2.  INTRODUCTION  FOOD SAFETY ACT 1990  SECTION 7  SECTION 8  SECTION 14  SECTION 15 INDEX

3. INTRODUCTION The safety of food is vital to all consumers and food businesses. Consumers must have confidence that the food they buy and eat, will do them no harm and that they are protected from fraud. Although food safety legislation affects everyone in the country, it is particularly relevant to anyone working in the production, processing, storage, distribution and sale of food, no matter how large or small the business.

4. FOOD SAFETY ACT 1990 The Food Safety Act 1990 is wide-ranging legislation on food safety and consumer protection in relation to food throughout Great Britain.

5. SECTION 7  If a person renders a food injurious to health :  by adding an article or substance to it;  using an article or substance as an ingredient in its preparation;  “taking away” any constituent from it; or  subjecting it to any other process or treatment. then they are guilty of an offence

6. CASE UNDER SECTION 7  Adding excessive amounts of sugar to a product aimed at diabetics could render the food injurious to health. The offence applies whether the act is deliberate or not

7. SECTION 8 ANY PERSON WHO SELLS FOOD WHICH IS :  UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION  CONTAMINATED OR  WHICH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH FOOD SAFTY REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE

8. CASE UNDER SECTION 8 CONTAMINATED BREAKFAST CEREAL  The Kellogg Company of Great Britain were fined £3,000 with costs of £1,600 at Bromley Magistrates Court on 30 October 1996. The case arose following a complaint by a customer when they found a sharp piece of metal in a packet of Kellogg's Frosties.

9. SECTION 14  ANY PERSON WHO SELLS TO THE PURCHASER’S PREJUDICE ANY FOOD WHICH IS NOT OF THE NATURE OR SUBSTANCE OR QUALITY DEMANDED BY THE PURCHASER SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE

10. CASE UNDER SECTION 14 EARWIG IN BOTTLE OF MILK Lord Rayleigh's Dairy of Hatfield Peveral, Essex pleaded guilty at Colchester Magistrate's Court on 15 th April 1996 to a charge of selling milk to the prejudice of the purchaser which was not of the substance demanded, in that it contained an earwig, contrary to Section 14 of the Food Safety Act. The company was fined £700 with costs of £300.

11. SECTION 15  This section says that any person who labels or advertises food in a way that falsely describes it, or labels, advertises or presents food in a way which misleads as to its nature, substance or quality, is guilty of an offence

12. CASE UNDER SECTION 15 Rio Trading Company was fined £4,000 in the Brighton Magistrates' Court on 9 November 1995 for selling products with misleading labels. On two different issues.

13. First issue, the company supplied a snack called a Buzz Bar to health food shops, which the packaging stated was covered in chocolate. But the 75p bar, which contained a natural stimulant called Guarana, was simply covered in a chocolate flavoured coating, not covered with chocolate as stated on the label for this, the firm was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Food Safety Act 1990. The firm was fined £2,500 for this offence.

14. Second issue, The firm also sold Guarana capsules, costing £3.99 for a box of 20, falsely labelled as a natural and potent nutrient. Were as the Guarana was derived from a South American ground-nut seed and is not a nutrient. As a result, the company was prosecuted under Section 15 in that they sold Guarana capsules which bore a label that falsely described Guarana as a nutrient when, in fact, it is not so. For this offence they were fined £1,500.