Chinese new year - Gung Hei Fat Choi!
Top Lucky Foods to Eat for the Chinese New Year
- Dumplings - associated with wealthiness: according to tradition, the more dumplings you eat during the New Year celebrations, the more money you can make in the New Year.
- Spring Rolls - a carrier of prosperity
- Niangao - rice cake made of sticky rice, sugar, chestnuts, dates, and lotus leaves. Eating Nian Gao is accompanied by the phrase “Getting higher year after year by year,” meaning a general improvement in life.
- Sweet Rice Balls - their rounded shape is associated with reunion and being together.
- Noodles - symbolize longevity
- Fish - accompanied by the popular saying, “May you always have more than you need!”.
- Steamed Chicken - symbol of the family
- Fruit and Vegetables- each symbolizing something specific for example: Bamboo shoots: represent longevity; Poria mushrooms: represent blessings and fortune; Muskmelon and grapefruit: represent family; Seaweed: represents wealth and fortune
- Fa Gao - a typical Chinese dessert made with soaked rice ground into a paste and steamed. Exactly like Nin Gao, it is a wish for success.
With China removing pandemic restrictions on travel it is hoped that Chinese visitors will serve to help the hospitality industry across the coming new year.
Let them eat cake!
Professor Susan Jebb, the Food Standards Agency chairwoman, made a speech published in the Times as part of its Health Commission inquiryCake in the office should be viewed like passive smoking, obesity expert warns | News | The Times setting out her views on a range of topics related to the prevention and treatment of obesity.
Bringing cake into the office is as harmful as passive smoking, Professor Jebb has suggested, and workers should think twice before bringing unhealthy treats into the workplace which might tempt colleagues.
"With smoking, after a very long time, we have got to a place where we understand that individuals have to make some effort but that we can make their efforts more successful by having a supportive environment. But we still don’t feel like that about food.”
“If nobody brought in cakes into the office, I would not eat cakes in the day, but because people do bring cakes in, I eat them. Now, OK, I have made a choice, but people were making a choice to go into a smoky pub,” she told The Times.
The U.K. food regulatory agency and Jebb said she was speaking in a personal capacity and not for the organization. Professor Jebb is participating in The Times Health Commission in a personal capacity and these comments reflect on her research in her role as Professor of Diet and Population Health at the University of Oxford.
However, although Professor Jebb was discussing support provided in healthy living the association between foods high in fat,salt and sugar and smoking has been subject to lawsuits, particularly in the US. The linking of similarities between tobacco and obesity/HFSS foods is likely to encourage further restriciton, legislation and potential product liability warnings.
Pelmans v McDonalds, which was successfully struck out in 2003 was the most widely reported obesity lawsuit in the US.
The obesity claims in the US have many parallels with the US tobacco litigation. Many of the issues that arose in tobacco (allegations of fraudulent deception and corporate cover-up, issues as to knowledge / defence of volenti non fit injuria, issues of addiction etc) were also relevant in the US in relation to obesity claims. Although there has been tobacco litigation in the UK, it has not followed the same course as that in America, mainly due to limitation points, adjudication by a judge as opposed to a jury and so the examination of issues such as a precise causal connection and practical issues such as the “loser pays” indemnity costs rule.
The greatest risk in the food sector lies in what can and cannot be said about the food and if a claim or statement is made that is false or misleading. Successful litigation has generally applied to this area more than any other ie in 2002 McDonald’s issued an apology and paid $10 million (£7mn) to vegetarian and religious groups in an out of court settlement in respect of their claim that fries were vegetarian when in the US the fries had been prepared firstly with beef tallow. Other US litigation concerning various claims in respect of the use of trans-fats in 2015 designed mainly to raise consumer awareness against the products which are the subject of the litigation. In the UK there is the potential for criminal prosecution from trading standards and brand reputation damage via complaints upheld and rulings published by the ASA.
Manufacturers do have a general obligation to warn consumers in respect of product risks. However, in the absence of specific regulatory objections, this obligation exists only where the manufacturer can reasonably anticipate that health hazards will arise during the normal expected use of a product.
Legislation and in particular, Food Information Regulation 1169/2011, does not require mandatory warnings such "High in" sugars, salt or fats and has not defined any criteria for its use. Rather, in order to inform consumers on nutritional values, legislation on food information to consumers provides for mandatory nutrition declaration on pre-packed foods. In addition, in order to help consumers identifying the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods, legislation does allow for the repetition on front-of-pack of the most important elements of the nutrition declaration: the energy value alone or the energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars and the sodium content expressed as salt Legislation also acknowledges that additional forms of expression and presentation of the nutrition declaration may help consumers to better understand the nutrition declaration and allows for different forms to be developed by Member States.
This is where the UK’s front of pack voluntary labelling has come in. Front-of-pack labelling in the UK is voluntary but most of the major supermarkets and many food manufacturers provide this and use the government's recommended format - red, amber, green colour-coding and percentage reference intakes (RIs) - or as it may be better recognised - traffic light labelling. This is therefore already as close to a ‘warning’ label being applied to food that can be found.
Where food is safe, as part of a well balanced diet no foodstuff should be demonised. Individuals will have different nutritional needs and Professor Jebb would have been discussing the need to be supportive of a healthier lifestyle. However, the reference to passive smoking does imply a desire for legislative restrictions to seek to underpin this.
The UK Government’s ‘sugar tax’ for soft drinks and ‘obesity strategy’ providing calorie information for menus out of home, restricting the location of certain HFSS foods in retailers and online, and, restrictions banning multibuy deals on certain HFSS foods and drinks and the restriction by volume price will come into force on 1 October 2023. Restrictions on certain HFSS foods from being advertised on TV before 9pm and paid-for adverts online are now due to come into force in October 2025. This raft of restrictions of certain HFSS foods shows a certain regulatory ‘creep’.
Clearly, Professor’s speech was designed to be headline grabbing; however it would be advisable that positive promotions and assistance for healthy eating is provided rather than continued red tape and approbation for a certain sector of the food industry.
GCA survey
The GCA (Groceries Code Adjudicator) has launched the 2023 annual survey to gather key information on supplier relationships with retailers.
Launched on 16 January 2023, the online survey will be open for six weeks until 26 February 2023.
The data will influence and shape the GCA’s future work and priorities for the upcoming year.
For example, in last year’s survey a quarter of suppliers highlighted issues with retailer responses to cost price increase (CPI) requests, making this the most raised issue in the last five years.
As a result, the GCA has focused his priorities on CPI requests
YouGov will be conducting the survey for the GCA and all information provided will be treated in strict confidence. Respondents are not identified to the GCA without having given their consent, Groceries Code Adjudicator - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The number of arbitrations involving the GCA has increased significantly in the last two years. In a GCA survey of 2,500 suppliers, published in June, one in five suppliers said they had an issue with products being delisted without reasonable notice. Lidl came last in the survey. Earlier this month current adjudicator Mark White revealed he had “intensified” talks with supermarkets amid concerns about cost price increase requests being delayed or leading to products being delisted without reasonable notice.
GSCOP CASE
Lidl is facing a £2.6m court claim after being accused of multiple breaches of the Groceries Supply Code of Practice (GSCOP).
Lidl is being sued by its former fresh food supplier Proctor & Associates Ltd, which claims it has had to stop trading after Lidl delisted a raft of its products without notice and went on to poach its own suppliers.
10 years horsemeat scandal - Are you complacent against Food Fraud?
The discovery of horsemeat in certain beef products in January 2013 caused uproar in an adulteration scam that cost an estimated £850m due to recalls, lost sales, and tumbling share prices (Tesco’s market value alone fell £300m)
In the spring 2013 Defra secretary Owen Paterson commissioned Professor Chris Elliott, a food science professor from Queen’s University Belfast, to carry out an independent review into the horsemeat scandal. Professor Elliott involved a host of food specialists in his review including Mills & Reeves' Jessica Burt. The proposal was a national food crime prevention framework under eight pillars which, among other recommendations, called for an overhaul of audit regimes, information sharing and enforcement capability. It also called for a change in industry culture. In the boardrooms cost is no longer king but there is a more equal footing for technical, quality regulatory alongside commercial.
It is however important not to be complacent. Food fraud could mean unsafe food, unfit for human consumption and/or food without proper traceability and safety checks, not of the nature, substance or quality demanded, either by the consumer or your contractual terms, entering into our food products with potentially criminal liability for directors who are unable to establish they took all due diligence and reasonable precautions to avoid committing offences under food legislation.
What can food businesses do to protect their food supply, consumers and brand reputation from fraud?
There are ongoing checks, audits and risk assessments that should be being undertaken generally in relation to food products, suppliers, supply chains and contractual obligations.
In addition to these, food producers should assess the risk to their supply chains specifically in light of pressures from current market conditions and shortages.
1. Follow the money
- Identify where in the value chain of supply there is a temptation for fraudulent activity:
- Where most value can be added?
- Where is there most demand and/or scarcest supply?
- Where is a cost that can be avoided?
- What the benefits are?
- The potential for detection?
2. Where are you weakest?
- Whereabouts along the supply chain is your product most vulnerable?
- What does your company buy a lot of that could be subject to bulking or diluting to a degree that could not be immediately apparent?
- What do you source that is particularly expensive , scarce or in high demand?
- What do you source that is untested or via middle-men or outside UK/EU?
3. What’s your risk profile?
- Raw material quality, cost and availability
- Adulterant material cost and availability
- Profit associated with delivery of goods
- Loss and consequence associated with a failure to deliver goods
- Economic circumstance (market, corporate and individual)
- Perception of associated risk and consequences
- Likelihood of being caught
- Consequences of being caught
4. Reduction of that risk
The shorter the supply chain the less the risk of criminal infiltration. Keeping supply chains to known factors and using HACCP risk assessment templates will help to reduce the risk of food fraud.
Testing and auditing are the usual routes to also reduce risk, these will be balanced against the costs, reliability and standards but should also be based on risk assessment principles. Where is your highest hazard or likelihood of food fraud? What measures are in place to guard against this? The unannounced audit has become much more common place and valued.
Additionally, appropriate contract terms, indemnities and warranties will serve to balance the risks out with suppliers. Also, consideration of insurance for specific risks and availability of alternative (audited) suppliers and where they may be based.
An ongoing collaboration and communication throughout the supply chain, ensuring suppliers are aware of the demands on your product and so are prepared for corresponding supply chain peaks and troughs may assist supply pinches. Sometimes, the stability of an order over a longer duration can help both parties. Would a reduction in payment time assist the supplier in the short term to ensure maximum quality of supply?
5. No such thing as a free lunch
The old adage that if something seems too good to be true, it usually is, will always apply. As an established food business, if a supply is provided below market value or if a product that was simply not able to be sourced and is somehow now in immediate supply, the onus will be on you to carry out additional checks to ensure it is legally compliant.
Other options would be to alter what is said about your own product – don’t make those voluntary claims if they cannot be substantiated.
Finally, the ethics of supply should not be forgotten. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was put in place to ensure that companys who are sourcing supplies have their own responsibility to risk assess their supply chain for breaches of modern slavery. Working practices need to be fair, safe and responsible. The food fraud criminals will be less likely to have the same ethics.
ASA Rulings - Inappropriateness
Global Records SRL Upheld Video 18 January 2023
An in-stream ad on YouTube for Sickotoy’s single “2 High 2 Care” was inappropriately targeted as it was seen during a video which was of particular appeal to children. The ASA considered the targeting criteria used by Global Records had proved insufficient and concluded that it had been inappropriately targeted. The targeting parameters placed by Global Records did not apply content label or category exclusions for YouTube videos which would likely appeal to children or family audiences. Global Records SRL - ASA | CAP
Surfshark B.V. t/a Surfshark Upheld Video 18 January 2023
A paid-for ad in a YouTube video for a VPN service containing violent scenes was likely to cause unjustified distress to viewers, was irresponsibly targeted and unsuitable for delivery to a general audience. The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers, and must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason. The ASA acknowledged that the ad was intended to be humorous and satirical. However, on balance that the ad irresponsibly featured scenes with a level of violence that was likely to cause distress to viewers that was unjustified. Surfshark B.V. - ASA | CAP
The Competition & Markets Authority -CMA blocks Cérélia acquireing Jus-Rol
Following a 7-month investigation, the Competition & Markets Authority has concluded it would be unfair on retailers and shoppers for Cérélia to acquire Jus-Rol. Cérélia and Jus-Rol account for nearly two-thirds of all products in this market sold to grocery retailers in the UK, according to the CMA which noted that, at present, the two firms face limited competition as other suppliers are far smaller and lack the capabilities held by Cérélia and Jus-Rol. The CMA has concluded the only way to ‘preserve the degree of competition and choice for consumers’ is for Jus-Rol to be sold to an independent buyer.
Cérélia said it disagrees with the decision and plans to launch an appeal. The company states it stands by its ambition to strengthen the dough to bake category through investment and product innovation and this decision has blocked much needed investment.
Food Standards Agency Annual Report
Annual report of the FSA has been published Reports and accounts | Food Standards Agency to find out more about FSA’s activities and performance during 2021/22. Activity and performance across England, Wales and Northern Ireland included the following.
Hygiene and standards:
- Public attitudes – 75% reported that they trusted the FSA to ensure food is safe and what it says it is.
- Foodborne disease – laboratory confirmed cases in UK per 100,000 population in 2021 were Campylobacter 101.9, Salmonella 8.8, Shiga-toxin-producing E.coli 0.89, Listeria monocytogenes 0.28.
- total science and research spend: £16.6 million.
- 98.9% meat food business operators rated ‘Good’ or ‘Generally Satisfactory’ for compliance.
Delivery:
- Food and feed incidents – 2,336 food, animal feed and environmental contamination incidents.
- Animal welfare – 1,036,098,739 animals inspected. 99%+ recorded compliance with animal welfare legislation in slaughterhouses.
- National Food Crime Unit – first conviction following an investigation led by the Unit. The NFCU successfully prosecuted an individual for selling illegal weight loss supplement DNP and has also been investigating an illicit abattoir.
- Nutrition: Northern Ireland – 63% increase in recipes added to MenuCal.
EFSA opinion: Aged meat not riskier than fresh meat
Aged meat not riskier than fresh meat | EFSA (europa.eu)
Aged meat does not pose any additional risks compared to fresh meat if it is aged under controlled conditions, EFSA experts concluded in a scientific opinion released this week.
There are no additional risks involved provided that the specific combination of time and temperature identified in the scientific opinion are observed during the ageing process, said EFSA’s experts. For example, dry aged beef can be considered as safe as fresh beef if ageing is done for up to 35 days at a temperature of 3°C or lower.
Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers
Defra published a press release this week illustrating a new cash incentive system, placing deposits on drinks bottles and cans, that is intended to boost recycling from 2025 Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers moves a step closer - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
New plans set out in a consultation response by Defra detail that, through small cash deposits placed on single-use drinks containers, people will likely be incentivised to recycle their drinks bottles and cans, reducing litter and plastic pollution.
The scheme would include special machines, known as reverse vending machines, and designated sites where people can return their bottles and receive their cash back. In most cases it would be the retailers who sell drinks covered by the scheme who would host a return point.
The new scheme, covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is set to be introduced in 2025, following extensive work with industry to prepare for the necessary changes – including setting up infrastructure and amending labelling. It aims to ensure 85% fewer drinks containers are discarded as litter after three years of its launch.
Through the Environment Act, the UK Government is bringing in a wide range of further measures to tackle plastic pollution and litter, including:
EC Packaging waste proposal
A proposal from the European Commission setting out the details of a new European Parliament and Council regulation covering packaging and packaging waste, replacing the existing Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC has been considered by Defra in an Explanatory Memorandum.
This states that it is anticipated that most global manufacturers will choose to meet the new EU conformity assessment requirements to continue to place packaging on the EU market. UK based manufacturers are likely to do the same. EM_15581-22_.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
The proposed EU measures, many of which are entirely new, are wide-ranging, with their introduction phased and subject to tightening over several years. They introduce requirements over the entire lifecycle of packaging as regards its environmental sustainability.
The draft proposed Regulation introduces new standards regarding the composition and recyclability of packaging, including minimum recycled content targets for plastic packaging. There is a new requirement for certain packaging formats, including filter coffee pods, sticky labels attached to fruit and vegetables and very lightweight plastic carrier bags to be compostable within 24 months of the entry into force of the Regulation.
Packaging should also be marked with a label containing information on its material composition in order to facilitate consumer sorting and recycling. Member states are to produce a specific chapter in their waste management plan for packaging.
There are specific targets related to packaging re-use and minimisation with a requirement that packaging is conceived, designed and placed on the market with the objective to be re-used or refilled a maximum number of times. Reusable packaging will be required to bear a QR code or other type of data carrier giving access to the relevant information facilitating its re-use. There is a new requirement that member states take steps to encourage the increase of systems to enable re[1]use.
The draft proposed Regulation continues the existing requirement that member states establish suitable mechanisms for the collection, treatment and recycling of packaging waste and introduces a requirement for the establishment of a deposit return system for single-use plastic beverage bottles and single-use metal and aluminium beverage containers with a capacity of up to three litres.
Summary of key measures include:
• A ban on certain formats including single use packaging for condiments, preserves, sauces and sugar, and hotel miniature toiletry products (Article 22 and Annex V). The Commission can update the list of banned formats through delegated acts.
• Targets for packaging waste reduction and mandatory reuse or refill targets in sectors such as retail and catering. Packaging must for example be conceived and designed with the objective of being reused or refilled as many times as possible (Article 10).
• EU-wide standards for "over-packaging". This includes a maximum allowable empty space in e-commerce packaging and a ban on certain forms of unnecessary packaging (Article 21). The weight and volume of packaging must be minimised; false bottoms and double walls are banned unless they are necessary for the performance of the packaging (Article 9). Space filled with bubble wrap, polystyrene or other material will be considered empty space.
• Design criteria for all packaging to increase recycling rates. From 1 January 2030 packaging will have to comply with the design for recycling criteria and from 1 January 2035 the requirements will be further adjusted to ensure that recyclable packaging is sufficiently and effectively collected, sorted and recycled (Article 6). The Commission is tasked with adopting delegated acts to introduce a new grading system to classify packaging according to its design for recycling.
• Targets for minimum recycled content in most forms of secondary plastic packaging from 1 January 2030 of between 10% and 35% depending on the use of the packaging (Article 7).
• New targets for reduction of packaging waste of 5%, 10% and 15% by 2030, 2035 and 2040 respectively, while the pre-existing recycling and recovery targets for individual materials (by 2025 and 2030) are retained.
• Mandatory deposit return system (DRS) for single use plastic drinks bottles and aluminium cans (with a capacity up to three litres) (Article 44).
• Mandatory compostability for some packaging types, where composting is environmentally beneficial. Filter coffee pods, sticky labels attached to fruit and vegetables and very lightweight plastic carrier bags for example must be compostable 24 months after the entry into force of the Regulation (Article 8).
• Labels on all packaging to facilitate correct waste sorting by consumers, and the same labels will appear on recycling bins to make it clear where to put each type of packaging (Articles 11 and 12). Reusable packaging will have a QR code or similar to access information that will facilitate its reuse. The Commission will establish harmonised labels through implementing acts
Exemptions
Some exemptions include:
• Micro companies ie companies with a sales area of less than 100 square metres (including all storage and dispatch areas), or to companies that do not place more than 1000kg of packaging on the market during a calendar year. (Article 26)
• The rules on excessive packaging will not apply to companies that use sales packaging as e-commerce packaging. (Article 21)
• Where packaging design is subject to geographical indications (GIs) of origin protected under EU legislation, it is exempt from the rules regarding packaging minimisation. (Article 9)
• The DRS does not apply to wine, aromatised wine products, spirit drinks and milk products. (Article 44)
• Immediate packaging of medicinal products, veterinary medicinal products, and contact sensitive plastic packaging of medical devices and in vitro medical devices are exempt from the recyclability requirements until 2034 for health and safety reasons. (Article 6) These same products are also exempt from the minimum recycled content requirements for plastic packaging. (Article 7)
What next?
Stakeholders have until 27 February 2023 to submit their views on the proposal to the Commission Reducing packaging waste – review of rules (europa.eu).
The proposal is likely to undergo substantial changes as part of the legislative process.