Key Facts
- •Fold Hill Foods Ltd (Claimant) manufactured dry hypoallergenic cat food.
- •In 2021, an outbreak of feline pancytopenia (PCP) affected cats, with a high mortality rate.
- •A significant proportion of affected cats had consumed Fold Hill Foods' products, leading to a recall.
- •The Food Standards Agency (FSA, Defendant) issued public updates advising against feeding recalled cat food.
- •The FSA's actions were challenged as unlawful and irrational.
- •Mycotoxins (T2, HT-2, DAS) were found in some samples of Fold Hill Foods' cat food, but levels were sometimes below the EFSA guideline.
- •The source of the mycotoxins was traced to a batch of potato flakes from a Russian supplier.
- •There was uncertainty about the exact relationship between mycotoxin levels and PCP.
- •Some cats that died from PCP had not consumed Fold Hill Foods' products.
- •The Claimant argued the FSA overstated the link between their food and PCP, causing significant financial and reputational damage.
Legal Principles
Public authority's power to recall products
Food Standards Act 1999, Section 7(1) and 9(1)
Precautionary principle in food law
Regulation (EC) 178/2002, Articles 6 & 7
Public information obligations
Regulation (EC) 178/2002, Article 10
Judicial review of rationality
Various case law (R (Mott) v Environment Agency, R (BACI Bedfordshire Ltd) v Environment Agency, R (Friends of the Earth) v Environment Agency)
Tameside duty of inquiry
R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Unlawful interference with property rights
Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights
Outcomes
Claim dismissed
The court found the FSA's actions were lawful and rational. While there was a strong correlation between Fold Hill Foods' products and the PCP outbreak, the FSA did not compel a recall and its public updates were justified given the uncertainty and high mortality rate.