PFD report

Tiya Chetan Chauhan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Sep 2014•Inner West London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
5

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
8

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Lack of awareness of the choking risks of raw jelly cubes during play
  2. Absence of choking-risk warnings on packets of raw jelly
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazardsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures
  3. Insufficient supervision of raw jelly play with young children
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.8

  1. Action

    Issue additional EYFS guidance on good paediatric first-aid provision, including the choking risks of raw jelly and the need for sufficient supervision.

    Stated by Sam Gyimah MPStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2014.
  2. Action

    Review first-aid requirements to determine whether further action is needed on this issue.

    Stated by Sam Gyimah MPStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2014.
  3. Action

    Disseminate the inquest findings and raw-jelly activity risks to Ofsted and contracted early-years inspectors for consideration during EYFS compliance inspections.

    Stated by OfstedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The Food Standards Agency will respond about possible further action on warnings for raw jelly packaging.

    Stated by OfstedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of awareness of the choking risks of raw jelly cubes during play

Wider context from the report

“(1) That nurseries, other childcare and school settings and even parents may be using raw jelly during play without appreciating the especial risks of choking that a cube of raw jelly presents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of choking-risk warnings on packets of raw jelly

Wider context from the report

“(2) That packets of raw jelly do not contain a warning that cubes of jelly present a choking risk to children. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate product safety warnings about serious hazards; Unsafe implementation of choking-risk prevention measures.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficient supervision of raw jelly play with young children

Wider context from the report

“(3) That raw jelly cubes may be used in play with young children without sufficient supervision. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Issue additional EYFS guidance on good paediatric first-aid provision, including the choking risks of raw jelly and the need for sufficient supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) requires registered childcare providers to keep children safe and to use their professional judgement in doing so, with provision regulated and inspected by Ofsted in line with the EYFS requirements. In a recent debate, initiated by the hard work of the founders of Millie’s Trust, the parents of Millie Thompson (a child who died at a nursery in 2012), I announced that I intend to issue additional guidance to the early years sector in 2015 under the EYFS banner. This will be principally about what constitutes good paediatric first aid provision in settings.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review first-aid requirements to determine whether further action is needed on this issue.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Providers already know that they have to have sufficient first aiders to be able to respond quickly to emergencies and choking does of course need such a response. I will use this guidance to point out the dangers of using raw jelly with young children without sufficient supervision as an example of a choking hazard. In addition to the guidance, I committed to undertaking a review of the first aid requirements to see if there is any further action needed on this important issue.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Disseminate the inquest findings and raw-jelly activity risks to Ofsted and contracted early-years inspectors for consideration during EYFS compliance inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In inspecting registered early years providers, Ofsted inspects compliance with the EYFS requirements including those relating to the risk assessment of activities and supervision. Any breach of EYFS requirements arising from unsafe practices would result in appropriate regulatory action by Ofsted. We will ensure that the findings of the inquest are disseminated to Ofsted and contracted inspectors of EY provisions so that they are aware of the risks of the use of raw jelly in activities in their inspection of EYFS compliance. As was made clear at the inquest, the use of raw jelly in activities in play is not specifically precluded by the EYFS.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Include the inquest findings and raw-jelly choking risks in the next newsletter to local authority children’s services directors, copying it to the Department for Education.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ofsted will be including details of the inquest, including its findings of the risks associated with the use of raw jelly during play by children, in its next regular newsletter to all Directors of Children’s Services (DCSs) in local authorities in England. As we explained in our evidence, local authorities, not Ofsted, have the statutory duty to provide information, advice and guidance to childcare providers. It is therefore for local authorities to advise individual providers of the risks posed by raw jelly, but Ofsted can support this by bringing to their attention the matters highlighted in the inquest. The aim of this will be to highlight the risks of raw jelly play by children in childcare and school settings. It will be for the DCS’s to decide how best to disseminate this information further to these settings.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Forward information about raw jelly cube risks to UK local authority environmental health services for consideration during routine food safety inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your first point, and alerting nurseries and other childcare settings about the issue, I understand that Ofsted intend to include specific information on the incident in their next newsletter to local authority Directors of Children’s Services. This will highlight the particular risks associated with raw jelly cubes in childcare and school settings. The FSA will separately forward this information to UK local authority environmental health services, to similarly highlight the risks so that environmental health officers are able to consider them during their routine food safety inspections of these establishments.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Food-Standards-Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Copy the report and concerns about raw jelly cubes to relevant Department of Health officials for consideration in early-years food advice to parents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note your reference to parents being made aware of the risks associated with raw jelly cubes. A number of specialist websites for parents or carers did highlight this issue following the incident. Problems associated with food choking hazards is also something included in relevant NHS information. However, I will ensure your report and your specific concerns about raw jelly cubes is copied to relevant officials in the Department of Health for their consideration in relation to early years food advice to parents.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Food-Standards-Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Maintain contact with Ofsted and provide relevant food safety information during its process of disseminating understanding of raw jelly cube risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that Ofsted will be liaising with the Local Government Association over what more can be done to disseminate understanding of this issue, and the FSA will maintain contact with Ofsted during this process to provide any relevant food safety information.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Food-Standards-Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Forward the report to relevant food manufacturing and retail trade bodies for information and consideration regarding warnings about raw jelly cube risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your concerns over the lack of warning about the issue on packaging, the FSA will forward a copy of your report to relevant industry manufacturing and retail trade bodies, for their information and consideration. I can confirm that there is no specific legal requirement (in what is an area of law closely harmonised at EU level) for such food to contain a warning on the label or on a point of sale notice if sold loose. However, this is something that a particular manufacturer or retailer”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Food-Standards-Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Food Standards Agency will respond about possible further action on warnings for raw jelly packaging.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inclusion of warnings on the packaging of food items and products is not a matter for Ofsted. We have discussed this concern with the FSA and have agreed that they will respond to you on the possibility for further action.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Warnings on food-product packaging are outside Ofsted’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inclusion of warnings on the packaging of food items and products is not a matter for Ofsted. We have discussed this concern with the FSA and have agreed that they will respond to you on the possibility for further action.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Local authorities, not Ofsted, are responsible for advising childcare providers about raw jelly risks and deciding how to disseminate that information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ofsted will be including details of the inquest, including its findings of the risks associated with the use of raw jelly during play by children, in its next regular newsletter to all Directors of Children’s Services (DCSs) in local authorities in England. As we explained in our evidence, local authorities, not Ofsted, have the statutory duty to provide information, advice and guidance to childcare providers. It is therefore for local authorities to advise individual providers of the risks posed by raw jelly, but Ofsted can support this by bringing to their attention the matters highlighted in the inquest. The aim of this will be to highlight the risks of raw jelly play by children in childcare and school settings. It will be for the DCS’s to decide how best to disseminate this information further to these settings.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Writing directly to all registered childcare providers about raw jelly risks and advising on EYFS delivery falls outside Ofsted’s statutory remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Ofsted has given careful consideration to whether it should write out to all registered childcare providers but has concluded that this would be outside Ofsted’s statutory remit. As mentioned above, Ofsted cannot advise settings on how to deliver the requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) since legislative provisions clearly place the obligation for advice and training of childcare settings on Local Authorities.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Ofsted inspectors cannot advise or require providers to stop using raw jelly because the EYFS does not specifically prohibit it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In inspecting registered early years providers, Ofsted inspects compliance with the EYFS requirements including those relating to the risk assessment of activities and supervision. Any breach of EYFS requirements arising from unsafe practices would result in appropriate regulatory action by Ofsted. We will ensure that the findings of the inquest are disseminated to Ofsted and contracted inspectors of EY provisions so that they are aware of the risks of the use of raw jelly in activities in their inspection of EYFS compliance. As was made clear at the inquest, the use of raw jelly in activities in play is not specifically precluded by the EYFS.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

There is no specific legal requirement to require warnings on packaging or loose-food point-of-sale notices; manufacturers and retailers may act voluntarily.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your concerns over the lack of warning about the issue on packaging, the FSA will forward a copy of your report to relevant industry manufacturing and retail trade bodies, for their information and consideration. I can confirm that there is no specific legal requirement (in what is an area of law closely harmonised at EU level) for such food to contain a warning on the label or on a point of sale notice if sold loose. However, this is something that a particular manufacturer or retailer”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Food-Standards-Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The Department for Education has policy responsibility for schools and registration responsibility for independent schools, including academies and free schools.

    Stated by OfstedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Department for Education has policy responsibility for schools and registration responsibility for independent schools, including academies and free schools.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The newsletter will highlight to DCS’s that the relevant concerns are relevant not only for nurseries but also for childminders and other providers of early years childcare including schools. In relation to schools, we will also provide a copy of the newsletter to the Department for Education (DfE) given they have policy responsibility for schools and also are the registration authority for independent schools including academies and free schools. You will also wish to note that we have kept DfE informed about the inquest and ensured that they have been kept aware of the evidence given by Ofsted and the inquest outcomes.”

Source location

2014-0575-Response-by-Ofsted
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2014

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026