Written question asked by Gordon Prentice (Labour) on Monday, 8 January 2001, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Tuesday, 16 January 2001. It was answered by Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Labour) on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 on behalf of the Department of Health.

Dept of Health

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the impact of the recent judgement in the case of the contaminated turkey and chicken meat in Hull; and if he will review the adequacy of penalties under food safety laws.

Answer: Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the recent judgment in the case of the contaminated turkey and chicken meat in Hull; and if he will review the adequacy of penalties under food safety laws. [144861] Ms Stuart: Putting condemned meat in the human food chain is a very serious matter and one that could affect human health. The charge in this case was one of unusually serious criminal activity involving food safety, based on an intention to defraud others for financial gain. The fresh meat sector is one of the most strictly regulated sectors of the food industry. Penalties under the Food Safety Act 1990 reflect the nature of the regulatory offences generally prosecuted under it. In this case, the appropriate charge was a common law conspiracy to defraud, where the penalties available are greater than those under specific food legislation. If the law needs strengthening to ensure better protection of human health, we will not hesitate to do this.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 361 c148W; 144861
Session: 2000-01
Subjects: Contamination Food Judgements Kingston upon Hull Poultry Meat Safety
Link: View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk