Quick answer
In food safety, due diligence concerns the precautions and care taken to avoid an offence, supported by evidence of what actually happened. It is a potential legal defence for relevant offences, subject to conditions; owning a certificate, using a consultant or holding a folder does not automatically establish it. The applicable offence, national provision and facts need proper legal assessment.
Understand the concept and its national provisions
Section 21 of the Food Safety Act 1990 provides a due-diligence defence for relevant offences in England, Wales and Scotland. Article 20 of the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 contains Northern Ireland’s provision.
The provisions concern proof of reasonable precautions and due diligence and include conditions. Other food legislation may have its own relevant provisions. This overview cannot determine whether a particular defence is available or will succeed.
Connect precautions with evidence of implementation
| Question | Evidence that may help explain the facts |
|---|---|
| Were hazards understood? | Methods and assessments suited to the actual operation. |
| Were controls workable? | Suitable facilities, equipment, responsibilities and instructions. |
| Did people follow them? | Observed competence and genuine monitoring. |
| Were failures addressed? | Food decisions, correction and escalation records. |
| Was effectiveness reviewed? | Verification and change-review evidence. |
| Was supplier information handled reasonably? | Relevant checks and documented product/supplier information. |
These are operational prompts, not a legal checklist guaranteeing a defence.
A procedure must operate in practice
A signed cleaning schedule cannot establish that a surface was disinfected effectively if the product was unsuitable or staff did not follow its instructions. A course record may show learning, but does not by itself demonstrate every task was performed correctly.
Food-safety management guidance and CookSafe records guidance explain working controls and proportionate evidence. Use them to support prevention, rather than collect forms only after an incident.
Using suppliers or advisers does not end the inquiry
The statutory provisions contain particular conditions concerning reliance on others and supplier checks. Do not assume that an invoice, supplier assurance statement or consultant’s name automatically transfers responsibility.
Check the actual activity, information and circumstances. A business buying a familiar product still needs its appropriate receipt, storage and handling controls. Obtain legal advice promptly about any investigation, allegation or intended defence, including procedural requirements.
Worked example: a repeated refrigeration failure
Hypothetical example: staff repeatedly record out-of-limit fridge conditions but management leaves the cause unresolved and continues using affected food.
The records document a known problem; their existence alone is not evidence that it was properly controlled. The practical response is to protect food, investigate, correct the cause and verify the result. Whether the facts support any legal defence is a separate case-specific question.
Preserve evidence and address the current risk
Keep relevant original records and a factual account of the decisions. Do not alter past entries to make controls appear successful or invent checks that were missed.
Follow incident and authority instructions while obtaining appropriate advice. The immediate priority remains preventing unsafe food from reaching people; a possible future legal argument is not a reason to defer necessary action.
Next steps
Review whether the controls are suitable, followed and evidenced. Use the review checklist for operational improvements, and obtain qualified legal advice for a specific allegation or defence.
Read the GB statutory provision — Check the actual provision and obtain legal advice on a specific case; the NI provision is separately linked.