Surveillance Sampling Programme

This project carried out targeted surveillance sampling of retail food products for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to help identify emerging food safety risks and increase the FSA’s intelligence on the food system. The programme was delivered in partnership by the 3 Local Authority Official Food and Feed Laboratories (OLs) and the 2 private OLs in England and Wales. Food samples(footnote) were purchased across England, Wales and Northern Ireland from large Food Business Operators (FBOs) such as national supermarkets, and smaller FBOs such as independent retailers, with approximately 10% of all samples purchased via internet sites. A total of 1215 food samples from 28 different food commodity types were collected and tested. The foods were categorised as basket of foods, those frequently consumed, or surveillance, food types that would inform the FSA’s knowledge of risk. Some of the surveillance samples were tested for compliance and others were analysed to provide information to the FSA on the level of contaminants present, where there are92.50 no strict legal limits in order to inform the FSAs scientific knowledge and policy development. While both categories contributed to the objectives outlined above, results from the basket of food also contributed to the FSA and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) Annual Food Standards Report. Foods can be deemed non-compliant to regulatory requirements for a variety of reasons, many of which do not pose concern for human health. Samples were recorded as non-compliant in the following circumstances: detection of undeclared allergens, presence of contaminants, such as mycotoxins and heavy metals, above permitted levels, adulteration or substitution of products such as basmati rice, meat, fish, cheese and herbs, composition of food tested not accurately presented in the food label, food labels not complying with The Food Information Regulations 2014 (Opens in a new window) or industry guidance. The FSA were informed immediately of any significant safety hazards, such as the presence of undeclared allergens, and reports for all non-compliant samples were provided to the FSA for appropriate follow up action to be taken. Samples were analysed by Public Analysts who are scientists who examine food and feed to check its compliance with food and feed law. They reported 81% of the samples tested for compliance as satisfactory. The compliance rate for the basket of foods was 86% and for the surveillance samples 75%. Samples purchased from larger FBOs in this survey had a compliance rate of 96%. Food samples purchased from small FBOs were 75% compliant meaning that one in four were reported as unsatisfactory. Samples purchased online had a compliance rate of 76%. As this was a targeted sampling programme results are not representative of food safety and standards in the UK. Foods and hazards were selected for inclusion based on their potential safety or food standards risks. In addition, a greater proportion of samples were taken from small FBOs than large FBOs as previous survey results [Surveillance Sampling, Surveillance Sampling Programme 201/22] found higher levels of non-compliant products in these businesses. Undeclared allergens were detected in 16% of the 267 foods tested for the presence of allergens including over a third of prepacked products for direct sale (PPDS) tested. In addition, a fifth of bread products tested contained allergens not declared on the label. All the bread products containing undeclared allergens were also PPDS. All cases of undeclared allergens were reported immediately to the FSA who shared this information with relevant Local Authorities responsible for enforcement. Authenticity testing was carried out on 437 samples including meat and meat products, herbs and spices, basmati rice, coffee, cheese and olive oil with 97% reported as authentic and two reported as inconclusive. The main commodities with authenticity issues identified were oregano with 13% of samples containing other leaf types and basmati rice with 10% of the basmati rice samples reported as having been adulterated with non-basmati rice varieties or in one instance having no approved basmati varieties at all. A total of 89 herbs / spices were tested for compliance with contaminants regulations. Mycotoxins above regulatory limits were detected in 9% and this was mainly in nutmeg. None of the 59 samples tested for metals had levels above regulatory limits. Compositional analysis was carried out on 689 samples and 58 were reported as unsatisfactory in this respect by the Public Analysts. The fat content of 27% of the 30 milks tested were outside the permitted limits. Composition checks on a total of 265 meat and meat products including pork sausages, chicken ready meals, minced beef, tinned meat and packaged sandwich meat showed 14% did not comply with requirements, low meat content being the most common reason. The water content of joints of meat was checked against the content declared on the label and 1 of the 50 samples was reported as unsatisfactory. Olive oils did not meet appropriate compositional characteristics in 11% of samples tested. The Public Analysts reviewed 999 food labels for irregularities with regards to the analysis that was undertaken and unsatisfactory labelling was identified as the reason for failure for 7% of the samples. The four commodities tested to provide data on contaminants present and their levels included edible insects for heavy metals, marine algae (seaweed) for heavy metals and iodine, vegetable crisps for acrylamide and cooking oils for presence of other oils. No significant heavy metals levels were detected in the insects but two kelp samples were highlighted as having notable levels of inorganic arsenic. Significant levels of iodine was detected in 55% of the marine algae samples. High levels of acrylamide were detected in 10% of the vegetable crisps tested and Public Analysts highlighted 9% of the cooking oils as potentially needing further investigation. While the majority of samples tested as part of this targeted sampling programme met the legal requirements for the parameters checked, the project has highlighted some areas of risk. Ongoing market surveillance is essential to ensure food is safe and what it says it is and provide current intelligence. The continued collaborative working between the Public Analyst OLs themselves and between the OLs and the FSA is laying excellent foundations for the new Food Law Code of Practice for Food Standards which is heavily focussed on delivery of food standards work via an intelligence led approach.