The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) said the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a subsidiary of both agencies meeting in Rome, had adopted more than 50 new safety and quality standards, some of them ground-breaking guidelines, others revisions of old standards.”These guidelines are a very important step towards understanding the risks associated with foods derived from biotechnology,” the Secretary of the Codex Commission, Alan Randell, said. “Now, any country, regulatory body or other organization or individual will be able to compare the risk assessments of a given food derived from biotechnology with the assessments done by other countries,” he added.”The Commission made some very important decisions for food safety. The most important of these was to extend food safety systems to small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in developing countries. This will help these small businesses produce safe food for consumers and improve their prospects for trade,” he said. The guidelines – on food safety, not environmental risks – lay out broad general principles to make analysis and management of risks related to foods derived from biotechnology uniform across Codex’s 169 member countries and include pre-market safety evaluations, product tracing for recall purposes and post-market monitoring.They cover the scientific assessment of DNA-modified plants, such as maize, soya or potatoes, and foods and beverages derived from DNA-modified micro-organisms, including cheese, yoghurt and beer, and include provisions for assessing a product’s allergenicity, determining if the product may provoke unexpected allergies in consumers.The Commission adopted a new standard for irradiated foods that accepts higher levels of gamma rays to kill bacteria and increase shelf life. It determined that such levels would eliminate bacterial spores and the radiation resistant pathogenic bacteria Clostridium botulinum, and also reduce the need to use more toxic chemical methods of combating bacteria, some of which can be harmful to the environment.The Commission also adopted new quality standards for many food items. For example, consumers will soon note that the amount of cocoa in chocolate and chocolate products will determine when the term “chocolate” can be used. The new standard sets a minimum 35 per cent of cocoa solids in products marketed as “chocolate” and a minimum 20 per cent in “chocolate type” products, such as “chocolate flakes”. The new standard requires the minimum cocoa content to be clearly marked on the packaging of all chocolate flavoured products.The Commission’s session, its 26th, was attended by delegates from 127 member countries, the most ever to attend a Codex meeting.
But he was arrested after he was chased away down the street by her husband former Klaxons singer James Righton.Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court heard the film star was planning on moving away from her North London borough where she lives.In a victim impact statement read out in court by prosecutor Rita Ali, Ms Knightley said: “His actions have had a severe impact on my life and the lives of my family.”Since I reported he incident to the police after he meowed through my letter box and had a scuffle with my husband on my doorstep, we are now looking to move house outside the borough.”We have lived here for two years and my family have enjoyed visiting shops and playing in local parks and being close to the heartbeat of London.”My husband and I had hoped our children’s would go to school here. This man has caused me a lot of stress and panic.”I am scared every time I go outside. When I return home I have to look behind me concerned, I don’t know who might be on the shadows.”I have had fan mail through the door in the past but never has it been God strange or concerning. The thought of him being in he other side of the door has left me quite shaken.”If I was to see this man again I wouldn’t know what to do. If I was with my child we wouldn’t be able to run away easily. The thought of my daughter being at risk is my worst nightmare.” When I return home I have to look behind me concerned, I don’t know who might be on the shadowsKeira Knightley His lawyer Abu Kibla said: “When he was told by Ms Knightley’s husband not to contact them anymore, that was the notice he required. He has no intention of contacting her again.”He court heard he previous worked in haematology but had to stop after a decline in his mental health.The court heard he has a previous conviction in 2011 for exposure after sending multiple letters to a female member of staff at a hospital, booking tickets and planning days out with her, before turning up at her home address completely naked.District Judge Robin McPhee said: “The offence is so serious it does justify an immediate prison sentence due to the aggravating features.”I take into account you have already severed around ten days in custody and I come to the conclusion that it is good practice in your case to suspended the operation of your sentence.”Revill, of Hackney, East London, was sentenced to a eight week prison sentence suspended for a year.He was also ordered to take part in a mandatory mental health treatment programme for six months and a rehabilitation activity requirement with the probation service.He was also given an indefinite restraining order banning him from contacting Ms Knightley directly or indirectly including members of her family.He is also not allowed within 100 meters of her or her family and the family home. He was also made the subject of an exclusion zone in the north London area. At a previous hearing Revill, who pleaded guilty, said he was in love with the actress but said he had only approached the actress in an attempt to promote his music.On social media, Revill has made a number of references to cats, and changed his name to ‘Mark McCattipus’ on Facebook.Prosecutor Ms Ali told the court at Revill’s sentencing: “The complainant in this matter is a famous Hollywood actress by the name of Keira Knightley.”Over the course of two months the defendants bizarre behaviour causes the victim severe harassment, alarm and distress amounting to the stalking of her.”The defendant calls himself ‘Ziggy’ and he is known locally. He attended her home address and by sending her letters, meowing through her letterbox and drawing in chalk outside her house.”Describing one package posted through the door the prosecutor said: “It included glossy paper with cats on with a note which said ‘that’s you on the right, the stupid looking one and thats me on the left’.”He also sent other handwritten notes which said “listen to my music” and asking “have you listened to my music”Wearing a black vest with the words “I’m sorry I’m bad” on it, Revill was given an eight weeks sentence suspended for one year and a restraining order banning him from contacting her. Keira Knightley, the actress, was looking to move out of her family home after an infatuated stalker left her “scared every time I go outside” and for the safety of her daughter.The 31-year-old film actress said Mark Revill, 49, caused her “a lot of stress and panic” after he bombarded her with cat postcards and meowed through her letterboxRevill, the musician, stalked the Pirates of the Caribbean star actress for three months at her £3.9million five-bedroom house in north London. He repeatedly went to her house, waited outside and used chalk to draw an arrow pointing to her door.He hand delivered through the letterbox a USB stick cat-themed music on it, with one track called “fuzzy kitten waltz” and a JPEG image, and a handwritten note saying “listen to my music”. Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. Keira Knightley at Harper’s Bazaar Women of the Year Awards last monthCredit:Richard Young/REX/Shutterstock Mark Revill bombarded Hollywood star Keira Knightley with pictures of catsCredit:CENTRAL NEWS
A Cambridge University lecturer has won a court battle against her lawyer ex-husband who claimed he should not have to pay her maintenance because she is too hardworking.Three judges have refused “belligerent, unhelpful and dictatorial” London solicitor Goran Mickovski’s bid to stop payments to his ex-wife, Kathleen Liddell.The former couple shared a £1.2m family fortune when they split in 2011 after 11 years of marriage.After they broke up, 40-year-old Mrs Liddell moved from part-time to full-time hours despite having “tiny children” to care for, saying she needed to work “as hard as she can” to “survive financially”. I understand and accept her decision to work full time… she is working as hard as she can and she can’t earn any moreJudge Markanza Cudby But Lady Justice Macur dismissed Mrs Mickovski’s challenge to Judge Cudby’s order, saying: “The wife says, ‘I need to work in order to survive financially’. She was struggling. Each month her outgoings exceeded her income.”That is why she needs maintenance going forward and why the judge made the findings that she did. The judge congratulated her for getting herself back to work full time with tiny children. “The judge found that the husband had not been accurate in his assertions… she accepted the evidence of the wife. We intend to refuse the husband permission to appeal.”Mr Mickovski was given two months to pay the £34,000 to his ex – who represented herself in court – along with £3,543 in legal costs.He must keep on paying her £723-a-month maintenance until he comes up with the £34,000 lump sum The former matrimonial home in Islington of Kathleen Liddell and Goran MickovskiCredit:Richard Gittins/Champion News Judge Cudby found last year that Mrs Liddell still needed the maintenance payments as she was struggling to make ends meet.”She receives no real financial contribution from her partner,” the judge said, adding: “I’m satisfied that she works hard… I understand and accept her decision to work full time… she is earning £53,000-a-year and I accept she is working as hard as she can and she can’t earn any more.”The judge also branded Mr Mickovski “belligerent, unhelpful and dictatorial” after hearing him give evidence.But his barrister, Stephen Lyon, told the Court of Appeal that Judge Cudby’s decision not to end the maintenance payments had left his ex more comfortable than she needed to be, when by now she should be financially “independent.””The increase in salaried income that she gained by going full-time matched the level of maintenance he was paying, therefore she no longer needed it,” he said.”There was no continuing need for financial support from the former husband at £723-a-month,” he told the judges.Mr Lyon insisted that Mrs Liddell was “in a position now to be independent of the husband and that she could immediately adjust without undue hardship to the immediate termination” of maintenance.The wife’s five-bedroom home “arguably exceeded her needs,” he argued, adding: “There was no consideration of need.””We say the judge gave no reasons for her decision and no analysis. The impression one gets from the judgment is that the judge is saying, ‘you’ve not convinced me you can’t afford it, so you can carry on paying’. That’s not the law, bluntly.” But her 43-year-old ex-husband later took her to court, asking Judge Markanza Cudby to stop the £723-a-month maintenance he had been paying her because his ex-wife’s wages had increased. However, Mrs Liddell was “congratulated” by the divorce judge for her strong work ethic.The judge went on to order her ex-husband to pay her the whole sum of the maintenance she was due for the next four years at once in a £34,000 lump sum.Two more judges at London’s Court of Appeal heard Mr Mickovski challenge that order, arguing that his ex-wife had been left in a financial position that “exceeded her needs”.Lady Justice Macur and Lady Justice Eleanor King heard that the former couple lived in an £800,000 home in Islington, north London, which made up the bulk of their £1.2m wealth.As well as the maintenance payments, Mrs Liddell received a £555,000 lump sum when the marriage broke down and, in return, signed her half of the house over to her ex, who still lives there.The academic used the money to buy a five-bedroom property in Cambridgeshire near her £53,000-a-year job at the University’s law faculty.She now shares the house with her new partner, a chartered accountant, while Mr Mickovski, who is also required to pay child support, has re-married a businesswoman working for British-American Tobacco. The case made its way to the Court of AppealCredit:NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings.