The recent case of Asda Stores Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007,] concerned the interpretation of a number of provisions in the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (”the Regulations”), which implemented Council Directive (EC) 93/43.
The claimant was charged with a number of offences pursuant to the Regulations. The charges were brought following the sighting by a customer of a mouse chewing on a piece of confectionery and the subsequent sighting by environmental health officers of mouse droppings in the claimant’s premises. The environmental health officers had been dispatched by Wandsworth London Borough Council.
At the South Western Magistrates’ Court, the claimant made a submission of ‘double charging’ in respect of charges 3 and 4, which is when two charges against a party are effectively the same. Wansdworth London Borough Council, in laying charge 3, alleged that the claimant had failed to ensure adequate procedures were in place so that pests were controlled. In laying charge 4 they alleged that the claimant had failed to minimise the risk of contamination from the activities of such pests. The court rejected the submission, and the claimant pleaded guilty to the charges.
The matter was thereafter committed to the Crown Court for sentencing. Sentencing was then adjourned, pending the outcome of the claimant’s instant appeal. The appeal is the subject matter of this case.
The issue which fell to be considered at appeal was whether the words in Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Schedule 1 to the Regulations created separate offences, or whether those words created one offence. If the words were held to have created one offence the claimant would be deemed to have been the subject of double charging, and accordingly put at risk of being punished twice for effectively the same offence.
Regulation 4 of the Regulations, so far as relevant, provides:
‘(1)… A proprietor of a food business shall ensure that any of the following operations, namely, the preparation, processing, manufacturing, packaging, storing, transportation, distribution, handling and offering for sale or supply, of food are carried out in a hygienic way. (2) A proprietor of a food business shall ensure that… (d) the requirements set out in Chapters IV to X of Schedule 1 are complied with as respects that business’.
Regulation 6 provides:
‘(1)… If any person contravenes regulation 4 (including any provision of Schedule 1) or 5, he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations. (2) Any person guilty of an offence against these Regulations shall be liable… (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both’.
Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Schedule 1 to the Regulations provides:
‘All food which is handled, stored, packaged, displayed and transported, shall be protected against any contamination likely to render the food unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect it to be consumed in that state. In particular, food must be so placed and/or protected as to minimize any risk of contamination. Adequate procedures must be in place to ensure pests are controlled’.
The appeal was dismissed. The court held that:-
- On its true construction, Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Schedule 1 to the Regulations created more than one offence.
- Council Directive (EC) 93/43 which had been implemented by the Regulations had been directly transposed into domestic legislation.
- No modification of the wording had occurred and therefore that had been the cause of the unusual drafting style of Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.
- Furthermore, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Chapter I of Schedule 1 to the Regulations demonstrated that a single paragraph could contain more that one offence.
- In this case, the justices had therefore been correct to conclude that the claimant had not been subjected to ‘double charging’. It was held that charge 3 related to the single incident of the mouse found in the confectionery and charge 4 related to the inadequacy of procedures which might have spanned a much longer period of time.
If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com
Saturday, June 12th, 2010 | Author:
admin
When a person buys a pet, one of the often overlooked questions they forget or fail to ask themselves is, “What will I feed my pet?” Going to a pet food store, this can seem to be an overwhelming dilemma. With products ranging multiple rows, it’s hard to separate the good from the bad and the truth from the fluff. When you read a label however, the product name gives you the first answers to you question of “What’s in this one?”
The AAFCO (Association Of American Feed Control Officials) gives four very distinctive rules on what it takes to label dog food and pet food in general. What this article hopes to accomplish is to make you, the reader and pet owner, aware of these rules and most importantly to inform you that what you read may not always be so cut and dry.
95% Rule
This is a rule specifically geared toward foods consisting of mostly poultry, meat, or fish. It’s mostly found in wet dog food (canned food). A common label may read “Beef for dogs,” “Chicken for Dogs,” “Trout for Cats.” In order to use this labeling, the product must contain 95% of this ingredient minus the water used for processing. Counting the water, this number lowers to at least 70% of this ingredient. This is the most accurate labeling and the easiest to interpret. This means that a food named, for example “Chicken and Liver Dog Food” must consist of 95% Chicken and Liver” The most dense ingredient must be named first and then the secondary ingredient. This rule only applies to meat and animal products by the way, so if it contains rice like in “Beef and Rice Dog Food” this would be mislabeled unless the food contained 95% Beef.
25% Rule
This rule applies to foods that have between 25% and 95% of the named ingredient. In order to name this food, an additional descriptive word must be added to the labeling. “Beef Dog Food” which is under 95% beef must now be labeled something like “Beef Dinner for Dogs” Similar descriptive words would include “Formula,” “Meal,” “Entree” and so on. In this instance, the named ingredient may be leaped and no longer the “Main Ingredient” When finding this type of food it is always smart to just read the label and find out what is more prevalent in the food then the ingredient you’re seeking. This shows you that there is a lot of room for something to be considered a “Dinner or Formula.” It’s not nearly as cut and dry.
3% Rule
That’s right, there’s a 3% rule. This rule applies to foods that implement the famous “with” label. Maybe you’ve seen them. “Dog Food with Beef,” “Dog food with Chicken,” etc. These foods are stating that the food contains 3% or greater of the ingredient. The only different word is “with” and all of the sudden the dog food can mean something completely different than you were thinking. In these cases, once again, make sure you read the label. There’s no telling what is more prevalent in this food than the target ingredient.
The Flavor Rule
This rule is the most vague of them all. It means that as long as there are traceable amounts of the ingredient you are targeting, it can be included in the product name as long as the word flavored is sprinkled in. Examples include “Beef Flavored Dog Food” or “Dog Food with Chicken Flavoring” There may be less that 1% of Beef or Chicken in these meals but the amount is traceable, meaning there is “some” I would stay completely away from these. They are garbage!
