Regulation of food hygiene in New Zealand.

Editor's Note: After seeking information from NEHA on how food protection is approached in the United States, Rodney Giddens kindly accepted our request to provide us with similar information on New Zealand. Qualified in public health inspection since 1968, Mr. Giddens has pursued his career in the metropolitan and rural communities in New Zealand in various capacities. He is Editor of the New Journal of Environmental Health, a quarterly publication of the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Health.

The New Zealand public health system has been the subject of restructuring for 10 years and there is no end in sight.

The current status of food hygiene is that the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 continue in force for the time being. The legislative advisors are committed to replacing the 1974 regulations, which concentrate on the construction of the food preparation environment, with completely new and revolutionary regulations that focus on the safety of the food itself.

The review document "Safe and Sound" prepared by a steering group on food hygiene has put forward recommendations for change that have been accepted in principle. The recommendations include:

* Regulations should directly target food safety,

* Matters that do not impact on food safety should not be included.

* The licensing authority will not be required to carry out inspections of food premises for compliance with the regulations.

* Food proprietors will be required to produce and register a food safety program

* Food operators will be required to employ food auditors to check their food safety procedures.

* The role of the licensing authority will be to ensure that industry has measures in place for food safety.

The likely changes are, therefore, twofold: abandoning the prescriptive style of regulation for a food safety regime based on self compliance, and creating the licensing agency and independent auditors that will oversee this regime.

This fits well with the present political desire for deregulation and the removal of government intervention (and the associated costs) in the affairs of citizens and business. At the same time, the necessary minimum safeguards for public health will be retained.

The changes are also promoted as being necessary to reduce the incidence of food poisoning which has been increasing steadily over the last 10 years. There will be implications for health officers who are at present struggling within a framework scathingly described in a recent issue of New Zealand' s Consumer magazine, under the heading "What's Wrong with the Food? Confusion and conflict stymies public health."

This situation has arisen mainly because of restructuring of the employment framework of what was the Department of Health and to a lesser extent local government reorganization. Not all health protection officers (HPOs), now employed in the hospital system, and environmental health officers (EHOs), employed by local government (boroughs, cities, counties), welcome the proposed changes.

Food standards in premises processing dairy products, meat, or fish are Supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF). From time to time, the suggestion is made that either MAF or the Ministry of Health should be responsible for all food surveillance. No one questions the logic of this, but as neither will surrender their power, both continue to function independently. Consequently, there is little national coordination of effort in food surveillance because the chain linking all the parts is not complete.

The final form that the licensing authority will take and how officers will be employed is still being debated.

The most favored option is thought to be a National Licensing Authority contracting out responsibilities at the local level to whoever contracts to do the work, including private companies (many functions previously regarded as the work of government are now provided under contract by private businesses). Second choice is local government contracting to be the local licensing agencies.

When these things will come to pass is not clear. Major industry groups are writing food safety programs for their products, e.g. pork, fish, and this work really needs lobe complete before the system can work. Small operators that lag behind because the cost of preparing a food safety program is too big a burden for them could delay things further. Recently Clare Van der Lem, Manager of Food Administration, Ministry of Health, was quoted as saying it would be at least 18 months before regulations could be in place.

It may well be the year 2000 before industry has completed their food safety programs, staff are retrained, and the licensing body and audit mechanisms are functioning. For the health professionals that survive these changes, there are bright prospects for personal and career development under a unified system.