Food Safety and Hygiene: A Case Study Report on Bada Bing Home Cooking and Back to Nature Organic Shop

The report analyzes the measures taken by Bada Bing Home Cooking and Back to Nature Organic Shop to ensure food safety and hygiene. It discusses the liabilities of the shop owners and the application of appropriate legislations. The report covers the breach of Acts such as the Environment Protection Act, Food Regulation Act of 2016, Food Production and Safety Act of 2000, and the Food Production and Safety Regulation of 2014. The report also investigates the civil liabilities of the shop owners as per the provisions of law of tort, Act of civil liabilities of 2003 and the other states Acts as well.

Case Study Report

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................2
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................8
Recommendation ............................................................................................................................8
REFERNCES ................................................................................................................................10
INTRODUCTION
The right of safe and hygienic food is the primary human right of the individual which
stands available to them by their birth. Moreover, the breach of such standards can impact the
human being to an great extent while making a direct effect on their health. Australia is a party to
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that specifically
deals with the protection of health and safety and working conditions to prevent diseases and the
mortality rate of citizens1. The following report covers the given case scenario in order to assess
1 "Food Safety Act Codes Of Practice" (2019) 102(4)

the measures of hygiene as well as the safety of food taken by the 'Bada Bing Home cooking' and
organic shop named 'Back to Nature'. In the case scenario, Adriana is the customers of the Bada
Bing Home cooking who as a result of consuming the food from said outlet got diagnosed with
Gastro-enteritis. Adriana in her contention to environment health officer revealed that Bada Bing
Home cooking is known for its unhygienic acts such as the not washing his hands before
preparing the foods items.
Further, the health officer in other case scenario which is of Back to Nature observed that
the outlet is using the products which are prohibited by the laws. Also on investigation the
officer discovered that the owner owes the illegal laboratory which is releasing the smell of bad
odour while manufacturing certain goods sold in the shop. For which the neighbours as well
made various complaints. As a result of which there arose the need of public health investigation
at both the mentioned outlets. The following report analyses the measure with respect to the
safety and production of food in both the shops. The report also ascertains the liabilities which
lies on the part of shops owners which they owe towards the general public as a duty of care. It
will also entail the application of appropriate legislations which can be imposed on the given
scenarios. Furthermore, other than the liabilities the articles also discusses the other issues as
well which are -
 Whether prosecution made against Silvio allows Carmela to give evidence against
him?
 Whether prosecution made against her husband by Rasalie is valid?
 Whether any special rules require Silvio to produce evidence on his behalf?
Further, by the way of investigation by the health officer it can be ascertained that the
both the shops stands guilty for breaching the concerned Acts of the country such as the
Environment protection Act, Food regulation Act of 2016, Food production and safety Act of
2000 along with the food production and safety regulation of 20142. The report will try to
conclude ascertain the liabilities of the shop owners while taking into consideration the suited
case laws and evidence s inferred by the appointed environment health officer. Moreover, the
report also tries to investigate the the civil liabilities of the shop owners as per the provisions of
law of tort, Act of civil liabilities of 2003 and the other states Acts as well. From the inferences
2 "Standards On Batteries &Amp; Health Physics Instrumentation" (2019) 20(10)

of various evidences it can be conferred that both the shops have said to breach the above
mentioned standards of safety regarding the procession of food.
MAIN BODY
Primary requirements of Health and Hygiene
With respect to the measure of cleanliness the appointed environment health officer can
charge silvo, the shop owner of the Bada Bing Home cooking under the shop cleanliness act of
the country. As in the process of investigation it was observed that the shop was not meeting the
criteria of minimum cleanliness and was very unclean and it is the duty of shop owner to keep
their concerned premises clean in order to carry out their food business while taking care of the
basic safety standards towards their customers. Other than this the food and safety standards of
the state also entails a boundation on the part of owners to keep their premises as well as the
other related equipments in the clean and sanitary conditions3. Further as per clause 20 of the
Australian food and safety standards the term equipment comprises of all the utensils which are
used for drinking and eating purposes by the customers or any other such utensils which are
contacted to the food which is to be served to the customers4. Whereas the clean and sanitation
conditions means the situation where the level of micro organisms on the utensils gets minimised
to the extent which does not compromise the safety of food while allowing the transmission of
infectious diseases to the customers. Therefore from the explanation of these standards it can be
said that the Silvo being the owner of the shop owes the general duty of care for ensuring the
safety of customers as well as other people who are working as an employee to not to get
contaminated by the food processed in the shop.
Further the other being with respect to the not washing of hands before preparing the
food as seen by Carmela. It is the general duty of care on the part of Silvo to take care of the fact
that he must prepare the food from the properly washed and sanitized hands which stands
suitable to eat for the customers. Also it can be ascertained by the investigators that if the silvo
has followed the basic standards of safety and hygiene then Adriana must not have diagnosed
with the disease of Gastro-enteritis. Other than this the Food Act of 2008, defines the term
unsafe food as the one, where the consumption of same can result some physical harm to the user
3 Wheelock, Verner, "Initial Impact Of The Food Safety Act" (2019) 93(5) British Food Journal
4 "THE HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA" (2019) 1(6)

5. Moreover, the complaint made by the Adriana and Carmela as they witnessed the scenario
where silvo prepared the sandwich just after cleaning the floor without washing his hands which
later was also got confirmed from the statements of his wife. The contentions also confers that
silvo fails in meeting the basic standards of food and safety standards of the country which
entails that the individuals are who are owing the food shop and are involved in the process of
processing must wash their hands whenever they feels that hands are likely to cont6aminate the
food. The said standard also specifies certain special rules with respect to the washing of hands
by the food handlers and processors6. The acts mainly stands applicable on the scenarios such as
sanitization of hands after doing the works related to cleaning right away before the preparation
of food. Thus it can be said that silvo stand bound to deliver the food which is safe for
consumption.
Further mainly with respect to the liability of food handler who in this case is silvo, are
required to wash their hands if there lies the chance of contamination of foods. In this case silvo
being the owner of shop is also considered as the food handler as according to the literal
interpretation of the term in the Act he is the person who is likely to have the direct contact with
the food or the one who take care of the surfaces which are likely to have contact with the food.
Thus as per the given requirements of the basic standards, silvo is required to comply with them.
Other than this he also stands liable for breaching primary duty of maintaining the program
related to safety which identifies the important food safety hazards as well as state the safe and
hygienic conditions as to how the primary produce of the foods in the food outlets need to be
maintained and monitored.
The other given case scenario which is of the Meadow being owner of the organic shop
named 'Back to Nature. Mainly with respect to the labelling of food, he failed in complying the
food regulation regarding the labelling of same. The primary aim behind the labelling of food is
5 Simpson, Susan, "The Food Safety Act: Food Manufacturer Response And Attitude" (2020) 94(1) British
Food Journal
6 Ali, Abu Noman M.A. and S.M. Solaiman, "Food Safety Offenses In New South Wales, Australia: A
Critical Appreciation Of Their Complexities" (2019) 13(1) Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and
Food Safety

to ensure that the customers did not get misguided by the ingredient of the item at the time of
purchasing it. Moreover, the Australia food standard code is the one source which entails the the
food item which has been given for sale must comprises of its ingredient list in compliance with
the Food Acts of the country7. Similarly in accordance of the states Act, it can be identified that
Meadow can be made liable for the breach of same as he was selling the food items which
comprises of certain ingredients which are prohibited by the law and also does not fall in the
category of natural items. The acts specifies the way in which the food item needs to be packed
as well as labelled in a manner which does not contravenes with the given food standards and if
it does so then in such case the food must not be sold or advertised. Meadow was marketing as
well as selling the food items which are comprising of the false description contravening in
accordance of the section 25 and section 16 of the Food act 20088. other than this he was also
failed in following the allergen regulation which according to the Acts of the country is treated as
serious offense. The labelling of food as per the legislation also asks for the correct allergen
information of the food. As the incorrect labelling or product without label can harm the
customers with the allergies which they might have of the ingredient which are not listed on the
product. This can also lead in causing the serious health issues as well to their users.
Furthermore, specifically with respect to the given three issues the article discusses as follows -
The very first issues is whether the prosecution can call the Carmela to give evidence again silvo.
As the unhygienic act of silvo of preparing the food without washing his hand and right after
carrying out the sweeping was witnessed by the Carmela can be used as the direct evidence in
the court. Moreover, the statement given by Rosalie will b treated as the hearsay evidence reason
being it was not provided by her in the presence of any oath and that too out of the court. Even
though Rosalie is subjected to have the first hand hearsay evidence then also she cannot be called
in the court of justice to use them against her husband, silvo, as they are protected by the spousal
privileges. The said spousal privileges adheres the limited security against the act of compelled
to testify against her husband in the court. Also as Rosalie on a prior note specified the
7 Cockbill, Charles, "The Food Safety Act: An Introduction" (2019) 93(8) British Food Journal
8 Humphrey, John, "Food Safety, Private Standards Schemes And Trade: The Implications Of The FDA
Food Safety Modernization Act" (2020) 2012(403) IDS Working Papers

environment health officer that she is not willing to testify against her husband and dues to this
she cannot be compelled to provide the evidences. But in the same instance her information can
be used as the unavailable witness even if she cannot be called to testify in the court. Moreover,
as per the interpretation of Evidence Act of the Australia, an individual cannot be regarded as the
the available for the purpose of providing the evidences regarding some fact if there leis the
scenario where it stands unlawful for the person to provide the evidences about the fact.
Therefore, in the given scenario the wife of silvo, who is Rosalie cannot be compelled as well as
called in the court to give evidences against her husband as the same is regarded as unlawful act
as per the spousal privileges being provide in the Act9.
Moreover, with respect to the other issues of whether there are any
special rules which could be applied if Silvio was required to give evidence in this, or any other
case. The silvo has made the breach of various legislation under which he was bound to provide
the information as well as other documents in accordance of the rule of general civil procedures
rules of 2005. whereby according to it only natural person stands entitled to exercise the
advantages against the act o0f self incrimination. But here as in the given case silvo is the owner
of self business therefore because of which the advantage of self exposure cannot be excused
from him on the said grounds. Similarly, the court in the other case of Construction forestry
mining and energy union v. boral resources pvt Ltd., the position of law was strengthened by the
evidence act of 2008 which mainly specifies that the corporate body is needed to answer the
question and must provide the information as well as produce the document and not entitled to
refuse. Where the failure of same to comply might incriminate the company or make it liable for
fetching the penalty. Other than this the rule of self incrimination might also result the people at
risk therefore it is required on the part of silvo to provide the required authorised information as
well as other documents.
Furthermore, the Food Act of 2001 of Australia specifies that a a natural person must
render the content which is asked by the authorised person on request. Here the legislations
interpret natural person as the one which is different from the corporate persons. Therefore
9 Laverty, Martin, Dennis R McDermott and Tom Calma, "Embedding Cultural Safety In Australia's Main
Health Care Standards" (2020) 207(1) Medical Journal of Australia

reason being this silvo does enjoys no advantage against self incrimination as it lies in the
category of corporate issues10. The court in the other case of In Environment Protection
Authority v Caltex Refining co. ltd of 1993 stressed that the self-incrimination does not apply at
cooperate level and that a corporation charged with such an offence may not resist a lawful
command to produce documents to a prosecuting authority.
Conclusion
In Australia, the Food Act of 1984, is one of the primary piece of legislation which entails the
major guidelines regarding the legal requirements which need to be taken in to consideration by
the food handler and the owners of food outlets. Hence the non compliance of the ACT or the
measures carried out while violating the said provision falls in the category of offences which
further can also result in subjected to legal action by the council. Therefore it is an important
task on the part of food outlet owners to have the required knowledge regarding as to what act
can constitute offence and further the possible legal penalties for the same as the mere excuse of
not knowing cannot be taken into consideration. For the given scenario it is ascertained that both
the shop owners lies at the fault of non compliance of the primary safety and hygiene standard as
well as the other mentioned legislations of the country.
Recommendation
Mainly for the given case scenarios the following recommendation has been made concerning
both the food outlets which are the Bada Bing Home cooking' and organic shop named 'Back to
Nature'.
 The very first is that they are required to enhance and alter their existing practices related
to the safety of food, their cleaning process as well as other measures of general hygiene.
 That the other shop named back to nature, to shift their laboratory to some other place
which is less crowded and register the same as well as also must notify the concerned
authorities before the commencement of such business.
 They must carry out the appropriate labelling of the manufactured food items in order to
avoid any further cases of negligence. Also it is required on the part of both the shop
10 Phillips, Pat, "THE FOOD SAFETY ACT — THE CHANGING SCENE" (2020) 91(3) Nutrition &
Food Science

owners to train their employees to carry out the manufacturing of food in accordance of
the prevailing food safety and hygiene standards of the country.

REFERNCES
"Food Safety Act Codes Of Practice" (2019) 102(4)
"Standards On Batteries &Amp; Health Physics Instrumentation" (2019) 20(10)
"THE HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA" (2019) 1(6)
Ali, Abu Noman M.A. and S.M. Solaiman, "Food Safety Offenses In New South Wales, Australia: A Critical
Appreciation Of Their Complexities" (2019) 13(1) Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety
Cockbill, Charles, "The Food Safety Act: An Introduction" (2019) 93(8) British Food Journal
Humphrey, John, "Food Safety, Private Standards Schemes And Trade: The Implications Of The FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act" (2020) 2012(403) IDS Working Papers
Laverty, Martin, Dennis R McDermott and Tom Calma, "Embedding Cultural Safety In Australia's Main Health
Care Standards" (2020) 207(1) Medical Journal of Australia
Phillips, Pat, "THE FOOD SAFETY ACT — THE CHANGING SCENE" (2020) 91(3) Nutrition & Food
Science
Simpson, Susan, "The Food Safety Act: Food Manufacturer Response And Attitude" (2020) 94(1) British Food
Journal
Wheelock, Verner, "Initial Impact Of The Food Safety Act" (2019) 93(5) British Food Journal