Over the last few months the catering/food service industry has been getting in a major lather over the imminent (2014) implementation of regulations requiring them to declare the presence of major allergens in their products – bringing them into line with the retail trade which has had to do so for some years now.
However, while declaring the presence of an allergen on your pack is relatively easy, doing so when there are no packs is a great deal more difficult – which is why the regulators have shied away from it for so long. However, they have finally bitten the bullet and yesterday (7th November) DEFRA sent out the proposed regulations for ‘consultation’. Which means that we can all have our say and, conceivably, if any of us have anything useful to say, they may take it on board.
The relevant bit of the document is section 5:
Foods that are not prepacked etc. containing an allergenic substance or product etc.
5.—(1) A food business operator who offers for sale a relevant food to which this regulation applies may provide the particulars specified in Article 9(1)(c) in relation to that food in any manner that they choose, including, subject to paragraph (3), orally.
(2) This regulation applies to a relevant food that is offered for sale to the final consumer or to a mass caterer otherwise than by means of distance communication and that is—
(a) not prepacked;
(b) packed on the operator’s premises at the consumer’s request; or
(c) prepacked for direct sale.
(3) Where a food business operator intends to provide the particulars specified in Article 9(1)(c) relating to a relevant food orally, they must indicate that details of the Annex II substance or product used as an ingredient or processing aid in the manufacture or preparation of the food, or derived from such a substance or product, can be obtained by asking a member of staff.
(4) The indication mentioned in paragraph (3) must be given—
(a) on a label attached to the food; or
(b) on a notice, menu, ticket or label that is readily discernible by an intending purchaser at the place where they choose that food.
(5) In relation to a relevant food to which this regulation applies, the Article 9(1)(c) particulars provided by a food business operator must be provided with a clear reference to the name of the substance or product listed in Annex II.
(6) In this regulation “relevant food” means a food in which an ingredient or processing aid listed in Annex II, or derived from a substance or product listed in Annex II, has been used in its manufacture or preparation and that is still present in the finished product (even if in an altered form).
If you can cut through the obfuscating jargon what this means is that:
1. Anyone selling food that is not pre-packed in a retail pack e.g. a caterer, restaurant, pub, café, market stall etc etc – must provide information about the *’major’ allergens in the food that they are selling.
2. They can do so:
a. Orally – by telling you about it
b. Or any other way they want to – presumably by printing it on an information sheet or a menu, putting it on their website (inconvenient when you are already trying to order your meal), developing an app……?
The seriously dodgy bit about this, as anyone who has tried eating out with an allergy will realise immediately, is the ‘orally’. OK, the restaurant or whatever may now be obliged to ‘tell’ you about any allergens in any of their dishes – and even have to put up a notice telling you that they have to tell you – but what chance is there that they will tell you accurately?
Because of the nature of the catering trade, serving staff are 95% foreign (often with a poor grasp of English), temporary and poorly trained in basic food safety let alone the complexities of allergy. Even if they are willing, the chances of them actually getting the facts about allergens in the foods they are serving right are often vanishingly small.
Yes, it is certainly good news that allergen information on non-pre-packed food is going to have to be available but from the allergy sufferer’s point of view, they would be far better off if the outlet concerned had to provide them with a printed list of ingredients, highlighting the major allergens, on request – not just ‘tell them’ about the allergens. When waiters in up-market restaurants that pride themselves on offering gluten-free alternatives can still offer a coeliac a ‘safe’ dish because it has no butter in it – what hope in Joe’s Caff or down the Old Dog and Duck?
So, since we have an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations, can I suggest that as many of you as possible actually do so. Please welcome the arrival of the regulations but ask the regulators to tighten up No. 5 (1) to read:
A food business operator who offers for sale a relevant food to which this regulation applies should provide the particulars specified in Article 9(1)(c) in relation to that food in a written format that allows the customer to study the ingredients of the food product and be sure that the information about allergens that they are being given is reliable. This information should NOT be conveyed orally.
The full text of the consultation is to be found on the DEFRA site here , more general information on the DEFRA site here, where you will also find the address for responses if you wish to write rather than email; if you wish to email, do so to labelling@defra.gsi.gov.uk
You might wish to quote this reference to make sure that your comment is attached to the right consultation!
Consultation on Food Information Regulations (FIR) 2013 – Draft SI (November 2012)
N.B. The full list of ‘major allergens’ mentioned above is to be found below – as is the text of the email that I have just sent to DEFRA.
Wine labelling
However, for any of you who are milk or egg allergic and have not caught up with the latest on that front, the good news is that since the last update in July 2012 the ‘following compulsory details must be visible although are not required to be within the same field of vision as the country of origin, bottler’s details, nominal volume and actual alcoholic strength:
• Lot Number
• Sulphur dioxide, eggs, milk
using one of the expressions in format “Contains….” shown in the guidance note issued by the European Commission in English eg
‘egg’, ‘egg protein’, ‘egg product’, ‘egg lysozyme’ or ‘egg albumin’
‘milk’, ‘milk products’, ‘milk casein’ or ‘milk protein’
At least you will be able to drink safely, when you go out on the town, even if you are not sure whether you will be able to eat safely!
* The major allergens (for the full list see the FSA website here)
Cereals
Crustaceans
Eggs
Fish
Peanuts
Soybeans
Milk
Nuts
Celery
Mustard
Sesame seeds
Sulphur dioxide
Lupin
Molluscs
Dear Sirs –
I completely agree regarding the conveying of allergy information orally. This could be a matter of life or death, for some individuals, and an additional burden of responsibility on waiting staff. And what if there are subsequent disputes? It has to be in print…
Thanks Michelle. We asked for all ingredients and not just the Annexe allergens to be identified clearly by staff on request by law. People need to avoid a wide range of ingredients and the match between the Annexe and (say) the UK population is far from perfect. I am also determined to get better compliance with the current (and new FIR) legibility of prepacked ingredients. Just have a look at a chocolate bar from one of our leading manufacturers! The law has required ingredients to be ‘clearly legible, easily visible and marked in a conspicuous place’ for years but shiny ingredients on shiny material, printed into a crease or under a fold, illegible even when magnified are very common. The prescribed ‘x’ height will help, but all these caterers mentioned above, non native speakers, allergic kids and others who struggle to find information will still be challenged and might give a high risk customer the wrong information.
You are sooooo right, Hazel, about these multilingual EU labeling panels. I simply cannot believe that the extra cost of packaging for just three or four countries/languages as opposed to 10 or 12 is seriously going to dent the profits of those manufacturers. And how can anyone pretend that the type is large enough to be legible? Do I not remember, back in the day, something about nothing smaller than 6 point? Where has that gone? I know I am getting older but I swear that much of this stuff is less than 6 point.
And likewise printing in pale colours on shiny backgrounds – indeed, printing in any colours on shiny background which catch the light and make it impossible to decipher the print.
Thank you for sending me the information about poor little Deja Hay – if will blog about it here so that I include some of your images.
Text sizes vary from font to font which is why the new Regulation requires a small ‘x’ size to be 1.2mm except on the very smallest packets. The greatest focus of UK retailers at present is that Contains boxes will become illegal. More than half of our prepacked food in the UK comes with retailer ‘own brand’ labelling, and much care is taken to ensure that the Contains box picks out all the key allergens, followed by any appropriate ‘may contain’ information. Another key factor is that a retailer brand PLUS a contains box together are code to the allergic consumer that an allergen risk assessment has been undertaken, and depending on the retailer, can more or less be trusted. This in turn gives more confidence to the high risk consumer. (As seen in the FSA funded Surrey study). After December 2014, we will have ‘one size fits all’ EU labelling with bolded allergens in the ingredients list but no contains boxes. The debate on ‘may contain’ continues, though there is a suspicion that these warnings will be regulated in the future, perhaps using thresholds yet to be decided. As previously mentioned, thousands of non allergic people read labels every day on behalf of allergic people (including caterers, carers, dinner ladies etc). They are less experienced and need really obvious labels.
Great article Michelle. I strongly agree with your recommendations for tightening up No 5. And with all the rest of it too. The onus should be on the manufacturer to make the ingredients easily legible, rather than on the consumer to contend with type which is not designed to be read at all. (Retailers frequently plonk labels on top of the lists of ingredients too, probably on the grounds that nobody can read them anyway!)
But what I wanted to say is would it be possible to highlight your proposed amendment to 5 (1) so it can be picked out of the article easily? It would be nice if people could find, copy and paste it into an email to DEFRA without too much hassle. It’s a really important amendment.
Thanks Sue – and I have just ‘bolded’ the whole quote so hopefully it will stand out a bit more.