A Supplier Specification Change Turns a 'Vegetarian' Dish Non-Compliant
A contract caterer supplies 45 hospital sites. Its 'Wild Mushroom and Barley Risotto' is labelled vegetarian and 'no milk added'. The base stock powder was changed by the supplier from a yeast-extract version to a new 'improved' version; the new powder contains skimmed milk powder and butter powder at 8% of the powder. The risotto uses 4.5 kg of stock powder per 1,000 portions. The change was notified by email but not picked up. A hospital dietitian queries the label after a patient with a milk allergy was served the dish; the patient had no reaction but the site is reviewing. The product label declares 'may contain milk' because of shared lines, but the ingredient list does not include milk. The caterer's allergen matrix still lists the dish as milk-free. Production has 2,000 portions in chilled storage with 6 days' shelf life and 800 in freezers.
1. Is the product mislabelled? What is the regulatory and risk position, and what immediate action do you take on the 2,800 portions?
Read the worked answer
Yes, the product is mislabelled. Milk is an intentional ingredient of the new stock powder, at 8% of the powder. At 4.5 kg powder per 1,000 portions, each portion contains 4.5 g of powder, of which 0.36 g is milk powder. That is a small amount, but allergen labelling is not risk-based in that way: milk must be declared in the ingredient list, and 'may contain milk' is a precautionary statement for unintended cross-contact, not a substitute for declaring an intended ingredient. The 'no milk added' claim is false. The vegetarian claim may still be true if milk is permitted, but the milk-free allergen matrix is wrong and dangerous in a hospital setting.
Immediate action: place all 2,800 portions on hold; withdraw them from service; trace every site and every date code; check patient tray records for milk-allergic patients who may have received the dish; notify the dietitian and the hospital safety team; notify the competent authority under the incident procedure; and assess whether a recall is required. If the chilled and frozen packs are still under the caterer's control, over-labelling with 'contains milk' and a corrected ingredient list may be possible, but only with formal label verification and a re-issued allergen matrix. Do not rely on a 'may contain' statement. Because the product has already reached a vulnerable hospital population, a withdrawal/recall is the safer judgement.
2. What immediate corrective actions and root-cause fixes are needed in supplier approval and change control?
Read the worked answer
The root cause is not the supplier's email; it is the absence of a change-control process that turns a supplier notification into a verified label and allergen-matrix change.
Immediate corrective actions: update the ingredient list and allergen matrix for the risotto; quarantine and relabel or destroy affected stock; retrain menu planners, buyers and label approvers; contact the supplier for a written specification, allergen declaration and confirmation of the milk content; and review every other product using stock powder from that supplier.
Root-cause fixes:
- Require formal supplier change notification with an updated specification, ingredient declaration, allergen statement and, where relevant, certificate of analysis. Email alone is not an approved change.
- Add an allergen risk assessment to every raw-material change, including 'minor' recipe or supplier changes.
- Make label sign-off a controlled step involving QA and the allergen matrix owner, with a documented check against the supplier specification.
- Audit the supplier's change-control system and add a contractual requirement to notify before change, not after.
- Remove blanket 'may contain' statements where an ingredient is actually present; they confuse staff and consumers and can mask a labelling failure.
The corrective action should be verified by a mock supplier change and a label reconciliation audit.
3. How would you verify the recall/withdrawal was effective and prevent recurrence?
Read the worked answer
Effectiveness checks must prove that product is controlled, not just that an email was sent.
Effectiveness verification: obtain written confirmation from all 45 sites that they have stopped service and segregated stock; reconcile dispatched quantities against returned or destroyed quantities, aiming for at least 99% reconciliation; check patient tray records and allergy incident logs for the affected dates; verify that the allergen matrix and menus have been corrected at every site; and confirm that any relabelled stock has the correct ingredient list and 'contains milk' statement. Run the check within the recall procedure's target time, commonly 4 hours for a hospital contract, and record who verified each site.
Prevent recurrence: add supplier change control to the supplier approval procedure; require an allergen impact assessment for every specification change; add label verification to the product-development gate; train buyers, chefs and dietitians; and include allergen labelling in internal audits. Trend near-misses, such as supplier notifications that were not assessed, and review them at management review. Finally, test the system with a mock recall that includes a supplier specification change, not only a finished-product complaint.