FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS

Leena Räsänenleena.rasanen@evira.fi

Food safety organisation

Implementation of the plans

Monitoring the effects of implementation

- Use of resources

- Implementation of the control plans

- Sector based MANCP-reports

Corrective actions

Changes needed

Annual control plans

Implementation of objectives

- Performance agreements of CA’s

Evaluation

- MANCP-report

Corrective actions

Changes in legislation, strategic planning and priorization of resources

Planning

- Budget and operational planning

- MANCP

Continuous improvement – long and short term PDCA’s

Annual planningStrategic planning

State budget, national strategies, Changes in operational environment

Impact indicatorsEffectiveness and efficiency indicators of CA’s

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: High level of food safety is maintained– Objective1: Food-borne illnesses remain at acceptable

level

IND1 Number of human foodborne cases

Target, incidences/100 000 inhabitants

• Campylobacter 13,4

• Salmonella 6,0

• Yersinia 10,0

• Listeria 1,3

• EHEC 0,6

Indicators for effectiveness

• Goal: High level of food safety is maintained– Objective 1: The Oiva inspections improve compliance

of FBO’s

IND2 Trends in Oiva inspections (smiley)

Target:

Year Coverage of Oiva inspections % of FBOs achieving two of the best grades (A or B)

2014 65 % 85 %

2015 88 % 85 %

2016 98 % 88 %

2017 100 % 90 %

Indicators for effectiveness

• Goal: High level of food safety is maintained– Objective1: the proportion of FBO’s with C or D in

Oiva, which get A or B in follow-up inspection

IND3 % of FBO’s which have improved their performance in Oiva inspections

Target (% of FBO’s improving their performance in next inspection)

FBO’s which have got grade C 100 % (gets grade A or B in next inspection)

FBO’s which have got grade D 100 % (gets grade A or B in next inspection)

Indicators for effectiveness

• Goal: High level of food safety is maintained– Objective1: Compliance of FBO’s with labelling

requirements

IND4 % of FBO’s compliant with labelling requirements

Target:

Percentage of inspections on labelling in compliance 85 %

Indicators for efficiency and quality

• Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based

– Objective2: Variation of results in Oiva inspections among municipal CA’s are acceptable level

IND5 % of A, B, C ja D grades of Oiva inspections of municipal CA’s

Target:

Will be decided later when the results of two or three years are available

Indicators for efficiency and quality

• Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based

– Objective2: CA’s carry out risk based control planIND6 Implementation level of risk based control plans, %

Target Target 2014-2017 Indicator value 2012

% of risk based control plans fully implemented by municipal CA’s

90 % 2014 75 %2015 80 %2016 85 %2017 90 %

57 %

Indicators for efficiency and quality

• Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based

– Objective2: Coverage of inspections in accordance with recommended risk based frequency

IND7 Coverage of inspections, %

Final target Target 2014-2017 Indicator value 2012

Total 41 %

FBO’s whose recommended inspection frequency is less than 1/year

Coverage more than 70 %

Will be decided later when results of 2013 are available

FBO’s whose recommended inspection frequency is 1/year or more

Coverage is 100 %

Will be decided later when results of 2013 are available

Indicators for efficiency and quality

• Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based

– Objective2: Inspectors carry out more inspections

• Later also economic efficiency (€/inspection) will be measured

IND8 Efficiency of inspections, inspections/fte

Target Target 2014-2017 Indicator value 2012

150 2014 1102015 1302016 1402017 150

113

Efficiency of inspections carried out by municipal CA’s (2012)

Inspections/fte

Municipal CA’s in random order

Costs of inspection, €/inspection (2012)

Municipal CA’s in random order

€

Indicators for efficiency and quality

• Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based

– Objective2 Municipal CA’s notify suspected food-borne epidemics

IND9 Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics, number/100 000 inhabitants

Target

Will be decided later when results are available from two or more years

Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics/ 100 000 inhabitants (2012)

Municipal CA’s

Backround ”information” (no special objectives)

• Residue control– Number of samples– Number of analyses– Number of non-compliant samples, cases or lots

• Number of RASSF-notifications made by Finland• Number of withdrawals or recalls• Number of official samples (taken by municipal CA’s)