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 6, 2022
Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By
June 13, 2022
Thailand’s cannabis cultivation licensing scheme for the country’s transition toward legalization of the plant has now come to an end. The Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) announced in the Government Gazette that from June 9, 2022, “only cannabis extract with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of more than 0.2% by weight will be considered a narcotic.” This means that now anyone can grow, sell, or purchase cannabis seeds, plants, and inflorescence freely in Thailand, and licenses for the cultivation, possession, and distribution of cannabis are no longer required. Neither the number of cannabis plants nor the place of cultivation is restricted. It is thus the beginning of a new chapter for cannabis cultivation in Thailand, with many opining that now is a good time to enter this exciting and growing industry. The journey to this point began in 2019, when Thailand amended its laws on cannabis to allow for treatment for medical purposes, with one of the prerequisite conditions being that the cannabis must be grown in Thailand. The law was further amended to promote commercialization of the cannabis industry, allowing for cannabis to be added to food and beverages, cosmetics, and herbal products. In addition, three traditional cannabis-based formulas were listed in the universal healthcare coverage scheme, which means that almost all Thais have access to traditional cannabis recipes without cost. The successful launch of medical cannabis and its applications, and its viability as an economic industry, have become a national agenda and priority policy of the MOPH. In order to achieve the above outcomes, several legal frameworks and guidelines throughout the product’s lifecycle have been developed. For example, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far granted licenses to cultivate cannabis (also known as a license to manufacture a narcotic) on more than 1,977 acres (around 800 hectares).
April 19, 2022
New technologies and production processes in the food industry have led to novel foods becoming increasingly important to both food manufacturers and the consuming public worldwide. This is very much the case across a number of jurisdictions in Southeast Asia. “Novel foods” refer to new food production processes, foods, and ingredients that have not yet been commonly used for human consumption, so these innovative foods require safety assessments before companies can produce and market them. While rules for these safety assessments are already part of novel food regulations in several other jurisdictions—such as the novel food regulations in the United Kingdom and European Union adopted in 2003, and the major reform of food safety laws in the United States passed in 2011 under the Food Modernization Act—similar rules governing the assessment of novel foods are relatively new or yet to be introduced in many parts of Asia. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the laws and practices that apply to safety assessments and the process of bringing novel foods to market in jurisdictions in the region. This article provides some clarity in this regard by summarizing important practical information on novel foods and the relevant required safety assessments in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.   Indonesia Regulator National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC); frequently referred to as BPOM (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan). Relevant Measures BPOM Regulation No. 27 Year 2018 concerning Public Service Standards in BPOM; Decision of the Director of Processed Food Standardization No. HK.02.02.51.511.06.21.21 Year 2021 concerning Public Service Standard Directorate Processed Food Standardization Definitions General “food ingredients” are basic fresh or processed ingredients that can be used to produce food; novel food is any food ingredient not listed in BPOM’s positive list of ingredients. Official Fees None   Process and Timeline Before submitting an
March 31, 2022
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times