We want information – and consistency

Two months ago we reported that Norwich restaurateurs had hit out at their city council's decision to publish environmental health reports online. Their concern was that lengthy delays between inspections could result in details of hygiene shortfalls remaining live long after they had been rectified.

This week, it has emerged that London's 33 boroughs have agreed in principle to publish a similar database of reports, allowing the capital's consumers to make informed decisions about where they dine.

No food provider can have any complaints about the concept of publishing environmental health reports online. The Freedom of Information Act of 2000 granted consumers the right to access information that could have a direct impact upon their health. Moreover, transparency in matters of environmental health can only help drive up hygiene standards.

But, as local schemes spring up independently of each other across the country, there is a danger that consistency will suffer. For any rating system to work, it must be rolled out nationwide, must ensure that inspections are carried out and documented in a timely and standardised manner, and must give businesses access to an immediate reinspection. Otherwise, consumers will be unable to compare like with like, and businesses will find that their reputations are tainted for far longer than is deserved.

Can this be achieved in the short term? Probably not: it's no secret that there is a dearth of environmental health officers in the country. A survey late last year revealed that there are more than 700 vacancies for officers across the country, and that almost two in
three local authorities admitted their environmental health departments were seriously understaffed.

For the sake of consumers and businesses, the Food Standards Agency must address the lack of inspectors nationwide; and it must act swiftly to set out clear and common national standards for inspections and their reporting.

By Mark Lewis