The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — back to Table of Contents
Section 80. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act
Defence relating to publication of advertisements. It is a defence for a person who carries on the business of publishing or arranging for the publication of advertisements to prove that they published or arranged the advertisement in the ordinary course of that business. This defence does not apply where the person should reasonably have known the publication was an offence, had been informed in writing by the relevant authority that it would constitute an offence, or is the food business operator or otherwise engaged in the food business for which the advertisement was published.
Defence of due diligence. It is a defence to prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the offence by themselves or a person under their control. This may be shown by establishing that the offence was due to an act or default of another person or reliance on information supplied by another, that reasonable checks of the food were carried out or that reliance on another’s checks was reasonable, that the food was not imported from another country, that the food was sold in the same or an unproblematic different condition from that in which it was purchased, and that the person had no reason to suspect their act or omission would constitute an offence. “Another person” for this purpose excludes an employee or agent of the defendant, or, where the defendant is a company, a director, employee or agent of that company. This may also be satisfied by showing compliance with a required food safety programme or with a documented quality assurance or industry code of practice based on national or international standards.
Defence of mistaken and reasonable belief not available. It is no defence that the accused had a mistaken but reasonable belief as to facts constituting the offence.
Defence in respect of handling food. In proceedings under Section 56, it is a defence to prove that the person caused the food to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of immediately after it was handled in a manner likely to render it unsafe.
Defences of significance of nature, substance or quality not available. It is no defence in a prosecution for selling unsafe or misbranded food to allege merely that the food business operator was ignorant of the food’s nature, substance or quality, or that the purchaser was not prejudiced by the sale.
