SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS

ayanna-russell avatar
ayanna-russell
19 diapositives · 470 Views · Nov 30, 2014

FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS. Leena Räsänen leena.rasanen@evira.fi. Food safety organisation. Continuous improvement – long and short term PDCA’s. State budget , national strategies , Changes in operational environment. Strategic planning. Annual planning.

#finnish food safety indicators #finnish food safety indicators ppt #powerpoint #presentation
FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS - slide 1
01 / 19FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. FINNISH FOOD SAFETY INDICATORS Leena Räsänen leena.rasanen@evira.fi

  2. Food safety organisation

  3. Continuousimprovement – long and shorttermPDCA’s State budget, national strategies, Changes in operationalenvironment Strategic planning Annual planning Effectivenessand efficiencyindicators of CA’s Impactindicators

  4. 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

  5. OIVA evaluation grades • Food safety level is indicated by four smiley grades; excellent, good, to be corrected and poor A B C D

  6. 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

  7. Indicators for impact • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: Food-borneillnessesremain at acceptablelevel

  8. Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective 1: The Oiva inspectionsimprovecompliance of FBO’s

  9. Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: the proportion of FBO’s with C or D in Oiva, whichget A or B in follow-upinspection

  10. Indicators for effectiveness • Goal: Highlevel of food safety is maintained • Objective1: Compliance of FBO’s with labellingrequirements

  11. Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Variation of results in Oiva inspections among municipal CA’s are acceptable level

  12. Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Official controls are efficient and risk based • Objective2: CA’scarry out riskbasedcontrolplan

  13. Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Coverage of inspections in accordance with recommendedriskbasedfrequency

  14. Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2: Inspectorscarry out moreinspections • Lateralsoeconomicefficiency (€/inspection) willbemeasured

  15. Efficiency of inspectionscarried out bymunicipalCA’s (2012) Inspections/fte MunicipalCA’s in randomorder

  16. Costs of inspection, €/inspection (2012) € MunicipalCA’s in randomorder

  17. Indicators for efficiency and quality • Objective1: Officialcontrolsareefficient and riskbased • Objective2 MunicipalCA’snotifysuspectedfood-borneepidemics

  18. Notifications of suspected food-borne epidemics/ 100 000 inhabitants (2012) MunicipalCA’s

  19. Backround ”information” (no specialobjectives) • Residuecontrol • Number of samples • Number of analyses • Numberof non-compliantsamples, casesorlots • Number of RASSF-notifications made by Finland • Number of withdrawalsorrecalls • Number of officialsamples (takenbymunicipalCA’s)