Pest Control - Time to take it seriously

Recently, Pest IT’s Peter McCarthy was invited to speak at the 14th Annual HACCP Conference. 

Peter was given the opportunity to discuss the real implications of pest problems in food production and services businesses.  The end result is that it is time to take pest management seriously.  Below is the paper presented by Peter McCarthy, with co-author Dr Sali Bache.

Food production and service businesses are under constant pressure from various economic and disease carrying pests.  Vertebrate and non-vertebrate pests such as rodents, cockroaches, flies, birds and other organisms can spread disease and physically damage stored or finished product.  Fresh and uncooked food is of particular concern.  Diseases transmitted by pest species include salmonella, E.coli, avian influenza, campylobacter, helicobacter, listeria and even meningitis.  These can result in ailments ranging from minor stomach upsets to death. 

Is it time for food producers to take pest control seriously? 

Each year there are 5.4 million reported cases of food poisonings and 18,000 hospitalisations, resulting in 120 fatalities in Australia. It is impossible, however, to quantify the flow-on effects, such as the loss of production, staff absenteeism, damage to company reputations, and loss of confidence from suppliers and/or clients that these issues cause.

It also remains uncertain what proportion of food poisoning cases are the direct result of pests in commercial food facilities. Pests do have serious consequences when allowed to come into contact with food intended for human consumption. This paper discusses a number of recent case studies where forensic science has directly linked pest contamination with fatalities and serious illness. 

The implications of pest related incidents include:

• Loss of clientele and damage to company goodwill
• Potential for serious disease and death on a local to mass scale
• Loss of featus due to listeria
• Being added to various “Name and Shame” lists
• Becoming a target of consumer groups
• Losing the confidence of stakeholders (suppliers or clients) in the HACCP supply chain
• Finding a friendly journalist from A Current Affair or Today Tonight on your doorstep
• Being fined by local council or state health departments, having costs awarded against and/or being required to pay for “corrective advertising”
• Having additional license conditions imposed
• Infringement notices followed by cancellation or suspension of a license
• Losing potential export opportunities
• The public’s “perceived risk” relating to pest birds and Avian influenza on your site
• Employees walking off the job due to bird droppings in the workplace, and direct hits from nesting birds above
• Major local, national or international product recalls and a subsequent PR exercise to regain consumer confidence.

All of these are real and are occurring in Australia on a daily basis. 

Food facilities are also at risk of being sued by clients and members of the public. Many state statutes extend liability to employees, proprietors and individual company directors. Last year in NSW 12 successful prosecutions were finalized, equating to a total of $88,500 in fines and $141,000 in costs - an average of a little under $20,000 per prosecution. Fines have included incidences of failure to keep a premise free of vermin (Moore, 23 May 2007, Herald).  Facilities (production, storage, retail, etc) have a duty of care to protect clients as well as employees, contractors and visitors to the site. Being held liable for the following has occurred in international markets, and is becoming an increasing concern in Australia: 

• A fatality in a kindergarten due to flies in contact with food carrying E.coli (O157),
• A visitor slipping over on bird droppings in a food facility,
• A member of the public finding a pest baked into a pizza base,
• A mosquito bite resulting in an arbovirus such as Ross River fever.

I mentioned at the 10th Annual HACCP Conference in Adelaide that many food facilities use the cheapest price as the primary consideration for selecting a pest manager.  As discussed, this will certainly not result in a modern approach. What characteristics you base your pest management contractor on is up to you and your requirements.  This includes quality time on site, well maintained pest sightings registers, regular meetings, bar coding record keeping, modern technique and procedures protocols, follow up processes, independent pest audits, new device technology and the latest product developments. 

Over the past four years since that discussion, pest managers have gained more sophisticated technology and techniques adding to their ability to solve pest related issues.  Food facilities need to take pest management more seriously and set realistic budgets to ensure that an appropriate level of pest management is achieved. Proficient record keeping - being manual, electronic or bar code based - could provide the evidence necessary to acquit you from a legal claim. Record keeping as we know in all aspects of food production is a starting point for problem solving. Similarly in most jurisdictions it is a defense to be able to demonstrate that a person has taken “all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence” to prevent the commission of an offence (Food Act 2003 NSW s26).

Are the responsible governments doing enough? 

There are various laws, regulations and minimum standards are in place, however it is largely left to local councils to inspect food facilities and ensure compliance with and enforcement of these laws.  Inconsistencies between local councils and state government are a concern.  Increasing fines and consequences may be needed in order for more food facilities to take heed of the warnings.  Throughout Australia and New Zealand legislation regulating food safety is based on the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code. In Australia legislative power rests with the states and accordingly each has passed laws to enforce the code. In New South Wales this is through the Food Act 2003, which requires compliance with the “provision(s) of the Food Standards Code in relation to the conduct of a food business or to food intended for sale or food for sale” and makes it an offence to sell any food that does not comply with the requirement of this code (s21).

In addition to the provisions of the Code, the Food Act 2003 defines two categories of food – unsafe and unsuitable. The latter of these is defined to include food that 9(1)(d) contains a biological or chemical agent, or other matter or substance, that is foreign to the nature of the food.  Even if food is considered safe it is illegal to sell it if it is unsuitable (s17). 
  
A recent initiative in New South Wales and likely to be followed by other states is the “name and shame” policy. In regard to those that are eligible to be published, notification may include the place of business, trade or company names, a description of the offence, court decision and penalties imposed. It also includes discretionary information as the Food Authority deems necessary. This policy relies on section 137 of the Food Act which allows for the publication of a notification in a newspaper or elsewhere (eg internet) in regard to “any person who has committed an offence under this Act” or related regulations. These provisions at this stage appear to be restricted to those businesses that are actually prosecuted, but do not apply to those that receive on the spot fines or even business closure notices. This may not have been the initial intention of the statute as until a few years ago all food breaches were public as inspectors took them all to court.

Individual councils do however retain significant discretionary powers as evidenced in a recent scenario where Blacktown City Council released a list of food companies fined for breaches. Last month Woollahra Municipal Council went further releasing information on infringement notices under a successful Freedom of Information (FOI) application. More frequently however, councils refuse even under FOI requests to release such information, a decision supported in March by an ombudsman ruling. While this remains a discretionary power it is unsurprising that some councils are hesitant to publish details for fear of disadvantaging itself compared with neighbouring councils and areas. For the publishing of inspection reports to be of any substantial use it needs to be consistent across jurisdictions and statutorily imposed. The lack of mandatory national requirements for the release of information on food safety performance of various food companies flies in the face of international trends in North America and much of Europe.  Compounding this situation is that notwithstanding that authority to conduct inspections is allocated to both local councils and the NSW food authority, councils are not legally obliged to perform inspections.

Is it time for food producers to take pest control seriously? 

Pest management should not be taken for granted. It has always been a crucial element of food production and service. It is only now however, that we are becoming fully aware of just how serious and indeed fatal the consequences of neglecting this area of food safety are.

By Peter McCarthy
Dr Sali Bache
Pest IT Pty. Ltd.