Food Safety Regulation in the UK Food Retail and Hospitality Sectors - Term Paper Example

In light of deregulation and initiatives to promote improved regulation at a local level, critically evaluate the form food safety enforcement may take in the future 1 In light of deregulation and initiatives to promote improved regulation at a local level, critically evaluate the form food safety enforcement may take in the future Titus Rock Manickam Order No. 288218 15 April 2009 Table of Contents Introduction''''''''''''''''''''''.3 Improved regulation at the local level''''''''''''.3 Self regulation and its future'''''''''''''''...4 Two specific examples'''''''''''''''''....6 Conclusion''''''''''''''''''''''..7 Sources'''''''''''''''''''''''...9 In light of deregulation and initiatives to promote improved regulation at a local level, critically evaluate the form food safety enforcement may take in the future Introduction The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the form food safety enforcement may take in the future in light of deregulation and other initiatives to promote improved regulations at a local level in the United Kingdom. The changes in roles and responsibilities of public bodies in 2008 follows key reorganizations since 1994 that include creation of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) 2000 and the Health Protection Agency, 2004. The current legislation for health protection against foodborne hazards is aimed at curbing contraventions of the law and reducing the risk they pose to public health. There are also the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 with regard to the interviewing of persons suspected of having committed an offence. However, the basic purpose of this paper is to evaluate the successful outcome or otherwise in the cessation of the outbreak, identification of what went wrong and the measures needed to prevent a recurrence. Food poisoning is defined under the Food Safety Act as 'any disease of an infectious or toxic nature caused by or thought to be caused by the consumption of food or water' (HPA) 2004 (Management of outbreak of foodborne illness in England and Wales). Improved regulation at the local level Food safety laws in the United Kingdom center on protecting the consumer by ensuring that food is safe for consumption. Many provisions of the law focus on prevention rather than cure. Food business operators (FBOs) must show that they have adopted hygienic practices at their premises. The risks associated with food processing and preparation must be assessed by the FBOs, the food industry and the food laws enforcers. The degrees of protection are achieved through enforcement of specific provisions and through a framework that seeks to minimize the risk of unsafe food being present in the market. Any breach in the provisions of law results in criminal action. The law and its enforcement are governed by European and domestic laws. Actually, the provisions of law comprise broad principles and they are carried forward in more detailed forms by secondary legislation in domestic law. This process may change the fundamental principles upon which national legislation is based (Professor Bridget M. Hutter and Tola Amodu). There are many organizations in the United Kingdom involved in food regulations such as National Health Service, Local Health Boards, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and so on based locally, and at the national level. The ministers and central government officials formulate policy and tend not to be specialists in food safety protection. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is an independent Government department with special knowledge in the domain. The FSA formulates policy whilst overseeing and directing the enforcement activity of local players. The Meat Hygiene Service is an executive agency of the FSA and responsible for statutory inspections of licensed premises including slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold storages in the United Kingdom producing meat for human consumption (Background to the 2006 food hygiene legislation). Self regulation and its future Basically, the idea behind the new policies for laws concerning food products is to have the producers so manage themselves that there are few causes for concern. It keeps safe the people at the higher levels and the responsibilities are fixed more at local levels and on the food product manufacturers. So ultimately, it is the manufacturers who must ensure that their products are safe and fresh. The whole idea behind self regulation is to hold responsible the manufacturers in case of any breach and to some extent the local authorities. The business house must know its responsibilities to the customer and to the government. The structure and process of law will make life miserable for the business house that allows anything like food poisoning. By law, there is the requirement to put in place food safety management procedures based on the principles of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) in order to manage food safety (Important information that will affect your food business). Prima facie, the legislation is a mix of state and business regulatory efforts. The government lays down broad standards which companies must satisfy. However, it is left for business houses to develop risk management systems and rules to secure, monitor and review compliance with the standards set by the government. Where this is not achieved, companies are expected to have procedures in place to deal with non-compliance. Regulators merely oversee businesses' efforts to self-regulate. But regulators have the powers to impose public sanctions for non-compliance. Businesses are effectively required to make risk management a part of their everyday operations. The long arms of the law are present where risk management is trifled with. The benefits of self-regulation are built into the business. It maximizes the advantages of state regulation and self regulation. Businesses know that there is somebody watching their every move. Also, the ever present visibility of the law make businesses maintain strict vigil over their own activities and brings out the best in terms of rules and regulations. It builds on business regulatory capacity and gives companies the flexibility to devise systems and rules which meet the broad standards set by the government. This way, the efforts of state regulators are directed at those companies either unable or unwilling to effective self-regulate. Enforced self-regulation also has financial benefits. It reduces costs associated with drafting specific regulations and enables the targeting of enforcement methods. There are also disadvantages in self-regulation. For instance, self-regulation becomes an end at all times when it should be the norm. This means, companies begin to self-regulate in order to satisfy statutory agencies more than for the purpose of bringing quality to the consumer. Nevertheless, such tendencies exist and it cannot be helped that self-regulation is treated more as a norm than the means for good quality. Besides, if state agencies exercise too much control the ambitions of companies taking responsibilities may be lost. The success of the enforced self-regulation model pivots around the commitment and capacity of companies to self-regulate and the ability of the state agency to find and maintain an optimal monitoring and oversight role (Professor Bridget M. Hutter and Tola Amodu). In the future, the food safety enforcement may increasingly depend on self-regulatory norms keeping businesses responsible for quality while stretching enforcement activities where self-regulations are found wanting. Two specific examples 1) John Smith had a fall in the kitchen while cutting vegetables and fractured his right. arm. His company assured him reimbursement for the treatment of his arm. Is he entitled to any other compensation' 2) Mary Vancourt did not like the food she was served in the food outlet in Birmingham. She complained it was stale. Is this an offense' Can the food outlet be charged for this offense' In the first case, John Smith had a fall. He is entitled to full compensation of wages apart from the payment for the treatment under the labor laws. This particular case does not come under the purview of the food laws as no customer has complained of any shortcoming with any food item. In the second case, Mary Vancourt has complained of being served unhygienic food. She must first take up the matter with the management and seek compensation. In case the management refuses to self-regulate, she may pursue the matter with the Environmental Health Office who will follow up with the food outlet and announce the award to be given her as also the penalty for serving unhealthy food to the customer (Food business inspections). Conclusion Food safety regulation is subject to a variety of tensions and contradictions which are not unique to the food sector. Other industries face same risk regulations. The food retail and hospitality sectors include small and medium sized enterprises and many have low regulatory capacity. Their lack of resources may also make them less connected to external sources of help such as consultants. That is why it is important to have associations of such small and medium players to enable them gain access to the benefits of self-regulatory mechanisms. Sources: Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, http://acmsf.food.gov.uk/ Assessing chemical risks in food, http://cot.food.gov.uk/moreinfo/chemrisks Background to the 2006 food hygiene legislation, http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/europeleg/eufoodhygieneleg/ Food business inspections, http://www.tandridge.gov.uk/environment/food/food_business_inspections.htm Important information that will affect your food business, http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/Environmentalservices/FoodHygieneandStandards/foodsafetylaw2006.pdf John E. Coia et al, A survey of the prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in raw meats, raw cow's milk and raw-milk cheeses in south-east Scotland, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science'_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7K-430NR7D-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c34a0e452bcc6c273a0513cb56c54ef3 Management of outbreak of foodborne illness in England and Wales, Food Standard Agency, 04 August 2008, http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/hygguid/outbreakmanagement Professor Bridget M. Hutter and Tola Amodu, Risk Regulation and Compliance: Food Safety in the U.K., The London School of Economics and Political Science, September 2008, http://new.wales.gov.uk/ecolidocuments/NCP/NCP.04219.pdf Read More