IN Brief:
- Openshaw Superstore pleaded guilty to two food safety and hygiene offences involving Suya Peppers Mix.
- Testing found that 2.5g of the product could contain enough peanut to trigger an allergic reaction.
- The company packing and supplying the product was responsible for the finished ingredient and allergen declaration.
Openshaw Superstore has been ordered to pay more than £65,000 after failing to declare peanut in a spice mixture that it packed and marketed.
Hull City Council’s trading standards officers purchased Suya Peppers Mix from a retailer in the city and submitted the product for laboratory testing. Analysis found a significant quantity of peanut, although the ingredient declaration contained only the product name.
Experts engaged by the council concluded that 2.5g of the mixture, less than a teaspoon, could contain enough peanut to trigger an allergic reaction in a person with a peanut allergy.
Openshaw Superstore Limited initially denied wrongdoing but later pleaded guilty to two offences involving breaches of food safety and hygiene regulations. Beverley Magistrates’ Court imposed a £45,000 fine, costs of £18,737, and a £2,000 surcharge.
The Hull retailer that sold the product was not held responsible, as the council established that the labelling obligation rested with the company that packed and supplied the spice mix.
Peanut is one of the 14 allergens that must be emphasised when used as an ingredient in food sold in the UK. A deliberate peanut ingredient requires clear declaration regardless of the quantity present, whereas precautionary labelling applies to residual risks of unintended cross-contact.
The quantity detected indicates more than a trace-level contamination event. Recipe understanding, supplier documentation, label generation, or several connected controls appear to have failed before the product entered distribution.
Suya seasonings can vary between producers and may contain peanut, salt, spices, flavourings, or compound ingredients. A packer cannot rely on a general description of the food and must establish the exact composition of the specific mixture being handled.
Ingredient data must remain attached to the product
Milled spice blends are difficult to assess visually once combined, since ground peanut may be indistinguishable from other powders. Complete supplier specifications are therefore required, covering ingredients, percentages, allergens, additives, processing aids where relevant, and cross-contact controls.
Copying a trade name onto a retail label does not satisfy those requirements. The finished declaration must list ingredients in descending order by weight, emphasise allergens, and identify compound ingredients where the legislation requires their components to be shown.
A separate undeclared-peanut incident involving incorrect snack products entering the wrong finished packaging arose through a different failure, but both cases demonstrate how a plausible-looking pack can conceal a serious mismatch between contents and label.
Label approval should begin with an authorised recipe linked to a current supplier specification. Artwork can then be generated, checked by a competent person, and formally released, while any recipe, supplier, or ingredient change triggers another assessment.
Bulk ingredients create additional risks after delivery. Original sacks, tubs, or containers may be separated from labels during decanting or repacking, allowing identity, lot, or allergen information to become detached from the material used in production.
Translation also requires control where ingredients originate outside the UK. Literal translations may omit compound ingredients, processing descriptions, or allergens that are labelled differently in the exporting market, but responsibility remains with the business placing the finished product on the UK market.
Incoming checks should confirm that each delivery matches the approved purchase specification and carries traceable lot information. Supplier declarations must be reviewed rather than accepted indefinitely, particularly where the source, formulation, or processing site changes.
Laboratory testing cannot replace accurate specifications, although risk-based sampling can verify products with a variable supply base, limited documentation, or a history of allergen concerns. Results must be connected to identifiable lots so affected stock can be isolated.
Shared grinders, scoops, fillers, weighing stations, and packing areas also create cross-contact routes. Peanut powders and oily residues can remain inside joints, dust-extraction equipment, fabric filters, and surfaces that appear clean after routine dry cleaning.
Validated cleaning methods should demonstrate that residues are removed to an acceptable level before non-peanut products enter the same equipment. Production sequencing, dedicated utensils, physical separation, and environmental sampling may support the control programme.
Small packers often handle numerous products in short runs, increasing changeovers and the administrative burden attached to each recipe and label. That operating model requires stronger specification control, since fragmented records and frequent manual intervention create more opportunities for mismatch.
The financial penalty does not include withdrawn stock, legal work, disrupted distribution, corrective action, or lost customer confidence. Those costs can exceed the fine, particularly where the business must review a wider range assembled under the same controls.
Responsibility transferred to Openshaw Superstore when it packed and marketed the product. At that point, understanding the composition and communicating it accurately became part of the manufacturing process rather than an administrative task left to the retailer.
