Abstract
Two earthquakes recently struck the Christchurch region. The 2010 earthquake in Canterbury was strong yet sustained less damage than the 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, which although not as strong, was more damaging and resulted in 185 deaths. Both required activation of a food safety response. The food safety response for both earthquakes was focused on reducing the risk of gastroenteritis by limiting the use of contaminated water and food, both in households and food businesses. Additional food safety risks were identified in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake due to the use of large-scale catering for rescue workers, volunteers and residents unable to return home. Using a risk assessment framework, the food safety response involved providing water and food safety advice, issuing a boil water notice for the region and initiating water testing on reticulation systems. Food businesses were contacted to ensure the necessary measures were being taken. Additional action during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake response included making contact with food businesses using checklists and principles developed in the first response and having regular contact with those providing catering for large numbers. In the 2010 earthquake in Canterbury, several cases of gastroenteritis were reported, although most resulted from person-to-person contact rather than contamination of food. There was a small increase in gastroenteritis cases following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. The food safety response for both earthquakes was successful in meeting the goal of ensuring that foodborne illness did not put additional pressure on hospitals or affect search and rescue efforts.
Highlights
DiscussionThe food safety response for both earthquakes was successful in meeting the goal of ensuring that foodborne illness did not put additional pressure on hospitals or affect search and rescue efforts
Context: The food safety response for both earthquakes was focused on reducing the risk of gastroenteritis by limiting the use of contaminated water and food, both in households and food businesses
Additional action during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake response included making contact with food businesses using checklists and principles developed in the first response and having regular contact with those providing catering for large numbers
Summary
The food safety response for both earthquakes was successful in meeting the goal of ensuring that foodborne illness did not put additional pressure on hospitals or affect search and rescue efforts. (4) Large-scale catering at welfare centres for residents unable or unwilling to return home and at several reporting or gathering sites for rescue workers and volunteers in places that lacked power, water and sewerage systems. The key actions for this response were similar to the 2010 earthquake with respect to issuing water and food safety advice, issuing a boil water notice for the region and initiating water testing on reticulation systems. The national Food Safety response to the earthquake lasted less than three weeks During this time, all of the approximately 2400 food businesses in Christchurch were visited (except the 500 odd in the red zone – cordoned-off CBD areas [Figure 2]), hundreds of enquiries were answered and plans were made for actions to be undertaken as closed food businesses re-opened. (7) There was a small increase in gastroenteritis cases in the first week following the earthquake (Figure 3); the number of reported cases to 22 March 2011 was 18 more than the average for the same period over the previous three years
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.