Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Odysea Limited v London Borough of Waltham Forest

[2024] UKFTT 157 (GRC)
A company selling honey labeled 'raw' was told to remove the label because the council said all honey is raw. The company won in court. The judge said that 'raw' accurately described the honey's minimal processing compared to others and wasn't misleading. The case shows that there's confusion over what 'raw honey' means, and clearer rules might be needed.

Key Facts

  • Odysea Ltd. appealed an Improvement Notice from Waltham Forest Trading Standards requiring them to remove the label 'raw' from their honey products.
  • The dispute centered on whether labeling honey as 'raw' is misleading under Article 7(1)(c) of the Food Information to Consumers Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 (FIC).
  • Odysea argued their honey is special because it's unpasteurized and minimally processed, while Waltham Forest contended all honey is 'raw' in the sense of uncooked.
  • The case involved analysis of the Honey (England) Regulations 2015, which define honey and set compositional requirements, including enzyme levels and HMF content.
  • Expert evidence was presented by both sides, with conflicting views on the effects of heating on honey and consumer understanding of 'raw honey'.

Legal Principles

Food labelling must not be misleading as to the characteristics of the food, including its nature, identity, properties, composition, etc.

Food Information to Consumers Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 (FIC), Article 7

Honey must meet specific compositional requirements set out in Schedule 1 to the Honey (England) Regulations 2015 to be sold as honey; otherwise, it may only be sold as 'baker's honey'.

Honey (England) Regulations 2015, Schedule 1

Tribunals may cancel or affirm an Improvement Notice and modify it as deemed fit.

Honey (England) Regulations 2015 (as modified by Food Safety Act 2010, s.37)

Tribunals cannot generally decide how a statutory discretion should have been exercised unless authorized by statute.

R. (Begum) v SIAC [2021] UKSC 7

Outcomes

The appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal found that Odysea's use of 'raw' accurately conveyed the minimal processing of their honey compared to others and wasn't misleading.

The Improvement Notice is cancelled.

The Tribunal rejected Waltham Forest's definition of 'raw' as simply 'uncooked' and found Odysea's use of the term did not suggest special characteristics possessed by all similar honeys.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.