Health certificates for selling?

[Karol]

How does your argument stand up viz a viz Pret a Manger:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ussian-roulette-with-daughters-life-xvsdtxfpt

Is it your contention that it was purely down to Natasha as the consumer to decide whether or not to eat the fateful sandwich that took her life?

The NHS identifies honey as a risk food not to be given to children under 12 months of age:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/foods-to-avoid-giving-babies-and-young-children/

I guess it's down to each individual seller of honey (casual or otherwise) to assess the public liability risks of selling their produce , the extent of warnings on their labels and whether they feel the need to insure themselves. Pret a Manger caught quite a bit of flack but as a big corporation have been able to weather the storm. Could a casual seller survive that kind of onslaught? What's the risk that a baby under 12 months will be poisoned with botulinum from consuming honey?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448763/

Being a casual seller of honey doesn't absolve the seller of public liability risk.

 

[jeff33]

Absolutely
Playing in the dirt is good for you.
It reduces the chance of allergies.

Exactly and I still do it now... Well, it's called gardening and tending to the veg patch. I also sometimes eat without washing my hands when gardening and never had any issues.

6 hives is not much to ensure continuous selling

I only sell as seasonal which allows me to ask for the price I want. There is enough demand around for me to be able to turn down shops if they don't want to give me the price I ask for. I also made 98% of my production out of 5 hives this year... perhaps you need to get some more productive bees Finman?

How does your argument stand up viz a viz Pret a Manger:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ussian-roulette-with-daughters-life-xvsdtxfpt

Is it your contention that it was purely down to Natasha as the consumer to decide whether or not to eat the fateful sandwich that took her life?

The NHS identifies honey as a risk food not to be given to children under 12 months of age:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/foods-to-avoid-giving-babies-and-young-children/

I guess it's down to each individual seller of honey (casual or otherwise) to assess the public liability risks of selling their produce , the extent of warnings on their labels.
Being a casual seller of honey doesn't absolve the seller of public liability risk.

The problem is that you cannot get rid of stupidity, apparently its frown upon. Common sense also seem to have disappeared over the years. Instead we create liability where stupidity gets rewarded and someone else takes the blame.

 

[Newbeeneil]

How does your argument stand up viz a viz Pret a Manger:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ussian-roulette-with-daughters-life-xvsdtxfpt

Is it your contention that it was purely down to Natasha as the consumer to decide whether or not to eat the fateful sandwich that took her life?

The NHS identifies honey as a risk food not to be given to children under 12 months of age:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/foods-to-avoid-giving-babies-and-young-children/


I guess it's down to each individual seller of honey (casual or otherwise) to assess the public liability risks of selling their produce , the extent of warnings on their labels and whether they feel the need to insure themselves. Pret a Manger caught quite a bit of flack but as a big corporation have been able to weather the storm. Could a casual seller survive that kind of onslaught? What's the risk that a baby under 12 months will be poisoned with botulinum from consuming honey?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448763/

Being a casual seller of honey doesn't absolve the seller of public liability risk.

I agree with you final statement but believe your analogy with the Pret case to be misleading. The sandwich was a manufactured product made of several different parts where a ingredient was added which caused the reaction.
Honey is essentially a single part which possibly has botulism within it. Nothing a beekeeper has done has caused the risk except extracting.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I once berated a colleague of mine who keeps tortoises - he tried to sell me one but nowhere on the tortoise did it warn me of the danger that it may kill

After all, a falling tortoise was the death of Aeschyllus

Which was a real tragedy (ironic really)

 

[For want of a better word]

Forget the honey...

It is this new wave of fashion for wax wraps that worries me !

Bug trap for every known pathogen to mankind.....

Cornwall Trading Standards advise is not to use for wrapping fish, meat, dairy or cooked rice...... and celery should be well washed before consumption!!!

Chons da

 

[thorn]

The problem is that you cannot get rid of stupidity, apparently its frown upon. Common sense also seem to have disappeared over the years. Instead we create liability where stupidity gets rewarded and someone else takes the blame.

So are you suggesting that someone with an allergy who is unknowingly served with something that triggers the allergy, is, somehow, stupid?

 

[jeff33]

So are you suggesting that someone with an allergy who is unknowingly served with something that triggers the allergy, is, somehow, stupid?

Of course I am not, don't put words in my mouth. As a seller we have a responsibility to take all the necessary steps to ensure our product is safe for consumers and that includes processing and correct labelling.

There is nowadays a trend for people to sue for everything and anything and there is always a blame. If you have taken the necessary steps why would you need a public liability, it is not my responsibility if Bob trips on my drive and hurts himself because he was reading the label on a jar he just purchased or because a child has an allergic reaction because his parents fed him honey which was correctly labelled.

 

[For want of a better word]

So are you suggesting that someone with an allergy who is unknowingly served with something that triggers the allergy, is, somehow, stupid?

Shirley....
In the eyes of the law stupidity [ or even ignorance] is no defense?

 

[thorn]

Of course I am not, don't put words in my mouth. As a seller we have a responsibility to take all the necessary steps to ensure our product is safe for consumers and that includes processing and correct labelling.

There is nowadays a trend for people to sue for everything and anything and there is always a blame. If you have taken the necessary steps why would you need a public liability, it is not my responsibility if Bob trips on my drive and hurts himself because he was reading the label on a jar he just purchased or because a child has an allergic reaction because his parents fed him honey which was correctly labelled.

Ah, you read the Daily Mail Law Reports.

 

[jeff33]

Ah, you read the Daily Mail Law Reports.

I don't bother reading the news, I can get my doze of daily trash on here when I need it... although it seems to have taken the plunge since our friend from down under as gone radio silence

 

[pargyle]

I don't bother reading the news, I can get my doze of daily trash on here when I need it... although it seems to have taken the plunge since our friend from down under as gone radio silence

Really ? Did you really mean this ?

 

[jeff33]

Which part now, I am concerned that a bit of of humour may have been misinterpreted...

 

[pargyle]

That's alright then .. for a minute I was fearful you were serious !

 

[jeff33]

I wouldn't be on here if it was like that, I value my spare time too much... Although I did like the non sense trash from down under, made me question my logic for 5 minutes.

 

[Karol]

I agree with you final statement but believe your analogy with the Pret case to be misleading. The sandwich was a manufactured product made of several different parts where a ingredient was added which caused the reaction.
Honey is essentially a single part which possibly has botulism within it. Nothing a beekeeper has done has caused the risk except extracting.

Not sure I follow why the analogy is misleading. If there is a known hazard which on balance of reasonable duty of care is not communicated then there is a risk that legal action might be taken were someone to be harmed as a consequence of not being informed of the hazard and not being given the opportunity to avoid the hazard. It's simple enough to put a warning label on honey saying the NHS advises that honey should not be fed to children under 12 months of age! Because doing so is a reasonable and easy measure to take, not doing so would be difficult to defend which is where public liability insurance would help.

Anyway, it's horses for courses as it's down to the individual seller to decide their risk profile and how they decide to manage it.

 

[ShinySideUp]

Extra warning labels, product liability insurance? Ye gods, if we did these things every year just to get rid of a bit of honey it would be a total loss and not worth the effort of keeping bees in the first place. Beekeeping is expensive and the little money I get from my honey allows me to continue to buy treatments, foundation, hives and other sundry equipment. I don't make money, I make pollinators.

TBH all this talk of death by botulinum is starting to put me off the whole beekeeping thing as there seems to be little point in taking the risk of losing everything for a few insects that hate me anyway. It's just a hobby FFS, I'm not toting a gun. I'll petrol them all tomorrow, throw the honey in the bin and burn all the hives and bollocks to everyone.

 

[Walrus]

Trading Standards Institute Advice:
https://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/122623/7/676/d#tsi9

Voluntary labelling

Members of the the British Honey Importers and Packers Association (BHIPA) adhere to a voluntary code of practice whereby all honey on retail sale includes a warning statement that honey is 'Unsuitable for children under 12 months'. This is a precautionary measure against possible infant botulism, which could potentially arise from the presence of Clostridium botulinum spores in honey. Although this is not a statutory requirement, the trading standards service supports this voluntary warning for infants under twelve months.

 

[pargyle]

Extra warning labels, product liability insurance?

TBH all this talk of death by botulinum is starting to put me off the whole beekeeping thing as there seems to be little point in taking the risk of losing everything for a few insects that hate me anyway. It's just a hobby FFS, I'm not toting a gun. I'll petrol them all tomorrow, throw the honey in the bin and burn all the hives and bollocks to everyone.

It's just the way the world is going these days .. we are better off than in the USA where you can be sued for just about anything ... and the sad part is that the Courts over there seem inclined to favour the 'injured' party.

Common sense and personal responsibility are still judged by the UK legal framework to be considered as a requirement before any claims for negligence can be accommodated. If you sell anything in a commercial sense you do have a duty of care to your customers .. but they too have a duty to act in a reasonable and responsible manner to protect themselves. It's that word 'reasonable' upon which a successful claim lives or dies.

Although your honey does not say it should not be used as an eye wash .. the customer would be deemed to have acted irresponsibly if they used it as an eye wash and suffered a loss or damage - common sense and reasonable behaviour will trump a lack of a warning in that instance.

It's a thin line on the botulism issue as to whether a court would construe not knowing that feeding honey to an infant was a duty attributed to the buyer or the seller .. A simple sign at point of sale to say that honey should not be fed to children under 1 year of age would probably absolve you from any chance of losing a case brought against you .. but the danger comes from a court who decide in your favour but decline to award you costs ~ and the legal costs of defending a negligence claim could be substantial. Insurance against legal action is often covered by your domestic insurance .. check your policy as to how far the cover extends.

Whilst my labels don't currently carry the caveat regarding infants I think, for what little effort and cost is involved, when I reprint I will add it in - in very small print. There is then incontrevertible evidence that you have considered a risk to the consumer and issued a warning ... Clearly, if your honey is so bad that it's stuffed full of botulism and kills an adult you could still be in the deep and smelly but .. just about ANYTHING that passes your lips could kill you in one way or another.

It's all about managing risk and cost is never considered by a Court to be a justifiable excuse for not exercising your duty of care.

 

[Beefriendly]

It's also why if you are selling honey to members of the public or supplying a shop etc you must be registered with your local authority as a food producer. Lets face it, should a claim arise against you, your insurance company won't pay a dime if you aren't registered. They are always looking for ways to escape paying out.

 

[Karol]

Extra warning labels, product liability insurance? Ye gods, if we did these things every year just to get rid of a bit of honey it would be a total loss and not worth the effort of keeping bees in the first place. Beekeeping is expensive and the little money I get from my honey allows me to continue to buy treatments, foundation, hives and other sundry equipment. I don't make money, I make pollinators.

TBH all this talk of death by botulinum is starting to put me off the whole beekeeping thing as there seems to be little point in taking the risk of losing everything for a few insects that hate me anyway. It's just a hobby FFS, I'm not toting a gun. I'll petrol them all tomorrow, throw the honey in the bin and burn all the hives and bollocks to everyone.

Please don't shoot the messenger. No beekeeper can control the amount of botulinum spores in their honey but they are likely to be present. If you don't want to take out insurance then it would seem sensible to add the voluntary warning to your labels or get some small stickers printed up and stick them on. That would reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution and therefore reduce the need for insurance to cover costs.