1 Executive Summary
[ pdf 71 kb ]
The major objective of government food safety standards is to protect public health and safety by reducing the risk of food borne illness and contamination in the food chain. In Australia, FSANZ works together with State and Territory governments and other organisations, to achieve its mission of helping to maintain a safe food supply, thereby protecting public health and safety.
FSANZ is currently preparing to implement a new chapter to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which will see national food regulation extend across all parts of the food chain, including primary production, processing and retail – in essence frompaddock to plate. One of these new standards due to be introduced in 2006 is the Primary Production and Processing Standard for Poultry Meat (PPPSPM). This standard will complement the existing Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards.
In order to assist in the evaluation of the implementation of this standard in the future, FSANZ have identified the need for benchmark data on awareness, knowledge and behaviour of poultry meat businesses, government enforcement officers and consumers in relation to food safety issues. These benchmark data will provide FSANZ with information about the poultry meat industry before the standard is implemented in all States and Territories in Australia.
FSANZ identified three key stakeholder groups for the research: the poultry meat industry including poultry growers, processors, and wholesalers and retailers; government enforcement officers at the state and local government level; and consumers. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) surveys were conducted for all three stakeholder groups. Questions were asked of all stakeholders about their awareness and knowledge of food safety practices and sources of information on food safety issues. For the food industry and enforcement officers additional questions were asked on the potential for different stages in the food chain to lead to foodborne illness, on awareness of the FSANZ Food Standards Code (Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and the proposed Chapter 4 standards) and about the regulations and guidelines currently used by each sector. Enforcement officers were also asked about their current responsibilities with respect to the poultry meat industry, where the gaps in regulations were with regards to preventing foodborne illness and how their responsibilities may change once the Chapter 4 PPPSPM is implemented.
This report comprises a short Executive Summary of the research project, an Interpretative Summary of the main findings for each of the three stakeholder groups and the main report with the methodology used for each stakeholder group and full results. It should be noted that research findings based on the CATI surveys report on people’s opinions, awareness and knowledge of food safety issues not on actual practices.
Food safety
Overall, food safety was found to be important by managers of businesses throughout the poultry meat industry. Only four percent of growers and one percent of wholesalers and retailers do not report food safety as important to them. Growers, processors, wholesalers and retailers all provide varying examples of the practices they employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness, however maintaining good employee hygiene and pest controls are commonly mentioned by all three sectors (details of these practices are given in the Interpretive Summary and Full Report).
Businesses in all sectors consider several stages of the poultry meat supply chain may lead to foodborne illness if appropriate precautions are not taken, however, a significant proportion of food businesses do not know about the risks of foodborne illnesses in their sector or other related sectors. Most businesses in the industry believe growers, processors or supermarkets are doing enough to control food safety risks in their businesses. Take-away food businesses are seen as the stage within the industry more likely to lead to food borne illness, while live bird transport is seen as the stage least likely to lead to foodborne illness. Only wholesalers and retailers believe it is ‘likely’ that failure to apply appropriate precautions at the growing stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product. Consumers are commonly seen by poultry meat businesses as not doing enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat and the most likely stage to lead to foodborne illness.
LGA, State and Territory Officers also believed the preparation of poultry meat for consumption by consumers to be the stage leading to the greatest risk of foodborne illness. After consumers, take-away businesses are seen as the next most likely to lead to foodborne illness. LGA officers see the poultry retail stage as the next most likely to lead to foodborne illness. State and Territory Officers, however, believe current practices in poultry processing could lead to foodborne illness, followed by poultry retailing, de-boning and the poultry growing stage. These answers may reflect the current role of State and Territory officers and LGA officers. While the role of enforcement officers varies according to jurisdiction, LGA officers are typically involved with poultry retailers and take-away food service businesses only. State and Territory officers work mainly with poultry processors, wholesalers and retailers.
In terms of the potential risk of chicken versus non chicken meat, overall, two-thirds of State and Territory Officers believe the risk of food poisoning is the same from all types of poultry meat, while a third believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector. This is higher than for LGA officers with almost half believing the risk of food poisoning is the same from all types of poultry meat, while a third believe the risk is greater in the chicken meat sector.
Despite the views reported from the poultry meat industry and enforcement officers about consumer practices and handling of poultry meat, the vast majority of consumers report safe practices in transporting, handling and storing raw poultry meat, indicating a high level of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety.
For example, consumers typically purchase raw poultry meat from major supermarkets and usually transport this meat home in a shopping bag within 20 minutes of purchase. Those who use a cooler bag to transport raw poultry meat, typically do so in less than 20 minutes, while those who use an esky are more likely to take longer. Very few use potentially unsafe storage methods. Consumers also demonstrate knowledge of safe and healthy practices in preparing raw poultry meat for consumption, usually thawing the meat (if frozen) prior to cooking, and the majority report using safe thawing practices. Consumers are careful to avoid practices that may lead to cross-contamination of raw poultry meat and other food items, and also report a good understanding of how to determine when chicken is cooked.
The vast majority of consumers also report safe practices in transporting, handling and storing pre-cooked poultry meat, indicating a high level of awareness and knowledge regarding food safety. The most popular type of pre-cooked poultry meat is a whole chicken, and is typically purchased hot and transported home in a shopping bag within a safe period of time. Pre-cooked poultry meat is typically eaten immediately or stored safely.
Sources of information on food safety issues
With regards to sources of information on food safety issues utilised, poultry growers appear the most likely to rely on industry information sources, while processors and wholesalers/retailers are more likely to nominate government sources of food safety information. Enforcement officers mention FSANZ as the most common source of information and other government departments, whilst the majority of consumers refer mainly to magazines or cooking books, the television and butchers or retailers for information on safe handling and cooking of poultry meat.
Standards and regulations used in the poultry meat industry
The standards, codes of practice and/or guidelines used in the poultry meat industry, and the extent of government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is very much aligned to the sector of the industry. Poultry growers are most likely to be self-regulated, with large proportions adhering to contractual obligations, industry guidelines and HACCP plans, with less than one-quarter aware of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards and fewer aware of the proposed Chapter 4 standard.
The most commonly mentioned obligations for processors to adhere to are those in HACCP plans, followed by State and Territory government food hygiene or safety regulations and Australian Standard obligations. A large majority of processors are aware of Chapter 3, however only a small proportion is aware of Chapter 4. Wholesalers and retailers are the least likely sector within the poultry meat industry to be exposed to self-regulation. The most commonly mentioned obligations for wholesalers and retailers to adhere to are local and state government regulations, the Food Standards Code and a HACCP plan. A majority are aware of Chapter 3, and at least one-third are aware of Chapter 4.
The specific legislation, standards and codes of practice used by enforcement officers typically reflects the different sectors of the poultry meat industry that enforcement officers are working in. State and Territory governments are seen as having the main responsibility for developing food safety requirements for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain, while the responsibility for enforcing standards is less clear.
Most State and Territory officers believe that current standards and regulations are effective for the poultry processing, de-boning, transportation, wholesale and retail stages of the food chain. However, a significant proportion of these officers indicate they do not know about the effectiveness of Standards and/or regulations of the poultry growing and live bird transportation stages of the food chain. State and Territory officers are most likely to identify gaps in processing, growing and retail standards and regulations. They are also likely to believe there is not enough training in the application of the standards and regulations.
The majority (two-thirds) of government officers believe the introduction of a PPPSPM will have a positive impact on the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat by providing more information and/or better education for applying standards for enforcement officers; and allowing for an overall approach to be introduced, thereby improving consistency across the industry and jurisdictions.
back | top of page