My next couple of blogs will be focusing on the Scores on Doors scheme that is run as a joint venture between the NSW Food Authority and local councils.
According to the NSW Food Authority’s web site the goal is to:
“Scores on Doors allows the public to know how well food businesses are complying with food safety and hygiene requirements. The program requires participating businesses to display a certificate showing a star rating ranging from three stars, indicating a ‘good’ level of food safety compliance, to five stars, indicating an ‘excellent’ level of food safety compliance.”
So these blogs will be covering the topics of:
If you haven’t guessed by those topics, I’m against Scores on Doors as it is.
I think the concept is great. As a consumer it is great to know which restaurants are safe to eat at and which ones are pushing the legal boundaries.
My problem is with the final outcome. A restaurant will end up with:
– 5 stars = Excellent “The business has achieved the highest level of compliance with food safety standards.”
– 4 stars = Very good – “The business has very good food safety practices in place. Some minor areas where standards were not met will need to be addressed.”
– 3 stars = Good – “The business has a good standard of food safety compliance. A number of areas, although not serious, need to be corrected.”
It would also imply that there are 2 and 1 star restaurants that are below average – but there aren’t. Below 3 stars is a failure.
But here’s the big question – would you eat at a 3-star restaurant?