Chronicles of Safety: Evolution of laws UK Food Standards

Garry Warhurst travels through time to review the key milestones in food safety regulations and provides an overview of how the current food safety legislation came about.

Whilst celebrating the 60^th anniversary of the IFST, it feels like a good time to look back on what has changed over these past 60 years within food safety legislation and what have been some of the major incidents within this time that have altered the food safety landscape. Embark on a time-travel journey from 1964 to the present and beyond to uncover the roots of today's essential food safety laws.

Before we travel to 1964 and look at the current status quo, we need to go back to the very beginning of food safety law and see how it all began. The Assize of Bread and Ale Act 1266 is often referenced as the first food safety legislation in the UK. This was brought in to mitigate fluctuations in wheat prices and moved the sale of bread from by loaf to by a fixed price. This also brought in the first punishments for breaching food law through fines and the use of the pillory. As a result, bakers would intentionally include a slightly larger portion of bread on the scale to guarantee compliance with the law, giving rise to the term ‘a baker's dozen’, signifying 13 items instead of the standard 12. This law was in place for nearly 600 years and not updated until the Bread Acts of 1822 and 1836 which stipulated that loaves are to be sold by the pound (16oz) and multiples thereof. To show how law can change through time, let's see what happens next. During the Second World War, bakers were instructed to use smaller 14oz (just under 400g) tins to save on flour. This practice persisted until 1977 when it underwent a change to 400g, aligning with the UK's transition to the metric system. It was only in 2008 that the European Union (EU) changed the law to allow bakeries to make bread at any weight.

However, it was not until scientific inventions allowed the discovery of bacteria and to establish adulteration, that food legislation started to really come in. The 2013 UK horsemeat scandal marked a pivotal moment in food industry fraud. However, the practice of substituting one product for another, often for cost savings, precedes this incident. Back to the millers and bakers, The Making of Bread Act 1757 detailed the punishments for people who adulterated meal, flour and bread with alum lime, chalk, and powdered bones to keep the bread white.

This resulted in the passing of the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act 1860 and the appointment of the Public Analysts. However, this Act was not successful as the meaning of adulteration in this case meant ‘the mixing of other substances with food’ and was not defined by the Act. This was updated in 1872 and then again in 1875 to the Sales of Food and Drugs Act 1875¹. It is within this act that we first see the phases which are still present within The Food Safety Act 1990 today of the prohibition of the sale of food or drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and quality demanded by the customer. The due diligence defence to take all reasonable precautions is also present as it states that: ‘Provided that no person shall be liable to be convicted […]in respect of the sale of any article of food, or of any drug, if he shows to the satisfaction of the justice or court[…]that he did not know of the article of food or drug sold by him being so mixed, coloured, stained or powdered,[…] and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained that knowledge.’³

Here is when we start to see what today we recognise as fundamental articles of our food safety laws.

Food poisoning was first identified as a public health issue in the 19^th century, with Salmonella being identified as a food poisoner in 1885 following an outbreak caused by the consumption of the flesh of an emergency-slaughtered cow⁴. In 1906 – 1907, Mary Mallon (aka ‘Typhoid Mary’) was the first known case of a healthy carrier of Salmonella typhi in the US and spread the disease through her job as a domestic cook⁵. By the early 1900's, microbiologists have concluded that the most likely means of onward transmission among humans and animals was a carrier state in an individual resulting from a previous infection, as well as contamination from the faecal discharge of sick and infected individuals⁴.

Around the same time, Tuberculosis (TB) was being highlighted as the single greatest cause of death and disability in the 1800's and in 1882, the German microbiologist Robert Koch discovered tubercle bacillus (Mycobacterium bovis being the bovine strain which was transmissible to humans) and linked this to raw milk. Within 1,420 post mortems of children under 12 in the 1880's, 30% had TB and in 1930, 58.3% of a sample of London children tested positive to the tuberculin test for detecting tuberculosis⁶. The link to poor cattle housing being responsible for the dirty and disease milk was known in the late 19^th century and The Dairies, Cowshed and Milk Shops Orders 1879 and 1885 empowered the local authorities to gradually improve the conditions in which the cattle were housed. However, it was not until the Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations 1925 that the law went beyond the slaughter and compensation of diseased animals to control TB⁶.

From these events, the need for good personal hygiene, handwashing and that toilets should be located away from food preparation areas came into law through the regulations linked to the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act 1907, including the Public Health (Prevention of Contamination of Food) (Belfast) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1933 which details that no sanitary convenience shall be in the room ‘in which food is prepared for sale[…], or shall communicate directly therewith[…])⁷ and The Public Health (Prevention of Contamination of Food) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1948 which details the need for the people involved with the food handling to be clean and for hand wash basins to be provided where practicable with an adequate supply of hot and cold water, soap and clean towels⁸.

Botulism (from Clostridium botulinum) is one of the most serious food-borne poisonings and the first case of an outbreak in the UK was in 1922 at the Loch Maree Hotel when 8 people died from eating contaminated duck pate. A public inquiry prompted a change in packaging laws for preserved foods, facilitating easier origin identification. However, the legal requirement to report food poisoning only came about through the Food and Drugs Act. 1938¹.

HACCP fundamentally changed food safety around the world as prior to this, safety was confirmed through end-product testing which is destructive rather than having safety built into every stage of the process. In theory, to confirm that the product is microbiological and chemically safe, 100% testing would need to be completed on a batch. This, of course, is impractical. Therefore, the HACCP principles allow the manufacturer to identify hazards and install validated control systems (e.g. cooking at 90°C for 10 mins as a clostridium cook) which are known to ensure safe food if the limits are achieved.

It is difficult to calculate the effect of HACCP stopping food safety incidents as at the same time this was coming in, the ability to highlight issues increased. However, it is fair to say that HACCP has reduced costs and savings in product which would have otherwise been tested and ensures that our food continues to be manufactured to appropriate standards across the world.

The UK joined the EU in 1973 and this resulted in the EU setting directives which the UK had to comply with, such as 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. These are then transferred into UK law, as in this case The Food Hygiene Regulations 2006. This allowed for free trade between all EU states. However, with no limit set on the amount of food which can be imported, any controls which the UK wished to put in place to limit this were not allowed until the UK left the EU on 31^st January 2020.

The Food Safety Act 1990 repealed The Food Act 1984 and is still the umbrella act which companies would be prosecuted under if there was an offence committed today. The Regulations which come from this detail the controls which need to be in place, like The General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 which has been previously detailed.

However, there have been more food safety incidents through this period which have resulted in major changes to the structure of how food safety is governed in the UK. These are shown in table 1.

Today we see allergen-free products as standard fare on the supermarket shelves. This, along with the allergen labelling within the ingredient list, allows people with food allergies to be confident in what they are eating. However, this was not always the case, and it is only 20 years ago when allergen labelling became a legal requirement with the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 2004 which detailed 12 allergens - lupin and molluscs were added to the original 12 via the Food Labelling (Declaration of Allergens) Regulations 2008 - which need to be highlighted as being contained within the product.

However, prior to this, allergens were only covered either through voluntary declarations, retailer codes of practices or industry standards. There was a parliamentary debate on nut allergies on 24^th June 1999 which highlighted the need for better labelling and controls around nuts in the catering industry. The focus here was around raising awareness, which was started in 1997¹³. An example of early standard implementation of allergen controls is within the British Retail Consortium (BRC) food safety standard, issue 2 (issued in 2000), it details only the following on allergen control¹⁴:

‘Particular consideration shall be given to the avoidance of cross-contamination by ingredients which would constitute a safety issue, e.g. peanuts…’

Within the Food Safety Act 1990, section 7 details that it is an offence to render food injurious to health and this would cover undeclared allergens within food products. So why did it take so long to come into force? This is partly due to lack of knowledge about allergens at the time and the use of alibi labelling of ‘may contain nuts’ being used widely in the industry during the mid-1990's through to the early 2000's. Nuts, especially peanuts, were known to cause allergic reactions and deaths, but not much was known of the other allergens during this period. The other main issue was the EU legislation 2000/13/EU on the Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of foodstuffs, as it detailed under paragraph 8(a) that a compound ingredient which constitutes less than 25% of the finished product does not need to be listed in the ingredient list, which would have covered most allergenic ingredients.

Then in 2011, the EU 1169/2011 Regulations came into force, and this became the Food Information Regulations 2014 (FIR) in the UK, and this is still the main piece of legislation which covers allergen labelling. This changed the law regarding alibi labelling and was actively encouraging manufacturers to have controls in place for handling allergens rather than relying on alibi labelling. Alibi labelling has been recently covered in the December 2023 issue of FST.

In 2016, Natasha Ednan-Laperouse tragically died after eating a contaminated sandwich from a Pret-a-Manger branch in Heathrow Airport. Her family campaigned to change the law so that all Prepacked for Direct Sale (PPDS) foods are required to have allergen labelling present. This became law through The Food Information (Amendment) Regulations 2019 which came into force on 1^st October 2021.

In 2017, Owen Carey tragically died after eating a burger contaminated with buttermilk from Byron Burger, even after he had explained his allergies to the waiting staff and was assured that they could manage this. There was also no information on the menu to let him know that there would be an issue with his choice of food. Owen's family are campaigning to have the law updated around how allergen information is displayed in restaurants and the training provided to staff. On 15^th May 2023, there was a parliamentary petition debate around this which is looking to update Regulation 5 of the FIR from the current regulation that information can be supplied in any means, to have to be in writing. However, at the time of writing, the outcomes from the government are awaited.

With the tragic deaths of Natasha and Owen, the need for further controls around allergens where the food is prepared in the same location as sale continue to be highlighted 27 years after the initial awareness campaigns.

Predicting food safety legislation in 2084 is challenging due to anticipated shifts in food production caused by climate migration and impact. New regulations will likely be necessary for lab-grown meat and alternative protein sources, such as insects, as they gain commercial traction. Post-COVID-19, expect updates to legislation addressing zoonosis risks and the transfer of animal diseases to humans. Expect enhanced allergen controls, potentially overseen by a government-appointed ‘Allergen Tzar,’ in the coming years. Anticipate the addition of new allergens, like kiwi, to the existing list of 14 major allergens. humans. With the need to provide customers with more information around the climate impact of the products we consume, eco labelling legislation for food products is likely to come in within the next 10 years.