The latest updates from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) signify a vital step towards modernising food regulation.
In collaboration with local councils and key stakeholders over the past two years, the FSA has developed proposals that emphasize a risk-based approach to food regulation. Following a 12-week consultation period earlier this year, the final text was published in August.
“This update helps ensure that local councils have a more flexible, risk-based approach to carry out their vital work in a way that’s both effective and sustainable. The changes we’ve made will strengthen the consistency of food law enforcement, support officer development and enhance consumer protection,” stated Rachel Cooper, director of strategy and regulatory compliance.
The updated Food Law Codes of Practice (Codes) and Practice Guidance apply to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, introducing a more adaptable, risk-based method for prioritizing initial official controls of new food businesses. This flexibility enables local councils to triage businesses upon registration.
What’s New?
The updates also facilitate greater use of alternative control methods, including remote assessments, allowing local councils to optimize resource allocation.
Additionally, the changes broaden the scope of professionals qualified to undertake specific activities. A new Food Standards Delivery model has been introduced in Wales, updating the regulations concerning food standards in establishments and implemented in England and Northern Ireland in 2023.
Concurrently, the FSA has rolled out a revised competency standard to ensure that officers conducting food safety checks are adequately trained and qualified.
Concerns Raised
Food safety professionals have expressed their views on social media regarding the implications of the new rules, with several voicing apprehensions about remote inspections and the use of unqualified officers.
“All for modernising how the profession works but remote inspections are a step too far. RI [remote inspections] will reduce the ability to observe on-site hygiene, structural issues and staff practices directly. It increases the risk of missing subtle visual or sensory cues that you pick up at a physical inspection. This will also reduce confidence in inspection outcomes if used without safeguards,” remarked Sandra Moore, a food hygiene expert from Hygenisys, on LinkedIn.
She also raised concerns about the already financially constrained local authorities acquiring new technology for these inspections.
Her continued: “With regards to using non-qualified officers, this makes a mockery of existing qualified officer competencies; would you knowingly have a non-qualified medical or legal person tend to your medical or legal needs? Would you knowingly get into a car with someone without a driving licence?”
“Reducing CPD requirements may undermine professional standards and credibility of official controls. Greater burden will be placed on managers to ensure that they are overseeing non-qualified staff properly, increasing stress and affecting their well-being and morale.”
“I can see this leading to mistakes or misjudgements in complex food safety cases. There has to be a re-think on this.”
“To my mind, these changes are another nail in the coffin for the profession.”
In response, food safety consultant David Worthington added: “I conducted RI during the pandemic for a global retailer but that was only because it was that or nothing. I can corroborate that I experienced all of the problems and limitations expressed in this post, so I would not condone their use as a substitute for physical on-site inspections where these are possible.”
However, it is noteworthy that remote inspections will primarily be utilized in lower-risk settings, and such technology is already in use across various industries, including shipping and farming.