Dear All,
This link looked interesting regarding results of ongoing campaign to reduce foodborne illnesses in UK.
http://www.food.gov....g/fdsevaluation
This highly detailed report is extremely frank and very readable IMO (numbers are mainly separated to the annexes). I have extracted a few pieces with the strongly scientific part coming at the beginning. Remember these extracts and later 'bites' are taken out of context and the full report needs to be read for proper relevance.
(a) From figures obtained through a national survey of Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of fresh and frozen chicken on retail sale carried out between April and June 2001 (5, Annex C1, Annex C2), the baseline measure of Salmonella contamination of UK-produced retail chicken was determined as 5.7% The frequency of contamination found for Campylobacter, in this same survey, was 50%.
( added / Charles.C - Numbers are weighted, based on data it looks much safer to eat chicken in England regarding risk of Campylobacter for some reason)
.
(b) Based on updated provisional figures for 2004 (7), a reduction in the total recorded cases of 18.7% was noted. A reduction of 11,378 cases (22.2%) in cases of Campylobacter (51,166 to 39,788) was the most significant contribution to the reduction in the total figure. Reductions were also recorded for Salmonella (8.8%) and E. coli O157 (20.8%); the reduction for E. coli O157 was 215 cases from a baseline of 1,035 cases. Similar patterns of change can be seen in the figures for each pathogen recorded for each region (Annex B2), the greatest percentage reduction (32.5%) being recorded in both the total and the Campylobacter figures for Scotland.
Based on the figures available for 2004 then, the Agency is close to meeting its target of 20% targeted reduction in the incidence of foodborne disease by April 2006. 
© Beneficial changes in food handling practices resulting from the food hygiene campaign activities that highlighted the importance of controlling crosscontamination in kitchens as well as correct handling and cooking of poultry and barbeque meats (Annex D), could well affect the number of cases of foodborne illness attributable to Campylobacter. This is because the organism is largely introduced to kitchens on raw poultry and cross-contamination can lead to the spread of the organism in the kitchen environment to become a potential contaminant to other foods being prepared. Only small numbers (thought to be less than 500 bacterial cells (61)) of the organism are required to cause illness so consumption of undercooked contaminated poultry or cross-contaminated ready-to-eat food could be hazardous.
(d) However, evidence from pre- and post-campaign activity surveys (Annex D) and consumer attitude surveys (58, 60) suggest that the actual behaviour of food handlers (domestic or catering) has not changed or at least, not substantially enough to realistically affect the foodborne illness figures.
added later - Comments
Not a criticism of the above in any way however I noticed the description of the procedure for these results contained - 'In adopting this approach, we recognise that the baseline figure will include only a small proportion of all the actual cases, since most are not confirmed by laboratory testing. However, in assessing progress towards the target, we only really need a reliable way of monitoring the trend in confirmed laboratory notifications.'
The baseline value used was around 65,000. In contrast the "total" value for uk foodborne illnesses in another reference I saw was 2,000,000. Makes you realise the difficulties in estimation.
This initiative is targetting the endpoint of the chain. It was not clear to me how one allowed for any benefits contributed from the control initiatives at source etc (if given I missed any references to these). I appreciate the proven statistical links between endpoint and illnesses plus the difficulties at the farm level but comment (d) was rather disturbing in this respect.
The absolute contamination rates discussed are, I expect, typical but one has to be somewhat alarmed at the levels existing ??.
I didn't see any references to the deterrent use of microbiological criteria which I presume relates to the raw nature of the products frequently involved. (for relevance try the threads -
http://www.saferpak....?showtopic=4866 and http://www.saferpak....?showtopic=4801 )
Other "Bites"
(1) Noting that barriers to good hygiene practice / safe food handling (top three) were reported to be lack of time, laziness, not that important and that key influences on good practices were (in order of priority) mother, children, then father.
(2) The least knowledgeable were men, people aged under 25years, certain social groups and those who do little cooking.
(3) Videos are rated highly by those who used them but there was a very low usage rate possibly due to lack of equipment.
(4) A better understanding of bacteria in relation to cleanliness was required as hands or work surfaces were only cleaned if they looked dirty.
(5) Consumers claimed generally high levels of awareness of good food hygiene practices and, that they did not learn anything new from advertising campaigns. Such campaigns were considered useful ‘for others' and as ‘reminders'
(6) Give-aways (leaflets, posters, sick bag, scourers) and press-advertising were found to yield 23 - 42% recall levels and the posters and stickers were reported to be used by c. 20% of catering recipients (8).
(7) FSA Wales used a quote from Confucius, which is highly appropriate: ‘What we hear, we forget; what we see, we remember; what we do, we understand.'
Comments
I'm still cogitating over No.7, I doubt Confucius ever experienced a food mass production line, especially a Welsh one ?
And No.6, the term "sick bag" sounds like aircraft trips but maybe not. The scourer also sounds a bit bizarre. Any idea ? Given by who ?
Also seems not many UK houses have video players / Can this be true ? All under repair? My guess is the videos were not free.
Rgds / Charles.C
Edited by Charles.C, 17 September 2006 - 04:18 AM.
