The kiwis have been trying to get some sort of food safety reform bill through parliament for years so, with the deck chairs shuffled or thrown overboard, why not try again.

The New Zealand Herald reports a bill bringing sweeping reform to food safety standards is being criticized for giving food safety officers excessive power and threatening the viability of small-scale food sellers and backyard community food swaps.

The bill, which is almost certain to become law with the support of most political parties, would replace 30-year-old legislation, which falls short of properly protecting consumers, and create a new framework for food safety.

But small operators fear that new compliance costs could push them under, while others have concerns about the bill's effects on community food swaps and growers who sell small amounts to retailers.

An online petition, which says the bill impedes the basic right to share food, has gathered almost 24,000 signatures.

There is also concern over the powers of food safety officers, who could search premises without a warrant in some circumstances and use any force necessary to enter and search, while being immune from civil or criminal liability.

While the Government has dismissed some criticism, Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson is seeking advice on how to ensure the bill would not affect the current rules on food swaps and selling and exchanging seeds.

The new safety framework is expected to be simpler. At the top end, businesses such as restaurants would need a rigid food plan, while places considered less risky, such as bakeries, would have to comply with a more flexible national program.

Neil Young once had to cancel some tour dates because he sliced a guitar finger while making a ham sandwich.

New Zealand's state-run Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), which offers universal insurance cover for accidents, released figures today showing the cost of treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for accidents recorded last Christmas Day have topped $NZ1.9 million ($1.45 million).

That includes several claims for ham-related injuries - including carving mishaps and burns, neck and knee strains from carrying heavy hams, and even a crushed finger after a ham toppled from a stand.

Most of the 3,040 Christmas Day injuries accepted by ACC resulted from outdoor activities - including frisbee, fishing, slippery sliding, trampolining and poolside antics.

One person laughed so hard they fainted, hitting their head in the garden, another broke their tooth on a dislodged gem that ended up on the menu, and someone taking their post-lunch nap was injured when a drunk person stood on their face.

Don’t eat poop. And if you do, cook the poop. Thoroughly.

Which is why I don’t eat raw oysters. Who knows what poop they’ve filtered through their bivalves.

In 2009 public health authorities traced the source of two outbreaks, in Auckland and Waikato, back to the Coromandel, according to today's New Zealand Medical Journal.

Ten people were infected at a catered event in Auckland and three at a Cambridge restaurant. Four more at the Auckland event ate oysters but did not fall ill. Neither venue nor the oyster farm is named in the journal report.

In Cambridge, two of the unlucky diners ate their oysters raw while the third consumed cooked oyster Kilpatrick but complained the shellfish was undercooked and sent it back for re-cooking.

The Food Safety Authority closed the growing area where the oysters came from in late July 2009 following the Auckland outbreak but eight days before the Cambridge diners had their contaminated meal.

The journal report says the leaking sewer was found only by chance. In early August 2009 the Thames Coromandel District Council reported the sewer had been disturbed during maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant near the oyster growing area.

"The pipe had been leaking partially treated effluent into the stream that flowed into the affected growing area," says the report by public health doctor Richard Wall and colleagues.

Dr Wall and colleagues say temperatures above 60C deactivate norovirus, although cooking oysters has not been shown to reliably inactivate viruses.

In 2006 imported Korean oysters were blamed for five outbreaks of the disease. One of these was at Eden Park in which it was estimated more than 300 corporate guests at an All Blacks-Ireland test were poisoned after eating the raw oysters.

Systems to rate local restaurants are widely available – letter grade A, B, Cs in Los Angeles and New York, red-yellow-green in Toronto, smiley faces in Denmark. But which system do consumers and restaurant operators prefer?

In New Zealand, the letter-grade won.

Two years ago, New Zealand, a country of 4.4 million people, partnered with Kansas State University to try and figure out what disclosure system best served New Zealanders?

New research published in the Journal of Food Protection details the New Zealand consumer and foodservice operator preference for a national inspection disclosure system.

The research suggested a four-tiered letter grade card (A, B, C, or F) designed to represent a restaurant’s inspection result best met consumer and operator expectations. The study suggested cards placed at a premises’ principle entrance, at eye level, and unobscured by other signage or menus was key in attracting initial consumer attention.

Former graduate student Katie Filion and food safety professor Dr. Doug Powell designed the research in collaboration with the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (now part of the Ministry of Agriculture). Filion spent a year in New Zealand, designing and pre-testing different signs based on a comprehensive review of the literature (Filion and Powell, 2009), conducting 991 consumer intercept interviews, and 269 interviews with restaurant operators.

“No one has determined the most effective way to present inspection results to the public but a good system has several characteristics," Filion said. "It should have clear guidelines about what earns a good or bad grade and should communicate to diners the risk of eating at a particular restaurant."



“Such public displays of information may help bolster overall awareness of food safety amongst staff and the public,” said Powell. “People routinely talk about this stuff. We want to improve the systems that are out there.”

The authors acknowledge the New Zealand Food Safety Authority for providing the funding and opportunity to conduct this research and the New Zealand districts that participated in the research trial.

Designing a national restaurant inspection disclosure system for New Zealand
01.nov.11
Journal of Food Protection 74(11): 1869-1874
Katie Filion and Douglas Powell
Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2011/00000074/00000011/art00010
The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from contaminated food or water each year, and up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food service facilities. The aim of restaurant inspections is to reduce foodborne outbreaks and enhance consumer confidence in food service. Inspection disclosure systems have been developed as tools for consumers and incentives for food service operators. Disclosure systems are common in developed countries but are inconsistently used, possibly because previous research has not determined the best format for disclosing inspection results. This study was conducted to develop a consistent, compelling, and trusted inspection disclosure system for New Zealand. Existing international and national disclosure systems were evaluated. Two cards, a letter grade (A, B, C, or F) and a gauge (speedometer style), were designed to represent a restaurant's inspection result and were provided to 371 premises in six districts for 3 months. Operators (n = 269) and consumers (n = 991) were interviewed to determine which card design best communicated inspection results. Less than half of the consumers noticed cards before entering the premises; these data indicated that the letter attracted more initial attention (78%) than the gauge (45%). Fifty-eight percent (38) of the operators with the gauge preferred the letter; and 79% (47) of the operators with letter preferred the letter. Eighty-eight percent (133) of the consumers in gauge districts preferred the letter, and 72% (161) of those in letter districts preferring the letter. Based on these data, the letter method was recommended for a national disclosure system for New Zealand.

Related review:
Filion, K. and Powell, D.A. 2009. The use of restaurant inspection disclosure systems as a means of communicating food safety information. Journal of Foodservice 20: 287-297.

The World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of individuals in developed countries become ill from food or water each year. Up to 70% of these illnesses are estimated to be linked to food prepared at foodservice establishments. Consumer confidence in the safety of food prepared in restaurants is fragile, varying significantly from year to year, with many consumers attributing foodborne illness to foodservice. One of the key drivers of restaurant choice is consumer perception of the hygiene of a restaurant. Restaurant hygiene information is something consumers desire, and when available, may use to make dining decisions.