Public ignorant about Food Safety
A recent Food Standards Agency survey found a considerable amount of ignorance about Food Safety. Over half the people surveyed thought it was safe to eat food if it looked OK and did not have a bad smell (that must be a great relief to organisms like Campylobactor, Salmonella and E. coli never mind the toxin forming organisms like Staphylococcus and Bacillus). For the record, most food poisoning organisms do not taint the food in any way.
Amazingly, 37% of people surveyed did not even know that “Use-by” dates are a legal requirement (they thought it was a way of encouraging more food sales!). For the record, “Use-by dates” are used on higher risk products and it is illegal to sell or use food in a commercial operation after the set date; “Best-before” dates are legally required on pre-packed foods but they are advisory and it is not illegal to use food in a business after the set date (but if there is anything wrong with the food you can forget any idea of using the due diligence defence!).
And finally, people over the age of 65 were most likely to get the survey questions wrong.
E.coli in Germany
It appears that the May outbreak in Germany has run its course having poisoned well over 3,000 people with 773 suffering kidney damage (36 have died so far). Initial identification of the outbreak was delayed by the difficulty of identifying the extremely rare causative organism (E. coli 0104 does not show up in tests for the more common E. coli 0157) and the fact that few of the sufferers mentioned eating bean sprouts (because they had been an ingredient in a mixed salad).
Bean sprouts have been involved in quite a few cases of E. coli and Salmonella food poisoning in recent years. In 2010 the FSA put out a warning that bean sprouts should not be eaten raw but should be washed and well cooked. Unfortunately, this removes the crunchy texture desired by many. However, it is likely that blanching them for 30 secs to a minute in boiling water will considerably reduce the risk and should not result in soggy sprouts.
Common Sense returns to Risk Assessment?
A recent HSW case related to a visitor in a commercial premises climbing out of a window onto a pitched roof where he fell through a skylight. Unfortunately, he was killed so could not be asked to explain his actions. The Judge stopped the trial after hearing the prosecution case because “no-one could reasonably anticipate that a visitor would be liable to be affected by possible dangers on the roof, which could only be accessed by climbing through a window”. The Judge considered there was no case to answer for a voluntary and deliberate act that exposed the deceased to danger.
Of course, if the accident had happened to someone working on the roof, the case would have ended very differently. However, this does indicate that businesses are required to spend more effort on risks associated with their business activities and rather less on life in general, obvious risks.
Thanks to Kevin Bridges of Pinsent Masons LLP.
Recent Cases
The snapped of section of a craft knife blade ended up in the mouth of a 3 year old eating an ice cream at a cafe (fortunately, she spat it out and was not injured). The knife had been used to open cartons and the blade was thrown into a tub of ice cream instead of into a waste bin. The cafe was fined £6,000 and £1,058 costs.
A £10,000 fine and £4,084 costs for the fish and chip shop where an employee was badly burned when emptying hot oil into the waste drum. The drum melted and the employee slipped and fell into the hot oil resulting in 20% burns and 7 weeks in hospital for skin grafts. The oil was at about 150°C and the plastic drum had a melting point of 138°C. Comment: I always include a control measure in catering risk assessments requiring the oil to be no hotter than 50°C when it is emptied from the fryer.
£6,000 fine and £1,454 costs for the pub where a protruding screw on a promotional sign caused a serious eye injury to a customer. Amazingly, the screw was still in an unsafe condition a week later when the EHO called to investigate the accident. Comment: it’s not a good idea to hide evidence after an accident but please make sure that precautions are in place to prevent a recurrence.
A supermarket chain has been fined £15,000 with £12,500 costs for an accident where an employee lost a toe after his foot was crushed by a pallet truck. The automatic stop on the truck had been reported defective a week before the accident but the truck had not been taken out of service; 2 years earlier an Improvement Notice had been issued requiring defective trucks to be taken out of use until repaired.
Environmental Health News, June 2011
An inspection of a company making catering equipment found cracked plugs, plugs serving 2 appliances, exposed earth wires from wall sockets and a portable transformer with detached earth wire. Employees were wearing hats, coats, scarves and gloves because there was no means of heating in the workshop (thus increasing entanglement risk). A visit a week later found the Prohibition Notice and the Improvement Notice had been ignored. The company was fined £10,000 with £3,979 costs in its absence (it is no longer in the premises and is understood to have ceased trading).
Safety & Health Practitioner, June 2011
Back to DominewsAt work in Zambia (circa 1974)
I came across this while looking for photos to liven up a planned after-dinner speech.
