IN Brief:
- Puratos was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £6,270 in costs.
- Workplace monitoring found inhalable dust above applicable exposure limits.
- The prosecution identified machinery leaks, unsuitable cleaning methods, and daily lifting of 25kg ingredient sacks.
Puratos has been fined £120,000 after employees at its Buckingham food-manufacturing site were exposed to hazardous ingredient dust and repeated manual-handling risks.
Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court also ordered the company to pay £6,270 in costs after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
A Health and Safety Executive inspection on 3 December 2024 found dust escaping from machinery through leaks, deposits being blown down with compressed air, and production floors being cleaned using dry brushes and brooms.
Workplace monitoring completed later that month confirmed that employees had been exposed to inhalable dust concentrations above applicable workplace exposure limits during the tests.
Workers were also required to lift 25kg sacks of ingredients each day, exposing them to repeated handling loads that could have been reduced through mechanical assistance, smaller packages, or redesigned ingredient-transfer arrangements.
The Buckingham site had previously been inspected during 2021, when enforcement action was taken over dust exposure and manual handling associated with its manufacturing operations.
Since January 2026, HSE has been carrying out a broader inspection programme at large bakeries across Great Britain, examining whether employers are controlling exposure to flour and other dusty ingredients.
HSE inspector Emma Page said: “Too many workers in bakeries are suffering from unnecessary exposure to dusty ingredients, including flour. When employers prevent exposure, the risk of occupational asthma is removed.”
Containment starts where ingredients enter
Flour, sugar, starches, milk powders, cocoa, enzymes, improvers, and other dry ingredients can become airborne during sack emptying, conveying, weighing, mixing, equipment opening, spill response, and cleaning. Fine particles often remain suspended after the visible dust cloud has dispersed.
Finished-product hygiene and occupational exposure require parallel controls. A process may protect food from environmental contamination while still exposing operators through leaking seals, inadequate extraction, or working practices that return settled dust to the air.
Prevention begins by keeping powder inside the transfer system. Bulk silos, enclosed conveyors, sealed flexible connections, and sack-tip stations fitted with suitable local exhaust ventilation can reduce emissions before respiratory protection becomes necessary.
Extraction must be assessed under real operating conditions because a hood that appears effective while idle may fail when a bag is emptied rapidly or several ingredients are added together. Capture velocity, operator position, airflow balance, and filter condition all influence performance.
Worn gaskets, damaged inspection doors, split hoses, loose joints, and blocked filters gradually undermine containment. Dust deposits around machinery should trigger investigation of the source rather than be treated solely as a housekeeping issue.
Compressed-air cleaning can redistribute settled material across a much larger area and create a concentrated airborne cloud. Dry sweeping produces a similar effect, whereas suitable industrial vacuum systems and controlled wet-cleaning methods remove material without repeatedly re-suspending it.
Equipment selection must still account for combustible-dust hazards and hygiene requirements. A vacuum used around fine organic powders requires the correct rating, filtration, earthing, and cleaning design for the materials present.
Material handling shapes plant safety
Manual sacks remain common where recipes use many ingredients in modest quantities, yet handling a nominally manageable bag throughout a full shift can produce considerable cumulative strain. Reach distance, lifting height, frequency, twisting, and floor conditions can be as influential as the stated pack weight.
Vacuum lifters, bag hoists, adjustable platforms, powered trolleys, and smaller packs can reduce the load. Where production volumes justify it, bulk or intermediate-container systems can remove repeated lifts while improving dosing accuracy and traceability.
Closed minor-ingredient systems also limit operator contact and control recipe additions, although they require capital, space, cleaning access, and reliable changeover procedures. Poorly designed automation may simply transfer the lifting or dust problem to filling and maintenance tasks elsewhere.
Well-contained transfer generally improves yield as well as safety. A leaking system loses ingredients, lengthens cleaning, contaminates nearby machinery, and increases the opportunity for allergen cross-contact.
Exposure monitoring should continue as production changes rather than becoming a single compliance exercise. Higher output, revised recipes, altered ventilation, deteriorating machinery, or different cleaning routines can invalidate earlier results.
Flour dust is a recognised cause of occupational asthma, and sensitisation may leave an affected employee unable to continue working around the material. The damage can persist even after exposure ends, turning an avoidable process failure into a long-term health and employment consequence.
Handling and lifting account for a substantial share of reportable injuries across food and drink manufacturing. Dust and musculoskeletal risk often arise at the same ingredient-intake point, allowing one redesign to improve both conditions.
The choice between sacks, intermediate containers, and bulk delivery should therefore include labour, extraction, cleaning, waste, storage, and injury risk alongside the purchase price. A cheaper package can create a more expensive production method once every handling stage is included.
Previous enforcement at the Buckingham site increased the expectation that known deficiencies would be corrected and sustained. Written systems cannot compensate for machinery that leaks, ventilation that fails to capture emissions, or cleaning methods that deliberately place dust back into the workplace.
Effective control depends on the ingredient package, transfer equipment, extraction, maintenance, cleaning, and operator task functioning as one system. Weakness in any part can return exposure to the line even when the remaining controls appear sound.
