Service of Raw, Rare and Low Temperature Cooked Meats
An advisory paper from the National Food Hygiene Focus Group to
assist in assuring consistency of enforcement – January 2015
Introduction
1.1 During 2014 the Food Hygiene Focus Group (FHFG) recognised that the
preparation and sale of raw, rare and low temperature cooked foods was an area
causing enforcement officers significant difficulty in taking a consistent approach.
This paper looks specifically at meat preparation but some of the issues considered
will be relevant to other foods. Sources of advice that appeared to be conflicting
included







FSA Board Paper – Our Approach to “Risky” Foods November 2014
ACMSF Report – April 2014 – Raw, Rare & Low Temperature (RRLT) food
ACMSF Report – 2007 - The Safe Cooking of Burgers
E. coli & Cross Contamination Guidance July 2014
Davy’s v Westminster judgement July 2013
John Barr Incident Report (“Pennington 1”)
John Tudor Incident Report (“Pennington2”)
1.2 The Group was concerned about inconsistent enforcement but also about a
possible reluctance to enforce in situations where enforcement action was critical to
protecting the public health. Therefore, while recognising the need for further
research to be carried out in areas such as cooking at core temperatures below
60°C, it was agreed on 1st October 2014 that in the interests of consistency and
public protection, enforcement guidance was necessary immediately. Subsequently
the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced its paper for the 5 th November Board
Meeting entitled “Our Approach to “Risky” Foods”.
1.3 FHFG has examined available expert and other relevant opinions. In doing so it
has taken account of the strategic roles FSA proposes for itself in relation to
ensuring only safe food is placed on the market and relating to consumers taking
greater responsibility for their own food risks management. This guidance document
is specifically for enforcement officers. It is not legally binding but seeks to clarify
relevant considerations and it suggests common enforcement approaches.
Summary
2.1 There is much evidence that many pathogenic bacteria exist in raw meat and the
E. coli & Cross Contamination Guidance (June 2014) specifically makes clear the
risks from E. coli in raw foods. Enforcement officers should generally regard raw or
undercooked meat as unsafe food unless it has been subject to an acceptable,
validated process that has made the food safe (the searing of undamaged red meat
muscle for example, is a generally accepted method to produce safe rare steak). In
the absence of a satisfactory, validated safe method, enforcement action must be
taken to protect public health.
2.2 Where an enforcement officer is faced with conflicting expert advice the FHFG
suggests it is reasonable for the officer to express in writing why a safe method is not
considered to be fully validated but also that enforcement action is not being taken
unless at some time in the future more conclusive evidence undermining the
validation becomes available.
2.3 For example, where a supplier of raw meat claims his product is safe to eat
because his herd has been tested for many years and has always been free of
pathogens, the enforcement officer has a dilemma. On the one hand, although the
presence of pathogens makes food unsafe, there is no clear definition of what
constitutes an unacceptable risk of pathogens being present. Elizabeth Roscoe,
District Judge, Westminster Magistrates’ Court, ruled that in this example the meat
supplier’s negative test results satisfy a critical limit which assures the prevention,
elimination or reduction of identified hazards to an acceptable extent. Additionally,
the FSA has stated they are moving towards allowing consumers to take greater
responsibility for managing the food risks that are personal to them. On the other
hand, negative test results do not mean the herd will be immune in the future to
pathogens, including E. coli, carried by wild animals and birds. Therefore, without a
further process, a risk from pathogens that is not acceptable to public health
professionals remains. Additionally, the general public at present does not have
enough knowledge to make adequately informed decisions about eating raw meat
safely. FHFG disagrees with the Davy’s v Westminster judgement but without more
conclusive evidence, it recommends in these circumstances the course of action
stated at 2.2. In circumstances where there is no supported validation, enforcement
action must be taken.
The science
3.1 The expert opinions of witnesses involved in legal proceedings require
consideration but the most important source of scientific opinion relating to RRLT
food remains the Government’s Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of
Food (ACMSF). It reported on RRLT food formally in April 2014.
3.2 The Report states that the generally quoted time/temperature combinations of 10
minutes at 65°C and 45 minutes at 60°C do not adequately take account of E coli
O157 and that for foods where that organism may be present, time/temperature
combinations would need to be 14 minutes at 65°C and 93 minutes at 60°C. It further
reports that below 60°C there are uncertainties associated with the boundary for heat
inactivation of several important strains of bacteria. Additionally, the potential for
growth of C. perfringens would indicate that heating profiles must move rapidly
through this temperature zone (temperatures approaching a safe core temperature),
to avoid the risk associated with the growth of this organism. ACMSF concludes
“there is currently no scientific data to support (core) cooking temperatures less than
60°C but work in this area is on-going”.
3.3 In relation to “sear & shave” the report states “In this approach the outside
surfaces of whole muscle cuts of meat are briefly heated to a high temperature
(seared), while the deeper tissues remain essentially raw (this may be considered to
be very rare “cooking”). The seared surfaces are separated from the uncooked inner
tissues, which are used to produce raw/rare products. The reported advantage of
this method of preparation is that the most heavily microbiologically contaminated
part of any whole muscle cut of meat, i.e. the outer surface is not consumed, but the
inner parts, considered to contain minimal contamination can be safely consumed.
The sear and shave procedure is an attempt to produce a raw/rare product, that has
a reduced microbiological risk to the consumer.
There are a number of points to consider in relation to sear and shave. Whilst the
procedure will undoubtedly reduce microbiological numbers on the outside of whole
muscle cuts of meat, it will have little effect on any organisms that are internalised.
Little information can be collected on the internal contamination of whole muscle
cuts. There is some information that would indicate slaughter practice and pre-cook
practices such as tenderisation, could introduce contamination into the centre of
muscle tissue. More information is required on the internal contamination of whole
muscle cuts before the microbiological risks of this procedure can be fully assessed.
The effectiveness of “sear and shave” is in part very dependent on the hygiene
standards achieved during the post sear dissection of the seared surfaces. Removal
of seared areas would need to be carried out very carefully under strictly controlled
conditions using clean/sterilised knives/boards/ surfaces/equipment, with effective
means of preventing cross-contamination of the shaved meat.”
3.4 In relation to sous vide and similar, the report states “Sous Vide cooking is a
particular type of low temperature cooking process in which food is sealed within a
gas impermeable plastic bag, from which most of the air is removed to pull the bag
tightly around the food item. The product is then heat treated within a temperature
controlled water bath for a specified (relatively long) period of time. The removal of
air from the bag ensures good heat transfer to the product from the water and a
faster heating up time, while the sealed pack reduces the risks of post cooking
recontamination. As sous vide cooking uses low temperatures, it involves a number
of the previously noted risks associated with bacterial survival and/or growth. In
addition, this method involves storage under low oxygen conditions, which means
that Food Standards Agency guidance on the 'safety and shelf-life of vacuum and
modified atmosphere packed chilled foods with respect to non-proteolytic Clostridium
botulinum, should be considered in relation to storage temperature, product shelf life,
and safety of these products.
Relevant legislation
4.1 The implications of the following laws are relevant to measures required to
control these RRLT issues.

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 Article 5 – requirement to have and implement
an appropriate documented food safety management system. In particular,
paragraph 2(c) requires that food business operators (FBOs) “establish critical
limits at critical control points which separate acceptability from
unacceptability for the prevention, elimination or reduction of identified
hazards”.

Regulation (EC) 178/2002 Article 14, paragraph 1 states “food shall not be
placed on the market if it is unsafe”. Recital 10 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002
also states "it is necessary to adopt measures aimed at guaranteeing that
unsafe food is not placed on the market and at ensuring that systems exist to
identify and respond to food safety problems in order to ... protect human
health".
E. coli & Cross Contamination Guidance (as amended June 2014)
5.1 This revised guidance states “E. coli O157 is a hazard that needs to be
controlled through the business' food safety management system. To help
businesses comply with this requirement the guidance clarifies:



the circumstances in which E. coli O157 cross-contamination hazards should
be considered,
the control measures that can be applied to control cross-contamination with
E. coli O157, and
that if such controls fail, there is an imminent risk to consumers with
potentially severe consequences.”
5.2 It follows that at premises where that Guidance applies, if contamination by raw
meat has potentially severe consequences then the consumption of raw red meat
that has not undergone treatment such as cooking, potentially has severe
consequences.
The Davy’s v Westminster judgement
6.1 This judgement related to the requirements made in a Hygiene Improvement
Notice (HIN) and was heard in the Westminster Magistrates Court. It stated “In
conclusion, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the HIN was not
justified in respect of Davy’s actual preparation of hamburgers to be consumed
cooked rare or medium rare. I find that they were entitled to rely upon the quality of
the raw mince supplied to them by DR [the supplier of vacuum packed raw beef
mince], and that, having conducted checks and seen quality control documentation
from DR, that could be a CCP. Their own inspection of the meat delivered was also a
CCP. The method of storing and preparing the hamburgers was acceptable.
[…………] Accordingly, I modify the HIN by deleting paragraph 2.1 “There were
inadequate measures in place to control risk related to pathogenic microorganisms
and their toxins in burgers served medium rare or rare.”
6.2 The judgement considers several factors in reaching this conclusion but amongst
the most pertinent are the following.
“It is accepted that the only way to guarantee elimination of Ecoli in meat is by
cooking the produce to a certain temperature for a required time. (I am aware that
that would not eliminate post cooking contamination). This, of course, is possible for
burgers and meat generally, but it is not possible if one serves the meat rare. Does
that mean that the meat cannot be served rare? That is not suggested by the
Respondent and, I suspect, would not be acceptable within the greater community. If
the meat can be served rare and the hazard, therefore, cannot be guaranteed to be
eliminated, presumably it must be reduced to an acceptable level. I am told that no
level of Ecoli 0157 is acceptable because of the potential severity of the danger it
carries. If it is permissible to serve meat (including hamburgers) rare then it must be
that there is, (within the context of serving rare beef) a permissible process of
reduction of Ecoli 0157 to an acceptable level.”
“There was a slight issue with the standards of DR. The issue was that Professor
Pennington accepted that DR sell high quality meat and have achieved and
maintained as high standards as any in the UK, but his view was that they could not
guarantee that their product was Ecoli free. His opinion, therefore, was that he could
only say that their systems had not been “found wanting”, whereas Dr Dinsdale was
of the opinion that the satisfactory microbiological results of its checks showed that
the system worked. Again there was no substantial difference between the experts
as both agreed that DR operated to very high standards and both agreed that total
elimination of Ecoli or Ecoli O157 could not be guaranteed.”
“The central issue here is whether or not rare burgers should be made available to
the public. Apart from meat, there are other foodstuffs that have a comparatively high
risk of being contaminated with Ecoli. Sprouting vegetables are one and raw milk
cheeses are another. Salads and herbs also are a risk. These are increasingly
popular foods in this country.”
“There is a balance to be struck between ensuring the safety of the public and
allowing them the freedom of choice that they would wish and have a right to expect.
This case appears to me to be an issue of whether or not a restaurant can
realistically supply rare burgers to those who request them even though there will
inevitably be a risk and even if the risk is slight. The potential for harm in this case is
small, although the danger of that risk could be severe. Accordingly, the risk is not
slight. [……] The issue of the Critical Control Points (CCP) in HACCP are
fundamental. But it is not necessarily the case that cooking is inevitably a CCP.
Usually it will be, and even here it is, but that does not mean that the CCP has to
result in the burgers being cooked medium or well.”
6.3 The FHFG believes that in making this judgement an assumption was made that
because consumers are free to choose the consumption of raw red meat in their
homes they have a similar right to do so in a food business. Although the FHFG is
not certain about the application of human rights to European food law it does not
support this opinion.
The position taken by the Food Standards Agency
7.1 The FSA needs to take account of direction given by the EU concerning EU
legislation, advice from ACMSF concerning scientific considerations and opinions
expressed by members of the public. Like FHFG, it recognises that the cautionary
advice from ACMSF based upon the requirement for further research, while sound,
is hampering the issue of clear guidance.
7.2 In its paper Our Approach to “Risky” Foods (November 2014), FSA states it will
be instrumental in “both ensuring food businesses step up to their responsibility to
ensure the food they provide is safe and what it says it is, and enabling informed
choice by consumers and allowing them to take greater responsibility for managing
the food risks that are personal to them and that they can affect”. At Section 5 “Discussion”, FSA outlines its thoughts about the relevant science, legislation and
attitudes (the same issues considered in this paper) and in some cases makes
specific reference to raw and undercooked meat. It also indicates it will require time
before validated statutory guidance can be issued to enforcement officers.
7.3 This FHFG guidance will be subject to future developments announced by FSA
but in the interim, FHFG has created this guidance for reasons previously stated.
FHFG Recommendations
8.1 The Davy’s v Westminster judgement was made in a lower court and is not
binding. The judgement appears to have been made based upon two main
arguments.
i.
The final consumer is entitled to be supplied at a restaurant with raw or rare
meat if they choose, as they are entitled to be served with salads, oysters and
unpasteurised milk etc. which also have intrinsic risks.
ii.
Good hygiene at a raw meat cutting plant and a record of microbiological
testing free of positive VTEC results constitutes sufficient reason for a
restaurant operator to regard the supply of raw minced beef as ready to eat
food.
8.2 FHFG considers both of these arguments to be untenable and makes its
recommendations mainly on the basis of scientific advice but with some important
caveats to the ACMSF advice.
8.3 Salads are (or can be) washed, oysters are depurated under bespoke legislation
and the supply of unpasteurised milk is controlled under bespoke legislation. These
controls are believed by experts to bring risks to an acceptable level and
comparisons with raw red meat do not appear valid. Professor Pennington and other
experts have said raw red meat, no matter how good the supplier’s previous record
in relation to live animal tests, food poisoning cases etc., cannot be considered as
safe without a validated step that brings risk to an acceptable level.
8.4 FHFG is unaware of any other challenges to European food laws made on the
basis of human rights. It believes that Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 Article 5 and
Regulation (EC) 178/2002 Article 14 are not subject to any human rights enjoyed by
the consumer. It also believes that if competent experts can't all agree on this matter,
then the public cannot be expected to make reasonable choices by themselves.
8.5 Furthermore, if a consenting customer was ill from eating raw steak the food
business operator would still be guilty of selling food that was unsafe. This re-visits
the question of probability and acceptability of risk from VTEC in raw red meat and it
raises what would constitute a satisfactory due diligence defence. There must be
credible evidence that somebody has done what is necessary to make food as safe
as is reasonably possible. Control methods require validations that are acceptable to
the local Environmental Health section (subject to appeal) and this paper gives
advice on how officers should consider validations that are not absolute.
8.6 One consultant involved with the Davey’s business (and its appeal against the
HIN) has put forward the following opinion. “The mince used to produce hamburgers
by Davy’s is obtained from an EC approved establishment, (i.e. approved and
supervised by the FSA), which has an exemplary record, in terms of the
microbiological quality of its products and the production environment. The mince is
made from prime cuts and complies with the microbiological criteria for mince
intended to be eaten raw or undercooked, under Regulation EC 2073/2005: there is
no higher regulatory standard.” FHFG is of the opinion that levels of VTEC in mince
consumed in a food business is not within the scope of EC 2073/2005 and it would
again point instead to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 Article 5 and Regulation (EC)
178/2002.
8.7 In all cases the FBO needs to supply a documented safe method with credible
validation. In doing so, the FBO may need to make a judgement based upon current
scientific data as well as the statutory guidance on interpretation of the law. Given
the recommendations from ACMSF for further research, the scientific support for
what appears on the face of it to be a reasonable judgement may not be absolute.
Where an enforcement officer is faced with conflicting expert advice, or persuasive
evidence that is not absolute, the FHFG suggests it is reasonable for the officer to
express in writing why a safe method is not considered to be fully validated but also
that enforcement action is not being taken unless at some time in the future more
conclusive evidence undermining the validation becomes available.
8.8 Having regard to the above matters, FHFG recommends, in order to aid
consistency, the approaches to RRLT foods in Annex 1. A graduated or otherwise
appropriate enforcement approach should be made under an Authority’s existing
Enforcement Policy.
Annex 1
Sear & Shave (or similar)
A food business operator should take account of the cautionary comments made by
The Government’s Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food
(ACMSF) concerning the ability of pathogens to penetrate red meat (muscle) to
some extent. If, despite this risk, a food business operator chooses to utilise “sear
and shave” the following is recommended. Whole pieces of red meat muscle (steak)
can be served rare providing all outside surfaces are effectively seared or similar.
This is because bacteria do not penetrate into red meat muscle providing it is in good
condition (free of punctures, tears, excessive connective tissue etc.). Processes to
remove bacteria from the external surfaces include searing all surfaces on a hot
griddle or pan, or plunging the meat into boiling water for a time that achieves the
same effect. External surfaces may then be hygienically sliced off if required to leave
meat that is safe to serve rare or even in the Carparccio style. Post-searing, it is
essential that the ready to eat meat is protected from contamination in accordance
with the E. coli control guidance. N.B. This particular safe method is not acceptable
for poultry meat where bacteria enters into the muscle. Therefore an adequate
time/temperature combination is required at the centre of a piece of poultry meat.
Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Article 5
Rare/Medium-Rare Cooked Muscle Cuts
A food business operator should take account of the cautionary comments made by
The Government’s Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food
(ACMSF) concerning the ability of pathogens to penetrate red meat (muscle) to
some extent. If, despite this risk, a food business operator chooses to serve
rare/medium-rare cooked muscle cuts, the following precautions should be taken in
order to comply with Regulation (EC) 852/2004 Article 5:




Only beef or lamb should be served rare. The internal muscle of e.g. chicken,
turkey, duck or game may be contaminated with e.g. salmonella or
campylobacter so should never be served rare, nor should pork due to the
possibility of parasites or Hepatitis E infection being present in the muscle.
Meat deliveries should be checked on receipt to ensure that they are in good
condition and have been protected from contamination during
transportation/delivery/storage. There should be no signs of damage or
penetration of the meat surface that could introduce contamination from the
outer layers to the centre of the muscle block. Only whole muscle cuts should
be used.
Do not inject, mechanically tenderise or score raw meat as this may introduce
contamination. Probing raw meat for temperature (even with a sterile probe)
may also introduce contamination from the outer layers into the centre of the
meat.
Cooking times and temperatures should be adequate to kill vegetative
bacteria on the outer surfaces of the meat. The Meat and Livestock
Commission, in their “Recipes for Love”, suggest that a standard cooking time



for a rare beef steak which is 2cms thick would be about two and a half
minutes per side. A change of colour would indicate if this has occurred.
Measures (aseptic) to prevent post cooking cross contamination from raw to
cooked meat will be needed particularly where several pieces of meat are
being cooked on the same equipment e.g. a barbecue, with different start and
finish times.
It is recommended that rare meat is served to the customer straight after
being cooked rare, in order to minimise risks of re-contamination.
Staff must be trained to follow the critical control points relevant to their work.
Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Article 5
Lightly cooked foods
This advice relates to the cooking of all meats including game but is especially
important for offal and similar. The Government’s Advisory Committee on the
Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) states that the generally quoted
time/temperature combinations of 10 minutes at 65°C and 45 minutes at 60°C do not
adequately take account of E coli O157 and that for foods where that organism may
be present, time/temperature combinations would need to be 14 minutes at 65°C
and 93 minutes at 60°C. It also states that below 60°C there are uncertainties
associated with the boundary for heat inactivation of several important strains of
bacteria. Furthermore it points to the importance of the “come up time”, stating “The
potential for growth of C. perfringens would indicate that heating profiles must move
rapidly through this [the “unsafe”] temperature zone, to avoid the risk associated with
the growth of this organism”. There is currently no scientific data to support (core)
cooking temperatures less than 60°C but work in this area is on-going.
A food business operator should take account of the above ACMSF advice relating
to the uncertainty about what makes raw meat safe. The validation of the
time/temperature combinations below precedes the current ACMSF advice. Despite
this uncertainty however, if lightly cooked foods are processed at least to the level
described by the following pasteurisation time/temperature combinations, this will be
recognised as a safe method for the purpose of Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Article 5.
60°C – this core temperature maintained for at least 45 mins
65°C – this core temperature maintained for at least 10 mins
70°C – this core temperature maintained for at least 2 mins
75°C – this core temperature maintained for at least 30secs
80°C – this core temperature maintained for at least 6 secs
Challenge testing
Some private laboratories offer “challenge testing” to establish the critical limit
required for a process to assure that food is safe (for example, the amount of
cooking required to achieve pasteurisation). The challenge involves determining how
much of a reduction is required in the initial number of pathogens originally present
in the food to achieve a final number of those bacteria that can be considered as
negligible. A ten-fold decrease is called one log reduction and The Government’s
Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) requires a 6-log
reduction but some laboratories make a challenge test on a process assuming that a
4-log reduction is safe. Different pathogenic organisms will need different amounts of
heat treatment to kill them and ACMSF states that E coli requires more heat
treatment (a higher Z value) than Salmonella for example. The effectiveness of the
challenge will depend not only upon the validation of the log reduction chosen but
also the initial dose of (pathogen) contamination present in the food. E. coli
outbreaks related to meat have often involved “super-shedder” cattle, where the
initial contamination of E. coli on the meat (before heat treatment) has been very
high.
If a food business operator relies upon information in respect of microbiological
challenge testing or microbiological cattle herd testing, it is possible that a court will
uphold the evidence of another witness whose expert opinion is that a higher level of
challenge is required. It is very important that a food business operator ensures that
any validation of a safe method is agreed with the Environmental Health section of
the Local Authority.
Sous vide
A sous vide method needs to be an acceptably validated safe method. A person
utilising sous vide will need to write down what the method is (e.g. whether the raw
duck for example starts at refrigerator or room temperature, the approximate size
and number of pieces being cooked in the batch, the vacuum quality achieved in the
packaging, the temperature of the water bath, how it is established that an
acceptable core temperature is reached and maintained, the time for which the
pieces cook after reaching an acceptable core temperature and the actual core
temperature that was maintained). Verification can be carried out each time a batch
is cooked, or if the pieces are always uniform you may be able to use a validated
“prove-it” record. To create a prove-it record you will need to write down the method,
the date you made the prove-it check, the time for which an acceptable temperature
was maintained and the actual temperature that was maintained at the centre of the
food until cooking was complete. The prove-it should be verified at regular intervals,
e.g. every 2 months. Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Article 5
Fish intended to be eaten raw or lightly cooked
Raw fish intended to be eaten raw or almost raw, such as raw marinated fish used to
make Sashimi or Sushi, will need to be wholly sourced from suppliers that have
frozen the fish to –20°C for 24 hours or is derived from farmed fish or from a fishing
ground that epidemiological data indicates is free from the presence of parasites and
is authorised for sale without prior freezing by the competent authority. Fish is
deemed to be “almost raw” where the core temperature is below 60°C. Regulation
(EC) 1276/2011 amending Annex III, Section VIII, Chapter II of Regulation No.
853/2004, Part D