The ACT government's decision to abandon moves to require food businesses to display a hygiene rating on their premises has been so long coming that many Canberrans may be excused for thinking it was still under active consideration. In 2011, when food poisonings at a Dickson restaurant prompted widespread concerns over food safety, then chief minister Katy Gallagher said her preferred solution was "scores on doors". And anecdotal evidence at the time (later backed up by more accurate polling methods) suggested public support for ratings was 80 per cent or higher Some four years on, however, ACT Chief Health Officer Paul Kelly is of the view that that "there are better paths to follow to get the same outcome", and that consultations between the industry and regulators will continue to to ensure the different approach succeeds..
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In spite of claims that hygiene ratings in cities like New York had led to fewer hospitalisations from restaurant food poisonings, the issue was never an entirely settled one when it was being actively canvassed in 2011-12. ClubsACT and the Australian Hotels Association ACT argued it represented an added burden for restaurant and club owners, and that it had the potential to disrupt or hobble businesses which scored less than the optimum rating. There were also claims the extra inspections and bureaucracy involved in ensuring a properly functioning and reliable scheme would cost the government about $16 million each year. Those sensitivities (and the fact that ACT Health does not have unlimited resources) meant "scores on doors" was never a straightforward candidate for implementation.
There was also debate about whether the ACT government might emulate other jurisdictions and build a website devoted to "naming and shaming" those restaurants which had incurred hygiene penalty notices. But this too wound up in the pending tray. Instead, in a half-way measure, the Gallagher government established a "register of food offences" summarising the successful prosecutions of individuals or companies on such offences such as the handling or sale of unsafe food.
To the extent that hygiene ratings offer prospective diners the quickest and simplest way of making an informed decision about where to eat or buy food (and without having to go on line and search) consumers might well mourn the decision to sideline them. But for such a system to work as intended, regular updates would have mandatory. And in an industry as large and quick-moving as restaurant and catering, that would have been be a daunting prospect.
Dr Kelly has said that far from "sitting on its hands", ACT Health is adopting new approaches to ensure that restaurant-goers have full confidence in the safety of the food they eat; and that one measure (hygiene requirements are translated into different languages) seems be "bearing fruit". This is welcome news. But given what appear to be regular outbreaks of food poisoning in the ACT consumers would gain greater psychic comfort from the certain knowledge that food inspectors have the resources they need to police food and hygiene regulations.
