11.1
The perspectives of individuals about food safety activities and operations may be different. This differential gap may be widened by whether an individual works within a local government organization that deals directly with food safety activities or not. According to Figure 11.1 local government organizations innately include food safety activities and operations as an example, they often involve a systematic procedure of registration, compliance assessment (e.g. business inspections and sampling), education, and prosecution. For non-compliant parties, for example, they are often prosecuted for violating the food safety codes. This applies to both local governments in Australia, New Zealand, and Scotland. The outcomes that are expected or targeted as a result of these activities may also be varied, according to the goals and objectives of the local government organization. For those not directly working with a food and safety local organization, the structure of the programs can be different in that they can be more needs-based than structured. This means that some of the components mentioned earlier may be absent or present, depending on what the private organization deems necessary .
11.2
For-profit businesses have a direct incentive to evaluate a local government’s food safety procedures. The citizens residing within the jurisdiction of the local government may also be included. Other local government organizations and agencies that have either a direct or indirect stake in the outcomes of the government’s food safety procedures may also be included. Examples may include the Department or Ministry of Health, among others.
For the businesses, an evaluation in any form can help them ensure that the government is doing what it is supposed to do to secure the health and safety of the citizens . Businesses who manufacture foods are often the ones who should be concerned with this since their outputs need to pass the local government-set standards on food safety. For the locales, they are the direct benefactor of any form of evaluation because the objective of all of these is basically to ensure their safety and welfare. For other government-related agencies such as the Department of Health, however, evaluations in this part can only be useful in that they would be able to reach their organizational goals and objectives by ensuring certain levels of food safety are met.
11.3
Performance indicators should be used in order to give the established food safety programs and provisions a sense of direction. Numerous indicators can be developed and then used to sustain the quality of compliance, reporting, and inspection done by health officers and the implementation of safety codes. An excellent performance indicator would be efficiency , or how large a percentage of the violators of the existing policies are compliant. Enforcement rates may also be used because it directly measures how large a percentage of the total population of organizations that rely on food safety programs and provisions are following the standards set by the local government units in this regard. Other specific indicators include the health and wellbeing of the community members as a result of the accomplishment of the performance indicator targets. All in all, the best measure would always be the one that enables the local government food and safety unit meet its goals and objectives.
11.4
The overall goal of evaluation of health program processes is to make sure that the processes identified are operating according to plan, with effectiveness and efficiency in mind . One evaluation process that is important in this case is the process of setting a benchmark. The benchmark set by the two managers in the scenario was the number of food businesses inspected in the past 12 months. Unfortunately, it would be improper to use confidence level (of the managers) as an evaluation tool or metric. A more appropriate tool of course would be the total number of businesses inspected. Basically, the larger the number of businesses inspected, the more effective the food safety programs can be deemed because this shows how efficient their operations have become. However, this evaluation indicator can be affected by numerous factors such as the number of food businesses existing within the past twelve months that the council inspectors can evaluate. A decrease in the number of these companies would of course translate to a lower number of inspected businesses. There surely are more evaluation metrics or outcome evaluations that can be used aside from number of businesses inspected. They have to fulfill either or both of these purposes however: monitor ongoing performance and assess the effectiveness of both new and existing safety programs
11.6
The review explores the establishment of food safety initiatives amongst the Vietnamese food vendors. Dunn presents the results of a campaign conducted by several local government agencies to alleviate the food-borne problems in Vietnam. Qualitative information is obtained from a group of environmental health officials in the program to generate a comprehension of the requirements of the food safety initiatives. The research sees the need to focus on food hygiene, cultural acceptability, expenses, time, sustainability, and practicability of the projects and regulations. The recommendations include better food safety provisions in small businesses and bilingual training of the staff members (Dunn, 2002, 137).
11.8
Campbell et.al undertakes a systematic search of unpublished and published reviews in1997 that provide information regarding public health interventions in Canada. The writers search nine databases using 84 search terms. Some of the websites used include Science Citation Index, Medline, and National Technical Information Service. The review indicates that at least one inspection of food premises annually can reduce the cases of food-related infections and diseases. For the surveillance to be effective, the community should be involved through adequate training and education (Campbell et al, 1998, 6).
11.10
The SO2 sampling methods obtain data that provides a temporal solution to the multi-pollutant. They also allow representativeness and coverage to meet overall surveillance aspirations. For the automatic samplers and analyzers to reliably examine the pollutant concentrations in the ambience, it is vital that the pollutants are transmitted without changing the reaction cell of the instrument. A sampling manifold is often overlooked even though it is an important component that influences the credibility and accuracy of the measurements made by the SO2monitoring system. Alternative designs can contain deficiencies such as inadequate cleaning and inappropriate designs (Bowry, Gupta, Campbell & Manirul, 1999, 50).
11.11
CAT1 involves the interview forms that were the choice data collection techniques for the particular report. Interviews are essential measures of obtaining both first hand quantitative and qualitative data. They present a chance to ask any additional or emerging queries. However, the interviews tend to be time-consuming and expensive. Other methods of collecting information as provided by section 5 include reviewing previous data, questionnaires, and observations. Written narratives give abundant information that can help the researcher, but may fail to be up to date. Questionnaires and observations are as efficient as interviews in obtaining relevant data.
Bibliography
Bowry, R., Gupta, L., Campbell, B. & Manirul, A., 1999. Inappropriate use of preservatives in
minced meat - Nothing new or a case for opportunities for different approaches to deal with
food safety issues and consumer expectations in NSW? Environmental Health Review
Australia, 31-35.
Campbell et al. 1998. Effectiveness of public health interventions in food safety: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89(3) 197-202.
Dunn, L., 2002. Addressing Cultural Diversity and Food Safety Programs: The Victorian Experience. Environmental Health, 2(1) 31-42.
Food Safety Module. n.d.. Evaluation in Practice - Food Safety. Evidence and Evaluation in Health Contexts, 01-17.
Hobbs J., Fearne A., and Spriggs J., 2002. Incentive structures for food safety and quality assurance: an international comparison. Food Control 13 (2002) 77–81.
Horchner, P.M., Brett, D., Gormley, B., Jenson, I. and Pointon, A.M., 2006. HACCP-based approach to the derivation of an on-farm food safety program for the Australian red meat industry. Food Control, 17(7), pp.497-510.
Mathias, R.G. et al. 1994. The evaluation of the effectiveness of routine restaurant inspections and education of food handlers: restaurant inspection survey. Canadian Journal of Public Health,
85 Suppl 1: S61-6.
May, P.J., 2007. Regulatory regimes and accountability. Regulation & Governance, 1(1), pp.8-26.
Mullen, L. A. et al. 2000. An evaluation of the risk assessment method used by Environmental
Health Officers when inspecting food businesses. International Journal of Environmental
Health Research, 12 (3) 255-60.
