Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
Thousands of cafés, pubs and takeaways will be freed from strict food safety controls under an EU initiative that risks a dramatic rise in food poisoning, The Times has learnt.
The European Union wants to exempt food outlets with fewer than ten staff from statutory rules covering food hygiene, including temperature checks on fridges and freezers and maintenance of proper records.
The plan, which is backed by the EU’s Industry Commissioner, has shocked food safety groups, which say that it will compromise public health.
A recent survey by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) found that 60 per cent of food poisonings were linked to takeaway restaurants and other small food outlets. It also found that 94 per cent of establishments with fewer than ten staff were at “high risk” of not meeting hygiene standards.
A food-risk system was introduced in Britain after the 1996 E. coli outbreak in Lanarkshire, which caused 17 deaths. These controls were deemed necessary to prevent contamination and the growth of common food sickness bugs.
About 100,000 people a year report food poisoning, but the true rate is thought to be about one million.
At a meeting to discuss the proposal last month, most EU member states, including Britain, expressed support providing that the measure did not undermine public health. The plan could now be approved as early as the summer. The FSA has begun a consultation on the issue and MPs will demand this week that the proposal is debated fully in Parliament.
Experts fear that if the exemption is accepted, companies may cut staff numbers to dodge regulations. Official estimates suggest that about 500,000 companies would be spared the safety system known as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) if the EU agreed the deregulation.Michael Connaty, chairman of the all-party Commons EU Scrutiny Committee, said: “The proposal has been drawn up related to the size of an enterprise and not down to the health risk to the community . . . Members on the committee made clear they did not want standards or record-keeping reduced on food premises.”
Professor Hugh Pennington, whose 1996 E. coli inquiry recommended HACCP controls in butchers’ shops, said that the proposal was “lunatic” and revealed that he was writing a formal submission to the agency on the matter.
“This would be a very retrograde step and I believe the benefits of relieving bureaucracy from small businesses would be small but the risks to the public would be significant,” he said.
“The balance has got to be to protect the public. It is a lunatic proposal that really has no merit at all. Introducing the controls has improved standards in businesses.”
Bob Cotton, head of the British Hospitality Industry, said: “The European Commission is trying to deregulate to help small business but we don’t understand the purpose of this legislation. A small backstreet burger bar can serve as many as 2,000 people in half a day. Do we want the possibility of poisoning 2,000 customers?”
Peter Ainsworth, Conservative spokesman on food, said: “We are massively over-regulated and it might be sensible to relieve more burdens from small businesses. We should trust businesses, provided there are no additional risks to human health.”
The spokesman for the European Health Commissioner said that food outlets would still have to comply with general hygiene rules. “We are condemned for imposing regulations and condemned if we wish to remove them.”
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

Made from Italian Summer truffles

50% off top restaurants, book online
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£30k OTE
Meltwater News
Nationwide
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Homes Available on a shared Ownership Basis
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
i think thats its disgusting that they want to lower the standard of hygiene in smaller outlets. does this mean that in the future we might as well eat off the floor? (or is that next on the list?)
Samantha, Birstall, England
I would normally support de-regulation. But as on Occupational Physician to me this is insane. We already know that these type of business are very high risk, relaxing the rules is only inviting trouble.
These regulations are not particularly onerous.
Nor do I see the logic in relating the relaxation to the number of employees. A fridge that is not at the correct temperature, because nobody has been checking, can still be the cause of an outbreak of a food borne illness if the premises only employs 8 people. What is so magical about th number 10?
Paul Turnbull, Alverstoke, Hampshire
The Food Standards Agency and local councils have spent millions trying to help small business implement the current EU rules which only came into force in January 2006. What an embarrassing "U-turn"!
Nick Maher, Preston, Lancashire
Michael -Sadly its not a modest relaxation - the EU is planning to let businesses with a turnover of 2 million Euros (not a small amount!)be exempt from basic requirements that have been in place since 1993
Mike Curtis, Derby,
Most business behave responsibly and to assume that a reduction in some of the bureacratic overheads will result in a mass outbreak of food poisoning is preposterous.
Sarah Kingston, Winchester,
For once I'm on the side of the EU. Hygiene is essential, but I hear from the shops where I buy food that the record keeping, box ticking and general surveillance culture in the food supply business has gone out of control and is favouring huge outlets (supermarkets) where the food is rubbish, but the bureaucracy manageable.
When I was a boy (many years ago) most of these rules did not exist. More, domestic fridges were rare. Milk was even delivered from open churns. Once meat was off the ration, whole carcasses hung openly in butchers' shops. Biscuits were sold loose. We did not drop dead from poisoning.
A modest relaxation of the regulations seems fine.
Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire
We should trust politicians to do the right thing.
We should trust businesses to do the right thing.
We should trust people to do the right thing.
Funny thing is, laws and standards are not enacted to forbid that which people do not do.
I trust politicians - to bend over for every special interest group.
I trust businesses - to make a profit, regardless.
I trust people - to be people.
I trust this insanity will die under public pressure.
DanO, Mt. Vernon, USA
I was wondering the same thing mark.
The standards are not that great in certain places now, this is just going to make things worse. Suppose they are trying to save money at the cost of people's health yet again.
Carla , haverfordwest, uk
What has the number of staff got to do with anything?
Mark R, coventry, england