In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

In 2004, the General Food Regulation (GFR) is

being made under the food safety Act 1990, in order to

allow greater flexibility in relation to penalties for offences.

Their main purpose is to provide new enforcement

powers in respect of new obligations relating to food and

food businesses, to apply from January 1 , 2005 underst

Regulation 178/2002. These are:

Article 14 – Food Safety Requirement. This prohibits food

being placed on the market if it is unsafe, and specifies

what this means.

Article 16 – Presentation. This stipulates that the labeling,

advertising and presentation of food shall not mislead

consumers.

Article 18 – Traceability. This requires food businesses to

keep records of their suppliers and businesses they supply

to, and to make such records available to competent

authorities on demand.

Article 19 – Product Recall/W ithdrawal. This places

obligations on food business to recall, and/or withdraw

food from the market if it is not in compliance with food

safety requirements, and to notify competent authorities.

The regulations designate food authorities, port

health authorities and the Food Standards Agency (FSA)

as the relevant competent authorities and enforcement

bodies. The FSA has been included as an additional

enforcement body in respect of Articles 14 and 19 in

certain circumstances. This is to allow, for example, for the

flexibility of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcing these

requirements in meat plants, where this should be more

effective.

Internet: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry (with adaptations)

Hypoallergenic cosmetics

For the past four years, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) has been working to clear up this

confusion of claims by establishing testing requirements that

would determine which products really are hypoallergenic. But

late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ruled that FDA’s regulation defining hypoallergenic

was invalid. This means there is now no regulation specifically

defining or governing the use of the term hypoallergenic or

similar claims. And because of the lengthy procedural steps

required to establish a new regulation that is likely to be the

situation for some time to come.

Where does that leave consumers?

Consumers concerned about allergic reactions from

cosmetics should understand one basic fact: there is no such

thing as a non-allergenic cosmetic — that is, cosmetic that can

be guaranteed never to produce an allergic reaction.

By and large, the basic ingredients in so-called

hypoallergenic cosmetics are the same as those used in other

cosmetics sold for the same purposes. Years ago, some

cosmetics contained harsh ingredients that had a high potential

for causing adverse reactions. B ut these ingredients are no

longer used. FDA knows of no scientific studies which show

that hypoallergenic cosmetics or products making similar

claims actually cause fewer adverse reactions than competing

conventional products.

Margaret Morrison. Internet: www.fda.gov (with adaptations).

Hypoallergenic cosmetics

For the past four years, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) has been working to clear up this

confusion of claims by establishing testing requirements that

would determine which products really are hypoallergenic. But

late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ruled that FDA’s regulation defining hypoallergenic

was invalid. This means there is now no regulation specifically

defining or governing the use of the term hypoallergenic or

similar claims. And because of the lengthy procedural steps

required to establish a new regulation that is likely to be the

situation for some time to come.

Where does that leave consumers?

Consumers concerned about allergic reactions from

cosmetics should understand one basic fact: there is no such

thing as a non-allergenic cosmetic — that is, cosmetic that can

be guaranteed never to produce an allergic reaction.

By and large, the basic ingredients in so-called

hypoallergenic cosmetics are the same as those used in other

cosmetics sold for the same purposes. Years ago, some

cosmetics contained harsh ingredients that had a high potential

for causing adverse reactions. B ut these ingredients are no

longer used. FDA knows of no scientific studies which show

that hypoallergenic cosmetics or products making similar

claims actually cause fewer adverse reactions than competing

conventional products.

Margaret Morrison. Internet: www.fda.gov (with adaptations).

Hypoallergenic cosmetics

For the past four years, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) has been working to clear up this

confusion of claims by establishing testing requirements that

would determine which products really are hypoallergenic. But

late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ruled that FDA’s regulation defining hypoallergenic

was invalid. This means there is now no regulation specifically

defining or governing the use of the term hypoallergenic or

similar claims. And because of the lengthy procedural steps

required to establish a new regulation that is likely to be the

situation for some time to come.

Where does that leave consumers?

Consumers concerned about allergic reactions from

cosmetics should understand one basic fact: there is no such

thing as a non-allergenic cosmetic — that is, cosmetic that can

be guaranteed never to produce an allergic reaction.

By and large, the basic ingredients in so-called

hypoallergenic cosmetics are the same as those used in other

cosmetics sold for the same purposes. Years ago, some

cosmetics contained harsh ingredients that had a high potential

for causing adverse reactions. B ut these ingredients are no

longer used. FDA knows of no scientific studies which show

that hypoallergenic cosmetics or products making similar

claims actually cause fewer adverse reactions than competing

conventional products.

Margaret Morrison. Internet: www.fda.gov (with adaptations).