EU food hygiene rules – are they strangling small scale food production?

20 August 2015 - 4:34pm -- Gerry Danby
Hygiene Flexibilities - Fit for Purpose?

Do EU hygiene rules unduly constrain artisan food producers in the quality and range of food they are able to make? Artisan Food Law is working with Slow Food International on a study across Europe into this critical issue. The first stage will focus on artisan cheese and dairy production and we will be using the opportunity presented by Slow Cheese in Bra, Italy next month to further our research.

The refrain that EU food hygiene rules are excessive and place a disproportionate burden on small scale food producers is often heard, usually expressed in a despairing tone of voice. What may be reasonable in regulating industrial and factory processed food is out of all proportion to what is necessary in small scale food production.

There is also a significant disparity in the approach taken to interpretation of the rules and enforcement from one EU country to another. Austria, for example, is known for taking a more innovative and flexible approach in the application of hygiene rules while Bulgaria appears to be towards the other extreme.

The general food Regulation (EC) 178/2002 sets the overall food law framework across the EU and the core provisions regulating food hygiene, often referred to as the ‘Hygiene Package’, comprise:

  1. Regulation (EC) 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs.
  2. Regulation (EC) 853/2004 setting out specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin.
  3. Regulation (EC) 854/2004 laying down rules for the organisation of official controls.

Food hygiene requirements are generally set out in the annexes to the regulations while in England the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 provide the domestic framework within which the Hygiene Package is enforced.

The disproportionate burden placed on small scale producers receives some regulatory recognition. The Hygiene Package provides for the possibility of derogation or exemption from certain requirements; the adaptation of others; and the exclusion of some activities from the scope of the Hygiene Package in the adoption of national measures. These possibilities are subject always to the requirement that food placed on the market must be safe. 

Derogation or exemption from the rules

In the case of a derogation or exemption, a Member State may authorise food business operators not to apply specified requirements of the Hygiene Package in particular circumstances. The opportunities to do so are defined in the Hygiene Package and must be notified at the draft stage to the European Commission. Occasionally, provisions within the Hygiene Package authorise a degree of flexibility that may be exercised by the competent authority of the Member State. Look for wording such as “unless otherwise authorised by the competent authority” in the regulations.

A derogation or exemption may, for example, permit premises where foods with traditional characteristics are exposed to an environment necessary for the part-development of their characteristics to comprise of walls, ceilings and doors that are not smooth, impervious, non-absorbent or of corrosion resistant material and permit natural geological walls, ceilings and floors.

Adaptations to support traditional food production

Adaptations provide a Member State with the possibility to adapt the requirements laid down in the Hygiene Package in particular circumstances. The main purpose of adaptations is to enable the continued use of traditional methods of production, accommodate the needs of a food business subject to specific geographical constraints and adapt requirements on the construction and layout of premises.

Exclusions from the rules

The activities excluded from the general food law Regulation (EC) 178/2002, and in consequence the Hygiene Package, include primary production for private domestic use and the domestic preparation, handling or storage of food for private domestic consumption. Member States can adopt more stringent national rules if considered necessary.

‘Primary production’ is the rearing or growing of products of the soil, of stock farming, hunting and fishing; including harvesting, milking and farmed animal production prior to slaughter.

Activities excluded from the scope of the Hygiene Package include the direct supply, by the primary producer, of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer and to local retail establishments directly supplying the final consumer. This would cover, for example, raw milk, eggs, honey, fruit, vegetables and wild game, subject to national rules.

The European Commission has published guidance on the operation of flexibility in the Hygiene Package for food businesses that provides further illustrations on how the rules are intended to work.

That’s a brief outline of the theory, what we would really like to know is how does it work in practice? We want to hear about and document any problems small scale food producers have encountered. How were they overcome? What impact did they have on the business? What was the outcome? We want to hear from small scale food producers across the EU.

The European Commission is reviewing the fitness for purpose of food law now, so if change is needed now is the time to make the case. Contact us with your stories and experience. You can e-mail us at, use the Contact Form or call us – the number is at the foot of this page.

Let's make food law work for small producers and not the other way around!


Submitted by Bob Salmon (not verified) on

If you really want to know the answers to the questions you pose, then come to the UEAPME Food Forum meetings. There you will meet people representing food SMEs from all member states and be able to put your views direct to the Commission. Usually I, from Food Solutions, am the only one from Britain there and I would appreciate help.

Submitted by Gerry Danby on

Hi Bob

I am certain there are lots of insights to be gained from the UEAPME Food Forum meetings, would be good to attend and support you where we can, will drop you a note. 


Submitted by Robin Slade (not verified) on

We have recently experienced the bad effects of what we consider excessive use of Health & Hygiene rules in the form of trying to force our business into Accreditation by the back door. We are a micro artisan business making Hand Made Additive and Gluten Free Preserves for our domestic kitchen Full H& H approved by Local Council & Trading Standards. We have been supplying another artisan Producer for some time with our Vinegars to make dressings with recently they changed their processor. The previous one was accredited but there were no issues with our product. The new one however went in to totally over the top when they discovered that we made our products in a domestic kitchen and demanded that we fill in endless forms and create loads of policy documents which were clearly aimed at big producers the size of Heinz foods and were not applicable to us on the scale were working under. A rather arrogant young man then stated that being accredited was "The only way to produce safe Food " We found this very insulting as in our ten Years of production we have never had a H & H recall issue with the food we produce. On the other hand the majority of companies who appear regularly on the Food Standards Agency recall alert web postings are Big Companies with Glass, metal and plastics in their food and unlisted allergens, Their complicated Critical Control Points and endless paper work seems to be failing them but they seem to think that it acts like a magic shield to protect them. We are constantly being asked if we are accredited even by Farm Shops these days.I suspect that the real reason behind accreditation is one of bum covering fro the insurance companies and the super markets or is there a more sinister reason to slowly put small artisan food producers out of business by burring them under a mountain of paperwork and extra expense making them uncompetitive in an increasingly price sensitive market place.

Submitted by Paull Chaplin (not verified) on


Just thought you can add Source Foods to the list of artisan food that will be off the menu.

The new attack on my miso production is so ignorant and was initiated with bullying tactics and unfounded empty claims.

I am dealing with brownie point creators.

I am so maddened by the attack I stopped producing in September last year and am just waiting to close out sensibly.

Even trading arse duds are being extremely over the top.
All threats.

Since I started in 1988, I have not had so much aggression directed at me as in the latter years. It seems they have the right to intimidate and invade like blood thirsty desperate axe grinding uninformed cheshire cats.

Well they can keep it. I am not a robot and will not be bullied anymore.

They do not show any competence regarding hygiene and contact surfaces. They are a liability when visiting. Clueless text book fools.

Over and out
Paul Chaplin

PS. Source Foods has never had any problems of any consequence since 1988. All the big factories nearby have many every week.

Submitted by Bertie (not verified) on

And to think I was going to talk to sooemne in person about this.


Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.