[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":26},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-ppds-compliance-checklist-eho-inspection-guide-live":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"date":6,"updatedAt":7,"categories":8,"coverImage":10,"content":11,"description":12,"keywords":13,"seoTitle":22,"canonicalUrl":23,"noIndex":24,"imageAlt":25,"faqs":23},"ppds-compliance-checklist-eho-inspection-guide","The Complete PPDS Compliance Checklist: Pass Your EHO Inspection","2026-04-10","2026-03-29",[9],"Blog","ppds-compliance-checklist-eho-inspection-guide.jpg","\u003Cp>This is the checklist we wish existed when \u003Ca href=\"/blog/natashas-law-ppds-allergen-labelling-guide\">Natasha’s Law\u003C/a> came into force. No theory. No padding. Just every item an Environmental Health Officer will look for during a PPDS inspection, with worked label examples, the exact formatting rules, the most common failures, and the enforcement data that shows what happens when it goes wrong.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Print it. Pin it in the kitchen. Work through it line by line. If everything passes, you are ready.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>What EHOs Actually Check\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>95% of local authorities\u003C/strong> now conduct PPDS checks during standard food hygiene inspections. This is not a separate visit or a specialist audit. It happens during your routine inspection, and the officer has a structured protocol.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Here is what they examine, and the percentage of LAs that confirmed checking each element in the FSA’s national evaluation:\u003C/p>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Check\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>% of LAs that verify it\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Allergens emphasised in ingredients list\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>98%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Food name present on label\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>97%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Labelling system in place\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>97%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Where food was packed stated/confirmed\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>96%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Ingredient list accuracy\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>89%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\n\u003C/table>\n\u003Ch3>Documents They Ask to See\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>EHOs do not just look at labels. They follow the paper trail backward from the label on the product to the original ingredient source. Be ready to produce:\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>HACCP plan or SFBB pack\u003C/strong> with allergen hazards specifically addressed\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Allergen matrix\u003C/strong> for every PPDS product\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Training records\u003C/strong> showing who was trained, when, and on what\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Supplier specifications\u003C/strong> with full ingredient and allergen breakdowns\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Cleaning schedules\u003C/strong> showing how allergen cross-contamination is controlled\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Temperature logs\u003C/strong> (relevant where allergen-containing products require specific storage)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Traceability system\u003C/strong> linking each product back to its ingredients and suppliers\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Questions They Ask Staff\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>EHOs will speak to front-line staff directly, not just the manager. Typical questions:\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cem>“Can you name the 14 declarable allergens?”\u003C/em>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cem>“How would you handle a customer asking about allergens in a specific product?”\u003C/em>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cem>“What is your process when someone places an allergen-specific order?”\u003C/em>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cem>“How do you prevent cross-contamination between allergen-containing and allergen-free products?”\u003C/em>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cem>“What do you do if you suspect a supplier has changed their ingredients?”\u003C/em>\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>If your staff cannot answer these confidently, it will be recorded as a training failure.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>Enforcement: What Happens If You Fail\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>Enforcement follows an \u003Cstrong>education-first\u003C/strong> escalation model. Most LAs start with guidance, not penalties:\u003C/p>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Action\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>% of LAs that use it\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Signposting to guidance materials\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>91%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Written advice\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>86%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Verbal advice\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>84%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Written warnings\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>40%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Improvement notices\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>8%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Formal cautions\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>2%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\n\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>This looks reassuring until you understand the exception. \u003Cstrong>Incorrect allergen labelling where there has been an incident\u003C/strong> — a customer reaction, a complaint, a hospital admission — triggers a different track entirely. Formal enforcement action, unlimited fines, prosecution, and in the worst cases, imprisonment. The education-first approach only applies when nothing has gone wrong yet.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Under the Food Safety Act 1990, there is \u003Cstrong>no cap on fines\u003C/strong> in either magistrates’ or Crown courts. Where a death results from allergen negligence, the charge is manslaughter by gross negligence, which carries a maximum sentence of \u003Cstrong>life imprisonment\u003C/strong>.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>The Full PPDS Compliance Checklist\u003C/h2>\n\u003Ch3>1. Product Identification: Is It Actually PPDS?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Before labelling anything, confirm that each product meets the legal definition of Prepacked for Direct Sale. A product is PPDS if it meets \u003Cstrong>all three\u003C/strong> criteria:\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The food is \u003Cstrong>in packaging\u003C/strong> — fully or partly enclosed so the contents cannot be altered without opening or changing the packaging\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The food was packaged \u003Cstrong>before the customer selected or ordered it\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The food was packaged \u003Cstrong>at the same premises\u003C/strong> where it is offered or sold to the consumer\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>If all three apply, the product is PPDS and requires a compliant label.\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Products that are NOT PPDS:\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Food made or assembled to a customer’s order (a sandwich built when requested)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Food wrapped after the customer selects it (a portion of cake boxed at the counter)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Food packaged by one business and sold by a different business (that is pre-packed, which has a separate, more extensive set of labelling requirements)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Unpackaged loose food (allergen information must still be available, but the label format differs)\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>For a detailed breakdown of PPDS classification with examples by business type, see our \u003Ca href=\"/blog/natashas-law-ppds-allergen-labelling-guide\">full Natasha’s Law guide\u003C/a>.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>2. Label Content\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Every PPDS label must contain three mandatory elements. No exceptions, regardless of business size.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch4>Food Name\u003C/h4>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The label states a \u003Cstrong>clear, accurate name\u003C/strong> for the food\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The name is not misleading (e.g., “Chicken Pie” must actually contain chicken as a primary ingredient)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Where applicable, the name includes the treatment or condition of the food (e.g., “smoked,” “dried,” “frozen”)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Where \u003Cstrong>QUID\u003C/strong> (Quantitative Ingredient Declaration) applies — products named after a characterising ingredient or where the ingredient is emphasised — the percentage of that ingredient is declared (e.g., “Pork Sausage Roll (30% Pork)”)\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch4>Full Ingredients List\u003C/h4>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>All ingredients\u003C/strong> are listed in \u003Cstrong>descending order by weight\u003C/strong> as used at the time of preparation\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>Compound ingredients\u003C/strong> (bought-in sauces, marinades, bread, pre-made pastry) are broken down into their individual sub-ingredients\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Water is listed if it constitutes more than 5% of the finished product\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Additives are listed by their category name followed by the specific name or E-number (e.g., “Preservative: Sodium Metabisulphite” or “Preservative (E223)”)\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch4>Allergen Emphasis\u003C/h4>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>All 14 declarable allergens\u003C/strong> are emphasised \u003Cstrong>within\u003C/strong> the ingredients list every time they appear\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Emphasis is applied consistently using the same method throughout (bold is recommended and most widely used)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Allergens are emphasised even when they appear as sub-ingredients of compound ingredients\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] A reference statement is included: \u003Cem>“For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>”\u003C/em> (or whichever emphasis method you use)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Allergens are NOT listed separately in a “Contains:” box as a substitute for emphasis within the ingredients list\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>The 14 declarable allergens:\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Col>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Celery\u003C/strong> (including celeriac)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Cereals containing gluten\u003C/strong> (wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt, khorasan)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Crustaceans\u003C/strong> (prawns, crab, lobster, crayfish)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Eggs\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Fish\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Lupin\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Milk\u003C/strong> (including lactose, butter, cream, cheese, yoghurt — all dairy)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Molluscs\u003C/strong> (mussels, oysters, squid, clams, snails)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Mustard\u003C/strong> (including mustard seeds, powder, oil, leaves)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Nuts\u003C/strong> (almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, cashews, pecans, Brazil nuts, pistachios, macadamia/Queensland nuts)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Peanuts\u003C/strong> (separate from tree nuts)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Sesame\u003C/strong> (seeds and oil)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Soybeans\u003C/strong> (including soya lecithin, soya oil, soya flour)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Sulphur dioxide and sulphites\u003C/strong> (at concentrations above 10mg/kg or 10mg/litre, expressed as SO2)\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ol>\n\u003Ch3>3. Label Formatting\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>The law specifies minimum requirements for how labels must look. EHOs check these.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>Minimum font size\u003C/strong>: x-height of at least \u003Cstrong>1.2mm\u003C/strong> (the x-height is the height of a lowercase letter “x” in the font used)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>Small packaging exception\u003C/strong>: for packaging with a largest surface area of less than \u003Cstrong>80cm2\u003C/strong>, the minimum x-height is \u003Cstrong>0.9mm\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>Allergen emphasis is visually distinct\u003C/strong>: bold is the recommended method; alternatives include CAPITALS, underlining, or a contrasting colour — but the method must make allergens clearly stand out\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>The label is legible\u003C/strong>: clear typeface, sufficient contrast between text and background\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>The label is durable\u003C/strong>: it will not smudge, peel off, or become illegible under the conditions the product will face (refrigeration, heat, moisture, handling)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>The label is in English\u003C/strong> (additional languages are permitted alongside English, not instead of it)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>The label is on the packaging\u003C/strong> — QR codes, separate sheets, and wall posters \u003Cstrong>cannot replace\u003C/strong> the physical label on the product\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>A note on handwritten labels:\u003C/strong> These are technically legal if all required information is present, allergens are emphasised, and the writing is legible. However, the FSA does not recommend them due to the elevated risk of errors and illegibility. EHOs view handwritten labels with greater scrutiny. A thermal label printer eliminates this risk entirely.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>4. Allergen Matrix and Recipe Documentation\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>The label is the output. The allergen matrix is the source of truth behind it.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Every PPDS product has a \u003Cstrong>documented recipe\u003C/strong> listing all ingredients and their quantities\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] An \u003Cstrong>allergen matrix\u003C/strong> exists showing which of the 14 allergens are present in each product\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix is \u003Cstrong>cross-referenced\u003C/strong> with current supplier specifications — not based on assumptions or memory\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix and labels match exactly — any discrepancy is a compliance failure\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Recipes include all components: main ingredients, marinades, glazes, dressings, garnishes, cooking oils, dusting flour\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix is \u003Cstrong>dated\u003C/strong> and shows when it was last reviewed\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] A \u003Cstrong>named person\u003C/strong> is responsible for maintaining the matrix\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix is \u003Cstrong>accessible\u003C/strong> to all staff who need it, not locked in a manager’s office\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>5. Supplier Specifications\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Your labels can only be as accurate as the information your suppliers give you. Under \u003Cstrong>Article 8 of the Food Information to Consumers Regulation (EU FIC, retained in UK law)\u003C/strong>, the food business operator whose name is on the label bears legal responsibility for the accuracy of that label — even when the error originated with a supplier.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] You hold a \u003Cstrong>current specification\u003C/strong> for every ingredient you buy, showing its full ingredient breakdown and allergen content\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Specifications are \u003Cstrong>dated\u003C/strong> and you know when they were last confirmed\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] You have a process for \u003Cstrong>checking with suppliers\u003C/strong> when they reformulate or change products\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] You receive and review \u003Cstrong>goods-in documentation\u003C/strong> (delivery notes, certificates of analysis) that confirms allergen status\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] If a supplier cannot provide a specification, you do not use that ingredient — or you arrange independent testing\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>6. Staff Training\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Training is the most common area where businesses fail EHO inspections. Every member of staff who handles, prepares, serves, or sells PPDS food must be trained.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All relevant staff are trained \u003Cstrong>before they start handling food\u003C/strong> — not “within the first month”\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Training covers all \u003Cstrong>14 declarable allergens\u003C/strong> by name\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff understand what PPDS means and can identify which products in your business are PPDS\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff know the procedure for answering a \u003Cstrong>customer allergen query\u003C/strong> — who to ask, where to find the information, what to say if unsure\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff know the procedure for \u003Cstrong>allergen-specific orders\u003C/strong> — how to prevent cross-contact during preparation\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] \u003Cstrong>Refresher training\u003C/strong> is conducted at least every \u003Cstrong>3 years\u003C/strong> (FSA recommendation), or whenever significant changes occur\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All training is \u003Cstrong>documented\u003C/strong> with the trainee’s name, date, trainer’s name, and topics covered\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Training records are \u003Cstrong>retained\u003C/strong> and accessible for EHO inspection\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Free FSA allergen training\u003C/strong> is available at \u003Ca href=\"https://allergytraining.food.gov.uk\">allergytraining.food.gov.uk\u003C/a>. There is no reason for any member of staff to be untrained.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>7. Change Control\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Recipe and supplier changes are where most labelling failures originate. You need a documented process.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] When a \u003Cstrong>recipe changes\u003C/strong>, the allergen matrix and all affected labels are updated \u003Cstrong>before\u003C/strong> the new recipe enters production\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] When a \u003Cstrong>supplier changes\u003C/strong> or reformulates a product, the specification is obtained and reviewed before the ingredient is used\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] When a \u003Cstrong>new product\u003C/strong> is introduced, it goes through a full allergen assessment before it is sold\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] When a \u003Cstrong>substitute ingredient\u003C/strong> is used (even temporarily), it is checked for allergen content and labels are updated accordingly\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All changes are \u003Cstrong>documented\u003C/strong> with the date, what changed, who authorised it, and confirmation that labels were updated\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff are \u003Cstrong>notified\u003C/strong> of changes before they take effect\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>8. Cross-Contamination Controls and Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL)\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Cross-contamination and “may contain” labelling are the areas most frequently mishandled.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch4>Cross-Contamination Prevention\u003C/h4>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] You have identified where \u003Cstrong>cross-contact\u003C/strong> between allergen-containing and allergen-free products could occur (shared surfaces, utensils, storage, fryers, ovens)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Controls are in place: \u003Cstrong>separate preparation areas\u003C/strong>, colour-coded utensils, dedicated equipment, scheduled production (allergen-free products made first), thorough cleaning between batches\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Cleaning procedures between allergen changeovers are \u003Cstrong>documented and validated\u003C/strong> — “wiping down” is not sufficient where allergen residues are a risk\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff understand that trace amounts of allergens can trigger anaphylaxis — the risk is not proportional to the quantity\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch4>Precautionary Allergen Labelling (“May Contain”)\u003C/h4>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] “May contain” statements are used \u003Cstrong>only\u003C/strong> after a genuine, documented \u003Cstrong>cross-contamination risk assessment\u003C/strong> — not as a blanket disclaimer\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The risk assessment identifies a \u003Cstrong>real, unavoidable risk\u003C/strong> of allergen cross-contact that cannot be eliminated through operational controls\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] “May contain” is \u003Cstrong>not used as a substitute\u003C/strong> for proper allergen declaration in the ingredients list\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] You have not listed all 14 allergens as “may contain” — this renders the warning meaningless and is treated by EHOs as a failure to conduct a proper risk assessment\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>The problem in practice:\u003C/strong> After Natasha’s Law came into force, \u003Cstrong>72% of businesses\u003C/strong> applied precautionary allergen labelling. But the FSA found that \u003Cstrong>1 in 10 products\u003C/strong> listed \u003Cstrong>all 14 allergens\u003C/strong> as “may contain.” This is worse than useless. It tells allergy sufferers nothing, and EHOs treat it as evidence of non-compliance.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>PAL reform is underway. The EU is harmonising “may contain” rules via regulation expected in late 2027. The FSA is consulting on UK standards. The direction of travel is toward evidence-based, risk-assessed PAL only.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>9. Distance Selling\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>If you sell PPDS food online, by telephone, by mail order, or through any other distance-selling channel:\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Allergen information is available \u003Cstrong>before the purchase is concluded\u003C/strong> — on the website, in the catalogue, or communicated verbally before the order is confirmed\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Allergen information is provided \u003Cstrong>again at the point of delivery\u003C/strong> — on the label on the product itself\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The information provided before purchase and at delivery is \u003Cstrong>consistent\u003C/strong> — they must match\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>This applies to delivery platforms (Deliveroo, Uber Eats, Just Eat) as well as your own website or phone orders. The obligation rests with the food business operator, not the platform.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>10. Record Keeping\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>There is no specific legal retention period for allergen records. \u003Cstrong>Best practice is a minimum of 2 years.\u003C/strong> EHOs expect to see a functioning system, not just today’s paperwork.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Allergen matrices are retained with version history — you can show what was in place at any given date\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Supplier specifications are retained and dated\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Training records are retained for the duration of employment and a reasonable period after\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Cleaning schedules and records are retained\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Any allergen-related incidents, complaints, or near-misses are documented and retained\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Label change history is documented — when labels changed, what changed, and why\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Records are organised and \u003Cstrong>accessible\u003C/strong> — an EHO should not have to wait 20 minutes while you dig through filing cabinets\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>Five Worked Label Examples\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>These are complete, correctly formatted PPDS labels. Use them as templates.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Example 1: Chicken & Bacon Sandwich\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Chicken & Bacon Sandwich\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Ingredients:\u003C/strong> Malted brown bread (\u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour, water, malted \u003Cstrong>barley\u003C/strong> flour, yeast, salt, vegetable oil), chicken breast (30%), smoked bacon (10%) (pork, salt, dextrose, preservative: sodium nitrite), mayonnaise (rapeseed oil, water, pasteurised \u003Cstrong>egg\u003C/strong> yolk, spirit vinegar, salt, \u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> flour, sugar), butter (\u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>), lettuce.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003C/blockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergens declared:\u003C/strong> wheat, barley, egg, mustard, milk\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Why this works:\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Food name is clear and accurate\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>All ingredients listed in descending order by weight\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Compound ingredients (bread, bacon, mayonnaise) are broken down into sub-ingredients\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Every allergen is bolded within the list, including where it appears as a sub-ingredient (barley in the bread, mustard in the mayonnaise)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Reference statement directs the reader to the emphasis method\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Example 2: Pork Sausage Roll\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Pork Sausage Roll (30% Pork)\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Ingredients:\u003C/strong> \u003Cstrong>Wheat\u003C/strong> flour, water, pork (30%), pork fat, salt, breadcrumbs (\u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour, yeast, salt), rusk (\u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour, salt), margarine (palm oil, rapeseed oil, water, salt, emulsifier: \u003Cstrong>soya\u003C/strong> lecithin), sage, white pepper, \u003Cstrong>egg\u003C/strong> wash (\u003Cstrong>egg\u003C/strong>, \u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>), preservative: \u003Cstrong>sulphur dioxide\u003C/strong>.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003C/blockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergens declared:\u003C/strong> wheat, soya, egg, milk, sulphur dioxide/sulphites\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Why this works:\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>QUID percentage for the characterising ingredient (pork at 30%) appears in the product name — this is a legal requirement for products named after a key ingredient\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Wheat is emphasised every time it appears (flour, breadcrumbs, rusk) — not just on first mention\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Sulphur dioxide is emphasised as a declarable allergen\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Egg wash is broken down to show both egg and milk\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Example 3: Caesar Salad Pot\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Caesar Salad Pot\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Ingredients:\u003C/strong> Cos lettuce, Caesar dressing (25%) (rapeseed oil, water, Parmigiano Reggiano cheese (\u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>), \u003Cstrong>egg\u003C/strong> yolk, white wine vinegar, \u003Cstrong>anchovy\u003C/strong> paste (\u003Cstrong>fish\u003C/strong>), garlic, Dijon \u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> (\u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> seeds, water, spirit vinegar, salt), lemon juice, salt, black pepper), croutons (\u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour, olive oil, garlic, salt), Parmigiano Reggiano cheese (\u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>).\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003C/blockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergens declared:\u003C/strong> milk, egg, fish (anchovies), mustard, wheat\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Why this works:\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>This is one of the most allergen-dense common PPDS products — five allergens in a single salad\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Anchovies are a hidden allergen that many businesses miss — they appear in the dressing, not as a standalone ingredient\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Mustard appears twice (in the dressing and as part of Dijon mustard), and is emphasised both times\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Milk appears in two places (cheese in the dressing and cheese as a topping) and is declared each time\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Every compound ingredient (dressing, croutons) is fully broken down\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Example 4: Tikka Marinated Chicken (Butcher)\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Tikka Marinated Chicken Thighs\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Ingredients:\u003C/strong> Chicken thigh (75%), tikka marinade (yoghurt (\u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>), rapeseed oil, water, paprika, cumin, coriander, garlic, ginger, turmeric, salt, chilli powder, lemon juice, acidity regulator: citric acid).\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003C/blockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergens declared:\u003C/strong> milk\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>What to watch for:\u003C/strong> This example shows a simple marinade made from scratch. But many butchers use \u003Cstrong>pre-made tikka pastes\u003C/strong>, and those frequently contain hidden allergens. A commercial tikka paste might include \u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour as a thickener, \u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> as a spice component, \u003Cstrong>celery\u003C/strong> salt, or \u003Cstrong>sulphites\u003C/strong> as a preservative. If you use a bought-in paste, you must obtain the full specification and declare every allergen it contains. The label above would be dangerously wrong if the marinade came from a jar instead of being mixed in-house.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Example 5: School Canteen Chicken Caesar Wrap\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Chicken Caesar Wrap\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Ingredients:\u003C/strong> \u003Cstrong>Wheat\u003C/strong> flour tortilla (\u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong> flour, water, rapeseed oil, raising agent: sodium bicarbonate, salt), roast chicken breast (25%), cos lettuce, Caesar dressing (rapeseed oil, water, Parmigiano Reggiano cheese (\u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong>), pasteurised \u003Cstrong>egg\u003C/strong> yolk, \u003Cstrong>anchovy\u003C/strong> paste (\u003Cstrong>fish\u003C/strong>), Dijon \u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> (\u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong> seeds, water, spirit vinegar, salt), lemon juice, garlic, salt, black pepper).\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>For allergens, see ingredients in \u003Cstrong>bold\u003C/strong>.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003C/blockquote>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergens declared:\u003C/strong> wheat, milk, egg, fish (anchovies), mustard\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Why this matters in a school setting:\u003C/strong> Schools serve populations with a high prevalence of food allergy. Children may not be able to advocate for themselves. Labels must be unambiguous and complete. The wrap itself contributes wheat, and the dressing contributes four more allergens. Staff serving this product must understand every allergen it contains — a child asking “does this have fish in it?” deserves an immediate, confident answer, because the anchovies are invisible.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>The 8 Most Common PPDS Labelling Mistakes\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>These are the errors that show up repeatedly in FSA compliance testing and EHO inspection reports.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>1. Not Listing Sub-Ingredients\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Bought-in bread, pastry, sauces, marinades, and dressings contain their own ingredients. Every sub-ingredient must be listed and any allergens within them must be emphasised. Writing “bread” without breaking it down into its component ingredients (wheat flour, yeast, salt, etc.) is non-compliant.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>2. Missing Hidden Allergens in Bought-In Ingredients\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>This is the most dangerous error. A commercial tikka paste may contain mustard. A bread improver may contain soya. A glaze may contain milk. A seasoning may contain celery. If you have not read and verified the full specification for every bought-in ingredient, your label is a guess.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>3. Not Emphasising Every Occurrence\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Wheat appears in the bread, in the breadcrumbs, and in the rusk. Milk appears in the cheese, the butter, and the cream. Every single occurrence must be emphasised — not just the first mention. Missing even one is non-compliant.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>4. Using “Contains:” Instead of Emphasis Within the List\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>A box that says “Contains: milk, wheat, eggs” without a full ingredients list is \u003Cstrong>not compliant\u003C/strong>. The law requires a complete ingredients list with allergens emphasised within it. A separate allergen summary box can be added as supplementary information, but it does not replace the legal requirement.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>5. Not Updating Labels When Suppliers Change\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Your supplier switches from one brand of mayonnaise to another. The new one contains mustard flour; the old one did not. If your label does not change, it is now incorrect. This is the gap that kills people. Build a process that catches it.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>6. Illegible Handwritten Labels\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Handwritten labels are legal. Illegible handwritten labels are not. If an EHO cannot read it, if a customer cannot read it, if the ink has smudged or the paper has been damaged by condensation, it fails. The cost of a basic thermal label printer (as little as a few hundred pounds) eliminates this entire category of risk.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>7. Not Declaring Milk After Named Cheeses\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>“Parmesan” is not an allergen. \u003Cstrong>Milk\u003C/strong> is. When a product contains cheddar, mozzarella, Parmigiano Reggiano, or any other cheese, the allergen \u003Cstrong>milk\u003C/strong> must be emphasised. Writing “Cheddar cheese” without emphasising milk is non-compliant.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>8. Forgetting Allergens in Marinades, Dressings, and Glazes\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>These are the components that businesses treat as afterthoughts. A soy glaze on a salmon fillet adds \u003Cstrong>soybeans\u003C/strong>. A mustard vinaigrette adds \u003Cstrong>mustard\u003C/strong>. An egg wash on pastry adds \u003Cstrong>eggs\u003C/strong>. A dusting of flour adds \u003Cstrong>wheat\u003C/strong>. If it touches the food, it is an ingredient, and its allergens must be declared.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>FSA Non-Compliance Data: The Numbers\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>The Food Standards Agency has been monitoring PPDS compliance since Natasha’s Law came into force. The findings are stark.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Product-Level Failures\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>36% of PPDS samples tested\u003C/strong> had allergens without correct labelling\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>89% of local authorities\u003C/strong> found businesses with \u003Cstrong>no labels at all\u003C/strong> on PPDS products\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>84% of local authorities\u003C/strong> found PPDS products with \u003Cstrong>no ingredients list\u003C/strong>\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Consumer Experience\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>63% of consumers\u003C/strong> with food allergies reported issues with PPDS labelling\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>78% of consumers\u003C/strong> said the \u003Cstrong>font was too small\u003C/strong> to read comfortably\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Self-Reported Compliance by Sector\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>There is a wide gap between what businesses say and what inspectors find, and significant variation by sector:\u003C/p>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Business Type\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Self-Reported Compliance\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Butchers\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>92%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Bakeries\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>85%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Supermarkets/delis\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>78%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Restaurants and cafes\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>62%\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\n\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>Restaurants and cafes have the lowest self-reported compliance — and the actual compliance rate is almost certainly lower than what businesses report. This is not surprising. These businesses have the highest product variety, the most frequent recipe changes, and the highest staff turnover.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>What Compliance Costs\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>Transparency on costs. These are realistic figures for a small to mid-size food business.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Equipment\u003C/h3>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Item\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Typical Cost\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Entry-level thermal label printer (e.g., Brother QL series, Godex)\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>£200 - £500\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Label rolls (ongoing)\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>£15 - £40 per roll\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\n\u003C/table>\n\u003Ch3>Software\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Free options:\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Brother P-touch Editor\u003C/strong> — comes with Brother label printers, basic label design\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>GoLabel\u003C/strong> — free label design software compatible with Godex and other printers\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Paid SaaS options (include recipe management, allergen tracking, label printing):\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>LabelLogic Live\u003C/strong> — cloud-based PPDS label management\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Kafoodle\u003C/strong> — recipe management and allergen labelling\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Nutritics\u003C/strong> — nutrition analysis and label generation\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Ch3>Time Investment\u003C/h3>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Activity\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Time\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Initial setup (allergen matrix, recipes, label templates, supplier specs)\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>1 - 2 weeks\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Daily label management (printing, checking, updating)\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>15 - 45 minutes\u003C/strong>\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\n\u003C/table>\n\u003Ch3>Training\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Free:\u003C/strong> The FSA provides a complete allergen awareness training course at \u003Ca href=\"https://allergytraining.food.gov.uk\">allergytraining.food.gov.uk\u003C/a>. It covers all 14 allergens, what the law requires, and how to manage allergens in practice. There is no reason to pay for basic allergen awareness training when the regulator provides it free.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>Preparing for Your EHO Inspection\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>EHOs follow a logical trail from the product backward to its source. Here is that trail, and what you need at each step.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 1: The Product\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>The officer picks up a PPDS product from your display. They check: is there a label? Does it have a food name? Is there a full ingredients list? Are allergens emphasised? Is the text legible? Is the label durable and intact?\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 2: The Allergen Matrix\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>They ask to see your allergen matrix. They compare it to the label. Do they match? Is the matrix dated? When was it last reviewed?\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 3: Supplier Specifications\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>They pick an ingredient from the matrix — often a compound ingredient like a sauce or seasoning. They ask to see the supplier specification. Does it confirm the allergen content? Is it current?\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 4: Training Records\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>They ask to see training records. Who was trained? When? On what topics? Is everyone who currently handles food covered? They may speak to a member of staff to verify.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 5: Change Control\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>They ask: when did you last change a recipe or switch a supplier? What was the process? Were labels updated? Can you show documentation?\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Step 6: Cross-Contamination\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>They observe preparation areas. Are allergen-containing and allergen-free products separated? Are utensils shared? Is there a documented cleaning procedure between allergen changeovers?\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>If you can demonstrate this complete chain — from label to matrix to specification to training to change control to cross-contamination prevention — you will pass. If any link is broken, that is your compliance gap.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>Quick-Reference Audit Checklist\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>Use this as a rapid self-audit. Every item should be a “yes.”\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Product Identification\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] I have identified every product I sell that qualifies as PPDS\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] I can explain why each product is or is not PPDS\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Labels\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Every PPDS product has a physical label on the packaging\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Every label states the food name\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Every label has a full ingredients list in descending order by weight\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All 14 allergens are emphasised within the ingredients list every time they appear\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Compound ingredients are broken down into sub-ingredients\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Labels meet the minimum 1.2mm x-height (0.9mm for packaging under 80cm2)\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Labels are legible, durable, and in English\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Allergen Matrix\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] An allergen matrix exists for every PPDS product\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix matches what is currently on the labels\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] The matrix is dated and shows when it was last reviewed\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Supplier Specifications\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] I hold a current specification for every ingredient\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Specifications confirm allergen content\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] I have a process to detect when suppliers reformulate products\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Training\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All staff who handle food are trained on the 14 allergens\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Training was completed before staff started food handling duties\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Training records are documented and accessible\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Refresher training is scheduled (every 3 years minimum)\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Change Control\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] A documented process exists for recipe and supplier changes\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Labels are updated before new recipes enter production\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Staff are notified of changes before they take effect\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Cross-Contamination and PAL\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Cross-contact risks are identified and controlled\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] “May contain” is used only after a genuine risk assessment\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] PAL is not applied as a blanket disclaimer\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Distance Selling\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] If applicable: allergen information is provided before purchase and again at delivery\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Records\u003C/strong>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>[ ] All records are retained for a minimum of 2 years\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>[ ] Records are organised and accessible for inspection\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>What Is Coming Next\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>PPDS compliance is not the end of the regulatory road. Two further changes are approaching.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Owen’s Law\u003C/strong> will require restaurants to provide \u003Cstrong>written allergen information on menus\u003C/strong> at the point of ordering — eliminating the current system where allergens can be communicated verbally. \u003Ca href=\"/blog/natashas-law-ppds-allergen-labelling-guide\">Owen Carey died on his 18th birthday\u003C/a> because a menu described marinated chicken as “grilled” without mentioning buttermilk. The FSA Board agreed in December 2023 that written allergen information should be a legal requirement. The government is expected to evaluate uptake of voluntary guidance in spring 2026 before deciding whether to legislate. Legal analysts estimate Owen’s Law could take effect in late 2027 or 2028.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>PAL reform\u003C/strong> will standardise “may contain” labelling, moving away from the current system where businesses apply precautionary warnings inconsistently and often defensively. The EU is harmonising PAL rules via regulation expected in Q4 2027. The FSA is consulting on UK-specific standards.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Businesses that build strong allergen management systems now will not need to overhaul anything when these laws arrive.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>Managing This Digitally\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>Paper-based allergen records create risk. They go out of date. They get lost. Different staff work from different versions. When an EHO asks to see your system, scrambling through a folder of printouts is not the look you want.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Forkto’s allergen management tools let you build and maintain your allergen records digitally — tracking products, ingredients, and allergens in one place. When something changes, you update it once. Combined with \u003Ca href=\"/resources/checklists\">digital checklists\u003C/a>, delivery logging, and staff training records, Forkto gives you the full traceability chain EHOs want to see.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>If you want to see how it works, \u003Ca href=\"/get-started\">start your free trial\u003C/a>.\u003C/p>\n\u003Chr>\n\u003Ch2>The Bottom Line\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>PPDS compliance is not complicated. It is a system: identify your products, label them accurately, keep the records behind those labels current, train your staff, and catch changes before they reach customers.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>What makes it hard is the consistency. Menus evolve. Suppliers reformulate. Staff turn over. A label that was accurate three months ago may not be accurate today. That is why compliance is an operational discipline, not a one-off paperwork exercise.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>The checklist above covers everything an EHO will look for. Work through it. Fix the gaps. Keep it current. That is the whole job.\u003C/p>\n","Complete PPDS compliance checklist with worked label examples, EHO inspection preparation tips, label formatting requirements, and real-world audit failure data. Free, practical, and ready to use.",[14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21],"PPDS compliance checklist","Natasha's Law checklist","PPDS label template","EHO allergen inspection","allergen label checklist UK","PPDS labelling requirements","PPDS label example","food allergen compliance","PPDS Compliance Checklist: EHO Allergen Inspection Guide for UK Food Businesses",null,false,"PPDS food label showing correctly formatted allergen information",1776551509162]