Food and Drink update – May 2022

In our latest update, the Walker Morris Food & Drink Group present a round-up of some recent legal developments in the sector.
If you need any advice or assistance, or have any queries concerning the points raised in this update, please contact Richard Naish who will be very happy to help.

Proposed new rules on advertising alcohol alternatives
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) have launched a consultation […]
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) have launched a consultation on advertising alcohol alternatives in light of the expanding market for non-alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks. The consultation sets out new proposed rules to the Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing Code (CAP Code) and Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code) and new guidance on marketing alcohol alternatives.
With the increase in popularity of alcohol free alternatives to alcoholic drinks, CAP and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) consider that the marketing industry and the public would benefit from new rules and guidance to bring clarity to how these products should be marketed. Although the products are considered to be non-alcoholic, advertisements for them often use imagery associated with alcohol and often mention drinking occasions. As such, CAP and BCAP have considered how these products should be marketed responsibly and how they intersect with alcoholic products covered by the Codes.
CAP and BCAP propose a new sub-section of rules in the alcohol sections of both the CAP Code and BCAP Code, and an amendment to the BCAP scheduling rules, to deal specifically with alcohol alternatives. These rules will be accompanied by formal guidance, which also forms part of the consultation. Because the extremely low alcoholic strength of alcohol alternatives means that they are incapable of intoxicating consumers and their risk profile is therefore significantly reduced, CAP and BCAP determined that it would be overly restrictive to bring all ads for them under the full scope of the alcohol sections of the Codes. Instead, the proposal is for rules that deal with any references to alcohol, specific alcoholic products/brands, and/or behaviours connected to alcohol consumption or the culture surrounding it. You can read the full text of the proposed rules here.
WM Comment
The consultation closed on 5 May 2022 and so we will keep you updated as to the outcome.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Import checks on food delayed until 2023
Physical checks and health certificates on certain food imports from the European Union (EU) into […]
Physical checks and health certificates on certain food imports from the European Union (EU) into the United Kingdom (UK) have been delayed once more. Full checks on animal and plant products from the EU were scheduled to have started in July 2022, following previous postponements following the end of the transition period. The full checks would include health certificates and physical inspections at borders. Some initial measures on imports into the UK called pre-notification are in place and controls introduced in January 2021 on the highest risk imports of animal and plant products will continue.
It is the fourth time Government has delayed implementing import checks on food from the EU Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said Government was reviewing how it would implement checks on EU goods and that the new controls regime will come into force at the end of 2023.
The announcement has received mixed reactions from food business operators. While some have welcomed the decision citing new import checks as adding yet another bottleneck in supply chains that are already under strain, others suspect that ‘kicking the can down the road’ will not give businesses the certainty that they need to prepare. Furthermore, the director general of the Provision Trade Federation warned that it would “prolong the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by EU exporters to the UK as compared to UK exporters to the EU, who have had to face full controls since the end of the transition period”.
WM Comment
If you need help keeping your cross border trade moving then please contact one of our International Trade lawyers at Walker Morris.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Food Standards Agency publishes five-year strategy
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published its new five-year strategy. According to the FSA, […]
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published its new five-year strategy. According to the FSA, the strategy reflects the FSA’s greater responsibilities following the departure of the UK from the EU and takes into account the growing public concern about health and climate change. The FSA chief executive states that “leaving the EU has changed the FSA’s role. We have taken on new functions, like approving new types of food that come on sale here and setting rules for checks of imported food. Today the FSA therefore plays a more critical role than ever in supporting governments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters relating to food. The strategy commits us to put consumer interests at the heart of our work so that food is safe and what it says it is as well as being healthier and more sustainable.”.
The FSA’s new strategy sets out how, over the next five years, it will continue to lead the way on food safety and authenticity, so consumers can be confident that the food they buy is safe and what it says it is. You can read the strategy in full here.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Restrictions on the advertising of HFSS products becomes law
On 28 April 2022, the Health and Care Act 2022 (Act) received Royal Assent. As […]
On 28 April 2022, the Health and Care Act 2022 (Act) received Royal Assent. As well as making significant changes to reform the delivery of health services in England, the Act amends the Communications Act 2003 to introduce new statutory controls on the advertising of products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). The controls are part of Government’s Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives strategy. The controls are primarily targeted at improving the health of children, through reducing their intake of HFSS products, but benefits for adults’ health are also anticipated.
The legislation aims to reduce children’s exposure to the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV and online by:
- requiring Ofcom to introduce a 5.30 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. watershed for TV advertising of HFSS products, subject to specific exceptions. All on demand programme services (ODPS) that are subject to Part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 will also be included in the TV watershed;
- banning paid-for advertising online of HFSS products, subject to specific exemptions. The restriction will not apply to “owned media”, which is online property owned by a brand and over which the brand exerts full editorial control and ownership over content, such as a blog, website or social media channel; and
- ODPS which are not UK regulated will be subject to the same controls as online advertising because they are not defined in the Communications Act 2003 and so are considered to be “internet services”.
Exemptions
There will be exemptions to take into account the impact the new rules will have on business. They are as follows:
- Brand advertising will be permitted provided there are no identifiable HFSS products in the adverts. By identifiable Government means that the public would recognise what HFSS product was being advertised. The reason for this exemption is to ensure that brands are not pigeonholed as synonymous with HFSS products and have the freedom to reformulate and move towards offering healthier products.
- Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with 249 employees or fewer will be exempt from the HFSS advertising restrictions.
- Audio online content which is streamed (such as podcasts and online only radio) will be exempt from the HFSS restrictions.
- Broadcast radio is exempt.
- Businesses can continue to promote their products or services to other businesses.
- To ensure that consumers can still buy products online and have enough information at the point of purchase the restrictions on HFSS advertising do not apply to transactional content. However, adverts with a “click now to buy” button or “swipe up to buy” function will not be allowed.
The provisions dealing with the advertising restrictions will come into force in July 2022 and were originally set to apply from 1 January 2023. However the Secretary of State has the power to defer the start date and the restrictions are currently set to come into force on 1 January 2024.
WM Comment
Businesses have got eighteen months to rethink their advertising campaigns for HFSS products or in fact reformulate their products so that they are not caught by the restrictions.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Is an increase in industrial action on the horizon?
Industrial action usually happens when a dispute in the workplace can’t be resolved through negotiation […]
Industrial action usually happens when a dispute in the workplace can’t be resolved through negotiation between the company and its workforce. Over the past decade or so, instances of wide scale industrial action have been relatively few and far between. However, it seems that this might be about to change. There are currently several examples within the food and drink sector of unions balloting members ahead of industrial action.
Food business operators (FBOs) may be particularly vulnerable to industrial action in the current climate with inflation, Brexit, the war in Ukraine and the hike in energy costs all contributing to stresses within the sector. FBOs may decide that new working conditions, which include reduced pay and holiday entitlement, are necessary to keep the business afloat. However, if workers are not prepared to accept the new terms, industrial action can often be the result, particularly when ‘fire and rehire’ tactics are threatened.
WM Comment
At Walker Morris we have a very experienced team of employment lawyers who are well versed in navigating the complexities of industrial action. Don’t leave it until the last minute to speak to us, it is far better to be prepared than having to react when the threat of industrial action becomes a reality.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

New food safety rules on acrylamide levels
All food businesses operators (FBOs) are currently required to put in place simple practical steps […]
All food businesses operators (FBOs) are currently required to put in place simple practical steps to manage acrylamide within their food safety management systems. This ensures that acrylamide levels are as low as reasonably achievable in their food.
Acrylamide is a chemical substance formed when starchy foods, such as potatoes and bread, are cooked at high temperatures (above 120°C). It can be formed when foods are baked, fried, grilled, toasted or roasted. Laboratory tests show that acrylamide in the diet causes cancer in animals and scientists agree that acrylamide in food has the potential to cause cancer in humans as well.
Current food safety legislation governing acrylamide levels in the UK is contained in EU Regulation 2017/2158 (Regulations) which was retained as part of UK law following Brexit. FBOs are expected to do the following:
- be aware of acrylamide as a food safety hazard and have a general understanding of how acrylamide is formed in the food they produce;
- take the necessary steps to mitigate acrylamide formation in the food they produce – adopting the relevant measures as part of their food safety management procedures;
- undertake representative sampling and analysis where appropriate, to monitor the levels of acrylamide in their products as part of their assessment of the mitigation measures; and
- keep appropriate records of the mitigation measures undertaken, together with sampling plans and results of any testing.
The Regulations also set out benchmark levels (BMLs) which are generic performance indicators for the food categories covered by the Regulations. They are not maximum limits and are not intended to be used for enforcement purposes. BMLs are to be used by FBOs to gauge the success of their mitigation measures. Under the BMLs, food and drink manufacturers need to aim for ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) acrylamide levels.
Under proposed new EU legislation, these benchmarks would be adjusted and maximum levels would be introduced alongside them. If products exceed the proposed maximum levels the consequences for the FBOs would be far more stringent than if the BMLs are exceeded currently. The draft legislation also proposes new food substances to be monitored, including root vegetable fries, fruit crisps, cocoa powder and potato based dishes such as croquettes. It is thought that the new legislation will come into force sometime in 2023.
It is unclear whether the UK will follow suit and adopt the same approach and introduce maximum levels but, even if it does not, FBOs that export products to the European Union and sell products in Northern Ireland will be affected by the new legislation.
In preparation, FBOs should consider whether or not their products would comply with the new maximum levels of acrylamide allowed and if they do not, then a reformulation of the product may be necessary. FBOs should also familiarise themselves with the new products being added to the benchmark monitoring system to ensure that they can comply with these new food safety rules.
WM Comment
We have lawyers who specialise in all aspects of food safety regulation and can provide guidance in this highly regulated area.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Cyberattacks – what can be done to protect your factory?
As the food and drink sector embraces the latest technology and digitisation within its factories […]
As the food and drink sector embraces the latest technology and digitisation within its factories and food processing plants, the number of food and drink businesses (FBOs) that have experienced incidents of cyber-crime have increased. The cyberattack at the start of 2022 against KP Snacks, maker of well-known brands such as Hula Hoops, Pom-Bear, McCoy’s, Tyrrells and Butterkist, was probably the most high-profile to date. The company first became aware of an IT outage incident at the end of January and after an initial internal investigation, warned Nisa customers on 2 February that “we are now able to confirm that we have been victims of a cyberattack and our systems have been compromised by ransomware” and went on to say that the company could not “safely process orders or dispatch goods“.
The modern manufacturing environment is heavily reliant on technology, from cloud-based data storage systems and automated assembly solutions to robotics and artificial intelligence. All of this technology means that many FBOs are exposed to significant risk from cyberattacks. Attacks on FBOs are largely ransomware attacks in which the FBO is blocked from accessing critical information and business systems. It could result in companies not being able to process orders, operate the production lines or manage the logistics of delivery.
How can FBOs protect themselves from a cyberattack?
It is not possible for an FBO to entirely eradicate the risk of a cyberattack.
We recommend that where FBOs have not done so already, they should implement a formal cybercrime prevention strategy and incident management plan as part of the overall risk, compliance and business continuity framework embedded into the business.
This process involves conducting diligence on cybercrime risk for the individual business and ensuring that there is a clear and structured plan of technical and legal responses which will immediately come into operation in the event of a cyber-attack in order to swiftly mitigate the financial, reputational and legal exposure caused by a cyberattack. The plan should address:
- Technical IT and business systems responses;
- Assessment of legal data-protection breaches, associated regulatory risk and ICO reporting requirements;
- Communications protocol, reputation management and guidance for staff;
- Third party and insurance claims; and
- Ongoing risk assessment, audit and training protocols.
WM Comment
Walker Morris’ specialist Food and Drink Group consists of a multi-disciplinary team of lawyers immersed in the food and drink industry with the expertise to support clients across the various disciplines required to prepare for and respond to cyberattacks, including working with clients on implementing formal cybercrime prevention and incident management plans to ensure clients are in the best possible position to respond effectively to a cyberattack incident.
Please contact Richard Naish or Nick Lees for a further discussion about cybercrime incident planning and rapid response.

Government confirms delay to EPR scheme roll out
Government has confirmed that it intends to delay the roll out of the Extended Producer […]
Government has confirmed that it intends to delay the roll out of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme from 2023 to 2024 and will focus initially on payments for household packaging waste and packaging in street bins.
What is Extended Producer Responsibility?
Extended Producer Responsibility requires producers to be responsible for the packaging they place on the UK market at the end of its life. Under EPR proposals, packaging producers will be made responsible for the full net cost of managing the packaging they place on the market.
Government first announced its intention to introduce EPR for packaging in the Resources and Waste Strategy published in 2018 and has since published several consultations. The new EPR system will eventually replace the current Packaging Waste Regulations with a phased implementation from 2024. The reforms implemented by EPR for packaging will focus on producer payments for managing household packaging waste and packaging in street bins managed by local authorities and will appoint a scheme administrator to oversee the system. The Packaging Waste Recycling Note System will continue in parallel, to demonstrate recycling obligations have been met.
Who will be caught by EPR?
If you are a producer first placing packaging on the UK market, whether UK sourced or imported, it is likely you will be affected by EPR. Proposals state a move from the current shared responsibility approach to a ‘single point of compliance’ whereby just one business in the packaging chain is responsible for all costs. In addition, businesses selling goods in the UK will be required to report separately the volumes and material types of packaging they place on the market.
Under the current Packaging Waste Regulations a producer must meet the combined threshold of a turnover over £2 million and over 50 tonnes of packaging handled and this will remain the threshold under EPR. There will also be a new threshold introduced of £1m turnover and 25 tonnes of packaging handled which will oblige smaller producers to report packaging data.
WM Comment
The food and drink industry is expected to bear a significant amount of additional costs under the EPR scheme. However the scheme has been broadly welcomed by the Food and Drink Federation citing a commitment to move towards a circular economy. Businesses should review their supply chain documents in light of these changes.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Greenwashing – ASA reprimands two big brands for overstating their environmental claims
During the first quarter of 2022, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against […]
During the first quarter of 2022, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against two well known food and drink brands that challenged whether the advertisements exaggerated the total environmental benefit of the products being advertised and were therefore misleading.
The ASA, along with other regulators such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), continue to crack down on businesses that are seen to be “greenwashing” – the practice of making exaggerated claims about a business’ environmental credentials and the sustainability of its products, services and environmental impact.
In February, we reported on the ASA’s finding that adverts produced by the drinks brand Innocent were misleading. The adverts in question implied that purchasing Innocent products was a choice which would have a positive environmental impact. While the ASA acknowledged that Innocent was undertaking various actions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of its products, that was not enough to demonstrate that its products had a net positive environmental impact over their full lifecycles. The ASA also noted that Innocent’s drinks bottles included non-recycled plastic and that the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing of those materials in order to produce the bottle would have a negative impact on the environment. You can read our original article here which also contains a wider discussion of the ESG agenda of which greenwashing is just a small part.
The second brand that has been reprimanded is Lipton’s Tea which is part of Pepsi Lipton International. Lipton has been censured by the ASA for making a misleading sustainability claim about the packaging of its plastic bottles. The ASA upheld a complaint about a poster for the iced tea brand which stated “Deliciously refreshing, 100% recycled” with small text at the bottom of the poster stating that this excluded the cap and label. The complainant suggested that “100% recycled” misleadingly implied the entire bottle was made from 100% recycled plastic. The ASA upheld the complaint. The ASA agreed that the overall impression of the advert was that all components of the bottle were made entirely from recycled plastic and as such ruled that the advert must not appear again.
WM Comment
Walker Morris’ Regulatory and Commercial Dispute Resolution teams can help businesses with the drafting or updating of appropriate policies and procedures to guard against greenwashing and with the provision of staff training on misrepresentation and/or specific greenwashing issues. Please give us a call if you need any advice.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Promotion and placement of HFSS foods – what is the current situation?
Restrictions on the sale of pre-packed foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt […]
Restrictions on the sale of pre-packed foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) have been on the agenda for several years and on 2 December 2021, the Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) were made. The Regulations are due to come into force on 1 October 2022 and place restrictions on the promotion and placement of certain foods. You can read our previous article here which sets out the details of the Regulations.
On 6 April 2022, the Department for Health and Social Care issued detailed guidance for businesses and enforcers on how to interpret the Regulations. The guidance clarifies issues in the Regulations including:
- Products in scope.
- How to assess whether franchisees and in-store concessions are in scope for the rules.
- The territorial application of the rules.
- Best practice, for example, a display of specified food that is not prepacked (such as loose bakery items) in a restricted location would be permitted, but would not be considered best practice.
- Aspects of the volume price promotions restrictions; for example, a promotion linked to loyalty scheme points is in scope, as are multipacks which compare the multipack price with individual packs, such as “six for the price of four”.
- How the location restrictions apply, both in-store and online.
- The enforcement process and the Advertising Standards Authority’s role in relation to the online promotion restriction.
Despite publication of the guidance, research has shown that almost half of all food businesses are not prepared for the implementation of the Regulations. According to Food Manufacture, research has shown that 43% of businesses interviewed felt unprepared for the new legislation while 70% said that they were not aware that volume promotions would be banned. A further 20% said they were unaware of the legislation altogether, while just one in three businesses had assessed their products ahead of the legislation taking effect.
With the Food and Drink industry still recovering from the pandemic coupled with the war in Ukraine, Brexit and the spiralling cost of living, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Food and Drink Federation has recently called on Government to delay implementation of the Regulations. It has been suggested that a delay of a year would give more time to solve some of the huge issues facing retailers and suppliers, from confusion over the Nutrient Profile Model and what products are in and out of scope, to the real problems facing smaller, less resourced stores.
Finally, the launch of a legal challenge to the Regulations by Kellogg’s may turn out to be the most significant road block yet. The Kellogg’s legal challenge takes issue with the application of the nutrient profiling model within the Regulations, which works like a virtual set of scales and calculates the nutritional value of a food by weighing up elements such as protein and fibre against salt and saturated fat. Kellogg’s lawyers argue that the application of the formula should be changed because it does not take into account the nutritional value of milk which is invariably added to the cereal. Tom Hickman QC, counsel for Kellogg’s, insists that the Regulations are skewed because they do not consider how cereals are actually consumed. In effect, cereals are being wrongly assessed under the new rules in their ‘dry form’.
WM Comment
At the moment we have to work on the assumption that the restrictions on the promotion and placement of HFSS foods will come into force later this year even though at the time of writing there are fresh reports of a potential Government u-turn. If these Regulations affect your business, now is the time to understand the implications and get prepared. It may be the case that a reformulation of the product may be the best course of action and that will obviously take a significant amount of time.
Please note that since this article was published, Government has announced that the Regulations will now come into effect in October 2023.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.

Ingredient substitutions and product labelling
At the end of April 2022, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued updated guidance on […]
At the end of April 2022, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued updated guidance on oil substitutions and product labelling. The FSA is advising consumers that some food products may now contain other refined or fully refined food grade vegetable oils, despite being labelled as containing sunflower oil. The update provides advice to consumers that fully refined palm oil, fully refined coconut oil and fully refined soybean oil are permitted to be used in some products without changes to the label being made. The use of refined rapeseed oil was subject to the original guidance issued in March 2022 by the FSA and in effect Government has suspended elements of the labelling rules to allow suppliers to switch from sunflower oil to other oils without having to change the labels.
The question of the use of substitutions for sunflower oil have arisen due to the impact of the conflict in Ukraine on the availability of sunflower oil. The majority of the UK’s sunflower oil comes from Ukraine and food businesses are reporting that supplies of sunflower oil are likely to run out in a few weeks with some businesses already experiencing severe difficulties. This has led to some food manufacturers urgently replacing sunflower oil with refined rapeseed oil before being able to make the change on the label.
The FSA is therefore advising consumers that food products labelled as containing sunflower oil may instead have been produced using refined rapeseed oil and consumers should look out for additional information being provided by retailers and manufacturers to stay informed. Emily Miles, FSA Chief Executive said: “FSA and FSS have been working hard to understand the recent pressures on our food supply chain and the interim measures needed to make sure certain foods – like crisps, breaded fish, frozen vegetables and chips – remain on sale here. We have looked at the immediate food safety risk of substituting sunflower oil with refined rapeseed oil – particularly to people with a food allergy – and it is very low. We know allergic reactions to rapeseed oil are very rare and – if they do occur – are mild. Retaining consumer trust remains an absolute priority for both organisations and we are urgently working with the food industry and other partners to ensure labels on food where sunflower oil has been replaced by refined rapeseed oil are made accurate as soon as possible.“.
WM Comment
The Food and Drink Federation has suggested to Government’s Food Resilience Industry Forum that a streamlined process is needed whereby when the next ingredient is unavailable, for whatever reason, there is a much quicker reaction and announcement as to what ingredients can be substituted. It might be safe to assume that there is the possibility of some subtle changes to the food labelling rules on the horizon.
Want to learn more about our Food & Drink Team? Visit our page here.