The Deli Counter at 2pm
It is 14:10 on a warm Friday at a small supermarket with a two-deck serve-over deli counter. The counter assistant has just taken a tray of sliced cooked ham from the walk-in chiller (recorded at 4°C that morning) and arranged it on the top shelf of the display, which is open-fronted and sits near the shop entrance doors. The ham was cooked and sliced in-store yesterday; the slicing log shows it was sliced at 09:00 yesterday and returned to the chiller at 09:40. A customer asks for six slices, and the assistant serves them by hand wearing a clean glove on the serving hand only. The shop's probe thermometer is in the back office, and the last recorded counter temperature check was three days ago. The manager is on a break.
1. Using the information given, identify the temperature-control and cross-contamination risks in this scenario and explain which are the most serious and why.
Read the worked answer
Temperature risks:
- The open-fronted display near entrance doors is vulnerable to warm air and draughts; without a recent recorded check we cannot demonstrate the food is being held at or below 5°C (or above 63°C for hot food). Three days without a check is a monitoring failure in the HACCP plan.
- Sliced cooked ham is a ready-to-eat, high-risk food. It was sliced yesterday morning and has been in the chiller since 09:40; if the display is running warm, cumulative time in the danger zone (5–63°C) is the key concern.
Cross-contamination risks:
- Glove on the serving hand only: the ungloved hand may handle packaging, the till, or the counter edge and then touch the ham or the glove. A single glove does not prevent contamination if the other hand touches food or surfaces that contact food.
- Hand contact with ready-to-eat ham is a direct route for Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes if hand hygiene is inadequate.
Most serious: the unmonitored open display, because it is a sustained control failure affecting every customer served, whereas the glove issue is a single handling event. Both must be corrected, but the temperature monitoring gap has the wider exposure.
2. State the corrective actions the assistant should take immediately, and what the manager should do when they return.
Read the worked answer
Assistant, immediately:
- Stop serving from the open display until its temperature is verified. Fetch the probe thermometer and check the surface temperature of the ham and the air temperature of the display.
- If the ham is above 8°C, remove it from sale and record it as a rejection; do not return it to the chiller for resale without a decision from the manager.
- Remove the glove and wash hands, then serve the customer from stock held in the chiller, using tongs or a fresh glove on both hands with handwashing between tasks.
Manager on return:
- Investigate why the counter check was missed for three days; review the monitoring schedule and assign a named person per shift.
- Record the incident, the temperatures found, the food affected, and the action taken (HACCP monitoring and corrective action records).
- Consider moving the display away from the doors, fitting doors/blinds, or reducing load so the unit can hold temperature; verify with a calibrated probe and a data logger over a full trading day.
- Retrain staff on the two-glove/tongs rule and hand hygiene, and document the training.
3. The manager wants to keep the ham on display because 'it looks fine'. Explain why appearance is not an acceptable basis for the decision.
Read the worked answer
Pathogenic bacteria that cause foodborne illness - Listeria, Salmonella, Staph. aureus - do not reliably change the look, smell, or texture of food at the levels that cause illness. Spoilage organisms that make food smell or look bad are different organisms from the pathogens of concern, so 'it looks fine' tells you nothing about safety.
For ready-to-eat ham, the legal and HACCP position is that safety must be demonstrated by measurement and records, not by sensory judgement. If the temperature record is missing or the food has exceeded the permitted time/temperature, the food is treated as unsafe until proven otherwise. The decision must rest on the measured temperature, the time in the danger zone, and the written procedure - which is exactly what the missing logs were meant to provide.