Health Disparities In Public Health

A common theme across the field of public health is how health disparities impact individual’s well-being. The article by Brendan Collins reports on a United Kingdom Food Standards Agency (FAS) study of 322,458 different premises (pubs/clubs, restaurants/cafes/canteens, small retailers, and takeaways) that serve food. It revealed that significant health disparities exist within the food service industry, between supplier, premise, and consumer. The study’s data was derived from 341 local authority areas, and showed statistical significance in the relationship between low food hygiene scores and deprivation, which is common in certain types of premises. I believe that studies of this nature should be performed frequently to analyze the needs
UK food hygiene regulations were enacted in 2006 and “state that all food businesses must follow hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) principles, (Collins, 2013, p. 161).” With suppliers essentially making their own rules, having this variance in the procedures followed makes it dangerous for not only the premises that prepare and serve the food, but the consumers who buy and consume it as well. In these instances, FAS officials should turn to using risk communication practices to generate outrage by rating each premise and informing members of the surrounding community of these ratings (Maxwell, 2009, p. 62). Premises receiving lower ratings may see a decline in clientele, which would directly impact their hygiene practices and the suppliers they do business
Researchers analyzed hygiene score data collected by the UK FAS to determine if there was a level of statistical significance to be found when comparing the four categories of premises. Hygiene scores were based upon the premise’s ability to adhere to UK FAS guidelines regarding cleaning, cooking, avoiding cross-contamination, and chilling, if they kept a food diary, and had a food safety management system in place. Results of the study showed that certain types of food premises were to blame for the relationship between low food hygiene scores and deprivation. Premises were scored on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 denoting the need for urgent improvement and 5 indicating they upheld very good hygiene standards. These scores were then compared to rates of laboratory-detected illness and mapped according to the local authority areas. Figure 4 shows the average Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010 score by hygiene rating. The study showed that there were more premises that had a hygiene rating of 0 than there were premises that had a hygiene rating of 5. From this image it is evident “that there is a socio-economic gradient with the lowest hygiene ratings being more concentrated in the most deprived areas (Collins, 2013, p. 164