Remove Red Tape

Food and Drink: Safety Requirements

These regulations relate to the safety of manufactured, sold and imported food and drink. For instance, they aim to ensure that food is not contaminated with harmful microorganisms or chemicals and that people with allergies or food intolerances are protected. They affect all food businesses, including caterers, hotels, primary producers (such as farmers), manufacturers and, retailers. They also cover the licensing, inspection and reporting regimes which govern the meat production and processing industries.

You can find all the regulations that relate to food and drink safety requirements below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

79 comments on “Food and Drink: Safety Requirements”

1. Nichola Russell on June 3, 2011 at 8:42 am said:

   There should not be a reduction in the current food legislation and the current E.coli outbreak is testament to that. The EU legislation needs to be implemented throughout the member states in the same way and therefore some of the issues in relation to the selling of unpasteurised milk cheeses at room temperature would not happen in France. Where possible, local authorities are already combining Food Safety and Health & Safety inspections to reduce the burden on businesses and are taking a risk based approach to the prioritisation of inspections.

   The main change that is required is that food businesses are licensed and one of the licensing requirements needs to be a formal food hygiene qualification for all employees working with high-risk open food. Licensing requirements would also mean that food businesses would not be able to open without an inspection to check on their compliance. The removal of the requirement for a documented food safety management system for small premises such as newsagents selling pre-packed sandwiches and milk but they must temperature monitor and record the temperature of their refrigerated units as a control at the premises. A documented system does not mean that the food that they are producing is safe as it tends to be a desk top exercise that is what the food business operator thinks you want written down and not the practices followed within the premises. In the current climate, there are more and more food businesses cropping up without any understanding of even the basics of food hygiene and these are the businesses that need our attention.
2. Brian Griffiths on June 2, 2011 at 5:07 pm said:

   As a recently retired manager of a food safety team in one of the largest London Boroughs my main comment on improving food safety legislation is the need to clarify the rules – especially the rules regarding what food businesses require an EC approval number from a local authority. I think that the current rules are too onerous for small and medium scale businesses especially for those innovative entrepreneurs trying to start up a new business. I can see how a large scale business should need to abide by more stringent hygiene rules, but the way the current legislation (EC Regulation 853/2004) is interpreted by the Food Standards Agency is inhibiting the setting up of small food manufacturing businesses. Perhaps this could be looked at when the FSA next revises the Food Law Code of Practice.

   Along with many other food safety practitioners I believe that all food businesses should be required to obtain a licence to operate. At present this is a simple registration which a local authority cannot refuse. If a food business operator is consistently non-compliant then there should be power to remove a licence and stop the business operating. The food safety team I led found Scores on the Doors to be a significant driver in improving food hygiene standards. However, there should be one national scheme (the FSA model) rather than the plethora of local schemes as at present. This is confusing for businesses and consumers alike. In common with other countries such as Canada, it should be mandatory for all food businesses to display their hygiene rating scores in a conspicuous place on their premises.

   The question of food hygiene training is also complex. At present under the EC legislation, there is no requirement for food handlers to attend a formal course, pass an exam or undertake any refresher training. The current situation is confusing for both food business operators and enforcement officers. The rules again need to be clarified.

   To actually change food safety law requires EC approval as any changes would have to apply across the European Union. However, there needs to be much better interpretation of the law for both food business operators and for food safety enforcement officers.
3. Su Dakin on June 1, 2011 at 4:06 pm said:

   This is a general comment that food businesses, particularly those dealing in a number of food and drink categories, are subject to a high number of compliance, enforcement and licensing inspections (e.g. general hygiene, weights and measures, pharmeceuticals, alcohol, eggs, on site catering, labelling) carried out by a number of agencies and third party certification bodies. It would greatly simplify and reduce burden if such inspections could be rationalised to one enforcement agency visit (or even just fewer than current) and the use of third party certifications such as GFSI accredited schemes were recognised.