Retailers rail at FSA’s Campylobacter retort

A report from FSA chief executive Catherine Brown, published on the FSA website today (November 3) and due to be aired at the FSA board meeting on Wednesday (November 5), provoked the fireworks.

“It is disappointing that the BRC, which speaks on behalf of retailers, has written to us again pressing us not to release the results of the retail survey and seeking to call into question the validity of the sampling plan, which they were consulted about before the survey commenced,”​ Brown states in her report.

“We are surprised at the FSA’s reaction as we were simply asking for confirmation that there was evidence behind the survey results which would give consumers clear information,”​ said the BRC in a statement.

Name and rank​

Campylobacter Plans to name and rank retailers’ performance were revealed by FSA chief operating officer Andrew Rhodes at Food Manufacture’s Food safety conference on October 16, 2013. However, the BRC seems to have believed that the FSA had postponed the move pending further evidence.

Despite that belief, in September, FSA director of policy Steve Wearne said: “We published details about levels of Campylobacter found in shop-bought chickens earlier this year, but chose not to name retailers because the data was not robust enough.​

“Since then, double the number of samples have been collected, which better reflects the situation across the country.”​

The BRC now expects the FSA to publish what it sees as a ‘name and shame’ style list sometime this month, although Brown’s report makes no explicit reference to this.

‘Findings limited’​

The BRC argued: “The FSA is an evidence based organisation however their findings at this stage are limited, based on a very small sample. The original recommendation by the FSA in its July 2014 board paper was to publish individual retail figures only once they had more robust results based on a year’s sample.​

“Not only is the current sample very small but they were taken based on 2010 sales data, which doesn’t reflect the change in consumers’ buying habits since then.”​

It also claimed that, despite the millions of pounds pumped into Campylobacter research, there was currently no commercially available proven method for reducing Campylobacter contamination.

“Research continues to look for one, but in the meantime the introduction of leak-proof packaging has been acknowledged by the FSA as being highly effective in preventing any issues when handling chicken when shopping.”​

Frustrated​

It is understood that food safety representatives are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress on eliminating Campylobacter contamination at store level.

At Food Manufacture Group’s 2014 Food safety conference, Jeremy Hall, group technical director at Bernard Matthews, told delegates that retailers were resisting the introduction of a new weapon against Campylobacter because of its costs.

“There’s a degree of resistance to adding to the costs of consumers’ shopping,”​ he said. The new rapid surface chilling technique is expected to add 4-5p to the cost of a bird. But the BRC claims the technique has yet to be proven and reliable cost estimates were unavailable.

Elsewhere in her report, Brown applauded Aldi for sharing with the FSA the work it is doing to combat Campylobacter.

She also praised Bailey’s Turkeys’ carcass washing, bird welfare and CCTV monitoring of practices; Faccenda’s Sonosteam steam cleaning device and Moy Park’s biosecurity work and segregation of workers handling raw and packed poultry.