1. Imported food restrictions and what they mean for businesses 09/06/2016 Alex Schofield Food Standards Agency

2. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Contents What are the legal requirements for importing fresh produce into the UK? What does this mean for businesses? Why are some perishable foods subject to restriction? General update on food safety and its enforcement at UK borders And… a dedicated Q and A session

3. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Import policies every fresh produce importer must know EC Regulation No 669/2009 EC Regulation No 884/2014 EC Regulation No 885/2014 EC Regulation No 852/2004 (hygiene) EC Regulation No 882/2004 (organisation of border enforcement) OFFC Regulations 2009 Additional safeguard measures There are other restrictions for GMO, radiation ……

4. © 2015 Food Standards Agency What are official controls (882/2004)? Commonly known as documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks. Official controls are carried out on a risk basis with appropriate frequency Regulatory checks carried out by competent authorities in Member States to monitor compliance. Checks include inspections, audits, surveillance, sampling and analysis

5. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Risk Assessment at the border

6. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Documentary checks Commercial documents accompanying the consignment must reflect the information given in the CED and the customs declaration. Commercial documents include the invoice, airway bills, ship manifests, phytosanitary certificates, certificate of origin of the goods, results of lab tests and health certificates. The information on these documents is assessed by authorised officers as a documentary check on the food. It is requirement to complete the CED for high risk FNAO on TRACES.

7. © 2015 Food Standards Agency What is a CED? CED is required to accompany high risk consignments. Part I is completed by the food business operator and is required one working day in advance of the consignment arriving. Part II and III is completed by the competent authority at the DPE.

8. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Common Entry Document Annex 1 part 1

9. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Common Entry Document Annex 1 part 2

10. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Identity checks The inspection of the consignment Checks container seals Packaging of the goods Labelling and health marking Verifies the documentary check

11. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Physical checks Packaging will be opened and product examined Samples may be taken for a laboratory assessment The frequency of physical checks range from 10%, 20%, 50% and 100% depending on the imported food.

12. © 2015 Food Standards Agency How are sampling frequencies decided?

13. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Restricted foods from India Okra – 20% - pesticide residues 885/2014 Curry Leaves – 20% - pesticide residues 885/2014 Sesame seeds – 20% - salmonella669/2009 Groundnuts – 20% - Aflatoxins884/2014 Peanut butter – 20% - Aflatoxins884/2014 Specific conditions Betel leaves – salmonella2016/166

14. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Sesame seeds from India (669/2009) FVO audit December 2014 (2014-7170 – MR) Number of gaps in national system to assure food safety of exports. Indian exporters are not required to register with SHEFEXIL (CA) Consignments tested and found to be salmonella and e.coli free prior to shipment from India were found to be salmonella positive in EU. SHEFEXIL does not carry out controls on growers, processors or exporters of sesame seed and did not follow up on RASFF notifications

15. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Betel Leaves from India (2016/166) Prior notification through part 1 of the CED Accompanied by results and sampling undertaken by CA in India Accompanied by a health certificate An identification code needs to be on these documents and on each individual packaging form of the consignment Must enter via a DPE where its subject to a documentary, an identity and a physical check.

16. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Restricted foods from China Chinese broccoli – 50% - pesticide residues669/2009 Tea (flavoured/unflavoured) – 10% - pesticide residues669/2009 Groundnuts – 20% - Aflatoxins884/2014 Peanut butter – 20% - Aflatoxins884/2014 Specific conditions Plastic Kitchenware 284/2011

17. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Tea from China (669/2009) FVO Audit October 2013 (2013-6694 – MR) Farmers have used unauthorised plant protection products in tea cultivation (RASFFs) Illegal exports and transhipments through other countries (RASFFs) Analytical scope of pre-exporting analyses covers 9-13 pesticides – there are 600 different pesticides on the market in China. Limited scope and reliability of pre-export tests.

18. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Non-compliance Officer has final decision on whether the consignment meets the import conditions set out in law. Normally, you or your agent will be advised informally of the officers’ findings and the options available. Served a legal notice. Reasons for rejection and the actions that you may take. Re-export Destruction Remedial action or use of the consignment for another purpose in some permitted cases RASFF may be raised across Europe and actions taken reported

19. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Options for the importer Re-dispatched outside of the EU Possible when the consignment poses no risk to public or animal health. Documents and certificates will be marked as invalid. The consignment must be re-dispatched outside of the European Union from the same port within 60 days. Destroying rejected consignments Incineration or an approved disposal facility Appeal Appeal decision within one month and lodge with magistrate’s court. If appeal fails, you may take your complaint to the Crown Court.

20. © 2015 Food Standards Agency The Early Warning System Daily analysis of the EU Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF) data Horizon scanning Monthly meetings to consider emerging issues Mailshot to Port Health Authorities / Inland Local Authorities / Food Business Trade Bodies and Operators

21. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Early detection of: Chloramphenicol (prohibited substance) in enzyme preparation from India – effective from 1 April 2014 Pesticide residues in Dragon fruit from Vietnam – effective from 1 October 2014 under 669/2009 Positive feedback from ports – EWS has enabled better targeted enforcement UK uses this to prepare negotiations with other Member States Impact

22. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Food.gov.uk

23. © 2015 Food Standards Agency General food safety law and imported food General Food Safety Act 1990 EC Regulation No 178/2002 Food Hygiene EC Regulation No 852/2004 Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 Statutory Instruments EU wide legislation Underpinning framework European and domestic Food hygiene policy Food Safety Act 1990 EC Regulation No 178/2002 EC Regulation No 852/2004 Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations (England) 2013 (and as amended 2014)

24. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Food Safety Act 1990 – Main Provisions Business perspective: Section 9 gives Authorised Officers powers to inspect, seize and condemn food suspected of not complying with food safety requirements. Section 14 makes it an offence to sell food which is not of the 'nature or substance or quality' demanded by the purchaser. Section 20 gives a defence where the offence is due to the act of another person, and allows enforcement authorities to prosecute that other person. Section 21 gives a defence if defendants can prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence. Enforcement perspective: Section 32 sets out authorised officer powers to enter premises and explains what they can do while on premises to enforce the Act. It makes unauthorised disclosure of information obtained when using such powers an offence.

25. © 2015 Food Standards Agency EC Regulation No 852/2004 Under this legislation, Article 1 (a) - Primary responsibility for food safety rests with the Food Business Operator. Article 1 (g) - Imported foods should be of at least the same hygiene standard as food produced in the Community or are of an equivalent standard. Chapter IV of Annex II: containers used for transporting foodstuffs are to be kept clean and maintained in good repair and condition to protect food from contamination. containers used for transporting anything in addition to foodstuffs or for transporting different foodstuffs at the same time, there is, where necessary, to be effective separation of products.

26. © 2015 Food Standards Agency EC Regulation No 178/2002 Articles 14, 18 and 19 cover food safety, traceability and the need to notify, withdraw and/or recall products not meeting food safety requirements. Article 14 (outlines Food safety requirements) Article 18 (outlines traceability requirements) Article 19 (outlines the withdrawal, recall and notification procedure) Consultation in July 2005. European Commission guidance was resulting in disproportionate costs to the food industry. Amended national guidance following the consultation. European guidance classifies traceability in two categories, - legal requirements and best practice. Some best practices could result in additional costs to food industry. The new FSA guidance notes have been developed to address this. This approach (and new guidance notes) has been agreed with the European Commission.

27. © 2015 Food Standards Agency EC Regulation No 178/2002 Article 14 Prohibits food being placed on the market if it is unsafe. It is deemed to be unsafe if it is considered to be: a) injurious to health; or b) unfit for human consumption. Under Article 14 (5), food can be rendered unfit for human consumption by reason of contamination: In determining whether any food is unfit for human consumption, regard shall be had to whether the food is unacceptable for human consumption according to its intended use, for reasons of contamination, whether by extraneous matter or otherwise, or through putrefaction, deterioration or decay. Article 14(6) provides that if part of a batch, lot or consignment is unsafe, then the whole batch must also be considered unsafe unless a detailed assessment shows that there is no evidence for this. Unsafe food is subject to the withdrawal, recall and notification requirements of Article 19.

28. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Cost of withdrawals Sudan I – banned food dye [red] in chilli powder, pizza and table sauces 580 products from various companies withdrawn from sale between 2003-2005. Cost UK food industry £100m ($145m) with related products also having been shipped to India and Canada. - Sudan I Review July 2007

29. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Cost of withdrawals Dioxins in Irish Pork and beef – international recall of Irish meat products 2008 Animal feed had been polluted with dioxins which accumulated in pork, exceeding the recommended limit 200 times. Irish meat industry at time exported approximately 50% of all pork products. Cost taxpayers in excess of €100 million Contingency supplies, the costs of lost business, damage to reputations. - Irish Dioxins incident Review December 2009

30. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Role of government with clandestines and food Wider government public health services Informing businesses when clandestines have been detected amongst food consignments. Prosecuting food businesses committing offences (e.g. placing food in contravention to Article 14 of EC Regulation No 178/2002). Joining up with other specialist government services to provide single coherent advice. Providing advice to food businesses. Working with stakeholders to improve. FSA Role Clandestine detections in food are treated as Food Incidents. Manage as Food Incidents. Develop feedback loops with industry/trade bodies and hauliers (and other stakeholders). Effective policymaking should help compliant food businesses to thrive.

31. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Scenario A consignment of dried fruits from Turkey. Following a thermal image check (PMMWI) of your vehicle, illegal clandestine entrants have been found in the trailer. Most protective packaging remains intact but discarded clothing, crushed boxes and water bottles have been found next to the food. Some (but not all) of the pallets are visibly damaged and have been opened. From a food safety perspective, what actions should you take as the haulier?

32. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Points for this scenario Compliant with food law? If the food is proven safe, no offence is committed. If any food is found to be unfit for human consumption or injurious to health, there will be one or more offences. Considering the food business’s knowledge (either haulier or consignee), it would be difficult to run a successful due diligence defence against a prosecuting enforcement authority. The haulier may have taken reasonable precautions but in the circumstances, it is unlikely that the court would consider it reasonable for the consignee to rely on checks carried out by the haulier if clandestines were detected during border checks.

33. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Risk assessment and freight security – common hiding places Lorries are only as secure as their weakest point. What steps have been taken to secure ALL of these common hiding places ? Build a credible dataset on these checks Tankers, soft sided or hard sided vehicles and refrigerated trailers – principles or risk assessment and vehicle security remain the same.

34. © 2015 Food Standards Agency If subsequently destroyed Food business (haulier/consignee) to pay the destruction costs. Keep a record and capture information on the case. Update or keep a list of clandestine checks on a company vehicle safety checklist. Note vulnerable areas or review vehicle security. Speak to their trade body, is guidance available for members? Or does the body hold a database?

35. © 2015 Food Standards Agency If subsequently placed on the market What checks did the company take to check the food was safe despite clandestine detection? [to demonstrate due diligence] Local Authority to decide what offences under food law have been committed. Subsequently who to prosecute – haulier, consignee or both. If the haulier importing the food is independent from the business receiving the consignment in the UK, then the haulier itself is a food business and potentially liable for the offence (because the transaction from haulier to consignee is a placing on the market for the purposes of EC Regulation No 178/2002). As the consignee, it would not be reasonable, in these circumstances, to rely on checks by the haulier before placing food on the market.

36. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Recommended guidance Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2996/made/data.pdf Guidance Notes for Food Business Operators on Food Safety, Traceability, Product Withdrawal and Recall (EC Regulation No 178/2002) http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/fsa1782002guidance.pdf Guidance document on the implementation of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/guidance_doc_852-2004_en.pdf

37. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Future

38. © 2015 Food Standards Agency Q and A Imported.Food@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Imported.Food@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Alex Schofield Senior Policy Advisor Food Standards Agency Alexander.schofield@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk