of our members employ less than 10 employees and are often “owner operators”. Compliance costs are a major concern to the majority of our members. Paper 1: Introduction and Context
Paper 2: Regulatory Roles, Responsibilities and Structures The Association supports the proposed criteria for assessing the structural options and accepts the validity of the outcomes of the assessments of the six proposed options. From our members’ point of view the most important considerations when reviewing the regulatory framework are ensuring costs of regulation are minimised and that the system is accessible and straightforward for businesses to work through. We support a clear and easily accessible “one stop shop” approach. We would go further than just looking at this from a food safety point of view to look at it in the broader context of compliance with other legislation also. The main point of contact for most compliance requirements is the Territorial Authority so there is an extra advantage to making this the single point of entry for businesses in that they already have contact with their Territorial Authority regarding Sale of Liquor Act, Building Act requirements and so on. In saying this members do experience an alarming degree of inconsistency across the country due to the differing structures, approaches and levels of competence within different Territorial Authorities. Consistency must be a priority whichever option is selected. It appears that Option 2. is the most realistic option however the Association will support whichever option delivers best on the proposed criteria particularly the issues of ease of access, level of competence and consistency. The Association urges NZFSA to keep cost implications to businesses uppermost in mind when making a final assessments and decisions. Paper 3: Food Control Plans The final “food control plan” must be practicable for the business environment. Business operators are extremely challenged to comply with many requirements of other legislation and it is our experience that where requirements are overly onerous and require specialist knowledge business operators become overwhelmed and in some cases do not bother even trying to comply. The Association strongly supports the proposal that Good Operating Practice and HACCP principles may be applied through Codes of Practice or HACCP templates or models. The principles of HACCP are unnecessarily complex for many food businesses and most operators would require specialised and in-depth training to be able to reach the level required to apply these principles competently or face the expense of employing an expert to carry this out. Using Codes of Practice, templates and models will ease this process. Codes of Practice, templates and models must be fit for purpose and easy for lay people to implement and maintain. They should not be more complicated or cumbersome than is absolutely necessary to deliver safe food.
Paper 4: Implementation of Food Control Plans The Association strongly supports that where an approved Code of Practice is used, where there is no significant variation from the approved Code, there would be not be a requirement for independent evaluation. We would anticipate that the majority of our members would fall into this category and that this would simplify the implementation of Food Control Plans to a degree however there are still the “assessment and registration” and “verification” steps. The registration process should be as straightforward as possible. It is a little unclear from the paper what “assessment” will take place at this stage. The paper states that NZFSA will establish clear criteria for assessing applications, including disclosure by the applicant of any food-related convictions. Without further detail regarding what the assessment process at the registration stage will entail the Association is unable to comment further other than repeating concerns about unnecessary complexity and costs implications which may result from an inappropriate assessment process. The paper does not provide sufficient detail regarding the verification process to allow the Association to comment definitively on this aspect either. The Association supports the principle of “performance-based verification”. Without specifics regarding how often members’ businesses will need to have their Food Control Plans verified, the detail of what will be involved in this process and how much it is likely to cost it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of the process or the implications for our members. The issue of geographical availability of “verifiers” is of concern as if verifiers are only available in the main centres the cost of verification for food businesses in smaller towns may be even higher. It is of great importance the system of verification does not impose onerous costs on industry throughout the country. The Association wishes to raise some concerns about the barriers to entry that may be introduced by any requirement to have a Food Control Plan evaluated, assessed and registered prior to the food business commencing operation. Firstly this may not be practicable or worthwhile because food businesses often evolve and develop during the first months of being operational to suit the realities of the market. Secondly this could significantly increase start up costs and time requirements. These issues are also important to consider when a business changes hands. The Association suggests there should be a “transition” period allowed where a more simplistic interim plan is sufficient until the business has been operating for perhaps three months. Under the Sale of Liquor Act where a business changes hands there is provision for a “temporary licence” to be issued which allows the new owner to continue to trade under the same conditions as the previous liquor licence for up to three months in usual circumstances. In this time the new owner makes application for a liquor licence in their own name. The three month temporary licence arrangement provides time for the application to be filed and determined without imposing unreasonable barriers to the business continuing to operate. Whatever requirements are put in place regarding accreditation and recognition of verifiers the issue of costs being passed on to food businesses must be kept in mind.
Paper 5: Principles and Possible Methods for a Cost Recovery Framework As previously mentioned cost implications for industry are a major concern to the Association. The cost of the current system varies greatly across the Territorial Authorities both in terms of the dollar cost to businesses and the model used to determine costs. Information presented by NZFSA indicates that the current costs of registration and inspection vary from $25 to $1880. Given the increased complexity of the proposed regulatory system which will include at the outset evaluation, registration and assessment, and then on-going verification, and potentially re-registration where various events take place, it seems inevitable that the cost to industry will be increased which is of significant concern. Furthermore when considering cost implications from the business operator’s point of view it is not only the costs charged by various government agencies and/or third parties accredited by government agencies to undertake specific roles, it is also the cost of developing, implementing and maintaining a food control plan. This time and resource can be considerable and is difficult to accurately account for. A further issue which concerns us is the cost implications of training of food handlers. While training has not been discussed in detail in the papers, it is acknowledged that this is ongoing work of NZFSA and the intention appears clear that mandatory food handler training of some description will be introduced as a result of the domestic food review. This is another area which will have significant cost implications for industry. The Domestic Food Review has included a comprehensive survey of Territorial Authorities and has looked at the differing requirements for food handling training through local bylaws. Analysis of whether mandatory training is having an actual effect on levels of food borne illness appears not to have been undertaken. Differing requirements for food handling training in different localities could be compared to levels of reported food borne illness to determine the effectiveness of the training. This may provide evidence on which to base decisions and is in keeping with an evidence based approach. We would urge the NZFSA to undertake rigorous investigation in this area and to consult further with industry prior to making decisions regarding recommendations to government regarding mandatory training. Concluding Comments Many food business operators question whether there is evidence to support the argument that they are to blame for increasing levels of food borne illness and furthermore whether increased levels of “paperwork” will have the intended effect of reducing food borne illness. While in-depth research has been undertaken into the differing strategies and priorities of the Territorial Authorities and the Public Health Units there appears to be no attempt made to investigate which strategies and priorities have had the most beneficial effect on reducing the incidence of food borne illness. It is accepted that there is a significant degree of inconsistency across New Zealand and this may provide the opportunity to compare a variety of different approaches to see which is the most effective application of the current regulatory framework. Furthermore there seems to be a general acceptance that data collected regarding the incidence of food borne illness is flawed due to a number of issues related to non-reporting and that these issues are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. This seems to compromise the ability of NZFSA to take an “evidence based” approach to the matters at hand. There also seems to be no clear international model that provides evidence that the proposed system of Food Control Plans will reduce the incidence of food borne illness. This heightens the concerns industry have about increased levels of complexity, documentation and cost that appear to be incumbent in the proposed system. The Association believes it is imperative that a sound set of success measures are put in place for the new Food Control Plan regime. With the likelihood that industry will face increased complexity and cost it is crucial that the incidence of food borne illness can be measured accurately so that the effect of the new system is clear. It is difficult for industry to accept that they may have to invest significant resources to implement Food Control Plans and the success or otherwise of their work will not be measurable. Many operators believe they are unfairly bearing the brunt of concern regarding food borne illness and would prefer to see an emphasis on educating the public generally about safe food handling practices and suggest including this topic in the school curriculum as well as increasing the number of public education campaigns. In practical terms the proposed transition for the food industry to Food Control Plans will be quite dramatic and impose much greater demands on the operator than the current system. While the Association recognises the current regime is flawed and in need of a major overhaul the proposed Food Control Plan system is by comparison quite complicated and demanding, particularly for small to medium food businesses. While we support the suggestions of industry Codes of Practice and Templates to ease the transition, we see the real test as whether the Food Control Plans will be simple and fit for purpose or whether they will require high levels of documentation and frequent measurements and checks being made which will not be reasonable, practicable or necessary for the majority of our members. The fact that very few small to medium food businesses have voluntarily opted to put in place a Food Safety Programme is indicative that this option has not been seen as advantageous, convenient or necessary to business owners. The challenge for NZFSA is to ensure the required Food Control Plans are “fit for purpose” and practicable. We believe this will be achieved by keeping them as straightforward as possible while still delivering safe food. The Association has commented as best it can on the papers presented as part of the Domestic Food Review. In saying this we wish to have it noted that with so many options being presented at this stage of the review it is difficult to get a clear understanding of exactly what the final outcomes will look like and consequently the implications they will have on our members’ food businesses. We are committed to keeping up to date with the review as it proceeds and believe as decisions are made and details finalised we will have further and probably more definitive comments to make. Raewyn Bleakley 28 February 2005 |
|
