House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Seventh Report

3 Food safety and hygiene

33. The provision of safe and fit food is something which we tend to take for granted in a modern society. However, as recent events in relation to the discovery of an illegal dye—Sudan 1—in chilli powder have demonstrated, consumers remain susceptible to large-scale public health 'scares'.

Legal framework

34. The key piece of legislation in ensuring safe food is the Food Safety Act 1990, which sets out the fundamental principles of the law in this area. The Act makes it an offence to sell or possess for sale food that does not comply with food safety requirements, and to render food injurious to health.[45] Secondary legislation made under the Act provides detail on matters such as the chemical or microbiological safety of food, food quality, food labelling and advertising.

35. From 1 January 2006, a 'package' of new EU food hygiene legislation will come into effect, intended to modernise and consolidate existing EU legislation.[46] The legislation is intended to introduce a 'farm to fork' approach to food safety by including primary production, such as farming, in food hygiene legislation for the first time. The FSA states that the UK supported the introduction of the new legislation and has argued for some time that the current legislation, some of which is now 40 years old, is inconsistent and often difficult to enforce.[47]

International standards: Codex Alimentarius

36. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a joint body of the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, both United Nations bodies.[48] It sets international standards with the purpose of protecting public health in respect of food and agricultural products, and also of facilitating fair practices in the food trade. Standards are developed through consensus, which means that decision-making can be very slow. The Codex Alimentarius is the series of food standards and related texts produced by the Commission, and provides reference standards for the WTO in the context of settling trade disputes.

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points

37. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system of guidelines was devised 30 years ago and has become the universally recognised and accepted method for food safety assurance. The system aims to reduce food-borne disease through the application of a systematic approach to hazard and risk analysis and grew out of growing public concerns about food safety from public health authorities, the food industry and consumers.[49]

38. In 1993 the guidelines for the application of HACCP were adopted by the Codex Commission. The Codex Code on General Principles of Food Hygiene was revised to include recommendations for the application of the Codex HACCP Guidelines. In the EU and in most developed countries, the HACCP system is widely regarded as being crucial to the management of food safety and, in turn, consumer protection. The FSA advocates the use of the HACCP guidelines as the most effective way for businesses to ensure consumer protection.

Government's role

39. The FSA is primarily responsible for overseeing food safety in the UK, although any proceedings enforcing food safety legislation must be brought by local authorities, rather than the FSA. The FSA describes itself as an "independent food safety watchdog": between 2001 and 2006, one of its key aims is to reduce foodborne illness by 20% by improving food safety right through the food chain.[50] The FSA is now cited by consumers as the top "spontaneous" source of information about food standards and safety, an increase from 8% in 2000 to 20% in 2003.[51]

40. The recent alert caused by the presence of Sudan 1 in a batch of chilli powder provided a helpful demonstration of the role played by the FSA in such circumstances. On 18 February, the FSA advised people not to eat foods that had been inadvertently contaminated with an illegal dye, known as Sudan 1. The dye was found in a batch of chilli powder used by a food manufacturer, Premier Foods, to make a Worcester sauce; the sauce had then been used as an ingredient in other food products.[52] A very significant number of products from a wide range of sources was affected—as at 1 March, 474 products from approximately 50 different manufacturers or suppliers.

41. Premier Foods notified the FSA that Sudan 1 had been detected in a sample of Worcester sauce on 7 February 2005, and provided the FSA with a list of more than 160 Premier Foods' customers who had bought the affected products. The FSA then met twice with food industry representatives in two days, in order to require full disclosure by companies of their affected products, their removal from sale and appropriate publicity to inform consumers. Following the receipt of detailed information about the products affected, the FSA issued a press notice notifying the public of the problem and posted a list of affected products on its website. The Agency set a deadline of 24 February for the removal from sale of all contaminated products, and continued to provide updates by way of press notices and additions to the list of affected products.

42. In the past, the FSA has set up telephone help lines to answer consumer concerns about, for example, the potential problems of contamination of milk sold at the farm gate during the foot and mouth crisis and contamination of sealed jars of baby foods by semicarbazide.[53] Information and advice about food safety issues is available to consumers at the FSA's website; advice about food handling and preparation is available on the FSA's "eatwell" website.[54]

Pesticides Residues Committee

43. Since the 1970s the Government has had a programme of pesticide residues surveillance in food and drink, as part of statutory controls relating to pesticide approval. As of 2000 this has been overseen by the Pesticide Residues Committee, an independent non-departmental government body.[55] The committee undertakes a programme of 'rolling surveys' which involves sampling foods, mostly from retail outlets, and testing them for residues.[56]

Evidence received

44. The British Retail Consortium (BRC), which represents the UK retail industry, suggested to us that food safety is not a significant problem in the UK: "UK legislation is quite clear—all marketed food that is properly processed, stored and prepared is safe for general consumption".[57] The FSA told us that "most food safety risks should be controlled during food production" and pointed to the risk that arises in the domestic environment, where "inappropriate preparation and storage practice … can introduce significant risk".[58]

45. Which? (formerly the Consumers' Association) was less convinced of the lack of risk attached to processed food, arguing that, while ideally foods should not be on sale if they are unsafe, in practice it is impossible to ensure that foods are completely risk-free.[59] Dr Richard Baines, of the Royal Agricultural College, submitted that there was a lack of regulation of food hygiene matters in the UK, in that although "imported raw agricultural products will be subject to regulatory surveillance … home-grown produce is largely unregulated in terms of food hygiene!" [60]

46. Whilst food safety risks are capable of regulation in the public sphere, risks also arise in respect of food hygiene in the home, an area which is not readily capable of regulation. The Institute of Food Research (IFR), a research facility sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, told us that, because consumers tend to demonstrate more concern about those risks which they perceive to be beyond their control, they may ignore microbiological risks in the kitchen, on the basis that they are in control of such risks.[61] The IFR commented that a social climate in which, in general, less time is being spent by consumers in purchasing and preparing raw foods may also encourage an increased expectation that foods, as bought, should be completely safe. It considered that such consumer attitudes have implications for safety labelling on foods such as, for example, "chilled, ready-to-eat foods".[62]

Role of the FSA

47. Which? welcomed the FSA's general approach to communicating risk to consumers in specific cases, such as the risk that baby food could be contaminated by semicarbazide. Although the European Food Safety Authority had not considered the risk to be significant enough to advise consumers to change their eating habits, the FSA had nevertheless made information available to consumers, including advice about how consumers could prepare baby food at home.[63] On the other hand, Which? believed that government advice could be clearer in some situations. For example, Which? considered that it was still unclear whether consumers should avoid eating more than one portion of oily fish a week on average, in light of concerns about high levels of dioxins and PCBs in such fish, on the one hand, and publicity about the potential health benefits of eating oily fish, on the other.[64] The FSA has subsequently produced more definitive advice about this issue.[65]

Labelling for food safety purposes: allergen labelling

48. In the context of food safety, the IFR described precautionary food allergen labelling as a "critical issue" because of the "potentially fatal consequences" for susceptible individuals of inadequate labelling.[66] We received some suggestions that allergen labelling is not as helpful as it might be. The General Consumer Council of Northern Ireland called for a "consistent approach to devices that draw attention to allergens".[67] Sustain criticised the "defensive use" of warnings such as May contain nuts on a wide range of products as being unhelpful to people with a nut allergy.[68]

49. Subsequent to our concluding taking evidence on this inquiry, the law regulating allergen labelling has been strengthened. The relevant requirements are specified in the Food Labelling (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, which implement European Directive 2003/89/EC and came into force on 26 November 2004.[69] From 25 November 2005, products that do not comply with the new rules will be prohibited from sale.[70] The 2004 Regulations insert a new schedule into the Food Labelling Regulations 1996—Schedule AA1—which lists 12 ingredients known to cause allergies or intolerances. These include cereals containing gluten, crustaceans, fish, eggs, peanuts, soybeans, milk, nuts, celery, mustard, sesame seeds and sulphur dioxide or sulphites at specified levels.

50. The Regulations require that the labelling on any pre-packed food which contains any of the ingredients listed in Schedule AA1 must contain a clear reference to the Schedule AA1 name—that is, the commonly used name. This requirement does not apply to food sold loose—non-prepacked—or food sold pre-packed for direct sale: the FSA states that it is "exploring options" for ensuring that the consumer is still provided with adequate information in such cases.[71] The Regulations do not apply to the use of 'may contain' warnings about nuts, because they apply only where the Schedule AA1 ingredients have deliberately been added to the food. The FSA states that it is considering how best to encourage provision of clearer and more helpful information for consumers with food allergies in such cases and will consult on this "in due course".[72]

Our conclusions

51. Consumers are often faced with a range of conflicting messages about food safety issues, from the media and other sources, without being provided with sufficient information and context to enable them to assess the risk involved. Government has a vital role to play in providing definitive guidance which assists consumers to assess food safety risks. We commend the Food Standards Agency on the work it has done, since its establishment in 2000, towards providing clear advice to consumers about food safety issues. We also congratulate the Agency on its initiative in launching a website providing information about food hygiene and preparation.

52. Clear and helpful labelling of allergens is a particularly crucial aspect of food safety. The defensive use of allergen warnings risks restricting consumer choice unnecessarily, and even undermining valid warnings—the 'boy who cried wolf' effect. We welcome recent legislation improving allergen labelling requirements. However, the new legislation applies only to allergens which have been deliberately added to food: labelling of foods which may inadvertently contain allergens remains unregulated. We recommend that the Government move quickly to consider how this legislation can be supplemented to regulate the defensive use of allergen warnings, so that consumers with food allergies are provided with clear and helpful allergen information. The Government should also ensure that proper channels of communication are in place between the food industry and medical scientists to allow for the effective flow of information about the latest scientific findings on allergies.

53. We were unable, in the time available, to take evidence about the recent discovery that an illegal and potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1, had made its way into the food chain, and therefore cannot draw any substantive conclusions about the Government's role in these events. Nevertheless, we have noted the concern that, although the affected products were withdrawn from sale, the adulteration of chilli powder may have been going on undetected for several years. We are also somewhat surprised that it took the Italian authorities to detect the presence of Sudan 1 in a product manufactured in the UK, although we note that the FSA had asked the industry to ensure that chilli products imported prior to July 2003 were not contaminated with Sudan 1.[73] The wide-spread nature of the contamination has demonstrated both the complexity of modern food supply chains and the apparently limited sources of ingredients available to food manufacturers, as the same Worcester sauce was used in hundreds of processed foods. We recommend that the Government undertake a speedy investigation into the events which resulted in the illegal dye, Sudan 1, making its way into the UK food chain. We are particularly concerned that the Government should establish the length of time for which the adulteration of chilli powder is likely to have gone undetected and why UK authorities did not detect this adulteration in a product used so extensively in UK food processing. The Government and the FSA should also carry out work to determine the best way of communicating with the public about questions relating to the degree of risk actually associated with issues like Sudan 1.

45 Sections 7 and 8 Back

46 Regulation 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; Regulation 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin; Regulation 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption; Directive 2004/41 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662 and 92/118 and amending Decision 95/408 Back

47 www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry Back

48 www.codexalimentarius.net Back

49 See www.who.int/foodsafety Back

50 www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/ Back

51 Ev 129, para 8 [Food Standards Agency] Back

52 "Action taken to remove illegal dye found in wide range of foods on sale in UK", FSA press release, 18 February 2005; available at www.food.gov.uk Back