# 64 food outlets forced to shut - Is it time to shut this expensive FSAI quango?



## Binomial (3 Jan 2012)

Indo: 64 food outlets forced to shut 

Is it time to shut this expensive FSAI quango? We are suffering too much over regulation from the nanny state.

These restauranteurs are only trying to eek out a living in these  reccessionary times and quangos such as this are forcing them out of  business with excessive red tape, audits and record keeping.

Its time these quangos were abolished.


----------



## Niallman (3 Jan 2012)

Did you read the article you've linked to? 

"RODENT droppings, maggots on meat and putrid fish were just some of the nasties found by health inspectors in food businesses last year."...doesn't exactly sound like excessive regulation was responsible for the closures if this is the kind of thing being found.


----------



## so-crates (3 Jan 2012)

If I was to pick an agency to shut down it wouldn't be the FSAI and it certainly wouldn't be for doing the job we need them to do!!!


----------



## Sunny (3 Jan 2012)

Binomial said:


> Indo: 64 food outlets forced to shut
> 
> Is it time to shut this expensive FSAI quango? We are suffering too much over regulation from the nanny state.
> 
> ...


 


So these poor restauranteurs who break the law and cut corners at the expense of other restaurants that don't and put public health at risk deserve our sympathy?


----------



## The_Banker (3 Jan 2012)

Binomial said:


> Indo: 64 food outlets forced to shut
> 
> Is it time to shut this expensive FSAI quango? We are suffering too much over regulation from the nanny state.
> 
> ...


 

Are you involved in the food business per chance?


----------



## dereko1969 (3 Jan 2012)

Obviously the OP forgot to add in a smiley!


----------



## ajapale (3 Jan 2012)

The FSAI falls under the remit of the Depatrment of Health.

The following is what Dr James Reilly had to say about its future in the Dail.




> Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly):Table A outlines the non-commercial state agencies under  the aegis of my Department, their allocation where funded by the  Department and staff (WTE) numbers.
> 
> Table B outlines the  boards\agencies to which I nominate/appoint board members but are funded  through the HSE, with the exception of the Hepatitis C and HIV  Compensation Tribunal, whose funding is administered through this  Department..
> 
> ...


So the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Dublin costs     €16.6m/pa  and has    76.9 staff Whole Time Equivalent and the minister envisages some future reconfiguration of this agency.


----------



## Purple (3 Jan 2012)

How can an agency have a cost per employee of €215'000?
I presume that their average wage isn't €100'000 (they aen't the ESB!) so where does the money go?!


----------



## so-crates (3 Jan 2012)

Actually by comparison with the others, that isn't so bad. I would expect that wages are only a part of that bill since I assume they would need laboratory work whereas some of the other agencies wouldn't. The really expensive ones per employee are 
food Safety Promotions Board (guess that is due to the marketing) €5.3m
Health and Social Care Professional Council €4.2m
National Treatment Purchase ('nuff said) €1.8m
However I would guess that in every case the amount spent on staff bears no relation to the budget.


----------



## huskerdu (3 Jan 2012)

Purple said:


> How can an agency have a cost per employee of €215'000?
> I presume that their average wage isn't €100'000 (they aen't the ESB!) so where does the money go?!



Certainly that sounds like someone needs to check if they are offering value for money, and if the service they provide can be provided for less public money but the OPs suggestion of getting rid of health inspectors for restaurants is a laughable suggestion.


----------



## Thirsty (3 Jan 2012)

> suggestion of getting rid of health inspectors for restaurants is a laughable suggestion.


Don't see what's so laughable about it; we happily do without building inspectors for new buildings, cheerfully allow people to purchase unsafe apartments, and have no qualms about families living in houses with dangerous foundations....so why not save some money & scrap the FSAI?  Sounds like a good enough plan to me


----------



## so-crates (4 Jan 2012)

People buy far more burgers than apartments, the risk of consuming fried rat droppings is far higher and far more dangerous on average to health and well-being


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2012)

Simple market economics will put a dirty burger joint or food outlet out of business far quicker than any inspector. Once word gets around people steer well clear of such places. That's why so many restaurant and takeaway outlets close so soon after they open.


----------



## Sunny (4 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Simple market economics will put a dirty burger joint or food outlet out of business far quicker than any inspector. Once word gets around people steer well clear of such places. That's why so many restaurant and takeaway outlets close so soon after they open.


 
Amazing how market economics seems to be the answer to everything these days. 

So you go rooting in the kitchen, cupboards, fridges etc of every eating establishment you visit to make sure they have the highest hygene standards?

I know eaten in restaurants and bars that have had beautiful clean dining rooms but have then read reports of what inspectors found behind the scenes. One particular well known Dublin restaurant comes to mind last year....


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2012)

Its true though. If people start getting sick from eating food from a particular outlet, it normally spells doom for the outlet - even if the FSAI never hear about it.


----------



## DB74 (4 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Its true though. If people start getting sick from eating food from a particular outlet, it normally spells doom for the outlet - even if the FSAI never hear about it.



More so in a small town or village than in a city centre place though


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2012)

DB74 said:


> More so in a small town or village than in a city centre place though



There is still a huge failure rate in city centre food outlets and once a place gets a bad reputation, its usually only a matter of time before it folds.

Oddly enough though, most of the cases in the Indo article were in small towns.


----------



## markpb (4 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Simple market economics will put a dirty burger joint or food outlet out of business far quicker than any inspector. Once word gets around people steer well clear of such places. That's why so many restaurant and takeaway outlets close so soon after they open.



So we should wait till people get sick (possibly seriously so) to find out that a restaurant was contaminated?


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2012)

That's what happens in most cases.


----------



## ajapale (12 Jan 2012)

Whereas the proposal to abolish the FSA is certainly a contrarian minority view I think Purple and TmcG  make some very good valid points.

aj (mod)
moved from the depths to rock the boat.


----------



## Padraigb (12 Jan 2012)

I suspect that in every town in Ireland people have heard of the Alsatian and/or the dead cats in the fridge. If the FSAI saves restaurateurs from the effects of such urban legends, and substitutes in their place a system of running checks that include actually looking into fridges, then the consumer and the industry are well served.


----------



## paddi22 (13 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Simple market economics will put a dirty burger joint or food outlet out of business far quicker than any inspector. Once word gets around people steer well clear of such places. That's why so many restaurant and takeaway outlets close so soon after they open.



That makes no sense? So only locals might be lucky about avoiding food poisioning? What about day trippers, people there for business or tourists?

I prefer the idea of qualified inspection, instead of waiting for 'word to get around'. 

Some of the findings from that report were disgusting, and word obviously hadn't gotten around around maggot ridden food and putrid fish in those cases!


----------



## T McGibney (13 Jan 2012)

paddi22 said:


> That makes no sense? So only locals might be lucky about avoiding food poisioning? What about day trippers, people there for business or tourists?
> 
> I prefer the idea of qualified inspection, instead of waiting for 'word to get around'.
> 
> Some of the findings from that report were disgusting, and word obviously hadn't gotten around around maggot ridden food and putrid fish in those cases!



No business will survive for long on day tripper custom alone. Day trippers will not be attracted to a place if its obvious that its not prospering from local custom, even in honeypots like Temple Bar. And tourists have long relied on guides like the Lonely Planet and more recently, online user-generated reviews, to successfully suss out what is good and what is bad, even in the third world.

Also, the qualified inspection regime has its limits. The Indo article refers to a closure order being made on a hot dog van in Church Hill in Clones on the day of last year's Ulster Final. The geezer was storing unrefrigerated hot dogs in his car. The article mentions that the closure order was lifted a fortnight later but not that the burger vans and hot dog vendors only ever come to Clones one day a year, for the Ulster Final, which has always attracted a big drinking element, generally from across the border. 

To be frank, anyone would need to be drunk, stoned or out of their mind to eat out of any of those places, and I don't see why public monies should be spent on protecting the blue plastic bag brigade from their own stupidity and excess. When they invariably end up puking on the side of the road, its usually the drink's fault anyway


----------



## paddi22 (13 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> No business will survive for long on day tripper custom alone. Day trippers will not be attracted to a place if its obvious that its not prospering from local custom, even in honeypots like Temple Bar.
> 
> To be frank, anyone would need to be drunk, stoned or out of their mind to eat out of any of those places, and I don't see why public monies should be spent on protecting the blue plastic bag brigade from their own stupidity and excess.



It doesn't matter how long the business operates or has operated for - the main focus has to be on the experience of the person eating there. When you're abroad you are often eating at off-peak times, so it is difficult to tell when a place is just having a quiet period or if its permanently empty. Likewise most reputable, good restaurants also have quiet periods, especially during this recession. Someone on a day trip or a tourist won't have the capacity for comparision always. 

As regards the hotdog stand. Sometimes people don't have a choice in eating at sports events etc as choice is limited. If someone has a business supplying food then they should follow health regulations. Consumers need to trust that suppliers are doing things properly, especially regards food. Some people don't have the choice to pass by - i remember being at a match when my dad's glucose (he has diabetes) went low, and we had to buy food from a stand as an emergency measure. it doesn't make him an idiot for having to buy there, he had no choice and he has the right to expect the food is up to standard. If someone has a business, their products and services should be up to standard, especially as regards health.

If that hot dog guy wasn't storing his food right, im glad he was caught. Next time he might be more careful and someone might avoid getting sick, and having to paying doctors fee and missing days off work etc.

I genuinely don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying that gradual gossip can close down places naturally, and thus save paying inspectors.  

Standards can be shonky enough in restaurants as is, and i can't even imagine how lax it would get if there were no checks at all. Also waiting for enough people to get sick so that a restaurant gets a reputation just seems to be downright dangerous. Food poisioning can be lethal for young children, the elderly, or people with cancer or low immune systems.


----------



## Slash (13 Jan 2012)

so-crates said:


> If I was to pick an agency to shut down it wouldn't be the FSAI and it certainly wouldn't be for doing the job we need them to do!!!



Agree.

I don't want to have to wait to get sick to know if a restaurant is complying with hygiene requirements.


----------



## mark1 (13 Jan 2012)

I am in the food businessover 20yrs and the FSAI play a very important role in protecting you the consumer not just from dodgy food outlets but from all aspects of food safety, Food imports, Abbatoirs, Supermarkets,beverages etc. I would hate to think what would happen if they werent around to regulate it,Like any other business run it professionally you have no issues.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Jan 2012)

paddi22 said:


> If that hot dog guy wasn't storing his food right, im glad he was caught. Next time he might be more careful and someone might avoid getting sick, and having to paying doctors fee and missing days off work etc.



Next time, he will probably just get one of his buddies to man the stand, and give a false name and address if challenged.


----------



## paddi22 (13 Jan 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Next time, he will probably just get one of his buddies to man the stand, and give a false name and address if challenged.




I don't understand the point you are making? Your point seems to suggest more regulation is needed. in which case i agree with you.


----------



## flattea2 (13 Jan 2012)

This near obsession with some people to cut virtually all regulation on the basis of ‘we don’t need the cost of it’ and ‘let the market decide’ is becoming tiresome.

For example, would anyone go holidaying in some country which you knew had no food standards authority at all?


----------



## T McGibney (13 Jan 2012)

paddi22 said:


> I don't understand the point you are making? Your point seems to suggest more regulation is needed. in which case i agree with you.



If the Guards blocked the streets with bollards and kept the burger van guys away from where the crowds gather, they would be doing everyone a favour. The drunks could survive on mars bars and crisps for the day, the health inspectors could enjoy their Sunday at home with their families, and I could go home from the match without a smell of smoke and grease on my clothes.


----------

