One up, one down does not go far enough, warns food lawyer

Manufacturers have been urged by a food lawyer to go much further than they are legally required in tracing their ingredients.

The warning follows the Sudan 1 and Para Red contamination incidents last year, which resulted in the recall of more than 500 products and cost the food industry hundreds of millions of pounds.

Speaking at a conference on risk and continuity planning organised by Food Manufacture​, Richard Matthews, head of product liability at Eversheds law firm, said: "Suppliers need to be more proactive and look farther up the supply chain."

But he also warned against "the flurry of e-mails speculating on the causes" that tend to accompany such incidents. If not protected by privilege, these could lead to evidence of a "smoking gun", he said.

"This type of document can be very prejudicial when it ends up in the hands of a regulator."

A year ago, the General Food Law Regulation requiring manufacturers to have 'one up, one down' traceability within their supply chain was introduced. Within a few months the food industry was rocked by numerous product recalls for foods using Worcestershire sauce made with contaminated chilli. The incident showed "a major breakdown in quality control in the supply chain", said Matthews.

Manufacturers could not rely on certification to show that ingredients were Sudan 1 free. They needed to physically check batches, especially when these were sourced outside the European Union, said Matthews. "You need an unambiguous specification and defined procedures for the storage and handling of ingredients."

Matthews also suggested that manufacturers should become more closely involved with the work of review panels set up by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the European Food Safety Authority if they wanted a more "practical and consultative approach" in dealing with incidents, such as Sudan 1 in the future.

He also advised manufacturers to pay more attention to contractual agreements with their suppliers and retailers covering future incidents. "Agreements are important if there is a major problem and you need something to fall back upon."

l Generic warnings on food labels, such as 'may contain nuts', might soon be dropped in favour of more detailed allergen advice under proposed guidance from the FSA.

Since November 2005 food manufacturers and retailers have been required to ensure all foods intentionally containing allergens carry details of them on the packet. However, the legislation said nothing about products where allergy-causing ingredients may have got in by accident, said Eversheds, and worried manufacturers had taken to putting generic warnings on their labels. The FSA had now proposed guidance on how and when to use such warnings.

Owen Warnock, partner at Eversheds, said: "Food manufacturers should welcome this guidance. Many worry about when to give a warning and when not. The proposed guidance will help build a common standard on the issue."