Food Standards Agency E-NEWS for June 2012 is now available
2nd of July 2012
June 12 food safety news
New Scottish watchdog to oversee food safety and standards
3rd of July 2012
A NEW national watchdog to police food safety standards in Scotland is to be created, it was announced today.
It follows a move to pare down the responsibilities of the current UK-wide Food Standards Agency south fo the border.
Holyrood ministers have now agreed to create a new Scottish body for food safety, food standards, nutrition, food labelling and meat inspection.
Public Health Minister Michael Matheson said: “The changes in England removed significant capacity in the FSA’s nutrition and labelling functions for Scotland and needed to be addressed.
“A new body will allow a Scottish approach to be taken to tackle poor diet and food-borne diseases and should support our food and drink industry in growing its strong, international reputation for safe, quality food.”
The move follows the recommendations of the Scudamore review, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government as a result of the UK Government’s decision to move responsibility for nutrition and food labelling in England from the Food Standards Agency to the Department of Health and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010.
The new body will be at arms-length from the Scottish Government and a name will be chosen after a consultation later in the year. Its creation will require new laws to be passed at Holyrood.
19 sick; UK pub stops serving food until salmonella source identified
4th of July 2012
Four people have been hospitalised after an outbreak of salmonella at a Darlington pub that also led to another 15 people falling ill.
The Copper Beech pub, in Neasham Road, has voluntarily stopped serving food after a number of cases of the infectious disease were linked to its kitchens.
Officers from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) have started an investigation to discover the source of the outbreak, which they believe has now been contained.
A spokesman for the pub, which is owned by the Punch Taverns chain, said the licensee had co-operated fully with the investigation and had closed the kitchens as soon as a possible link was identified.
He said the kitchens have now been cleared for re-opening by environmental health experts, but the pub has chosen to wait until the source of the infection is identified.
Worker Killed by Slabs in Tragic Accident
14th of July 2012
father of four was killed while working for an Essex based granite manufacturer in April 2008. Martin Rice was unloading a vehicle which had delivered stone slabs to the warehouse. Mr Rice was moving the slabs over to A-frames to be stored when the accident happened. He was lowering a load which weight around 3 tonnes when the pile of slabs fell and crushed him up against a wall. Mr Rice was pronounced dead at the scene aged just 57.
Unsafe Method of Work was Used
The case was taken to Chelmsford Crown Court where the jury heard about the investigation which was performed by the Health and Safety Executive. The investigation had shown that the system of work which was being followed by Mr Rice was unsafe, and therefore Mr Rice was put at risk by his employers, The Stone Company.
During the Health and Safety Executives investigation they discovered that the A-frames were not in a suitable position in the warehouse. Simple changes made to the way the storage had been designed and used could have prevented the death of Mr Rice and saved his family from so much suffering. The Stone Company pleaded guilty in court and was fined £20,000 with additional costs of £40,000.
Simple Changes Could Have Saved a Life
The Stone Company had breached section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This section says that employers must do everything that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of their employees. In this instance moving the A-frames would have been all it took to save a man’s life.
Using health and safety services is a good way of establishing any problems which are placing the lives of your employees at risk. Health and safety consultants offer many excellent services which not only save lives; they can also improve productively and protect companies from unknowingly breaching the health and safety legislation. Companies have a duty to their employees, and implementing the latest health and safety techniques is the best way of reducing and controlling risks.
Training is Vital for Company Owners and Managers
Health and safety consultants offer many excellent services such as training. Having knowledge on how to spot hazards and how to conduct risk assessments and safe working methods makes a huge difference. Training can be provided to employees on all levels and is available in-house or at a suitable location depending on your personal preference.
There are a large number of safety training courses which include many of the accredited courses offered by NEBOSH and the IOSH. The ISOH Managing Safely course is aimed directly at supervisors and managers who are responsible for organising duties and workers. The course typically lasts for four days and provides numerous skills to the candidate. The costs and dates vary so it’s a good idea to email or call the Health and Safety consultants on 0800 1488 677 and ask about the suitable courses for your requirements. The prices and length of the courses vary, but there is training suitable for everyone within your organisation.
Little improvement in workplace fatalities
21st of July 2012
Provisional data released by the HSE shows for April 2011 to March 2012 173 workers were killed – down two from the previous year.
The rate of fatal injury remains the same at 0.6 per 100,000 workers.
Judith Hackitt, the HSE Chair, said:”Britain continues to have one of the lowest levels of workplace fatal injuries in Europe, part of a long term downward trend.
“But we must not forget that these are lives cut short, not statistics – every single one of these deaths will have caused terrible grief and anguish for family and friends as well as workmates and colleagues.
“We want employers to focus on the real risks that continue to cause death and serious injury. HSE is working very hard to make it easier for people to understand what they need to do and to focus on the real priorities. Protecting people from death and serious injury at work should be at the heart of what we all do.”
The figures also show the rate of fatal injuries in several of the key industrial sectors with the following figures recorded:
• 49 fatal injuries to construction workers – a rate of 2.3 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of 59 deaths in the past five years and a decrease from the 50 deaths (and rate of 2.3) recorded in 2010/11
• 33 fatal injuries to agriculture workers – a rate of 9.7 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of 35 deaths in the past five years and an increase from the 30 deaths (and rate of 8.7) recorded in 2010/11
• Five fatal injuries to waste and recycling workers – a rate of 4.1 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of six deaths in the past five years and a decrease from the nine deaths (and rate of 8.4) recorded in 2010/11.
Commenting on the figures TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber warned: “These figures are still well above the historic low of two years ago…during previous economic downturns there has been a decrease in the rate of fatalities. The fact that this is not happening now suggests that deaths could rise sharply as Britain comes of out recession, unless urgent action is taken to improve workplace safety.
“The responsibility for these deaths may lie with the employers who break safety laws but ministers also have a duty to ensure that the rules are enforced and that the protection of workers is seen not as a ‘burden’ on employers but as a duty.”
IRELAND: Food businesses closed for breaches
22nd of July 2012
Seven food businesses were forced to close last month over breaches of food safety legislation.
They included sections of well-known pubs Doyle’s of College Green in Dublin and Morrissey’s of Abbeyleix, Co Laois.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) published a list of the businesses closed down by local environmental health officers in June.
Closure orders were served under the FSAI Act 1998 on Doyle’s public house (Fleet Street basement), 9 College Street, Dublin 2; Spicy Food Guru takeaway, 59 Port Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal; Phelan’s Home Bakery, 14 Market Square, Portlaoise, Co Laois and Spar, 115 Grafton Street, Dublin 2.
Closure orders were served under EU control-of-foodstuffs legislation on Morrissey’s public house (kitchen only), Main Street, Abbeyleix, Co Laois; Eatzen takeaway, Unit 1, Main Street, Clonee, Co Meath and Charcoal Kebab House restaurant, Patrick Street, Mountrath, Co Laois.
A successful prosecution was also taken by the Health Service Executive on Chungs at Tullio’s restaurant, Pearse Street, Ballina, Mayo.
FSAI chief executive Prof Alan Reilly expressed disappointment at the number of closure orders and asked that food businesses be “ever more rigorous in maintaining the highest standards of food safety and hygiene at all times”.
Prof Reilly said consumers had a right to feel confident that the food they were purchasing was safe to eat and that every closure order undermined that confidence, affecting the industry as a whole.
The seven closure orders served in June bring to 39 the total number of enforcement orders served to date this year.
Good food hygiene made easy to spot in London
22nd of July 2012
The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS), which provides information about hygiene standards in the places where people eat out or do their food shopping, has launched today in London.
This national scheme was introduced by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in partnership with local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Following inspections by local council food safety officers, the hygiene standards are rated on a scale ranging from 0 at the bottom (which means ‘urgent improvement necessary’) to a top rating of 5 (‘very good’).
Jeff Rooker, Chair of the FSA, said: ‘I am pleased that most of the London boroughs are joining the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, especially with the influx of visitors for the start of the Games later this month. People living, working or holidaying in London will be able to use the scheme in the knowledge that the same standards have been used to judge food hygiene in all the boroughs and across the country. Telling consumers about hygiene standards in food outlets gives them greater choice and the power to vote with their feet – they are able to choose to eat at the places with the highest standards and avoid those that don’t meet the grade.’
Does your favourite restaurant, takeaway or food shop have good hygiene standards?
When you eat out or shop for food, look for a sticker like the one below, showing you the food hygiene rating for that business. You might find it displayed in the window, on the door, or as a certificate. You can also search for ratings at food.gov.uk/ratings.
Third corporate manslaughter conviction
22nd of July 2012
Lion Steel Limited has become the third company in the UK to be convicted of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. On 3 July 2012 the company pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter in a case concerning the death of employee Stephen Berry on 29 May 2008, who died from injuries following a fall through a fragile roof panel.
The prosecution was brought against Lion Steel on health and safety charges, and against three of the company’s directors on health and safety charges and charges of gross negligence manslaughter.However an agreement was reached that the company would plead guilty to corporate manslaughter but that all charges against the directors would be dropped.
Sentencing has been adjourned until 19 July 2012.
Commenting on the conviction, Jonathon Grimes, health and safety expert at Kingsley Napely LLP: “This case is important because it is only the third conviction under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Despite criticisms of the Act and the way it has been policed, it sends a clear message that prosecutions under the Act are being actively pursued and the risks for companies that do not take health and safety issues seriously. “
“Beyond that its significance is limited however, because the conviction, which is the result of the company pleading guilty, is the result of an agreement reached between the parties that seems to have been designed to spare the company’s directors from personal criminal liability. The case has not provided any further insight into the way in which trials of companies for this offence are likely to unfold.”
“It remains to be seen whether on this occasion the court will impose a fine approaching the level suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines Council in their guidance published in 2010. They suggested convictions for corporate manslaughter ought to result in fines of not less than £500,000. In the previous two cases the companies involved were sentenced to pay fines of £385,000 and £187,500 respectively.”
A Publicity Order (a requirement for the convicted company to publicise its conviction in a manner prescribed by the court) will not be available in this case as the offence was committed before the part of the act came into force that gives the sentencing judge the power to make such an order.
Forcing small businesses to pay for health and safety inspections would add to red tape woes, says Forum of Private Business
24th of July 2012
A bid to force small businesses to pay for their own health and safety inspections is being criticised by the Forum of Private Business.
Under the ‘Fee for Intervention’ proposals, which are set to come into force October 2012, firms deemed to be in ‘material breach’ of health and safety regulations by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would be forced to pay inspectors’ hourly rates from the moment the inspection begins – regardless of when a breach is detected.
Forum members are concerned that this would be unfair, and that the HSE’s drive to recover costs could lead to a heavy-handed approach and inconsistency from individual inspectors over what constitutes a breach in the first place.
“Businesses which deliberately flout health and safety rules should be brought to task but this is not how the vast majority operate – clearly it is not in their best interests to allow lax health and safety procedures to exist. Our members want help, guidance and support, which is what our Health and Safety Guide provides, not ever more threats of financial penalties,” said the Forum’s Chief Executive, Phil Orford.
“The delicate balance of trust between small business and regulators, which has shown tentative signs of improving recently, could be further complicated by what subjectively constitutes a ‘material breach’ according to different inspectors, creating in all likelihood a postcode lottery for businesses concerning health and safety compliance and enforcement.
“We want every government department to understand the significant financial demands on business at present, in this case from consultants and the HSE itself. There needs to be greater understanding shown by enforcement officers that firms face a number of inspections from multiple agencies across all aspects of their business.”
The initial consultation into the Fee for Intervention proposals took place in October 2011. Following continued lobbying by the Forum, which last week submitted its concerns to a House of Lords committee tasked with scrutinising the plans, they will now be reviewed.
The Forum is putting forward evidence showing that business owners have serious doubts about the proposed system of charges. They are also calling for significant measures to ease health and safety red tape.
In May 2012, just 3% of the Forum’s Health and Safety Panel members argued that businesses should pay the full cost of the Fee for Intervention operation. A total of 62% felt that recovery costs should be scaled according to the size of a business and more than 90% that either the size of the business or the seriousness of the breach should have an impact on the level of costs.
The panel was also asked to comment on the Government’s Löfstedt review of health and safety regulation. In all, 87% of panel members agreed with the review’s strategic aims, with the focus on common sense and streamlining laws particularly welcomed.
Business benefits of good health and safety
The Forum’s Health and Safety Panel members felt that the business benefits of good health and safety practices and policies were greatest locally, notably amongst caterers, garages and manufacturers, with 48% stating they believe a good health and safety policy gave them a competitive advantage in their local area.
In all, 42% of businesses felt that the HSE should be given authority over local enforcement activity as this would potentially lead to greater consistency, citing its expertise and existing geographical inconsistencies in enforcement.
However, 57% of respondents disagreed and there were real concerns that the HSE’s approach would be too heavy handed – despite recognition of the benefits of putting in place good health and safety procedures.
Respondents said the advantages include that it gives the perception that the company is better organised than its rivals, strengthens local reputation and allows them to compete more effectively for tenders.
Good health and safety was also seen by panellists as useful in terms of reducing staff absences so that work can be completed in a timely and effective manner.
In terms of support wanted by businesses, many believed the HSE should issue more free advice leaflets – 89% of members surveyed found the Forum’s Health and Safety Guide to be a useful tool.
Contained within the Forum’s practical health and safety package, and complete with sample health and safety policy templates, the step-by-step guide gives business owners the peace of mind that they are legally compliant and helps them provide a safe working environment for their employees and customers.
“We have found the Health and Safety Guide a useful tool in dealing with all our health and safety needs,” said Forum member Vernon Bradshaw, of Valerie Ann Leisure Ltd in Stockport.
“We also appreciate the legal expenses insurance included with membership of the Forum of Private Business, which covers our business for up to £75,000 for health and safety prosecutions.”
Health and safety red tape a growing problem
Despite the Government’s well-publicised deregulatory agenda health and safety red tape is an ever-increasing barrier to small business success and economic growth.
Last year the Forum’s ‘cost of compliance’ survey found that administering health and safety leaves the UK’s smaller employers with a combined annual bill of £3.8 billion.
Unlike large companies, these firms do not have internal resources dedicated to complying with regulations. Business owners or key senior managers are forced to devote a large amount of time to form filling – according to the Forum’s research an average of almost 40 hours each month – or they have to pay for an outside consultant, which can be extremely expensive.
Overall, based on data provided by members who took part in the survey, the total annual cost of legislative compliance for smaller employers is £16.8 billion – comprised of £11 billion in internal costs and £5.8 billion for external contractors – which is £14,200 per firm on average. External health and safety support costs almost £986 million per year.
The Forum is urging the Government to create better access to simple, consistent advice about health and safety compliance in order to reduce the need for costly outsourcing.
Of the recommendations made in Lord Young’s recent review of health and safety legislation, businesses on the Forum’s Health and Safety Panel were most positive about a proposal to consolidate health and safety regulations into a single set of accessible regulations, with 86% of panellists supporting this.
The scale of the problem is further evidenced by the latest ‘Business Perceptions Survey’, published last month and carried out on behalf of the National Audit Office, the Better Regulation Executive and the Better Regulation Delivery Office, One-third (33%) of businesses believe that complying with all regulations has become more time consuming over the past 12 months.
Interestingly, fewer businesses believe that overall regulation levels are an obstacle to success compared to three years ago, with the number indicating this falling from 62% in 2009 to 55% in 2012, but the research shows this time cost is disproportionately affecting small and medium sized firms compared to bigger companies.
Complying with health and safety red tape is seen to be significantly more burdensome than other laws across many areas – particularly the time-cost, deemed to be a major headache for 74% of businesses.
Other health and safety requirements reported as more of a problem than other areas of legal compliance include requirements to provide the same information multiple times, finding general advice and support, sourcing information about which regulations apply to specific businesses, keeping up to date with changes and paperwork and form-filling.
When asked about local and national government approaches to regulation, just 31% of respondents said that specific health and safety laws are fair and proportionate – much lower than the figure for all regulations.
Even fewer (22%) believe it is easy to comply with health and safety – again, considerably lower than the overall regulatory picture.
The Forum is also recommending that the HSE phases costs in such a way that smaller firms are not hit disproportionately, and is calling for a service that would allow struggling businesses to pay costs over a more sympathetic time period – one that can be negotiated once the fee has been accepted by the business.
Investigation: What the food inspectors found in your local take-away
24th of July 2012
The ‘scores on the doors’ scheme for food hygiene is a familiar sight across our towns and cities but what does it mean when a premises scores zero? Sarah Hartley has started to map what exactly the inspectors saw across the north.
The Food Standards Agency runs the rating scheme for premises. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
Pizza prepared by staff who have no proper hand-washing facilities in the bathroom and out-of-date ingredients being served up in dishes are just a couple of things that the food police unearthed during their inspections.
Their findings lead to the scores which should be displayed prominently on every restaurant, cafe, work canteens and take-away as the Food Standards Agency explains: ” The hygiene standards found at the time of inspection are rated on a scale. At the bottom of the scale is ’0′ – this means urgent improvement is required. At the top of the scale is ’5′ – this means the hygiene standards are very good.”
But what diners and shoppers aren’t told is what exactly led to the premises being zero rated and requiring urgent improvement.
Using the Freedom of Information Act we have asked the local councils in five cities across the north to supply details of the premises which their inspectors rated zero in the past year.
These reports become a snapshot of the premises taken, as they are, on the one day the inspection takes place.
Sunderland, have already produced the information ahead of the deadline and those are mapped in full here.
The councils are required under the act to provide this information by July 23 and so far two, Carlisle and
The one premises to be rated zero in Carlisle was the Teza Indian Canteen & Bar at Unit 4a, English Gate Plaza, Botchergate which was inspected on 7 December 2011.
The inspector found that: “At the time of the inspection, hot water was not available at any of the sinks or wash hand basins” and also discovered rice said to have been cooked earlier in the afternoon was sitting at room temperature on the worktop in deep sided containers which could allow toxins to form.
Zero rating In the Sunderland area a total of five premises required urgent action including Grindon Snacks, 38 Galashiels Road, Grindon which was inspected on 3 November 2011.
The full report found worrying food safety practices and in point five warns: “The temperature of the high risk foods stored in the refrigerator in the shop was too high. These foods are likely to support the growth of food poisoning bacteria or the formation of toxins and must not be stored above 8 C.
Then in point six, the inspector writes “high risk foods were found on your premises which were past their use-by date.”
We will bring you the full reports of the remaining authorities we’ve already contacted during the next few weeks – they are Leeds,Manchester, and Middlesbrough.
But if you’d like to know what the inspector found in your local take-away, we’d welcome your help to join in with the investigation in other locations.The full instructions of how to submit a simple Freedom of Information Request and add your results to the map can be found here.
Eating out needn’t be a risky business
24th of July 2012
Almost three out of four people are prepared to take a chance with food safety when eating out, according to a survey of more than 2,000 people carried out for the Food Standards Agency.
More than quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they are prepared to take bigger risks when eating out on holiday, more than one in seven (15%) take a gamble with food at sporting and music events, and 28% said they are most likely to take a chance with food following an evening out. Just 25% said they would never take a chance with their food.
With the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games providing a host of opportunities to eat out and enjoy the food on offer in London and across the country, the Agency is reminding everyone to protect their health by doing what they can to ensure the food they eat is safe.
Sarah Appleby, Head of Local Authority Enforcement at the FSA, said: ‘Through our Play it Safe campaign, we’re celebrating the food on offer in the UK and encouraging people not to take a chance and risk spoiling a great day or evening out during the Games.’
The Food Standards Agency is running the Play it Safe campaign to ensure that all food bought, cooked and eaten this summer is safe. Safer eating tips for visitors to the Games can be found at the link below.
Play it safe Olympic campaign
UK: Bag it up – risk of cross contamination
26th of July 2012
The Food Standards Agency in Wales is reminding consumers how they can protect their shopping when packing raw and ready-to-eat food products to reduce the risk of cross-contamination.
Information published today by the Welsh Government shows there has been a 96% reduction in the use of carrier bags in some retail sectors since charges for plastic bags were introduced in Wales in October 2011.
With more and more consumers reusing carrier bags, either for sustainability or as a result of charging, there are some important tips to help prevent bacteria spreading to ready-to-eat food.
Keep raw meat and fish separate from ready-to eat-foods, in separate bags.
If your bags are re-useable, keep one or two just for use with raw meat and fish. Don’t use them for ready-to-eat foods.
Re-useable bags (and single use carrier bags) should be disposed of if there’s been any spillage of raw meat juices.
Rob Wilkins, food safety expert at the FSA in Wales, explains: ‘Packing raw meat and fish with ready-to-eat foods can lead to cross-contamination, particularly if there are any spillages or leaks from the raw foods. While a carrier bag may look clean there is always the potential for cross-contamination of ready-to-eat foods. That’s why it’s a good idea to have separate, identifiable bags for raw and ready-to eat-foods.’
Slouching at work could cost employees their jobs, says new research
26th of July 2012
New research commissioned by Ergonomic specialist Fellowes and Body Language expert, Judi James, reveals that posture in the workplace can have a distinct impact on workers’ career progression and success.
After years spent working with both employers and employees, Judi reveals why our body language in the workplace could make the difference being recognised for promotion or being at risk or losing our jobs.
“Highly successful people share little in the way of traits but one thing they do tend to have in common is a sense of energy and positivity in their posture. This often marks them out as an inspirational leader as that energy is contagious, meaning people who work for them and around them will be motivated and inspired by it.”
“A good singer or actor will know the effect good posture has on the power and tone of the voice and the same technique applies when we speak to colleagues or clients on the phone.”
“That sense of energy can be contagious in face-to-face conversations and we associate the skills of persuasion, motivation and leadership with a dynamic physicality. In the current business climate the focus is on personal impact and presence. Sitting slumped or curled over your keyboard diminishes that impact, possibly sending out signals of low status, low morale, boredom or even hopelessness. In animal terms a slump is linked to fear, submission and low status. For humans the subliminal message can be worryingly similar.”
“Although slumping might feel like a state of relaxation and confidence in the workplace the signals it projects to others can be more like a lack of engagement, energy or keenness. Your posture at your desk is much like your choice of outfit: looking smart suggests professionalism but looking scruffy signals you can’t be bothered to make an effort. Slumping is the body language equivalent of dressing scruffy.”
Louise Shipley at Fellowes, comments; “Good posture can not only help you make a good impression on your employer and colleagues form a visual aspect but it can also make you more productive in your job.
“Taking a quick workstation assessment will help you to identify potential problem areas and give you guidance on how to create an ergonomic and comfortable workspace to improve your posture and your productivity.”
Judi identifies the hidden messages that we might portray to our bosses when slumping at work and recommends ways of keeping our bodies safe and healthy in an ergonomically correct position when working at our desks.
Perching on the edge of the seat and then curling forward will suggest high levels of fear and anxiety prompting a desire for flight. You look so ready to dash off that you appear to be lacking full commitment to your job. A simple solution is you use a foot and back rest to tilt your body into an upright and ergonomically correct pose.
Too much splaying will signal arrogance though, making it a mistake to sit in the chair with your legs stretched out in front of you and your torso slumped. Splaying signals such a lack of desire to self-protect that it tells your boss or manager you have little in the way of respect for them or the job. Use a foot rest to train yourself out of stretching your legs and protect your back from pain through slumping.
The Horizontal Slumper
By placing your bottom on the front/middle of your seat and then leaning your torso back into the chair you create a slumped pose when sitting in front of your keyboard. It signals a cut-off, i.e. a lack of engagement with colleagues or even a lack of desire for the job. Again a foot and back rest to tilt your body into an upright pose and reduce the chance of developing pain.
The Cupped Chin Slump
When you sit with your chin cupped in the palm of your hand you might be intently thinking or reading something on your computer screen but you’ll tend to look as though you’re bored and disengaged. This pose suggests you’re having to keep your head propped up and maybe your eyelids as well. A low-energy pose that can make it look as though you’ve had a string of late nights. A wrist rest would give you a comfortable place to rest your arms on the desk whilst reading and keeps your body in a relaxed and upright position without straining wrists or elbows.
To create your ideal workstation and ensure you are working comfortably, take a free assessment at www.ergo.fellowes.com/en/workstation-assessment
Food Standards Agency have issued their E-NEWS FOR JULY 2012
28th of July 2012