CFG
24/07 final
Letter dated 31 July 2007 from Foodaware to David Gray, Food Hygiene
Implementation and Regions Division, Food Standards Agency:
Dear Dear Mr Gray
FSA consultation on European Commission proposal to amend
Regulation 852/2004 on Food Hygiene
Foodaware members were consulted on this proposal to exempt food
businesses with less than 10 employees from the requirement to establish
a structured approach to managing food safety by applying HACCP
principles. We commented on the preliminary FSA consultation and
see no reason to change the views expressed at that time, which
are repeated here for the public record. Members understand the
desire to reduce administrative burdens in the European Community
but consider that the application of HACCP principles is necessary
to protect consumer safety and the quality of food produced by small
suppliers. To exempt businesses on the basis of an arbitrary number
of employees and not on a risk assessment is unacceptable. Assessment
of food safety risk and the introduction of appropriate control
measures should not be considered as an ‘administrative burden’.
It is a necessary public health protection. We urge the Government
and FSA to continue to oppose this change in existing European legislation
which will not result in ‘Better Regulation’.
Identifying hazards and the actions necessary to control them are
fundamental aspects of business life in the modern world and should
form an integral part of any food business, however small. The application
of HACCP principles demonstrates that the business has considered
where its main risks lie, and has measures in place which will consistently
ensure the products are safe for sale to the public. Some documentation
and appropriate record keeping are essential to demonstrate compliance,
and also so that if there is a failure it can be traced back and
preventive measures put in place to ensure that the failure is not
repeated. Much work has been done in the UK in recent years to inform
businesses of all sizes of the importance of risk assessment and
management, and it is gradually being embedded as good business
practice. As a result we were pleased to collaborate with representatives
of UK food businesses, enforcement agencies and other consumer organisations
in collectively opposing this change.
In the light of serious breaches of food law, some of which involved
small businesses, Foodaware campaigned for HACCP systems to be applied
to all food businesses, irrespective of their size, in order to
protect public health. We have accepted risk-based inspection on
the basis that food businesses have systems in place for assessing
and controlling risks. If the Commission removes the requirement
for small businesses to put in place, implement and maintain a permanent
procedure based on HACCP principles as well as removing record-keeping
obligations, it is likely to be extremely difficult to mount a successful
prosecution for breaches of food hygiene law by small firms. This
would be a retrograde step. This requirement is not a piece of unnecessary
bureaucracy but a public health measure.
According to FSA's 2006 consumer attitude survey, 60% of consumers
have some concerns over food safety issues and, although it is lower
on people's radar than in the past, when prompted, concern remains
high. Small food businesses such as takeaways, fast food outlets
and cafes also feature highly in people's concerns about hygiene.
They can produce large quantities of food which pose significant
risks and potentially expose large numbers of people to food poisoning.
Indeed, some of the most serious outbreaks have been caused by sole
traders. A reduction in control would give the wrong message both
to businesses and to consumers at this time when significant progress
has been made in controlling risk in the appropriate places, within
the firms themselves.
We understand that the compromise text which has been put forward
would allow exemption from the HACCP requirement for retail establishments
which ‘directly supply food to the final consumer without
processing it provided that the competent authority is satisfied
through collective hazard analysis specific to the sector that food
safety is guaranteed through the implementation of the pre-requisite
requirements and verification of their effectiveness’. We
oppose this compromise on the grounds that it undermines the principle
that safety from ‘farm to fork’ should be the responsibility
of every food business, and we do not think the amendment is necessary.
It would also undermine the principle of a level playing field in
the EU by leaving it to Member States to decide whether or not to
carry out the hazard analysis. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring
that the existing requirements can be met proportionately, and the
risk to consumers is minimised at every stage in the supply chain.
The Commission’s estimate that the existing controls require
a multi-disciplinary team of staff and record-keeping requirements
costing approximately €200million warrants further scrutiny
and is not borne out by UK experience. It also has to be considered
against the potential cost in litigation and illness where poor
food hygiene impacts on public health.
Foodaware strongly supports the view expressed by colleagues in
industry, the retail sector and enforcement bodies that maintaining
safety in food production, and safeguarding human health, must take
priority over reducing regulatory burdens on small suppliers. Loss
of consumer confidence in the food chain would be a very high price
to pay for this unnecessary change. To that end we support option
B – maintenance of the current arrangements but if that proves
impossible, we recognise that Option C – a solution negotiated
so that the resulting text maintains adequate public health protection
– may need to be pursued.
We are prepared for our views to be made public and look forward
to hearing the outcome of this consultation in due course.
Yours sincerely
Susan Knox
Chairman
|
