Directory of Food Safety Laboratory Services

All laboratories play a key role in protecting public health by analysing the microbiological and chemical content of food so that it is safe to eat. On the island of Ireland there are many laboratories & institutions involved in food safety monitoring, surveillance, analysis and research. Some operate directly or are under the aegis of government departments, local and health authorities. Others are privately owned or within third level institutes of higher education and campus companies, and other laboratory establishments are funded or run by various national agencies. These laboratories produce high quality scientific information that benefits public health through routine testing and research encompassing a broad range of foods.

Foodborne infections & gastrointestinal disease on the island Of Ireland in 2002

A safefood consultation paper, ‘Towards the Enhancement of Foodborne Disease Surveillance’ indicated that the guiding principles for the development of surveillance in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should be the integration of data collection systems and analysis of combined data. The current surveillance systems have developed independently from each other and clinical, food and animal surveillance systems remain un-integrated in both jurisdictions. A more complete and efficient food safety system could be achieved through co-ordination and linkages across the disease surveillance systems and jurisdictions. For that reason, stronger links are being developed between safefood, surveillance agencies, government departments and public health professionals. This report is an examination and review of the clinical surveillance data collected in both jurisdictions. The work was undertaken as part of safefood’s support for the European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET), which trains EU medical practitioners, public health nurses, microbiologists or veterinarians in all aspects of foodborne disease surveillance.

In-depth assessment delivers the verdict on the Government�۪s promise of a more equal society

An independent and detailed expert analysis of a decade of reforms (published 25 February) takes up the challenge made by Peter Mandelson in 1997 to “judge us after ten years of success in office. For one of the fruits of that success will be that Britain has become a more equal society.����”Commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the study, by a team led by LSE’s Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, shows sharp contrasts between different policy areas. Notable success stories include reductions in child and pensioner poverty, improved education outcomes for the poorest children and schools, and narrowing economic and other divides between deprived and other areas.But health inequalities continued to widen, gaps in incomes between the very top and very bottom grew, and poverty increased for working-age people without children.����In several policy areas there was a marked contrast between the first half of the New Labour period and the second half, when progress has slowed or even stalled.John Hills, one of the leaders of study, said, “Whether Britain has moved towards becoming a ‘more equal society’ depends on what you look at, and when. Where clear initiatives were taken, results followed. But as the growth of living standards slowed, even well before the recession, and public finances tightened, momentum seems to have been lost in several key areas.”Kitty Stewart added, “The government can take heart from achievements such as the reduction in child poverty up to 2004.����Recent data show that by then, child well-being in the UK had begun to move up the European league table from its dismal showing at the start of the decade that formed the basis of UNICEF’s damning 2007 report. But even with improved figures, Britain was still left with one of the highest rates of child poverty out of the 15 original EU members, and the latest figures show it had increased again by 2006/7.”����The study concludes that the decade from 1997 was favourable to an egalitarian agenda in several ways: the economy grew continuously; the government had large majorities and aspired to create more equality; and public attitudes surveys suggested pent-up demand for more public expenditure. But that environment now looks very uncertain, not just in the near future, but also in the longer term.����Fiscal pressures from an ageing society could further constrain resources available for redistribution, and public attitudes towards the benefit system have hardened while support for redistribution has declined.Hills added, “The 1980s and 1990s showed that hoping that rapid growth in living standards at the top would ‘trickle down’ to those at the bottom did not work.����The period since 1997 has shown that gains are possible through determined interventions, but they require intensive and continuous effort to be sustained.”JRF Chief Executive Julia Unwin added, “We know the potential impact the deepening recession will have on those already living in poverty. This book provides an important, timely and comprehensive assessment of where we are and what remains to be done.”

Clarifying approaches to: health needs assessment, health impact assessment, integrated impact assessment, health equity audit, and race equality impact assessment

Planners, policy makers and practitioners across all sectors in England use a range of approaches to assess health needs, inform decisions and assess impact. Use of these approaches can lead to improved health outcomes and reduced inequalities through auditing provision, access and outcomes. Five main approaches are used by local, regional and national government, voluntary agencies and the NHS: ۢ Health needs assessment (HNA) ۢ Health impact assessment (HIA) ۢ Integrated impact assessment (IIA) ۢ Health equity audit (HEA) ۢ Race equality impact assessment (REIA)