The aim of the targeted campaign was to carry out random checks on compliance with good hygiene practices in communal catering establishments (retirement and nursing homes, residential homes, hospitals, boarding schools, schools, nurseries and after-school care centres) as well as in the catering sector (inns, hotels, guesthouses, cafés, canteens, snack bars and restaurants).

A total of 1,745 samples from across Austria were analysed. 106 samples were found to be non-compliant:

• Two samples were deemed harmful to health due to a very high bacterial count of Bacillus cereus (>100,000 CFU/g)
• One sample of vegan sushi was deemed harmful to health due to an undeclared allergenic ingredient (fish)
• 10 samples were deemed unfit for human consumption due to a high bacterial count of Bacillus cereus (between 10,000 CFU/g and 100,000 CFU/g)
• One sample was deemed unfit for human consumption due to a high bacterial count of K.p. staphylococci
• Six samples were deemed unfit for human consumption due to high counts of spoilage bacteria and/or hygiene-related bacteria (e.g. E. coli) in conjunction with abnormal sensory characteristics of the sample (e.g. off-putting, foul odour)
• One sample of partially cooked poultry kebab meat (not ready-to-eat) from a catering establishment was deemed unfit for human consumption due to the detection of Salmonella (Salmonella enteritidis)
• 34 samples were rejected as having reduced quality due to elevated bacterial counts (spoilage bacteria, hygiene indicators)
• In seven samples, a hygiene violation was identified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on food hygiene due to deviating temperatures (failure to maintain the required holding temperature for hot food or exceeding the required refrigeration temperature)
• 46 pre-packaged food samples were rejected due to labelling deficiencies in relation to the Food Information Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011)
• One sample was rejected on the basis of the Allergen Information Regulation (Federal Law Gazette II No. 175/2014) due to a best-before date that had passed but was not indicated.