Policy proposals for inclusion in the Food Safety Law Reform Bill

Transcription

1 Auckland Regional Public Health Service Cornwall Complex Floor 2, Building 15 Greenlane Clinical Centre Private Bag Symonds Street Auckland 1150 New Zealand Telephone: Facsimile: May 2015 Policy proposals for inclusion in the Food Safety Law Reform Bill Thank you for the opportunity for the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) to provide a submission on policy proposals for inclusion in the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. The following submission represents the views of the ARPHS and does not necessarily reflect the views of the three District Health Boards it serves. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information on ARPHS. The primary contact point for this submission is: Stuart McKay Auckland Regional Public Health Service Private Bag Symonds Street Auckland smckay@adhb.govt.nz ARPHS has several key functions that are influenced by the Food Act 2014, the Animal Product Act 1999 and the Wine Act We would welcome continued involvement in the consultative processes associated with this work. Jane McEntee General Manager Auckland Regional Public Health Service Dr Bruce Adlam Medical Officer Auckland Regional Public Health Service

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) welcomes the proposal for a Food Safety Law Reform Bill. The proposal could represent a significant move in support of decreasing the incidence of food related illness. 2. While ARPHS is broadly supportive of the proposals, ARPHS is concerned that the consultation document notes the main objective of reform as to help protect New Zealand s reputation as supplier of safe and suitable food o Safety over reputational considerations should be the priority consideration when reforming food safety. o Prioritising reputational considerations over safety concerns may lead to health and safety inadequacies when responding to incidents. o There is a significant body of literature on the primacy of food safety as the overarching objective if a system is to efficiently and effectively protect human health. 3. We also note our support for a whole-of-government approach to food safety response planning. o The Ministry of Health (MoH) has considerable expertise and responsibilities in this area and should be involved in an appropriate capacity. 4. ARPHS also recommends the following to improve the proposals. These comments can be summarised as: o ARPHS advises that consultation discussion documents on notices should discuss and evaluate public health impacts. o ARPHS recommends that verifiers should also be required to provide a full Risk Management Plan (RMP) to MPI within two working days of a request being made. o ARPHS suggests that more guidance material for businesses is required if recall provisions and procedures across the three Acts are aligned. o ARPHS suggests that verifiers independence obligations should be monitored. o ARPHS agrees that verifiers should supply accreditation reports to MPI and suggests that these should be provided within five working days. 5. ARPHS has several key functions that are influenced by the Food Act 2014, the Animal Product Act 1999 and the Wine Act We would welcome continued involvement in the consultative processes associated with this work. 6. For brevity, further information is provided in Appendix II describing ARPHS role and the relationship between food safety and public health. 2

3 OBJECTIVES 5. The discussion paper indicates the main objective of the Food Safety Law Reform Bill is to help protect New Zealand s reputation as a supplier of safe and suitable food that is fit for its intended purpose, by making improvements to the food safety regulatory system. 6. Safety over reputational considerations should be the priority consideration when reforming food safety. o The Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident is clear in its recommendations that the contamination incident was completely avoidable if a strong food safety culture had existed in the Fonterra workplace 1. o ARPHS is concerned that the consultation document does not adequately reflect this. 7. ARPHS advocates that creating a culture of food safety in workplaces must have the overarching objective of reducing harm to human health and safety. Confidence in food supply and supplier will automatically follow. o This is the stated purpose of the Food Act 2014, the Wine Act 2003 and the Animal Products Act o There is a significant body of literature that recognises the primacy of food safety as the overarching objective if a system is to efficiently and effectively build a culture that shifts norms and behaviours to protecting human health Individuals focusing on food safety risks within an organisation with a good food safety culture: o know the risks associated with the foods they handle and how those should be managed; o foster a value system within the organisation that focuses on avoiding illnesses; o communicate compelling and relevant messages about risk reduction activities, and empower others to put them into practice; and o promote effective food safety systems before an incident occurs. 9. Prioritising reputational considerations over safety concerns will lead to inadequacies when responding to food safety incidents. LEGISLATIVE DESIGN PROPOSALS 10. ARPHS agrees there should be clear guidance and directions for delegated notice and regulatory powers under the food safety Acts. o ARPHS advises that human health and safety considerations must take priority over cost considerations when the suitability of a notice is being assessed. o ARPHS advises that consultation discussion documents on proposed notices should discuss the public health impact of the approach proposed (or state nil public health impact to indicate the issue has been considered if this is the case). o We would welcome an opportunity to help shape future notice forms. 1 Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident (2014) The WPC80 Incident: Causes and Responses, Wellington, New Zealand, pp 5. 2 Powell, D.A., Jacob, C.J. and Chapman, B.J. (2011) Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness Food Control, 22, 6, Pages

4 IMPROVING RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES (RMPs) Limiting the content of custom RMPs to food safety and related regulatory matters 11. ARPHS supports prohibiting the inclusion of material in a custom RMP other than that which directly addresses the requirements specified in the Act, regulations and notices (Option 7.1.1). o Under this approach it will be clearer to both MPI and food manufacturers when the requirement is being breached. 12. ARPHS notes that it is currently unclear whether businesses would need to register both an RMP and a Food Control Plan separately. o ARPHS suggests considering how requirements under the three pieces of legislation can be better aligned and more cost effective for businesses to implement. Cost effective and pragmatic approaches will empower businesses to manage food safety more effectively. 13. ARPHS suggests that case by case intervention (Option 7.1.3) should not be the default approach adopted but notes that the powers suggested should be made available to the Director General if criteria demonstrating their appropriateness are met. Make sure the regulator is kept up to date with RMPs and the changes made to them 14. Option is our preferred option. ARPHS notes that where case operators are unable to provide MPI with their full RMP within two working days, the request could readily default to the verifiers. o Given that access to RMP information was clearly problematic during the whey protein contamination incident, ARPHS recommend that verifiers should also be required to provide a full RMP to MPI within two working days of a request being made. TRACEABILITY AND RECALL Be more explicit about traceability in the Acts 15. ARPHS agrees that the Food Act 2014, the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003 should be clearer about traceability requirements. o ARPHS emphasises that more guidance materials for businesses are required if recall provisions and procedures across the three Acts is to be aligned. o ARPHS notes that MPI could readily produce or amend guidance material similar to the current version for businesses operating under the Food Act 3. PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE RESPONSES TO FOOD SAFETY INCIDENTS Statutory oversight for food safety contingency planning 16. ARPHS encourages a whole-of-government approach to planning and managing multijurisdictional issues

5 o o For multi-jurisdictional issues, the role of the MoH should be carefully considered. A leading role will be appropriate, particularly when there is potential for significant public health impacts. Public health units also have considerable expertise and responsibilities in this area and should be involved in an appropriate capacity. For example, as outlined in Appendix II, pursuant to the Health Act 1956, ARPHS has responsibilities to investigate infectious diseases that are notifiable to the Medical Officer of Health (Schedule 1) and to take steps to mitigate risk to the wider population. PROPOSALS ON VERIFICATION Clarify that verifiers owe their duties primarily to the regulator 17. ARPHS strongly agrees that verifiers owe their duties primarily to the regulator. o ARPHS suggests that meeting independence obligations should also be monitored. o ARPHS supports the proposal in the proposed Food Act Regulations that accreditation to ISO17020 should be mandatory for agencies verifying food businesses operating under the highest risk-based measures. 18. ARPHS agrees that MPI should be provided with a copy of the verifier s report. o ARPHS suggests that verifiers should supply accreditation reports to MPI within five working days. ENHANCE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS 19. ARPHS strongly supports efforts to enhance electronic transactions but we note that a case by case basis may be appropriate for smaller and remote businesses. o Electronic transactions have the potential to ensure speedier transfers of information in the event of a food safety incident. o We note that manual processing charges can act as an incentive to improve adoption of electronic transactions. CONCLUSION 20. Thank you for this opportunity to provide advice from a public health perspective on the proposal for a Food Safety Law Reform Bill. We look forward to further engagement with MPI as this work progresses. 5

6 Appendix 1 - Auckland Regional Public Health Service Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) provides public health services for the three district health boards (DHBs) in the Auckland region (Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waitemata District Health Boards). ARPHS has a statutory obligation under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to improve, promote and protect the health of people and communities in the Auckland region. The Medical Officer of Health has an enforcement and regulatory role under the Health Act 1956 and other legislative designations to protect the health of the community. ARPHS primary role is to improve population health. It actively seeks to influence any initiatives or proposals that may affect population health in the Auckland region to maximise their positive impact and minimise possible negative effects on population health. The Auckland region faces a number of public health challenges through changing demographics, increasingly diverse communities, increasing incidence of lifestyle-related health conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, infrastructure requirements, the balancing of transport needs, and the reconciliation of urban design and urban intensification issues. 6

7 Appendix II - ARPHS role and the relationship between food safety and public health Food Safety Pursuant to the Health Act 1956, ARPHS investigates infectious diseases that are notifiable to the Medical Officer of Health (Schedule 1) and take steps to mitigate risk to the wider population. This can involve contact tracing, provision of advice to individuals and institutions and liaison with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) when the source of infection may be related to food and food hygiene practices. ARPHS does not currently investigate food complaints or conduct food premises investigation work under contract to MPI but nevertheless retains a professional interest in how such work is conducted to prevent future disease outbreaks ARPHS may visit food premises to determine whether food workers have food borne illness and in an advisory capacity to institutions and Government premises in response to a disease investigation. ARPHS also has a role to exclude food handlers diagnosed with a notifiable infectious disease and food handlers who are identified as close contacts of a person with a notifiable infectious disease from work under the Food Safety Regulations (2002). This is to prevent the risk and spread of contamination onto the food chain. ARPHS also provides health promotion advice to aid in the reduction of non-notifiable non communicable diseases (such as obesity and diabetes). Cost benefit analysis has shown that the costs of treating food borne disease are particularly high. A 2000 study estimated these costs to be $55.1 million per year 4. Food borne communicable disease forms a large share of the disease burden in Auckland and generates a substantial proportion of ARPHS communicable disease activities. In the 2014 financial year, ARPHS investigated 191 enteric outbreaks in Auckland involving 3468 cases, and managed a total of 3437 enteric disease notifications. ARPHS also receives notifications regarding non communicable diseases resulting from food contamination. Sources of chemical contamination of food can include: Lead poisoning and other heavy metal contamination resulting from heavy metals contamination of food. Toxicity resulting from heavy metals contamination and other chemical contamination of food (i.e. excessive sulphur dioxide in meat as a preservative). Pesticide contamination of food. Non-communicable diseases can also be associated with malnutrition (which includes inappropriate diet). Some of the most common include: Obesity (27% of New Zealand s population are currently obese 5 ); Type 2 diabetes; and Cancer (approximately 30% of cancers are associated with poor diet/malnutrition 6 including bowel cancer, breast cancer, mouth cancer and stomach cancer). 4 Scott. W.G., Scott. H.M., Lake. R.J., Baker. M.G. (2000). Economic Cost to New Zealand of Food Borne Disease. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 113(1113). 281: Organization of the United Nations. (2013). The State of Food and Agriculture Food and Agriculture. Pg. 78. Accessed from: 6 Key. J.T., Shatzkin.A., Willet. W.C., Allen.N.A, Spencer. E.A., Travis.R.C. (2004). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer. Public Health Nutrition. 7 (1A) Accessed from: 7

8 Early childhood education services ARPHS carries out Early Childcare Education Centres (ECECs) health and safety checks on behalf of the Ministry of Education, as the Director General of Health s nominated officers. ECECs may present a number of risks to children s health and safety. For example, they can become settings for disease transmission, and exposure to environmental hazards. ARPHS also delivers Kahuku, a health promotion professional development training programme for licensed early childhood education staff in the greater Auckland region. Kahuku aims to improve the health and wellbeing of children 0-5 years by providing supporting tools to strengthen environments and build the capacity of early childhood services. The trainings are based on the Waikato District Health Board s Keeping Families and Communities Well programme and designed in partnership with education representatives and providers. Kahuku began implementation June 2014 and currently has two training modules, Preventing Communicable Childhood Illness and Kai Culture. 8