The UK is the only EU country that doesn’t require food manufacturers to put all of their food ingredients through rigorous tests to ensure they are safe.
This is in stark contrast to the US where most food is tested on a regular basis.
What’s more, there are some exceptions for certain foods such as meat and dairy products.
Food companies and other food industry organisations in the UK have long argued that a food safety test is unnecessary, especially when the testing is carried out at a scale that doesn to an individual individual’s individual needs.
However, new research published in the journal Food Chemistry finds that testing foods is a lot more reliable and cost effective.
The study involved analysing the food of hundreds of UK food manufacturers and comparing their test results to data gathered by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Food testing has become increasingly common in the last decade, but it still requires a considerable amount of expertise to get it right.
The UK has a very high proportion of food companies, who rely on food companies for their funding.
They are required to provide food testing to all of the food products they make, including food produced in their UK plants.
This means that food testing is not only a good practice, but is also essential to ensuring that food products are safe for the consumer.
But in recent years there has been a rise in food safety concerns about foods, particularly those made in the EU, with food testing increasing to its highest level since 2010.
“What the EFSA does is collect and analyse all the tests they can get their hands on,” said study author Dr Mark Thomas, from the Food and Chemical Toxicology Unit at the University of Kent.
“The vast majority of these tests are conducted in the US and Canada and, of those that are, the majority are done by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
The main reason for this is that they are more expensive, and they can take a long time to run.
“So this paper gives us a clear sense of what the UK’s food safety situation is.” “
It’s pretty clear that the EU is doing the best, but we still have a long way to go in terms of food safety,” he added.
“So this paper gives us a clear sense of what the UK’s food safety situation is.”
Food safety testing is conducted by the food safety agency of the European Union (EFTA), which also conducts the testing for the EU-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
In addition to being a cost effective way to gather data, food safety testing also means that it is done by a team of people with expertise in food chemistry, microbiology and toxicology, which in turn means that there is a large amount of data to go through to confirm that the food is safe.
Dr Thomas said that food manufacturers in the United Kingdom also rely on the UK for their funds and that food tests are a vital part of the UK food supply chain.
“This is because, like other food products, food products come in many shapes and sizes,” he said.
“We’ve got a number of different types of foods that are used in our daily lives, and food testing can help to identify these types of food.”
“For example, food from beef, lamb and pork is a very common type of meat.
For this reason, we do food testing of these meats.
We also do food tests of beef products and eggs.”
Dr Tom said that the research showed that food safety tests could be useful for consumers, as they would give them a more accurate picture of what they are buying.
“It might be that they will be looking for different types or varieties of foods, for example, because they have different needs and different types to what they’re buying,” he explained.
“If food testing was a good way to find out what food is really safe, that might be a good thing for consumers.”
For many food manufacturers, food testing has been very costly, but for food testing not to be required in the first place, there is no money in the system.
In the UK, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has a small food safety budget of £1 million, and it was only in 2010 that it had a food testing budget of just £3.6 million.
This amounts to a very small amount of money compared to the food manufacturers themselves.
“There are a number companies in the food industry that have food testing that are funded through the UK government, but that does not mean that they actually test food,” Dr Thomas added.
Food testing is still expensive, however, and in order to fund the testing, the FSA requires that food companies must provide an extra £1.2 million every year.
“For a lot of food to be tested, there needs to be at least some money coming in from the food companies themselves, and there’s a lot less of that than there used to be,” Dr Tom explained.