News & Updates

HFA demands mandatory DNA checks by Manufacturers at source

Halal Food Authority expressed shock and horror that once again Pig DNA has been discovered in halal products, and this time it is halal chicken sausages that have been served in at least one primary school. Chartwells, one of Britain’s biggest school caterers, withdrew the sausages after tests overseen by Westminster City Council revealed traces of pork after the authority carried out its own tests on food in response to the horsemeat scandal.

The sausages were produced by Brook Farm Sausages, supplied by Nigel Fredricks and distributed by Chartwells. It has been reported that the chicken used was sourced from halal approved suppliers, however, Brook Farm Sausages have failed to provide any evidence if the sausages produced were approved for halal status.

Yesterday the Halal Food Authority met with officials of Defra, the FSA and the Department for Communities and Local Government, along with organisations involved in halal and kosher food to discuss labelling and testing regimes. The HFA demanded answers from the government officials that despite having guidelines in place for halal food, how such heinous and prevalent fraud was being overlooked and neglected for at least the past decade, where the Halal Food Authority had raised serious concerns on the issue of Pork DNA in lamb and chicken Döner kebabs on various forums with the FSA and Defra. Halal Food Authority demanded that the manufacturers of halal foods must undertake mandatory DNA checks at source.

The discovery of Pork DNA has angered Muslim across the UK. Whether this is a case of human error/cross contamination or deliberate adulteration, this is a serious issue for Muslim and we are utterly shocked on the discovery of Pork, and equine DNA in halal products as Pork in particular and any non-halal meats are explicitly prohibited for Muslim Consumption. And we would urge the Government to take swift and effective action to make sure this does not repeat itself. It is totally unacceptable if food labelled as halal has been found to contain pork or any other non-halal substances.

-Ends-

HFA demands explanation on behalf of the Muslim community

The Muslim community is eagerly awaiting answers from the authorities and other parties involved. For more details please click on the Pork DNA contamination link.

ANIMAL CLONING – And it’s effect on Halal Foods

Curious it might seem but whence intensive farming was thought of, experimented and put in use for commercial and supply purposes; it is hard to find any affirmation or negation from the Muslim thinkers or people who are standard bearers of food jurisprudence in relation to it’s usage by Muslims. Notwithstanding that when loudspeaker was introduced, there was judgement given that it was forbidden to be used for adhan. Imagine, is there any mosque now, however big or small that does not have the said electronic system. In fact if loudspeaker was not there in Haram Sharif, the Imam would be leading his own prayers! Likewise at the time photography was becoming a reliable mode of recording, it was adjudged to be in contravention of shariah. Now, if you please, this session is being recorded for posterity and, there are in UK alone 11 Muslim TV Channels.

It shows that we found objections but did also adopt as means of propagation, enhancing procedures and facilitating ourselves with modern gadgets but with still no real effect on the theory and theology.

Masood Khwaja presenting his speech at the “Halal Congress Middle East”

Question remained unresolved regarding intensive farming of animals or fruits and vegetables. Anyone knows it was accepted as a norm, hence we all are at present eating animals, poultry and fruit and vegetables that are yield of “intensive farming”. Look, do not be disturbed if it said that everyday meal is not the meal which could be said to be what it should be: if chicken is not chicken, lamb is not lamb and so on. Do not be surprised, it is from intensive farming yield. Keep in mind that the description of Halal is, wholesome, pure and fit for human consumption. Because, it was all done to increase production, make meat more affordable and available to those who in their normal circumstances were unable to purchase organic or free range provisions.

Let’s examine intensive farming pro and cons.

Advantages:

Significant yield       –          Food becomes more affordable and does cost less to produce reduced risk of starvation of deprived preservation of habitat and woodlands, environmental economy, reduction of CO2 emission – less global warming etc.

Disadvantages   –    Soil erosion, forests are destroyed, Disturbs wild animal habitat, Fertilisers alter the biology of lakes and rivers Pesticides sprayed on crops contaminate crops, kill beneficial insects etc Chemicals used are eventually consumed inadvertently by humans through agricultural products Ill effect on workers in fields-deforestation Fruits and vegetables covered with invisible pesticides – not easily washed

Take intensive farming of livestock now. This is also known as “factory farming”. In this case, live stocks are confined to high stock density; they are prone to various undefined animal welfare mishaps and cataclysm.

Modern day intensive crop involves mechanical ploughing, chemical fertilisers, herbicides, yes it all increases production – but also manifestly increases pollution, erosion of land, poisoning water with chemicals and, destroys forests as more land is ear-marked for farmlands. Produces hybrid poultry live stocks with increased yields – genetic selection of species.

Even with all these selective advantages, intensive farming is going to be the thing of the past! As we need more meat, more food, more variety and let’s be candid the population of the world is increasing.  Scientists and the producers have to feed us all!

Out comes from the horizon a new serendipity, a discovery that a little while ago was only in the test tube of science. Cloning – cloning of animals. Birth of wanted animals by cell technology and not from ‘sexual reproduction cycle’. Did we say that it is on the horizon, nay, cloned meat and milk is being marketed in some sophisticated advanced regions. In fact in 2007 we saw a glimpse of it in Chicago. Scientific perception is turning to reality folks!

Halal Food Authority is all for adapting science and technology and usage of it’s benefits for the human kind. But there is always a proviso required. Is this cloning of animals going to be allowed for Muslims, is it permissible, is it going to be the case like intensive farming whence we only knew about it after it came to grace our dinner table? Critically speaking, is it ethical, what would it do to our DNA, and future generations, and importantly would it give us the same nourishment as the conventional meat? Answers should be found.

Let me take to a tour if Evolution of Animal Breeding:

• In 1322 an Arab clan Chief uses artificial insemination to produce superior horse.
• In 1869 Miescher discovers DNA in the sperm of trout.
• In 1891 Walter Heap performs first embryo transfer inEnglandwith rabbits.
• In 1903 Herbert Webber of US Agriculture Department coins the word “clon”, now known as clone.
• In 1937 first commercial use of Artificial Insemination by Perry In 1952 Briggs and King cloned frogs In 1963 fish was cloned in China In 1979 sheep was cloned by embryo splitting In 1987 embryonic cell transfer in cattle In 1996 mammal cloned from an embryo-derived cell culture. This, thus made possible to easily clone an unlimited number of animals from a single embryo. Same year Dolly the sheep arrived.

What is cloning? In layman’s terms analysis of the phenomenon is that it is not from reproduction system of female egg and male sperm combination to produce offsprings of animal species or traditional way of procuring fruits and vegetables. Let us discuss types of cloning:

Recombinant DNA technology or DNA Cloning Reproductive Cloning Therapeutic Cloning

Restriction of time does only permit to detail number two: Reproductive Cloning which is a technology to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly the sheep was created by “reproductive cloning technology”. Process was called “somatic cell nuclear transfer”. Scientists transfer genetic material from nucleus of a donor adult” cell “to an egg whose nucleus; its genetic material has been removed. Reconstructed egg containing DNA from donor cell must be treated with chemical or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop till it’s birth.

Dolly the sheep, a success of this technique proved that the genetic material from a specialised adult cell, such as an udder if required could be programmed to generate an entire new organism. Before this demonstration scientists believed that once a cell became specialised as a, say, liver heart, udder, bone, or any other type of cell, the change was permanent and the other undesired gene in there would become inactive. Imperative it is to note that some scientists believe that errors or incompleteness in the programming causes high rate of death, deformity and disability that has been observed in cloned animals. Apart from cow, sheep the other animals which could be cloned are namely, ox gaur ( a wild kind), African antelope bongo, Sumatran tiger and giant panda. Extinct animals, the scientist think present a challenge because the egg and the surrogate needed to create the clone embryo would be of a species different from the clone.

The day is not far when Therapeutic Cloning technology may be used in humans to produce whole organs from single cells or to produce healthy cells to replace damaged cells in degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. There still lot to be researched before therapeutic cloning can become a realistic and moral option for treatment of named disorders. Some organs like ears, kidney and hearts have already been cloned from skin and other cells.

Fish, poultry, fruits, rice, vegetables, sheep and cattle have so far been procured by this scientific method called cloning.

What are the risks of Cloning?

Reproductive Cloning is expensive with low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function, higher rate of infection, tumour growth and various other disorders. Irony is cloned animals have not lived long and died mysteriously.  It is said Dolly died of arthritis and a degenerative lung disease at four years, but do we normally keep a sheep alive for twelve years?

So the animal health and welfare are issue here. According to Dr David Morton of Biomedical Science and Ethics department of Birmingham University, animal husbandry is important factor for animal mental health and ethical frame work that are described as five freedoms;

i)         freedom from thirst,  hunger and malnutrition

ii)        freedom from discomfort

iii)       freedom from pain, injury and disease iv)freedom to express normal animal behaviour, company of the own animal kind v )freedom from fear and distress

Do you not detect that these are the tenets for zibh and Halal ?

Taking animal welfare concerns further over cloning of farm animals;

a)    invasive medical intervention, as performed on donor animals – for oocyte extraction , and on surrogate mothers. Such extraction for sheep and pigs is usually surgical which causes stresses of recovery

b)    suffering caused to surrogate mothers with prolonged pregnancy and unborn are heavier than normal, which causes painful births

c)    abnormal foetal development and late pregnancy mortality, which leads to frequent death usually in the second half of the gestation period

d)    postnatal mortality shows that cloned offsprings die at delivery or before weaning (complications are gastroenteritis , umbilical infections, cardiovascular defects, skeleton and neurological defects together with susceptibility to lung infection and digestive disorders

e)    health problems during life as cloned animals may have a greater propensity in later life for respiratory problems, immune system deficiencies as well as other ailments mentioned earlier, then normal traditionally produced animals.

All this was in support of intended for temporary ban of Animal Cloning by the European Union. One has to keep in mind that Organ Cloning might be instrumentally beneficial and a good substitute for mankind like blood transfusion is now. Mind, there is nothing mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah for blood transfusion, but it has become a remedy and healing taken for granted.

European Food Safety Authority said under animal welfare issues that “the mortality rate of clones is considerably higher than in sexually produced animals and there is evidence of increased morbidity of clones compared with sexually produced animals”.

On ethical point European Group on Ethics in Science and Technology (EGE) in 2008  published report say” considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, they did not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offsprings”.

Legal aspects to be taken into account in the risk management for animal health and zootechnics ; the Article 43 of the Treaty of the European Union does not distinguish between animals produced by different reproduction technologies like artificial insemination, embryo transfer, embryo splitting, in-vitro-fertilisation or cloning, as from a genetic perspective none of these practices affects the genome or susceptibility to infectious diseases.

Now listen to Michael Rosenberg, professor of Theology inLinz,Austria, who asks “does cloning violate the realm of the Creator”? The answer is more popular than scientific, as many argue in this way and that includes Prince Charles. They believe that cloning and genetic modification intrude into areas that are the preserve of the Creator. This testimony will reach and convince only believers. For non-believers it somewhat would not be valid. We, however, have to find arguments acceptable both for believers and non-believers alike. Next argument I would like to paraphrase, what is the definition of Creator. It is someone who is bringing something from not-being. Producing something out of nothing! But since in cloning living cells are being used to bring into life a cloned creature; then what would Islamic scholars would define it as. So, are we violating the Nature? Then also what about animals’ bodily integrity and it’s sentient feelings?

It should be said that these might not be sufficient to forbid farm animal cloning, but still stand to be strong and valid reasons to preserve environment, field culture, woods, and cultivate and guard this precious “garden of earth”.

In theUK, some scientists oppose cloning as they say that enough research has not yet been done on it’s merits and it’s effects on human health. Industry is half-hearted about it’s prospects and industrial espionage has started as some unscrupulous has developed potato crisps like the rivals, yes , by cloning!

Public perception may be opposed to animal cloning and it’s efficacy for food and food-chain but the fear is that in irresolute way cloned products like ‘meat ‘ and ‘milk’ might reach the supermarket shelves long before with think. Then what? Are we going to have squawking chorus whence it will be beyond control. Are we to do the analysis of the phenomenon then? Would condescending nous and criticism on basis of religion be raising it head then? Answers are required and now!

EU Directive on the Protection of Animals kept for Farming purposes (98/58/EC clearly states “natural or artificial breeding or breeding procedures which cause, or are likely to cause suffering or injury to any of the animals concerned must not be practiced”. But then for effective labelling Food Standards Agency declares (the Times Nov 26, 2010) “that evidence suggests that there is little or no risk to the public from consuming cloned products. FSA said that differences, if there were any, between conventional cattle and the offspring of a clone would disappear from the second generation.

However, Ms Joyce D’Silva of Compassion in World Farming categorically states that “cloning and genetic engineering of farm animals is taking us in the wrong direction – towards perpetual factory farming when all the society trends point towards farming and respect of animals as sentient beings. The aims of cloning and practice themselves are, therefore, an ethical and animal welfare issue “.

Having catalogued the finding, opinions, veracity and credibility and apprehensions, Muslims have to look at it from two angles, one being how is it going to be monitored and how the Halal accreditation of cloned meat and milk and other products (as there are likely to be) would be inspected and audited for status and validity of consumption?

In this respect Halal Food Authority would suggest the following caveat, provisions and qualifications.

A) Traceability

There must be EU and global identification and registration system of Cloned Animals, offsprings and their descendent, to track back the origin of animals as regards the use of the cloning technique for permissible animals for the food chain

B) Risk Assessment

Aside the other factors we must have manifest rulings on environmental impact of the great change from the traditional sexual reproduction system to cell technique – genetic engineering, with special emphasis on reverence and respect of the animal

C) Animal Welfare

Assurance is required that such cloned animals would be free from physical deformities, thermal discomfort, undue distress and would be free from any risk to disease

D) Food Safety

Islamic axiom, standard and criteria for definition of Halal foods would always apply whence endorsement is done for Halal status:

i)             wholesome

ii)            pure and

iii)           safe and fit for human consumption

E) Labelling & Passport

In pursuance to traceability the traceable Modus operandi would be the introduction of passport for cloned animals just like we have had for the beef labelling. With data control and registration it would be easy to identify and differentiate between traditional meat and milk from the yield of so called “cloned animals”. Definitely a choice for those would not join in to be partial to such foods.  Therefore, labelling should be mandatory.

Halal Food Authority has always been standards bearer of and maintained that scientific research and development of technological advancement  are noble nonpareil advantages for the mankind, as long as these do not make Islamic ethos and ideology subservient. Any contravention of the core rules would make meat, milk or food forbidden for the Muslim consumption. This is why HFA is assiduously engaged in accreditation of conventional traditional eastern and western cuisines in conformity of orthodox Islamic Jurisprudence.

This seminar and conference I trust would and each delegate here would look into the future of Halal food trade, cloning of animals , welfare of animals with sagacity, tenacity and judiciousness for the safety of mankind now and in the future.

Masood Khawaja

President & CEO

Halal Food Authority

December 2012

 

_______________________________________________________________________

Summers’ case moves to magistrates court

- Published: 12 July, 2012 (http://www.meatinfo.co.uk)

A poultry processor has been successful in its bid to stay operational during an appeal against threatened closure by food safety bosses.

Summers Poultry Products, which has been threatened with closure by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) since September, had sought a judicial review of the Agency’s decision to withdraw approval, arguing the FSA had relied on “unlawful” regulations and had not followed the correct process in reaching its decision.

The High Court dismissed all grounds for the challenge at a hearing on Tuesday (10 July), but the FSA conceded to allowing the plant to remain open while it pursues its right to appeal through the magistrates court.

The FSA had recently amended the Official Feed and Food Controls regulation to prevent meat businesses from operating when appealing against decisions to remove or refuse approval.

However, an FSA spokesperson said: “Given that this is the first occasion where approval has been withdrawn since then, the FSA has extended its undertaking to the High Court not to enforce its decision pending the determination of the appeal.”

Tim Russ, partner at Clarke Willmott, which is mediating for Summers, said: “This is a very sensible decision to agree on the FSA’s part, which we are delighted with. The FSA has recognised the commercial side and that is why the appeal has been launched.”

The appeal has been scheduled to take place at the magistrates court on 23 July.

 

Poultry farm and abattoir faces closure
- Published: 14 February, 2011 (http://www.meatinfo.co.uk)

A Warwickshire-based poultry farm and abattoir has lost its appeal to extend its facilities and has warned it could now face closure with the loss of 96 jobs.

Summers Poultry Products, at Cank Farm in Tanworth-in-Arden, had sought to overturn a Stratford-upon-Avon District Council decision against the development.

However, an inspector for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has rejected the appeal – and agreed with the local authority that the slaughter house extension and other alterations in the Green Belt should not go ahead.

John Summers, the company’s managing director, said the chiller unit and holding pen area were built to meet strict Defra and Food Standards Agency regulations. And he had argued the buildings were essential otherwise the company would be forced to shut down the abattoir and 96 people would face losing their jobs.

Sarah Faulkner, NFU environmental adviser, who gave evidence at the planning inquiry last November, said there was deep disappointment following the inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal.

She said: “Government makes supportive statements about the planning system supporting business, but unfortunately this does not always translate at a local level. We are frustrated and deeply disappointed by the outcome of this case.

“The NFU understands the importance of the Green Belt, but the business is established and sought to make minor changes to an existing building to meet regulatory requirements for animal welfare.

“Our thoughts are with Mr Summers and also with the people who face losing their jobs as a result of planning permission being refused.”

It is believed that Summer, which processes about 100,000 chickens a week, spends £6.5m in the rural economy, using contractors and suppliers. The family has been farming at Tanworth-in-Arden for generations and the abattoir has been operating since 1967.

However, in his report the inspector said he had considered the impact of the proposed extension upon the openness of the Green Belt and if it would have a “harmful visual impact”.

He said he accepted the proposed extensions would enable the slaughterhouse to meet current regulations for the foreseeable future, preserve jobs, maintain existing trade with local businesses and prevent disruption and expense to local and more distant poultry suppliers.

Despite Mr Summers saying the business employed 96 people, the inspector said that he had heard evidence that the existing slaughterhouse provided employment for some “20 village residents and 12 people from the surrounding area”. He said if the business closed “the impact upon local employment would therefore be relatively limited and might be offset by employment opportunities arising in any future business occupying the premises”.

The report said: “I therefore attach limited weight to any continued benefit to the local economy arising from the continuation of the business, were the proposed extension to take place.”

 

Therefore, from this date the Halal Food Authority (HFA) NO LONGER will accredit, authenticate or endorse FACCENDA Group products for halal validity.

In general terms the HFA reiterates to all manufacturers, traders, retailers and consumers who use, trade, distribute and /or consume halal poultry that they are strongly advised to review, investigate and ensure the validity and authenticity of their halal supply chain before exercising their choice.

Please contact HFA should there be any query or concern on this matter on 0844 879 4568.

 

 

HFA clarifies and expressed concerns over the spread of aversive and misleading information

The following is the email in circulation from Cert ID Europe Ltd addressed to the food industry that wrongfully outlined HFA stance on stunning:

From: Jerry Houseago [mailto:jerry.houseago@cert-id.eu]
Sent: 01 October 2010
To: ??????????
Subject: Only EHDA Standard Supports Labelling Halal Products

Dear ?????????

You may be aware of recent press attention on the labelling of Halal Meat, as for example on the BBC’s “The One Show”. The reported concerns centre on whether consumers should be made aware that meat is Halal by labelling, and whether the animal was stunned at time of slaughter, as this is perceived as a welfare issue.

The EHDA Standard has always been clear on these issues. It is the only certification standard that accepts stunned meat, both HFA and HMC only accept non-stun meat in their certification. The EHDA Standard also requires labelling to show if certified meat is stunned or non-stunned so as to promote consumer choice.
Cert ID are a Food Certification Body and are the audit partners for the European Halal Development Agency (EHDA). Our core business is certification of Identity Preserved systems such as those for Non-GM foods. Identity preservation is essentially the way we can certify Halal foods.
EHDA is a not-for –profit organisation whose aims are to promote trust in Halal foods by establishing a certification scheme fit for modern processing techniques and to encourage the development of a Halal supply chain through education of Muslim consumers.
If you need to reassure both Muslim and non-Muslim Consumers of the provenance and nature of your Halal meat, the EHDA Standard is the best certification scheme available.
Please let me know if you would like any further information or clarification about the scheme.

Jerry Houseago
Business Development Director
Cert ID Europe Ltd
[ www.cert-id.eu ]
T : +44 (0) 1827 874 849 F : +44 (0) 207 691 7779
Mob: 07957 808154

HFA has responded and protested against the statement as follows:

From: Saqib Mohammed [mailto:saqib@halalfoodauthority.co.uk]
Sent: 04 October 2010 13:28
To: Jerry Houseago
Subject: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
Importance: High

TO WHOME IT MAY CONCERN

The email with the contents below are believed to have been circulated from your domain.
Halal Food Authority (HFA) strongly condemn your statement: The EHDA Standard has always been clear on these issues. It is the only certification standard that accepts stunned meat, both HFA and HMC only accept non-stun meat in their certification. The EHDA Standard also requires labelling to show if certified meat is stunned or non-stunned so as to promote consumer choice.
HFA Halal standard strictly stipulates that pre-slaughter stunning is permitted to stun the animal/bird and not to be used to kill the animal/bird. We have elucidated our halal slaughtering criteria on our website under HFA Brief Slaughtering Guidelines (http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/HFA%20Brief%20Guidlines%20for%20slaughtering.pdf) and sufficiently detailed information is set out in HFA Halal Standard – Revision 2010 (available from HFA office on request).
HFA, hereby, seeks urgent proof to support your allegation in the above statement within the next 24 hours. We are also seeking legal advice and would not, certainly, hesitate to take legal action should you choose not to respond with valid proofs to support your alleged statement.
Kind regards

Saqib Mohammed

Finally Cert ID Europe apologised for the wronful and misleading information that had been circulated and took the following steps.

From: Saqib Mohammed [mailto:saqib@halalfoodauthority.co.uk]
Sent: 04 October 2010 16:44
To: Jerry Houseago
Subject: RE: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED

Dear Jerry

Thank you for your response.

This would be appropriate:

“I would just like to correct one of the statements in my email last week. It appears I was given some incorrect information concerning HFA and can only apologise for a genuine mistake. I would like to make it clear that HFA will accept either stunned (not to kill) or non-stunned slaughter in their certification scheme.”

Regards

Saqib Mohammed
Operations Manager

Halal Food Authority, 109 Fulham Palace Rd, London , W6 8JA , ENGLAND
T: +44 20 8563 1994 | M: +44 7723602772 | F: +44 20 8563 1993
E: info@halalfoodauthority.co.uk | W: www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk

From: Jerry Houseago [mailto:jerry.houseago@cert-id.eu]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:41 PM
To: Saqib Mohammed
Cc: Richard Werran
Subject: RE: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED

Dear Saqib

Thank you for your email. As I said in our telephone conversation and subsequent email, I have apologised to you for a genuine mistake on our behalf. I had already started the process of correcting the email before you contacted me about.

I would propose to to send the following correction to our database.

“I would just like to correct one of the statements in my email last week. It appears I was given some incorrect information concerning HFA and can only apologise for a genuine mistake. I would like to make it clear that HFA will accept either stunned or non-stunned slaughter in their certification scheme.

Regards

Jerry Houseago
Business Development Director
Cert ID Europe Ltd “

We use an automated crm system that will produce a report confirming the number of recipients that the email is sent to and I will send you a copy of the report. I will also include you in the distribution list.

Please confirm your agreement to this so I can send the correction today.

Regards

Jerry

Jerry Houseago

Business Development Director
Cert ID Europe Ltd
[www.cert-id.eu]
T: +44 (0) 1675 475607 F: +44 (0) 207 691 7779
M: +44 (0)7957 808154

From: Saqib Mohammed [mailto:saqib@halalfoodauthority.co.uk]
Sent: 04 October 2010 15:26
To: Jerry Houseago
Subject: RE: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED

Dear Jerry

Further to your apology below, please send us the confirmation that you have made all those recipients privy to your misleading and wrongful information or have forwarded them the email below.

Please also send us the copy of such email sent to your initial recipients (please send us CC list). Should we not receive this confirmation or evidence of apologetic email to your recipients, we would be constrained to initiate further proceedings for damages and defamation against you without further notice being served.

Kind regards

Saqib Mohammed
Operations Manager

From: Jerry Houseago [mailto:jerry.houseago@cert-id.eu]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Saqib Mohammed
Cc: Richard Werran; Jodie Tooke
Subject: RE: URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED

Dear Saqib

Following our conversation I am writing to apologise to you for the incorrect information concerning HFA contained in our recent email. However, I would like to assure you this was a genuine mistake on our behalf as we were given some incorrect information.

Regards

Jerry

Jerry Houseago
Business Development Director
Cert ID Europe Ltd
[www.cert-id.eu]
T:+44 (0) 1675 475607 F: +44 (0) 207 691 7779
M: +44 (0)7957 808154