FSA joins call to send traceability rules back to the drawing board

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have called for the European Commission (EC) to revise its guidance on the traceability and product recall clauses of the General Food Law EC178/2002 or “wipe the slate clean and start all over again”

The BRC’s head of technical services Kevin Swoffer said: “We have major concerns with respect to EC178/2002, which came into force on January 1. It just isn’t clear or meaningful.”

The FSA’s director of enforcement David Statham said: “The EC needs to get its act together to ensure that traceability and recall legislation is interpreted consistently across all member states, because at the moment, we’re not operating on a level playing field.”

The legislation had major flaws, Swoffer told a Reading Scientific Services seminar on traceability last month.

“For a start, there is no legal requirement in the regulation for internal traceability [linking raw materials to finished products leaving the factory], although it’s difficult to see how you could comply with other clauses in the legislation without it.”

There was also a lack of clarity about the meaning of “on demand” with regard to the timescale for providing authorities with traceability information and confusion over what documentation was required, he said.

“There is also no requirement for retailers to keep records of whom they sell products to, which can cause problems if they end up back in the distribution system,” said Swoffer. “If a customer buys mayonnaise from a retailer and then sells it on to someone who uses it to make and sell sandwiches, for example, traceability has been lost.”

The Sudan 1 incident, to which European countries all responded differently, with some issuing a blanket public recall and others carrying out more limited withdrawals, also indicated a need for clearer guidance, he added.

“As members of the incidents task force [set up by the FSA after the Sudan 1 recall], we have been pressing for improved communication, clearer lines of responsibility, and the need to carry out recalls and withdrawals on the basis of true risk assessment.

“There is also confusion as to whether the responsibility to inform the authorities of a suspected problem lies with the brand owner or with the company that makes the product for the brand owner.”

The taskforce will report in November or December.