At around 8pm on Monday 13 August, Marc Bolland was called back to the office. The news was serious. There had been an E.coli outbreak in Scotland and two Morrisons stores were under suspicion. His team swiftly swung into action, firing off communiqués to environmental health, staff and the press. By 8.30am the next day, Bolland was at the Lonend store - before the environmental experts had even arrived.

No one could fault the speed of Morrisons' response - the retailer was equally quick to communicate events to shoppers. But coming in the wake of the Whistleblower exposé and Cadbury's salmonella scare, the incident has thrown the spotlight on food safety once more. So are food scares on the increase and how should a business respond to one?

The latest FSA annual report shows that between 2006 and 2007 there were 1,330 reported food and feed incidents, up 17.4% from 1,133 in 2005-6. The number of foodborne illnesses, however, has fallen by 19.2% since 2000.

With increasingly nutritionally aware consumers just as likely to spark a scare as Trading Standards, the FSA or, as in Morrisons' case, a fatality and subsequent NHS investigation, it is perhaps no surprise that the numbers are on the increase. Indeed, only this week, Mars Foods had to recall batches of Maltesers and Revels after customers reported finding small pieces of rubber in them.

But the chief reason for the rise, say legal experts, is the introduction of a tough new food law (see boxout). Companies that suspect a problem can no longer delay: do so and they face criminal sanction - as Cadbury found out when it failed to notify the authorities for three months about the salmonella outbreak, earning it a £1m fine in July. "The new regime imposes increased burdens on food operators, which increases criminal exposure," says William Robinson, a partner at law firm Freshfields. "It's a more severe regime in terms of requirements and sanctions, and incidents are being internationalised."

Food scares are getting bigger, agrees Harriet Simmons, technical director for National Britannia Certification, whose subsidiary, the Food Safety Consortium, last week launched a new food safety website advisory service. "In the age of mass production, if there's a problem with a supplier that supplies the European market, then it affects everyone," she says.

Though the falling number of foodborne illnesses suggests problems are being identified earlier, all incidents, based on the precautionary principle, are being treated with equal seriousness. "Food safety has got better. What the industry is fighting against is the perception. We're in an era in which no holds are barred. The national media will go anywhere."

The good news is that in July, the FSA issued new guidance to make notification and recall requirements more user-friendly, and at the end of the year, the BRC is expected to publish new standards, covering food safety, allergens and biosecurity.

But it will be small comfort to Morrrisons. The full details of how the outbreak occurred have yet to emerge but the fact the investigation is still under way means there is a limit to what the retailer can disclose, which has made it difficult to respond fully to media criticism. One such criticism is that the retailer may have ignored earlier warnings at the Falside store, now believed to be the source of the outbreak. Food safety concerns had been raised during two prior inspections of the store.

Morrisons declined to comment. However, a source close to the retailer insists both inspections were routine and the findings presented via informal written notices, the second-least serious notification on a scale of one to six - hardly grounds to suspect potentially fatal food safety issues at the store. The Grocer understands neither incident had anything to do with E.coli and the retailer had in both cases responded swiftly. A consumer survey revealed most shoppers thought it had handled the E.coli crisis "responsibly", the source adds.

Morrisons continues to co-operate closely with the investigation team, which is expected to publish its findings in the next three to five weeks. But whatever the outcome, there are lessons to be learnt from the recent food scares and the main one is: be prepared. "If a well-organised plan is in place, damage may be significant but will be restricted time-wise," says Robinson. "There are even examples of companies coming out smelling of roses because they have handled the situation so effectively."

How Morrisons is judged remains to be seen.nThe new rules

The EC General Food Law Regulation 178/2002 came into force in the UK two years ago, bringing with it highly onerous requirements regarding the notification, recall and withdrawal of food and drink products. The impact has been three-fold:

1. Companies are now required to notify the authorities immediately they have reason to believe there's a problem

2. Under the so-called precautionary principle, agencies such as the FSA take the view that it's better to act than not if there's any risk

3. An alert could well be posted on the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), the European Community's shared network, immediately internationalising it

The lawyer's verdict: "Every company has got additional obligations to ensure food is safe and adequate traceability requirements are in place throughout the system," says William Robinson, partner at law firm Freshfields. "They also need to act very quickly if they suspect there is a problem. The legal requirements are incredibly restrictive in terms of timing. Businesses also need to have a robust contingency plan in place, not only to deal with the incident itself but also to ensure supply chain continuity and ongoing brand value."

Topics