Clamp down now to enforce FSA's good intentions
Driving down the fast lane of the M1 at 100 miles per hour it's hard to imagine being stopped. Until, that is, the police car appears behind you, lights flashing. After countless times of getting away with it, it's finally a fair cop.
When it comes to food safety it can be a similar story. Many operators are of the view that a food-poisoning outbreak that could close down an entire business will not happen to them. A broken fly screen, a cockroach infestation, staff who do not adopt the highest standards of personal hygiene can be ignored, swept to one side in favour of greater profits.
This is why the Foods Standard Agency (FSA), despite its tortuous gestation period, should be given a chance. The principle of protecting consumers against rogue operators who think they won't be caught and promoting public confidence in food safety has to be applauded. No one wants a return to the countless outbreaks of food poisoning that grabbed the headlines at the end of the 1980s and resulted in virtually unworkable knee-jerk legislation.
On paper the FSA has set out an impressive agenda. It has promised to look at labelling, taking into account the increase in food allergies when one ingredient slip can prove fatal. It also wants to see a standardised system of assessment and inspection of catering premises by environmental health officers, to wipe out inconsistency of enforcement, a bugbear of many caterers.
But this is just the beginning. The FSA has been a long time in the making and just because it now exists the industry cannot sit back and consider it has found a solution to the problems of food safety. It is important that pressure is kept up to mould the FSA into a body with real views and the authority to influence Government thinking and actions.
Questions need to be asked about the FSA's infrastructure. At present it is supported by 600 civil servants who may not understand the issues involved. They will advise a board which includes, among others, a retired gas sales executive, a race-relations expert and a child expert. These people may have hidden skills, but their job titles are hardly conducive to inspiring confidence in food safety.
Entirely ludicrous is the fact that there is only one caterer on the board. Given that the brunt of publicity rests with the caterer when something goes wrong, it is not unreasonable to expect that they might get a greater representation in a body which claims that education of the entire food chain is its key priority.
It's important to get these things right now, and for the industry to continue to lobby the FSA on the way forward. While advice and education are the surface aims of the FSA, some of its recommendations could slip into future legislation either in the UK or on a wider front through EU legislation. Particularly if the FSA comes to believe that a voluntary code is not working. In an ever-growing tangle of red tape, more legislation is not what is needed.
Jenny Webster
Deputy Editor
Caterer & Hotelkeeper
