Editorial

The saying goes: You are what you eat. Unfortunately, there may be more lurking in your food than what you can see.

Food-borne diseases struck down 410 people between January and September last year, according to the Disease Surveillance Unit. The figures for 2005 show 731 people affected - thankfully none of them fatally. Two-thirds of these were outbreaks from a common cause.

This is why catering outlets - whether restaurants, take-aways or outside caterers - deserve special attention from the authorities. One bad apple - or bad egg, bad mussel, bad dishcloth or bad chopping board - can taint the rest, affecting dozens of people in one swoop.

There is also another aspect that should not be overlooked: the route that foodstuffs take to the outlets and providers.

The operators cannot plead ignorance but, just in case, the Public Health Department has decided to post on its website the health regulations relating to food safety.

There is no doubt that that legislation imposes considerable burdens on outlets, especially smaller ones. The biggest challenge is to make them understand there are reasons for the seemingly finicky regulations on sanitation, floors, fridges and so on. The European Union has been pragmatic enough to issue guidelines aimed at small businesses. It is better to establish an acceptable minimum than to have people give up before even trying to reach the unreachable.

What is the situation at present? If one assumes that there should be zero tolerance against negligence resulting in food poisoning, then one is likely to be very worried learning that 14 food establishments were closed down last year due to possible health risks. The department also issued 35 emergency control orders.

Should these be named and shamed, as happens in some other countries? There is no legal basis for this in Malta - but it is a very big stick. Some problems are quickly resolved. An outlet is sometimes only closed down for a few days - and, in any case, the public would be aware of the reason for a shutdown as a notice is affixed to the premises. With emergency orders, reasons can vary from the serious to the merely procedural.

Would it be right to raise public concern about an outlet or service provider unnecessarily? Perhaps, especially when public health is at stake and where repeat defaulters are involved. As long as the problem is clearly explained and put in context, the public should have a right to such information.

The public does have access, via the department, to "undertakings", when the department has noted some shortcoming that needs to be rectified. It seems strange that information is available for these and not for more serious cases.

The good news is that things are constantly improving at a national level. The figures for notifiable diseases show a positive trend for 2006 (unless there were any unusual trends in the last three quarters of the year).

Nonetheless, there were still 1,100 complaints about breaches of food legislation. Many of these are related to food hygiene. The manager of the health inspection unit at the department, John Attard Kingswell, said the problem was that outlets and providers were careful to meet standards before they were granted their licence but they slackened afterwards.

He queried why people continued to patronise outlets that were clearly below standard.

It seems that with food, as with prices and bad service, the best way to vote remains with one's feet.