← Food Safety Matters
Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:00]
A
The presenting sponsor of Food Safety Matters is Egle Product Inspection, part of mettler Toledo since 2011 and specializing in advanced X ray inspection technologies including dual energy, photon counting and fat analysis technologies. By combining robust hygienically constructed machines with top of the line imaging software, Egle provides processors with turnkey solutions across a broad range of industry applications. You can learn more at@eaglepi.com. Hello everyone and welcome to Food Safety Matters, the podcast for food safety professionals. I'm Stacy Acheson, publisher of Food Safety magazine and I'm joined by my co host Adrienne Blum, our Editorial Director, and Bob Ferguson, President of Strategic Consulting. And in addition to the three of us, you'll also be hearing from today's featured interview guest, Chris McCarvey. And so Adrienne, do you want to share a little bit about our guest?
- [01:10]
B
Yeah. So today I'm talking with UK based regulatory attorney Chris McGarvey about key regulatory trends that are shaping food law in both the UK and the eu. And we're going to explore upcoming policy changes post Brexit regulatory dynamics and also some differences between regulatory approaches in food law in Europe and the US and we also discussed some regulatory policies for emerging food technologies and also how companies can use regulatory strategy traceability and compliance systems to strengthen their legal resilience and their market competitiveness. And I think it's a great window into food regulation in Europe and also some wider trends in food policy and innovation. So definitely don't miss this one.
- [01:57]
A
Yeah, that sounds like a lot of interesting stuff from very unique points of view, so I'm sure everyone will enjoy that. Here's an interesting segue, you guys. It's madness that it's almost the end of March and that means that the Food Safety Summit early bird discount is about to end even before March Madness ends here in the States, right? And to everyone, I hope your brackets work out for you. I went for some real upsets just for fun. I'll let you know if I win the BMP pool. And that is a long show for sure. Actually, last year I came in very close. Very I was like down to the Wire, which was weird. But anyway, back to business. You have until Tuesday, March 31st to save big when you register for Food Safety Magazine's Food Safety Summit being held May 11th through the 14th in easily accessible and affordable Rosemont, Illinois. So dear podcast listeners, you get to save an additional 20% when you use code FS Matters20 when you register. And we do hope that you're planning on joining us because we have so many great experiences lined up for our attendees this year. Did I mention that we're having a beer garden? Now that's really not the headline here, but it is fun and it is new and you can thank the sponsor QAD Red Zone when you pick up your beers. So in addition to Thursday's beer garden and all the great workshops, sessions and networking events, we want to be sure that you're aware the certification and certificate courses that kick off the Summit on Monday. And each, each and every one of these represents a unique in person opportunity for you. And it starts off with the so you're going to forgive me, I'm going to have to just tell you because I can't not tell you. So it gets to be a lot and I may try and do it fast. Bob's nodding at me and giving me encouragement like, it's okay, it's okay, just do it.
- [04:07]
C
I'm still thinking about the beer garden, so I'll try and catch up.
- [04:10]
A
O FSPCA Preventive Controls for Human Food Participant Course Version 2.0 led by Wanda Silva of Mississippi State University and Martin Bucknavage of Penn State Universities. These are two excellent instructors. So again, unique AI in food safety, ethical and efficient document writing led by Dr. Abby Snyder, Associate professor of Food science at Cornell, alongside her Cornell colleague Dr. Martin Wiedemann and Calvin Slaughter. See, I told you. Not every day you get that food fraud prevention workshop and certificate course led by a Summit favorite, Dr. John Spink of Michigan State University. Application of the Principles of Hazard Analysis beyond the Basics. And there's no one that can get you the beyond the basics of HACCP better than Sara Mortimer, former vice president and global subject matter expert at Walmart. Her book A Practical Approach is now now in its third edition. So you get to get this course straight from her. Did I say unique opportunities? Oh my God. So I want to make one note here that the certification courses have their own discounts. So if you get in there and you're like, well I can't because you can't use the hour code with the certification courses. But know this, they're still early bird rates for that. And there are savings on Summit registration connected with the certification courses for single day and then for the multi day courses for full. Summit registration is covered in that. I know it's a lot of detail, but I just wouldn't want anybody to get in there and feel that they were misled about that. There are some differences there. If you're not taking the courses, use that discount code FSMATTERS20. So please check out the full agenda@foodsafetysummit.com and register before March 31st to take advantage of the early bird discount. FS Matters 20+FS Matters 20. So big savings, those two combined. And we look forward to seeing you there. So, oh, one other thing. When you register, you can also make a donation to Stop Foodborne Illness. And the Food Safety Summit is very pleased to partner with stop. And we have our Summit Gives Back reception where we present a very large check. It's always fun to give Sandy a big check from. From the attendees and. And BMP Media who donate to that as well. So be sure you might want to take a look at that and. And include that with that.
- [06:53]
C
Okay, well, all those discounts you just read, they should have a few extra dollars to drop into.
- [06:57]
A
See, there you go. You can just take them and just, you know, that's right. Yeah, just click that, click that. Donate to STOP and you will have opportunities on site for those of you. And there have been quite a few of you who have registered. So. Good, good, good. There'll be lots of signage and ways for you to donate when you're there. Okay, now we're going to get to some news, but before I turn it over to Adrian, it is my great pleasure to share with all of you that the 2026 recipient of food Safety magazine's Distinguished Service Award is Larry Keener, President and CEO of International Product Safety. And in addition to his many accolades, Larry is a longtime Food Safety magazine editorial advisory board member, frequent author and guest on the podcast. So we are just thrilled to present Larry with this year's award on behalf of his industry colleagues who have bestowed him this honor. So we'll put a link in our show notes so that you can read more about the award and Larry's achievements. Larry will also be our featured guest in the May 12 episode of the podcast. So, so much to look forward to. Okay, Adrian, I'm finally done.
- [08:08]
C
That's a good selection. Larry's a good selection for that.
- [08:10]
A
Larry, I'm telling you, I. It's going to be so great, right?
- [08:15]
C
Yep.
- [08:16]
A
I mean, they're all great, but I do happen to know Larry quite well, so that's. That's going to be very fun.
- [08:22]
C
Larry's one of those people that you walk away from a conversation with them a little smarter than you started the conversation. So at all times.
- [08:28]
A
Yes.
- [08:29]
C
Yeah.
- [08:29]
A
Yes, yes, indeed.
- [08:32]
B
Definitely very deserving of this year's award. Larry is so looking forward to it.
- [08:37]
A
I know I could go on and on and on because he's really kind of unique in all the things that he's done. But anyway, I guess I'll save that for maybe when we do the award, right?
- [08:46]
B
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So before we get there, first up, we'll talk about some US Regulatory news. So Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy said the government plans to establish the first official U.S. definition for ultra processed foods, or UPFs, by as early as April. Kennedy made those remarks during an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he also suggested that FDA could pursue a new front of pack labeling system for packaged foods once that definition is in place. So according to Kennedy, the labeling could take the form of a simplified red light, yellow light, green light format to communicate a product's over overall healthfulness based on its ingredients and its formulation. So all these comments from Kennedy come as federal agencies have already been exploring the possibility of formally defining UPFs. In July of last year, USDA and FDA issued a joint request for information seeking input on how to develop this definition. And meanwhile, FDA had also been considering front of pack labeling through a proposed rule issued in January of 2025 under the Biden administration, which would have required a nutrition info info box that identified saturated fat, sodium and added sugars as high, medium or low. That proposal has not advanced under the current administration, so the potential creation of a federal UPF definition has also generated debate among stakeholders, with some public health advocates supporting that effort and others cautioning that regulating foods based on processing level could create unintended consequences. This is a lot of developing information, so we will make sure to keep you updated on everything that happens.
- [10:33]
C
This red light, yellow light, green light symbol fascinates me to no end, particularly because it's front of package labeling. No manufacturer is going to tolerate a red light symbol on the front of their packaging, and that's going to drive reformulation of the products. Now, one thing is probably driving reformulation is one of the goals, but the other thing about this is sometimes it can go awry. I remember when low fat was the thing and they reformulated products to bake them low fat, but they made them really high sugar, which is, I'm sure, an unintended consequence. So what happens there? There'll be some iterations of whatever this turns out to be, but I don't suspect there's going to be a lot of packages with red lights on the front. So we'll see what happens there. I'm not even sure what yellow lights will be, but we'll have to see what happens there. The other question I have, and part of this is because I just simply don't know. I probably don't know enough about this. But the other thing I find interesting is that the definition of UPF will often follow the NOVA classifications. And one of the definitions is high sugar, high fat, high salt that have no culinary use, something that's added in. But what does this mean for products that are normally designed to be high in sugar anyway, but they're not added ingredients? There's a five pound bag of sugar, get a red light because it's high in sugar, or is that just what the ingredient is? Does that get no label whatsoever because of what it is? What about cooking, shortening 100% fat, does that get a red light or is that not an added ingredient? So I'd be curious about that and see how that's going to go and where that goes. Because, you know, depending upon where that goes, it would have a lot of labeling implications. But I'm curious to see how this all comes out. And my guess is, if I had to bet on this, that we won't get it right the first time.
- [12:11]
A
Well, when you're talking about all these different foods, I just had a memory of pineapple. I used to make these pineapple smoothies. And then I would have these horrific crashes because of the amount of sugar. So I mean, are they going to put them anyway? Right? Where do, where, where do we begin? So when I was looking to get refreshed on some of this, I remembered that I often turned to Helena Bottomiller Evic his Food Fix newsletter, because I and I know that she covered and had an interview with Marty McCary. And I was actually even then surprised when I reread some of the stuff that he was saying about how much they didn't like what they had inherited from the Biden administration and that they didn't want to necessarily flag things. And he didn't think that saturated fat would necessarily be the number one thing that you would. I guess it depends on what you're challenged with if your A1C is popping or high cholesterol. So that those tend to be. It depends. He also mentioned something about the red light green, the front of packaging. And it would seem that he reinforced the idea that they would be moving ahead with some sort of front of pack labeling, but that was yet to be determined. In the same story, Helena also noted a post made by Susan Main, former director of FDA center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition cfsan, in her substack where she noted that Macri's and Kennedy's recent comments raised some questions about whether the administration will ultimately get this done in the next three years, because reproposing the rule would add years to an already lengthy process. And while a policy shift so again, quoting from Susan Maine while a policy shift as suggested by Commissioner McCary might sound reasonable at first glance, in all likelihood it would mean that no final front of packaging label rate regulation will come out of the current administration. As the Trump administration is committed to deregulation and Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Macri have conveyed their strong preference for voluntary actions over regulation, it's not unreasonable to conclude that delay may be the end goal, she says, for winners and losers. The winners deregulation and the food industry and the losers consumers.
- [14:43]
C
So I'll add one of those. One other small comment is one of the other things that RFK said was they're looking at an emphasis on fruits, vegetables, fermented foods, fiber and things like that. And that strikes me as a pretty good regulation or a recommendation. But I will also say that those who know me know that I have a soft spot for sugar daddy. So you can put whatever label you want on the front of it, but just don't take them away from me. You have to wrestle them out of my hands.
- [15:10]
B
So next up in news, FDA has released initial findings from a major environmental research effort examining how foodborne pathogens persist in produce growing environments along California's central coast. So the project, which is known as the California Longitudinal Study, is a five year investigation focused on identifying environmental reservoirs and transmission pathways for Shiga toxin producing E. Coli, or stec, including strains associated with outbreaks linked to leafy greens. Researchers are conducting extensive environmental sampling throughout agricultural landscapes in the region, including soil, sediment, water sources, animal droppings and surrounding habitats. Early findings suggest that wildlife, nearby, livestock operations and surface water may all play roles in the movement and persistence of Aztec within produce growing environments. FDA said the study is designed to better understand how pathogens survive and travel through these environments over time. FDA also noted that the data could help inform future prevention strategies and regulatory decisions aimed at reducing contamination risks in leafy greens production. The California Longitudinal Study builds on previous FDA environmental research conducted in the region following several high profile E. Coli outbreaks associated with romaine lettuce grown along the central coast.
- [16:34]
C
So we've talked about this issue on the podcast for years now, trying to figure out where this come from, comes from. So one of the things that jumps out about this is this is a massive study in what everybody calls the salad bowl in that area. So many, so much of the leafy greens come from that area along with some large areas in Arizona, Mexico. But this is really an incredibly massive study looking at California salad bold area looking at how Aztec shikataka producing E. Coli move and manage and persist along this really incredibly valuable leafy greens area. But to show you how massive it was, the FDA collected 6,100 samples from water, soil, sediment, air, livestock. Adrian, you mentioned this. Wildlife feces compost insects across 7,000 square miles of farm areas. They recovered 486 Aztec isolates and use whole genome sequencing the track strains across time space and across all the different matrices that are out there. So they looked at all aspects of this. We could almost call it like a 3D look at between the matrices and the sun and this and the size of the area. A few themes jump out. First, Aztec diversity and persistence were striking. 68 serotypes were found, including six highly pathogenic ones. And some strains stuck around for nearly two years and were detected 70 miles apart and 15 months apart. To show you why we, when we talked about this in the past, sometimes these things would pop up and then they wouldn't be found. This might be one of the reasons why that is. But it really shows the whole landscape was capable of having movement around for whatever the vectors were. But that's why they did that. Second, the other thing that jumped out is animals matter a lot. Adrian, you mentioned this, but wildlife and cattle had the highest Aztec prevalence with feral pigs, deers, bird, coyotes, equally important, including fresh and dried feces still eating O157 and other Aztecs. So old manure piles are not benign and they matter as well. So things that stick around are a reason, you might think that, you know what, what we're finding from animals is dried up and not a case anymore. But that was not what they found. So again, another, another reservoir for why this kept coming back. Third, surface water sediment near animal habitats. We've talked about a little bit about this with runoff were key environmental reservoirs. While oddly, air, bulk, soil and even compost appeared to be relatively minor pathways in the region. So as a follow up, and I just read this, that FDA is leading stakeholder meetings to review the data and findings and develop risk management processes and changes that are going to go on. The Western Growers association is involved with this. They have a working group that they're working in. But the growers have been notified about the results of the study. The growers will be involved in looking at the remediation and changes that will be made. So that's all working in concert to put these into place and to make the situation much better.
- [19:28]
A
Yeah, it was interesting not being a scientist.
- [19:31]
D
Right.
- [19:31]
A
But even still seeing the differences and, well, all the things that they collected, but the differences between the wild animals and the farm, you know, the, the, the other farm animals and livestock, you know, from livestock operations and so on. And they've been doing this since 2020. So additional details, I guess are going to come out a little bit later this year. So we look forward to seeing what those recommendations are based on, on all of this. But a long time to develop and a long time coming, so hopefully we'll get some good answers there. Actionable answer.
- [20:05]
C
Actionable stuff. That's right. Yep.
- [20:08]
A
Yeah.
- [20:08]
C
But the one thing again that jumps out at me is of all the things we've talked about, about trying to chase these down to find out where they come from, it seems like now they have all of this data to really track this and I think have a much better chance of nailing some of this down.
- [20:23]
A
Yeah. But I think people will enjoy taking a look at that study if they click through on that.
- [20:27]
B
Okay, so across the Atlantic, the European Commission is considering new legislation that would harmonize precautionary allergen labeling, or pal, across the eu. The proposal would establish EU wide criteria governing when voluntary allergen advisory statements like may contain can appear on food labels. So currently the use of PAL varies pretty widely across EU member states and among manufacturers, which can create inconsistent labeling practices that many regulators and consumer groups say can reduce the usefulness of warnings for people with food allergies. The Commission's proposal follows recommendations from the Codex Alimentarius Commission supporting risk based allergen labeling tied to defined allergen thresholds. So, under the proposed framework, PAL statements would be permitted only when a scientifically assessed risk of unintended allergen presence except exceeds established threshold levels. The European Commission has opened the draft measure for public feedback before moving forward with the legislative process. And in news that's very relevant to our podcast interview today, the UK and the EU are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that would align certain food safety and agricultural regulations between the two markets by the middle of 2027. The SPS proposal, as it's called, aims to reduce trade barriers and simplify border check by ensuring comparable food safety standards. And if adopted, the agreement would require the UK to comply with relevant EU regulatory requirements within the scope of the SPS framework. Notably, that alignment would apply to products sold domestically in the UK as well as those exported to the eu. This agreement could affect a wide range of regulatory areas, including food and feed safety controls, sanitary rules governing animal and plant products, food additives and food contact materials, labeling and marketing standards, organic and nutrition claims, and routine border inspections for food and agricultural imports. For UK food businesses, the deal could significantly influence compliance obligations and regulatory alignment over the coming years. And before we go today, we have two quick pieces of news to share with you. First, the EU has launched an AI enabled traceability platform called TraceMap designed to help detect food fraud and emerging food safety risks. The system analyzes supply chain and traceability data to identify suspicious patterns and support investigations coordinated among national food safety authorities. A pilot version of Trace Map was recently used during an investigation in chiselide contaminated infant formula distributed globally, where it helped to analyze supply chain information and improve coordination during the response and finally, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations have released this year's theme for World Food Safety day on Sunday, June 7. The campaign will focus on moving from burden to safe food everywhere and highlight the role of scientific data in guiding food safety policy and prevention efforts. This year, World Food Safety Day will also coincide with the release of updated WHO estimates on the global burden of foodborne disease. The updated estimates are expected to provide new data on the incidence and health impacts of foodborne illnesses globally, helping governments and stakeholders prioritize risk reduction strategies and allocate resources for food safety programs. And also keep your eyes and ears open for a very special episode dropping on World Food Safety Day. That's on Sunday. And instead of our regular Tuesday podcast drop. And in that episode, we're gonna discuss the release of the new WHO data with the head of the WHO Monitoring and Surveillance Unit. So make sure to stay tuned for that episode on World food safety day, June 7th.
- [24:33]
A
Yeah, we're real excited. That's a great one. That's a great one, Adrienne. Thank you for that. Very exciting. And as always, there are links to all of the articles that we've referenced in our show notes. And if you don't already, we invite you to follow us on our social channels LinkedIn X, Facebook and Instagram. Oh yeah, and YouTube. I keep forgetting I have to mention YouTube, YouTube. Just search for Food Safety Magazine. And to take a deeper dive into all the great content that we offer, Visit our website, food-safety.com and now it's time for Adrian's interview with Chris McCarvey, the director of the Regulatory and Compliance team for Walker Morris in the UK. He has over 25 years of experience working in both the private and public sector. He has a track record of helping clients navigate complex legal challenges in areas of highly regulated economic activity. Chris specializes in food law and led the food standards agencies or FSA's legal team through Brexit, the COVID 19 pandemic and supply chain challenges associated with the Ukraine conflict. Chris's typical clients are directors, senior managers and specialists, particularly food scientists who demand quick, accessible and precise advice. His work often has national reach and covers all four nations of the uk and after a very quick break, you'll hear their discussion. Egle Product Inspection, part of mettler Toledo since 2011, specializes in advanced X ray inspection technologies, including dual energy, photon counting and fat analysis technologies. EGLE combines its niche expertise with the global reach and innovation leadership of Mettler Toledo to deliver specialized solutions that enhance product safety and quality across diverse markets worldwide. Whether inspecting raw or packaged goods, EGLE's solutions detect contaminants and perform quality checks all in one streamlined system. Learn more@eglepi.com
- [26:40]
B
well hi Chris, thanks for joining us on the podcast today.
- [26:44]
D
Yeah, hi Adrian, it's great to be with you.
- [26:46]
B
Wonderful. So you know, you recently wrote an article for us earlier in the year on 2026 trends to watch in the EU and UK food law spaces, and in that article you discussed several specific regulatory changes on the horizon, from BPA and PFAS restrictions to folic acid fortification. Which of these trends that you discussed do you think will have the most immediate operational impact for food businesses? And, you know, what should companies be doing now to prepare to meet these trends?
- [27:18]
D
Yes, that's, that's right. I, I think of of the changes I discussed in the article, Adrian, probably the one with the most immediate impact in England, Wales and Scotland will be the proposed restrictions on the use of BPA in food packaging. That's because it's a change which potentially applies from July this year, which is now just four months away. The UK government is proposing to bring in that ban to align with measures being taken in the euro, but unfortunately without the lead time which EU businesses enjoyed. So the background here is that the EU adopted measures in 2024 banning BPA in food packaging. So businesses in the EU have had clarity for more than a year about a ban and have had time to prepare themselves. I'd suggest that food businesses in England, Wales and Scotland take immediate steps to review their food packaging materials supply chain and work with their packaging suppliers to ensure that the technical specifications are updated and in particular that stocks of any non compliant food packaging are sold through before July this year. The position for businesses in Northern Ireland is actually slightly happier in as much as that they have known for some time because of the effects of the Windsor Framework, the Northern Ireland Protocol, which basically applies EU law to Northern Ireland. They've known about this ban for some time and have been able to prepare for the change in legislation. So yes, I think the BPA ban is one that businesses should perhaps be looking at closely right now and taking steps to, you know, to get ready for implementation.
- [29:21]
B
And you know, just a quick follow up question about that. So looking at bpa, you know, you said that companies need to work with their packaging suppliers to make sure that any packaging that would contain BPAs sold through before July of this year when the law goes into effect. So that packaging could be for food products that would stay on the shelves for some time. Is that legally acceptable for the food products to have packaging that has BPA in it? If it's on the shelf after the compliance date, but because it was packaged before the compliance date.
- [29:53]
D
Yes, I've got you. We're still waiting actually in the UK our legislation hasn't yet been finalized, so I can't be absolutely sure about the answer to that question. But I think what we will find is when the legislation is settled, it will be perfectly permissible for packaging applied to foods before July to remain on the shelves after July. I think the important point will be the placing on the market of that food. So provided, you know, it's sold before that July date, it can basically, you know, remain in circulation if you like. But we'll see, as I say, that the actual detail of the UK legislation hasn't yet been settled.
- [30:42]
B
Okay, interesting. Thanks, Chris. Now, you've also written about the increasing attention to precision fermentation derived foods around the world and government approved CBD food products in the uk. So beyond compliance, what are some of the broader legal and ethical challenges that these innovations pose for regulators and industry?
- [31:05]
D
Yeah, that's a really great question, Adrian. And this is an area really of real interest for me in the sense of I think we are on the verge of quite big changes in food production and AI isn't the only game in town in the sense that's moving rapidly. But so is biotechnology and so is innovation in the production of food. So we are in exciting times. I think innovation in the food sector is just so important and it holds a lot of promise for meeting, you know, what is an ever increasing need for Food, you know, the world population is growing and people have to be fed. Importantly, I think what food innovation gives us is the potential to meet that growing need in sustainable ways. And really that's the golden ticket really is finding that sustainability. And I think many of these technologies, precision fermentation being one of them, really has the potential to be much more sustainable. So precision fermentation is just one form of food innovation, there's many others. But I think what is key here is not the specifics of the science or the method, but rather the willingness and ability of regulators really in all of our advanced economies to be flexible in their response to these innovations. I think the problem here is not unique to food. It's whenever you try to regulate for an area of activity in an economy, law and development of policy is time consuming. And regrettably, you know, laws tend to be almost out of date as soon as the proverbial ink dries on the page. Certainly food, food law is in that situation where, you know, the technology is really outpacing some of the ability to document and regulate it. I think what we need here is really a situation in which regulatory system, food regulatory systems are sufficiently agile to adapt themselves to the rapid change that is happening. And I think most importantly here that they can do that predictably. So I think certainly looking at it from the perspective of food producers and food manufacturers, predictability is incredibly important. Because if you're about to invest a great deal of capital into a new food product, and by capital here I'm talking not just about financial capital, I'm talking about reputational and brand capital, you really need to be sure that you're not just buying a lottery ticket, that if you get the fundamentals of your new product right, the safety and nutritional value, that your regulators will recognize that and help you bring your product to market. So predictability is, as I say, really important. I think here. You asked about the ethics here, Adrian, and this is, you know, I'm wary of opening Pandora's box here because there's such a lot of, a lot of challenges as we well know. And I think, you know, we've got some of the fairly well travel territory here around genetic modification. And I know that, you know, certainly you're a US based publisher and certainly the US takes a slightly different view about GM than we do in the eu. But you know, it's not just yes, those things can be controversial, but if you look at modern biotechnology, GM in many ways now is quite an old technology and we're moving into new areas of gene editing, for instance, we've just passed some gene editing legislation in the uk, which is much closer in a way in terms of what it does to traditional propagation and cross breeding, which farmers and agricultural specialists have done for many years. And the technology doesn't really, all it does is turbocharge and speed up those otherwise quite natural cross breeding activities. So, you know, the technology is changing and I think the upsides of using biotechnology are many and varied. And I think the main one really here is, you know, we have the potential to reduce our dependence on animal based food products. You know, precision fermentation, for instance, can produce dairy and egg based proteins without any use of animals at all. So it's really, you know, there's a bit of alchemy almost here. It's turning things into valuable products really, without having to, you know, utilize animals or animal sources. So that's a positive for many consumers. And you know, the ethics here are complicated and they are difficult. But you know, the upsides are really, really there for us to grasp if we, if we're creative.
- [36:50]
B
And, you know, certainly food scientists understand the benefits of technologies like, like precision derived, precision fermentation derived foods. And I guess I'm wondering, do you see consumer perception shaping any of the regulatory outcomes for like that kind of biotechnology or, you know, just novel foods like CBD products?
- [37:10]
D
I definitely do, yeah. I think we live in a world where information and the empowerment that information gives to consumers is absolutely key. I mean, speaking as a consumer, I'm sure both you and I would want to know as much about any food product as we can find out, basically. And you know, the use now of smart labeling and QR codes on packaging means that some of the physical constraints that applied to food information and food labeling in the past, you know, are starting to disappear. I think the value of innovation with food products only maintains itself while there are confident consumers ready to buy those products. And, you know, we've seen that consumers can become rapidly suspicious about the safety of particular foods. We had an example just last year in the uk, where the dairy sector here was subject to a, a social media campaign which actually spread a bit of disinformation about the safety or otherwise of a feed additive which was being applied to dairy cattle. And you know, that disinformation spread very rapidly as it can on social media, and it really was inaccurate. It was saying that this feed additive was dangerous to human health. That absolutely was not the case. The additive had been quite rigorously assessed for safety and was completely safe and had some environmental benefits. So what that tells us is consumers now are very attuned to anything which might be concerning, anything which can raise suspicions. So I think consumer perception and innovation, that the one can't exist without the other. I think, you know, we have to have confident consumers to be able to have businesses confidently investing in innovation.
- [39:17]
B
Absolutely. And, you know, of course, in this day and age, it's so easy to spread disinformation and misinformation over social media. So we do see a lot of that in the food industry. And, you know, occasionally there's the need to counter that. But I want to move on to another topic. So Brexit fundamentally change the regulatory landscape for UK food law. And from your experience in leading the UK Food Safety Authority's legal team through that transition, what lessons can today's food businesses draw about navigating profound regulatory shifts?
- [39:50]
D
Yeah, I still bear the scars of that period. It was a very busy time. It really has been something which has cast a long shadow and I think we're still in many ways dealing with the fallout from Brexit. So certainly what I learned from that time, Adrian, was that business agility is really key. The Brexit negotiations took some twists and turns out during the course of them, which ended up with positions which I think business found quite surprising and counterintuitive. And I think that some of the presumptions that businesses made prove mistaken. And one example here would be that food products could continue to be sold through from the UK into the EU market after Brexit until stocks were exhausted. And I think that seemed a fairly reasonable assumption for businesses to make, but that was confounded and the EU said actually no products of animal origin. It's a cliff edge. Once the date of Brexit arrives, you can no longer sell those into our market. So that was quite a difficult situation for many of our products of animal origin producers in the uk. I think also some of the assumptions around what Brexit would mean for our businesses in terms of recovering, in a way, our sovereignty over making food laws and designing food laws, there was very much the expectation that we were going to be free to paddle our own canoe and move forward much more quickly with technology. And again, that I think was proved not to be the position. I think we certainly live in a connected world of food supply chains, the us, the eu, and certainly a country like the uk, although it may have a lot of economy, is not isolated. It has to be aware of standards which its trading partners insist upon and be able to manufacture to those standards. So the notion of regaining sovereignty, I think, and actually being able to design our own food standards was, again, not quite. It didn't quite turn out to be as simple as that. So I think my learnings and my recommendations to industry here would be, you know, whenever there's a fundamental change in regulatory structure, you know, be ready to pivot, be ready for some unexpected consequences and, you know, I think be prepared for change to be more profound and difficult than might be imagined.
- [43:03]
B
And, you know. So how does your experience in leading that transition influence your advice on the current UK EU trade negotiations over food and food hygiene? You know, what's at stake for exporters in legal and financial terms? And, you know, we have some. Got some clarification on that just recently. So what are your thoughts?
- [43:24]
D
Yeah, we certainly just. Well, just in the last couple of days, actually, the Department of State here in the UK that is responsible for the food regulatory system is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Rural affairs has just published a long list of food legislation that they think will need to be aligned or realigned with the eu. So definitely very topical at the moment. You know, looking at the upsides of the reset, exporters of meat and animal products here in the UK have got a huge amount to gain from a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal in terms of kind of reducing friction at the border with the eu. A new deal could open up the export market for our UK producers really to the tune of billions of pounds. I mean, there's a lot at stake here for our exporters and that that will be a real positive, I think, trying to be balanced about it. While that will be a great boon to our product of animal origin exporting businesses. At the other end of the spectrum, we have a constituency of food businesses, particularly those in the biotech sector, who will be wary, I think, of actually becoming more integrated with the EU legal system again, because the pace will be slightly slower, I think, in terms of adopting new technologies, etc. And that's simply a reflection of the fact that the EU is an association of 27 member states at the moment, and actually finding solutions which satisfy everyone takes a bit of time in that environment. So I think our more innovative parts of the food sector will perhaps be a bit concerned about losing some momentum if we realign with the eu. So inevitably there are going to be some trade offs, I think, Adrian, from a reset with the eu. I think perhaps the biggest issue here for the UK in terms of a reset with the EU is ensuring that UK businesses are given sufficient time to realign with EU law. You know, since 2020 there has been divergence in food law between the UK and the EU and that's been both active divergence in the sense of the UK passing new legislation in terms of gene editing, but also some passive divergence where standards have been changed in the EU and the UK hasn't yet caught up with that. And that's probably unintentional. So both active and passive divergence. But what that means is if we are to realign, we are going to have to bring ourselves completely in line again with the EU legal provisions. And that is quite a fundamental task, both for the government in the sense of legislating to reflect the EU position and also businesses in terms of getting their, their manufacturing arrangements and food standards aligned again. So I think a transitional period is going to be really critical and I do hope that the UK is able to, through negotiation, secure a reasonable transition period here for our businesses to be able to adapt and realign.
- [47:31]
B
Great. Thank you, Chris, for those insights. Now, I want to zoom out a little bit here and talk about currently, you know, we see a more stringent and prescriptive regulatory approach to food additives and colorings and other ingredients that are being adopted by the European Food Safety Authority in the eu. And that's kind of in contrast to the more deregulatory voluntary industry cooperation approach that's being taken by the Trump administration's FDA in the us. So I guess, curious about your perspective. What do you see as the pros and cons to each approach? And which approach do you think is easier for industry to follow?
- [48:09]
D
Sure, I mean, this is a really interesting question. It kind of gets to the heart of the difference between our systems in the UK and the us. I think it's true that Europe and the US take a slightly different approach to securing food safety. I mean, at its most basic level, I think the US approach compared with the EU's approach is probably the US takes a more output based approach to food safety. If the final product is safe, then that's more important than the way in which that product is manufactured and produced. The EU really takes a much more input based approach, I think, to food safety and you know, controls inputs, it controls manufacturing processes and is much more intrusive in a way in terms of how food businesses can produce food. So I think both of those approaches, different though they are, have benefits and disbenefits. I mean, speaking personally, I think the output based approach, which concerns itself with the final product, which is the US's approach here does give businesses more room to innovate and I think that that's a good thing. The EU model makes for a more complicated picture because there are certainly more blueprints, I think, for businesses to, to follow in the eu. But the advantage, I think, of the EU system is that it gives a clear regulatory framework that businesses can follow to demonstrate their safety credentials and quality standards. And I think that has brand value for businesses. And so while I like the US system, I think, you know, characterizing input controls such as those that Europe applies as simply being red tape, I think is, you know, that wouldn't be a fair characterization. I think business would always like a free hand in deciding how to approach questions of food safety. And, you know, that's understandable. I think the great difficulty here is we do live in a world where not every business will work to the best advantage of consumers. And I think, you know, some degree of proportionate regulation is always needed and, you know, isn't to be feared. You know, it can be turned to a positive advantage from a reputational point of view for compliant businesses and, you
- [51:07]
B
know, kind of extending that idea. So when it comes to the fun function of regulation, you've framed law and regulation as an enabler rather than a hurdle. So can you explain how regulatory strategy can be a competitive advantage for food businesses? And maybe if you have any examples where legal compliance directly accelerated market success.
- [51:31]
D
Yes, that's right. If we were to take for a minute a world where there was no regulations about food, I'd suggest that in the modern era, businesses would in any event develop their own standards to demonstrate, you know, probably through third parties that, you know, that their products were high quality and how they met standards that they set. So I think it would happen even if, you know, overnight all the food law disappeared. We would find businesses adopting a very similar approach to safety and standard setting. So we can't forget that consumers live in a world of accessible information these days. And the world has moved on considerably, I think, since the kind of laissez faire era of self regulation. Consumer sentiment is completely different these days. And I think seen through that lens, I take the view that modern food regulation presents a kind of ready made set of standards, if you like, that businesses can use to frame their offering and win consumer trust. And I think the other important element to robust food regulation is that it, it does create a uniform and level playing field for the industry. Everyone knows what standards they have to work to and you know, you can't have some Businesses cutting corners in order to, to gain a, you know, a market advantage. There's this common set of standards which have to be, have to be achieved. And I think, you know, regulation shouldn't be feared, it shouldn't be vilified, it really should be embraced for the assurance it gives to a business's consumers. And as I've said before, Adrian, I think it gives a really great platform for businesses to demonstrate their quality. You asked about examples here of how compliance can accelerate market success and we had an interesting kind of example of this two or three years ago in the uk. On the UK market, some CBD products had begun to become available, particularly CBD based soft drinks and also some CBD edibles. They were actually beginning to become readily available in the UK market but actually shouldn't have been there because they were classed in regulatory terms as unauthorized novel foods. And what the Food Standards Agency did in that circumstance was to invite manufacturers and suppliers of those CBD products to, rather than simply to withdraw all of their, all of their products from the market, the Food Standards Agency simply invited the industry to retrospectively, if you like, apply for novel foods approval. And while those approvals were being processed, the agreement was that they could remain on the market. So a kind of a list was produced of CBD products which were going through an approval process and could continue to be marketed. And many suppliers of CBD products jumped at the chance to get their products on that list and to kind of reassure food retailers, the big supermarkets, etc. And consumers that, you know, they were going through the right processes to have these CBD products approved. And you know, I think, I think that process helped to drive maturity in the CBD market in the UK and to avoid the disruption that enforcement would otherwise have caused. So I think that was a really good example of how a sector of the food industry, through cooperating with a regulator, can actually put more of a gloss on their products actually and show that it's a reliable and recommendation reputable products. So I think that was a good example of where, you know, regulatory compliance actually helped to drive market maturity. And, you know, it's a, it's a good lesson, I think, for, for lots of businesses.
- [56:19]
B
That's a really interesting example. And you know, when you describe the process and what was decided, you know, so let these, let these companies that are making these products apply for novel foods classification. They can stay on the market while they are in the process of being approved. It just, it makes it sound so neat and tidy compared to in the US, where we have 50 different states doing 50 different things with, you know, CBD infused products and cannabis products and things like that. So it's a mess here with all that. But I like that the UK's approach was, you know, pretty docile and neat and tidy. So very interesting example though. Thanks for sharing that. And there's another topic that I want to go into that a, you know, kind of a developing guidance and developing topic that we've been following closely in our media and that's precautionary allergen labeling. And it does remain kind of a contentious topic in food law. So with regard to pal, what are the key legal risks and commercial tensions here? And how might a standardized approach such as, you know, Codex alignment threshold system change the game for manufacturers?
- [57:29]
D
Yes, I suggest, Adrian, that really the key risks here are not so much legal and commercial risks as the safety risks. I think the reason that precautionary allergen labeling is so controversial is that it's really difficult, I think, from a scientific and safety view viewpoint, to set the thresholds at the right level. You know, if those thresholds are set at too high a level, then it might mean that, you know, precautionary allergen labeling isn't required in circumstances where a significant minority of allergenic consumers risk experiencing a dangerous reaction to cross contamination. So it's getting those minimum content levels right. And I think, you know, everyone's unique. I think the problem that the scientists are grappling with here is that the, I think they talk about an ed, an eliciting dose of an allergenic protein, and that can, that can differ between different individuals. You know, almost like a fingerprint. It's different for each, each sufferer. So getting that standardization there that meets the needs of most people, I think, is quite tricky. I think, you know, if that isn't got right, arguably precautionary allergen labeling standardization will be worse than no standardization at all. You know, it's important that we take the time, I think, to get, to get the science right. If those levels are set correctly, then we're going to have a clear benchmark which applies uniformly and clearly and helps manufacturers aim at a fixed rather than a moving target. And as with other areas of food safety and food information, the interests of businesses and consumers here are ultimately, you know, fully aligned. You know, businesses want to make sure they do the right thing. They produce safe foods for consumers that are accurately labeled. And clearly consumers want the confidence to be able to pick products which, you know, reflect their own unique circumstances and to be confident doing that. So certainly I personally am in favour of some standardization here. My experience over the years has been that the kind of individual approach of businesses to deciding when to apply precautionary allergen labeling is unsatisfactory. You know, that they do things in slightly different ways. There's not always the close attention paid by some businesses. So I think standardization would help them. So I for one am a fan and hope that we reach, you know, a resolution on the, on the process.
- [60:37]
B
And do you think that something like, you know, a codex aligned threshold system for precautionary allergen labeling, which, you know, for example, like the FDA is looking at possibly adopting, there have been meetings recently, stakeholder meetings about this. Do you think that that would reduce litigation and consumer harm or could it possibly introduce new liabilities depending on, you know, what the threshold?
- [60:59]
D
My view is that I don't think it would introduce any new liabilities. I think the reality is, you know, both in the US and here in the uk, food manufacturers have to configure their manufacturing processes so as to reduce the risk of cross contamination with allergens and, you know, and thereafter to risk assess products to decide whether precautionary allergen labeling is needed. So that kind of responsibility is already present. You know, what we're talking about is not the liability, but a more uniform way of meeting that liability, which I think is a positive. I think standardization should reduce cost and uncertainty for business, business. And again, I suppose a bit like the comment I made in relation to the UK EU reset. If standardisation is agreed upon, a lot of food and food manufacturers are going to be affected by that precautionary allergen labelling, standardisation. And, you know, a lot of businesses are going to need to test their foods for compliance with, with that, you know, those minimum, minimum levels. So that in turn has got the potential to place a lot of demand on, you know, laboratory and food testing.
- [62:31]
B
Right?
- [62:31]
D
Yeah, you know, potentially all at once if a change in the law happened quite quickly. So again, I think it's important here for legislators and regulators to be conscious of the need for, you know, a phased introduction of any standardization to this question so that businesses and, you know, food consultancies and labs can meet the need for these new services.
- [62:58]
B
So, you know, I think one of the common themes in our interview today that we've talked about so far is, you know, different ways that companies can reduce their risk exposure. And my last question for you today definitely deals with, with this topic and a Topic that I think is on a lot of people's minds around the world. Traceability. Right. So in a webinar presentation that you gave for the UK Food and Drink Federation last year, you emphasized traceability and recall duties under core EU and UK frameworks. So how do you advise companies to go beyond minimum legal compliance to build resilience and traceability into their food systems? And also what role does technology play in that compliance journey?
- [63:41]
D
Yeah, I mean, traceability and recall, I think is an issue for all advanced economies. And clearly food, you know, it's really key that withdrawals and recalls happen quickly because of the potential impact on human health. So, you know, certainly in the UK and the eu, we have a one step forward, one step back system, which basically means that as a food manufacturer, you have to know where your ingredients have come from, you know, one step back. And if you are, as a manufacturer, perhaps supplying a big retailer like a supermarket, you have to know who that is, you know, where your product has gone to. So one step forward, one step back. So the, the traceability requirement isn't excessive in a way. You don't have to know your full supply chain. But I think that with today's technology, it is possible to have much more of a helicopter view of supply chains. And I think some businesses are doing that. They're much more aware of their whole supply chain than perhaps has been the case in the past. But certainly when it comes to food incidents, I think, Adrian, the one thing that is predictable is that an incident will usually occur when a business is least expecting it. So, you know, classically 5pm on a Friday afternoon may be a problem. So my advice to clients here really is always to expect the unexpected. And, you know, the kind of advice I'm giving to, to food businesses is, you know, be ready to mobilize your incidence team quite quickly. And don't forget, actually now, you know, incidents have entered, you know, food withdrawal and recall incidents have kind of entered a virtual space because social media is also playing a role in, you know, getting recall and withdrawal information out there. And also, you know, it's key to dealing with a business's reputational, the reputational impacts for businesses in that situation. Certainly in terms of technology, I think there's quite a few overlaps here now with kind of general disaster recovery and really the flavor of the month, no pun intended, but the flavor of the month in the UK at the moment around kind of incidents and traceability, et cetera, and managing crises is kind of the classic kind of cyber incident. And we all know that they're happening more and more often. And I think the kind of team that a business mobilizes to deal with a cyber incident and the methodologies that are used really work equally well. In a food withdrawal and recall incident, you've got a certain core team who can deal with very specific issues themselves and are clear about what their role in managing an incident is. So I think there's a lot of commonality there and businesses can leverage their disaster recovery to help them in a food safety situation. I think food businesses should be testing their kind of withdrawal recall arrangements, ideally once a year. And that should test all parts of a food business's crisis management. Is ops, comms, legal? They should all be stretched. I think using an incident simulation perhaps a little bit beyond the point that feels comfortable. You know, that's the best learning exercise for a business. You know, one other scary thought here is that, you know, with the prevalence of kind of cyber incidents and technological impacts, you know, it would be good for businesses to. Food businesses to ask themselves, you know, what would happen if they were dealing with a food withdrawal recall. And you know, they were looking at, for traceability data which they couldn't access because they were, you know, some of their systems were knocked out through cyber. What would they do? And you know, it's obviously a scenario that none of us likes to think about, but I think it's important that businesses look at disaster recovery in the round. And you know, that that's, that's something which I think is becoming, you know, a more common approach is looking at, at the, you know, not just one type of disaster recovery, but the whole set of circumstances that could affect modern businesses. So, yeah, technology definitely playing a role also here in improving traceability, improving withdrawal and recalls.
- [68:54]
B
Yeah, that's a really interesting hypothetical example. And I think, you know, as you said, we are seeing more and more cyber incidents. And so if you have a company that's hit on both counts, let's say somebody is tampered with the product, a bad actor has tampered with the product. So you've got a food safety or food quality issue and then you've got a cyber issue at the same time. Could be the same bad actor, right? That idea of how do we access the data to make sure that this product either is recalled or doesn't go out to retailers or to, to customers. So really interesting things that we all do need to be thinking about. And thank you for bringing that up. I think that's a really good point for our listeners to have top of mind. So Chris, I want to thank you for taking the time to sit down with us today. This has been a fascinating interview and I think something a little different for maybe our listeners who aren't as familiar with all the things that are going on with food law and food regulation in the UK and eu. So so thanks for opening a window into this for our listeners. It's been really interesting discussion today.
- [69:59]
D
Adrian, it's been a complete pleasure and thank you for the invitation and the chance to talk to you today. It's been great. Thank you.
- [70:07]
A
Thanks again to Chris McCarvey for joining us on the podcast today. And of course thanks to all of you for listening. A very special thanks to our sponsor, Eagle Product Inspection, part of Mettler Toledo, specializing in in advanced X ray inspection technologies including dual energy, photon counting and fat analysis technologies. By combining robust, hygienically constructed machines with top of the line imaging software, Eagle provides processors with turnkey solutions across a broad range of industry applications. To learn more, Visit their website eaglepi.com and now. You know we we love hearing from you, so please don't hesitate. Send us your questions or suggestions to podcastood-safety.com or post a note on LinkedIn, X, Facebook or Instagram. We're always excited to hear your feedback. And then to make sure that new and bonus episodes magically appear in your podcast player, all you have to do is click that Follow or Subscribe button in the player of your choice and presto, bingo. All the episodes appear. And while you're there, throw some stars our way by rating the podcast, especially if you liked it. It only takes a moment and it's good for everyone. That's it for us today. Our next regular episode will post on April 14th. In the meantime, take good care of yourselves and those around you and we'll talk to you then. And led the Food standards agency, or FSA's legal team throughout breakfast Breakfast
- [71:40]
C
he left at lunchtime.
- [71:41]
A
It didn't. It was. He didn't serve for long.