Food firms ‘suffer red tape allergen product recalls’

By Michael Stones

- Last updated on GMT

Food recalls have risen due to tougher new EU rules on allergen labelling
Food recalls have risen due to tougher new EU rules on allergen labelling

Related tags Food

UK food manufacturers are losing millions of pounds, due to a big rise in EU red tape concerning unreported allergens on food packaging forcing up product recalls, warns new research from law firm EMW.

The number of food and drink products being removed from shelves as a result of unreported allergens on packaging climbed by 60% last year, according to the research.

Last year 96 products were removed due to unreported allergens on pre-packed food labels, compared with 60 withdrawals in 2014. Unreported allergens on packaging was now the UK’s leading cause of food withdrawals, said the law firm.

“The research highlighted a growing pressure on food manufacturers to conform to rigorous EU food reporting standards,”​ said the firm.

Product destruction

Higher costs linked to product recalls included: transport and logistics, communications, product destruction, retailers and customer reimbursements and legal fees.

The EU’s Food Information for Consumers Regulation, which came into force in December 2014, had significantly “toughened up allergen labelling requirements” ​in pre-packaged products, said the firm.

The new regulation stated that allergens must be emphasised in the ingredients list. That had driven the increase in the number of products withdrawn.

Before the new legislation, manufacturers carrying out product risk assessments for allergens may have considered the amount of allergens in a product so small that the risk was negligible.

But now, supermarkets and other retailers, concerned about contravening EU laws, were “putting food items increasingly under the microscope”, ​which has led to a growing number of product removals.

EMW explains that the cost of food withdrawals can be hugely damaging to companies, with potential losses running into the hundreds of thousands.

EMW consultant Sebastian Calnan said: “Public scrutiny on food manufacturing has intensified greatly in recent years, often with good reason.

“However, the recent and seemingly heavy-handed crackdown on food manufacturers regarding allergen labelling has undoubtedly put a massive strain on the industry.

“With a large upswing in the number of food items being removed, food producers have to be extremely aware of the tough EU criteria to ensure they do not fall foul of the legislation and suffer from any subsequent losses to revenue.”

Product withdrawal a growing problem

Losing market share during a period of product withdrawal was a growing problem, said Calnan.

“Businesses increasingly have to put contingency strategies in place to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to allergen withdrawals, which in addition to the direct costs, can be extremely expensive and burdensome.”

In addition to direct costs, the indirect costs – such as the damage to brand loyalty and reputation, which can take years to develop – can be even more damaging.

Food and drink manufacturers may also suffer from the potential loss of customer loyalty, as long-term customers find alternative products during periods of withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the latest advice on how to avoid a damaging product recall will be one of the subjects under discussion at the Food Manufacture Group’s one-day food safety conference​ in London on Thursday October 13.

The costs of food and drink product recalls

Direct

• Transport and logistics

• Communications

• Product destruction

• Retailers and customer reimbursements

• Legal fees

Indirect

  • Damage to brand reputation
  • Lost sales
  • Loss of consumer loyalty

Related news

Show more

Related suppliers

2 comments

Well said David

Posted by Nigel Payne,

Hear hear, Mr Pickering. The best way to avoid recall or re-work costs in any industry is to get it right first time. That is a core principle behind quality systems. The severe consequences of getting it wrong should be uppermost in the mind. And as for money, how much does a corporate manslaughter trial cost?

Report abuse

Evidence of "red tape" costs

Posted by David Pickering,

Speaking as a regulator who deals with these regulations I would be really interested to see more evidence about the losses caused to the food industry. The regulations had a lead in period to allow changes to be made and I am somewhat puzzled by the statement about the "recent and heavy handed crackdown". I would be interested to find out who is carrying out this crackdown. The rules ask food producers to declare allergens that they know are in their product. I am not sure what risk assessment they need to carry out unless that is a reference to the cross contamination risk which is a different issue from the allergens you know(or should know) are in your product. FBOs can make use of Primary Authority Partnerships with local authorities to assist in ensuring compliance in as economic way as possible and BRDO exist to look at better regulation so why not liaise with them as well. I am as keen as anyone to remove unnecessary legislation and enforce existing law in the best way we can for businesses and consumers but can we have the discussion informed by good data. Whilst it could be argued that the allergen rules could be better for many people who have allergies they are now in a more informed place than they were-for FBOs the need to know more about allergenic ingredients could be regarded as being part of the process of knowing what you put into your food and as it can prevent illness and even death then it is an important issue. If the article is really about costs of recall then should we concentrate on steps we can take to reduce the need for them rather than go for the slightly unhelpful "red tape" headline? It is a different debate if the article is saying that allergen labelling is unnecessary.

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Jobs

View more

Webinars

PRODUCTS & SERVICES