class 3 food business baseline study...

101-103 QUEENS PARADE, CLIFTON HILL, VICTORIA 3068 PO BOX 441, CLIFTON HILL, VICTORIA 3068 PHONE +613 9482 4216 FAX +613 9482 6799 ABN 29 073 813 144

www . c ampb e l l r e s e a r c h . c om . a u

Class 3 Food Businesses-

Baseline Study of Food Safety Knowledge and

Practices

Prepared for

Department of Health Food Safety & Regulation

50 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Victoria

Australia 3000

June 2010

Class 3 Food Businesses Baseline Study

Department of Health

CR&C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i

The challenge of classifying Class 3 Food Businesses ............................................................. i

Baseline measure of knowledge and practice for Class 3 Food Businesses ............................ i

Implications for the introduction of the Class 3 classification.....................................................ii

Reading this Report ................................................................................................................... iii

Terminology and acronyms used in this report ......................................................................... iii

Reading the tables .................................................................................................................... iii

Reading the graphs................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

Project objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of the methodology ................................................................................................... 2

1. Classifying a Class 3 business ......................................................................................... 3

1.1 Screening for the quantitative survey........................................................................... 3

1.2 Screening for the qualitative case studies ................................................................... 5

2. Temperature control........................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Thermometers – knowledge ........................................................................................ 6

2.2 Receiving food – knowledge ........................................................................................ 7

2.3 Temperature of stored food – knowledge .................................................................... 9

2.4 Temperature danger zone – knowledge .................................................................... 10

2.5 Temperature control for chilled food – knowledge..................................................... 11

2.6 Temperature control for hot food – knowledge .......................................................... 12

2.7 Holding food at room temperature – knowledge........................................................ 13

2.8 Temperature control – practice .................................................................................. 14

3. Protecting food from contamination .............................................................................. 18

3.1 Protecting food from contamination – knowledge...................................................... 18

3.2 Protecting food from contamination – practice .......................................................... 19

4. Standards, regulation and information .......................................................................... 21

4.1 Feeling informed about food safety - knowledge ....................................................... 21

4.2 Ease of complying with regulations - knowledge ....................................................... 22

4.3 Sources of information - knowledge........................................................................... 23

4.4 Ease of locating food safety information – knowledge............................................... 24

4.5 Standards, regulation and information – practice ...................................................... 25

APPENDIX 1: DETAILED METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 28

APPENDIX 2: COUNCILS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY ................................................ 35

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION GUIDE...................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................... 42



CR&C

INDEX OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Screening for Class 3 businesses ..................................................................................4

Figure 2: Presence of temperature probe ......................................................................................6

Figure 3: Frequency of checking temperature of delivered food ...................................................8

Figure 4: Method that should check the temperature of delivered food.........................................9

Figure 5: Ready-to-eat foods requiring refrigeration ....................................................................10

Figure 6: Awareness and knowledge of temperature danger zone .............................................11

Figure 7: Temperature for storing cold food.................................................................................12

Figure 8: Temperature for storing hot food ..................................................................................13

Figure 9: Safely leaving perishable food at room temperature ....................................................14

Figure 10: Knowledge of protecting food from contamination .......................................................18

Figure 11: Perceived knowledge about food safety and food safety regulation ............................21

Figure 12: Ease of meeting council regulations .............................................................................22

Figure 13: Sources of food safety information ...............................................................................23

Figure 14: Ease of locating food safety information.......................................................................24

Figure 15: Profile of Class 3 businesses........................................................................................32

Figure 16: Profile of respondents ...................................................................................................33

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1: Acronyms used in this report.............................................................................................. iii

Table 2: Survey stratification for Skills and Knowledge Survey ......................................................30

Table 3: Field report for Class 3 Food Businesses Baseline Study................................................31

Table 4: Local Government Councils participating in the Telephone Survey .................................36



CR&C

Please note that, in accordance with our Company’s policy, we are obliged to advise that neither

the Company nor any member nor employee undertakes responsibility in any way whatsoever

to any person or organisation (other than the Department of Health) in respect of information set

out in this report, including any errors or omissions therein, arising through negligence or

otherwise however caused.

.

Class 3 Food Businesses Baseline Study of Food Safety Knowledge and Practices


CR&C i

Executive Summary

The Victorian Government, through the Department of Health is working to reduce regulatory

burden on food businesses in Victoria. One strategy to reduce burden is to minimise

compliance requirements for businesses that serve low risk food. At present, Victoria has a

two-tiered system for food business risk classification: Class 1 - high risk food businesses that

provide food to the very old young or sick; and Class 2 - all other food businesses.

To reduce regulatory burden, food businesses in Victoria are being reclassified according to

risk. Low risk Class 2 Businesses will be stratified into Classes 2, 3 and 4. The change in the

classification of Class 2 food businesses and community groups is intended to reduce the costs

associated with compliance, without compromising public health.

Campbell Research was commissioned by the Food Safety and Regulation Unit to conduct the

Class 3 Food Businesses - Baseline Study of Food Safety Knowledge and Practices Project.

The objective of this research was to establish a baseline measure of food safety knowledge

and practice for food handlers at Class 2 businesses that will be reclassified as Class 3. The

baseline will ascertain areas of need and risk resulting from the reclassification. Knowledge of

food safety was assessed using a telephone survey of food handlers at 300 Victorian food

businesses. Safe food handling practice was assessed using 15 observational case studies

The challenge of classifying Class 3 Food Businesses

The research has highlighted the complex nature of the new classification system and need to

understand every activity undertaken by a business to be able to classify the business correctly.

Evidence from this research suggests that this classification can only be accurately undertaken

by an EHO and should be reviewed at each annual inspection.

For many businesses, a single product or practice ‘tipped’ their classification from Class 3 to

Class 2. Consideration will need to be given to means to classify food businesses where a

small number of products or practices may determine a classification as either Class 2 or 3.

Baseline measure of knowledge and practice for Class 3 Food Businesses

Class 3 food businesses demonstrated a high level food safety knowledge and practice. Minor

gaps in food safety knowledge and practice were identified to be:

• Confusion over the effective use of ‘laser guns’ for the checking of

temperatures when a probe thermometer should have been used

• Specific knowledge of the range of safe temperatures for storage and display

• Safe methods of reheating and holding of hot foods such as pies

• A reluctance to invest money for repairs to equipment and premises to ensure

that they are safe.

These findings are supported by comparisons of the reported skills and knowledge of Class 3

Food Business survey respondents with reported skills and knowledge for all food handlers

surveyed in the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Study 2006. Food handlers at Class 3

Food Businesses demonstrated lower levels of knowledge for these areas compared with all

food handlers.



CR&C ii

Specific findings for temperature control and food storage

Three quarters of Class 3 Food businesses have a temperature probe. Confusion remains over

the appropriate use of temperature probes versus ‘laser guns’.

Almost all Class 3 Food businesses demonstrated effective knowledge and practice in relation

to checking the temperature of delivered food.

Knowledge of the ‘temperature danger zone’ for the storage of hot and cold foods is wide

spread for food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses. However, the actual temperature range

that forms the zone is less well known. This lack of specific knowledge may not be an issue as

modern food holding equipment typically displays a range of safe temperatures.

Class 3 Food Businesses more commonly store and serve chilled food compared with hot food.

No issues were noted for the safe storage and display of chilled and frozen food; however,

minor safety issues were identified for hot food such as the safe reheating and display of pies.

Specific findings for protecting food from contamination

In general, food handlers who took part in the research demonstrated sound knowledge and

practice in relation to protecting food from contamination. The primary risk factor associated

with contamination was the need for repairs to the areas used to store and prepare food. Many

businesses showed damage or wear which were unlikely to be resolved due to expense.

Specific findings for attitudes towards standards, regulation and information

Nearly all food handlers who participated in the case studies reported little difficulty in complying

with food safety regulations. However, some found compliance to be a time-consuming.

Temperature checks conducted on fridges and freezers were identified the most time

consuming aspect of compliance.

Almost all food handlers indicated that it was easy to locate the information required to maintain

their safe food knowledge and practice. Local Councils and EHOs are the most common

source of information. Information is typically received passively from these sources rather than

actively sought. Maintaining the link between EHOs and Class 3 Food Businesses will be vital.

Implications for the introduction of the Class 3 classification

The reclassification of food businesses is unlikely to cause major disruption to current

businesses, nor pose a significant threat to public health. Class 2 businesses to be classified as

Class 3 demonstrate a high level of food safety knowledge and practice.

Four areas stand out as requiring additional scrutiny: the use of ‘laser guns’, specific knowledge

of the ‘temperature danger zone’, safe methods of reheating and holding of hot foods and the

need for maintenance of equipment and property. The most effective means to monitor and

educate Class 3 Food Businesses is through EHOs during regular inspection and follow up.

The key findings of this research only apply to established food businesses. Each of the food

businesses involved in the research had many years to ensure that they complied with current

regulations. The same may not be true of new food businesses opening in Victoria that may be

classified as Class 3. New Class 3 Food Businesses will require specific support and education

to ensure that safe food handling practices are established and maintained.



CR&C iii

Reading this Report

This report presents the findings from the Class 3 Food Businesses - Baseline study of food

safety knowledge and practices for the Food Safety and Regulation unit of the Department of

Health.

Terminology and acronyms used in this report

In the interests of brevity, this report will refer to Class 2 businesses that will become Class 3

under the new system as ‘Class 3 businesses’, even though the new classification system has

yet to be implemented.

Table 1: Acronyms used in this report

Acronym Term

CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interview, a method of administering surveys using a

computerised telephone system

EHO Environmental Health Officer, professionals employed by local councils to conduct inspections

of food businesses (amongst other duties)

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the national food standards authority in Australia

IQCA Interviewer Quality Control Australia, a quality assurance scheme designed to ensure effective

data collection procedures

VCEC Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, a Victorian Government body advising on

business regulation reform

Reading the tables

• The base for each column is given in parentheses under the column header

• ‘n/a’ means that the particular cell is not applicable and no result can be

reported

• Proportions are rounded to the nearest whole percent

Reading the graphs

• The relevant survey questions are presented underneath the graph

• Each column is a percentage of the base

• The base for the graphs refers to the total number of response upon which the

percentages have been calculated. This is indicated under the left hand

corner of the graph



CR&C 1

Introduction

Campbell Research & Consulting (Campbell Research) was commissioned to conduct the

Class 3 Food Businesses - Baseline Study of Food Safety Knowledge and Practices for the

Food Safety and Regulation unit of the Department of Health.

Food Safety and Regulation has undertaken similar research in 2002, 2004 and 2006 with food

businesses (Class 1 and Class 2) across Victoria:

• Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey

• Food Business Practices Survey.

In addition, work in this area has also been commissioned by Food Standards Australia New

Zealand (FSANZ) in 2001 and 2007. The 2001 project formed the basis for the assessment of

food safety knowledge and practice in Victoria since that time.

Background

In September 2007, the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission presented its final

report, Simplifying the Menu: Food Regulation in Victoria to the Government. The Victorian

Government Response to VCEC’s report noted that:

An important challenge for regulation and its implementation is achieving the right

balance between reducing food safety risks to the community and imposing costs

on food businesses and community activities1.

There were some 37 recommendations made in the report aimed at improving the framework

and administration of food regulation in Victoria and nationally of which most were accepted by

Government. The Food Act (1984) has since been amended to reflect these recommendations.

Of particular relevance to this project is the reclassification of food businesses according to risk.

Instead of two tiers (Class 1 and Class 2) that exist at present, Class 2 businesses will be

stratified into Class 2, 3 and 4. The change in the classification of Class 2 food businesses and

community groups is intended to reduce the costs associated with compliance, without

compromising public health. The aim is to ensure that regulation is proportionate to the nature,

and extent (or frequency) of the activities.

The newly developed classification system as described on the Department’s website will cover:

• Class 1 – handles, processes or serves ready to eat potentially hazardous

food to groups most vulnerable to food related illnesses (e.g. hospital patients,

nursing home residents, children in long day care)

• Class 2 – supplies potentially hazardous unpackaged foods which need

correct temperature control throughout the food handling process, including

cooking and storage, to keep them safe (e.g. restaurants)

1

http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/GovernmentResponse/$File/Government%20Response.pdf



CR&C 2

• Class 3 – supplies or handles unpackaged low risk foods or sells pre-

packaged potentially hazardous foods which simply need refrigeration to keep

them safe (e.g. milk bars, convenience stores, wholesalers or bread baking)

and some community events

• Class 4 – supplies low risk pre-packaged foods which do not need

refrigeration.

From 1 July 2010 a declared Class 3 Businesses will:

• Need to register with the council

• Be inspected by the council when initially registered, and annually thereafter

• Need to keep basic records about their food handling practices

• No longer need a Food Safety Program or a Food Safety Supervisor.

Project objectives

The primary objective was to establish a baseline measure for the new Class 3 Businesses of

the skills and knowledge and business practices under the current food safety regulations of

Victoria. This will allow Food Safety and Regulation to review the classification system if

necessary, or target specific education and training efforts to any identified gaps in skills.

Overview of the methodology

A two-stage approach was designed and implemented for the Class 3 Food Businesses -

Baseline Study of Food Safety Knowledge and Practices project.

• Knowledge of food safety was assessed using a telephone survey of 300 food

businesses across Victoria. The survey was based on a questionnaire

designed by Campbell Research for Food Standards Australia New Zealand

and implemented in Victoria since 2001.

• Safe food handling practice was assessed via a series of 15 case studies.

Each case study centred on observation of food businesses and food

handlers in situ. A Campbell Research consultant visited each business,

observed the premises and practices of Class 3 Food Businesses and

interviewed food handlers to ascertain identify areas of safe and potentially

unsafe practice.

The findings from the Class 3 Food Business Survey are compared with survey findings for all

food handlers as reported for the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Study 2006. These

comparisons provide a measure of differences between food handlers at Class 3 Food

Businesses vs. food handlers from across the state. Significant differences between these

groups provide an indication of areas for surveillance and support for food handlers at Class 3

Food Businesses. Note that not all survey questions from the Class 3 Food Business Survey

had a comparable item in the 2006 survey.

The findings from the quantitative survey and qualitative observations are presented together in

this report. A detailed methodology for each component of the project is contained in Appendix

1.



CR&C 3

1. Classifying a Class 3 business

The research has highlighted the complex nature of the new classification

system and need to understand every activity undertaken by a business to

be able to classify the business correctly. This classification can only be

accurately undertaken by the local council and should be reviewed at each

annual inspection.

For many businesses, one or very few methods of storing, preparing and

serving food ‘tipped’ their classification from a Class 3 to a Class 2. The

Department will need to consider how to classify food businesses where one

or a small number of products or practices may determine a classification of

Class 2/3.

Most local councils provided a complete listing of Class 2 registered food businesses, while a

few councils had undertaken their own screening of what will be Class 3 Businesses based on

their understanding of the new classification system. Before conducting the Skills and

Knowledge Survey there was a need to ensure that businesses were in-scope.

Food businesses were screened, through a series of questions, to determine the nature of the

business, that is, under the new classification system would they be:

• Class 2 – supplies potentially hazardous unpackaged foods which need

correct temperature control throughout the food handling process, including

cooking and storage, to keep them safe (e.g. restaurants)

• Class 3 – supplies or handles unpackaged low risk foods or sells pre-

packaged potentially hazardous foods which simply need refrigeration to keep

them safe (e.g. milk bars, convenience stores, wholesalers or bread baking)

and some community events

• Class 4 – supplies low risk pre-packaged foods which do not need

refrigeration.

1.1 Screening for the quantitative survey

Businesses were asked a number of questions to assist in determining if they should be

classified as Class 2, 3 or 4 and therefore if they were in-scope for this research. Of all

businesses contacted and who completed the screening questions (Figure 1):

• 82% indicated that they handled or sold food or drink which must be

refrigerated to keep it safe

• 55% meet the Class 2 business definition - they changed the chilled or

heated food or drink before selling or distributing by making, preparing,

cooking, cutting or mixing it

• 31% meet the Class 3 business definition

o 27% sold the chilled or heated food or drink in the same form as

received by them



CR&C 4

o 4% sold or distributed some unpackaged food or drink which did not

have to be chilled or heated (some food or drink was processed,

received unpackaged or repackaged for sale)

• 13% meet the Class 4 business definition – they only sold packaged food or

drink which did not have to be chilled or heated to keep it safe.

Figure 1: Screening for Class 3 businesses

55%

27%

4%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Change PHF

(Class 2)

Do not change PHF

(Class 3)

Change non-PHF

(Class 3)

Do not change non-

PHF (Class 4)

82% of businesses

handled PHF

17% not handling PHF

had non-PHF

Q4 Does the business handle or sell any food or drink which must be refrigerated or heated to keep it safe? Q5 Do you change ANY of the chilled (or refrigerated) or heated food or drink before selling or distributing? Q6 Just as a check, is ALL of this food or drink sold or distributed in the same form as received by you? Q7 Now think of the food or drink which does not have to be chilled (refrigerated) or heated, is ALL food or drink

bought packaged and sold or distributed in the same way? Q8 Just as a check, so SOME of this food or drink processed, received unpackaged or repackaged for sale? Base: Current Class 2 businesses which were not a community group (n=977)

Further issues were identified in regard to potential ambiguities in screening questions and

criteria used for the research. For example, a business that heated pies that were not in a

sealed bag would be classified as a Class 2, but if the pies were in sealed bags they would be

classified as a Class 3. However, the response to the screening question would have been the

same:

Do you change ANY of the chilled (or refrigerated) or heated food or drink before

selling or distributing?

As a result, it is likely that a minority of businesses in the quantitative research should, by the

strict definition of a Class 3 business, have been classified as Class 2.



CR&C 5

1.2 Screening for the qualitative case studies

The qualitative research has identified that it is only on close inspection of the business

activities that a correct classification can be made. Businesses that had been screened twice

for Class 3 status (during sample selection then during the survey) were revealed to qualify for

Class 2 status on close inspection during the case studies. In many instances, it was the

preparation and serving of one or a very small number of food items that served as a ‘tipping

point’ between Class 2 and Class 3.

For example: a small delicatessen/bakery that was visited for a case study would have been

classified Class 3 except for one item on sale: a fish and pasta salad that was prepared on the

premises. The manner of all other food storage, preparation and sales would classify the

business as Class 3.

A decision may need to be reached regarding classification of these ‘tipping point’ scenarios.

Either a ‘zero tolerance’ approach could be considered whereby any food storage, preparation

or serving (no matter how minor) is considered grounds to classify a business as Class 3.

Otherwise a system could be put in place for businesses where one or very few methods of food

storage, preparation and serving that would technically be classified as Class 3 are overlooked

and the business is classified as Class 2. Alternatively, the classification could be left to the

discretion of the EHO and their expert judgement of risk versus administrative requirements.

Council Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) are best placed to determine the classification of

a business and this, in many cases, will need to be done through a site visit or detailed

questioning about the type of activities undertaken and type of food handled. In addition, the

business classification should not be considered as fixed; it can change over time as the

activities of the business change.

.



CR&C 6

2. Temperature control

Controlling the temperature of food is a critical element of food safety. Chilled food should be

kept at 5ºC or below and hot food at 60ºC or hotter. If food is kept at another temperature, it

can only be done so for a certain period of time to ensure that it does not allow bacteria to

multiply to unsafe levels.

2.1 Thermometers – knowledge

Three in four Class 3 Businesses had a temperature probe. The incidence

was greater among businesses that handled packaged PHF, were located in

metropolitan Melbourne and were a franchise.

There is a requirement that food businesses handling potentially hazardous foods must have a

temperature measuring device. Probe thermometers are the most accurate at measuring food

temperature accurately.

Three in four (74%) food handlers indicated that they had a temperature probe (Figure 2).

The proportion of Class 3 Food Businesses with a temperature probe was reported to be

substantially lower than the proportion of all food handlers reporting the presence of a

temperature probe, surveyed in the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006. In the

2006 survey 99% of Food Safety Supervisors and 99% of junior food handlers reported that the

business had a thermometer probe, compared with only 74% of food handlers at Class 3 Food

Businesses surveyed in 2010.

Figure 2: Presence of temperature probe

71%

89%

63%

79%

47%

79%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Independent

Franchise

Non-metro

Metro

Only non-PHF

Packed PHF

Total

Q21 Do you have a temperature probe? That is, a thermometer that can be inserted into food to measure its

temperature? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 7

There were notable differences among those businesses that did and did not have a

temperature probe:

• 80% of businesses that handled packaged potentially hazardous food had a

temperature probe compared to 46% of those which only handled non-PHF

• 79% of metropolitan Class 3 Businesses compared to 63% of non-

metropolitan businesses

89% of franchised businesses compared to 71% of independent businesses.

2.2 Receiving food – knowledge

Close to one in ten food handlers thought they only had to check the

temperature of delivered chilled and frozen food occasionally or never.

Close to two in three Class 3 Businesses had frozen (63%) or chilled food (65%) delivered to

the business. Few (1%) had hot food delivered, therefore, the specific questions related to

knowledge about the handling of hot food is not included in this report due to the low sample.

Combined, 79% of Class 3 Businesses had temperature sensitive food delivered to the

business (based on responses to the types of food delivered to the business).

Food handlers at Class 3 Businesses that had either frozen or chilled food (or drink) delivered to

the business were asked how often they should check the temperature of delivered food. The

Food Safety Standards require businesses to take all practicable measures to ensure that they

only accept deliveries of potentially hazardous food that is 5ºC or below. Frozen food must be

hard frozen.

The correct response was either ‘always’ or ‘regularly, but not every delivery’. Close to seven in

ten food handlers at Class 3 Businesses which had frozen food or chilled food delivered

indicated that the temperature should always be checked (74% and 69% respectively). A

further two in ten businesses indicated that it was only necessary to check the temperature of

delivered food regularly but not every delivery (19% and 20% respectively).

Close to one in ten food handlers thought the temperature of frozen or chilled food should be

checked on delivery only occasionally or never:

• 7% of food handlers thought that they should check the temperature of frozen

food occasionally or never

• 12% of food handlers thought that they should check the temperature of

chilled food occasionally or never.

The proportion of Class 3 Food Business survey respondents reporting that they always or

regularly checked the temperature of delivered food was similar to the proportion of all food

handlers surveyed in the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006 (78% always, 21%

regularly).



CR&C 8

Figure 3: Frequency of checking temperature of delivered food

74%

19%

5%2% 0%

69%

20%

8%4%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Always Regularly, but

not every

delivery

Occasionally Never Don't know

Frozen Chilled

Q13 How often should you check the temperature of frozen food when delivered? Q16 How often should you check the temperature of chilled food when delivered? Base: Class 3 Businesses receiving frozen food (n=188) or chilled food (n=194)

One in three Class 3 food handlers indicated that other methods, besides

using a thermometer, should be used to check the temperature of delivered

food.

Two in three food handlers indicated that a thermometer should be used to check the

temperature of delivered food, (69% for frozen food and 67% for chilled food) – the correct

response.

One in three food handlers indicated that other methods should be used to check the

temperature of delivered food, including:

• A laser or ray gun (18% for frozen food and 16% for chilled food)

• The temperature gauge in the delivery vehicle (8% for frozen food and 7% for

chilled food)

• Appearance (4% each for frozen and chilled food)

• Touch (4% each for frozen and chilled food).

Other methods of checking the temperature of delivered frozen food usually involved checking

the temperature of the fridge/freezer. For chilled food, other methods included checking the

temperature gauge of the fridge, asking the driver the temperature of the food, and some

mentioned that it is not checked (an indication of not differentiating knowledge from practice).



CR&C 9

The proportion of food handlers reporting correct temperature checking practices at Class 3

Food Businesses was lower than the proportion of all food handlers surveyed in the Food

Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006. 96% of Food Safety Supervisors and 93% of

junior staff reported correct temperature checking practices in the 2006 survey, compared with

67%-69% for the Class 3 Food Business Survey.

Figure 4: Method that should check the temperature of delivered food

3%

3%

4%

4%

8%

18%

69%

3%

4%

4%

4%

7%

16%

67%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Other

Touch

Appearance

Temperature gauge

in vehicle

Laser/ray gun

Thermometer

Frozen Chilled

Q14 How should you check the temperature of delivered frozen food? Q17 How should you check the temperature of delivered chilled food? Base: Class 3 Businesses receiving frozen food (n=188) or chilled food (n=194)

2.3 Temperature of stored food – knowledge

Almost all Class 3 food handlers were aware of which foods require

refrigeration, and which do not.

Nine in ten food handlers knew that a variety of foods needed to be refrigerated to ensure that

they remained safe for use the next day (Figure 5), although close to one in ten did not know.

• 91% knew that an egg sandwich should be refrigerated

• 91% knew that lasagne should be refrigerated

• 89% knew that fruit salad should be refrigerated

• 87% knew that cooked rice should be refrigerated.

Over one in ten (14%) food handlers thought that Vegemite needed to be kept refrigerated

which was not necessary. Metropolitan businesses were more likely to think that Vegemite



CR&C 10

needed to be refrigerated compared to their non-metropolitan counterparts (17% and 8%

respectively).

Two percent of business did not think that any of these foods needed to be refrigerated.

A minority (4% or 5%) indicated that for each food type they did not know if it should or should

not be refrigerated to remain safe for use the next day.

No differences were observed between findings for Class 3 food handlers in relation to

refrigeration, and findings for all food handlers surveyed in the Food Business Skills and

Knowledge Survey 2006.

Figure 5: Ready-to-eat foods requiring refrigeration

2%

14%

87%

89%

91%

91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of them

A jar of vegemite

(incorrect)

Cooked rice

Fruit salad

Lasagne

Egg sandwich

Q29 Which of the following foods need to be kept refrigerated to ensure they remain safe for use the next day? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)

2.4 Temperature danger zone – knowledge

Knowledge of the ‘temperature danger zone’ as a concept is wide spread for

food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses. The temperature range that

forms the zone is less well known.

While the majority of food handlers had heard of the ‘temperature danger zone’, levels of

knowledge of what this meant was reasonable low (Figure 6). In total, 80% of food handlers

had heard of the temperature danger zone, 39% were able to correctly identify the actual

temperature range of 4ºC/5ºC to 60ºC.



CR&C 11

A small proportion (4%) of those food handlers who had heard of the ‘temperature danger zone’

mentioned a slight variation on the correct temperature range, 18% were clearly incorrect and

30% did not know.

Food handlers at franchised Class 3 Businesses were more likely to have correct knowledge of

the ‘temperature danger zone’ than non-franchise businesses (54% and 35% respectively).

Figure 6: Awareness and knowledge of temperature danger zone

80%

18%

2%

49%

4%

18%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Heard Not heard Don't know 4ºC/5ºC to

60ºC

Variation

on temp.

danger

zone

Incorrect Don't know

39% of all

Class 3

Q26 Have you heard of the temperature danger zone? Q27 Giving your answers in Celsius or Centigrade, what is the temperature danger zone? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300); businesses heard of temperature danger zone (n=240)

2.5 Temperature control for chilled food – knowledge

Food handlers at one in four Class 3 Businesses did not know the correct

temperature for storing chilled food.

If Class 3 Businesses stored chilled food, food handlers were asked about their knowledge of

storage temperatures of chilled food. Three quarters (75%) of food handlers indicated that they

stored chilled food or drink. Of those that who stored food or drink, three quarters (72%) knew

that the chilled food should be stored at or below 5ºC (Figure 7):

• 62% correctly mentioned between 0ºC and 5ºC

• 20% of businesses incorrectly said that chilled food should be stored at a

temperature over 5ºC



CR&C 12

• 5% did not know at what temperature chilled food should be stored.

The proportion of food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses correctly reporting a safe

temperature for chilled food was lower than the proportion reported by all food handlers

surveyed in the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006. 79% of Food Safety

Supervisors and 76% of junior food handlers reported a safe temperature in the 2006 survey

compared with 62% for the Class 3 Food Business survey.

Figure 7: Temperature for storing cold food

7%3%

12%

28%

22%

16%

4% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

-5ºC -4 to -1ºC 0 to 3ºC 4ºC 5ºC 6 to 9ºC ≥10ºC Don't

know

Q23 What temperature should chilled food (or drink) be stored at in degrees Celsius? Base: Class 3 Businesses storing chilled food (n=226)

2.6 Temperature control for hot food – knowledge

A minority of food handlers at Class 3 Businesses holding hot food did not

know the correct temperature for hot-holding.

If Class 3 Businesses held hot food, such as food in a pie warmer, Bain Marie or something

similar, food handlers were asked about the temperature that the food should be held. One in

three (33%) food handlers indicated that they held hot food and most (95%) of those correctly

knew, unprompted, that the hot food should be held at 60ºC or above (Figure 8):

• 33% specifically mentioned 60ºC to 64ºC

• 21% mentioned 65ºC to 69ºC – a safe holding temperature

• 2% incorrectly said a temperature below 60ºC

• 3% did not know at what temperature hot food should be held.



CR&C 13

The proportion of food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses correctly reporting a safe

temperature for hot food was similar to the proportion reported by all food handlers surveyed in

the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006. 41% of Food Safety Supervisors and

37% of junior food handlers reported a safe temperature in the 2006 survey compared with 33%

for the Class 3 Food Business survey.

Figure 8: Temperature for storing hot food

2%

33%

21%

27%

14%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

≤60ºC 60 to 64ºC 65 to 69ºC 70 to 79ºC ≥80ºC Don't know

Q25 At what temperature, in degrees Celsius, should cooked food be held at in a pie warmer, Bain Marie unit or something similar to keep food hot?

Base: Class 3 Businesses storing hot food (n=98)

2.7 Holding food at room temperature – knowledge

Food handlers at two in ten Class 3 Businesses thought that perishable food

could be left at room temperature for six hours or were uncertain of the

length of time that was safe before it must be thrown out.

Potentially hazardous food can be safely held at room temperature for a limited amount of time

because pathogenic bacteria can multiply rapidly at these temperatures. At maximum, food out

of temperature control may be left for 4 hours before it must be thrown out.

Food handlers at Class 3 Businesses were asked about the total number of hours that

perishable food can be left at room temperature before it must be thrown away. Time intervals

of 1 hour, 4 hours and 6 hours were given.

Three in ten (31%) food handlers correctly identified 4 hours; five in ten (51%) were more

conservative stating that food could only be left out for 1 hour before it must be thrown away. A



CR&C 14

minority (6%) thought perishable food could be out of temperature control for 6 hours and 13%

did not know.

The proportion of food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses correctly reporting a safe time

period for room temperature food was lower than the proportion reported by all food handlers

surveyed in the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006. 49% of Food Safety

Supervisors and 44% of junior food handlers reported a safe timeframe in the 2006 survey

compared with 31% for the Class 3 Food Business Survey in 2010.

Figure 9: Safely leaving perishable food at room temperature

51%

31%

6%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 hour 4 hours (correct) 6 hours Don't know

Q28 For how many hoours in total may perishable food (foods that require refrigeration like smallgoods) be left at room temperature before it must be thrown away?

Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)

2.8 Temperature control – practice

2.8.1 Thermometers – practice

Food handlers at all food businesses bar one demonstrated the effective use

of thermometers.

There remains confusion over the safe and appropriate use of ‘laser guns’

versus probe thermometers.

Most of the Class 3 business owners had a probe thermometer or a laser gun and were able to

quickly locate the temperature measuring device. Only one reported that they did not routinely

use thermometers, but had found one in a drawer in the days leading up to the case study.



CR&C 15

In general, the use of thermometers at Class 3 Food Businesses is based on advice from

EHOs, though not all reported that they took the advice. One food business reported that they

had purchased a thermometer on the advice of their EHO, but did not use it regularly. It

appeared that thermometers had been purchased because the business had to, rather than

because they wanted to maintain good practice. Another food business reported that their EHO

tested with a laser gun, and used this annual opportunity to calibrate their own gun. For

businesses whose EHO used a laser gun, this method was assumed to be appropriate and

correct.

A small number of food handlers demonstrated an over-cautious approach to the use of

thermometers and temperature checking in general approach, particularly for refrigerators.

During one case study, a food handler was observed to have been unnecessarily keeping a log

of the temperature of a fridge containing cans of soft drink, and no potentially hazardous food.

(While it is desirable to keep non-perishable beverages such as soft drink at a low temperature,

there is no regulatory requirement to keep temperature logs for these products.) This food

handler expressed relief that he would not have to maintain this log if the business was re-

classified as Class 3.

2.8.2 Receiving food – practice

Food handlers at businesses participating in the case studies were relatively

diligent in checking the temperature of delivered food. Most followed the

‘one in five’ rule for known suppliers (one in five deliveries checked for

temperature).

Checking the temperature for delivered food was seen to be very important

for both liability and profitability of the business. Food handlers were keen to

avoid damage to the reputation of their businesses, or possible liability for

unsafe food due to the poor practice of a supplier or delivery company.

Some food handlers participating in the case studies reported checking on every delivery;

however the more common approach to checking was the ‘one in five’ rule for known suppliers.

One food handler reported not checking food temperatures at point of delivery at all as it was

stated that suppliers did not have time to wait at delivery. Another food handler (working at an

ice-cream retailer) also reported that they did not check the temperature of delivered product,

and assumed that the driver did the checking. Given the nature of the product, the food handler

viewed this as acceptable practice.

The method for checking the temperature of food on delivery showed greater variation than for

checking the temperature of fridges and freezers in the business. The majority of food handlers

used thermometers, though some only had a laser gun. Food handlers would use either the

thermometer or laser gun to check the internal temperature of the box or package that food was

delivered in. Other methods included checking the delivery gauge on the vehicle, and using a

hand to feel that the food felt appropriately cold or frozen.

The majority of food handlers reported that temperature checks at point of delivery were very

important as it established liability for the quality of the produce, and protected the financial

liability of the business owner from food that was not supplied correctly. These food handlers



CR&C 16

stated reluctance to risk the reputation of their business by serving food that was unwholesome

or dangerous due to handling by a supplier or delivery company. Many participants reported

times when they had discontinued business with suppliers after repeated issues with food being

delivered at an incorrect temperature, or delivery of food that was left out in delivery areas.

2.8.3 Storing chilled food

No significant issues were noted for the storage of chilled and frozen food.

Throughout the case studies, food handlers were consistently observed to be storing chilled

foods at the correct temperature based on their temperature logs. The majority of the

refrigerators and freezers observed had working thermometers attached to them that indicated

that food inside was at the correct temperature. One minor exception was noted for this general

trend, whereby a fruit store owner maintained his fridge 1-2 degrees above the recommended 5

degrees centigrade. His rationale behind this practice was the improvement to the quality of

fruit achieved by holding them at slightly warmer temperatures. In the opinion of the food

handler, the slight increase in temperature coupled with the nature of the food (fruit) led to no

increase in the risk of food borne illness.

2.8.4 Holding hot food

Minor issues were identified for the safe heating and display of pies, and the

use of warm milk for the preparation of coffee.

It was uncommon for the Class 3 Food Businesses to stock and serve a wide range of hot

foods. Therefore observation of this aspect of safe food practice was minimal. The most

commonly observed hot food and beverages were pies heated and stored in a pie warmer, and

the preparation and serving of hot coffee. Minor issues that may affect the safety of the

products were observed for each.

The method for heating pies and pastries showed considerable variability across businesses.

Differences included whether the pies were heated from being chilled, first defrosted or heated

from frozen, whether they were heated in a microwave before being placed in the pie warmer,

and how long they were microwaved for. No food handlers reported testing the internal

temperature of the product with a probe thermometer, and generally relied on the thermostat

reading on the pie warmer. For many it was not possible to check the temperature as the pies

were sold sealed in plastic bags. All businesses visited thought their method of heating pastry

products was correct and were diligent in following it, and reported a range of information

sources as having instructed their pie-heating method. The most commonly reported source of

information was the EHO. Information provided by the EHO on inspection was considered to be

the most recent and accurate. Most businesses had a system for the rotation of stock in the pie

warmer – start by warming at the bottom and move up as warmed and ready for sale.

For the serving of hot coffee: two businesses were observed that offered espresso-style coffees,

though turnover of the product was relatively low. The heated milk used in the preparation of

lattes etc was left uncovered and cooling on the bench for extended periods, then re-heated

when the next order was placed. In each case, the operator of the coffee machine perceived



CR&C 17

the practice to be safe, and the reheated milk was not perceived to pose a threat of

contamination.

2.8.5 Temperature danger zone

Food handlers did not demonstrate a consistent understanding of the

temperature danger zone. However specific knowledge may not be required

in the majority of cases as safe temperatures are clearly displayed on most

modern equipment.

Uncertainty of the temperature danger zone was also observed during the case studies.

While food handlers may not necessarily have known the 5/60 degree temperatures associated

with the temperature danger zone, safe practice was maintained using equipment that either:

• Displayed safe temperatures on thermometers

• Sounded alarms when devices no longer stored food at safe temperatures.

Food handlers generally relied on these mechanisms to alert them to unsafe storage

temperatures rather than specific knowledge the 5/60 degree temperatures.

Many food handlers explained that storage temperatures were a far greater issue in summer.

One particularly extreme example was cited for ‘Black Saturday’ when Melbourne experienced

extreme heat and power failure meaning that the fridges and freezers of some food businesses

ceased to operate. The case studies were conducted in winter when storage of chilled food was

far less of an issue, and thus problems with storage of chilled food could not be observed. If

temperature checking requirements are to be relaxed for Class 3 food businesses, EHOs may

be required to be particularly vigilant and perhaps increase visits during summer months.



CR&C 18

3. Protecting food from contamination

3.1 Protecting food from contamination – knowledge

There was some misunderstanding concerning the touching of bread by food

handlers and the fact that food can be contaminated by a healthy food

handler. Correct cleaning of a knife was not universally understood.

Protecting food from contamination by food handlers and dirty equipment is a key food handling

practice. A series of statements about contamination which could be relevant to Class 3

Businesses was used and food handlers were asked to indicate if they were true or false. The

correct response for most statements was false; just one was true.

Nearly all food handlers were aware that (Figure 10):

• It is not safe to handle money and then cooked meat (98%)

• The same pair of disposable gloves cannot be used to unpack raw vegetables

and to slice cold meat (97%)

• It is not safe for food handlers to directly touch ham (95%).

These proportions are similar to those reported for all food handlers surveyed in the Food

Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006.

Figure 10: Knowledge of protecting food from contamination

85%

86%

92%

95%

97%

98%

14%

11%

7%

4%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Safe for food handlers to

touch bread (false)

Healthy food handler can

contaminate food (true)

Knife can be cleaned with

damp sponge (false)

Safe for food handlers to

touch ham (false)

Same gloves to unpack

vegetables and slice meat

(false)

Safe to handle money and

then cooked meat (false)

Correct Incorrect

Q30 Please answer true or false to the following? The same pair of disposable gloves can be used to unpack raw vegetables and to slice cold meat A knife can be cleaned by wiping with a damp sponge It is safe for food handlers to directly touch bread It is safe for food handlers to directly touch ham A healthy food handler can contaminate food with food poisoning bacteria It is safe for food handlers to handle money and then cooked meat Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 19

The majority were also aware of a number of other areas of correct food handling practice,

although there were a small proportion of businesses that were not:

• 92% knew that a knife cannot be cleaned by wiping with a damp sponge (7%

thought that a knife could be cleaned in this way)

• 86% knew that a healthy food handler can contaminate food with food

poisoning bacteria (11% did not think this to be true)

• 85% knew that it was not safe for food handlers to directly touch bread (14%

thought this acceptable – 24% of those only handling unpacked non-PHF).

3.2 Protecting food from contamination – practice

In general, food handlers observed and interviewed for the case studies

demonstrated sound knowledge and practice in relation to protecting food

from contamination.

The primary risk factor associated with contamination was the need for

repairs to the areas used to store and prepare food. Many food handlers

demonstrated damage or wear to their premises which they indicated were

unlikely to be resolved due to the associated expense.

In general, food handlers participating in the case studies demonstrated good understanding

and practice with regards to protecting food from contamination.

• Businesses were observed to have multiple sinks for effective washing and

sanitisation

• Businesses maintained cleaning procedures, equipment and chemicals to

ensure effective protection from contamination

• Food handlers were observed to wear gloves when appropriate and to wash

their hands when appropriate

• Equipment and surfaces were observed to be clean

• Food was observed to be stored in sealed containers on secure shelving.

Many other aspects of cross contamination generally do not apply to Class 3 Businesses such

as the use of multiple chopping boards and separating raw and cooked food. The requirement

for these considerations was not generally observed during the case studies.

The major risk to food safety observed during the case studies was the structural maintenance

of food premises to ensure a safe environment. Many of the businesses observed were noted

to require repairs to the building or facilities, for example:

• Empty or damaged light fittings above food storage areas

• Lack of cupboard doors for food and utensil storage areas

• Unsealed and worn seals on benches.

When queried on the history of these structural deficiencies, food handlers were quick to admit

that their EHO had identified these issues and recommended that maintenance take place. The



CR&C 20

repairs had not been effected either because the business saw that they could not afford it, or

that the business was renting the premises and the owner would not provide the required

maintenance. One business stored boxes of soft drink on the ground in a store room rather

than on shelving off the ground, though they were aware this was against the regulations.

Such repairs and maintenance were seen as one of the more expensive aspects of compliance,

but also the one of least relevance to the safety of the food stored and served. Food handlers

generally did not consider there to be any risk posed by the maintenance issues. These

practices by businesses were aligned with their business values; where regulatory requirements

were not seen as a problem where they aligned with business interests of quality and

profitability, but were more likely to be ignored where this alignment was not strongly perceived

by the business owner or manager.



CR&C 21

4. Standards, regulation and information

4.1 Feeling informed about food safety - knowledge

Food handlers felt more informed about food safety than food safety regulation, that is, the laws

or rules set by government. Overall, 94% of food handlers felt very well informed, well informed

or informed about food safety; a slightly lower proportion felt informed about food safety

regulation (86%). Notably, more felt informed about food safety regulation compared to food

safety (33% and 22% respectively).

Junior food handlers were more likely to feel only a little informed about food safety regulations

compared to senior food handlers (22% and 10% respectively).

Levels of self-rated knowledge for food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses were similar to

those reported by all food handlers for the Food Business Skills and Knowledge Survey 2006

(98% Food Safety Supervisor, 94% junior food handler).

Figure 11: Perceived knowledge about food safety and food safety regulation

0%

6%

22%

46%

26%

0%1%

11%

33%37%

16%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not at all

informed

Informed a

little

Informed Well

informed

Very well

informed

Don't know

Food safety Food safety regulations

Q34 How well informed do you feel about food safety? Q35 And how well informed do you feel about the current food safety regulations? By that we mean the laws or rules

set by government around food safety. Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 22

4.2 Ease of complying with regulations - knowledge

Food handlers were asked if they found it easy or difficult to do what they have to meet the food

handling requirements of their local council.

Over eight in ten (85%) indicated that it was easy to meet the requirements (28% found it really

easy and 57% found it quite easy). Overall, 7% of food handlers found it difficult to meet the

food handling requirements of local council.

Among those food handlers that found it difficult to do what was required of local council, the

main areas highlighted were: the keeping the temperature logs (half of all comments) and more

general record keeping which was not seen to be relevant or appropriate for the type of

business:

Record keeping in seven different lists to maintain daily and others weekly (e.g.

temperature records are important, cleaning schedule is difficult and in some cases

unnecessary).

They want us to have separate wash basins. Basically we are classified the same

way a restaurant or food business would be and we only repack some food and

nuts every few months. It seems a bit much to comply with.

Figure 12: Ease of meeting council regulations

28%

57%

7% 6%

1% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Really easy Quite easy Neither easy

nor difficult

Quite

difficult

Really

difficult

Don't know

Q36 Do you find it easy or difficult to do what you have to do to meet the food handling requirements of your local

council? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 23

4.3 Sources of information - knowledge

While the majority of food handlers felt informed about food safety and found

information easy to obtain, half were receptive to receiving more information

about food contamination, storing, cleaning and personal hygiene. Those

who perceived they were less informed about food safety were more likely to

express interest in receiving food safety information.

Local council would be the first point of contact for half (50%) of food handlers if they were

seeking information about food safety or food hygiene (Figure 13). Other sources included:

• The Department of Health (14%)

• Food Safety Program or in-house resources (10%)

• Internet (7%).

Other sources of food safety information included area managers, manufacturers and suppliers.

Food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses were more likely to turn to their local council for food

safety information, compared to all food handlers surveyed in Food Business Skills and

Knowledge Survey 2006. 66% of Food Safety Supervisors from the 2006 survey reported that

the local council was their prime source of information, compared to 50% in the Class 3

Businesses Survey in 2010.

Conversely, food handlers at Class 3 Food Businesses were less likely to turn to the

Department of Health, compared with Food Safety Supervisors from the 2006 survey (14%

compared with 30%).

Figure 13: Sources of food safety information

2%

5%

7%

2%

1%

1%

6%

10%

2%

14%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Other

Internet

Training provider

External food safety auditor/ QA

Industry organisation

Food Safety Supervisor/Manager

Food Safety Program/ In-house

FSANZ


Local council

Q31 If you need information about food safety or food hygiene, who would you contact? Anyone else? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 24

4.4 Ease of locating food safety information – knowledge

Nine in ten (89%) food handlers found it easy to locate information about food safety, though

7% indicated that they had never looked for it (Figure 14). A higher proportion of food handlers

at non-metropolitan businesses had never looked for food safety information (12%).

When prompted with specific topics of information five in ten (48%) expressed no interest in any

of the items, though four in ten indicated that they would like more information about:

• Preventing food contamination (41%)

• Storing food safely (39%)

• Cleaning and sanitising food preparation areas (39%)

• Personal hygiene by food handlers (38%).

Food handlers at Class 3 Businesses in metropolitan areas were more likely to express some

interest in receiving information (56%) compared to those in non-metropolitan areas (42%).

There was an indication that those who had a lower level of food safety knowledge would like

more information.

Figure 14: Ease of locating food safety information

48%

38%

39%

39%

41%

7%

4%

89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of these

Personal hygiene by food

handlers

Cleaning and sanitising

food preparation areas

Storing food safely

Preventing food

contamination

Never looked for

Not easy to locate

Easy to locate

Ea

se

in

fin

din

g i

nfo

Wo

uld

lik

e i

nfo

ab

ou

t...

Q32 Do you find it easy to locate food safety information? Q33 Would you like more information about…? Base: All Class 3 Businesses (n=300)



CR&C 25

4.5 Standards, regulation and information – practice

4.5.1 Compliance

The food handlers observed for the case studies reported little difficulty

associated with compliance with food safety regulations. However, some

found compliance to be time-consuming, particularly with checks conducted

on all fridges and freezers twice a day.

Even so, food handlers generally perceived that the new classification

system would not have a significant impact on their practices.

The new classification system may lead to issues for new food businesses

who have not experienced the requirements for a Class 2 business.

All food handlers observed for the case studies indicated that it was easy for their business to

comply with current regulations and requirements for food safety. Minor points of irritation or

burden were pointed out. Similar to the survey result, key amongst these perceived areas of

burden was the requirement for frequent temperature checks of fridges and at the time of

delivery, and structural maintenance that was seen as unnecessary. The remaining

requirements were generally perceived as ‘common sense’.

None of the food handlers from the case studies were aware of the upcoming changes to the

business classification system. Food handlers’ reactions when the upcoming changes to the

system were explained were relatively muted. Typical reactions were:

• Indifference: the majority of food handlers perceived that the new Class 3

classification would have minimal impact on their practices, or the

administrative requirements of running their food businesses

• Mild appreciation: some food handlers expressed relief that a small number of

tasks would no longer need to be completed under the new system, again

typically centred on temperature logs and checking (though these

requirements will not necessarily change for all businesses)

• Mild concern: one food handler was concerned that they would need to get

detailed information about the change as soon as possible from their local

council to eliminate the possibility that they would be judged uncompliant.

These reactions suggest that the new Class 3 classification is unlikely to cause disruption to the

existing businesses affected. Food handlers appear to have become acclimatised to

requirements such as Food Safety Programs and Supervisors in Victoria.

However, this finding only applies to established food businesses. Each of the food businesses

observed for the case studies had many years to ensure that they complied with current

regulations. The same may not be true of new food businesses opening in Victoria that may be

classified as Class 3.



CR&C 26

4.5.2 The Food Safety Program

All but one food handler was aware of the Food Safety Program at the

business. The Program was not present at the business for two of the case

studies.

Use of and reference to the Program varied widely at the remaining

businesses.

The removal of the requirement for a detailed Food Safety Program is

unlikely to impact on the practice of food handlers at Class 3 food

businesses.

Twelve of the fifteen food businesses who participated in the case studies were able to show

their Food Safety Program to the researcher. A food handler at one of the businesses was not

aware of the presence or need for a Food Safety Program. In two other instances the food

handlers were aware of the Program, but reported that it was not on-site at the time of the case

study. All franchises observed for the case studies readily demonstrated their Food Safety

Program, the smaller sole-operator businesses were either not aware of or could not show their

Programs.

Actual use of the Programs varied greatly across the food businesses observed. The Program

showed evidence of use as a reference and updating for approximately half of food businesses,

the remaining half either showed little evidence of use, or was not available for observation.

Use of the Food Safety Program was a requirement for franchised food businesses, and had

become very entrenched for those businesses that actually used them. It was reported to be

unlikely that these practices would change if the requirement for maintaining a Food Safety

Program was removed for these businesses.

4.5.3 Information

EHOs and local councils are likely to be the sole source of information about

food safety for Class 3 Food Businesses going forward. Maintaining the link

between councils/EHOs and Class 3 Food Businesses will be vital.

The case studies confirmed the quantitative evidence that suggests that food handlers primarily

rely on their EHO (or ‘the local council’) for food safety information. For most, the acquisition of

information about food safety is largely a passive process. Information is conferred by the EHO

during an inspection or follow-up. Few reported actively seeking information from websites such

as the template provided by the Department of Health. The information provided by the EHO

was generally treated as gospel and acted upon (unless the advice involved significant costs

such as the maintenance issues described in Section 3.2).

The information provided by EHOs was reported to be easy to obtain given the passive nature

of the communication and the availability of the EHO, and sufficient to maintain the safe

operation of the food business.



CR&C 27

Many food handlers recalled receiving newsletters from their local council. Most reported that

they had read them and perhaps stored them for future reference. However the general feeling

was that these newsletters were of only moderate relevance and value to their business.

Given the low level of risk associated with Class 3 food business, this passive and minimalist

approach to obtaining food safety information is most likely appropriate. However, the findings

suggests the strong need to maintain the important relationship that exists between EHOs and

Class 3 food businesses, as for many the EHO and the local council will serve as the only

source of information about food safety.



CR&C 28

APPENDIX 1: DETAILED METHODOLOGY



CR&C 29

Overview

A two staged methodology was adopted to complete the Class 3 Food Businesses - Baseline

study of food safety knowledge and practices:

• Skills and Knowledge – quantitative survey of Class 3 businesses

• Practice – case studies with Class 3 businesses.

Skills and Knowledge Survey

The telephone survey was conducted using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI)

approach. The CATI facility is maintained and operated by Wallis Consulting Group, an

Interview Quality Control Australia (IQCA) accredited fieldwork supplier in metropolitan

Melbourne. Prior to full enumeration, 10 pilot surveys were conducted at the beginning of

March 2010 and the full telephone survey was conducted during March 2010 with 300 surveys

completed with Class 3 food businesses.

On average the survey took 12 minutes to complete.

A sample of food businesses was selected from lists provided by local councils. The sample

was stratified by location.

Sample selection

There is no central repository of food businesses in Victoria. Therefore, Campbell Research

adopted a previously successful approach to allow for the development of a sample of food

businesses in Victoria:

• An email flyer was sent by Food Safety and Regulation in December 2009

outlining the objectives of the project, the requirements of council and

requesting expressions of interest (Appendix A)

• Campbell Research then followed up the email request in January and

February 2010 with those councils that expressed interest in participation and

those councils which had previously supplied a similar list for another project

• In total, 21 local councils supplied a list of registered food businesses: some

provided a complete list of food businesses; some of only Class 2 food

businesses; and some of the new Class 3 businesses. The fields included:

o Business name

o Class of food business

o Phone number

o Description or classification of business (if available)

• Campbell Research ‘cleaned the sample’ using an approved methodology,

that is, food businesses which were clearly out-of-scope for the research

(Class 2). If there was any doubt as to the likely classification, the business

was retained in the sample.



CR&C 30

Sample frame

A total of 300 interviews were conducted with Class 3 food businesses. To ensure a wide

distribution of businesses across Victoria, Campbell Research drew the sample from 21

councils with quotas established by location:

• 70% of interviews in metropolitan locations (n=210)

• 30% of interviews in non-metropolitan locations (n=90).

Initially quotas were established by the position of the respondent:

• Senior/Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) - At present, in every food business

there is a requirement for a designated Food Safety Supervisor. In smaller

businesses this is likely to be the owner or manager.

• Junior - A person who reports to the FSS or the owner or manager of the

business.

However, given the size and nature of many of these businesses, the senior/junior distinction

often did not make sense, or there were no juniors around for whom the survey was relevant (or

the senior would not give permission for the interview to be conducted). As a result, this quota

was removed. Nevertheless, wherever possible an interview was conducted with junior food

handlers (Table 2).

Table 2: Survey stratification for Skills and Knowledge Survey

Quota sample - original Resulting sample

Metro Non-

metro

Total Metro Non-

metro

Total

Senior/FSS 140 60 200 190 78 268

Junior 70 30 100 20 12 32

Total 210 90 300 210 90 300

Call analysis and survey response rates

In total, 2,631 businesses were called to achieve the 300 complete interviews (11% of all

businesses called). However, this does not reflect the response rate given that many

businesses contacted were out-of-scope (49% were ineligible) or their business classification

had not been determined (31% had a call back appointment).

Based on only those businesses interviewed (300) and those who refused (89), 77% of in-scope

businesses completed the Skills and Knowledge Survey.



CR&C 31

Table 3: Field report for Class 3 Food Businesses Baseline Study

Number % of sample % of calls

Total sample 6,182 100%

Not called 3,551 57%

Called 2,631 43% 100%

Interviewed 300 11%

Refused 89 3%

Call back appointment 828 31%

Ineligible 1,284 49%

Bad number 130 5%

Sample profile of Class 3 Businesses

The majority of the 300 Class 3 Businesses included in the Skills and Knowledge Survey

handled packaged potentially hazardous food (PHF) and two thirds were retailers (Figure 15).

Specifically:

• 85% handled packaged PHF – businesses may also have handled non-PHF

although this was not asked as it was not necessary to determine

classification status

o 15% only handled unpackaged non potentially hazardous food

• 70% of businesses were located in a metropolitan area – this was quota

controlled

• 65% of businesses were in the retail sector

• 19% of businesses were a franchised outlet, operating under an umbrella

trading name (almost all of these were in the retail sector).



CR&C 32

Figure 15: Profile of Class 3 businesses

81%

19%

2%

10%

10%

13%

65%

30%

70%

15%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not franchise

Franchise

Community (≥3 days)

W/sale / distributors

Manufacturing

Hospitality

Retail

Non-metro

Metro

Handle unpackaged non-PHF

Handle packaged PHF


Profile of respondents

Respondents to the Skills and Knowledge Survey represented those of varied experience. The

position of the respondent was initially quota controlled for senior (n=200) and junior (n=100)

food handlers, however, early fieldwork indicated that this was unlikely to be achievable given

the nature of Class 3 Businesses (no one reporting to the Food Safety Supervisor or owner of

the business). The quota by position was removed although whenever feasible an interview

was conducted with a junior person.

Of the sample of 300 Class 3 businesses, nine in ten (89%) of interviews were conducted with

senior food handlers, that is, the Food Safety Supervisor (FSS) or the owner in charge of the

business (Figure 16). Over half of the businesses (60%) which were identified as having Class

3 Food Businesses who reported to the FSS would not give permission for the interview to

proceed with this person.

Respondents had worked in a food handling role for many years with 68% having at least five

years experience. Only 3% had less than one year’s experience.

Just over half (56%) of the respondents were male and under half female (44%).

Half (50%) of the respondents were aged 45 or more years, and just 5% were under 24 years.



CR&C 33

Figure 16: Profile of respondents

50%

45%

5%

44%

56%

24%

20%

24%

15%

12%

3%

11%

89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

45 or more yrs

24-44 yrs

Under 24 yrs

Female

Male

15+ yrs

10-14 yrs

5-9 yrs

3-4 yrs

1-2 yrs

< 1 yr

Junior

Senior

Yea

rs in

fo

od

han

dli

ng

Po

sit

ion


Practice Case Studies

Previous measures of practice commissioned by Food Safety and Regulation have been

quantitative in nature, that is, observations were conducted by Class 3 Food Businesses with

experience in the food services industry. For example, the 2006 study was implemented by

qualified EHOs and student environmental health degree students.

The approach taken for this project was a move away from a quantitative measure of specific

practices to a series of in-depth case studies of food businesses. This approach was selected

for the in-depth and flexible nature of the case study which can provide a richer source of

information on practice and exploration of food handler’s needs.

Fifteen businesses were selected for participation in the case studies. They were recruited from

those businesses which expressed an interest in participation during the telephone survey and

include a spread of food businesses by:

• Location

o 11 metropolitan

o 4 non-metropolitan

• Different business types

o Wholesaler/distributor

o Entertainment complex



CR&C 34

o Local retailer

o Franchised retailer

o Retail

o Hospitality

o Manufacturers

o Warehouse/ distributor.

These fifteen case studies were conducted between 8 April and 30 April 2010 by qualified and

independent researchers from Campbell Research.



CR&C 35

APPENDIX 2: COUNCILS PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY



CR&C 36

Campbell Research would like to thank all of the councils who assisted with

the administration of the survey.

Table 4: Local Government Councils participating in the Telephone Survey

Metropolitan councils Non-metropolitan councils

Banyule City Council Alpine Shire Council

Booroondara City Council Ballarat City Council

Hume City Council East Gippsland Shire Council

Frankston City Council Greater Bendigo City Council

Casey City Council Greater Geelong City Council

Glen Eira City Council Mansfield Shire Council

Greater Dandenong City Council Mount Alexander Shire Council

Darebin City Council Surf Coast Shire

Knox City Council

Manningham City Council

Port Phillip City Council

Whitehorse City Council

Yarra City Council



CR&C 37

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION GUIDE



CR&C 38

Introduction

As you may or may not know, from the middle of this year there will be a change for food

businesses which are deemed of lower risk. The change will mean a reduction in the

requirements, like keeping records. So this research is with businesses that may be involved

with these changes. Of course, the classification decision is a council responsibility and more

information will be provided by council.

Introduction about the nature of the observation and discussion:

• For the Department of Health, Victoria

• Last 2-3 hours at the most

• Involve watching and asking some questions about how the business operates

o Start from the delivery area and move through storage to the selling of goods

o General discussion about information needs and changes that will soon happen in the

classification of food businesses

• Confidentiality, privacy and non-identifiable when results are reported.

If asked to leave business for any reason:

• Remind them that you are not an inspector – individual business details will be kept

confidential

• The business was randomly selected for case study

• We need to include different types of businesses

• Contact at Department of Health if there are any concerns: Heather Haines (9096 5751)

About the business

Name of business _________________________

Type of business _________________________

Name of respondent _________________________

Position of respondent _________________________

Number of staff working at business______________

Tell me something about the type of food / drink handled by the business:

o Refrigerated / heated foods/drink (packaged)

o Non-refrigerated / heated foods/drink (unpackaged)

(Note: There is no need to focus on packaged non-PHF.)



CR&C 39

Receiving food

If receive PHF:

• When are deliveries received? Is it during business hours or is some out of hours? How

long does it take before the food/drink is stored?

• What happens when food/drink is delivered?

o Does someone check labels; is there a check of best before/ use by dates?

o Are checks made of the temperature? How do they know that food/drink transported at

the correct temperature?

• Who is responsible for checking of deliveries?

• How is it protected from contamination; is the packaging appropriate?

• How is the goods receiving form used? Are they up to date?

• What changes will there be if they didn’t have to keep a temperature log?

For non-PHF which is unpackaged:

• What happens when food/drink is delivered?

o Does someone check labels; is there a check of best before/ use by dates?

o How is it protected from contamination when delivered?

Thermometers

Does the business have a probe thermometer? Or any other sort of thermometer or laser gun?

• Is it easily accessible? Visible?

• When is the probe thermometer used? Who uses and how often?

• Was it used while at the business?

• Was it clean/ cleaned when used?

Food storage

Chilled/ frozen food and drink

Are the fridges/freezers operating at correct temperatures? If not, is there a reason?

o Check temperature of cool room/ refrigerators - are goods stored at or below 5ºC?

o Check temperature of freezers – are goods stored at or below 15ºC?

How is the temperature of the equipment checked? Is it calibrated – equipment calibration

form?

How often is the temperature of the equipment checked?

Have there been any problems with the equipment? How were they fixed?

Is there a record (log) of storage temperatures, how is it filled in, and what purpose does the

record serve?



CR&C 40

Dry goods/ non-PHF/ unpackaged goods

Are the non-PHF/ unpackaged goods stored appropriately?

• Are they adequately protected from contamination?

• Are they off the floor, away from chemicals?

• How is it served/ packed for sale?

Reheating of chilled food

How is PHF reheated?

How do they know that foods to be served hot are hot enough? (≥60ºC)

Transporting of food

Is any chilled or hot food transported from the business to another location?

• What types of goods are transported?

• How is it transported?

• How long does it take?

• Is it transported at the appropriate temperature? (≤5ºC or ≥60ºC)

General assessment of premises

Check for:

• Use of chemicals for sanitisation? For what purpose? Are they used correctly (eg. are

they made up according to instructions, are they changed regularly)?

• General cleanliness of premises (what cleaned, how often?)

• State of equipment (working properly? clean?)

• Is it free of pests, has there been an issue, how managed?

Information and training

Check for signage regarding food handling – note what displayed and source of material.

What types of information received from council/ Department?

• What is useful and not useful?

• Is there anything else that they would like, expect of council/Department?

What level of contact do they have with council? Is it appropriate? What else could

council/EHOs do to support the business?



CR&C 41

Is there a Food Safety Program at the business?

• What is the name of the registered template? Is it generic from DoH or a registered

template

• How is it used? Usefulness?

• Who uses it?

• What would happen if there wasn’t a FSP for the business?

There are certain things which you have to do for local council when you have a food business

like filling goods received log, temperature logs how do you find this paperwork? Is it

easy/difficult to fill in; of value/no value; waste of time; etc. PROBE

• Goods receiving form

• Storage unit temperature log

• Equipment calibration

• Approved food suppliers

In what areas, if any, do you find it difficult to meet council requirements?

Impact of change

In Victoria, food businesses are classified according to risk:

• At present: Class 1 and Class 2 food businesses.

• From 1 July 2010: Class 2 businesses will be broken into Class 2, 3 and 4.

The change in the classification of Class 2 food businesses and community groups is intended

to reduce the costs associated with compliance, without compromising public health for

businesses of lower risk.

For businesses of lower risk this means that:

• no longer need a Food Safety Program or Food Safety Supervisor

• only need to keep basic records about their food handling practices

• Annual inspections will still apply.

Your local council EHO will speak to you about these changes and what it means for you.

What, if anything, did they know about the changes to the classification system?

How will this impact on the way they operate?



CR&C 42

APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE

Class 3 Food Businesses Baseline Study CR&C 1116 Department of Health Questionnaire – Main Page 43

1. Introduction Good <morning/afternoon/evening>, my name is <NAME> from Campbell Research & Consulting. We’re conducting a study for the Department of Health with businesses that handle or sell food or drink. Can I please speak with the owner or the person who is in charge at the moment?

TRY TO GET NAME AND DIRECT PHONE NUMBER IF RESPONDENT IS NOT AVAILABLE OR MAKE A CALL BACK TIME.

� Continue with owner

� Continue with person in charge

� Make appointment

IF RESPONDENT SAYS THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FOOD OR DRINK SAY:

Can I confirm that you don’t handle or sell any type of food or drink. It could be anything like chips, chocolate, sandwiches or drinks.

� Do not sell any food or drink - GO TO TERMINATION

� Sell food/drink - CONTINUE

WHEN SPEAKING TO OWNER OR PERSON IN CHARGE (REPEAT IF NECESSARY):

Good <morning/afternoon/evening>, my name is <NAME> from Campbell Research & Consulting. We’re conducting a study for the Department of Health with businesses that handle or sell food or drink.

READ TO ALL:

The survey is about food safety. The results will only be used for research purposes. Any information provided will be kept confidential. The interview will take about 10 minutes.

IF NECESSARY: The information you provide will NOT be used to issue an inspection on the business.

1.1 Screen

From July 2010, businesses which handle or sell food or drink which are of a lower risk will only have to keep basic records about their food handling. There will no longer be a need for a Food Safety Program or a Food Safety Supervisor at the business.

IF ASKED ABOUT INSPECTIONS: Any registered food businesses will still have council inspections.


I first need to check some details to make sure we are only including businesses handling food or drink of lower risk.

Q1. Is this business a community group or charity which does not operate for profit?

IF NECESSARY: I mean a business like a local sporting club, senior citizens group, church group or another not-for-profit business.

� 1. Yes – community group / not-for-profit business

� 2. No – not a community group / for-profit business - GO TO Q3

Q2. In a normal week, how many days does the business operate in a row? Is it…?

� 1. 3 days or more in a row in a week (like Friday, Saturday and Sunday) – GO TO Q4

� 2. 2 days or less in a row in a week (like Saturday and Sunday; or Monday, Thursday and Friday) – GO TO TERMINATION

� 3. Don’t know – GO TO Q4

Q3. Which of these best describes the business…? READ CODES 1 to 4. GIVE EXAMPLES WHERE NECESSARY. SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY

� 1. Retailer

(e.g. supermarkets, bakeries, greengrocers, market stalls, service stations/convenience stores)

� 2. Hospitality

(e.g. takeaway, cafe’, mobile food cart, B&B, bar, school)

� 3. Manufacturer

(producing goods for distribution beyond the local area)

� 4. Wholesaler or distributor

(where goods requiring storage are kept before retail distribution)

� 5. Other (specify)___________ONLY USE IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

Q4. Does the business handle or sell any food or drink which must be refrigerated or heated to keep it safe?

I mean things like meats, seafood, dairy products, fruit salad, milk, yoghurt or fresh juice?

IF NECESSARY: This doesn’t mean refrigerating, for example, soft drink which does not have to be refrigerated to keep it safe, but which may be preferable for sale.

� 1. Yes - food/drink must be refrigerated/heated– GO TO Q5

� 2. No – food/drink does not have to be refrigerated/heated – GO TO Q7


Q5. Do you change ANY of the chilled (refrigerated) or heated food or drink before selling or distributing?

(IF NECESSARY: I mean by making, preparing, cooking, cutting or mixing it?)

� 1. Yes – change food or drink – GO TO TERMINATION

� 2. No – sold in same form as bought – GO TO Q6

Q6. Just as a check, is ALL of this food or drink (chilled or heated), sold or distributed in the same form as received by you?

FOR NON-MANUFACTURERS: So you might buy pies, and then heat to sell. You could put yogurt in the fridge for sale or put milk in coffee.

FOR MANUFACTURERS: So you might receive packaged goods, and then distribute them without repackaging, cutting, cooking, or mixing.

� 1. Yes - Q9

� 2. No – GO TO TERMINATION

Q7. Now think of the food or drink which does not have to be chilled (refrigerated) or heated, is ALL food or drink bought packaged and sold or distributed in the same way?

FOR NON-MANUFACTURERS: This could be like bags of chips, whole fruit and vegetables, bread, and canned food.

� 1. Yes – GO TO TERMINATION

� 2. No – GO TO Q8

Q8. Just as a check, so SOME of this food or drink is processed, received unpackaged or repackaged for sale?

FOR NON-MANUFACTURERS: This could be receiving unwrapped confectionery, chopping and packaging fruit or veg, putting fresh popcorn in a container.

FOR MANUFACTURERS: So this means you process or prepare low risk food or drink.

� 1. Yes - Q9

� 2. No – GO TO TERMINATION


2. Respondent selection

Q9. Are you the nominated Food Safety Supervisor in the business?

� 1. Yes – Food Safety Supervisor (FSS)

� 2. No – Not FSS

� 3. Don’t know if FSS

Q10. Is there anyone at the business who reports to you or do you work by yourself?

� 1. Others report to owner/person in charge

� 2. Work by self/ no others report to owner/person in charge – (FSS GO TO SECTION 3)

Q11. Could I please speak with a person who reports to you (junior)?

� 1. Available to speak to – ASK TO BE TRANSFERRED

� 2. Not available to speak to – MAKE APPOINTMENT

� 3. Not given permission to speak – CONTINUE WITH OWNER/PERSON IN CHARGE

CHECK QUOTA OF FSS AND JUNIOR

IF NEW RESPONDENT

Good <morning/afternoon/evening>, my name is <NAME> from Campbell Research & Consulting. We’re conducting a study on behalf of the Department of Health speaking to businesses that handle or sell food or drink.

The survey is about food safety knowledge and will only be used for research purposes. Any information provided will be kept confidential.


3. Temperature The first set of questions are general knowledge about controlling the temperature of food.

3.1 Delivered hot and cold

3.1.1 Frozen food

Q12. Do you have frozen foods delivered to your business?

DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE

� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q15

� 3. DK/Not Sure GO TO Q15

Q13. How often should you check the temperature of frozen food when delivered? Should you check it….

READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE

� 1. Never

� 2. Occasionally

� 3. Regularly, but not every delivery

� 4. Always

� 5. DK/Not Sure

Q14. How should you check the temperature of delivered frozen food?

DO NOT READ OUT. MULTIPLE ALLOWED

� 1. By touch

� 2. By appearance – looking at it

� 3. Using a thermometer/temperature probe

� 4. Temperature gauge in the delivery vehicle

� 5. Laser/ray gun

� 6. Other (please specify)___________________

� 7. DK/Not sure

3.1.2 Chilled food

Q15. Do you have chilled (refrigerated) foods delivered to your business?


� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q18


Q16. How often should you check the temperature of chilled food when delivered? Should you check it….



� 1. Never

� 2. Occasionally


� 4. Always

� 5. DK/Not Sure

Q17. How should you check the temperature of delivered chilled food?

DO NOT READ OUT, MULTIPLE ALLOWED

� 1. By touch





� 6. Other (please specify)_____________________

� 7. DK/Not sure

3.1.3 Hot food

Q18. Do you have hot foods delivered to your business?

DO NOT READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE

� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q21

� 3. Don’t know GO TO Q21

Q19. How often should you check the temperature of hot food when delivered? Should you check it….


� 1. Never

� 2. Occasionally


� 4. Always

� 5. DK/Not Sure

Q20. How should you check the temperature of delivered hot food?

DO NOT READ OUT. MULTIPLE ALLOWED

� 1. By touch





� 6. Other (please specify)_________________________


� 7. DK/Not sure

Q21. Do you have a temperature probe? That is, a thermometer that can be inserted into food to measure its temperature?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: A LASER/RAY GUN IS NOT A TEMPERATURE PROBE.


� 1. Yes

� 2. No

� 3. Not necessary for the type of food we receive

� 4. DK/Not Sure

3.2 Storing Cold Food

Q22. Do you store chilled (refrigerated) food at your business? IF NO FOOD ASK ABOUT DRINK


� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q24


Q23. What temperature should chilled food (or drink) be stored at in degrees celsius?

IF NECESSARY: What is your best guess?

(INTERVIEWER NOTE – TAKE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE IF A RANGE IS GIVEN.

IF A NUMBER ABOVE 5 CHECK THAT IT IS NOT A DIAL READING FROM AN APPLIANCE.

IF A MINUS NUMBER IS GIVEN SPECIFY THAT IT IS CHIILED NOT FROZEN FOOD.)


� 1. (SPECIFY) ____ Celsius

� 2. DK/Not Sure

3.3 Storing Hot Food

Q24. Do you hold cooked food in a pie warmer, Bain Marie unit or something similar to keep food hot?

(INTERVIEWER NOTE: A BAIN MARIE IS A DEVICE USING HOT WATER THAT KEEPS FOOD HOT WHILE ON DISPLAY – SUCH AS A BUFFET).


� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q26



Q25. At what temperature, in degrees celsius, should cooked food be held in a pie warmer, Bain Marie unit or something similar to keep food hot?

IF NECESSARY: What is your best guess?

(INTERVIEWER NOTE – TAKE MINIMUM TEMPERATURE IF A RANGE IS GIVEN.

IF A NUMBER LESS THAN 10 CHECK THAT IT IS NOT A DIAL READING FROM AN APPLIANCE.)


� 1. (Specify) ____ Celsius/Centigrade

� 2. DK/Not Sure

Q26. Have you heard of the temperature danger zone?

� 1. Yes

� 2. No GO TO Q28


Q27. Giving your answer in Celsius or Centigrade, what is the ‘temperature danger zone’? DO NOT READ OUT

IF NECESSARY: What are the lower and upper limits in Celsius

� 1. 4ºC/5 ºC to 60 ºC

� 2. Other (specify)_________________

� 3. Don’t know

4. Knowledge - Temperature

Q28. For how many hours in total may perishable food (foods that require refrigeration like smallgoods) be left at room temperature before it must be thrown away? READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE.

� 1. 1 hour

� 2. 4 hours

� 3. 6 hours

� 4. Don’t know


Q29. Which of the following foods need to be kept refrigerated to ensure they remain safe for use the next day? Does (READ ITEM) need to be kept refrigerated?

Rotate items Yes No Don’t know

Cooked rice � � �

Fruit salad � � �

Lasagne � � �

Egg sandwich � � �

A jar of vegemite � � �

5. Contamination and Hygiene The next few questions are about food contamination and personal hygiene.

I am going to read a few statements and ask you to tell me if they are true or false. Most of these questions are general food handling questions but some may not be directly relevant to your business. Please answer to the best of your knowledge.

(INTERVIEWER NOTE: Do not force a response; however do not encourage DK/not sure unless respondent is really unsure.)

Q30. Please answer true / false to the following… (READ ITEMS)

Rotate items True False Don’t know

The same pair of disposable gloves can be used to unpack raw vegetables and to slice cold meat

� � �

A knife can be cleaned by wiping with a damp sponge

� � �

It is safe for food handlers to directly touch bread � � �

It is safe for food handlers to directly touch ham � � �

A healthy food handler can contaminate food with food poisoning bacteria

� � �

It is safe for food handlers to handle money and then cooked meat

� � �


5. Information, Standards & Regulation

5.1 Information

The last few questions ask how you keep up-to-date about food safety issues.

Q31. If you need information about food safety or food hygiene, who would you contact? … Anyone else?

DO NOT READ - RECORD FIRST MENTIONED, THEN PROBE.

Government

� 1. Local council/ Environmental Health Officer (EHO). Health Inspector

� 2. Department of Health/DOH/ State government department

� 3. FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand)

Own organisation

� 4 Food Safety Program/In-house resources/intranet

� 5 Food safety supervisor/manager

Other organisation

� 6. Industry association (eg food retailers association, restaurant & caterers association)

� 7. Chemical company supplying cleaning products

� 8. Another supplier (non-chemical company)

� 9. External food safety auditor/quality assurance person

� 10. Training provider

Other

� 11 Internet (not specified source)

� 12. Other (Specify)

� 13. DK/Not Sure

Q32. Do you find it easy to locate food safety information?


� 1. Yes

� 2. No

� 3. Never looked for it

� 4. DK/Not Sure


Q33. Would you like more information about…?

Rotate items Yes No Don’t know

Storing food safely � � �

Cleaning and sanitising food preparation areas � � �

Preventing food contamination � � �

Personal hygiene by food handlers � � �

Q34. How well informed do you feel about food safety? Would you say…


� 1. Not at all informed

� 2. Informed a little

� 3. Informed

� 4. Well informed

� 5. Very well informed

� 6. DK/Not Sure

5.2 Standards and Regulation

Q35. And how well informed do you feel about the current food safety regulations. By that we mean the laws or rules set by government around food safety. Would you say…


� 1. Not at all informed

� 2. Informed a little

� 3. Informed

� 4. Well informed

� 5. Very well informed

� 6. DK/Not Sure

Q36. Do you find it easy or difficult to do what you have to meet the food handling requirements of your local council? Is that really or quite (easy/difficult)?

� 1. Really easy to meet requirements GO TO Q38

� 2. Quite easy to meet requirements GO TO Q38

� 3. Neither easy not difficult GO TO Q38

� 4. Quite difficult to meet requirements

� 5. Really difficult to meet requirements


� 6. DK/Not sure GO TO Q38

Q37. In which areas do you find it difficult to meet council requirements or do what they ask?

DO NOT READ OUT

� .1 Keeping the temperature logs

� 2. Maintaining the Food Safety Program

� 3. Keeping fridges at the correct temperature

� 4. Rotating the stock

� 5. Washing and sanitising food preparation areas

� 6. Appropriate use of disposable gloves

� 7. Other (specify)________________________________

8. Demographics Finally just a few questions about the business and you.

Q38. Is this business a franchised outlet? That is a business which is trading under an umbrella organisation name (eg. Seven 11, Coles Express)

� 1. Yes – franchise

� 2. No – not franchise

Q39. Record Gender (DO NOT READ QUESTION, JUST RECORD).

� 1. Male

� 2. Female

Q40. Altogether, how long have you worked in a role where you personally have been involved in food handling?

ROUND TO NEAREST YEAR UNLESS LESS THAN 1 YEAR

� Specify _______ months (RECORD IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

� Specify _______ years

� Don’t know

Q41. To which age bracket do you belong?

� 1. Under 24 years

� 2. 24-44 years

� 3. 45 years or above


6. End Interview Thank you for your time. Just in case you missed it, my name is < … > from Campbell Research & Consulting.

IF JUNIOR ASK TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO OWNER/MANAGER: IF UNAVAILABLE RECORD Q42 AS NOT INTERESTED.

ASK IF OWNER / MANAGER:

Q42. We will be conducting a number of case studies in the next few months. This will involve a researcher from Campbell Research coming to observe your business in operation for 2 to 3 hours. The business will be paid $100 to cover any expenses. Is this something that you may be interested in?

� Interested

� Not interested

ASK ALL: Could I record your name in case my supervisor would like to call you over the next couple of days to make sure you are happy with the way the interview was conducted. Respondent full name:_________________________

7. Terminate Interview At this time we want to interview people who work in other types of businesses. Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in the interview, but I cannot include your business as the questions will not be relevant.

class 3 food business baseline study...

Documents