About Expert


Key Topics
Food Quality And Legislation
A complaint was received by the local Environmental Health department on the 1st September 2015 from a member of the public about mice droppings found in a loaf of bread from Hotstuff bakery.
Article 5 of Regulation EC 852/2004, the persons conducting food business must maintain and implement the food system management system that is based on HACCP principles to make sure that the foods made or produced by them on their premise are safe to be eaten by the consumers. HACCP is based on the following seven principles
To find out health hazards and analyse
To find out the critical control points,
To set or establish critical limits
To establish the procedure to check and monitor the critical control points
To verify and confirm that HACCP is working in order and effectively implied in procedures
To adopt corrective actions when found that critical control points are not controlled
To keep the records and retain relevant documents for all the procedures.
Regulation 6 of The Food Hygiene (Wales) Regulation states that , an authorised officer of an enforcement authority may serve a notice on the person, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that Hygiene Regulations are not maintained by the food business operator, such a notice is called hygiene improvement notice and any person not complying with hygienic standards as provided in notice will be guilty of committing an offence.
Section 7 of The Food Safety Act 1999 provides for rendering of food that is injurious to health Normally the defence of Due Diligence is used by the business operator that they have taken all the reasonable care to avoid the offence. The defence of due diligence is also provided in Food Regulation 2004 and Hygiene Regulation 2006. Two Environmental Health Officers visit the premises of Hot Stuff Bakery, and it was found:
a) that there were glass pieces under the equipment
In this case there was a violation of Article 5 of EC Regulation HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), Hot Stuff Bakery has not observed the standard of safety as provided in the regulation, which may be hazardous to the consumers. It is advisable that they maintain clean surroundings and to avoid the offence must comply with the requirements of the notice served by the regulation The glass particles may mix with the food made and may be hazardous to the consumers as provided in Article 5 of EC Regulation.
B) The glass fragments were seen on the premises, and the presence of glass is not documented.
This is in violation of 7th principle of HACCP which states that all the records and relevant documents should be maintained, in this case, the reasons for presence of glass should have been recorded in the documents of procedure The defence of due diligence cannot be used if glass fragments are found on the premises that may prove hazardous to the consumers.
C)There is evidence of damage to the fabric of the inside walls and openings around a waste pipe leading to the exterior. The EHPs are satisfied that the extent of the damage is sufficient to allow pests to enter the baking area.
The droppings of mice were found in the loaf of bread is thus possible due to the openings in the wall, which is hazardous to the consumers and Hot Stuff Bakery can be liable for the breach of Article 9 of Regulation 852/ 2004.Hot Stuff Bakery is thus advised to see that all the openings are closed and prevent the rodents from entering the premises.and all the damage to the walls be repaired to serve the food that is safe to the consumers.The droppings of mice would create lots of health problems and diseases to the consumers.
D) Lee Snow asked for the records of suppliers Lee Snow ask for records of raw materials and ingredients but was told that no such records are available for inspection.
This is in breach of Article 5 of EU Regulation whereby all the documents related to the supply of ingredients have to be maintained and thus not complying with the requirements asked for by the environmental health officer to the presumption of unsafe food supply and unsafe ingredients thus proving hazardous to consumers. Enforcement authority can compel the person was not keeping the records of suppliers by serving a notice and prevent him from continuing the business. Hot Stuff Bakery be advised to retain all the documents and make them available to the officer, failing which his business may suffer,
e) The refrigerator storing cream products maintained at 15 degrees C
The meat and cream products are to be stored at -18 degree C, as if not stored would be unsafe for consumption. Which in turn is hazardous to consumers and is in contravention of Section 8 (2)(b) of The Food Safety Act. 1990.
F) There is evidence of bags of flour having gnawed marks consistent with rodent activity and droppings within the flour bags.
Article 5 of EU Regulation is breached in spite of seeing the rodent droppings and gnaw marks; Hot Stuff Bakery has not taken any corrective measures to produce food items, thereby breaching Section 7 of The Food Safety Act. Enforcement authority can stop the person from selling the food after seeing the mice droppings and gnaw marks as the food is not fit for consumption for the certain period until the person does not adopt corrective measures .
G)There is a batch of baked products ready to be put on sale and also to be distributed to two other shops in the area.
The environmental health officers can stop the person from selling the baked products and prevent distribution to other two shops so that consumers are protected from unsafe food. The officers are granted such powers under the provisions of Regulation 9 of EU. And Section 14 (1) of Food Safety Act 1990 provides that a person is guilty of committing an offence if he sells any food that is not of the quality as prejudiced by the consumer.Section 12 of Food Safety Act 1990 provides for emergency powers of prohibition when there is an imminent danger or the risk of injury to the health of consumers. Three of the staff do not appear to have basic knowledge of safe food handling practices
The EHPs decide to take samples of the rodent droppings and take digital photographs of the other contraventions that they have identified.
Lee Snow proceeds to caution the manager James Smith under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 when he refused to answer his questions.
Food Handling is a very important aspect of food business as it is the duty of food supplier to train their staff in this matter and HACCP provides that the staff should be trained and should know all the basic principles and practices in the matter of food. James Smith has to answer all the questions at the time of inspection to the officer, to fail which he will have committed an offence under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Food.gov.uk, 2015).
Regulation 15 of Food Hygiene Regulation provides that any person who obstructs a person who is executing hygiene regulations intentionally or fails to give any information which is reasonably required for execution of hygiene regulations shall be said to have committed an offence In the case of R (on the application of Dubai & others) v Chelmsford Magistrates Court and another (2012) ALL ER (D) 39,the powers of environmental officer are explained, and the person is said to have committed an offence if he creates obstruction in the course of inspection.The officer can get warrant issued or visit the premises with another local health officer
As is done in the case of Hot Stuff Bakery.
One cannot claim not to answer the questions from self-incrimination as it is provided in Article 5 of Regulation that any person who is working in the food industry or who is responsible for a day to day work of supplying food is responsible for answering the health officer who is on an inspection visit. HACCP also provides that a person is responsible to answer the questions and not to comply with the inspection queries may result in committing offence (Food.gov.uk, 2015).
Practice Guidance is issued by the Food Standards Agency to assist Food Authorities to enforce relevant food law. Hot Stuff Bakery was served Improvement notice twice before this but did not take any measures to improve the hygiene standards as provided in Article 5 of EU Regulation. Hence the defence of due diligence cannot be used for defence, Thus it may be possible for enforcement of Regulation that they may be prevented from selling food for certain period until c they adopt corrective measures.
Food.gov.uk, (2015). Regulation and legislation | Food Standards Agency. [online] Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/regulation [Accessed 20 Nov. 2015].