Background
Hospital plate waste is a key target for global food waste reduction but remains difficult to manage due to complex hospital and foodservice operations, and patient-specific clinical factors. Characterising plate waste supports targeted interventions, including potential reuse of suitable items. Although Standard 3.2.2 clause 11(4) permits redistribution only when food is completely wrapped and remains wrapped (1) packaged items returned on patient trays are routinely discarded (2). Returned unopened packaged food (RUF) items, therefore present an opportunity for safe recovery.
A review of Food Safety Plans for vulnerable persons across Australia found no explicit prohibition on reusing or donating RUF items (unpublished review). Standards require food to be safe and suitable (1) but do not preclude reuse of intact, fully wrapped items. Many hospitals already allow access to ward pantries where packaged items may be handled under appropriate procedures (3-5). Non-perishable RUF items carry the lowest foodborne-illness risk (6), yet once served they leave the foodservice jurisdiction and are perceived as potential contamination risks via their outer packaging. This raises the question of microbial contamination before and after circulation through the meal-delivery process.
Objective: To investigate microbial contamination levels on the external packaging of commonly returned RUF items in an acute-care tertiary hospital using a standard food-contact surface hygiene assessment developed with Infection Control and SA Pathology.
Methods
The most frequently returned RUF items were identified from a 9-week audit and grouped into food-type categories, with five swabs allocated per category. As items were removed from patient trays, identified ‘hot spot’ items were swabbed over a 50cm2 area on the outer packaging surface, individually or as composite samples, covering all high-touch areas in accordance with training. Daily baseline samples were collected by swabbing unopened packaged items on meal trays as they left the belt‑service area, prior to delivery. Only external packaging was swabbed; food contents were not opened, and all items were discarded after sampling. Swabs were labelled, bagged and transported under temperature control to SA Pathology Environmental Food Laboratory within 24 hours for total bacterial count analysis. A hygiene threshold of 6 cfu/cm2 was applied, with results above classified as ‘unclean’ and those below as ‘clean’.
Results
Over 100 RUF items were swabbed. Most, including baseline samples, showed very low microbial contamination, with fewer than 2% exceeding the hygiene threshold. These findings, supported by other research (7) indicate the need for a formal risk assessment to determine whether RUF items can be safely reused. A next step would be to trial a sanitisation procedure to further reduce microbial load, followed by re-swabbing after 24-48 hours to assess potential regrowth.
Conclusion
Although contamination levels were low across most RUF items, safe reuse still requires a formal risk assessment to ensure no risk of foodborne illness. A sanitisation step may further reduce contamination and support reuse, provided packaging integrity and chemical safety are maintained. If low microbial levels continue to be demonstrated, a comprehensive food safety risk assessment to evaluate the feasibility of RUF reuse may be warranted.