FOOD HYGIENE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:27): I move:

That this house calls upon the state government to make the food hygiene inspections and reporting processes of food businesses more transparent, and to consider adopting the United Kingdom's Scores on the Doors food hygiene compliance scheme.

This scheme, which has been developed in the United Kingdom and has been extremely successful, is based on six criteria relating to the way in which food-handling premises deal with food hygiene and handling. The inspection is reported not only online through the web but also on the door or window of the premises.

A few weeks ago, I received from Paul Hiscoe, of the Northumbria University, a report dated January 2008 on the success of this Scores on the Doors approach to food hygiene, and in the executive summary of that report, which is something like 60-odd pages long, it states:

The key findings of the evaluation [of Scores on the Doors] were that in reality the whole approach...has developed its own momentum and created a wider debate addressing issues about the role of the consumer; for example, how effective is the publishing of [the material], do consumers understand what compliance actually means and can they be satisfied that the rating has been consistently applied across the country.

The impact on food businesses has been significant, overall respondents to the project have reported an overall improvement in standards on an incremental basis, and this is in no small part due to the consumer voting with their feet.

Of equal significance has been the impact with local authority field staff...

And so it goes on. Members are welcome to have a look at that full evaluation. That scheme is similar to ones operating in the United States. We often hear, and it is often suggested, that in America it is laissez-faire and anything goes. I can tell you that the Americans are a lot tougher on a lot of things that we are. As I mentioned last week in this place, they are a lot tougher on food labelling than we are. We are not within a bull's roar of where the Americans are on food labelling.

It relation to inspecting premises that sell food—restaurants and so on—in New York they put the results of the inspections of 20,000 of their restaurants on a website, and they can be searched by neighbourhood, name, and the hygiene points score are listed, something that does not happen here. A similar service exists in Los Angeles. In Toronto they have a scheme where there is an indication in the window of the restaurant of their health standards and how they have complied. Likewise, Denmark has a website listing similar information, and so it goes on.

Members might be wondering about the emphasis on food hygiene. Choice magazine reported in November 2007, and this was an Australia-wide study, but the first example is from Melbourne. I quote:

Live and dead cockroaches, pigeons wandering around the kitchen, ready-to-eat Peking duck stored in garbage bags on the floor, and exposed meat and other food being prepared in the toilet airlock. These stomach-turning observations were reported by food inspectors on visits to three inner Melbourne restaurants throughout last year.

You might think: well, that is Melbourne, and one would hope that it does not happen here. The reality is that you would not know whether it was happening here, because you are never told. You are not told, because the Health Commission and the councils here that do the inspections will not reveal the health standards of food establishments in this state. I think that in a democracy you have an absolute right to know. The Choice article goes on to state:

Australians are for the most part kept in the dark about dirty restaurants and other food outlets...Restaurant inspections are carried out by local council staff... and a report is completed for each visit detailing the food outlet's hygiene standards...Some businesses may be inspected every 18 months, others every six months, for example. If a business fails to comply with food safety requirements...inspectors have a number of compliance and enforcement options available to them, which can vary from state to state. These include written warnings, improvement notices or—for more serious breaches—on-the-spot fines (penalty or infringement notices, as they're known in some states) right through to prosecution.

Once again, that whole range of options is hidden from the consumer. Choice commented on South Australia in their report, stating:

We surveyed the states and territories and asked if the situation was going to change.

In other words, they asked whether public were going to be informed. It goes on:

In South Australia, the Department of Health is examining different models of informing consumers.

Once again, there is no commitment to change. The article continues:

New South Wales now has a website...that publishes details of businesses that have been convicted of an offence under the Food Act, and Western Australia is in the process of developing one.

We do not have those provisions here. In New South Wales, 1,000 penalty notices are issued each year, but Choice points out customers of these establishments are none the wiser because you do not know who they are. In South Australia, the position is that ignorance is the way in which food hygiene standards are considered and secrecy is the order of the day.

The Choice article also goes on to highlight many other points, including that—and this is why it is a very serious issue—5.4 million estimated cases of food-borne illness in South Australia are reported each year. Doctors and laboratories are legally obliged to report some infections commonly transmitted by food, including salmonella, campylobacter and listeria. It details some examples, one of a woman called Vicki. It states that she became violently ill after eating chicken rice and suffered from diarrhoea, stomach cramps and a fever. Her husband and daughter also had symptoms, both having tasted the meal. She was diagnosed with campylobacter infection. It took her two weeks to recover and obviously it was expensive. Choice says that they contacted the health department in Victoria and were told that 'it is an offence for a council to disclose or publish any information pertaining to this matter'. Throughout Australia, and in South Australia, we have this very unsatisfactory situation.

What they have found in the United States (with the equivalent of scores on the doors) is that the restaurants that perform well actually get an increase in business—hardly surprising. The Los Angeles program showed that the compulsory display of hygiene grade cards leads to cleaner restaurants. Once again, this occurred in the United States, which people keep saying is laid back and where anything goes. That is not the case at all. I quote further from the Choice article, referring to the compulsory display of hygiene grade cards in Los Angeles. The article states:

When that program was first implemented in 1998, 57% of restaurants got an 'A' grade. By 2005, the number had grown to 84%. The number of hospitalisations for food-borne illnesses in LA dropped by over 13% in the first year of the program, and the decrease was sustained in subsequent years.

That is a decrease in the number of people hospitalised from food-borne illnesses as a result of this information being available to patrons. The Choice article goes on:

Not only are restaurants cleaner and diners healthier, the cleanest establishments are making more money, according to research on the LA program.

Choice makes the further point, and I agree strongly with this:

You should be able to choose a restaurant on the basis of hygiene, just as you would on the basis of the menu, service or ambience.

This is not an airy-fairy issue. I have raised it before publicly and we had some councils, and one in particular (which surprised me) in a joint letter to The Advertiser, on behalf of the council and people in the food hospitality area saying, 'Look, basically everything's fine.'

I thought it was most surprising that the enforcement body, in a joint letter to The Advertiser with the people whom they inspect, would be saying, 'Look, everything's hunky-dory.' The Choice article gives advice about how to spot a dodgy establishment. It says that looking hygienic is no guarantee that a food outlet is hygienic. It further states that restaurants in particular can be hard to judge, as much of the food handling and preparation is done out of sight, but it suggests people look for things such as dirty floors, counters and tables. The article states:

If people can't keep their premises clean, chances are they don't do much better with the food. Staff with dirty hands or fingernails, dangling jewellery and long hair not tied back. Dirty or chipped crockery, cutlery or glasses. Lukewarm food.

This is an issue that applies in the restaurant area, but it also amazes me that many people do not even check their own refrigerator at home to see whether it is keeping dairy products below 4ºC. As Choice points out here, once the temperature in the fridge gets above that level, there is the risk of excessive multiplication of bacteria. The article also mentions foods not cooked properly through, such as a pink centre in hamburger meat and pink uncooked chicken, particularly near the bone. I commend that article to members, and I can make them a copy if they wish. It is the November 2007 issue of Choice.

I come back to the matter of Scores on the Doors. I urge the Minister for Health to adopt that system. I think it is a fundamental entitlement in our system to know whether the restaurant you are going into, the place retailing food, or any other business involved in selling or handling food is up to what should be a high standard. We should take away the veil of secrecy that currently exists because, at the end of the day, we have a right to know what we are eating, how the food was prepared and how it is made available to us. I commend the Scores on the Doors program to the government, and I am happy to make available the evaluation dated January 2008 based on the English model. I commend the motion to the house.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (12:41): I rise to support this motion and indicate the government's position. We are continually examining ways in which to maintain and, where possible, further improve our high standards of food safety. The Scores on the Doors program is a program that we consider worthy of further consideration. The program is based on the principle that citizens have the right to access information held by public authorities, unless this can be shown not to be in the public interest or relates to public security, privacy of individuals and the like.

Under the UK Food Safety Act 1990, environmental health officers are tasked with inspecting food businesses according to the Food Standards Agency code of practice. Following each inspection, the business is assigned a risk rating, which will be used to determine the frequency of future programmed inspections. These will typically take place between six months and three years. The Scores on the Doors program then makes this information publicly available. It is also set up as a website and a mobile phone service that enables local authorities to easily make the inspection data available for scrutiny.

Similar legislation allowing the public dissemination of information has existed in the United States and Canada for over 10 years, and many authorities there have been able to encourage improvements in food safety standards by making the results of inspections available on the internet. The situation here in South Australia is that the Food Act Report, which is tabled in parliament annually, contains details of the number of inspections of food businesses and complaints and enforcement action taken by local government under the Food Act 2001, but does not name the business involved.

The government is considering moving to implement a system of publishing the outcome of successful prosecutions under the act, similar to what occurs in New South Wales. The Scores on the Doors system used in the United Kingdom requires further investigation to ensure that useful, accurate and consistent information is available to consumers. The Minister for Health has asked that more work be done to investigate the options that may be available under the South Australian Food Act. As I have indicated, we support the motion.

Motion carried.