General information, not legal advice. Penalties and defences vary by place and change over time. Have your lawyer confirm what applies to you.
| Maximum penalty for breaching the Food Standards Code | Individual | Corporation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSW Food Act 2003, s 21 | 500 penalty units | 2,500 penalty units | Act, as held in MFC's law library |
| Food Act 1984 (Vic), s 16 | 40,000 dollars | 200,000 dollars | Act, as held in MFC's law library |
| Food Act 2006 (Qld), s 39 | 500 penalty units | Check the Act for corporations | Act, as held in MFC's law library |
How a good programme protects the business
| What you have | How it helps | What it doesn't do |
|---|---|---|
| A documented, followed programme | Supports a due diligence defence, where the law provides one (for example NSW Food Act 2003 s 26, and Food Act 2006 (Qld) s 44), by showing reasonable precautions | Excuse a failure if the paper wasn't followed |
| records | Evidence of what happened and when, for regulators, insurers and courts | Help if they were filled in afterwards |
| certification | Independent evidence of a system, often a condition of supply. Opens doors commercially | Transfer liability to the certifier, or guarantee every batch |
| Supplier approval and | Shows care in what you buy. May support claims back up the chain | Remove your own duty to check |
| A rehearsed and crisis plan | harm and scale, and shows responsibility | Prevent the event |
| Lab testing by labs | Credible evidence that controls work | Prove the whole batch is safe |
Schemes protect a business by making its care visible and independently checked. That protection only holds while the system is real and followed, and doesn't move responsibility away from the business.