Food Safety Briefing ISSUE 3813, 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

Prosecutions

Noodle bar fined for large rat infestation

A large rat infestation and very poor hygiene among staff resulted in How Cha Noodle Bar in Chapel Street, Luton being shut down and fined.

Council food safety officers were alerted to the noodle bar after a passer-by spotted a rat there in July 2012.

In a hearing at Luton Magistrates Court, a representative of the owner, Xing Yu Investment Ltd, pleaded guilty to seven food hygiene offences and was fined £9,380 plus £1800 prosecution costs.

The serious breaches of hygiene regulations included a large rat infestation, no pest control procedures in place, food preparation surfaces, equipment and utensils not being properly cleaned or disinfected and food not protected from contamination.

Because of the serious risk to public health, council food and safety officers closed the premises immediately using a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice.

The restaurant reopened four days later once the premises was pest free and adequate cleaning and structural work had been completed to allow food to be produced safely.

Officers visited the restaurant again in August to check hygiene standards were being improved and maintained.

However, during another follow-up check in November, officers discovered poor food handling practices and a lack of food safety management including high risk food kept outside temperature control with no record of recent temperature checks.

Food areas and containers were greasy throughout the premises.

There was poor personal hygiene among staff, especially poor hand washing, and food was not protected from contamination.

An environmental health spokeswoman said: “We aim to support Luton’s businesses but will not hesitate to use our enforcement options and court action where necessary to protect public health and safety.”

The court gave credit to the company for sending staff on training and having the premises professionally cleaned, but said they had to balance this with the risk to public health.

The restaurant is now under new ownership.

Luton News, Herald and Post September 2013

Dirty Chinese takeaway fined

The owner of a Leamington Chinese takeaway has been fined £1,500 after inspectors witnessed poor personal hygiene from employees handling food.

Bruce Fu, operator of Fu Garden, pleaded guilty to magistrates in relation to five offences in relation to Food Hygiene Regulations.

Warwick District Council brought the proceedings for hygiene offences witnessed by inspectors in November 2012.

They visited Fu Garden during the evening to carry out a routine inspection and found the premises to be dirty and in a poor state of repair.

Equipment, including refrigerators and a food chopping board, was found to be filthy and damaged.

Inspectors also deemed food handlers’ personal hygiene to be poor and believed food was not protected from contamination.

The prosecution said that the offences were of a serious nature and could result in customers being placed at risk of food poisoning.

The magistrates fined Fu £1,500, including a victim surcharge of £60, and ordered him to pay Warwick District Council’s prosecution costs in full.

Coventry Telegraph September 2013

Curry and mice

The owner of a “filthy” and “disgusting” restaurant where mouse droppings were found on food, work surfaces and plates, pleaded guilty to four hygiene offences.

The owner of the Taj Palace Restaurant Mohammed Saleem, agreed to close the restaurant on 16 May 2013 after officers investigating the establishment found the foul conditions, which also included a build-up of grease on the walls and a hole in the kitchen ceiling.

The offences, which relate to two visits on March and May of this year, include a failure to put in place and implement food-safety-management systems, deal with an active mouse infestation and keeping the food premises clean and in good repair.

The case was adjourned until 9 October for sentencing.

Oldham Evening Chronicle September 2013

News

Formaldehyde detected in supermarket fish imported from Asia

A large number of fish imported from China and Vietnam and sold in at least some US supermarkets contain unnatural levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, according to tests performed and verified by researchers at a North Carolina chemical engineering firm and North Carolina State University.

Around 25 per cent of all the fish purchased from supermarkets by researchers in the Raleigh, North Carolina, area were found to contain formaldehyde, a toxic chemical compound commonly used as a medical disinfectant or embalming agent. All of the fish found to contain the compound were imported from Asian countries, and it was not found in fish from the US or other regions.

The researchers only collected samples from supermarkets around Raleigh, NC, and could not comment on whether or not the same results could be applied to fish sold nationwide.

Formaldehyde is illegal in food beyond any naturally occurring trace amounts. But, according to chemical engineer A. James Attar and his colleagues who conducted the tests, the US Food and Drug Administration does not test any imported fish for formaldehyde contamination, and only four per cent of imported fish gets tested for any contaminants at all.

“The look on my face when we found this – it was a complete shocker,” said Jason Morton, Attar’s colleague at NC-based Appealing Products, Inc. Attar, Morton and another colleague at Appealing Products, Matthew Schwartz, came across the alarming revelation when they set out to validate a new formaldehyde test they developed for Bangladeshi clients who needed a cheap way to detect contaminated fish.

To verify the accuracy of their test, the team purchased domestic and imported fish from supermarkets around Raleigh, NC, with the intent of purposefully contaminating them with formaldehyde and then verifying that their test worked.

Instead, they found that about one in four fish was already contaminated with formaldehyde. So, what was the commonality between all the contaminated fish? They were imported from Asian countries, predominantly China and Vietnam.

Not all of the Asian fish were contaminated, but many were, Attar said.

The FDA has not had the opportunity to analyse the fish samples tested by Appealing Products, nor has the agency had the opportunity to review the test methods utilised.

“The FDA’s priority is to ensure that both domestic and imported seafood is safe and that we are protecting consumers from products that can cause illness,” the agency told Food Safety News. “To accomplish this, FDA oversees a comprehensive food safety program designed to ensure the safety of all seafood sold in the United States. This prevention-oriented program includes risk based inspections, product testing, and assessments of foreign countries regulation of aquaculture facilities.”

All foods imports entering the US are screened electronically by the FDA. A subset of those foods is physically inspected at rates based on the potential risk associated with them, with some samples undergoing lab analysis.

“FDA encourages anyone who has evidence that an FDA regulated product violates food safety laws and regulations to contact FDA,” the agency added.

Attar and Morton stopped short of accusing Asian fish companies of intentionally adding formaldehyde to fish to prevent spoilage, though it appears to be a common problem in Bangladesh, where formaldehyde might preserve fish when refrigerators or ice aren’t available. (Think of frogs preserved for dissection in a high-school science lab.)

Attar and his team first uncovered the issue in February 2013, and then spent six months routinely testing samples, finding the same results. Their results were then verified by researchers at North Carolina State University.

Attar said the sampling was restricted to purchases from Raleigh only and might not reflect fish in supermarkets nationwide.

“But, empirically, this is what we found,” he added.

Formaldehyde is present in some fish at small, naturally occurring levels. But everything observed in the Asian fish found that they were contaminated with far higher-than-normal or acceptable levels, Attar said.

The team tested whether or not levels of formaldehyde increased in cuts of fish as they aged, but the levels remained the same. They also tested the same species harvested from both Chinese and US companies, finding that the Chinese-caught fish contained formaldehyde, while the US-caught fish of the same species did not.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the US imports approximately 91 per cent of its seafood. China alone accounts for approximately 89 per cent of global aquaculture production.

Appealing Products’ formaldehyde test costs approximately $1 per swab, which is applied to a cut of fish and turns purple in the presence of formaldehyde. The company has shipped 100,000 tests to Bangladesh and anticipates orders from companies in other Asian countries. More information on the tests can be found at formaldehydetests.com.

Documented instances of intentional formaldehyde contamination of food have occurred in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. Attar and Morton said that their evidence makes a strong case for improved testing on seafood imports in the US, especially from Asian countries. “I cannot say that companies are adding formaldehyde to fish, but our findings are higher than what naturally occurs,” Morton said.

Food Safety News September 2013

Outbreak of Salmonella has links to the consumption of cooked meats

Investigations show that an outbreak of salmonella seen in England and Wales has links to the consumption of cooked ham bought from small independent butchers’ shops.

The results of tests carried out by environmental health officers on the product did not show the presence of salmonella although it did reveal other hygiene issues. As a result of this the supplier has withdrawn certain batches of ham.

There have been 21 confirmed cases in Wales where the outbreak was first detected and a further 36 in England. Nine people have been hospitalised (five in Wales and four in England). Other potential cases are being investigated in both countries.

The cases in Wales were first detected in the middle of July in Conwy and Gwynedd.

Experts from Public Health England (PHE) are working with Public Health Wales, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and environmental health officers from several local authorities to trace the origins of the contaminated food.

Dr Bob Adak, head of the gastrointestinal diseases department at PHE said: “Although the source of the outbreak has not been confirmed, some of the cases have been linked to the consumption of cooked ham sold by a small number of independent butchers.

“Investigating outbreaks of foodborne illness is a complex process as people have to try and remember what they ate some weeks prior to becoming unwell. In this instance many reported eating cooked meats. The FSA is following all possible leads along with Environmental Health to try and establish the source of the outbreak. This process is ongoing.”

Salmonella food poisoning is usually caused by eating contaminated raw or undercooked food like meat, eggs, and dairy products. Symptoms can include diarrhoea, stomach cramps, vomiting and fever.

PHE September 2013

New tests can detect goat and kangaroo DNA in food

The world's largest food and drink company has introduced new tests to identify DNA from kangaroos, dogs and goats in food in the wake of the horsemeat scandal.

Speaking at the Agricultural Science Association conference in Waterford, Ireland, Dr John O'Brien, Nestle's head of food safety and quality, said the company had embraced molecular testing since equine DNA was first discovered in beef last January.

"Since then, we are monitoring food for kangaroo, dogs, goats and other species and asking the question: could any of these enter the food chain?" he told the 350 conference delegates.

Dr O'Brien, who is a former chief executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, now heads up Food Safety and Quality at the Nestle Research Centre in Lausanne, Switzerland.

He said the growing complexity of the global food chain meant that potential food contaminants were a big challenge for all food and drink companies.

Referring to the horsemeat scandal, agriculture minister Simon Coveney said he believed that the reputation of Irish beef had been enhanced rather than damaged by the episode.

"We were the first country to discover a problem that was subsequently found to affect, and in some cases to an even greater extent in terms of the number of companies affected, 26 out of 28 member states," Mr Coveney told the conference.

Paul Finnerty, chief executive of meat processor ABP, which was embroiled in the controversy, said the company had made changes to reduce the risk of ever being affected by a similar problem again.

ABP has begun High Court proceedings against a Polish company for breach of contract relating to a supply of beef that contained equine DNA to Silvercrest Foods. It also reached a financial settlement with another firm for supplying beef contaminated with equine DNA.

Mr Finnerty said the company did not lose any customers in its chilled beef business and ABP continued to "stand tall in product we sell to our customers".

"We are still in the frozen burger business in the UK and we continue to serve five of the top retailers there," he told the conference.

Irish Independent September 2013

Reports

Provision of allergy information to consumers for foods which are not prepacked

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published a report on research it commissioned into the provision, by food businesses, of information on allergens for consumers for foods not prepacked. The purpose of the research was to provide baseline information on business practices prior to the introduction of new EU Food Information for Consumers Regulation (EU FIC) No.1169/2011. Specifically, the primary aim of the study was to ascertain the prevalence and type of information currently provided on allergenic ingredients in foods not prepacked.

The EU FIC was published in December 2011. It was intended to build on current allergen labelling provisions applying to prepacked foods by introducing new requirements for allergen information to be provided for foods sold not-prepacked or prepacked for direct sale.

As part of EU FIC, a three year transition period was agreed to allow food businesses to introduce the necessary measures into their operations to meet the requirements of the regulation. Once this three year period expires, the relevant requirements become mandatory. Existing allergen labelling requirements for prepacked foods are unaffected by the changes with the exception of a requirement to emphasise allergens within the ingredients list.

This means the relevant provision of EU FIC will apply from December 2014 at which point food businesses must inform consumers if any of 14 allergens have been added as ingredients or processing aids to foods not prepacked.

The relevant allergens are peanuts, tree nuts, milk, soya, mustard, lupin, eggs, fish, molluscs, crustaceans, cereals containing gluten, sesame seeds, celery and sulphur dioxide (at levels above 10mg/kg, or 10mg/litre).

The research was carried out in phases. First, ten interviews with industry representatives, consumer representatives, environmental health officers and policy experts were carried out as part of a scoping exercise. This was followed by a baseline survey of 1,666 food businesses and 56 market stall interviews. The final phase involved follow-up interviews with 25 food businesses selling loose foods.

Restaurants, cafes, caterers, transport, institutions, sandwich shops, bakeries and in store supermarkets were all contacted as part of the research. Foods not prepacked included any foods sold loose from a delicatessen counter. In a retail setting this could include products such as cold meats, cheeses, pies and fresh pizza, fish, salad bars, or bread. In a catering environment, foods which are not prepacked, could include meals served in a canteen, restaurant or from a takeaway.

The researchers found that 60 per cent of the food businesses surveyed had a policy on allergen information provision. Most (41 per cent) operated a formal written policy, with the remainder (19 per cent) relying on an informal unwritten policy.

Formal policies were more likely to be found in food businesses that were part of chains or were large businesses, or institutions. In the catering sector, takeaway businesses were the least likely to operate any kind of policy, with restaurants and pubs/bars the most likely.

It was also found that information provision varied greatly according to the allergen. Among businesses that sold food containing each of the 14 allergenic ingredients, the proportion providing any information on each allergen (oral and/or written) was highest for other nuts (81 per cent) and peanuts (80 per cent) and lowest for sulphur dioxide (44 per cent).

It was found that retailers were more likely than institutions or caterers to provide information on several of the allergens. Within the catering sector, restaurants were most likely to provide allergen information while hotels and cafes/sandwich shops were the least likely.

If a food business operated a formal or informal policy on food allergens there was a greater likelihood of consumers being provided with food allergen information.

How information was communicated varied. Of the food businesses surveyed, 20 per cent provided information orally, 64 per cent provided information both orally and in writing, 6 per cent provided only written information and 7 per cent provided no allergen information.

Just over one quarter (27 per cent) of food businesses said they never checked or audited ingredients from their suppliers or wholesalers for the presence of allergens. Some businesses justified this on the basis that they had established relationships with suppliers that they largely trust, while others said they lacked the means or resources to carry out such checks.

The use of phrases such as ‘may contain’ and ‘free from’ were examined as part of the research. It was found that 29 per cent of businesses used ‘may contain’ information in relation to their meals or produce. This was most frequently used for ‘other’ nuts and gluten (17 per cent in each case), eggs and milk (14 per cent in each case) and peanuts (13 per cent).

Previous research published by the FSA has suggested that ‘may contain’ labels have been devalued by overuse. Businesses have also been advised not to use ‘may contain’ labelling as an alternative to accurate ingredient lists, especially as studies have found that allergic customers do routinely eat products with ‘may contain’ warnings, taking a varied approach to the interpretation of ‘may contain’ labels.

‘Free from’ is a much more stringent test and so was found to be less widely used. Overall 13 per cent of the food businesses surveyed made use of ‘free from’ guarantees. Gluten was the most common ingredient referred to using ‘free from’ declaration. The researchers found that 87 per cent of food businesses that used ‘free from’ information used it in relation to gluten. Furthermore, milk was referred to by 55 per cent of businesses using ‘free from’ information; eggs by 51 per cent; peanuts by 45 per cent; and other nuts by 41 per cent of businesses.

Local Authorities and the FSA were the most common sources of information used by food businesses when dealing with allergens. Exactly half the businesses surveyed had read materials relating to food allergens. Two fifths of business owners/managers said they were aware of the FSA best practice guidance on allergens. Of these, 51 per cent had an awareness of the guidance, 33 per cent said they had read parts of it and 15 per cent said they had read it in full. Virtually all who read the guidance found it helpful.

The guidance was also used by many food businesses when training new or existing staff. The results of the survey suggest that 88 per cent of food businesses provided allergen training for new staff.

The awareness levels for the EU FIC regulation were assessed as part of the survey and found to be low, with one in five businesses expressing some awareness of the legislation. It was also noted that there appeared to be confusion over the requirements contained in the legislation.

Awareness was highest in Scotland at 30 per cent and lowest in Wales at 14 per cent. It was 17 per cent in England and 22 per cent in Northern Ireland. Rates of awareness also differed within the catering sector, with 14 per cent of sandwich shops surveyed expressing some awareness of the legislation compared to 25 per cent to 26 per cent of pubs and restaurants.

Of the food businesses who said they were aware of the new legislation, 90 per cent acknowledged the need to make at least one of the following changes: request more information from contractors; provide more staff training; provide information on a wider range of allergens and a wide range of meals/products and be more stringent in record keeping. One third said they would need to introduce all of these changes.

A policy expert interviewed as part of the research suggested that most food businesses are aware of allergy risks as a concept but less aware of high quality controls. It was suggested that particular issues that need to be communicated to food businesses relate to the ingredients of products and minimising the risk of cross- contamination by having separate production areas, cleaning preparation areas and also by hand washing.

Food businesses also need to be encouraged to incorporate allergy awareness and practices into their HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) systems.

Most businesses surveyed anticipated that introducing changes to become compliant would not be particularly challenging but 17 per cent of businesses perceived the changes as potentially difficult.

The main challenges identified by this 17 per cent of businesses were ‘checking ingredients from suppliers’ (38 per cent); ‘time it will take to update menus or labels’ (28 per cent); ‘logging and record keeping of food allergen information’ (24 per cent); the cost of regularly updating information (19 per cent); and remembering to update information (10 per cent).

The Food Standards Agency September 2013

Zoonoses report 2012

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published the annual report on zoonoses in the United Kingdom. Zoonoses are diseases and infections which are transmitted naturally between vertebrate animals and humans. A number of potential transmission routes may be available for infections, from indirect contact through food or drink to direct contact through occupational exposure on farms, from pets or through leisure pursuits.

Some of the zoonoses covered by the report are significant in the context of food safety as food and/or drink can provide a pathway for infection. Such zoonoses include campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidiosis, hepatitis E, listeriosis, salmonellosis, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in animals, vero cytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) and yersiniosis.

The data used to compile the report was provided from statutory notifications of disease, national scanning surveillance systems, control programmes, research programmes and from data submitted to the European Community via the Trends and Sources Report under the Zoonoses Directive 2003/99. The report was prepared by a working group led by Public Health England that included representatives from agencies across the UK.

In addition to providing information on zoonoses in 2012, the report also includes articles which highlight human and animal incidents and issues of public health significance. The subjects covered by the articles include anti- microbial resistance (AMR), imported exotic zoonoses, the EU Pet Travel Scheme, and, Olympic and Paralympic preparedness.

The report notes that care needs to be taken when interpreting year-on-year trends as these can be influenced by a variety of factors.

While legislation requires the reporting of a selection of specified infectious diseases, voluntary laboratory reporting and outbreak surveillance also serve as significant sources of information. However, due to under- diagnosis and under-reporting, the number of human cases of infection recorded in national surveillance databases tend to be biased towards more clinically severe cases in high-risk groups, or outbreak related cases.

In 2012, Campylobacter was again the most commonly reported human gastrointestinal pathogen. However, the number of reported human cases increased only slightly during the year compared to 2011, from 72,266 in 2011 to 72,592 in 2012 (an increase of 0.5 per cent). Between 2011 and 2012, the number of reported cases increased by 3.1 per cent in Northern Ireland and 0.5 per cent in England and Wales, but fell by 0.3 per cent in Scotland.

The Second Study of Infectious Intestinal Disease in the Community established that the ratio of unreported human campylobacter infection to reports to national surveillance is 9.3 to 124. Such a ratio suggests there were approximately 750,000 campylobacter cases in the UK in 2012.

There were eight reported campylobacter outbreaks in 2012, compared with 20 in 2011. Of these eight, seven were foodborne. Chicken liver and chicken liver parfait were involved in six of the outbreaks and the seventh was associated with the consumption of lamb. The non-foodborne outbreak was caused by poor personal hygiene at an outdoor event and in affected 18 people.

In 2012 there were 6,612 cases of cryptosporidiosis reported in the UK, almost double the number reported the previous year. The increase was observed across England, Wales and Scotland. The increase is attributed to natural variation, exacerbated by a large outbreak involving over 300 cases. An investigation into this outbreak involving food industry representatives, the FSA and the Health Protection Agency examined practices and

procedures in the different stages of growing, processing, packing and distribution of salad vegetables. However, no definitive source for the outbreak was identified.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is an enteric virus that can cause acute liver disease in humans. HEV infections are usually mild and self-limiting illnesses however, in rare cases acute liver failure can develop and can prove fatal, particularly in pregnant women.

The majority of HEV cases in UK are non-travel related and a study has shown that people rendered ill by the virus have typically been infected by HEV genotype 3, similar to that carried by British pigs. HEV is transmitted mainly through ingestion of faecally-contaminated water or undercooked products from infected animals. Outbreaks have been associated with undercooked pork or deer meat, or uncooked shellfish.

Confirmed HEV cases have increased in recent years, with 657 cases reported in the UK in 2012, up 39.5 per cent since 2011. Of these, 409 (70.6 per cent) cases were assessed as ‘indigenous’ meaning they were considered to be non-travel associated. The report also notes that a study carried out in 2011/12 found that indigenous cases of HEV in England and Wales were associated with the consumption of processed pork products.

Furthermore, another recent study found that 10 per cent of pork sausages sampled at point of sale from UK retailers were positive for HEV.

There were 183 cases of listeriosis in the UK in 2012, an increase of 11.6 per cent compared to 2011. Of these, 19 were pregnancy-associated. Two outbreaks were recorded during the year involving food as the vehicle of infection. Both outbreaks occurred in England. One outbreak involved cross-contamination of pressed beef products (also known as ‘potted beef’ and ‘beef stew’ products) and involved four cases, including two who died. The second outbreak was traced to cross-contamination of pork pies, and involved 14 cases, one of whom died.

Laboratory confirmed cases of salmonellosis amounted to 8,798 cases in the UK in 2012. The report also notes that for every laboratory confirmed report of disease made to national surveillance schemes, there are estimated to be 4.7 unreported cases, meaning the total number of cases in the UK in 2012 was estimated to be approximately 50,000. Salmonella enteritidis was the most commonly reported serovar in 2012, accounting for 27.9 per cent of cases.

There were 14 foodborne outbreaks of salmonella reported in the UK in 2012 compared with 18 in 2011. Of the outbreaks reported in 2012, six each were caused by S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium, one newport and one agona. The most common food types associated with salmonella outbreaks in 2012 were egg dishes.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a rare and fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of humans. In 1996, a new variant, vCJD, was recognised and was strongly linked to BSE, which was first recognised in cattle in 1986. There have been no cases of vCJD in people born after the 1980s. No deaths from definite or probable vCJD were recorded or reported in the UK in 2012. This leaves the total number recorded since 1995 at 176. The number of deaths per year peaked at 28 in 2000.

There were 1,217 laboratory confirmed cases of vero cytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) in the UK in 2012 (795 in England and Wales, 234 in Scotland and 188 in Northern Ireland). This represented an 18 per cent decrease on the 1,484 cases reported in 2011. Of the 188 cases reported for Northern Ireland, 140 were associated with one outbreak inked to a restaurant in Belfast.

There were also four foodborne outbreaks in England and Wales, with three being associated with a single venue including one linked to the consumption of undercooked burgers. The fourth was linked to consumption of minced beef products outside the home from a variety of vendors.

Finally, in 2012 there were 55 cases of human yersiniosis reported in the UK, the same number as in 2011.

Defra September 2013

Legislation Diary

Legislation Diary 2013

CIF Title Region

14/06/2013 Diseases of animals Act 1966, revocation of foot and mouth disease orders, order 2013 I

24/06/2013 Animal health, Wales Miscellaneous fees, regulations 2013 W

24/06/2013 Animal health, Scotland Miscellaneous fees and amendments, regulations 2013 S

24/06/2013 Animal health Miscellaneous fees, regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S 01/07/2013 European Union, cereal seeds Regulations 2013 I Specified products from China, Northern Ireland Restriction on first placing on the market, 04/07/2013 NI amendment, regulations 2013 Specified products from China, restriction on first placing on the market, England 10/07/2013 E Amendment, regulations 2013

10/07/2013 European Union, household food waste and bio-waste Amendment, regulations 2013 I

European Communities, official controls on import of food of non-animal origin for 11/07/2013 I pesticide residues Amendment, no 3, regulations 2013

11/07/2013 Bovine viral diarrhoea Amendment, no 2, order 2013 I European Communities, official controls on the import of food of non-animal origin 19/07/2013 I Amendment, no 3, regulations 2013 19/07/2013 Food hygiene Revocation of various orders, order 2013 I

19/07/2013 European Union, genetically modified foodstuffs Regulations 2013 I

31/07/2013 European Union, microbiological criteria for foodstuffs Amendment, regulations 2013 I

Healthy start scheme and day care food scheme, Northern Ireland Amendment, 01/08/2013 NI regulations 2013 07/08/2013 Contaminants in food, Wales, regulations 2013 W

22/08/2013 European Communities, African swine fever Non-EU countries, regulations 2013 I

02/09/2013 Fish labelling Regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S Healthy eating in schools, Wales Nutritional standards and requirements, regulations 02/09/2013 W 2013 01/10/2013 Contaminants in food, Scotland Regulations 2013 S 05/10/2013 Fish labelling, Scotland Regulations 2013 S 07/10/2013 Fish labelling, Northern Ireland Regulations 2013 NI

28/10/2013 Fruit juices and fruit nectars, England Regulations - draft 2013 E

31/10/2013 Contaminants in food, England Regulations 2013 E

31/10/2013 Food additives, flavourings, enzymes and extraction solvents, England Regulations 2013 E

TBC Animal health and welfare Act 2013 I TBC Fish labelling, England Regulations 2012 E

Published by: Barbour, UBM Live, 1st Floor, Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 9UY tel: +44 (0) 845 7114111 e-mail: [email protected]

Parliamentary copyright material reproduced under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

The Briefing is published weekly via e-mail. All reasonable care is taken in the preparation of each edition from reliable sources of information, but no guarantee is expressed or implied as to its accuracy.

© copyright UBM Information LTD – company number 370721 Registered office: Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 9UY

You are receiving the Briefing as part of your subscription to the Barbour web service.