5 poultry meat industry findings · 5 poultry meat industry findings ... services businesses that...
TRANSCRIPT
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 51
5 POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY FINDINGS
As described in Section 3.2 (page 40), for the purposes of this benchmark research the poultry meat industry includes businesses that can be divided into a number of groups: poultry growers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and food services businesses.
These groups of the poultry meat industry have been further categorised into the following three sectors for the purposes of analysis:
• growers sector – incorporating both chicken and non-chicken poultry growing businesses;
• processors sector – including businesses that slaughter or de-bone poultry, and business that further process or add value to poultry meat products;
• wholesalers and retailers sector – incorporating businesses that deal with fresh or frozen poultry meat, poultry meat products but not including small good, and food services businesses that receive raw chicken and non-chicken poultry meat and cook on the premises (for example, fast food outlets, supermarket delicatessens, but not restaurants)
Included within the processors sector is a sub-group of the ‘Top-11 Poultry Processors’ as defined by FSANZ. These poultry processors are considered by FSANZ to be the major poultry processors in the poultry meat industry.
Within the wholesalers sector is a sub-group of ‘major wholesalers’. These major wholesalers were purposely selected to participate in the research because they are viewed as being the major poultry wholesalers in the poultry meat industry.
These three sectors of the poultry meat industry operate across various stages of the poultry meat supply chain (referred to as the supply chain in this document). The supply chain includes the following stages:
• growing;
• live bird transport;
• processing;
• de-boning;
• processed poultry meat transport;
• wholesaling;
• retailing;
• take-away food service businesses; and
• consumers.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 52
5.1 Awareness and attitudes towards food safety
Food safety appears to be considered ‘important’ by managers of businesses throughoutthe poultry meat industry.
However, when asked their opinions of the likelihood of foodborne illness resulting from afailure to apply appropriate precautions at varying stages of the poultry meat supplychain, some sectors are unable or unwilling to provide answers. Significant proportions ofgrowers and wholesalers/retailers do not express opinions about the current status offood safety precautions in stages of the poultry meat supply chain outside of their ownstage.
In contrast, processors are more willing to indicate the likelihood of individual sectorsleading to foodborne illness in the end product, and tend to believe the likelihood ishigher than both growers and wholesalers/retailers.
Only wholesalers/retailers believe it is ‘likely’ that failure to apply appropriate precautionsat the growing stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product. All other stagesof the poultry meat supply chain are seen as likely to lead to foodborne illness by allsectors of the industry. Consumers and take-away food businesses are seen as the stagesmost likely to lead to foodborne illness.
Very few businesses in the industry believe that growers, processors or supermarkets arenot doing enough to control food safety risks in their businesses. Take-away foodbusinesses are seen as slightly more lacking in their efforts to control food safety risks.However, it is consumers who are overwhelming seen as not doing enough to controlfood safety risks from poultry meat.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 53
5.1.1 Importance of food safety to managers of poultry meat businesses
Across all sectors of the poultry meat industry, food safety is considered important by almost all businesses. Only four percent (4%) of growers and one percent (1%) of wholesalers/retailers do not report food safety as important to them. All processors report food safety as important to their business.
Figure 19: Q22. Overall, how important is food safety to your poultry business? (possible ratings range from 1 not important – 10 very important)
96 100 99
1 0 0
9.99.7
9.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Growers Processors Wholesalers/Retailers
%
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Like
lihoo
d m
ean
scor
e
Important (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). Key: Important includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)
5.1.2 Managers’ opinions of the likelihood of foodborne illness in the end product
Across all three sectors of the poultry meat industry, poultry growing is considered relatively unlikely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product. However all other stages of the poultry meat supply chain are seen as ‘likely’ to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if there is a failure to apply appropriate precautions.
Growers
Managers of poultry growing businesses believe there is a relatively low risk that failure to apply appropriate precautions at the growing and live bird transport stages could lead to foodborne illness in the end product compared to the other stages of the poultry meat supply chain (Figure 1a).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 54
• Less than one-quarter (22%) of poultry growers believe their own stage of the poultry meat supply chain could lead to foodborne illness in the end product (mean score of 4.4).
• However, when asked about the other stages of the poultry meat supply chain, growers see the risk as considerably higher (ranging from a mean score of 7.7 for poultry processing to 8.9 for take-away food businesses).
NNN. Importantly, a substantial proportion of poultry growers indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 20% for the consumers stage to 31% for the wholesaling stage).
OOO. Growers see de-boning as more likely to lead to foodborne illness than processing itself (mean scores of 8.1 compared to 7.7).
• Poultry growers consider the retailing, take-away food businesses and the consumer stages of the poultry meat supply chain to be the most likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if appropriate precautions are not taken (mean scores or 8.8, 8.9 and 8.8 respectively).
Figure 20: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)
Growers
2215
56 55 59 5864 66
71
713
2532 29 31 28 27
20
7.78.1
8.4 8.58.8 8.9 8.8
3.74.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gro
win
g
Live
bird
tran
spor
t
Proc
essi
ng
De-
boni
ng
Proc
esse
dtr
ansp
ort
Who
lesa
ling
Reta
iling
Take
-aw
ay
Cons
umer
s
%
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Like
lihoo
d m
ean
scor
e
Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Grower respondents (n=157). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)
Processors
Processors tend to believe each stage of the poultry meat supply chain is slightly more likely to lead to foodborne illness than growers, perhaps reflecting a higher level of awareness of food safety issues in general (Figure 2).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 55
• As with growers, the poultry growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are seen as the least likely stages to lead to foodborne illness according to processors (likelihood mean scores of 6.3 and 5.3 respectively compared to a range of 8.0 to 9.1 for other stages).
PPP. However, considerably more processors believe the growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are likely to lead to foodborne illness than compared to growers themselves.
QQQ. The average likelihood scores from processors for the growing and live bird transport stages of the supply chain are 6.3 and 5.3 respectively compared to just 4.4 and 3.7 for growers.
• Processors consider their own stage of the supply chain to be moderately likely to lead to foodborne illness, with the de-boning stage considered slightly more likely to result in illness than the processing stage (mean scores of 8.3 and 8.4 respectively).
• The take-away food business and consumer stages of the poultry meat supply chain are considered to be the most likely stages of the supply chain to lead to foodborne illness by processors, with both having a likelihood mean score of 9.1.
RRR. Interestingly, processors single out take-away food businesses from other retail outlets that sell poultry products as being more likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product if appropriate precautions are not taken (retail mean score is 8.4).
• Unlike growers and wholesalers/retailers, processors are very unlikely to fail to express an opinion when asked of the likelihood of foodborne illness in the end product for each stage of the poultry meat supply chain if appropriate precautions have not been followed.
SSS. A maximum of 13% of processors indicate they “don’t know” the likelihood of foodborne illness for any one stage of the poultry meat supply chain.
TTT. This compares to a maximum of 32% for growers and 46% for wholesalers/retailers.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 56
Figure 21: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)
Processors
45
32
79 84 8277 80 82
87
13 10 2 1 0 4 7 11 8
8.3 8.48.0 8.0
8.4
9.1 9.1
5.3
6.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gro
win
g
Live
bird
tran
spor
t
Proc
essi
ng
De-
boni
ng
Proc
esse
dtr
ansp
ort
Who
lesa
ling
Reta
iling
Take
-aw
ay
Cons
umer
s
%
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Like
lihoo
d m
ean
scor
e
Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All Processor respondents (Processors n=141). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)
Wholesalers/retailers
Like processors, wholesalers/retailers tend to believe the risk of foodborne illness is higher for each stage than growers if appropriate precautions are not taken (Figure 3).
• Of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry, wholesalers/retailers are more likely to say the poultry growing/live bird transport stages of the supply chain are likely to lead to foodborne illness in the end product.
UUU. The average likelihood score for wholesalers/retailers at the growing and live bird transport stages are 7.0 and 6.6 respectively, compared to 4.4 and 3.7 for growers and 6.3 and 5.3 for processors.
• Wholesalers/retailers are also more likely than both growers and processors to believe the poultry processing stage could lead to foodborne illness.
VVV. Wholesalers/retailers average likelihood score for the processing stage is 8.6 compared to 7.7 for growers and 8.3 for processors.
• Wholesalers/retailers are not significantly different to processors in their opinions of the other stages of the supply chain with the exception of take-away food businesses.
WWW. Wholesalers/retailers are significantly less likely to consider current practices within the take-away stage of the supply chain to lead to illness in the end product when compared to processors (likelihood mean score of 8.5 compared to 9.1).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 57
• As with growers, wholesalers/retailers are likely to indicate they “don’t know” how likely it is that foodborne illness could occur for all stages of the poultry meat supply chain except for their own (ranging from 31% for the processed poultry meat transport stage to 46% for the live bird transport stage).
Figure 22: Q26. How likely is it that failure to apply appropriate precautions at this stage could lead to foodborne illness in the end product? (possible ratings range from 1 not likely – 10 very likely)
Wholesalers and retailers
3428
50 51 55 55 59
71 68
45 46 41 43
31 30 30
17 20
8.6 8.8
8.1 7.9
8.6 8.5 8.7
6.67.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gro
win
g
Live
bird
tran
spor
t
Proc
essi
ng
De-
boni
ng
Proc
esse
dtr
ansp
ort
Who
lesa
ling
Reta
iling
Take
-aw
ay
Cons
umer
s
%
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Like
lihoo
d m
ean
scor
e
Likely (7-10) Don't know Mean Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). Key: Likey includes scores 7-10 out of 10, the triangle symbol refers to the mean score (range 1-10)
5.1.3 Managers’ attitudes towards sectors of the poultry meat industry
Managers of poultry meat businesses tend to disagree with statements that suggest growers, processors and supermarkets are not doing enough to control safety risks within their businesses’ operations. However consumers and to a lesser extent takeaway food businesses, are singled out by all sectors of the poultry meat industry as not doing enough.
No sector of the poultry meat industry believes that poultry growers are not doing enough to control food safety risks on their farms (Figure 23).
• Poultry growers are most likely to disagree with this statement.
XXX. Eight-in-ten growers disagree with the statement, “poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms”, with 69% saying they “extremely disagree”.
YYY. Only four percent (4%) of growers agree with the statement.
• Over half of poultry processors (52%) disagree with the statement and 10% agree.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 58
ZZZ. One-in-five processors (22%) say they “don’t know” whether they agree or disagree.
• Wholesalers/retailers exhibit little confidence in being able to respond to this question, with the majority (62%) saying they “don’t know”.
Figure 23: Q39. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry growers don’t do enough to control food safety risks on farms”?
2
4
1
4
6
3
8
16
8
11
15
13
13
37
69
62
22
5 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Again, no sector of the poultry meat industry believes that poultry processors are not doing enough to control food safety risks in processing plants (Figure 24).
• Poultry processors are the most likely sector of the poultry meat industry to disagree with the statement (72% disagree).
AAAA. Twelve percent (12%) of processors agree with the statement.
• A majority of growers (62%) and a third of wholesalers/retailers (32%) also disagree with the statement.
• A significant proportion of both growers (29%) and wholesalers/retailers (49%) are not able to say whether they agree or disagree with the statement.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 59
Figure 24: Q40. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “poultry processors don’t do enough to control food safety risks in processing plants”?
4
2
2
4
10
4
11
12
4
17
21
55
47
49
4
26 315
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
More growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers agree with the statement “supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets” than with the statements relating to the growing and processing stages of the poultry meat supply chain – however, most still disagree or say they “don’t know” (Figure 25).
• Again, it is poultry processors who are the most likely to agree with the statement, however, for this statement only just over a quarter of processors (29%) agree.
• One-in-five wholesalers/retailers (19%) and 12% of growers agree with the statement.
• Again, a quarter or more of both growers and wholesalers/retailers say they “don’t know” if they agree with the statement (37% and 25% respectively).
BBBB. Eighteen percent (18%) of processors say they “don’t know”.
• No single sector has a majority saying they disagree with the statement:
CCCC. Almost four-in-ten growers and wholesalers/retailers (39% and 38% respectively) disagree with the statement, while one-third (33%) of processors disagree.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 60
Figure 25: Q41. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “supermarkets don’t do enough to control food safety risks in their outlets”?
8
10
3
10
19
9
18
21
11
13
20
19
28
25
18
36 111
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Compared to growers, processors and supermarkets, the poultry meat industry believes that fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat (Figure 26).
• Close to a majority of processors and a large proportion of wholesalers/retailers and growers agree with the statement, “fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat” (49%, 36% and 24% respectively).
• A large proportion of growers (41%) still answer “don’t know” when asked if they agree or disagree with the statement.
• Wholesalers/retailers are most likely to disagree with the statement (33%).
DDDD. This compares to 20% of growers and 18% of processors who disagree.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 61
Figure 26: Q42 Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “fast food outlets don’t do enough to control food safety risks from poultry meat”?
17
23
7
19
26
17
17
19
14
9
20
10
13
14
13
41 1
13
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
A clear majority of all three sectors of the poultry meat industry strongly agrees with the statement, “consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products” (Figure 27).
• Processors are most likely to agree with the statement (94%).
• This is followed by 85% of growers and 82% of wholesalers/retailers who agree with the statement.
• Very few poultry meat industry businesses disagree with the statement.
EEEE. Five percent (5%) of wholesalers/retailers, 2% of growers and 1% of processors disagree.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 62
Figure 27: Q43. Do you agree or disagree with the statement, “consumers must take responsibility for food safety when preparing and eating poultry meat products”?
68
79
76
15
16
10
8
3
4
1
2
2
5
1
8 1
3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Refused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 63
5.2 Behaviours and practices and impact on food safety
5.2.1 Current behaviours and practices
The behaviours and practices that poultry meat businesses employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products is very much dependent on the stage of the poultry meat industry that the business operates in.
The top-ten behaviours and practices are reported below for each of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry. For a complete list of all behaviours and practices, see Appendix B: Additional industry data.
Growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers all provide varying examples of thepractices they employ to reduce the risk of foodborne illness derived from their poultrymeat products. Maintaining good employee hygiene and pest controls are commonlymentioned by all three sectors.
Grower practices focus on ensuring growing sheds are as kept as clean possible throughcleaning out sheds between batches, cleaning up feed spillages in a timely fashion anddisposing of dead birds in a biosecure manner.
Processors and wholesalers/retailers both commonly mention that employees wearprotective clothing/uniforms, employee health is monitored, and that a HACCPplan/system is followed.
Awareness of chemicals that could potentially contaminate poultry meat is relatively lowacross all sectors of the poultry meat industry, with only two types of chemicals cited bymore than 10% of growers (Sanitising/cleaning agents and pesticides and herbicides).The most commonly mentioned practice used to reduce the risk of chemicalcontamination is to not use chemicals at all or separate them from poultry.
Microbiological hazard awareness is slightly higher than awareness of chemical risks –particularly for processors. The most nominated microbiological hazards are Salmonellaand E.coli. Processors also nominate Listeria Monocytogenes, Campylobacter andStaphylococcus Aureus in large numbers. The practices most commonly mentioned toreduce risk of microbiological contamination by all sectors is to maintain a clean andhygienic workplace. Maintain temperature controls is also commonly mentioned byprocessors and wholesalers/retailers, while vaccination/health checks for birds arecommonly mentioned by growers.
Physical contamination of poultry products is also a concern for processors andwholesalers/retailers. The most commonly mentioned hazards by these two groups aremetal, plastic, wood and dirt or unclean surfaces. Practices employed to reduce the riskof physical contamination include maintaining employee hygiene and keeping poultryseparate from other substances. Processors are particularly likely to mentionmonitoring/maintenance of equipment.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 64
Growers
When asked to spontaneously nominate things they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds, growers most often mention that sheds are cleaned out between batches of birds to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds (mentioned by 34%).
Other commonly mentioned unprompted responses include:
• a clean water supply is maintained for birds (mentioned by 22%);
• dead birds are disposed of in a biosecure manner (17%);
• workers wear protective clothing or uniforms (16%);
• shed area is completely fenced (11%);
• maintaining a healthy environment for birds (11%); and
• rodent controls are in place, bird health is checked regularly and employees regularly wash their hands (each mentioned by 10% of growers).
When prompted, most growers say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products?
Growers
9
8
10
10
31
17
8
34
22
10
89
89
90
90
93
96
97
97
98
99
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wild species are kept off thefarm
Sheds are left for 7-10 daysbetween batches
Bird health is checked regularly
Employees regularly wash theirhands
Foot baths are in place
Dead birds are disposed of in abiosecure manner
Feed spillages are cleaned upimmediately
Sheds are cleaned out betweenbatches
A clean water supply ismaintained for birds
Rodent controls are in place
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157).
Processors
When asked to spontaneously nominate things they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products derived from their birds, a majority of processors mention
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 65
they follow a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan or system (mentioned by 60%).
Other commonly mentioned unprompted responses include:
• carcasses are kept at 5 degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution (mentioned by 28%);
• employees regularly wash their hands (23%);
• employees wear protective clothing or uniforms (14%);
• equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day (14%);
• audits are conducted regularly (13%);
• carcasses are always reduced to 4 degrees or less within 12 hours of slaughter (13%);
• temperature controls (12%); and
• the level of free chlorine and/or overflow rate in the spin chiller is closely monitored (11%).
When prompted, most processors say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 29).
Figure 29: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products?
Processors
2
5
28
4
13
23
60
14
6
14
75
87
92
96
96
97
97
97
98
99
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Employee health is monitored regularly
Employees regularly change gloves
Carcases are kept at 5 degreesor less during storage and distribution
Rodent controls are in place
Audits are conducted regularly
Employees regularly wash their hands
A HACCP Plan/System is followed
Equipment is cleaned andsanitised at the end of each day
Insect controls are in place
Workers wear protective clothing or uniforms
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 66
Wholesalers/retailers
Wholesalers/retailers tend to nominate a smaller variety of responses than growers and processors when asked what they do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products. The most mentioned response is to keep poultry carcases at five degrees Celsius or less during storage and distribution (mentioned by one-third (32%) of wholesalers/retailers).
Other commonly mentioned unprompted responses include:
• employees regularly wash their hands (20%);
• temperature controls (20%);
• a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan/System is followed (19%);
• equipment is cleaned and sanitised at the end of each day (14%); and
• raw poultry meat products are always stored separately from cooked products (12%).
When prompted, most wholesalers/retailers say they do a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of foodborne illness (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Q23 & Q24. What sorts of things does your business do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from poultry meat products?
Wholesalers and retailers
1
14
19
3
1
10
2
5
2
20
61
63
68
68
72
86
88
95
95
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Restrict duties of employees whoare ill
Equipment is cleaned andsanitised at the end of each day
A HACCP Plan/System isfollowed
Employees regularly changegloves
Employee health is monitoredregularly
Workers wear protective clothingor uniforms
Insect controls are in place
Audits are conducted regularly
Rodent controls are in place
Employees regularly wash theirhands
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 67
5.2.2 Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contaminants
Only two types of chemicals are mentioned by more than 10% of all sectors of the poultry meat industry when they are asked, “What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?” These are sanitising or degreasing agents and pesticides and herbicides (Figure 31).
The major practices employed by growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers to reduce the risk of chemical contamination of their poultry products are separating chemicals from poultry, not using chemicals, using approved chemicals only, following chemical directions, cleaning and sanitising work stations and providing staff training (Figure 32).
Growers
• Growers are most likely to nominate herbicides and pesticides (including rodenticides and insecticides) when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate your birds (23%).
• The next most mentioned types of chemicals are sanitising or cleaning agents (mentioned by 19%);
• A majority of growers (61%) fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:
FFFF. forty-eight percent (48%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of;
GGGG. eleven percent (11%) who say they “don’t know”; and
HHHH. one percent (1%) who refuse to answer the question.
Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination by growers
Growers are most likely to say they separate chemicals from their poultry birds or theydon’t use chemicals. Over one-quarter (29%) mention this.
Specifically, growers say:
…we don't really use any chemicals except for chlorine and that is given in measured doses for drinking water and kept far from the birds. Only certain people have access to the chemicals and they follow strict guidelines.
…waiting time of two days between cleaning and setting up for next batch so that the shed dries out thoroughly.
…don't use it [chemicals] three weeks prior to the free-range birds being let out.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 68
Processors
• Unlike growers, processors are most likely to nominate sanitising or cleaning agents when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate their poultry meat products.
IIII. An overwhelming majority mention this (70%).
• Pesticides and herbicides are mentioned by 11% of processors.
• Six percent of processors also mention ‘grease from equipment’.
• One-quarter (25%) of processors fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:
JJJJ. sixteen percent (16%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of;
KKKK. eight percent (8%) who say they “don’t know”; and
LLLL. one percent (1%) who refuse to answer the question.
Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination by processors
Processors are most likely to say they separate chemicals from their poultry meatproducts or they don’t use chemicals. Two-in-five processors (43%) mention this. This isfollowed by:
• use approved chemicals/use chemicals only as directed (mentioned by 30%);
• keep work areas clean and sanitised (25%); and
• staff training (14%).
Specifically, processors say:
… we use approved chemicals/suppliers are approved.
…no other chemicals enter our premise. Contract cleaners follow HACCP plan.
…keep everything off the ground and in bags. Everything is palletised and birds that have fallen on the ground are put in the wash tub.
…benches and equipment are all sanitised at the end of each night.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 69
Wholesalers/retailers
• As is the case with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to mention sanitising or cleaning agents when asked what chemicals could potentially contaminate their poultry meat products.
MMMM. Close to a majority of wholesalers/retailers mention this (48%).
• Pesticides and herbicides are mentioned by 10% of wholesalers/retailers.
• Close to a majority (47%) of wholesalers/retailers fail to nominate any chemicals when asked. This includes:
NNNN. one-quarter (26%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and
OOOO. twenty-one percent (21%) who say they “don’t know”.
Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination bywholesalers/retailers
As with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to say they separate chemicalsfrom their poultry meat products or they don’t use chemicals. Almost a majority (46%)mention this.
The only other practice mentioned by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is to keepwork areas clean and sanitised (mentioned by 17%).
Specifically, wholesalers/retailers say:
… keep chemicals and products separate, or we just don't use chemicals.
…we don't use chemicals around cooked or raw product. Use ‘chucks’ without any chemicals.
…chemicals kept in separate area. At the end of the night all food is put away before cleaning begins.
…proper rinsing of all benches and equipment after sanitising. No use of pest controls while food is being prepared or served.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 70
Figure 31: Q27. What chemicals or types of chemicals are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?
0
21
26
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
3
10
48
1
8
16
4
0
1
2
1
1
1
6
11
70
1
11
48
1
1
1
0
2
1
3
0
23
19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Refused
Don't know
None
Other
Hormones
Heavy metals
Sodium acetate
Antibiotics
Dioxins/Polychlorinated biphenyls
Antimicrobial agents
Grease from equipment
Pesticides and Herbicides *
Sanitising or cleaning agents
% mentioning
Growers
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Includes hormones, fuel, other food products and references to 'any chemical' or 'any unapproved chemical'.
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)). * Pesticides and herbicides also includes rodenticides and insecticides.
Figure 32: Q28. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risks of chemical contamination of your birds/poultry meat products?
2
48
5
1
1
3
3
7
17
8
46
0
25
4
1
2
3
8
14
25
30
43
1
61
1
1
0
1
5
3
3
8
29
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Refused
Not applicable
Other
Hygienic seals/barriers on equipment
Temperature controls
Wash hands
Restrict access
Staff training
Cleaning/sanitisation
Use approved chemicals/use chemicals as directed
Separate chemicals from poultry/don't use chemicals
% mentioning
Growers
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 71
5.2.3 Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contaminants
Compared to poultry growers and wholesalers/retailers, processors exhibit better knowledge of the range of microbiological food safety hazards that could potentially contaminate poultry meat products. Salmonella is the most commonly mentioned hazard mentioned by all three sectors of the industry, followed by E. coli.
Maintaining a clean and hygienic workplace, maintaining temperature controls and ensuring employees maintain their own personal hygiene and wear protective clothing are amongst the most commonly mentioned practices used by the industry to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination. Monitoring and testing of poultry processing is also commonly mentioned by processors and vaccination/health checks for birds is commonly mentioned by growers.
Growers
• Salmonella and E. coli are the only microbiological hazards that are mentioned by more than 10% of growers.
PPPP. One-third mention Salmonella and E. coli (36% and 33% respectively).
• Four-in-ten growers (39%) do not nominate microbiological hazards. This includes:
QQQQ. one-in-five (18%) say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and
RRRR. twenty-one percent (21%) who say they “don’t know”.
• One-in-five growers (17%) growers also nominate hazards that are not specific to food safety. These include Newcastle Disease and Avian Flu.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 72
Processors
• Processors nominate more microbiological food safety hazards than both growers and wholesalers/retailers.
• A majority of processors nominate both salmonella and E. coli (65% and 54% respectively).
• The next most commonly mentioned potential microbiological hazards are:
SSSS. Listeria Monocytogenes (mentioned by 39%);
TTTT. Campylobacter (33%); and
UUUU. Staphylococcus Aureus (20%).
• One-in-five (19%) of processors do not nominate any microbiological hazards. This includes:
VVVV. six percent (6%) who say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and
WWWW. thirteen percent (13%) who say they “don’t know”.
This is the lowest proportion not nominating any hazards of the three sectors in the industry.
Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination bygrowers
Growers are most likely to say they maintain a clean and hygienic farm to reduce the riskof microbiological contamination. One-quarter (25%) mention this.
Reflecting their position in the poultry meat industry, growers are the only sector toreport they conduct vaccinations/health checks on birds in substantial numbers (22%mention this).
Ten percent of growers (10%) also say they ensure employees maintain good personalhygiene and/or wear protective clothing to reduce microbiological contamination risk.
Specifically, growers say:
…any sick birds are immediately culled.
…reduce bird stress by correct temperatures and ventilation – good food and plenty of space and no overcrowding.
… all birds have salmonella like people carry cancer. Most are not affected.
…we change our clothes when moving from older birds to the sheds with younger ones and use foot baths.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 73
Wholesalers/retailers
• Over half of wholesalers/retailers (53%) do not nominate any microbiological hazards. This is the highest proportion of any of the sectors of the poultry meat industry not to nominate any microbiological hazards. This proportion is comprised of:
XXXX. fourteen percent (14%) who say there are no microbiological hazards they are aware of; and
YYYY. thirty-nine percent (39%) who say they “don’t know”.
• The most mentioned microbiological hazard by wholesalers/retailers is Salmonella (mentioned by 36%).
• The only other microbiological hazard mentioned by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is E. coli (mentioned by 13%).
Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination byprocessors
Processors are most likely to say they maintain clean and hygienic processing plantswhen asked about the practices they employ to reduce the risk of microbiologicalcontamination (mentioned by 40%). This is followed by:
• maintaining temperature controls (mentioned by 35%);
• monitoring and testing of processing plant (32%); and
• employees maintain good personal hygiene and/or wear protective clothing (20%).
Specifically, processors say:
…we look at the cleaning of the bird and temperature controls are contained and faecal control is watched.
…water spraying with chlorine – monitor chillers for chlorine and heat – ensure control temperatures are correct.
…continual hygiene – meat not kept out of cooler long – knives and cutting boards colour coded red for raw meat and brown for cooked meat.
…send samples off every week to be tested – test for heavy metals.
…we have monitoring equipment that allows us to swab test our equipment and benches.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 74
Practices employed to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination bywholesalers/retailers
Maintaining temperature controls is the most likely practice wholesalers/retailersundertake to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination (mentioned by 27%). Thisis followed by:
• maintaining a clean and hygienic workplace (14%); and
• employees maintain good personal hygiene and/or wear protective clothing (12%).
Specifically, wholesalers/retailers say:
…keep them at right temperature. Let the chickens cool down for 30 minutes before putting them in the cool room.
…temperature controlled. Nothing is left uncovered – all food is covered. All equipment is sterilised.
…raw poultry kept under4 degrees. We’ve got thermometers in the fridges. Hot food kept over 60 degrees.
…we always wear gloves when working with chicken meat.
…high level of personal hygiene. All of our staff have food-handling accredited training.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 75
Figure 33: Q31. What microbiological food safety hazards like bacteria or viral pathogens are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your birds/poultry meat products?
39
14
1
8
2
9
4
4
13
36
13
6
1
6
5
20
33
39
54
65
21
18
17
1
1
2
6
6
33
36
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Don't know
None
Other - not food safety hazards
Other - food safety hazards
Clostridium perfringens
Staphylococcus aureus
Campylobacter
Listeria monocytogenes
E. coli
Salmonella
% mentioning
Growers
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Figure 34: Q33. What are the three main practice you employ to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of your birds/poultry meat products?
2
53
2
2
3
1
2
1
9
0
3
12
27
14
1
19
6
1
1
0
4
0
3
1
32
20
35
40
1
39
11
1
1
4
1
6
3
22
6
10
5
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Refused
Not applicable
Other
Appropriate equipment/packaging
Staff training
Pest control
Use HACCP guidelines
Restric access/quarantine
Separate poultry from contaminants
Vaccination/health checks on birds
Monitoring/Testing
Wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing
Temperature control
Cleaning/hygiene
% mentioning
Growers
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 76
5.2.4 Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contaminants
For poultry processors and wholesalers/retailers, physical contamination of their poultry meat products is one potential risk to food safety. For processors, metal and plastic are the most commonly mentioned potential contaminants, while wholesalers/retailers mention wood and contaminants from other people as being potential risks.
Processors mention monitoring, maintenance and cleaning as the main practices they employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of their poultry meat products. Wholesalers/retailers most commonly mention personal hygiene, supply protective clothing and keeping poultry separate from other substances as their main practices to avoid contamination.
Processors
• Metal is nominated by one-third (34%) of processors when asked what kind of physical things could potentially contaminate poultry meat products.
• The next most commonly mentioned potential physical contaminants are:
ZZZZ. plastic (mentioned by 23%);
AAAAA. dirt or unclean surfaces (18%); and
BBBBB. contaminants from humans (15%).
• One-quarter (24%) of processors do not nominate physical contaminants. This includes:
CCCCC. twelve percent (12%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and
DDDDD. twelve percent (12%) who say they “don’t know”.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 77
Wholesalers/retailers
• For wholesalers/retailers, wood is most mentioned as a potential physical contaminant (mentioned by 19%).
• Wood is followed by:
EEEEE. contaminants from humans (13%);
FFFFF. plastic (12%);
GGGGG. metal (11%); and
HHHHH. dirt or unclean surfaces (10%).
• Four-in-ten (39%) wholesalers/retailers do not nominate physical contaminants. This includes:
IIIII. twenty percent (20%) who say there are no chemicals they are aware of; and
JJJJJ. twenty percent (20%) who say they “don’t know”.
Practices employed to reduce the risk of physical contamination by processors
Processors are most likely to say they regularly monitor or maintain their processingplants to reduce the risk of physical contamination. Three-in-ten processors (31%)mention this. This is followed by:
• wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing (mentioned by 23%);
• cleaning/hygiene (18%); and
• separate poultry from other substances (13%).
Specifically, processors say:
…regular equipment maintenance and online inspection of machinery when in use.
…accounting for nuts and bolts – knives counted hourly – all labelled knives consecutively – all cartons isolated if knives missing.
…staff wear protective clothing and hairnets – no jewellery.
…clean uniform every day – washing hands after smoke breaks and toilet.
…only use certified overalls with inside pockets.
…either throw out or wash any dropped birds.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 78
Figure 35: Q29. What kinds of physical things are you aware of that could potentially contaminate your poultry meat products?
20
20
10
1
1
3
2
1
2
5
13
10
19
12
11
12
12
6
8
8
6
9
11
10
9
15
18
13
23
34
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Don't know
None
Other
Intestinal matter
Feathers
Blood
Bones/bone fragments
Faecal matter
Glass
Insects and pests
Contaminants from humans
Dirt or unclean surfaces/equipment
Wood
Plastic
Metal
% mentioning
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Includes temperature, foreign objects, other food
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Practices employed to reduce the risk of chemical contamination bywholesalers/retailers
Maintaining personal hygiene and using protective clothing is the most nominatedpractice by wholesalers/retailers to reduce the risk of physical contamination of poultrymeat (mentioned by 19%).
The only other practice nominated by more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers is toseparate poultry from other substances (mentioned by 17%).
Specifically, processors say:
…employees always wear clean uniforms – sick employees kept away.
…staff are prohibited from wearing anything that could fall into the food – all staff wear uniforms including hair nets.
…separate boards for different means, and limited handling of poultry.
… all poultry is covered in tubs after it is delivered and left covered until ready for repackaging.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 79
Figure 36: Q30. What are the three main practices you employ to reduce the risk of physical contamination of your poultry meat products?
5
39
4
1
0
1
5
5
8
6
17
6
19
1
24
5
0
1
1
1
9
9
18
13
31
23
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Refused
Not applicable
Other
Restrict access
Use approved chemicals/use chemicals as directed
Pest control
Correct equipment/packaging
Staff training
Temperature control
Cleaning/hygiene
Separate poultry from other substances
Monitoring/maintenance
Wash hands/personal hygiene/protective clothing
% mentioning
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 80
5.3 Government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry
5.3.1 Standards, code of practice and guidelines used
Not surprisingly, the standards, codes of practice and guidelines adhered to by poultry growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers in relation to food safety varies greatly according to the stage of the poultry meat supply chain the business operates within.
For growers, contractual obligations are the most commonly mentioned obligation growers are required to adhere to. Processors, meanwhile, mention HACCP or quality assurance programs. Wholesalers/retailers are most likely to mention local government and State/Territory food hygiene/safety legislation, standards or codes of practice.
The extent of government and self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is very muchaligned to the sector of the industry.
Poultry growers are most likely to be self-regulated, with a large proportion of growerssaying they adhere to contractual obligations, industry guidelines and HACCP plans beforementioning government regulations. Less than one-quarter of growers are aware of theChapter 3 Food Safety Standards and less are aware of the proposed Chapter 4. Growersare not particularly likely to have annual inspections of their operations (which is incontrast to processors and wholesalers/retailers) and when these inspections do takeplace, they are overwhelmingly conducted by a contractual parties.
Poultry processors also exhibit signs of self-regulation. However they also appear subjectto government regulation. The most commonly mentioned obligations for processors toadhere to are HACCP plan obligations, followed by State/Territory government foodhygiene/safety regulations and Australian Standard obligations. A large majority ofprocessors are aware of Chapter 3 and as with growers, only a small proportion areaware of the proposed Chapter 4. Almost all processors report having at least oneinspection of their operations each year, with these inspections mainly been conducted bya State/Territory government department/agency.
Wholesalers/retailers are the least likely sector within the poultry meat industry to beexposed to self-regulation. Wholesalers/retailers most commonly report adhering to localgovernment and State/Territory government regulations, followed by the Food StandardsCode. Following a HACCP plan is also mentioned by a majority of wholesalers/retailers.While a majority of wholesalers/retailers are aware of Chapter 3, at least one-third areunaware of the Chapter. Like processors, most wholesalers/retailers report at least oneinspection by a third party each year, with these inspections most commonly conductedby a local government authority.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 81
Growers
The standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines that are most ‘top-of-mind’ for growers are not government-initiated. Instead, growers are focused on obligations that come from their own business operations or industry. Specifically, the only obligations mentioned spontaneously by more than 10% of poultry growers are:
• contractual obligations (mentioned by 64%);
• industry guidelines/codes of practice (20%); and
• HACCP or quality assurance programs (11%).
When prompted however, growers offer some other government-initiated obligations. These include:
• local government acts/regulations (mentioned by 76%);
• State/Territory government animal health acts/regulations (66%); and
• State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (54%).
Figure 37: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry growing business adhere to in relation to food safety?
Growers
1
11
1
2
7
1
20
1
64
17
48
50
54
65
66
67
76
87
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aust Standard - meat(AS 4694-2002)
HACCP or QA
Guidelines ofAnimal Health Australia
State government(food hygiene/safety)
National Biosecurity Manual forContract Meat Chicken Farming
State government(animal health)
Industry guidelines/codes ofpractice
Local government
Contractual obligations
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents (Growers n=157).
Processors
When asked what standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines they adhere to in relation to food safety, processors are most likely to spontaneously mention a combination of
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 82
government, company, and industry-initiated obligations. The most commonly spontaneously mentioned obligations are:
• HACCP or quality assurance programs (mentioned by 48%);
• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards code (27%);
• State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (16%); and
• the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (15%).
When prompted, almost all processors say they adhere to HACCP or quality assurance programs and State/Territory government food hygiene/safety acts/regulations (97% and 95% respectively).
The next most mentioned obligations processors adhered to when prompted are:
• the Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001) (80%);
• the Australian Standard for the hygienic production and transportation of meat and meat products for human consumption (AS 4694-2002) (77%); and
• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (76%).
Figure 38: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry processing business adhere to in relation to food safety?
Processors
10
10
4
27
10
15
16
48
50
69
74
76
77
80
95
97
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Contractual obligations
Industry guidelines/codes of practice
Local government
Food Standards Code (any chapter)
Aust Standard - meat(AS 4694-2002)
Australian Standard - poultry specific(AS 4465-2001)
State government(food hygiene/safety)
HACCP or QA
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents ( Processors n=141).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 83
Wholesalers/retailers
Unlike both growers and processors, a considerable proportion of wholesalers/retailers are likely to say they “don’t know” what standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines they adhere to in relation to food safety.
• One-third (34%) of wholesalers/retailers say don’t know.
KKKKK. This compares to 10% of growers and 4% of processors.
The only obligation more than 10% of wholesalers/retailers are likely to spontaneously nominate is that they adhere to a HACCP or quality assurance plan.
When prompted, however, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to say they adhere to local government acts/regulations and State/Territory government food hygiene/safety regulations/acts (both mentioned by 82%). This is followed by:
• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards code (mentioned by 62%); and
• HACCP or quality assurance programs (60%).
Figure 39: Q47. What standards, codes of practice, contracts or guidelines does your poultry wholesaling/retailing business adhere to in relation to food safety?
Wholesalers and retailers
1
1
2
6
36
8
4
8
6
18
20
38
60
62
82
82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Australian Standard - poultry specific(AS 4465-2001)
Aust Standard - meat(AS 4694-2002)
Industry guidelines/codes of practice
Contractual obligations
HACCP or QA
Food Standards Code (any chapter)
State government(food hygiene/safety)
Local government
% mentioning
Unprompted and prompted
Unprompted Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 84
5.3.2 Awareness of Chapter 3 and 4 of the Food Standards Code
Awareness of the Chapter 3 Food Standards of the Food Standards or its guide, “Safe Food Australia”, is low within the growers sector of the poultry meat industry. However, a majority of both processors and wholesalers/retailers have heard of the Chapter (Figure 40).
• Less than one-quarter of growers (22%) are aware of Chapter 3.
LLLLL. This is not surprising, given Chapter 3 does not specifically relate to the operations of poultry growing businesses.
• Four-in-five processors (79%) and two-thirds of wholesalers/retailers (63%) are aware of Chapter 3.
MMMMM. This proportion indicates relatively good awareness of Chapter 3. However, at least one-in-three wholesalers/retailers are not aware of Chapter 3.
Figure 40: Q49. Before today, had you heard of the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards of the Food Standards Code or the guide to Chapter 3, “Safe Food Australia”?
63
79
22
37
21
78 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
YesNoRefused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 85
5.3.3 Practices undertaken to comply with Chapter 3
When asked, processors and wholesalers/retailers offer a range of practices they undertake to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards.3 As has previously been noted (see Section 5.2.1), wholesalers tend to offer fewer practices than processors.
Over half of both processors and wholesalers/retailers say they “don’t know” what practices they undertake in order to comply with Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards (66% for wholesalers/retailers and 53% for processors).
Processors
The most commonly nominated practice by processors to comply with Chapter 3 is to train poultry meat handlers (mentioned by 30%). This is followed by:
• take practical measures to reduce the risk of contamination (mentioned by 17%);
• supervise poultry meat handlers (15%);
• maintain clean premises (15%);
• only hold poultry meat at 5 degrees or below, or above 60 degrees Celsius (14%); and
• ensure poultry meat handlers know about food safety and food hygiene matters (14%).
Wholesalers/retailers
Training poultry meat handlers is also the most commonly mentioned practice by wholesalers/retailers, however only 12% of wholesalers/retailers mention this (in comparison to 30% of processors).
There are only two other practices that are mentioned by 10% or more of wholesalers/ retailers:
• maintain clean premises (10%); and
• only hold poultry meat at 5 degrees or below, or above 60 degrees Celsius (10%).
3 As growers are not required to adhere to Chapter 3, they were not asked what practices they undertake to comply with the Chapter.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 86
Figure 41: Q50. What things does your business do to comply with the Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards?
Top-ten practices
0
5
4
3
3
5
10
10
9
12
4
2
5
6
15
14
14
15
17
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Restrict duties of employees who are ill
Freshly cooked food is notmixed with older batches
Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooledto under 21 degrees Celsius within 4 hours
Ensure cooked poultry meat is cooledto 5 degrees Celsius or under within 6 hours
Supervise poultry meat handlers
Ensure poultry meat handlers knowabout food safety and food hygiene matters
Only hold poultry meat that at 5 degreesor below, or above 60 degrees Celsius
Maintain clean premises
Take practical measures toreduce the risk of contamination
Train poultry meat handlers
% mentioning
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents who comply with Chapter 3(Processors n=111; Wholesalers/Retailers n=130 (weighted)).
5.3.4 Awareness of proposed Chapter 4 standards
Across the entire poultry meat industry, awareness of the proposed Chapter 4 standards is relatively low, with less than a quarter of all sectors of industry aware of the proposed Chapter 4 standards (Figure 42).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 87
Figure 42: Q51. Have you heard of the Chapter 4 Primary Production and Processing Standards of the Food Standards Code?
8
20
10
92
79
89
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
YesNoRefused
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 88
5.3.5 Inspections conducted of poultry meat businesses
A majority of processors and wholesalers/retailers report some kind of third-party inspections conducted of their operations, while just fewer than half of growers (46%) report at least one inspection (Figure 43).
There is a clear division between which organisations/parties conduct these inspections depending on the sector of the industry. For growers, inspections are predominantly conducted by a contractual party, for processors they are mainly carried out by a State/Territory government department or agency and for wholesalers/retailers they are mainly carried out by a local government authority (
Figure 44).
Growers
• More than one-third of all growers (36%) report no inspections of their poultry growing operations.
• One-quarter (27%) report between one and nine inspections per year.
• Almost one-in-five (17%) report that they don’t know how many inspections are carried out per year.
• Over two-thirds (68%) of growers report contractual parties as the organisations that conduct these inspections.
NNNNN. Inspections by State/Territory governments, local governments and industry groups are also reported by more than 10% of growers (14%, 12% and 11% respectively).
Processors
• The overwhelming majority of processors (77%) report between one and nine inspections per year.
• Fourteen percent (14%) report between ten and 49 inspections per year.
• Only one percent (1%) report no inspections, and an additional six percent (6%) report not knowing how many inspections they have.
• State/Territory governments are the most reported organisation to conduct inspections of processors (mentioned by 74%).
OOOOO. Inspections by contractual parties, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) and third party auditors (such as SGS International) are also mentioned (30%, 26% and 16% respectively).
Wholesalers/retailers
• As is the case for growers, a large majority of wholesalers/retailers (75%) report between one and nine inspections per year.
• However, as is the case for growers, almost one-in-five report not knowing how many inspections they have each year (17%).
• Four percent (4%) report no inspections.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 89
• For wholesalers/retailers, inspections by local government authorities are most common (mentioned by 68%).
PPPPP. Inspections by State/Territory governments and third party auditors are also mentioned (26% and 13% respectively).
Figure 43: Q54. How many food safety inspections by personnel not employed at your location were conducted of your poultry operations?
4
1
36
75
77
27
2
14
7
1
11 1
17
6
17
1
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wholesalers and Retailers
Processors
Growers
% mentioning
None 1-9 10-49 50-99 100 and above Don't know Refused Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 90
Figure 44: Q55. Which external organizations conducted these inspections?
0
3
2
1
13
5
68
9
26
1
2
4
15
16
26
12
30
74
0
1
7
11
3
9
12
68
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Refused
Don't know
Other
Industry group
Third party auditor
AQIS
Local government authority
Contractual party
State government agency
% mentioning
Growers
Processors
Wholesalers andRetailers
Base: All respondents who reported at least one inspection (Growers n=74; Processors n=127; Wholesalers/Retailers n=143 (weighted)).
5.3.6 Self-regulation within the poultry meat industry
As has been briefly discussed above, self-regulation in the poultry meat industry is largely dependent on the sector of the industry.
Growers
As noted in Figure 7, growers are most likely to spontaneously nominate adhering to contractual obligations, industry guidelines or codes of practice and HACCP or quality assurance programs (spontaneously mentioned by 64%, 20% and 11% respectively).
While growers do indicate they adhere to government regulations/standards when prompted, this prevalence to adhere to industry and company-specific guidelines and standards demonstrates a relatively high degree of self-regulation.
This is further supported by the overwhelming majority of growers (78%) who nominate contractual parties as an external organisation that conducts inspections of their operations Figure 44).
Processors
Similar to growers, processors also tend to demonstrate a relatively high degree of self-regulation. Processors however are more likely to spontaneously nominate adhering to a HACCP or quality assurance program in comparison to growers’ tendency to mention
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 91
contractual obligations (48% of processors mention HACCP/quality assurance when not prompted) (Figure 8).
Unlike growers, processors appear quite exposed to inspections by government rather than self-inspection, with 74% of processors reporting being inspected by State/Territory governments. However thirty percent of processors (30%) do report being inspected by a contractual party. In addition, 16% report inspection by a third party auditor (such as SGS International) and 15% report inspections by an industry group.
Wholesalers/retailers
Wholesalers/retailers appear the least likely of the three sectors of the poultry meat industry to display signs of self-regulation. A third (36%) of wholesalers/retailers do spontaneously mention following a HACCP or quality assurance program. However when prompted, following State/Territory and local government regulations/acts appears more widespread (Figure 9).
Local government authorities are most likely to be mentioned by wholesalers/retailers as a third party that would conduct inspections of their operations (mentioned by 68%). Indication of self-regulation is relatively low, with only nine percent (9%) reporting inspection from a contractual party and one percent (1%) reporting inspection by an industry group. Thirteen percent (13%) however, report an inspection by a third party (Figure 44).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 92
5.4 Sources of information and staff training on food safety issues
Reflecting the differences between the nature of the work involved in each sector of thepoultry meat industry, growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers are likely tonominate a range of sources of information and training/education opportunities theyuse.
Poultry growers appear the most likely of the three sectors of the industry to rely onindustry information sources such as the National Biosecurity Manual for Contract MeatChicken Farming. In addition, growers appear particularly reliant on contractual partiesfor information about food safety.
Processors and wholesalers/retailers, meanwhile, are more likely to nominate governmentsources of food safety information. A majority of wholesalers/retailers nominate local andState/Territory governments, while a majority of processors only nominate State/Territorygovernments. Processors also nominate the Australian New Zealand Food Safety Codeand industry groups.
Again, when looking at the training and education opportunities offered to processing andwholesaling/retailing employees, these opportunities appear relatively similar. These twosectors of the industry most commonly provide induction/orientation training, circulatebrochures/pamphlets, circulate food safety regulation documentation and conductperformance reviews of their staff.
In contrast, the opportunities growers most commonly offer are circulating trade orindustry magazines/journals, circulating brochures/pamphlets and providing induction/orientation training.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 93
5.4.1 Sources of information on food safety and poultry meat regulations
Industry groups, State/Territory governments and local governments are the most mentioned information sources for growers, processors and wholesalers/retailers respectively when businesses within these sectors need information on food safety and poultry meat regulations.
Growers
Poultry growers are most likely to spontaneously mention contractual parties when asked which sources they go to for information on food safety in the poultry meat industry (mentioned by 59%). This is followed by industry groups and State/Territory governments (49% and 15% respectively).
When prompted, industry groups (such as the Chicken Meat Federation) are the most commonly mentioned source of information (mentioned by 86% of growers). This is followed by:
• the National Biosecurity Manual for Contract Meat Chicken Farming (mentioned by 58%);
• State/Territory government (49%); and
• AQIS (34%).
Figure 45: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry?
Growers
6
0
1
2
1
15
7
59
49
12
15
17
21
34
49
58
59
86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Australian New ZealandFood Standards Code
Local government
Australian Standards
Other C'wlth govt
AQIS
State/territory govt
National Biosecurity Manualfor Contract Meat Chicken Farming
Contractual parties *
Industry group
% mentioningUnprompted Unprompted and prompted
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157). * Contractual parties was not a prompted question and so the percent mentioning for unprompted and prompted for this category remains constant at 59%.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 94
Processors
State/Territory governments are most commonly spontaneously mentioned by processors when they are asked where they get information on food safety (mentioned by 40%). This is followed by:
• the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (mentioned by 21%);
• industry groups (18%); and
• AQIS (13%).
State/Territory governments, the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and industry groups remain the top-three most mentioned sources of information when processors are prompted if they access these information sources (Figure 5).
However, Australian Standards (such as The Australian Standard for the construction of premises and hygienic production of poultry meat for human consumption (AS 4465-2001)) displace AQIS as the fourth most mentioned information source, mentioned by over half of all processors (62%).
Figure 46: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry?
Processors
5
5
13
4
21
18
40
40
41
44
62
66
67
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other C'wlth govt
Local government
AQIS
Australian Standards
Australian New ZealandFood Standards Code
Industry group
State/territory govt
% mentioningUnprompted Unprompted and prompted
Base: All respondents (Processors n=141).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 95
Wholesalers/retailers
Local and State/Territory governments are the most commonly mentioned sources for wholesalers/retailers when they are looking for information on food safety in the poultry meat industry.
• Local government is spontaneously mentioned by 17% of wholesalers/retailers and is mentioned by three-quarters when prompted (73%);
• State/Territory governments are mentioned by 19% without prompting, and 55% after prompting.
• The Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code, industry groups and Australian Standards are the next most commonly mentioned sources of information (41%, 38% and 34% respectively after prompting).
Figure 47: Q60. Where do people in your business get information on food safety in the poultry meat product industry?
Wholesalers and retailers
2
1
1
10
8
19
17
24
29
34
38
41
55
73
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
AQIS
Other C'wlth govt
Australian Standards
Industry group
Australian New ZealandFood Standards Code
State/territory govt
Local government
% mentioningUnprompted Unprompted and prompted
Base: All respondents (Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 96
5.4.2 Education and training opportunities for poultry meat industry staff
The education and training opportunities offered to employees is fairly similar across the processing and wholesaling/retailing sectors of the poultry meat industry. Growers, however offer different opportunities to their employees (Figure 10).
Growers
The circulation of trade or industry magazines and journals is the most nominated practice by growers to train or inform their employees about food safety (mentioned by 80%). This proportion is considerably larger than processors and wholesalers/retailers (55% and 50% respectively).
The next most commonly mentioned opportunities offered by growers to their employees are:
• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (mentioned by 54%); and
• provide induction/orientation training (46%).
Importantly, 11% of growers offer no training or education opportunities to employees. This is the largest proportion within the poultry meat industry.
Processors
Almost all processors (94%) provide induction/orientation training to employees. This is followed by:
• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (mentioned by 78%);
• circulate food safety regulation documents (73%); and
• provide performance reviews (73%).
All processors report offering some kind of training or education opportunities to employees.
Wholesalers/retailers
As is the case with processors, wholesalers/retailers are most likely to provide induction/orientation training to employees (mentioned by 87%). This is followed by:
• circulate food safety regulation documents (mentioned by 72%);
• circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters (68%); and
• provide performance reviews (68%).
Only a small proportion of wholesalers/retailers (3%) report offering no training or education opportunities to employees.
Benchmark research on the Poultry Meat Industry
Colmar Brunton Social Research 97
Figure 48: Q46. Now I am going to read out things that other businesses sometimes do to train or inform their employees about food safety. Can you please say where or not your business does each one for any of your employees?
15
55
58
68
50
72
68
87
22
69
65
73
55
73
78
94
23
28
34
38
80
40
54
46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Circulate internationalinformation sources
Provide non-accredited foodsafety training for poultry
Provide accredited food safetytraining for handling poultry
Provide performance reviews
Circulate trade or industrymagazines or journals
Circulate food safety regulationdocuments
Circulate brochures, pamphletsor posters
Provide induction/orientationtraining
% mentioning
GrowersProcessorsWholesalers and Retailers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Circulate international information sources
Provide non-accredited food safety training for poultry
Provide accredited food safety training for handlingpoultry
Provide performance reviews
Circulate trade or industry magazines or journals
Circulate food safety regulation documents
Circulate brochures, pamphlets or posters
Provide induction/orientation training
Wholesalers and RetailersProcessorsGrowers
Base: All respondents (Growers n=157; Processors n=141; Wholesalers/Retailers n=181 (weighted)).