230 likes | 426 Views
FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS. Leena Räsänen leena.rasanen@evira.fi. Food safety organisation. Continuous improvement – long and short term PDCA’s. State budget , national strategies , Changes in operational environment. Strategic planning. Annual planning.
E N D
FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS Leena Räsänen leena.rasanen@evira.fi
Continuousimprovement – long and shorttermPDCA’s State budget, national strategies, Changes in operationalenvironment Strategic planning Annual planning Effectivenessand efficiencyindicators of CA’s Impactindicators
Finnish food safety rating systemOiva (Finnish “Smiley”) • “Oiva” meaning “excellent” • The publicity of the food control results became possible in 2011 by the change of the national food law (23/2006) • Oiva is coordinated by “the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira” and carried out by municipal food control authorities • At first a pilot project “Oiva”, now expanding
OIVA evaluation grades • Food safety level is indicated by four smiley grades; excellent, good, to be corrected and poor A B C D
The objectives of OIVA • Increase the transparency of the activities of food business operators and authorities • Consumers are able to vote with their feet • Harmonize food control • Standardize the inspections • Promote the risk-based approach • Improve the effectiveness of controls • Encourage the business operators to improve food safety
Indicators for impact • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: Food-borneillnessesremain at acceptablelevel
Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective 1: The Oiva inspectionsimprovecompliance of FBO’s
Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: the proportion of FBO’s with C or D in Oiva, whichget A or B in follow-upinspection
Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: Compliance of FBO’s with labellingrequirements
Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Variation of results in Oiva inspections among municipal CA’s are acceptable level
Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based • Objective2: CA’scarry out riskbasedcontrolplan
Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Coverage of inspections in accordance with recommendedriskbasedfrequency
Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Inspectorscarry out moreinspections • Lateralsoeconomicefficiency (€/inspection) willbemeasured
Efficiency of inspectionscarried out bymunicipalCA’s (2012) Inspections/fte MunicipalCA’s in randomorder
Costs of inspection, €/inspection (2012) € MunicipalCA’s in randomorder
Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2 MunicipalCA’snotifysuspectedfood-borneepidemics
Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics/ 100 000 inhabitants (2012) MunicipalCA’s
Backround ”information” (no specialobjectives) • Residuecontrol • Number of samples • Number of analyses • Numberof non-compliantsamples, casesorlots • Number of RASSF-notifications made by Finland • Number of withdrawalsorrecalls • Number of officialsamples (takenbymunicipalCA’s)