-
Food labelling Regulations 1996, Regulation 44 – It is an offence to use, or have available for use, food with an expired use by date, as this is the date, which the food producer guarantees, is safe from a microbiological harm.
-
There were several packs of steaks with use by dates of 6th January 2007, which had been purchased from the local supermarket.
- There was no documentation on the premises to support their practices.
-
EC Regulation 852/2004 Annex 11 Chapter 1 paragraph 4 Hand washing facilities, an adequate number of washbasins is to be available, suitably located and designated for cleaning hands. Washbasins for cleaning hands are to be provided with hot and cold running water, materials for cleaning hands and for hygienic drying. The facilities for washing food are to be separate from the hand washing facility.
- There was no soap or towels available at the wash hand basin.
- Whilst on the premises there was no evidence to say anyone did wash their hands, even though food production was being undertaken.
- When questioned about this practice, the staff indicated that they used the sink in the wash up are to wash their hands.
Recommendations for Breaches of Legislation
Discussion of Enforcement options available
Initially the author was resolute that the Taj Mahal Restaurant should receive the following enforcement notices for non compliance:
-
EU Regulation 852/2004 Article 6 (2) Registration of establishment by Food Business Operator (FBO). This regulation is to provide information to the competent authorities about food businesses in their area so that they can target enforcement resources more effectively. The obligation to notify changes to the authority falls on the proprietor. Any new business must register at least 28 days before opening. The penalties for non compliance are dealt with by Regulation 17 of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006. On conviction, the proprietors are subject to a fine and or imprisonment for up to 2 years.
- Food business commenced service in June 2008.
-
The Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 Enforcement action related to premises, Regulation 6. This regulation would be used to serve a hygiene improvement notice (HIN), as the inspecting officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the proprietor of the restaurant failed to comply with regulations relating to hygiene and the safety of food. The grounds for non compliance are as follows:
- EC Regulation 852/2004 Article 5 – Hazard analysis and critical control points HACCP. Food Business Operator failed to provide appropriate documentation and records showing how they are applying food safety management procedures based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
- Informal notice which is written, stating that there will be a scheduled inspection 28 days after the initial inspection.
However, the author decided that a more proactive approach was required to assist the newly opened restaurant. There is a requirement for a follow up visit without inspection, to communicate the first inspection with the chef and manager. A suggested period for this would be 7 days, and this would be placed in writing to the restaurant.
The Registering of the business could be done that day through the local authority, and as we have already inspected the premises, the authorities are aware that the business exists. This would be placed in writing with a time limit of 7 days to comply.
- The implementation of a HACCP system 28 days
- Safer Food Better Business 7 days
- Deep cleaning of the premises 7 days
- Organising nominated suppliers for food and chemicals 14 days
- Training and follow up systems for training 28 days
A suggested period for a further inspection would be 28 days.
Intervention methods
Formal
Informal
The Taj Mahal Restaurant at the time of inspection is a medium risk business with a high risk of non compliance therefore the intervention method that should be implemented is that of inspection. As the restaurant is a Category A rating on the Food Establishment Intervention Rating, these inspections should take place every six months, until the restaurant has improved their food safety and hygiene practices.
In conclusion, primarily whilst researching information for this case study, the author believed that a more formal approach to manage the food safety and hygiene issues that had occurred in the Taj Mahal Restaurant would be the most appropriate method of intervention. However, on reflection, and after completing a risk rating, in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice Annex 5, and taking into consideration that this is a new small business, contributing to the community, the method of intervention, through the justifications has altered to an informal approach.
Whilst being a Category ‘A’ establishment with a large number of legislative non compliances, it was acknowledged that there had been an accumulation of events leading up to a poor inspection. These being from the proprietor failing to register the business through to the management, chef, and staff not complying with legislative practices. Had the establishment initially sort advice from the Local Authority and informed their designated Environmental Health Practioner of their intentions with the business prior to opening, perhaps these non compliances would have been reduced significantly.
As this is a newly established business, there is scope for immense improvement. Whilst the author understands the implications that poor food safety and hygiene presents to a community, an important management contrivance is to work with, and alongside the restaurant for maximum achievement of goals for both the Practioner and the business. It would be unnecessary to burden the restaurant with additional paperwork as in the ‘Hampton Review’ Instead, providing that the business complies with the improvement requirements to bring them up to an acceptable standard within the suggested time frames, the author believes that this will become a compliant restaurant.
Word Count - 1648
Appendix
Original officers report 15
Food Establishment Intervention Rating 17
Photograph 1 21
Photograph 2 22
Photograph 3 23
Photograph 4 24
Photograph 5 25
Photograph 6 26
Application for the registration of a food business establishment 26.1
Sample of an Hygiene improvement notice 26.2
Original Officers notes
I carried out programmed food inspection of the Restaurant, at 5.30 p.m. On the 14 July 2008. The Restaurant, which has 60 covers, is open from 6.00 – 11.00 p.m., seven nights a week; they also provide a takeaway service. They produce approximately 250 meals a week, with an increase in the summer due to their rural location in a popular tourist area.
The restaurant consists of a kitchen with a walk-in chiller and walk in freezer. There is an external vegetable store, which is located in a disused vehicle container. The shutter door to this unit cannot be closed properly leaving a two-inch gap between the bottom of the door and the base of the unit. The beer ‘cellar’ and bottle store for the restaurant is located in a wooden shed at the rear of the premises. It is in good condition. There were four people on site at the time of the inspection, one front of house person and three kitchen staff
The following matters were noted at the time of inspection:
- The present occupants have only been in the premises since June 2008, they have not completed a Food Registration Form
- There was no Owner/Manager on site – his night off, and the chef had not arrived.
- Staffs were preparing food, raw meat including chicken and lamb were being diced and marinated, vegetables were being prepared and orders were being taken for takeaways. It was the chef’s responsibility to cook the food, as he had not arrived another member of staff started to cook the orders.
- Raw meat in plastic containers with lids on was out on a table ready for the chef to use. No one could tell me when these were put out; they would be out for the evening until the chef used them. A discussion regarding the temperature control of food indicated that not one member of staff could indicate the correct temperatures for keeping food cold or hot. A probe thermometer was eventually found in a container in a drawer – it was the chef’s job to check temperatures. The probe was dirty and no disinfectant wipes could be found. There was no method of ascertaining the temperature of the fridge or freezer. There was no temperature monitoring records.
- Food was poorly stored in the fridge and freezer. Open food, including meat and fish was found on the floor of the freezer. Raw chicken was stored above cooked meats and salad items. There were several packs of steaks with use by dates of the 6/1/07, which had been purchased from a local supermarket.
- There was no information indicating where the source of the chicken and lamb or when it was to be used by. No member of staff could tell me where the meat came from and how long it had been on the premises; the chef brought it with him when he came to work, in large plastic bags. The general standard of cleanliness was poor and the only cleaning materials that were available were Flash and washing up liquid. Bleach was used on the floor. Cleaning cloths were filthy. Dirty crockery from the night before was still in the sink. Staff began to argue when asked about who should be washing up; no one indicated that it was their responsibility.
- There was no soap or towels available at the wash hand basin and at no time whilst I was on the premises did I see anyone wash their hands, even though food production was being undertaken. When asked about this staff indicated that they used the sink in the wash up area.
- No one had undergone any training at any level for food hygiene. The chef had done some ‘food’ courses, as had the Manager; no evidence was available on site.
- There was no documentation on site to support their practices.
- There were cigarette ends on the floor of the beer ‘cellar’.
- The chef had not arrived by the end of my inspection.
Food Law Code of Practice (2008) Annex 5
Food Establishment intervention rating scheme
Part 1: The potential hazard
A. Type of food and method of handling
B. Method of Processing
An additional score should be included for processes listed in the table below. If an additional score under this section is appropriate, it may only be allocated once, i.e., the maximum score under this section is 20.
C. Consumers at risk
The number of consumers likely if there is a failure of food hygiene and safety procedures.
Part 2: Level of (current) compliance
The food hygiene and safety procedures (including food handling practices and procedures, and temperature control), and the structure of the establishment (including cleanliness, layout, condition of structure, lighting, ventilation, facilities etc.) should be assessed separately using the scoring system below.
Part 3: Confidence in management and control procedures
Plus: An additional score of 20 (in addition to the score above) should be included where there is a significant risk:
-
Of food being contaminated with Clostridium botulinum and the micro-organisms surviving any processing and multiplying; or
-
Of ready to eat food being or becoming contaminated with micro-organisms or their toxins that are pathogenic to humans, for example E. coli 0157 or other VTEC, Salmonella sp.; Bacillus cereus.
Inspection rating assessment totals
A5.4 Food hygiene intervention frequencies
Establishments rated as low risk (30 or less) need not to be included in the planned inspection programme, but must be subject to an alternative enforcement strategy at least once in every three years.
Photograph 1
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- Chopping board has large indentations on it, possibly from a hot pan, this can harbour food debris and cause cross contamination this needs to be discarded.
- Chopping board has not been cleaned and sanitised after use; there is still food debris on the surface.
- This is a vegetable preparation chopping board; however, it looks from the photograph to have white meat on the surface.
- Food items have been bagged with no labels for the food item or date prepared and not refrigerated after preparation.
- Food items not refrigerated after preparation in the plastic containers, also no labels to advise date of preparation.
- Domestic wooden handled knife, which can allow food debris to collect in the handle area, which is also not easy to clean.
Photograph 2
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- Unidentified chemicals stowed on the same shelf as food items.
- Nuts and bolts stowed in a plastic container, which has food debris on it, on the same shelf as food items.
- Dirty oily rag stowed with food items.
- Food debris has collected in the corners of the joint of the partitioning section, which also has some chipped edging, exposing the porous chipboard beneath.
- Food debris on the surface.
- Unlabelled food items in plastic containers.
Photograph 3
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- Dirty ceiling panels.
- Two ceiling panels have considerable brown staining perhaps from the deep fat fryer, which could be below.
- Light diffuser yellow with grease staining.
- Tile grouts are very dirty.
- No visible ceiling ventilation or extraction.
- Notice stuck to tiles with brown tape, making the tiles difficult to clean.
- The wires above an electrical digital read out, have not been cased in, and are dangling down.
Photograph 4
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- No shelving or racking in the freezer for food items to be stored on.
- Original boxes that food delivered in are still been used to store the food items, these should be decanted.
- Empty boxes in the freezer.
- Food debris on the floor of the freezer.
- Open box of chicken, which is uncovered, and on the floor.
- No visible date marks of when food items went into the freezer.
Photograph 5
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- Raw chicken pieces in white plastic bucket with yoghurt label on the outside of the container and lime pickle on the lid.
- Raw chicken stored above fruit and vegetables
- No dates or identification on food items
Photograph 6
Source: Sian Buckley (2009)
- Uncovered raw chicken stowed above fresh fruit and vegetables.
- Vegetables stowed in original packaging.
- Unlabeled and dated containers of food.
- Racking stowed on the floor of the refrigerator, with food items on top of the racking.
Bibliography
Anderson, D.R. (1997), Food Law and Consumer Health Safety: Wednesday 26 November 1997 (Parliamentary Debates), Stationery Office Books.
Bassett, W.H. (1983), "Registration of food business establishments" in Environmental Health Procedures, 7th edn, Clay's Library of Health and Environment, London, United Kingdom, pp. 293-299-301-302.
Bizmanualz ISO 22000 Food Safety Policies, Procedures, and Forms, (2006), Bizmanualz.com.
Blackburn, C.D.W., and McClure, P. (2002), Food borne pathogens: hazards, risk analysis, and control, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America. : CRC Press.
Buckley, Sian (2009) Selection of photographs for case study
Corlett, D.A. (1998), HACCP user's manual, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, United States of America.
Echols, M.A. (2001), Food Safety and the WTO: The Interplay of Culture, Science, and Technology, Kluwer Law International.
European Parliament of the Council (2002), 178/2002 28th January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. London, United Kingdom.
European Parliament of the Council (2004) 852/2004 29th April 2004 the hygiene of foodstuffs. London, United Kingdom
Food Safety Agency (FSA) (2008), Food Law Code of Practice, London, United Kingdom.
Griffith, C.J. (2005), "Are we making the most of food safety inspections? A glimpse into the future", British Food Journal, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 132-139.
Hemminger, J.M. (2000), Food safety: a guide to what you really need to know, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Hobbs’s (1953), "Food Safety legislation" in Food poisoning and food hygiene, eds. J. McLauchlin and C. Little, 7th edn, Hodder Arnold, London, United Kingdom., pp. 276-299.
Kraft, A.A. (1992), Psychotropic bacteria in foods: disease and spoilage, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America: CRC Press.
Kumar, V., Fausto, N., Fausto, N., Robbins, S.L., Abbas, A.K. and Cotran, R.S. (2005), Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease, Philadelphia, United States of America Elsevier Saunders.
Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004), "Effective management of food safety and quality", British Food Journal, vol. 106, no. 8, pp. 598-606.
McCoy, J.J. (1990), how safe is our food supply. F. Watts, New York, United States of America.
Nestle, M. (2003), Safe food: bacteria, biotechnology, and bioterrorism, Berkeley, California, United States of America: University of California Press.
Parliament (2006), The Food Hygiene (England) Regulations, Statutory Instruments edn, London, United Kingdom.
Roberts, D. and Greenwood, M. (2004), Practical Food Microbiology, Blackwell Publishers.
Scientific criteria to ensure safe food, (2003), Washington, United States of America. : National Academies Press.
Sprenger, R. (2002), "Control and monitoring of food standards and operations" in Hygiene for Management: Focus on food safety, 9th edn, Highfield Publications, Doncaster, United Kingdom, pp. 282-325.
Stranks, J.W. (2007), the A-Z of Food Safety, Thorogood: London, United Kingdom.
Taylor, E. (2007), "A new method of HACCP for the catering and food service industry", Science Direct, vol. 426, no. 3, pp. 221-239.
The Food Premises (Registration) Regulations (199) (Statutory Instruments: 1991: 2825), 1991, Stationery Office Books.
Van der Meulen, B. and Van der Velde, M. (2006), Food safety law in the European Union: an introduction, Wageningen academic publishers, Germany.
