How new food rules could ruin restaurants

The coalition said they would tame health and safety, which would be great for those of us in the food -business. But they, like the public, like to blame Brussels, and the problem is not with Europe, or not often. EU law is basically Napoleonic, and sensible. It places the onus on the operators to ensure safety, and to be able to prove that what they do is safe. If it turns out not to be, then they will be prosecuted and likely clapped in jail. Fair enough if you have maimed or poisoned someone.

Our law is basically Roman and we like to stipulate every tiny detail in statues. Where Europe will use words like ‘reasonable’, ‘as necessary’ or ‘appropriate’ and lets the operator determine what that means, we produce reams of regulation to flesh out European law and reams of ‘guidance’ on top.

The E. coli scare has precipitated a rash of guidance from the Food Standards Agency, which means cooking almost everything to destruction. You can achieve a pinky-grey steak or burger (seared to 75 degrees), but all other meats and offal require the -following:

60°C – 45 minutes

65°C – 10 minutes

70°C – 2 minutes

75°C – 30 seconds

80°C – 6 seconds

If one of the above is not used (and proven to be achieved in practice), the Food Business Operator must acquire validation or be in breach of the law.

Most popular

Rod Liddle

Sack the judges

This was clearly drafted for factories, fast food chains or big banqueting kitchens, not for restaurants. But as far as the law is concerned a producer of food is an operator. Are they seriously expecting a busy chef to stand over the grill with six different orders, stopwatch in one hand and probe in the other? Maybe just possible for a kitchen with a £20,000 combi-steamer, but a small restaurant?

In the US, they let the customer take the risk, though menus come with the unsavoury note on the bottom ‘Eating raw or undercooked meat can cause food poisoning.’