Dear All,
An interesting summary of rejected items in UK including the level of melamine found is here -
http://www.food.gov....atestonmelamine
(thanks Newsgirl)
Some very substantial numbers are present. Unfortunately, the production source is not given.
@Arya
Anyway, I do some research again bout the limit, and I think the publication of 1 ppm limit by FDA is.. a bit too late?
The "sudden" announcement was rumoured to be a result of internal testing of US manufactured products as commented in the 1st link of my previous post.
On doing a quick look around the net, the only countries which did not hv the typical limit pair of 2.5/1.0 ppm where the second value refers to infant milk powders and related were Taiwan ("zero" tolerance x2 ) and EC (2.5 / NA) [NA = not applicable since the item was apparently not allowed to be imported since 2002]
Just for interest , I noticed this chunk of science which considers alternative possibilities for melamine contamination (though others are also now appearing as per my previous post) -
It is recognised that trace quantities of melamine and related compounds that are of no toxicological importance may legitimately be present in food. This may arise during processing through leaching from food-grade melamine contact material. Published reports, which specify the likely leached levels of melamine in foods, are not available but there are studies reporting levels of melamine that can be leached from melamine kitchenware under very severe conditions. Melamine may be detected in beverages at levels of 0.5, 0.7, 1.4 and 2.2 mg/kg in coffee, orange juice, fermented milk and lemon juice respectively5. These levels originate from migration of melamine from the cup, made of melamine-formaldehyde resin, into the beverage under experimental hot and acidic conditions (95°C for 30 min). Given the extreme use conditions used to generate these data it is considered that a level of 2.5 mg melamine/kg food would represent the upper levels likely to be legitimately found in foods. Melamine levels in food exceeding 2.5 mg/kg would be indicative of food adulteration
Similarly, for general interest, here is a legal assessment of the potential risk to a UK importer with respect to due diligence type factors -
Necessary checks
What checks should food companies run when sourcing ingredients from outside the European Union? It is crucial that thorough due diligence is carried out on any foreign manufacturer or supplier.
This concerns not just understanding first hand the supplier’s quality control procedures, insurance arrangements and previous claims record, but also consideration of the experience and integrity of management.
Would the supplier be able to absorb the costs of any future changes to the quality procedures?
Does it have the assets to meet a significant claim arising out of a product incident?
Although all background sources of information should be reviewed, there is no substitute for a visit to the manufacturing site to meet the management and owners of the supplier and to understand the financial and technical risks involved.
Importers’ protection
Importers of food products or ingredients into Europe should also ensure that they have the necessary contractual protection. A detailed specification should be agreed, including the testing methodology to be undertaken.
Advance thought should also be given to areas of developing science – either in terms of identifying new contaminants or methodologies which detect substances at smaller concentrations.
However, the fact that a particular contaminant is not mentioned does not mean that the importer is without remedy.
Under English law, any product supplied must be of satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for purpose. In order to form the basis of a claim for breach of contract, the level of contaminant need not present a safety risk.
No importer would expect any level of melamine to be present in milk powder or, to take other examples in supply chain litigation in which we have been involved, trace levels of benzene or azo dyes to be present in food ingredients.
Nevertheless, the importer should seek an express warranty that the product complies with European food regulations and legislation in all Member States in which the end product is marketed.
The contract should also provide for a right to appoint a local agent or representative to conduct an audit of the foreign premises at short notice and a right to be informed in advance of any changes to the manufacturing process.
It should oblige the supplier to make available test results and batch information on demand. This is particularly important as companies which do not operate in the European Union are not caught by the General Food Regulations (Regulation No. 178 of 2002) which provides for one up, one down traceability and sets minimum food safety standards.
Risk of prosecution
It is the importer who is primarily responsible for compliance with food legislation and faces the risk of prosecution in the event that product is unfit for consumption.
Faced with a food prosecution, an importer would need to show that it had taken all practicable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence.
In practice, reliance on a statement of conformity from a supplier is unlikely to suffice. Consideration should be given as to what tests can be carried out to corroborate test results on a periodic basis.
http://www.foodnavig...ropean-businessI noticed today new figures hv beeen released of patients (esp.infants) in China whose condition considered to be associated with the contamination. Large increases.
Rgds / Charles.C
