Chairwoman Jamie DeMent (DOH) welcomed each of the meeting attendees and called the role.

Transcription

1 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Food Safety Florida Food Safety and Food Defense Advisory Council March 24, :00 AM Web connection Call In Number , Access Code: Meeting called to order at 10:00 a.m. Members Present: Ms. Jamie DeMent, Department of Health (DOH) Ms. Nancy Stephens, Florida Poultry Federation (FPF) Mr. Michael Roberson, Florida Retail Federation (FRF) Mr. Rick Akin, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) Dr. Tiffiani Miller, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Division of Food Safety Mr. Geoff Luebkemann, Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association (FRLA) Dr. Renee Goodrich, University of Florida (UF) Mr. Dan Ellinor, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Ms. Jaime Jerrells, Florida Farm Bureau Mr. Ned Bowman, Florida Petroleum Marketers, and Convenience Store Association Ms. Wendy Smith, Smith Small Farm Other Guests in Attendance Dr. Matthew Curran, FDACS Division of Food Safety Mr. Rick Barney-Southeastern Grocers Mr. Matt Colson, FDACS Division of Food Safety Mr. Todd Rossow, Publix Mr. Doug Fiorentino, FDA Mr. Dan Hixson, FDACS Division of Food Safety Ms. Brenda Morris, FDACS Division of Food Safety Mrs. Darcy Poole, FDACS Division of Food Safety I. Roll Call and Introductions Chairwoman Jamie DeMent (DOH) welcomed each of the meeting attendees and called the role. II. Approval of Meeting Minutes Ms. Nancy Stephens (FPF) made a motion to approve the February 22, 2017 council meeting minutes. Michael Roberson seconded that motion. All were in favor of approving the February 22, 2017 meeting minutes. III. Presentation by Dr. Matthew Curran (FDACS) for the Food Safety Inspection Rating System Workgroup Dr. Matthew Curran made a motion to approve the Food Safety Inspection Rating System Workgroup meeting minutes from the February 28, 2017 meeting. Mr. Todd Rossow seconded Page 1 of 6

2 the motion. Ms. Josie Correa, Mr. Geoff Luebkemann, and Mr. Rick Barney gave written approval. All were in favor of approving the February 28, 2017 workgroup meeting minutes. Dr. Matthew Curran gave a presentation on the recommendation of the Food Safety Inspection Rating System Workgroup. Workgroup Members: Dr. Matthew D. Curran (Chairman) FDACS Mr. Geoff Luebkemann The Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association Mr. Ernesto Martin Sedano s Supermarket Ms. Josie Legido-Correa Florida Grocers Association Dr. Neil A. James Florida A&M University Mr. Todd Rossow Publix Super Markets, Inc. Mr. Shane Mart Cal-Maine Mr. Rick Barney Southeastern Grocers, LLC Workgroup Participants: Ms. Brenda Morris FDACS Mr. Ricardo Carbonell Sedano s Grocery Stores Mr. Matt Colson FDACS Ms. Darcy Poole (Minutes) FDACS Objective: To evaluate the benefit and effectiveness of food safety inspection rating systems. This evaluation was not intended to include nor did it include evaluating the inspection process itself. It is necessary to note that a rating system of any kind if utilized at all is independent of an inspection process and thus, inspection procedures would remain unaffected by any outcome. This evaluation only pertains to inspection reports generated by FDACS inspections and does not consider other food safety inspections conducted by other agencies in Florida having jurisdiction over other food related sectors. The recommendation from this workgroup is being provided to the Florida Food Safety and Food Defense Advisory Council for their consideration and potential recommendation to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. After consideration and discussion the Council may elect to forward this workgroups recommendation as it stands; modify it; recommend something completely different or not recommend anything at all. Overview: There are no national standards for or requirements to adopt food safety inspection rating systems of any kind. Many jurisdictions nationally are not required statutorily to adopt rating systems, including Florida. Nationally, of the jurisdictions that utilize a rating system, some are required by ordinance, rule and/or statute and others have elected voluntarily to adopt a rating system, but there is no observed correlation between requirements and adoption. Nationally, of the jurisdictions that utilize a rating system, there are a wide variety of rating system types in use. Many rating systems encountered were associated with restaurant inspections. It should be noted that in Florida restaurants are inspected by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Page 2 of 6

3 Different Types of Rating Systems: This is not to be considered an exhaustive list of different rating systems in use nationally. Pass / Fail What does fail actually mean? Is the business closed? How does one section failing compare to the entire facility? Good / Fair / Poor What do the latter two categories represent? A, B, C What do the latter two categories represent? This system is likely the most familiar to people in general (school) In Compliance / Out of Compliance Should they be operating if out of compliance? Emojis How does one interpret them? Need a legend to define Colors Red/Yellow/Green? Need a legend to define Scores (numbers) What is the scale/increments? 1-10? 1-100? Other? What do the middle numbers represent? Above Average, Average, Below Average Bell Curve? Other scale? Pros for Having a Rating System: Provides an easily understood summary of inspection reporting. Provides an easily understood historical trend of an establishment s inspection reporting. Facilitates easy ranking and prioritizing of aggregated inspection reports. Provides an incentive to improve and have fewer violations in order to earn a higher grade. Cons Against Having a Rating System: Creates an extra layer for consumers to interpret. Creates tendencies to manage food safety just to meet a passing grade rather than addressing Creates opportunity for subjective bias to affect inspection reporting. Currently, no consistency across jurisdictions; therefore, no valid comparison mechanisms in place for users of the information. Pros for Not Having a Grading System: Eliminates an extra layer for consumers to interpret. Eliminates tendencies to manage food safety just to meet a passing grade rather than addressing A variety of states and local jurisdictions do not have a mandate to use a rating system for retail food service establishments and have operated and continue to operate without a grading system. However, similar data for retail food establishments was not able to be obtained, except for the Page 3 of 6

4 State of Georgia, which requires ratings for retail food service establishments, but not for retail food establishments. Reduces opportunity for subjective bias to affect inspection reporting. Cons Against Having a Rating System: Creates an extra layer for consumers to interpret. Creates tendencies to manage food safety just to meet a passing grade rather than addressing Creates opportunity for subjective bias to affect inspection reporting. Currently, no consistency across jurisdictions; therefore, no valid comparison mechanisms in place for users of the information. Pros for Not Having a Grading System: Eliminates an extra layer for consumers to interpret. Eliminates tendencies to manage food safety just to meet a passing grade rather than addressing A variety of states and local jurisdictions do not have a mandate to use a rating system for retail food service establishments and have operated and continue to operate without a grading system. However, similar data for retail food establishments was not able to be obtained, except for the State of Georgia, which requires ratings for retail food service establishments, but not for retail food establishments. Reduces opportunity for subjective bias to affect inspection reporting. Cons Against Not Having a Rating System: Does not provide an easily understood summary of inspection reporting. Does not provide an easily understood historical trend of an establishment s inspection reporting. Does not facilitate easy ranking and prioritizing of aggregated inspection reports. Primary Recommendation: The Food Safety Inspection Rating System Workgroup would like to recommend to the Food Safety and Food Defense Advisory Council: Primary Recommendation: That FDACS implement a summary statement for each inspection conducted that informs consumers and businesses of the outcome of the inspection in the following manner: Met Inspection Standards There may be violations that will have to be corrected, but insufficient violations were found that would require a re-inspection by an FDACS inspector. Re-Inspection Required Violations were found that will require a re-inspection by an FDACS inspector. Current FDACS re-inspection triggers would be unaffected. Secondary Option: The Food Safety Inspection Rating System Workgroup discussed a secondary option: Secondary Option: That FDACS implement an A, B, C rating system for food Page 4 of 6

5 safety inspections conducted by the department. The Workgroup felt that this was the most uniformly familiar rating system available as users are generally familiar with the representation of letter grades from the education system. The definition of each rating would have to be worked out by the department. Dr. Matthew Curran thanked all the members and participants of the workgroup for their hard work, time, commitment, and willingness to look at all aspects of both having and not having food safety inspection rating systems to ensure the issue had received the best analysis and vetting possible. Ms. Jamie DeMent (DOH) asked what the triggers are for re-inspection and what time-frame is associated with a check back? Dr. Matthew Curran said the workgroup did not discuss those issues. The five priority violations remain the same; sewage, rat infestation, etc. Mr. Geoff Luebkemann (FRLA) asked if insect presence would go along with rat infestation? Dr. Curran said Yes. Mr. Michael Roberson (FRF) stated that he found the different types of systems interesting especially the Emojis. He would like to see the minutes memorialized in case we go back and evaluate this in the future. Mr. Geoff Luebkemann (FRLA) made a motion that the minutes of the workgroup be incorporated into Council minutes. All members were in favor. Mr. Geoff Luebkemann (FRLA) made a motion that the workgroup product as a summary statement be endorsed to move to the inspection system. Dr. Tiffiani Miller (FDACS) clarified what the Council is accepting. Met Inspection Requirements Met Inspection Requirements-Recheck Needed Re-Inspection Required Ms. Nancy Stephens (FPF)-seconded the motion. Dr. Tiffiani Miller (FDACS)-Approval Mr. Ned Bowman (FPMA)-Approval Mr. Geoff Luebkemann-(FRLA)-Approval Mr. Dan Ellinor-FWC)-Aye Ms. Jaime Jerrellls-(FFB)-Aye Mr. Rick Akin (DBPR)-Aye Ms. Wendy Smith (Smith Small Farm)-Aye Ms. Renee Goodrich (IFAS)-Aye Mr. Ned Bowman (FPMA)-Motion Approved Ms. Jamie DeMent (DOH)- Majority of votes cast approves the motion. Page 5 of 6

6 IV. Meeting Adjourned Mr. Ned Bowman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Geoff Luebkemann seconded the motion and commended the workgroup and the department for their work on this. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m. Page 6 of 6