Guidance for food business operators and local authority officers on less than thoroughly cooked beef burgers: summary of stakeholder responses

This consultation was issued on 27 January 2022 and closed on 27 April 2022. The purpose of the consultation was to seek comments from stakeholders on the revised guidance for less than thoroughly cooked beef burgers.

Diweddarwyd ddiwethaf: 26 September 2022

Gweld yr holl ddiweddariadau

Gweld as PDF

Diweddarwyd ddiwethaf: 26 September 2022

Gweld yr holl ddiweddariadau

Gweld as PDF

Summary of responses

Guidance for food business operators and local authority officers on less than thoroughly cooked beef burgers: summary of stakeh (545.3 KB)

Introduction

The changes to this guidance have been developed with input from stakeholders including businesses and local authority representatives.

There have been no changes to the FSA’s policy on less than thoroughly cooked beef burgers, revisions have only been made to improve accessibility and clarity for the user.

The main changes to the guidance are:

making definitions, language and layout clearer and easier to understand
providing further information on how compliancecan be achieved, as well as highlighting best practice
providing advice on buying minced beef or beef burgers from establishments specifically approved for producing products intended to be less than thoroughly cooked
introducing an infographic to help identify the controls needed
providing further details on how consumer messaging should be provided to ensure it is sufficiently accessible
providing an extended glossary to explain technical terms 
changing the format of the guidance on our website from a PDF document to HTML webpages to improve accessibility and searchability, the guidance is also available in PDF

The FSA is grateful to the stakeholders who responded to the consultation. We have set out in the table below responses to the questions we asked stakeholders to consider. The final section in the table looks at comments from stakeholders which were outside of the questions we asked stakeholders to consider.

The key proposals on which the consultation sought views were:
Is the guidance clear and easy to follow? If not, what additional information is required?
Does the guidance contain sufficient information to aid compliance with the law? If not, what additional information is required?
Is our assessment of the impact of the updates sufficient?

Do you favour the term ‘less than thoroughly cooked’ and the acronym LTTC or would you prefer that we used a different term such as ‘pink’ or ‘rare’ or lightly cooked, or something else?

The Food Standards Agency’s considered responses to stakeholder comments are given in the last column of the table. A summary of changes to the original proposals resulting from stakeholder comments is set out in the final paragraph.

We have removed individuals’ names and summarised some of the stakeholder comments.

Summary of substantive comments

Is the guidance clear and easy to follow? If not, what additional information is required?

Respondent: Pupils 2 Parliament

Comment

The children rated the readability of the revised guidance on a five point scale, from ‘very easy’ through to ‘very hard’. This yielded average scores between 1 and 5, those with higher scores being harder to read and understand. We asked the children to rate how easy or hard they thought each extract would be for anyone to read, rather than whether they personally found it easy or hard.

As a check on how challenging to their own reading skills they thought each extract was, we also asked them to count and record the number of words they did not know in each passage. The average rating was 3.6

Response

Guidance published on our website must comply with Public Sector Bodies Websites and Mobile Applications Accessibility regulations 2018 (PSBAR). Our websites, platforms and documents must meet the requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines standards. We comply with WCAG 2.1 'AA'.

We would like to thank the children involved in reviewing this guidance. We will consider how we can use this feedback when carrying out staff training on writing for the web, to ensure we can target our advice appropriately.

Respondent: Northern Ireland Food Managers Group Managers Group

Comment

Response

Comment noted.

Respondent: Wales Food Safety Expert Panel

Comment

While the guidance states that if an approved establishment is producing minced beef or burgers which are to be less than thoroughly cooked, they must be specifically approved to supply these products, there is currently no specific legal requirement for this. The guidance is confusing on this point. As it talks about approved establishments under EU Regulation 853/2004 but also approved for LTTC. It then goes on to say that where establishments are exempt from approval caterers should ensure their suppliers have the same controls in place.

Response

We will provide further clarity in the guidance to address these concerns.

Is our assessment of the impact of the updates sufficient?

Respondent: Pupils 2 Parliament

Comment

The childrens’ first choice was ‘pink’, with ‘lightly cooked’ coming second. The current term, ‘less then thoroughly cooked’, received least support of all. “Raw”, “pink burger”, “red”, “half cooked” and “under cooked” were all suggested. The children were not in favour of the acronym ‘LTTC’.

Some wrote that use of acronyms such as LTTC is clever, brief and to the point – but only good if the acronym is defined in the text (e.g., in brackets), and the reader remembers the definition and doesn’t miss it by looking something up in the middle of the guidance. One pupil wrote, “I don’t think it’s a good idea, as if you said it’s an LTTC burger, most people would not know what you meant”.

Response

Comment noted.

Respondent: Campaigner on E.coli O157

Comment

“Less Than Thoroughly Cooked (LTTC) should be replaced with “NOT THOROUGHLY COOKED” and any use of acronyms NOT permitted as acronyms are confusing and I believe lazy. What does rare mean? Medium rare? Very rare? etc. and what colour does pink suggest? Light pink? Dark pink?

You might wish to consider that previous research carried out for the FSA indicated colour is not an adequate indicator that food is cooked thoroughly.

Response

Comment noted.

Other comments

Respondent: Dunbia

Respondent: Environmental Health Officer

Respondent: Campden BRI

Respondent: Campden BRI

Comment

Challenge testing: must specify what organisms should form the challenge. It is no help to advise a challenge test without specifying organisms. Is this Salmonella or STEC, as it is assumed these are the hazards to be targeted? Any guidance on challenge testing must also make clear the great dangers of using genuine human pathogens in food processing environments. The advice to use ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 17025 laboratories will only cover the laboratory expertise in testing, not the use of inoculated food products in processing situations.

Challenge testing can be done using pathogens in the correct containment level laboratory using actual processing equipment to be used by the premise; or alternatively in a food processing area using a qualified non-pathogenic surrogate organism with similar thermal resistance properties to the pathogen under consideration. Further clear guidance is needed.

Response

Identification of STEC and Salmonella are the major pathogens of concern. We will review the text and make appropriate amendments to provide more clarity.

Comment

The practice of preparing and serving less than thoroughly cooked burgers produced using the source control method carries an unacceptable level of risk which puts consumers, the beef industry and the reputation of the FSA at risk. As a business we will not knowingly supply our products to businesses we know to be using them to prepare products that will be less than thoroughly cooked.

All of our products are labelled with an advisory statement that raw meat must be cooked thoroughly prior to consumption. We do this to further minimise the risk that our products may be used in this manner.

Although we are not knowingly directly involved in this supply chain, we feel that the damage a significant food safety incident regarding less than thoroughly cooked burgers would do to the beef industry is of such a scale that our input into this consultation is essential.

We have answered the specific questions you have raised but we urge you to reconsider your endorsement of this unsafe practice which puts consumers and businesses at risk.

Response

Comment falls outside of the scope of this consultation but has been noted.

Respondent: Institute of Food Science & Technology

Respondent: Campaigner on E.coli O157

Comment

'The consumer message you have suggested is as follows:

Burgers cooked rare and medium rare carry a higher risk of food poisoning. Unlike a steak, a burger needs to be cooked through to reduce that risk.
The Food Standards Agency recommends that children, pregnant women and anyone with a weaker immune system have their burgers well done. Please ask us for more information.'

I would suggest the first paragraph of the message should read “Burgers that are not thoroughly cooked carry a higher risk of food poisoning such as Salmonella or E.coli. Unlike a steak, a burger needs to be cooked thoroughly to reduce that risk.’’

I believe this wording, whilst a slight change, would meet the criteria from the FSA Rare Burgers Risk Communication Messaging report of July 2016 which showed on page 26 of this report that being easy to understand and being the most informative were the two important issues to those surveyed.

Food poisoning is very abstract wording, but when you mention bacterium such as Salmonella or E.coli consumers can relate more to the type of illness they may suffer from and it also allows the consumer to make a more informed choice due to the more factual nature of what foodborne illness could be involved

I believe the second paragraph of the Consumer message should remain unchanged.

Response

Comment noted. We carried out extensive consumer research to decide on the message which would best be understood by consumers. The research on consumer messaging can be found on our website. I can confirm that naming the food poisoning bacteria associated with raw beef was considered as part of the research.

Respondent: Campaigner on E.coli O157

Comment

The draft guidance states:

“Although there is no specific legal requirement for the labelling of LTTC burgers, legislation says that, when considering whether food is unsafe (or safe), food businesses should have regard to information provided to consumers, and in particular to those consumers in vulnerable groups.’’

This, I believe, is a general requirement in relation to all food information and therefore is a legal requirement as in European Union (EU) retained law of Regulation 178/2002 as article 14 is about Food Safety requirements.

Food safety requirements:

1.Food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe.

2.Food shall be deemed to be unsafe if it is considered to be:

(a)injurious to health;

(b)unfit for human consumption.

As the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board have suggested in their meeting of 9th March 2022 they are more willing to accept risk, they should then take some responsibility for the sale of “Less Than Thoroughly Cooked burgers” and the whole of the validation process rather than leave this to home or Individual local authorities or Individual Environmental Health Officers or Environmental Health Practitioners, as it is the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) policy.

Yes, it is the legal responsibility of the food business operator to ensure their food is safe and not injurious to health, but if the Food Standards Agency (FSA) decide on a particular policy they need to share some collective responsibility for a consistent approach in relation to England Wales & Northern Ireland in relation to local authority inspections etc and collective responsibility when/if things go wrong.

This would therefore enable the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to effectively monitor their policy decisions in a more holistic approach rather than possibly blaming others when/if things go wrong.

Also, it would help local authorities who were reported in quarter 3 at the latest Food Standards Agency (FSA) Board meeting mentioned on 9th March that only 71% of local authorities planned food inspections were completed against the local authority plans.

As we have left the European Union (EU) it is now possible to make our own laws and therefore allow testing for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in raw meat and other Ready to Eat (RTE) foods, particularly in meat intended for use in Less Than Thoroughly Cooked (LTTC) burgers.

There is currently no legal requirement to test raw meat for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) that is to be used for burgers however there is a legal requirement to test raw meat for Salmonella in the European Union (EU) retained law. This again is applying a double standard, which you are allowing unless you change this.

Response

This comment is outside of the scope of this consultation but has been noted.

Respondent: Campaigner on E.coli O157

Comment

When you look at the Source Control for Less Than Thoroughly Cooked (LTTC) burgers method it is very disappointing but not surprising to see that two companies on your list for approved less than thoroughly cooked meat establishments in the UK each had one major non compliance at their last audit, that had to be rectified at the time of the audit.

A major non compliance is one which compromises Public Health, animal health and welfare, or the production and handling of unsafe or unsuitable food according to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) definition.

Response

Comment noted. The FSA audit regime is there to detect deficiencies, should they occur. When we identify deficiencies we take appropriate action to ensure preventative action is implemented and hygiene standards are met.

Respondent: Campaigner on E.coli O157

Comment

In relation Product specification the consultation states not sourcing meat from geographical areas with high levels of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in cattle.

Given this would need to be real time information and there is no indication by yourselves that there is. Previous research has shown that 44% of all cattle herds have at least one animal carrying the bacterium E. coli O157, I am not sure how this can be of real practical help apart from the above mentioned, although it sounds a great idea.

Yes, I do appreciate that per head of population Scotland has generally the highest number of human cases of the bacterium E.coli O157. However, do the Food Standards Scotland (FSS) allow Less Than Thoroughly Cooked (LTTC) burgers to be sold in restaurants? If not, why not as they too use Science also as part for their decision-making process.

On the 31st July 2018, The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) warned that food safety should not be compromised to meet consumer trends such as the demand for undercooked minced beef burgers.

In addition, on the 24th July 2020 The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) released a fact sheet advising caterers of their legal obligation to sell or serve food that is safe to eat when cooking and serving minced meat burgers. This means that the burgers must be cooked fully to guarantee any harmful microorganisms present, e.g. bacteria, are destroyed. This factsheet also indicates that colour is not a reliable indicator of through cooking

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) also use Science as part of their decision-making process.

I also, understand the idea of animals that are super shedders of the bacterium could pose a greater risk but without testing on farms it is impossible to identify which animals would be classed as this.

It is a shame that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) who claim to be evidence and science based do not always use these when making their policies and decisions. However, having a relatively small budget the Agency is at a disadvantage both financially and in terms of political muscle from the food industry.

Comment

Responsibility:

a. Are Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) responsible for checking business compliance with the whole of the guidance? This can be large amount of work if they choose to go down the source control method.
b. Do EHO’s need to check the suitability of the challenge testing and scientific data that accompanies it?
c. Do EHO’s check suitability of the business sampling regime i.e.
i. Samples taken from mincemeat/burger production
ii. Samples taken from catering establishments post cooking.

Response

Authorised officers must use their professional judgement to determine what activities, at a food business, are examined during an official control. It is their duty to assure themselves that the relevant requirements of food law are being complied with and determine which part of guidance is relevant to the business. Where appropriate, the Competent Authority must ensure they have access to adequate appropriate expertise to enable competent inspection of any specialised processes.

The authorised officer must be satisfied the sampling and testing in place is suitable and provides assurance that food is produced in a safe manner.

In determining the level of sampling and testing which is appropriate, the food authority must have regard to HACCP principles and relevant advice.

Where there is a Primary Authority inspection plan in place authorised officers must follow it and provide feedback to the primary authority if required.

Respondent: Wales Food Safety Expert Panel

Comment

2. Challenge testing:

How many tests should be conducted on a burger, 10 or 20? If one of those tests comes back with a less than 4 log reduction. Should the test be re-done? Or is 9 out of 10 tests that were satisfactory, okay?

Response

It is the responsibility of the business to determine the number of tests required. Businesses must have a food safety management system in place to demonstrate that they have the required controls in place to prepare food in a safe manner.

Where challenge testing is carried out, this includes producing their own supporting science/evidence and incorporating this into the food safety management system. The business may wish to seek expert advice from an accredited laboratory.

Respondent: Wales Food Safety Expert Panel

Comment

Should challenge testing include other bacteria such as Salmonella as well as STEC?

Response

Identification of STEC and Salmonella are the major pathogens of concern. It is the responsibility of the business to determine the challenge testing which is appropriate and they may wish to seek expert advice from an accredited laboratory.

Respondent: Wales Food Safety Expert Panel

Comment

3. Observations from onsite inspections at restaurants serving less than thoroughly cooked burgers using source control:

a. Concerns about the minimal allowance for human error especially when cooking to a set temperature without the use of a timer. If the challenge testing was undertaken with a core time/temperature combination of 63°C for 1 second in order to achieve a 4-log reduction, then the cooking CCP (Critical Control Point) will be 63°C for 1 second. The chef then has to cook the burger to a core temperature of 63°C for 1 second. Not all burgers are probed and there is a reliance on the chefs skill and experience. In a busy kitchen this is impossible and inevitably results in human error. Therefore, if a cooking timer is not being used, each burger needs to be probed.

b. Concerns about the accuracy of probe temperature checks, as the on-site reality is that the burger can cook at an uneven rate. There is no way of knowing how far the probe has been inserted (if going in from the side) (a depth gauge) or to know if it has gone in at an angle and is not actually in the centre. Probe validation checks should be done in multiple locations on the burgers and on multiple burgers.

c. The use of surface temperatures probes on hot plates can assist with finding cold spots.

Response

Comment noted.

We are pleased this issue has been clarified in the new LTTC guidance which makes it clear that if the product is delivered above the maximum temperature limit that has been set and detailed in the FSMS, the delivery must be rejected.

Unfortunately, the guidance is silent on the actual maximum transport temperature: it should not be more than the temperature stipulated in the product specific legislation for mincemeat and meat preparations and to which the manufacturer is bound.

We should remain mindful that were the cold chain not to be maintained during transport there is the potential for harmful bacteria to multiply to levels where significant numbers of viable organisms may still be present in a LTTC burger.

Given that the product specific legislation is silent on the maximum temperature of burgers when transported by a third party, we feel it is even more important that the FSA guidance be made more robust in this regard.

Comment

One of my main concerns with regard to LTTC burgers is the transport of raw burger patties by third party distributors. Unlike the manufacturer, these transport companies have no duty under the product specific legislation to keep burgers under the required transport temperatures and so the only control possible is the one imposed by the caterer themselves in refusing to except burger patties above acceptable limits.

One burger chain visited by Norwich City Council, probed burger patties on receipt but rather than reject a consignment that was above the target temperature instead accepted the delivery and submitted a ‘non-conformity’ report to the transport company concerned.

This is clearly unacceptable.

Comment noted. If a business decides to serve less than thoroughly cooked beef burgers it is their responsibility to ensure they consider the risks involved and put adequate controls in place. Businesses may decide that product specification is a critical control point and carry out checks to ensure this is met.

Actions to be implemented

We will revise the guidance document to ensure clear and consistent terminology throughout and ensure further clarity is provided particularly in the following areas of the document:

provide specific information on transportation and temperature requirements
review the Glossary section and consider adding further key words to this section
review and revise the intended audience section
provide page numbers to the PDF version of the guidance
provide further details on challenge testing and modelling
provide further advice on the consumer message relating to font size, online sales and children's menus
provide a link to time temperature combinations equivalent to 70°C for 2 minutes
provide further information on approval of establishments that supply beef / beef burgers to be less than thoroughly cooked
provide information on the risk of contamination from outer packaging
provide further information on the shelf life of products to be less than thoroughly cooked

Yn ôl i’r brig