Novel Foods Review in UK to support Innovation
The FSA has commissioned a report by accountants Deloitte, on the structure of approving novel foods in the UK that has put forward a “radical reimagining of the Novel Foods Regulatory Framework”. future_of_food_2022_consumer_deloitte_be_report_en.pdf
The novel food approval system is currently generally viewed as an obstacle to innovation.
The report puts forward various options to allow environmental and food security benefits to be reaped from novel food approvals.
An option flagged by the report suggests allowing alternative proteins to go on sale in the UK without the usual prolonged approvals process for novel foods, if they have been lawfully sold in other parts of the world.
Another option is that the UK should adopt a system of “collaborative regulation” under which, instead of the existing approvals process which can take years, the FSA would authorise novel foods to be sold using the evidence base or decisions of food regulators in other countries.
The placing of responsibility on the food industry to assure safety would move towards a conditional authorisation and supervision model similar to that used in other sectors such as the pharmaceuticals industry.
Another option would be to adopt a risk based approach whereby the FSA focuses more time on approvals for potential “high risk” foods and fast-tracking “lower risk” products.
The FSA has stated it is committed to supporting innovation as well as safety. This is reflected in papers published ahead of its’ board meeting later this month.
FSA Board Meeting – 21 June
Papers have been published in advance of the FSA board meeting scheduled for 21 June. This illustrates a push for a collaborative risk based approach but also a 'more robust' approach for extreme incidents.
The agenda for this meeting includes:
- Import Controls and the Target Operating Model (TOM)
- Annual Chief Scientific Advisor's (CSA) Report - calls for a ‘more robust approach’ to ‘extreme incidents’ and a consideration of both risk AND benefit. Finally, a move to a collaborative approach particularly in the areas of ecolabelling, the implications of the Environmental Land Management System for food, welfare improvements in animal husbandry and slaughter, or innovative products at the food/medicines interface.
- Foresight Function and Horizon Scanning
- Update on Veterinary Supply, Modernisation and Support for the Small Abattoir Sector
- Retained EU Law (REUL) - it is stated the removal of the sunset clause provides greater clarity for food businesses on changes to the regulatory system this year and removes the risk of REUL inadvertently lapsing (a key risk in the programme).
A full agenda and published papers can be viewed in the Board meeting section of the FSA website.
Updated Code of Practice for local authorities to focus inspections on higher risk food businesses
The FSA has on 8 June 2023 published the revised Food Law Code of Practice (the Code) for England and Northern Ireland (the Code), introducing a new model for delivering food standards controls.
The new model will drive more frequent checks on non-compliant businesses, whilst reducing the checks on businesses that can demonstrate good levels of sustained compliance. Many businesses with a good track record of compliance will face less frequent inspections, while those with a poor track record will face greater scrutiny.
The updated guidance will therefore enable local authorities to use their resources more effectively, targeting their efforts towards the greatest risks within the supply chain.
The new model emphasises the use of intelligence to disrupt the supply of fraudulent or unsafe food from moving up through the supply chain.
Updated codes may be accessed here Food and Feed Codes of Practice | Food Standards Agency
EU references in FSA guidance documents
The FSA is updating all EU references, to accurately reflect the law now in force, in all new or amended guidance published since the Transition Period ended at the end of 2020. In some circumstance it may not always be practicable for us to have all EU references updated at the point we publish new or amended guidance.
Other than in Northern Ireland, any references to EU Regulations in this guidance should be read as meaning retained EU law. You can access retained EU law via HM Government EU Exit Web Archive (Opens in a new window) (Opens in a new window). This should be read alongside any EU Exit legislation that was made to ensure retained EU law operates correctly in a UK context. EU Exit legislation is on legislation.gov.uk (Opens in a new window) (Opens in a new window). In Northern Ireland, EU law will continue to apply in respect to the majority of food and feed hygiene and safety law, as listed in the Northern Ireland Protocol (Opens in a new window) (Opens in a new window), and retained EU law will not apply to Northern Ireland in these circumstances.
CMA Complaint Made About Tesco Clubcard
Which? Has made a complaint to eht Competition and Markets Authority stating the “vast majority” of deals offered under the Clubcard Prices scheme are not clearly explained as consumers are not given a cost per unit price. The consumer watchdog says in some cases larger pack sizes actually represent better value for money than the Clubcard offer but Tesco is not making this clear.
Which? is urging the CMA to look at unit pricing on the “growing number” of supermarket member price schemes as part of its review.
Earlier this year, the CMA announced a review of how supermarkets are complying with the rules on pricing by unit. It is due to publish its report, including recommendations to the government, next month.
In 2015, Which? made a super-complaint to the CMA about supermarket pricing. In response to this, the CMA said that failure to display the unit price on special offers could be considered a “misleading omission” under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Which? says that the same argument could apply to Tesco’s Clubcard price offer.
ASA Rulings
Shell UK Ltd t/a Shell Upheld in part Poster, Television, Internet (video) 07 June 2023
A poster, a TV ad, and a YouTube ad for Shell misleadingly omitted material information about the proportion of their business activities that were comprised of lower carbon activities.
There are a couple of key take home points from this ruling:
Cumulative effect - in the absence of qualifying information, the cumulative effect of the claims relating to applications or sources of lower-carbon energy that spanned distinct and diverse areas of Shell’s operations, together with the claim “The UK is READY for Cleaner Energy”, which was immediately followed by the Shell logo, was held to give the impression that low-carbon energy products comprised a significant proportion of the energy products Shell invested in and sold in the UK in 2022, or were likely to do so in the near future.
Future Goals – The ASA acknowledged Shell’s comment that, rather than being an explicit claim about Shell, the claim “The UK is READY for cleaner energy” in ads was intended as a forward-looking statement about the UK-wide demand for less environmentally detrimental energy sources. However, in the context of the claim’s appearance in an ad for Shell, a well-known provider of energy products, the ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim as being, in part, a claim about Shell’s own products and capacity to deliver low-carbon energy.
They also considered that the emphasis the ads placed on “READY”, as well as the fact that the only timeframe mentioned by the ads was short-term, implied that lower-carbon energy products, like those shown in the ads, already comprised a significant proportion of the energy products Shell invested in and sold in the UK, or were likely to do so in the near future.
Sustainability Report - The ASA referred to Shell’s 2021 Sustainability Report, Shell’s operations gave rise to greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 that were estimated as equivalent to 1375 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The ASA understood that large-scale oil and gas investment and extraction comprised the vast majority of the company’s business model in 2022 and would continue to do so in the near future. We therefore considered that, because ads gave the overall impression that a significant proportion of Shell’s business comprised lower-carbon energy products, further information about the proportion of Shell’s overall business model that comprised lower-carbon energy products was material information that should have been included. Because the ads did not include such information, the ASA concluded that they omitted material information and were likely to mislead.
An email promotion from an online grocery app was held to have been unfairly administered.
Getir had told customers if they spent £21 on the app they could get £20 off their order. “Yup, you read that right! Shop right now to get all your essentials for a quid!” it added.
But after Getir failed to honour the discount to all claimants, customers complained to the regulator.
The ASA ruled: “Because the ad implied the promotion was available to all, no matter the circumstances, we considered that the promotion had not been administered fairly.”
Rather than honour the discount when they were able to, Getir’s customer service team told unsuccessful claimants it was within its rights to cancel any promotion. The company did, however, adjust the wording of the promotion within the app, and ran clarifying banner ads on it website.
The ASA pointed out that the CAP Code states promoters “must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment and phrases such as ‘subject to availability’ did not relieve promoters of their obligation to do everything reasonable to avoid disappointing participants”.
“We considered it was reasonable to expect Getir to have extended the promotion to those who had received the email, as the marketing team had originally intended, to avoid disappointing participants,” the ASA said. Ultimately it ruled “the promotion had not been administered fairly”.
Historic Ads
'A blast from brand-tie-in past': With a new Indiana Jones installment hitting cinemas now, a Diet Coke/Indiana collaboration from the 80s is doing the rounds again on Twitter. Good ad's never die but neither do bad ones. Always have your eye to the future - in this case it worked well for both.
Pride Month
There has been recent adverse media reports on the inclusion of characters or individuals in campaigns, the ASA advises caution. For example, ads seen to be condoning discriminatory behaviour will likely be a problem Pride Month 2023 - ASA | CAP.
Prosecution of animal welfare case following undercover footage from an animal welfare organisation
The FSA monitors animal welfare at approved slaughterhouses in England and Wales by ensuring they are compliant with all specific requirements in animal welfare legislation.
Slaughterhouses in England where live animals are present should by law be covered by CCTV. Slaughterhouse operators are required to give authorised FSA staff access to the footage.
At Crewe Magistrate Court on 3 May 2023, guilty pleas were made by the defendants to a total of twenty-five charges and the slaughterhouse operator G and GB Hewitt Ltd fined £19,500, £100 statutory surcharge and £500 costs.
This case came about following undercover footage from an animal welfare organisation. Six men who worked there have been sentenced for animal welfare offences including, in some cases, causing avoidable pain, distress or suffering to animals.
Junior Johnson, Director of Operations for the Food Standard Agency said: “The FSA has a zero tolerance approach to animal welfare breaches.” FSA welcomes three successful prosecutions in animal welfare cases | Food Standards Agency
Health & Safety – Cattle and Calves
A Wiltshire landowner has been fined £15,000 after members of the public were seriously injured by cattle while walking along footpaths on his estate.
Sir Charles Hobhouse pleaded guilty to health and safety failings at his Monkton Farleigh Estate in Bradford-on-Avon.
It follows two separate incidents in summer 2021 in which people using public footpaths on his land were attacked by cows..
The first incident left a woman with a fractured shoulder and suspected broken ribs.
Two months later the cattle cornered another dog walker who was left with snapped vertebrae.
The court heard the herd had been inspected daily between the first and second incidents by the farm’s foreman, Andrew Tucker. Mr Tucker observed “no indication of any aggressiveness in the herd whatsoever” and he alone then took the decision to move them into the field where the second incident took place, the court heard.
In his sentencing remarks, Mr Justice Saini accepted Hobhouse had not been aware the herd had been moved to the field where the second incident occurred.
But he ruled the defendant had not heeded the law in both incidents and in the second had not followed the advice given to him by the HSE. (The HSE had formally instructed him to implement controls to prevent a similar incident.)
The judge said: “As a person with overall responsibility, the law requires you to properly assess the risk posed by the cattle and calves at foot near public footpaths.
“You accept by your admissions that you failed to put in protective and preventative measures to mitigate the risk.”
HSE Inspector Leo Diez stated: “Where possible cows with calves should not be grazed in fields where there is a public right of way. Where this is not possible they should be segregated from the footpath by appropriate fencing where it is reasonable to do so.”
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers