Friday, 15 February 2013

Pub landlords must keep food source records

As predicted, pub grub supplier Brake Bros is amongst those duped by the horsemeat scandal. Pub daily the Morning Advertiser has printed advice from m'learned friends about responsibility for the scam, and made clear that under EU law it is always the final seller in the chain, the one who sells to the consumer, who is responsible for ensuring that the product is exactly what it says on the tin. Pub landlords are therefore responsible for keeping records of the sources of the ingredients in everything it sells - from a packet of Pork scratchings to a Brake Bros lasagne. Good news perhaps for the growing numbers of gastro pubs using locally sourced raw ingredients who will find the process far simpler than those trying to secure the required paperwork for a box of frozen meat pies from the cash and carry. 

At least the predicted tsunami of Romanian workers won't be short of good home cooking

17 comments:

TrT said...

Isnt "what it says on the tin" *the evidence*?

I thought the problem was that the paperwork was all that needed to be in order?

Raedwald said...

The MA article suggests that pubs need to have 'verification processes' in place and a 'sourcing policy' as well as traceability on demand, back at least to the slaughterhouse / cutting plant for the mince in the lasagne. Brake Bros simply don't provide this.

Anonymous said...

Given that responsibility lies with the retailer, why have we not seen legal action against Findus from the legions allergic to horsemeat?

Budgie said...

Anon 20:52, early days yet - but this one will run and run. And at least it keeps our minds off the thieving MPs, and the secret trials legislation, and liars like Huhne & McShane, and the EZ/EU, and Cameron's incompetence, and the UK's colossal bad debts, etc.

Rush-is-Right said...

"under EU law it is always the final seller in the chain, the one who sells to the consumer, who is responsible for ensuring that the product is exactly what it says on the tin"

Actually Radders, there is English case law from over 100 years ago that says exactly the same thing. (And quite right too.) Even if there is European law on the same subject, it is only a re-enactment of well-established law.

One of the cases involved arsenic in beer, the source of which was some contaminated sugar used in the brewing process. It was the publican, NOT the brewer of the beer, and NOT the firm which sold the dodgy sugar to the brewer, who was sued by a customer and had to pay him compensation.

You can read about it here; http://www.breweryhistory.com/journal/archive/130/Arsenic.pdf and hte case is mentioned on pages 81/82. Quite interesting if you like that sort of the thing!

TrT said...

"It was the publican, NOT the brewer of the beer, and NOT the firm which sold the dodgy sugar to the brewer, who was sued by a customer and had to pay him compensation."

Can the retailer not sue the distributer, who in turn sues the producer and so on?

Blue Eyes said...

Yes, there would be a whole chain of legal action in that case!

G. Tingey said...

In this case ...
EU law is based on Brit law.
Or "Sale of Goods Act" was soo good (& it was & is) that the whole corpus of "Dodgy goods/services sold to the customer" is based on our law.
However, if the final retailer can show that they bought in good faith, then it goes back up the chain. And, IIRC it has worked several times that way, as intended.
The incentive is for the final retailers to push their suppliers to assure quality, etc ....

One area this breaks down is mobile phones ....
I mean my phone is "orange" (now part of "EE") bought from an "orange" shop - who WON'T fix it - they say - "go to on-phone customer service" & "orange" DON'T HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR COMPLAINTS!
A PHONE COMPANY? YOU WHAT?
Ooops, rant over ...

Hang 'em all said...

.... and, as usual, the only winners would be the bloody lawyers (who made the law up in the first place). There is going to be a big fight as to who gets priority on the scaffold...

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, another problem for pub landlords. Maybe not a big problem when viewed individually, but when taken with the welter of other things that landlords are facing, it just becomes yet another reason to close those doors for good.

And Brake Bros? Well if they won't supply the paperwork, then just change supplier. BB will then, very quickly, change their minds.

Coney Island

Tom said...

Tomato Number 13221449976635-1138a
Produced 01-02-2013
Producer Jose Hernandez 004536697
Admin District Islas Canarias
Pet Dog 12995678931 known as "guf-guf"

This could get out of hand :-)

Cascadian said...

'Good news perhaps for gastro pubs".....with emphasis on perhaps. The pubs are not even allowed to serve roast beef rare without some local authority domestic science GCSE graduate threatening to shut them down.

The problem as always is peoples belief that government is providing the oversight that they extract taxes for-in this case food inspection. Once again governments fail.

Cut taxes and delete government departments 70%, return the money to the taxpayer, let them use the money to buy the services they deem essential, in this case perhaps an honest local butcher.

Anonymous said...

Another nail in the coffin of the British Pub.

This is part of the strategy, to close the boozer down - too much info and gossip goes on in pubs - the EU, the Socialist Stasi have always feared it - so close them down - it makes sense in Brussels.

G. Tingey said...

Anon
Not so - have you SEEN German pubs & bars????
Nice paranoia, try again.

Johnm said...

Not nice paranoia: Nice trolling.
How's conservative central these days anon ?
Only dyed-in-the-wool/head political activists bother to insult each others politics, the rest of us looked at the politicians with their similar degrees, at the same educational establishments, sharing the same food/drink/women, at the same places.......and concluded they are a bunch of wasters who are SO alike that calling them conservatives/labour/lib-dem should be prosecutable under the trade descriptions act.
As for horsemeat....you think that adulteration of one meat by another is new ?
That goes back 'donkeys' years, centuries even. It was not so long ago that practically all the major retailers made the news by selling chicken products/foods made from chicken labelled, and sold as, unfit for human consumption. How memory lapses ?
SO unfit that it had to be BLEACHED to lighten it up !!

Anonymous said...

Johnm,

I hope you are not calling me a Tory, conservative yes, Libertarian yes - but Tory? Same as the rest of the wankers in guardian-Liberal central.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that these laws are made by lawyers with one aim - to further the necessity of lawyers. Like an incestuous family, they continue to ensure that no one, no matter how far down the chain of responsibility, will require the services of a lawyer at some point. Perhaps it is merely a concidence that the majority of our 'honourable' members of Parliament are lawyers. Says it all really.