You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 20, 2023

Compliance Reminder: Cambodia Adopts Rules for Food Product Recall and Seizure

Food safety is one important area of focus as Cambodia continues to improve its regulatory framework surrounding consumer protection. Last year, the new Law on Food Safety set out the main principles to regulate the food sector, providing general rights and obligations of food businesses and requirements for food products traded in Cambodia.

Then in the first months of 2023, two implementing regulations were issued to clarify the overarching principles of the Law on Food Safety, as well as its enforcement mechanisms. The adoption of these enforcement-related regulations is once again a clear signal to the market that the Cambodian government is taking the enforcement of consumer protection laws seriously.

Food Surveillance, Seizure, and Recalls

The first of these implementing regulations was Sub-Decree No. 13 on the Conditions, Formalities and Procedures for Food Surveillance and Seizure, dated January 6, 2023 (SD 13), followed the next month by Prakas No. 080 on the Forms and Procedures to Seize Unsafe Foods or Foods Not Complying with Technical Regulations, dated February 22, 2023 (Prakas 80).

These implementing regulations give clarity on how the authorities will monitor and inspect the food sector, and in what cases the authorities may resort to recalls or seizure of foods. Prakas 80 also provides the necessary paperwork for both inspecting officers and companies to use when reporting on unsafe foods to authorities and the public. Lastly, the regulations further clarify the obligations for food businesses and the penalties for noncompliance.

The Consumer Protection, Competition, and Fraud Repression Directorate-General (CCF) of the Ministry of Commerce takes a key role as the main enforcement authority under the regulations. The CCF receives reports on unsafe foods, manages voluntary recalls, publishes warnings to the public regarding unsafe foods, seizes unsafe or otherwise noncompliant goods, and applies the administrative fines and penalties provided under the Law on Food Safety.

Main Obligations of Food Businesses

Under the Law on Food Safety, all parties operating in the food sector, including producers, processors, packagers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers of food products, must meet the minimum food requirements, which apply equally to both imported and locally produced products.

These minimum food requirements include ensuring that food products are safe for consumption, traders are able to trace the food products through their labeling, and businesses cooperate with authorities on food safety issues.

SD 13 and Prakas 80 now clarify these requirements, stipulating that food businesses should have internal standard operating procedures in place. These procedures must allow food businesses to effectively monitor the safety of their products and to swiftly execute food recalls. Interestingly, the regulations allow the CCF to penalize companies that do not have such standard operating procedures in place—even if there have been no issues with unsafe or noncompliant food products.

If food businesses become aware that a food product is unsafe or otherwise noncompliant, they are obliged under SD 13 to report to the CCF, initiate a voluntary recall following their internal standard procedures, and cooperate with any CCF orders.

SD 13 and Prakas 80 also require food businesses to follow recall orders issued by authorities—not only from the CCF, but also from other relevant regulators. For example, certain food products are subject to oversight by the Ministry of Health as well.

The CCF may issue public warnings regarding unsafe foods, but food businesses are required to issue their own notifications too, including to those in their food distribution chain and to consumers.

If a food business does not have an effective trace-and-recall procedure in place, or does not cooperate with the CCF’s orders regarding the recall, the CCF may order or initiate a forced recall and apply the appropriate penalties.

In addition, SD 13 requires responsible food businesses to compensate individuals and companies impacted by a recall of a food product. This may be a monetary compensation or replacement of the unsafe food products with safe products.

Finally, it is important to remember that a key requirement for trading food products in Cambodia, including imports, is Khmer-language labeling. Noncompliance with the legal requirement to use Khmer language may trigger enforcement actions, including recalls as detailed under SD 13 and Prakas 80.

Risk Classifications for Noncompliant Food Products

The regulations prescribe three risk classes of noncompliant foods:

  1. Foods with serious health and safety hazards if consumed;
  2. Foods unsafe for consumption but for which the health and safety hazards are expected to be minor;
  3. Foods that do not endanger consumers’ health and safety but that do not comply with food regulations.

The risk classes influence the requirements for the recall. A noncompliant food product being in a higher risk class would likely trigger a recall more quickly, and the regulations prescribe different outcomes based on the risk classification. For example, the authorities may allow foods recalled under risk classes 2 and 3 to be modified and redistributed, while risk class 1 foods must be destroyed and may not be modified.

This indirectly means that the internal recall procedures that food businesses must implement, as seen in the previous section on obligations, must address these three classes of foods accordingly, and they must differ appropriately based on the risk classification of the product being recalled.

Penalties and Potential Business Interruption

SD 13 and Prakas 80 refer to the Law on Food Safety for applicable administrative fines and criminal penalties.

On the administrative side, fines for noncompliant foods generally range from approximately USD 500 to USD 5,000 per violation, with the fines doubling for some repeat offences. Actions by the CCF may also cause business interruptions. The CCF may temporarily halt trading, close trading locations pending investigations, temporarily seize products for further investigation, or resort to suspension and eventual revocation of licenses, including product registration licenses and even business licenses.

Criminal penalties apply to trading expired foods or trading foods with the knowledge that the foods contain harmful substances in excess of permitted levels. In addition to fines ranging from approximately USD 250 up to a maximum of USD 100,000 per criminal violation, punishments may include imprisonment from six months to five years.

The potential criminal penalties may become more severe based on the consequences of the violation. Violations that cause serious harm to a consumer’s health and safety—or the permanent disability or death of a consumer—are punishable by fines of USD 50,000–100,000, imprisonment for five to fifteen years, or both.

The Importance of Compliance

The adoption of these implementing regulations signals the strong likelihood of subsequent enforcement efforts. The regulations set out clear procedures and formalities for the CCF, which is clearly empowered as the enforcement authority for these latest food safety regulations in Cambodia.

In the past, food-related laws in Cambodia set out obligations and penalties for noncompliance but were left without clarity on enforcement. This hindered authorities in enforcing the penalties, as they were uncertain on the scope of their powers, the forms to use, and the procedures to follow. With these regulations focusing on enforcement and delineating the role of the CCF, enforcement efforts related to food products are likely to increase substantially.

Businesses offering food products in Cambodia should take note of these new legal developments and ensure full compliance for their products by seeking expert advice when necessary, including on labeling and advertising. For instance, failure to comply with the Khmer-language labeling requirement—which many food businesses have still not yet fully complied with—could lead to enforcement actions and recalls under SB 13 and Prakas 80. Local specialists can also assist by coordinating with local distributors on recalls and other issues.

By ensuring the compliance of their products, food businesses active in Cambodia can avoid interruptions due to enforcement efforts, and avert costly penalties that might threaten the viability of their business.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each