00 Evaluation scale for evaluation guidelines of control results

All Oiva evaluation guidelines for approved food establishments.

0.1 General Evaluation Criteria for Grading in the Oiva Evaluation Scale

Guide/version: 2118/04.02.00.01/2021/3, valid from 1.7.2021

The common criteria for the Oiva evaluation scale are presented in this guideline which together with the substance-based Oiva evaluation guidelines comprise the overall set of Oiva evaluation guidelines.

To be taken into consideration:

  • This guideline presents general descriptions of the Oiva evaluation scale, in which the risk-based aspects have been taken into account. The risk-based approach is discussed in more detail in the Oiva evaluation guidelines pertaining to specific substance areas.
  • Oiva grades apply to approved food establishments or registered food premises.
  • The general descriptions of the grades in the evaluation scale pertain to all evaluation guidelines of control results and all areas subject to control.
  • The guidelines are all based on the statutes of the Food Act with which Finnish Food Authority interpretation guidelines can be utilised.
  • The Oiva evaluation guidelines, which are published separately, provide more precise and particular guidelines for the application of the evaluation scale.

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

The inspector concludes that the inspected areas comply with the requirements of the legislation.

The inspector is satisfied that the operator is capable of dealing with sudden and random shortcomings and rectifying them through the in-house control system.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The inspector issues a written open notice to the operator of the detected shortcomings.

The inspector is satisfied that the operator is capable of dealing with sudden and random shortcomings and rectifying them through the in-house control system.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

As a rule, the inspector shall make use of the administrative coersive measures referred to in the Food Act to ensure compliance with legislation.

However, the inspector may issue a written notice for corrective action with a set period of time, if there is a justified reason for this.

The areas covered by the inspection as specified in the guidelines do not cause a direct reduction in food safety. In this case, the grade "To Be Corrected" can however be given provided that the grade "Good" has been given repeatedly.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

The inspector orders the operator to take corrective actions immediately. In cases like this, the inspector must always make use of the administrative coersive measures referred to in the Food Act to ensure compliance with legislation.

The areas specified in the guidelines do not immediately jeopardise food safety. In this case, the grade "Poor" can however be given, provided that the grade "To Be Corrected" has been given repeatedly and the shortcomings have not been rectified within the set period of time.


Updates in version 4

  • Guideline number 2111/04.02.00.01/2021/4 replaces Guideline number 10205/3.