requires industry to prove that they ‘took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence’. Mr Anderson suggests the use of the Guide to Good Manufacturing Prac- tice, published by the Institute of Food Science and Technology (UK), and the International Stan- dard on Quality Systems (IS0 9000 Series).

The Act, as passed, retains all those features which were present in the Bill at the time of the conference. In many ways the new Act brings the UK into line with

other countries. Many readers may be surprised that the new provisions listed above and described in the articles did not exist in the UK until now. There will still be aspects of food control which do not satisfy particular groups. However, the flexibility available under the new Act will allow future governments to enact measures by regulations much more rapidly than previously. The availability of these powers should ensure that the new Act will provide a suitable framework for UK food control for many years.

Legislation incorporated in the new UK Food Safety Bill Baroness Trumpington outlines what the UK Govern- ment intend the 13ill to achieve

Having introduced the Bill in the House of Lords at the end of last year, I have watched its progress through Parliament with considerable interest and am pleased that it is still essentially the same Bill now as it was last November. The various amendments during the i’wo Committee stages have been improvements and refinements of detail, not cklanges to key provisions, so that the long period of review and consultaton which the Government undertook before starting the actual task of drafting has been well wort.hwhile. It is always both helpful and constructive to have such highly informed debat,?s as have so far taken place, both in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I am sure that consumers, the various food industry organizations and the enforcement officers’ bodies would agree that the Bill has struck the right balance between their respective interests.

There has been a revolution in eating habits since the early 196Os, as seen by the growth in fast food outlets, the availability Iof a pheno- menal range of convenience foods and the trend towards eating away from the home. In many ways this is a response to wider social change in the UK but these developments, in particular technical innovations, have also contributed to such changes.

The influence from IEurope has increased in consumer protection matters. The changes which will take place in 1992 present a very real challenge to the industry, as well as a tremendous opportunity for manufacturers and the distribu- tive trades to come to terms with

The Baroness Trumpington is Minister of State for Agriculture, Ministry of Agricul- ture Fisheries and Food, Whitehall Place. London SWIA ZHH, UK Presented at the Food Safely Bill Confer- ence. University of Reading. UK, 8 March 1990

the single market. The UK govern- ment wants to ensure that the legal framework is appropriate for those parts of the food industry, including its suppliers, to compete on equal terms with the rest of Europe.

Public concern about food poisoning has been increasing, due perhaps as much to the emergence of some particular and well publi- cized problems as to the increase in reported cases. Both the UK Gov- ernment and industry have re- sponded extensively: the Govern- ment, for example, has introduced a major package of measures to deal with Salmonella in poultry and eggs, proposed more stringent tem- perature controls in the food pro- duction chain, issued a food safety leaflet as part of a broader food hygiene education campaign, and set up the Richmond Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food to produce an independent report. The Food Safety Bill supplements all this activity by providing various

0956-7135/90/040197-03 0 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Comment

new powers which will be available for use in relation to microbiologi- cal food safety.

New legislation

It is against that background that the need for new legislation was examined. Clearly, increased public expectations required a fresh view to be taken. Last year’s white paper ‘Food safety - protecting the con- sumer’ explained that the Govern- ment had concluded there was a good case for strengthening and updating the food laws. The Food Safety Bill is designed to give the necessary framework to achieve this objective. It has been designed to provide a flexible approach which will make it possible to establish the controls needed to increase public confidence that the food available is as safe as possible. The Bill ensures that, for the first time, the whole food chain from farm to shop is covered effectively. The law on food safety and consumer protec- tion will be more stringent and enforcement will be more effective than it has been in the past. The Bill also provides tougher penalties for those who wilfully break the law.

Powers will be instituted to con- trol food hygiene requirements, where appropriate, throughout the whole food chain. This will include ensuring that proper controls exist, for example, in farm shops where food such as cream is sold together with pick-your-own strawberries and where a range of other foods, either produced on the farm itself or bought-in from elsewhere is also available to the public. It is vital that everyone handling food should always be fully aware of hygiene needs.

The Bill covers food sources, such as live animals, or growing crops. It enables regulations to be made to create appropriate controls over food sources before they be- come available as food. For exam- ple, it will be possible to create additional controls over the use of veterinary medicines in live animals.

To complement EC intiatives, the Bill provides more effective in- factory enforcement powers, but care has been taken to ensure there are proper safeguards for the indus- try contained within them. The Bill will give power for regulations to

Food Control - October 7 990 197

Comment

require registration of commercial food premises and enforcement officers will be able to detain sus- pect food at the factory or shop for further investigation.

Enabling powers

A key feature of the Bill is that it provides enabling powers, giving maximum flexibility to make de- tailed regulations when the need arises. Those regulations will be subject to wide consultations, so that the balance can be maintained between the needs of both consum- ers and the industry. There will be only limited exceptions to this approach -such as when emergency control orders have to be made to deal with serious risks to public health and Ministers have to take direct action.

An example of an updated pro- vision is the umbrella offence of supplying food which does not com- ply with food safety requirements. It brings together the offences of supplying injurious, or unfit, or contaminated food, and it will apply in the factory as well as in the shop.

Registration and licensing

The arguments for registration and for licensing of premises have been carefully considered. The pro- visions for licensing serve an entire- ly different purpose to that of registration and will ensure that, where a special need exists, appro- priately tight controls can be put in place. The current Food Act allows dairy farmers to be licensed in this way and that legislation will be reenacted but simplified. The pro- cess will be extended so that licens- ing controls can be used for food irradiation where that treatment benefits consumers. The intention is that central Government would issue licences. The Bill would allow detailed regulations to set condi- tions - such as requirements for equipment testing, health checks, record keeping and (above all) labelling. The Bill does not, how- ever, usher in food irradiation. An essential part of the process is that subsidiary regulations will have to be approved by Parliament, and the Government will be consulting very widely indeed before introducing

them. It is the intention that con- sumers will be able to decide for themselves whether or not to buy irradiated food. The Government believes that irradiation has a valu- able role to play as one more weapon in the fight against food poisoning - but it is up to individual members of the public to make up their own minds on this issue. The very detailed labelling requirements for irradiated food will ensure that no-one can be misled.

Codes of practice

The Food Safety Bill contains powers for Ministers to issue codes of practice for food authorities. The aim of this provision is to ensure that enforcement standards can be made more comparable across the country. If necessary, Ministers will be able to direct authorities to comply. These codes will be devel- oped with the help of an Implemen- tation Advisory Committee made up of people from both central and local government with experience of enforcement matters and once again there will be full consultation before any codes are brought into effect. It is important that a climate exists where the food industry can be encouraged to continue to inno- vate, but where agreed controls apply equally to all.

The Government recognizes that the various enforcement considera- tions contained in the Bill will place an extra burden on authorities. Ex- tra money will be provided in the form of an additional f30 million each year from 1991/92. The dif- ferent authorities will have their own requirement and will be free to set their own priorities. In this way they will best fulfil their statutory duty to protect the public.

maximum prison sentence of 6 months and/or a fine of f20000 if dealt with in the Magistrates Court. If a case is tried in the Crown Court the maximum sentence is 2 years and/or an unlimited fine. For serious offences presenting a less immediate threat the following will apply: in the Magistrates Court, a maximum 6-month sentence and/or a fine of f2000; in the Crown Court, a maximum of 2 years and/or an unlimited fine. Lastly, the ‘enforce- ment’ offences of obstruction or failure to give information will have a maximum prison sentence of 3 months and/or a maximum f2000 penalty and can be tried before Magistrates.

The Food Safety Bill provides additional responsibilities for the food industry. These are centred upon food safety, the changed statutory defences and the indus- try’s role in ensuring that food handlers receive the right level of training.

As explained above, the Bill up- dates the food law, and in particular the offence of supplying food which does not comply with food safety requirements. As food safety should be applied throughout the chain it is important that any prob- lem can be dealt with where it arises. The powers enabling Minis- ters to make regulations controlling food sources will be a great help, as will in-factory enforcement mea- sures, taken with the powers to detain food (and batches of food) before it is put on sale. The better the manufacturer’s own systems, the less the need for such measures in practice, but the Bill provides a safety net which can be used if the need arises. Many of the major food manufacturers’ in-house con- trol systems are models of efficiency and effectiveness and it is hoped to extend the same food safety aim to anyone preparing food.

Penalties Defence provisions

As regards increased penalties, many offences which could pre- viously only be tried in Magistrates Courts could be tried in the Crown Court, where stiffer sentences are available. The penalties will be brought into line with other con- sumer protection legislation. For the main offences (e.g. rendering food injurious to health) there is a

The changed statutory defences put responsibility on all food suppliers or sellers to satisfy themselves that, as far as is reasonable, the food is safe and of a high standard. The warranty defence has been removed as in the past it was often abused. For example, it is not right that an importer can buy-in defective food

198 Food Control - October 1990

from beyond the jurisdiction of the British Courts, yet be able to rely on a warranty - which may be no more than an entry on an invoice - to avoid prosecution for allowing unsafe food to be put ori sale. We want to restore a proper balance to the defences. It is clearly right that traders should have protection from prosecution if they take reasonable care of food in their possession, and the defect in that food is attribut- able to elsewhere. But on the other hand, consumers rightly expect to have proper protection against defective food.

The new defence is based on the concept of due diligence, which is a principle existing in other consumer protection legislation. This has been adapted to the special cir- cumstances of food retailing, where each week retail outlets may be buying-in thousands of different food items subject to different reg- ulations, and selling them on to the public within a short time. The food may have come from a wholesaler, rather than direct from 6. particular manufacturer. The ‘deemed due diligence’ defence will alllow retail- ers and others who buy-in food and sell it on in the same state to claim a defence in appropriate circum- stances. Warranties might form part of the defence, but it will no longer be possible to rely solely on such warranties to escape prosecution. In some situations a retailer has to rely on a manufacturer and no-one expects a shopkeeper to open cans of branded peas to ensure that rusty nails have not got into them by accident in the manufacturing pro- cess. However it is expected that shopkeepers will take responsibility for contamination introduced in their own chilled food counter and will ensure that they keep chilled or frozen food at the right tempera- ture. They must then accept the blame if someone is made ill as a result of the shopkeeper’s own failure.

These defence provisions also put greater obligations on the larger multiple stores selling food under their own labels. Where a can of peas carried the own label brand, one expects the company to carry out checks on the food in question, or to be able to shoH, that they checked their supplier’s :;ystem ade- quately. In such a case it would be reasonable for them to rely on their supplier’s detailed checking pro-

cedures. Responsible retailers already implement such checks and the new defence acknowledges the value of such systems. It further avoids unnecessary double- checking which increases the price to the consumer and might lead to a reduction in choice of goods.

In summary, the Food Safety Bill attempts to safeguard the consumer and at the same time to place the minimum possible burden on indus- try. The Government is providing additional resources to help enfor- cement authorities adapt to the changes which are being intro- duced. Throughout the Bill, how- ever, the unwavering message is

that the needs of the consumer always come first. This overview

Comment

presents an outline of what the Government intends that the Food Safety Bill will achieve, and hope- fully corrects any misunderstand- ings. The Government is committed to make the new legislation work. Interested organizations will be given the fullest opportunity to dis- cuss detailed points on those regula- tions which will be made under the Act in due course. There is a wealth of collective experience that will help everyone to achieve the aim of securing effective, and balanced, food safety and consumer protec- tion legislation.

Regulations and factory enforcement arising from the UK Food Safety Bill Keith G Anderson outlines the implications

Apart from the revision of the Food Act 1984, and the introduction of new food safety provisions, powers to regulate, and more severe penalties for infringement, the Food Safety Bill encompasses the requirements necessary for the introduction of the EC Directive on the Official Control of Foodstuffs into UK law, a requirement for the completion of the Single European Market by the end of 1992. For the first time this effectively moves the emphasis for enforcement from the point of sale to the point of production, preparation or importation. It also introduces the possibility of a ‘due diligence’ defence in the event of prosecution. The new legislation requires that enforcement authorities carry out inspection of food manufacturing premises and operations for compliance, and allows the enforcement officer access to relevant information which may allow him to judge whether or not the requirements are being met.

The key points relating to regula- tion and factory inspection arise under clause 33, dealing with pow- ers of entry of the authorized officer 33 (1). his rights of access to and inspection of records 33(5), and his right to seize and detain records or have copies produced 33(6). Clause 34 relates to obstruction of officers and covers furnishing false or mis- leading information 34(l) and (2), but also contains the important pro- vision that a person may refuse to incriminate himself 34(3).

Mr K.G. Anderson is Technical -Manager for Regulatory Affairs at Brooke Bond Foods Ltd. Leon House, High Street, Crovdon CRY IJO. UK and Convenor of the Institute of Food Science and Technology GMP Panel. Presented at the Food Safety Bill Conference, University of Reading, UK, 8 March 1990

0956-7135/90/040199-05 @ 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Industry had been concerned about confidentiality of formulae and process technology, but except in the event of proceedings, this is safeguarded by the requirements of 33(7) and 26(3).

Clause 22 introduces the ‘due diligence’ defence, in so far as: ‘it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exer- cised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. ’ This is a single limbed defence which will be new for the UK. It is perhaps worth noting that the original Bill has been amended in Standing Commit- tee to include a clause 40 on appeals against improvement notices which should satisfy earlier criticism, although there is still concern in industry about lack of provision for

food Control- October 7990 199