- PDF Version (364K) - Print Friendly - Help

Domestic Food Review - Policy and Related Implementation Position Paper

Appendix 3: Food Handler Guidance

Part 1: Decision tree

The decision tree below is designed to provide a mechanism to determine whether a Food Control Plan, National Programme or Food Handler Guidance is the most appropriate tool to apply to certain food operations. The criteria are being used to deliver reasoned and consistent results across food sectors, and are being used as a guidance tool to assist with establishing the most appropriate tool for a food business to deliver safe and suitable food.

Part 2: Explanatory notes

In applying the decision tree, the criteria used include:

• the type of operation and risk presented to consumers

• implications from the failure of food-safety controls

• community acceptance of particular types of food-selling activities

• the proportionality of controls

• the feasibility and practicality of controls

• the appropriateness of controls

• the equity of applying regulated and non-regulated mechanisms

• recognition of investigations into failures of food safety controls leading to confirmed cases of foodborne illness and complaints.

A Territorial Authority may use the decision tree to determine whether any local food operation may operate using Food Handler Guidance. Starting with the question ‘is food for sale?’, if the answer is ‘no’, then none of the control mechanisms apply. If the answer is ‘yes, the food is for sale’, then the four questions in Box A need to be answered. They relate to the risk associated with the type of food; the ‘sphere of impact’ of the operation (see Glossary); frequency of operation (no more than 10 times per annum); and whether it is for the benefit of a charity or the community.

To determine whether the operation is involved with community and/or charity fundraising, evidence would be required to show that the operation is selling food to provide a charitable or community benefit, that is proceeds from the sale of food are not for individual/business financial gain. For example, the food business might be registered as a charity with the Inland Revenue Department, or be widely recognised in the community as a beneficial provider.

If all answers to the questions in Box A are ‘yes’, then Question 1 identifies that Food Handler Guidance is considered to be the appropriate tool.

One or more ‘no’ answers to the questions in Box A leads on to Question 2. NZFSA has already determined the appropriate food control mechanism for food sectors, as discussed in Tables 3.1 to 3.5. Territorial Authorities will take appropriate action to regulate an operation within one of these food sectors.

Question 3 will be considered where an operation or group of operations consider they have valid reasons for a review of the regulatory decision, eg, their activities may not be accurately portrayed by the identified food sector. If there is a valid reason to review the initial decision then the questions in Box B are considered.

The questions in Box B are also used when a determination has not yet been made for a specific food operation. NZFSA will utilise the criteria that identifies food risks, confirmed complaints, potential impact of operation and other reasons to assist in determining where a type of operation sits within the new regime.

Higher-risk operations are generally those listed for registration in years 1 and 2 of the transition period (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). Charitable or community fundraising events, for example sausage sizzles, would score ‘4’ for a high-risk operation (temperature controls and infrequent event catering) but ‘1’ elsewhere, resulting in Food Handler Guidance as the appropriate route.

Questions b and c in Box B, will require analysis of the NZFSA FoodNet database. Until illness can be traced to a sector or ‘food business’, or a complaint is substantiated, the answer to these questions would be ‘no’. It is likely that the seriousness of the incident would also need to be considered.

Issues that may need addressing in Question e in Box B include:

• equity issues with non-regulated food operations providing food in competition with local, regulated food businesses

• regulation necessary to prevent uncontrolled, ‘backdoor’ food operations

• ensuring that any part of a business that manufactures or provides food for vulnerable consumers (children under five years of age, elderly people over 65 years of age, pregnant women and immuno-compromised people) is properly regulated

• regulation represents a proportionate response to stakeholder expectations to control hazards and safety and suitability issues

• those identified from the monitoring and review process.

Answers to the questions in Box B have been given a score to simplify the decision process, which is determined by Question 4. For example, if the total score is less than 9 for the sector or group, then Food Handler Guidance is the appropriate tool to be used.

Question 5 addresses the practical issues surrounding regulated control for a food sector or group such as the availability of external verifiers, evaluators or regulators and the distribution of food businesses.

Question 6 identifies an opportunity to regulate through a National Programme, rather than by Food Control Plan. National Programmes may be developed to control some or all food safety or suitability issues for a particular sector or group of food businesses. They may apply to all or part of a sector, or to a particular part of the food chain. They may be used instead of a Food Control Plan or may be complementary to a Food Control Plan. The decision tree takes this option into consideration with the ‘FCP + National Programme’ box below question 6. National Programmes might build on existing voluntary schemes. These may require minimal external verification, but will require some method of identification, registration and external verification as agreed with NZFSA.

In determining whether or not to have a National Programme, NZFSA is likely to consider:

• the need to protect the health of consumers and users of food

• the most effective way of handling the relevant risks

• the desirability of maintaining consistency between New Zealand standards and any relevant standards, requirements, or recommended practices that apply or are accepted internationally

• the relative costs of having the programme or not having it, who bears the cost, and any positive and negative impacts on consumers and users

• whether the programme is the most cost effective way of achieving its prime purpose

• such other matters as the Minister considers relevant.

If a National Programme is inappropriate, then Question 7, using the off-the-peg criteria developed by NZFSA, will assist in identifying whether an off-the-peg or custom-made Food Control Plan is the appropriate control tool.

A process to monitor and review decisions is part of the ‘decision tree’ process.

Part 3: Examples

The table below contains particular food operations that are likely to be subject to Food Handler Guidance after applying the decision tree in part 1 and the explanatory notes in part 2 above. Other operations may also fit into this category if the decision tree were applied to them. Contact NZFSA for further guidance on this matter.

Food operation	Description	Examples
Infrequent Event (Food Service )	Food primarily sold/served in infrequent event-based situations that also meet the other Food Handler Guidance criteria in the decision tree. These operations may use equipment and vehicles to transport meals and snacks to events and / or prepare food on site or off site.	• sausage sizzles for charity/ community/ fundraising purposes • cake stalls • certain operations at food festivals • food provided by sports club for teams on match days only • dinner provided for trekking party at a climbing hut • non-animal product food from approved sources, processed for infrequent sale at an event or market (eg, jam) • unprocessed food at an event or market – that is fruit or vegetables sold direct to consumer • pub/club regulated meat-pack auction / raffle – fundraising • making biscuits at home and selling door-to-door for pocket money • commercial coffee cart (drinks only) • family selling home-made curry once-a-year at annual festival (‘one-off’ operation)
Bed and breakfast accommodation, including home stays, farm stay, and small lodges	Providing food together with accommodation for less than 10 persons per night.	• provides food for guests only; no other food operation
Very small horticultural producers	Small growers, small volume production, low community reach. All product sold direct to the consumer or end user; and not to any food business for further sale. No animal products sold.	• home-grown sales • farm gate sales - sole means of retail • roadside stalls selling own produce