Food poisoning: Does Australia (and in particular Victoria) have adequate provisions to guard against food contamination?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`The Government needs to provide Australia's consumers with an undertaking not to undermine the hygiene and safety of our food by cutting funding to the regulatory bodies and making them effectively useless'
Senator Stott Despoja, the Democrat's spokesperson on consumer affairs
`There are hundreds of thousands of places that prepare food every day and yes, there are two or three instances and that is regrettable but ... almost 99.9 per cent of people are getting good quality food prepared properly and carefully'
The Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett
On March 21 1997, the Victorian Department of Human Services announced there had been a salmonella Muenchen outbreak in Victoria and South Australia since about mid February. The source of the contaminated food had been traced to one Victorian smallgoods company. Two people, a 79-year-old man and an 86-year old woman, had died of salmonella poisoning.
Following this, more than 500 people were infected with salmonella Typhimurium 43, after eating pork rolls one weekend from a bakery in Springvale, Victoria.
Then in early April, 19 people became ill with salmonella Anatum after eating meat linked to another Victorian smallgoods company. This was followed by two further instances of contaminated meat within that week.
This has lead to widespread concern that Australian food inspection standards (and particularly those in Victoria) may be inadequate. Victorian public health officials and government ministers have defended the state's procedures. Public health officials from all Australian states and from New Zealand meet in April to discuss the apparent problem.
Background
There have been a number of instances of contaminated or adulterated foods in Australia over the last two years which have served to focus attention on the safeguards in place both within particular states and in Australia as a whole.
* In January 1995, mettwurst produced by the South Australian smallgoods company Garibaldi, was found to contain HUS ecoli 010, which caused the death of a four-year-old. Two adults and 22 children were taken to hospital suffering from haemolytic syndrome.
* In June 1996, Kraft and General Foods recalled batches of peanut butter with use-by dates to March 1997 because of salmonella contamination in a batch of roasted peanuts. The contamination was traced to a peanut roasting plant in Kingaroy, Queensland.
* In November 1996, a Myer restaurant at Chadstone, Victoria, was closed when 24 people fell ill with salmonella poisoning. Also in November 1996, 56 people were hospitalised after becoming ill with salmonella poisoning on a Qantas flight between Queensland and Japan.
* In January 1997, there was an anthrax outbreak in Northern Victoria. 300 contaminated cattle were killed and one abattoir worker was taken to hospital with the disease.
* In February 1997, there was an outbreak of Hepatitis A in New South Wales and Victoria which was traced back to contaminated oysters. A 77-year-old man, who contracted the disease, died. At least 420 people in New South Wales and Victoria were infected with the disease after eating oysters from Wallis Lake in New South Wales.
* The salmonella outbreak that was announced March, in Victoria, had apparently begun in mid February. It is believed to have been caused by products from a small Victorian smallgoods manufacturer. The outbreak has resulted in the deaths of a 79-year-old man and an 86-year-old woman. 30 other people were ill, 22 in Victoria and eight in South Australia. One third of those effected had been hospitalised.
* There has been particular concern expressed by some critics about the standard of food processing in Victoria. Figures were released on March 25 1997 which indicate that of the 66 national food products recalled since January 17 1995, 57 involved products distributed in Victoria. Further, of the 35 food products recalled in Victoria in the last 12 months, 14 were contaminated by either salmonella or listeria bacteria.
A brief note on salmonella
One of the major causes of food poisoning in the recent outbreaks has been salmonella. Salmonella is not the only possible cause of food poisoning, however, it is a relatively common one and one which causes major concern.
Salmonella is a bacteria. There are more than 1700 types of this bacteria. Different types of salmonella occur naturally in the gut of different animals. Some forms of salmonella are carried by humans. For example, the bacteria that causes typhoid, salmonella typhi, is found naturally in the intestines of human beings.
However, the types of salmonella responsible for the recent spates of illness and death appear to have come from the guts of animals. Chicken, pigs, cattle, rodents, reptiles, birds and insects can carry salmonella. Chickens seem particularly likely to be infected.
The bacteria usually has no ill effects on the host animals which carry it in their gut. In small numbers salmonella is part of our normal environment and causes no harm to human beings, being neutralized by our immune system. However, if salmonella reaches the human gut in large numbers it can cause serious harm.
Salmonella causes a number of illnesses in people. One disease, salmonellosis, takes between six and 72 hours to appear. It causes fever, chills and diarrhoea. It can also cause nausea, chills and stomach cramps. The fluid loss from diarrhoea and vomiting can lead to dehydration and heart failure, which can result in death. The young and the elderly are vulnerable.
If salmonella passes from the human intestines into the bloodstream it can cause septiceamia or blood poisoning. This sends the bacteria into every major organ in the body.
Human beings generally contract these diseases by eating meat contaminated with salmonella. Whereas in animals the disease was more often brought on by stress lowering the animals immunity.
Abattoirs do not normally test for salmonella as the procedure is reasonably sophisticated. However, normal food preparation techniques such as freezing, chilling and cooking should remove the risk of infection.
Arguments suggesting food safety provisions are inadequate
There have been a number of criticisms levelled at overall food safety provisions and at those operating within some states, particularly Victoria. Those directed at Victoria will be considered first..
Firstly, it has been claimed that the number of compulsory inspections of food premises in Victoria has dropped from four a year to one.
Secondly, local councils across Victoria should apparently be taking 13,500 random food samples for testing a year. In 1995 councils did less than half that number.
It has been claimed that cuts to the number of council-employed health inspectors is the reason for the marked reduction in the number of inspections of food premises and of random food sampling. Over the last three years, the number of council-employed environmental health officers has been cut from 400 to 250. A recent survey of Victorian local councils has also shown that the number of prosecutions of unscrupulous food handlers has fallen by more than 70 per cent.
It has been claimed that the restructuring of local councils and the cut to local council budgets of 12 per cent has led to the reduction in the number of health inspectors.
Another reason offered for the supposed inadequacy of food safety provisions in Victoria is that meat inspections at domestic abattoirs are now carried out be abattoir employees. There have been several criticisms made of this system.
One is that the abattoir employees have not been adequately trained for the task. It has been claimed that some have done only seven weeks training in food safety.
Members of the food inspection union have criticised the new privatised system of meat inspection operating in Victoria (and South Australia) and have called for an independent inquiry. They have claimed that some of the recent instances of food poisoning indicate that the privatised system is not working adequately.
There have also been concerns expressed about the supposed vagueness of Victoria's food processing and handling regulations. For example, it has been claimed, there are no longer clear statements regarding the temperatures at which certain foodstuffs are to be kept.
Victoria's cleanliness and food premises regulations were abolished in 1994 and replaced by a voluntary code of conduct and a widening of the jurisdiction of the Food Act. The Food Act covers provisions for council health inspections, however, under the new arrangements bakeries, restaurants and other food outlets are self-regulating.
It has been claimed by some that these new arrangements place an unreasonable burden on some food outlets, particularly small ones, which do not have sufficient knowledge or staff and cannot therefore be made largely responsible for the maintenance of food handling standards, particular when some critics have claimed that the guidelines are inadequate.
It has also been claimed that without a legislative framework many training courses designed to show food outlet employees how to handle food safely have simply lapsed.
Critics have noted that the former City of Springvale, (where hundreds of people have recently been stricken with gastro-enteritis from at least two different sources and where a number of other outlets were shown to have been selling contaminated food) used to have a local law requiring food retail proprietors and at least one food handler from the outlet to undertake a food-handling course.
It has been claimed that this requirement is no longer in place since local council food handling regulations were abolished in 1994.
Criticism has also been levelled at the manner in which health authorities have operated in Victoria. It has been claimed that they have been too slow to notify the public of potential risk once they had grounds to suspect it. In the case of the first salmonella outbreak reported in March and traced back to Lago smallgoods it has been suggested that warnings should have been issued at least a month earlier and that the health authorities appeared more concerned to protect the commercial interests of the smallgoods manufacturer than they did to protect the public health.
On a national level it has been maintained that there are significant differences between the rigor of the procedures that operate in different states and territories. It has also been maintained that national food standards are needed as a matter of urgency. Professor Stephen Leeder, the president of the Public Health Association, has claimed that when food is being manufactured or grown in one state and then shipped for consumption in another, separate State and Territory laws are inappropriate and inefficient.
Professor Leeder has argued that a `national map of responsibility for food safety' is needed.
There have also been other criticisms of the regulatory system as it operates across Australia.
A `user-pays' policy was introduced for meat inspection across Australia in 1992. This inspection is carried out, as formerly, by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service(AQIS). However, critics have maintained that the fact that processors in most states now pay the AQIS has altered the relationship between them and possibly undermined the independence of the AQIS.
Two states, Victoria and South Australia, have both introduced company-based regulation. It has been claimed that this is more expensive than inspection by the AQIS. By implication, this could place a financial burden on some smaller companies which they might cut corners to avoid.
A commentator for The Australian, Beatrice Faust, has stated, `Some small meat preservers are so close to the edge that they skimp on a $100 box of rubber gloves. Where will such marginal businesses find the funds to employ private inspectors.'
It has also been suggested that companies inspected by someone whom they formally employ, often a former meat worker, may not be inspected as rigorously as they would be if the inspector were completely independent.
Beatrice Faust has further suggested, `The community cannot expect firms, whose first priority is profit and privately employed inspectors, whose first priority is keeping their bosses happy, to put the public interest anywhere but last.'
Arguments suggesting food safety provisions are adequate
The Victorian Government has defended its decision to rely on a voluntary code of conduct and an extension of the Food Act together with the deregulation of the meat industry as the best means of ensuring food safety.
The Government has noted that since 1989 there has been a 25 per cent decline in salmonella infections in Victoria.
With regard to the recent increase in the number of outbreaks of salmonella contamination it has been claimed that this is in part the result of a more efficient detection system.
The Victorian premier, Mr Kennett, has claimed that Victoria's efficient tracking system was the main reason more cases of salmonella poisoning were being detected.
The premier's overall view was that Victoria's food was `99.9 per cent' safe.
`There are hundreds of thousands of places that prepare food every day and yes, there are two or three instances and that is regrettable but ... almost 99.9 per cent of people are getting good quality food prepared properly and carefully,' Mr Kennett has said.
It has maintained that despite the voluntary code of conduct, council inspectors still have the legislative power to enforce food standards.
It has also been claimed that so-called `self-regulation' has not meant a lack of standards or supervision. Mr David Abba, the chief executive of the National Meat Association, has stated that independent private auditors conduct tests on meat in factories before cooking. Mr Abba has also been claimed that after cooking some factories engage such auditors to take and test further samples from meats.
In addition it has been noted that supermarkets and state health authorities conduct tests after cooking, while local council inspectors test hygiene standards at the retail stage.
It has also been maintained that the decline in number of prosecutions for unsafe food-handling need not mean that the system had ceased to operate effectively. It could mean that fewer food handlers were breaking the law.
A spokesperson for the Department of Human services claimed that the decline in prosecutions may indicate that there were improved food-handling procedures within the industry.
It has also been maintained that the answer to the problem of food contamination is not increased inspection or more prescriptive laws and penalties. Rather, it has been claimed that what is needed is better training for all food handlers.
This point has been made by the Victorian chief health officer, Dr Rouch, who has maintained, `Where we have to do better is training our food handlers.'
According to this line of argument, it simply is not possible to use inspection to ensure that all the hundreds of thousands of food outlets that operate in Victoria are handling food safely and appropriately. Instead, it has been claimed, what is needed is too ensure that all food handlers are adequately informed of safe procedures for handling food and then their own common sense and desire to ensure their business continues to operate should guarantee that they do the correct thing.
This view appears to have been shared by the Australian and New Zealand health officials who meet in early April and who decided that improved public education regarding the proper manner in which to handle food was an immediate priority.
In addition, it has been suggested, part of the problem which has occurred in Victoria is not a consequence of poor procedures for the inspection of meat, of manufactured smallgoods and of food retail outlets. Rather, it has been suggested that the problem may be the result of the highly unusual and lengthy spell of high temperatures Victoria went through at the start of the year.
According to this line of argument the well-being of some Victorian livestock may have been compromised by the unusually hot weather and thus they may have been made unusually vulnerable to infection from the salmonella organisms which normally reside in these animals intestines without causing any harm to the consumer.
It has also been noted that given that it takes some eight hours to test conclusively for the presence of salmonella in meat, the product is likely to have been processed and distributed before contamination is detected.
Dr Rouch, Victoria's chief health officer, has also defended his department against accusations that it should have issued public warnings more promptly in relation to the first salmonella outbreak which was announced in March of this year.
Dr Rouch has argued that for much of the time cases were being reported and investigations were being conducted, there was no conclusive evidence that the Lago company was the source of the outbreak.
Dr Rouch also indicated that by the time they had determined the company that was the source of the outbreak it appeared to be over and thus the department had to decide whether it was appropriate to warn the public of a danger that was no longer current.
In the event they decided to issue the warning because they judged there was a chance that there may still have been some contaminated meat products in the hands of retailers or consumers.
Dr Rouch has also argued that there has to be sufficient evidence to convince the company that their products were the source of the infection. Without doing this, Dr Rouch has claimed, it is more difficult to secure the support of the company and so it is much more difficult to have an effective product recall.
Dr Rouch has claimed, `We don't believe we have procrastinated. We did what we did because we still had to get this evidence. We ... still have failed to convince the company that we have sufficient evidence to link them.
`The company has to be convinced. If we don't have their cooperation the recall is so much messier and much longer and the public's put at greater risk, so we've been bending over backwards to both convince them and get their co-operation in the recall.'
Further implications
There are likely to be consequences on a range of fronts as a result of the recent spate of salmonella outbreaks.
On the public health front these are likely to range from the relatively minimal, such as improved reporting procedures when outbreaks are detected through to possible major legislative and procedural changes.
One of the consequences of the salmonella outbreaks in Victoria is that the state's chief health officer, Dr Graham Rouch, plans to reinstate the issuing of regular reports to the media of the progress of all ongoing investigations of apparent contamination outbreaks. Reports will be issued both during the investigative phase and once conclusions have been drawn. This will be similar to the process which lapsed in 1978, of issuing fortnightly reports to the Public Health Commission. (The Commission no longer exists.)
The April meeting of Australian and New Zealand public health officials resulted in a call for national uniform standards on food hygiene with a final code expected by the end of the year. The meeting decided that the industry priority should be to prevent food contamination rather than to improve the detection procedures at the end of the manufacturing or handling.
The aim of the hygiene standards code is to pinpoint the areas in food processing where food contamination is a risk. The code will cover not only factories and food outlets but also farming and the handling of food in the home.
The meeting also agreed to develop a public information strategy to educate the community about the correct handling of food, with one option being to teach food hygiene in schools.
The meeting also indicated that there may need to be improved recall procedures when food contamination was discovered.
There is also research being conducted in an attempt to devise methods that will make it possible to detect contamination in processed food before it leaves the factory. Currently it is not possible to detect conclusively any organism or pathogen in food in less than 24 hours, by which time it is likely to have been distributed to wholesaler, retailer or consumer.
Another possible outcome of concern over the safety of food products is that Australia may ultimately decide to irradiate processed meat products prior to sale using gamma radiation. This is the only sterilisation method known to remove all risk of bacterial contamination.
It has been claimed that such a procedure may not be necessary to remove the risk of salmonella contamination as this can usually be detected during processing, however, some of the more potent strains of E.coli bacteria, such as that involved in the Garibaldi outbreak in 1995, are very difficult to detect and, unlike salmonella, can prove fatal in very small numbers.
On the commercial front the recent outbreaks are also likely to have significant consequences. It has been estimated that a loss of domestic consumer confidence in Victorian smallgoods could cost manufacturers and retailers some $100 million in sales over the next weeks.
Finally, a relative of at least one of the people who appears to have died as a result of salmonella poisoning is planning to take legal action against Victorian health authorities.
Sources
The Age
22/1/97 page 1 news item by Steve Dow and Farah Farquque, `Two dead, 30 ill from salmonella'
22/3/97 page 6 news item by Karen Middleton, `Call for national food standards'
22/3/97 page 7 news item by Megan Jones, `Changes in inspection system get the blame'
29/3/97 page 1 news item by Steve Dow, `Third death heightens food fears'
29/3/97 page 19 analysis by Paul Heinrichs, `Guardian of our health'
30/3/97 page 2 news item by Darren Gray, `State food law blocked hygiene training'
1/4/97 page 15 comment by Jim Morgan, `Plenty of food for thought'
1/4/97 page 15 comment by Janet McCalman, `The buyer must beware of market forces'
5/4/97 page 3 news item by Karen Middleton & Andrea Carson, `National crackdown on food premises planned'
6/4/97 page 18 editorial, `The weak link in the food chain'
The Australian
22/3/97 page 1 news item by Ewin Hannan, `Secret salmonella killed two'
22/3/97 page 6 news item by Ewin Hannan & Chip LeGrand, `Deaths spark meat recalls'
22/3/97 page 6 news item by Chip LeGrand, `High price of food poisoning'
29/3/97 page 4 news item by Benjamin Haslem & Chip LeGrand, `Salmonella outbreak crisis deepens'
29/3/97 page 4 news item by Benjamin Haslem, `Outbreaks blamed on fall in standards'
4/4/97 page 3 news item by Steve Dow & Gareth Boreham, `Industry rejects smallgoods recall'
4/4/97 page 13 analysis by Kimina Lyall, `What's bugging our meat?'
4/4/97 page 13 analysis by Justine Ferrari, `The risk from manufacturing'
5/3/97 page 3 news item by Ebru Yaman, `Health summit targets food'
5/3/97 page 26 comment by Beatrice Faust, `Meat's lethal deregulation'
8/4/97 page 3 news item by Rachel Hawes & Justine Ferrari, `More food recalled as crisis grows'
8/4/97 page 3 news item by Graeme Leech, `Dangerous strains in super bugs'
The Herald Sun
22/3/97 page 3 news item by Michelle Coffey, `Victims die in month of silence'
23/3/97 page 12 news item by Cathy Lambert, Russell Robinson & Heather Kennedy, `Calls for food inquiry'
26/3/97 page 9 news item by Mike Edmonds, `Warm fridge poison link'
29/3/97 page 24 analysis by Helen Carter, `Tracking down those dirty, little nasties'
29/3/97 pages 24 & 25 analysis by Michelle Coffey, `Bugs in the food system'
30/3/97 page 12 analysis by Graeme O'Neill, `Rare bugs threat to food'
3/4/97 page 2 news item by Genevieve Lally, `Heat stress may be trigger'
4/4/97 page 1 news item by Michelle Coffey & Jim Pollard, `$100m food crisis'