Company Fined for Mislabeling Lamb Products
A company producing kebabs for takeaways and restaurants has been fined £500,000 after selling products labeled as "lamb" that were predominantly composed of skin and fat.
Swansea Crown Court was informed that Kismet Kebabs Ltd, based in Essex, supplied lamb products containing minimal actual lamb meat. Instead, these products consisted of a mixture of fat, skin, assorted meats, and mechanically reclaimed meat products.
In addition to the fine, Kismet was ordered to pay £259,298 in legal costs. The presiding judge described the company’s conduct as involving "considerable dishonesty" over an extended period.
Prosecution Details and Evidence
Lee Reynolds, prosecuting on behalf of Swansea Council, explained that the firm had "misled wholesalers, retailers and consumers" through inaccurate labeling.
"Much of what was being described as lamb was in fact skin and fat,"
Reynolds detailed that Kismet knowingly purchased goat, lamb fat, skin, mutton, and ovine meat, which after processing were sold as lamb products.
"The company routinely and knowingly purchased goat, lamb fat, skin, mutton, and ovine [sheep meat], and once processed through their factory sold it as lamb. In addition, other products were sold as specific meat products when the item contained meat of a different species,"
The court heard that in late 2020 and early 2021, Swansea Council’s trading standards team conducted a regional sampling exercise to verify the meat species and labeling accuracy of kebab meat served at local kebab houses and restaurants.
Samples collected across Swansea city and county revealed that kebabs supplied by Kismet did not match the declared meat content on their labels. Further laboratory tests on samples from wholesalers confirmed significant discrepancies between actual meat content and label claims.
Following these findings, the council engaged with the National Food Crime Unit and Food Standards Agency for further investigation.
History of Complaints and Factory Inspection
Reynolds informed the court that Essex council had a "long history" of involvement with Kismet through a Primary Authority Partnership, during which multiple complaints were received from councils across England regarding labeling and meat content issues.
One example cited involved a lamb doner labeled as containing 87% lamb, which was found to contain only 51% meat and 40% fat.
Due to concerns including "lack of operation" and "serious labelling and potential public health issues" identified during a factory audit, Essex council terminated its agreement with Kismet.
On 20 May 2021, a team led by Swansea council trading standards visited Kismet’s factory in Chelmsford, raising multiple concerns about production, packaging, and labeling practices.
Invoices reviewed during the investigation showed the company purchased very little lamb, instead acquiring a "large volume of skin, fat, goat" and "lower-grade 'meat' products that cannot be called meat as per the legal definition."
The firm was also producing mechanically derived meat composed mainly of "neck trim, mutton trim, water and ice," which was included in the declared meat content of their products.
Reynolds characterized the company’s actions as "organised, planned, unlawful activity" that misled wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
"The company engaged in organised, planned, unlawful activity and misled wholesalers, retailers and consumers."
He noted that sentencing guidelines for a firm of Kismet’s size suggested fines between £15 million and £24 million, though he acknowledged these amounts as "wholly unrealistic."
Company Plea and Sentencing
Kismet Kebabs Ltd, located in Chelmsford, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by false representation when the case returned for sentencing.
Stuart Jessop, representing Kismet, stated that the company was established in 2008 and had operated successfully for many years without issues, providing quality products nationwide.
He acknowledged that during the period of offending, the firm had "taken its eye off the ball," but emphasized that significant changes had since been implemented.
"It was accepted at the time of the offending the firm had taken its eye off the ball,"
"The company had made little financial gain and it would benefit nobody to impose a fine which led to the firm going out of business."
Judge Huw Rees remarked that fraudulent activity was "endemic" at the company during the offending period and that the firm had engaged in "considerable dishonesty" over a prolonged time.
He acknowledged the substantial improvements the company had made since then and noted that determining the extent of harm caused was challenging.
The court granted the company four years to pay the fine and costs.
