Where we are today
What we can answer today, and what we cannot
What we have today
A list of the suppliers we buy from directly.
A yearly assessment of each of them, built from what that supplier chose to tell us.
What that does not tell us
Who sits behind those suppliers, and what other names they trade under.
Which published findings touch the food and goods that end up on the tray.
Where our sight stops, and how much of the chain we still cannot see at all.
Where it starts
Seafood on our own trays, read entirely off British and European records
What we can show
3 of the companies we buy catering from bring seafood into this country themselves. They are named as the importer of record on the customs register, in the most recent month it covers. Because they crossed the border, each of them holds the catch certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the vessel, the catch area and the plant that processed it. The origin is not missing. It is in a filing cabinet belonging to a company we pay.
Who holds the paperwork
DNATA CATERING UK LIMITED
Still importing under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently 202605.
GATE GOURMET LONDON LTD
Still importing under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently 202605.
NEWREST-ALL LTD
Still importing under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently 202605.
Where it is still open
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft, DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited and Newrest Group Holding SA do not appear on the register as importing it, so what they serve is bought inside this country. Their seller is not on any public record, and it does not have to be guessed at: the register names at least 229 companies that did import it, and the seller is one of them. That is a list to work through, not a blank space. What would close it: the distributor list from the caterer, which is a routine question to a supplier rather than an investigation.
The plants that may lawfully ship here
A plant outside Europe cannot send food of animal origin into the United Kingdom or the European Union unless it is on this register. Being on it says the route is open. It says nothing about whether anything travelled it.
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
Rongcheng Jiamei Seafood
Rongcheng Runtong Aquatic Products
Shandong Shuangdu Ocean Food
Rongcheng Xinhui Aquatic Products
What was reported inside one of them
This is an allegation published by an investigation, not a ruling by anybody. It is about Rongcheng Haibo Seafood, and it is on the record with the company's answer to it.
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there. The plant holds an approval number that lets it ship into the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The company has answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
What we suggest doing next: Two letters, not an investigation. To DNATA CATERING UK LIMITED, GATE GOURMET LONDON LTD and NEWREST-ALL LTD: send the catch certificates and processing statements for your seafood imports over the last twelve months. To DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft, DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited and Newrest Group Holding SA: send the list of the distributors you buy seafood from. Neither asks anyone to prove a negative, and both are records the supplier already holds.
What our own checks miss
A supplier we assess every year, and the part we never see
What this is about
3 of the companies we buy from bring seafood into the country themselves. They are named on the customs register as the importer of record, most recently in the last month the register covers. That means the origin is not missing: by law each of them holds a catch certificate naming the vessel, the catch area and the plant that processed it. For these, there is nothing to investigate and something to request.
5 of them buy it here instead, including the company that caters every cabin out of Heathrow. Their seller is not named on any public record, and it does not need to be guessed at: it is one of the at least 229 companies the register names as importing this. A list is not an answer, but it is not a blank either.
The published action that began this work was issued by a United States authority about a vessel off China. It is the reason we looked. It is not the finding, and nothing in it reaches a kitchen here.
5 of them buy it here instead, including the company that caters every cabin out of Heathrow. Their seller is not named on any public record, and it does not need to be guessed at: it is one of the at least 229 companies the register names as importing this. A list is not an answer, but it is not a blank either.
The published action that began this work was issued by a United States authority about a vessel off China. It is the reason we looked. It is not the finding, and nothing in it reaches a kitchen here.
A gap in our own checks
We checked how far our own supplier assessment reaches, on 31 July 2026.Our own supplier assessment does not reach the place now in question.
What was reported
Our current supplier assessment does not cover the seafood site further up the chain that is now in question.
What the supplier says about this itself
Gate Gourmet, part of gategroup Holding AG, in its own modern slavery statement for 2024, filed on the Australian register. These are its own words, quoted exactly and not shortened or rearranged.
Most of our supplies, by volume, are food items which are predominantly sourced through large distributors based in Australia.
While we remain vigilant, adherence to our corporate policies and procedures support in managing risk of modern slavery in our 1st tier supply chains to a low-level risk.
We understand that our suppliers and customers often have their own complex supply chains, which makes it difficult for us to directly monitor or control the working conditions of each individual entity within a multi-step supply chain.
We continue to work with our suppliers and customers to manage the awareness and implement controls to reduce the risks of modern slavery in our supply chain for 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers.
Its own list of the categories it treats as moderate to high risk includes fish.
The company buys through distributors, and says its own checks bring first-tier risk down to a low level. The plants we can name sit further up than that, so nothing here says its checks reach them.
How we got here
The short version of the work behind this panel, in the order it happened.
- We started from our own check: we checked how far our own supplier assessment reaches, on 31 July 2026, about gategroup Holding AG, a catering company in Switzerland.
- We matched that name to one company in our records: gategroup Holding AG, using its registered company identifier 529900Y8BGAFVVVYVN24.
- We followed who is connected to whom: gategroup Holding AG to British Airways, though that link is likely rather than proven.
- From there: British Airways to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A., and public records prove it.
- Separately, we checked our own menus for seafood. It is used in long-haul premium cabin service. That tells us where the question could land for us, not that anything has reached us.
- Last, we checked our own supplier assessment. It does not cover the site in question.
How far we could follow it, step by step
The finding itself is a fact. The route from there to us is not. Every step below says how solid it is on its own, a weak step is never rolled up into a strong one, and where public records name no company we leave the space empty instead of guessing. Where a company is named on a likely link, that says only that a public source connects it to this chain. It is not a statement about what happens at that company.
published A gap in our own checks — gategroup Holding AG, a catering company in Switzerland. This sits at tier 1, a company we buy from directly. Published by Coverage check on 31 July 2026.
likely, not proven A link that looks likely, but is not proven — gategroup Holding AG supplies British Airways.
proven A link we can prove — British Airways is registered to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A..
likely, not proven Where it could show up for us — long-haul premium cabin service.
Where this could show up on our menus
Each line says how solid that link is. A line marked likely is a possibility we are watching, not an established fact, and it does not mean the ingredient on that menu came from this finding.
long-haul premium cabin service likely, not proven
How solid is this?
Four questions, answered one at a time. We never blend them into one figure, because that would hide which one is weak.
Is it real? Yes. We checked our own supplier assessment on 31 July 2026, and it does not cover this site.
Is it recent? The evidence is dated 31 July 2026, which is recent, less than two years old.
Does it touch what we serve? It could reach long-haul premium cabin service. The route to us is likely, but it is not proven.
Do our own checks cover it? No. Our current supplier assessment does not cover this site.
What we suggest doing next: Extend the assessment past gategroup Holding AG's front door. What we run today covers gategroup Holding AG as a company; what it does not reach is the unit that actually takes seafood in and plates seafood main course for long-haul premium cabin service. Put the goods-in record at those units in scope, name which units are in and which are not, and write the decision down with the date. A group-level statement from gategroup Holding AG is not evidence about a unit.
What this is based on
- our own coverage check
- the date on the evidence
- which of our menus the ingredient reaches
One ingredient, many menus
How a problem at the source becomes a question about several menus
Research about the whole industry
NORC at the University of Chicago (US Department of Labor funded) published research covering the whole industry, on 1 October 2020.Research about a whole industry or region. It names no single company.
What was reported
About 1.56 million children were found working in cocoa in the two main West African growing countries, about 790,000 in Cote d'Ivoire and about 770,000 in Ghana, and about 95 in every 100 of them in hazardous work.
How we got here
The short version of the work behind this panel, in the order it happened.
- We started from something in the open: NORC at the University of Chicago (US Department of Labor funded) published research covering the whole industry on 1 October 2020, about cocoa.
- There is no company to match it to. This is about a whole industry, so we never pin it on a named supplier.
- We then looked for the companies in between, the ones who buy, process and pass the goods on. Public records do not name them, so we stop there and say so rather than fill the space with a guess.
- Separately, we checked our own menus for cocoa. It is used in long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service. That tells us where the question could land for us, not that anything has reached us.
- Last, we checked our own supplier assessment. Nothing shows that it reaches this far up the chain.
We cannot prove a route from this to us.
The finding itself is real and dated. What we cannot show is the route from it to anything we buy, because public records do not carry it. We would rather say that plainly than draw a line we cannot stand behind. What would prove it: a supply link we can prove, across the part of the chain we cannot see.
Where this could show up on our menus
Each line says how solid that link is. A line marked likely is a possibility we are watching, not an established fact, and it does not mean the ingredient on that menu came from this finding.
long-haul economy service likely, not proven
long-haul premium cabin service likely, not proven
short-haul service likely, not proven
Who is certified where this comes from
Farmer groups and companies certified for this crop in these countries, read from the certifier's public register. Being on it says a group is certified, not that any particular bean in a product came from it: the trade mixes certified and uncertified beans and matches the claim on paper.
1079 certified groups are named in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire for cocoa.
960 hold a certificate today. 119 do not: 91 expired, 21 not granted and 7 cancelled. A certificate lapsing or being withdrawn is the dated event to watch here.
"SCOOPS-SOGAD"
(SPAD-CA) SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUCTEURS AGRICOLES DYNAMIQUES AVEC CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION
A.R-SCOOPS
AFCOTRADE (Africa Commodities Trading)
AFEX FAIR TRADE LIMITED
AFRICA SOURCING
AFROTROPIC COCOA PROCESSING COMPANY
AGRIAL COOP-CA
AGRICOLE EMERGENCE ZONLE 1 (AEZ)
AGRO-NEGOCE
Who those groups are recorded as selling into
90 of the 137 groups named in a chocolate maker's own published supply-chain disclosure match a group on the certifier's register, and the disclosure names the company each one sells into.
ofi
CARGILL
BARRY CALLEBEAUT
BEYOND BEANS
SUCDEN
GCB
ECOM
SO B GREEN
TOUTON
JB COCOA
FARMSTRONG
The publisher states that because the beans are not segregated, the intermediaries listed are those that MAY be present in its chain. It is not a claim that any particular bean took any particular route. Groups were matched to the certifier's register on name alone. A name is not a hard identifier, so every link here is a candidate.
The groups are not drawn one by one on the graph. Nothing ties any single one of them to this finding, and a named box on a panel about forced labour would suggest a connection nobody has shown. The graph carries the count, and the companies they are recorded as selling into.
What else is on record about these companies
Everything else on public record about the companies in this chain: official action, allegations, and what each company said back. A company appears here because something was published about it, which is not the same as a finding against it.
Cargill — Court case: A child-labour claim against seven cocoa buyers was dismissed
Eight Malian citizens sued seven cocoa buyers, including this company, over forced child labour in Cote d'Ivoire. On 22 July 2025 a US appeal court dismissed the case, holding that the claimants had not shown a causal connection between the buyers' supply chain and the labour they described. The dismissal was on that question, not on whether the labour happened.
Barry Callebaut — Court case: Named in the same dismissed child-labour claim
This company was one of the seven cocoa buyers sued by eight Malian citizens. The case was dismissed on 22 July 2025 for want of a shown causal connection, not on the facts of the labour alleged.
ofi (Olam Food Ingredients) — Court case: Named in the same dismissed child-labour claim
This company, under its former name, was one of the seven cocoa buyers sued by eight Malian citizens. The case was dismissed on 22 July 2025 for want of a shown causal connection, not on the facts of the labour alleged.
The registers we checked
uflpa_list — None of the six plants is on it, checked on 4 August 2026. That is three days after the largest single expansion the list has ever had, 43 companies added on 31 July and in force from 3 August. Shandong Meijia, a different Chinese seafood processor, has been listed since June 2024, so seafood plants do get listed. These have not been.
Rainforest Alliance public certificate search — It carries a suspension against the Kenyan estate in this chain. Across cocoa in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire it shows 119 groups whose certificate has lapsed, expired or been cancelled.
Nothing was found on record for the other 9 companies in this chain.
What is known about this commodity, whoever handles it
This is about the trade itself, not about any one company in it. It is here because it changes what our own question should be.
Why there is no company to name at the source
Cocoa is not grown on estates that can be named the way a tea estate or a fishing vessel can. It is grown by roughly two million smallholder families across Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana, whose beans are bought in small lots, pooled and mixed long before anyone exports them. The empty space on this panel is not a gap in our searching. It is the shape of the commodity.
The courts have been asked too
On 22 July 2025 a US appeal court dismissed a claim brought by eight Malian citizens against seven cocoa buyers: Cargill, Nestle, Mondelez, Hershey, Olam, Barry Callebaut and Mars. A separate challenge to the customs authority's inaction was dismissed because the group bringing it could not show standing. Both were dismissed without any finding about the conduct alleged.
Who handles the world's cocoa
Three companies process about half of all the world's cocoa: Barry Callebaut, Cargill and ofi. Six companies make nearly half the world's chocolate. Almost any cocoa product passes through a very small number of hands, which is why an origin problem is an industry problem.
Why a certificate may not mean what it seems
All six of the major cocoa buyers work on what the trade calls mass balance: certified and uncertified beans are physically mixed, and the certified claim is matched on paper by volume rather than kept separate in the sack. So a certificate on a product does not promise that the beans inside it came from a certified farm.
What can actually be checked at the source
The certifiers publish a searchable register of the farmer groups they certify, by name, and a certificate can be suspended or withdrawn. That is the one place where cocoa origin becomes a list of named organisations rather than a region, and a withdrawal is a dated event worth watching.
What changes on 30 December 2026
From that date, EU law requires every consignment of cocoa placed on the EU market to be traceable to the exact plot of land it grew on, with coordinates, and the importer must file a due diligence statement before it can be sold. Anyone serving cocoa in Europe will have to be able to answer this from their suppliers.
How solid is this?
Four questions, answered one at a time. We never blend them into one figure, because that would hide which one is weak.
Is it real? It is research about the whole industry, published by NORC at the University of Chicago (US Department of Labor funded) on 1 October 2020. It does not name any single company.
Is it recent? The evidence is dated 1 October 2020, which is more than five years old.
Does it touch what we serve? It could reach long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service. The route to us is not proven.
Do our own checks cover it? Not shown. Nothing tells us our existing checks reach this far up the chain.
Deliberately cautious
What we suggest doing next: There is no company to name at the origin here: about two million smallholder farms grow it. So attach this to the product rather than to a supplier. For chocolate dessert and chocolate snack on long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service, ask DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft, Dnata, Newrest Group Holding SA and gategroup Holding AG for the origin country and the certification scheme behind what they supply today, with the certificate numbers, and make both a stated requirement in the menu specification at the next renewal. Do not point at any one supplier.
What this is based on
- the industry-wide research
- the date on the evidence
- which of our menus the ingredient reaches
An allegation, kept apart
A serious claim that is not a ruling, and the company's answer to it
Reported allegation
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (broadcast investigation) published an allegation, on 1 January 2023.The company has answered: Buyer suspended purchasing; national inquiry ordered.
Someone published a serious claim. It is on the record, and it is not the same as an official ruling.
What was reported at the source
These are the recognised international signs of forced labour, and they are the same list the authority uses. They describe what was reported where the goods start, not anything about us.
physical or sexual violence
workers were in a weak position, and it was used against them
How we got here
The short version of the work behind this panel, in the order it happened.
- We started from something in the open: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (broadcast investigation) published an allegation, on 1 January 2023, about James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet, a farm or estate in Kenya.
- We matched that name to one company in our records: James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet, by name and country. There is no company identifier to match on, so this match is by name only.
- We followed who is connected to whom: James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Browns Investments PLC, though that link is likely rather than proven.
- From there: James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Sainsbury's and Tesco, though that link is likely rather than proven.
- From there: James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to James Finlay Limited, and public records prove it.
- From there: James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Finlays Extracts Kenya (Saosa), and public records prove it.
- That is as far as the trail goes. Nobody public says who carried the goods onward from there to anyone we buy from, so we stop and say so rather than fill the space with a guess.
- Separately, we checked our own menus for tea. It is used in long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service. That tells us where the question could land for us, not that anything has reached us.
- Last, we checked our own supplier assessment. Nothing shows that it reaches this far up the chain.
How far we could follow it, step by step
The finding itself is a fact. The route from there to us is not. Every step below says how solid it is on its own, a weak step is never rolled up into a strong one, and where public records name no company we leave the space empty instead of guessing. Where a company is named on a likely link, that says only that a public source connects it to this chain. It is not a statement about what happens at that company.
published An allegation, published and on the record — James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet, a farm or estate in Kenya. This sits at tier 3, the origin, where the goods start. Published by Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (broadcast investigation) on 1 January 2023.
likely, not proven A link that looks likely, but is not proven — James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet is registered to Browns Investments PLC. Sold to Browns Investments PLC of Sri Lanka, part of the LOLC Holdings group, after the allegation was published. Fifteen per cent of the shares are held by members of the local community, and the Saosa tea extraction facility stayed with Finlays.
likely, not proven 2 links that look likely, but are not proven — James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet supplies Sainsbury's (Named as a buyer of this estate's tea in the investigation. The retailer answered that the allegations have no place in its supply chain) and Tesco (Named as a buyer of this estate's tea in the investigation. The retailer answered that it is in constant dialogue with the company).
proven A link we can prove, but it has ended — James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet was a subsidiary of James Finlay Limited, until 27 November 2023. The Kenyan estates were part of this group when the allegation was published, and left it when the sale to Browns Investments PLC completed. The tea extraction facility at Saosa did not transfer and stayed with the group.
proven A link we can prove — James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet supplies Finlays Extracts Kenya (Saosa). The seller's own completion statement says the extraction facility did not transfer and continues to source leaf tea, timber and other services directly from the estates. That it began is documented. That it still runs today is not, and the date on this record is the date it was stated.
not known The one link still missing: Tier 2 to Tier 1, the step from the estates into the blend we are sold — We cannot prove this step from public records. We can now name 4 companies in the middle of this chain, with the records behind each one. What no public record shows is any of them selling to a company we buy from, so that one join stays open. What would prove it: the estate or auction lot behind the blend, from our own tea supplier. That question now sits inside one group: the company we buy from is 75 per cent owned by the group that owned the estates when the allegation was published, and that still runs a tea works in Kenya buying leaf from them.
likely, not proven Where it could show up for us — long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service.
Where this could show up on our menus
Each line says how solid that link is. A line marked likely is a possibility we are watching, not an established fact, and it does not mean the ingredient on that menu came from this finding.
long-haul economy service likely, not proven
long-haul premium cabin service likely, not proven
short-haul service likely, not proven
What else is on record about these companies
Everything else on public record about the companies in this chain: official action, allegations, and what each company said back. A company appears here because something was published about it, which is not the same as a finding against it.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet — Official action: Its certification was suspended over these allegations
The certifier suspended this estate's licence, and that of another large Kenyan tea producer, after finding they did not meet the social and management criteria. A suspension is the certifier's own formal finding, not a press report.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet — Court case: A class action by workers is running in the Scottish courts
Hundreds of current and former workers are suing in Scotland's highest civil court over injuries they say came from harsh and dangerous work, and some describe sexual abuse by supervisors. The company's attempts to stop the case were called vexatious and oppressive by the claimants, and the court allowed the action to continue. Nothing has been decided.
The company answered: The company has contested the action, and says it has acted on the allegations, including suspending and reporting a manager to the police.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet — Official action: The country ordered its own inquiry
Kenya ordered a national inquiry into the sector after the broadcast. Across three multinational tea companies, at least nine managers have been dismissed or disciplined, and the labour courts have upheld those dismissals.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet — Court case: A challenge to the sale itself was brought in the Kenyan Court of Appeal
Proceedings were brought on behalf of the Kipsigis and Talai communities challenging the sale of the estates. It is a claim about who should hold the land, brought by the communities on it, and it is separate from the workers' claim running in the Scottish courts. Both are court records rather than reporting.
The registers we checked
uflpa_list — None of the six plants is on it, checked on 4 August 2026. That is three days after the largest single expansion the list has ever had, 43 companies added on 31 July and in force from 3 August. Shandong Meijia, a different Chinese seafood processor, has been listed since June 2024, so seafood plants do get listed. These have not been.
Rainforest Alliance public certificate search — It carries a suspension against the Kenyan estate in this chain. Across cocoa in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire it shows 119 groups whose certificate has lapsed, expired or been cancelled.
Nothing was found on record for the other 3 companies in this chain.
What is known about this commodity, whoever handles it
This is about the trade itself, not about any one company in it. It is here because it changes what our own question should be.
The estate changed hands after the allegation
The Kenyan business was sold to Browns Investments PLC of Sri Lanka, part of the LOLC Holdings group. Fifteen per cent of the shares are held by members of the local community, and the tea extraction facility at Saosa stayed with the former owner. An allegation attaches to what happened, not to whoever owns the place now, and any question has to be put to the company that owns it today.
It was not one estate
The same broadcast investigation covered estates run by two companies in Kenya's Rift Valley, and more than 70 women described the same pattern. Kenya ordered a national inquiry, and the tea from these estates reaches named retailers in the United Kingdom.
How solid is this?
Four questions, answered one at a time. We never blend them into one figure, because that would hide which one is weak.
Is it real? It is an allegation, not an official ruling. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (broadcast investigation) published it on 1 January 2023. The company has given its response, and that response is on the record.
Is it recent? The evidence is dated 1 January 2023, which is a few years old.
Does it touch what we serve? It could reach long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service. The route to us is not proven.
Do our own checks cover it? Not shown. Nothing tells us our existing checks reach this far up the chain.
Deliberately cautious
What we suggest doing next: Put one written question to Birchall and Finlay Beverages Limited, and ask for a record rather than an assurance: for the tea served on long-haul economy service, long-haul premium cabin service and short-haul service, name the site it came from and the company it came through, and send the goods-in record or the distributor list that shows it. Test what comes back against the 1 company already named above, which is Finlays Extracts Kenya (Saosa). An answer carrying no trace of it settles this as firmly as one that does. Do not suspend anyone, and do not put the finding itself to them: it is about a farm or estate at the far end of the chain, not about them.
What this is based on
- the allegation, as published
- the date on the evidence
- which of our menus the ingredient reaches
Something we could not find
Why a missing document is not yet proof of anything
A published statement we could not find
Registry search searched the public register, and found no statement, on 31 July 2026.We looked for a statement this company should publish and did not find one. Not finding it is not the same as proving it does not exist.
What was reported
We could not find a modern-slavery statement for this company in the UK or Australian registers. Not finding one is not proof that none exists, so someone has to check the register by hand before this is treated as fact.
How we got here
The short version of the work behind this panel, in the order it happened.
- We started from something in the open: Registry search searched the public register, and found no statement, on 31 July 2026, about Newrest Group Holding SA, a catering company in France.
- We matched that name to one company in our records: Newrest Group Holding SA, using its registered company identifier 959800TWJ8LE9KCBFR51.
- We followed who is connected to whom: Newrest Group Holding SA to Iberia, though that link is likely rather than proven.
- From there: Iberia to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A., and public records prove it.
- Last, we checked our own supplier assessment. Nothing shows that it reaches this far up the chain.
How it connects to us
Newrest Group Holding SA to Iberia likely, not proven
Iberia to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. proven
The check this panel asked for has been done
Carried out on 4 August 2026 by the Supplier Data Verification Owner, against UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry and Australian Modern Slavery Statements Register.
How it was checked
Both registers were searched by name, and the search was proved first against companies known to file. In the UK register, Compass Group, Sodexo and Gate Gourmet London all come back at the top of the results under their own names. In the Australian register the same three return between three and eight statements each.
What came back
Searching the same way for Newrest returns no such organisation in the UK register, and no statements at all in the Australian one. So the earlier empty result was not a bad search.
What this still does not settle
Whether a statement was ever required. The UK duty falls on organisations carrying on business in the UK above a turnover threshold, and the Australian duty works the same way on revenue. A French group with no qualifying business in either country owes neither register anything, and an absence would mean nothing at all. That is the question to put next, and it is a question about company structure, not about conduct.
How solid is this?
Four questions, answered one at a time. We never blend them into one figure, because that would hide which one is weak.
Is it real? The empty result is real: the registers were searched by hand on 4 August 2026, and the same search finds comparable companies by name. What that settles is the search. It does not settle whether a statement was ever required.
Is it recent? The evidence is dated 31 July 2026, which is recent, less than two years old.
Does it touch what we serve? We have not been able to tie this to anything we serve yet.
Do our own checks cover it? Not shown. Nothing tells us our existing checks reach this far up the chain.
Deliberately cautious
What we suggest doing next: Do not search the registers again. They were searched by hand on 4 August 2026 and the empty result holds. Settle the question that is actually open, which is whether a statement was owed at all: ask Newrest Group Holding SA, who supply Iberia, whether the group's UK or Australian turnover is above the threshold each Act sets, and check the answer against the group's own published accounts and the company register. Until that is answered, do not describe this as a failure to report and do not carry it into any assessment of them.
What this is based on
- the check of the registers, done by hand
- the date on the evidence
The same question, somewhere else
Where else this question now applies, starting from gategroup Holding AG
The same ingredient, on other menus
One ingredient goes into many dishes, and those dishes go on to many menus. That is why a question about one farm or one boat becomes a question about several menus at the same time.
seafood is used in long-haul premium cabin service likely, not proven
The same company, behind other suppliers
Two suppliers only count as connected here when it is the very same company behind both, matched on a registered identifier. A name that merely looks similar is never treated as a match. No labour agent, recruiter or trader is named in what we hold, so what is shown here is shared company ownership. That is a weaker version of the same question.
Through gategroup Holding AG , the same question also applies to Gate Gourmet
Through gategroup Holding AG , the same question also applies to Gate Retail
Through gategroup Holding AG , the same question also applies to deSter
The record we keep
What we knew, when we knew it, and what it rests on
Kept in case anyone asks later
Every line below pairs one statement with the named, dated source behind it, and each one is checked again against the original material. This is the form we could put in front of an auditor or a regulator.
The Outlaw Ocean Project (investigation) published this on 9 October 2023. Our file reference is F-HAIBO-XINJIANG.
We took this to be about Rongcheng Haibo Seafood, a processing plant in China, matched by name and country.
We judged it on each question separately. Is it real: it is an allegation, published and on the record. How old is it: a few years old. Does it touch what we serve: yes, it touches things we serve.
What we decided to do, and why: Put one written question to DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft, Dnata, Newrest Group Holding SA and gategroup Holding AG, and ask for a record rather than an assurance: for the squid served on long-haul premium cabin service, name the site it came from and the company it came through, and send the goods-in record or the distributor list that shows it. One thing is already settled: no company we buy from appears on the UK customs register as importing squid itself, so whoever sells it to them is inside the country. The register names 229 UK importers of it, and the seller has to be one of them, unless it asked for its record to be removed, which the register allows. That count is a floor rather than a total, because the search was capped. That is a list someone can work through, which is not the same as an answer. Do not suspend anyone, and do not put the finding itself to them: it is about a processing plant in the middle of the chain, not about them. The finding is proven and squid does reach long-haul premium cabin service, but the sale into our own suppliers is not on any public record, so the smallest step that could close it is to ask the one party that holds the record.
The action has been prepared but not yet submitted for tracking. Whether it changes anything is measured in the system that follows this work, not claimed here.
What we cannot see today
Seafood on our own trays, read entirely off British and European records
A supplier we assess every year, and the part we never see
How a problem at the source becomes a question about several menus
A serious claim that is not a ruling, and the company's answer to it
Why a missing document is not yet proof of anything
Where else this question applies, starting from gategroup Holding AG
What we knew, when we knew it, and what it rests on
CloseCloseCloseCloseCloseCloseCloseCloseIn red on the graph below:
What we cannot see today Who sits behind the suppliers we buy from directly. We can name 35 companies, farms and boats further up the chain, and our yearly supplier assessment reaches none of them.
Where the trail stops There are 3 points where public records run out. Each one is drawn as the hole it is, and we never put a company into it to make the chain look complete.
In red on the graph below:
What was found Rongcheng Haibo Seafood, a processing plant in China. Published by The Outlaw Ocean Project (investigation) on 9 October 2023.
Where the trail stops The sale from a UK importer to a company we buy from. What would prove it: the distributor list from our own catering suppliers, naming who they buy seafood from. For the caterers that import in their own name there is nothing to close: the catch certificate they already hold names the vessel, the catch area and the plant.
Where it could show up for us long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven)
In red on the graph below:
What was found gategroup Holding AG, a catering company in Switzerland. Published by Coverage check on 31 July 2026.
A likely link, not proven gategroup Holding AG to British Airways, on a record from how this industry is normally structured, which no document confirms.
A link we can prove British Airways to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A., on a record from Global Legal Entity Identifier index.
Where it could show up for us long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven)
In red on the graph below:
What was found Published by NORC at the University of Chicago (US Department of Labor funded) on 1 October 2020. No company is named at the source, so nothing is marked there.
Where the trail stops The processor, exporter and distributor. What would prove it: a record naming the cooperative or exporter the cocoa came from, or a factory record linking that exporter to a catering supplier we can name.
Where it could show up for us long-haul economy service (likely, not proven), long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven) and short-haul service (likely, not proven)
In red on the graph below:
What was found James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet, a farm or estate in Kenya. Published by Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (broadcast investigation) on 1 January 2023.
A likely link, not proven James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Browns Investments PLC, on a record from Browns Investments PLC announcements.
A likely link, not proven James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Sainsbury's and Tesco, on a record from BBC Panorama and BBC Africa Eye investigation into Kenyan tea estates.
A link we can prove, but it has ended James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to James Finlay Limited, on a record from Finlays company statements. This link ended on 27 November 2023.
A link we can prove James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet to Finlays Extracts Kenya (Saosa), on a record from Finlays company statements.
Where the trail stops The step from the estates into the blend we are sold. What would prove it: the estate or auction lot behind the blend, from our own tea supplier. That question now sits inside one group: the company we buy from is 75 per cent owned by the group that owned the estates when the allegation was published, and that still runs a tea works in Kenya buying leaf from them.
Where it could show up for us long-haul economy service (likely, not proven), long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven) and short-haul service (likely, not proven)
In red on the graph below:
What was found Newrest Group Holding SA, a catering company in France. Published by Registry search on 31 July 2026.
A likely link, not proven Newrest Group Holding SA to Iberia, on a record from how this industry is normally structured, which no document confirms.
A link we can prove Iberia to International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A., on a record from Global Legal Entity Identifier index.
In red on the graph below:
The same company, elsewhere gategroup Holding AG is the very same company behind deSter, Gate Gourmet and Gate Retail, so the same question applies to all of them.
The same ingredient, elsewhere seafood is used in long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven)
In red on the graph below:
The record we keep The record we keep is the record of this finding, so the same companies and links are marked here.
What was found Rongcheng Haibo Seafood, a processing plant in China. Published by The Outlaw Ocean Project (investigation) on 9 October 2023.
Where the trail stops The sale from a UK importer to a company we buy from. What would prove it: the distributor list from our own catering suppliers, naming who they buy seafood from. For the caterers that import in their own name there is nothing to close: the catch certificate they already hold names the vessel, the catch area and the plant.
Where it could show up for us long-haul premium cabin service (likely, not proven)
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there.
The company answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
Four newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers at this plant.
The company answered: The company gave the same denial as its sister plant.
A buyer acted
A major foodservice buyer ended its contract
Sysco, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, terminated its contract with this plant in December, while keeping its relationship with the sister plant at the time.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
Its certification was suspended over these allegations
The certifier suspended this estate's licence, and that of another large Kenyan tea producer, after finding they did not meet the social and management criteria. A suspension is the certifier's own formal finding, not a press report.
Court case
A class action by workers is running in the Scottish courts
Hundreds of current and former workers are suing in Scotland's highest civil court over injuries they say came from harsh and dangerous work, and some describe sexual abuse by supervisors. The company's attempts to stop the case were called vexatious and oppressive by the claimants, and the court allowed the action to continue. Nothing has been decided.
The company answered: The company has contested the action, and says it has acted on the allegations, including suspending and reporting a manager to the police.
Official action
The country ordered its own inquiry
Kenya ordered a national inquiry into the sector after the broadcast. Across three multinational tea companies, at least nine managers have been dismissed or disciplined, and the labour courts have upheld those dismissals.
Court case
A challenge to the sale itself was brought in the Kenyan Court of Appeal
Proceedings were brought on behalf of the Kipsigis and Talai communities challenging the sale of the estates. It is a claim about who should hold the land, brought by the communities on it, and it is separate from the workers' claim running in the Scottish courts. Both are court records rather than reporting.
Lujeri Tea Estates
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Court case
A claim in the English High Court was settled
Thirty-one Malawian women sued the estate's UK parent in London in 2019 over a failure to prevent sexual abuse. The case was settled, and 36 women were awarded compensation. The settlement included commitments to put prevention mechanisms in place.
The company answered: The companies settled without admission and undertook to introduce harassment prevention measures, whistleblower protections and better working conditions.
Allegation
Later reporting says the remedy has not held
Field reporting since the settlement says the prevention mechanisms have failed and that abuse continues. A remedy that is agreed is not the same as a remedy that works, and this is why effectiveness is measured over time rather than claimed once.
Amalgamated Plantations Private Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A development bank's own watchdog investigated and found failings
Three local organisations complained in 2013 about wages, hours, housing and freedom of association on these plantations. The watchdog's 2016 investigation confirmed many of the complaints and found the lender had not properly assessed or managed the risks. A 2019 monitoring report found the promises made after that investigation had not been kept.
Cargill
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Court case
A child-labour claim against seven cocoa buyers was dismissed
Eight Malian citizens sued seven cocoa buyers, including this company, over forced child labour in Cote d'Ivoire. On 22 July 2025 a US appeal court dismissed the case, holding that the claimants had not shown a causal connection between the buyers' supply chain and the labour they described. The dismissal was on that question, not on whether the labour happened.
ofi (Olam Food Ingredients)
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Court case
Named in the same dismissed child-labour claim
This company, under its former name, was one of the seven cocoa buyers sued by eight Malian citizens. The case was dismissed on 22 July 2025 for want of a shown causal connection, not on the facts of the labour alleged.
McLeod Russel India
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Financial distress, not a labour finding
An insolvency process was admitted against this owner
A corporate insolvency resolution process was admitted at the National Company Law Tribunal in August 2021, after the company disclosed defaults of 1,187 crore rupees and its auditors qualified it as a going concern. It operates 31 gardens in Assam and employs more than 73,000 people. This is a financial fact. Distress at a plantation owner is a known predictor of wage and provident-fund arrears; it is not itself a finding that any worker was underpaid, and it must not be recorded as one.
Sector context, not a liability of this company
A national court case on unpaid plantation wages, which is context and not this company's liability
India's Supreme Court is hearing a case on 414.73 crore rupees of unpaid wages and 230.69 crore rupees owed to the provident fund, covering 28,556 workers across 25 estates. Most of those estates are run by a state-owned corporation rather than by this company. It belongs on the file as sector context. Citing it as this company's liability would be wrong.
Birchall
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Outside the supplier own claim
One line sits outside the supplier's own East Africa claim
The supplier states that its tea comes exclusively from East African estates and from gardens certified by one of two schemes. Its jasmine green tea is from Fujian, China, which is outside that statement and is the only line on which the labour-transfer question arises. Ask which garden, and under which certificate.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there.
The company answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
Four newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers at this plant.
The company answered: The company gave the same denial as its sister plant.
A buyer acted
A major foodservice buyer ended its contract
Sysco, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, terminated its contract with this plant in December, while keeping its relationship with the sister plant at the time.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there.
The company answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
Four newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers at this plant.
The company answered: The company gave the same denial as its sister plant.
A buyer acted
A major foodservice buyer ended its contract
Sysco, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, terminated its contract with this plant in December, while keeping its relationship with the sister plant at the time.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
Cargill
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Court case
A child-labour claim against seven cocoa buyers was dismissed
Eight Malian citizens sued seven cocoa buyers, including this company, over forced child labour in Cote d'Ivoire. On 22 July 2025 a US appeal court dismissed the case, holding that the claimants had not shown a causal connection between the buyers' supply chain and the labour they described. The dismissal was on that question, not on whether the labour happened.
ofi (Olam Food Ingredients)
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Court case
Named in the same dismissed child-labour claim
This company, under its former name, was one of the seven cocoa buyers sued by eight Malian citizens. The case was dismissed on 22 July 2025 for want of a shown causal connection, not on the facts of the labour alleged.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
James Finlay Kenya — nine estates, Kericho and Bomet
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
Its certification was suspended over these allegations
The certifier suspended this estate's licence, and that of another large Kenyan tea producer, after finding they did not meet the social and management criteria. A suspension is the certifier's own formal finding, not a press report.
Court case
A class action by workers is running in the Scottish courts
Hundreds of current and former workers are suing in Scotland's highest civil court over injuries they say came from harsh and dangerous work, and some describe sexual abuse by supervisors. The company's attempts to stop the case were called vexatious and oppressive by the claimants, and the court allowed the action to continue. Nothing has been decided.
The company answered: The company has contested the action, and says it has acted on the allegations, including suspending and reporting a manager to the police.
Official action
The country ordered its own inquiry
Kenya ordered a national inquiry into the sector after the broadcast. Across three multinational tea companies, at least nine managers have been dismissed or disciplined, and the labour courts have upheld those dismissals.
Court case
A challenge to the sale itself was brought in the Kenyan Court of Appeal
Proceedings were brought on behalf of the Kipsigis and Talai communities challenging the sale of the estates. It is a claim about who should hold the land, brought by the communities on it, and it is separate from the workers' claim running in the Scottish courts. Both are court records rather than reporting.
McLeod Russel India
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Financial distress, not a labour finding
An insolvency process was admitted against this owner
A corporate insolvency resolution process was admitted at the National Company Law Tribunal in August 2021, after the company disclosed defaults of 1,187 crore rupees and its auditors qualified it as a going concern. It operates 31 gardens in Assam and employs more than 73,000 people. This is a financial fact. Distress at a plantation owner is a known predictor of wage and provident-fund arrears; it is not itself a finding that any worker was underpaid, and it must not be recorded as one.
Sector context, not a liability of this company
A national court case on unpaid plantation wages, which is context and not this company's liability
India's Supreme Court is hearing a case on 414.73 crore rupees of unpaid wages and 230.69 crore rupees owed to the provident fund, covering 28,556 workers across 25 estates. Most of those estates are run by a state-owned corporation rather than by this company. It belongs on the file as sector context. Citing it as this company's liability would be wrong.
Birchall
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Outside the supplier own claim
One line sits outside the supplier's own East Africa claim
The supplier states that its tea comes exclusively from East African estates and from gardens certified by one of two schemes. Its jasmine green tea is from Fujian, China, which is outside that statement and is the only line on which the labour-transfer question arises. Ask which garden, and under which certificate.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there.
The company answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
Four newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers at this plant.
The company answered: The company gave the same denial as its sister plant.
A buyer acted
A major foodservice buyer ended its contract
Sysco, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, terminated its contract with this plant in December, while keeping its relationship with the sister plant at the time.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
Rongcheng Haibo Seafood
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
State news media from 2021, in both Uyghur and Chinese, describe government labour transfers to this plant, and three newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers there.
The company answered: The company said no Xinjiang workers have been at the plant, and that its group's newsletter was wrong because of a reporting error. The investigators said the evidence does not rest on that one document.
Shandong Haidu Ocean Product
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Allegation
Named as receiving workers transferred from Xinjiang
Four newsletters published by its own group describe Xinjiang workers at this plant.
The company answered: The company gave the same denial as its sister plant.
A buyer acted
A major foodservice buyer ended its contract
Sysco, one of the largest foodservice distributors in the United States, terminated its contract with this plant in December, while keeping its relationship with the sister plant at the time.
DO & CO Aktiengesellschaft
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Official action
A food-safety regulator wrote to the head office after eighteen months of findings that were not corrected
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the group's Vienna head office on 30 March 2026, reference 717773. It follows for-cause inspections in 2024, an in-person corporate meeting with the regulator in January 2025, and four further inspections between June and August 2025. The regulator found Listeria monocytogenes in the production environment again, found that the company had stopped testing finished product, and reported that genetic sequencing matched the same resident strains within one site and between sites. Ready-to-eat food from two of the facilities was declared adulterated. WHAT THIS IS NOT: the four facilities inspected are in Michigan and New York. Nothing here is a finding about the kitchens that serve us, and no product recall was issued. What it is, is a regulator writing to the parent company about a problem its own head office had already been asked to fix.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in June 2024
The register records it as the importer of record under 09024000, but the last month on that line is June 2024. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202406. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Gate Gourmet
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in March 2017
The register records it as the importer of record under 21012092, but the last month on that line is March 2017. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 201703. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Dnata
CloseTwo different things about this company. What was published about it, which is not a finding against it and carries the company's answer where one was given; and what it does itself, which is a record it holds rather than a claim anyone makes.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 16041100, 16041992, 16041997, 16052110, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring tea in itself, last in October 2023
The register records it as the importer of record under 09021000, but the last month on that line is October 2023. It did import tea in its own name, but the last month on the register is 202310. A line that stopped is not a line to ask about: the certificate covers the consignments that crossed, and there have been none since. What it serves today is bought inside the country.
Newrest Group Holding SA
CloseWhat this company does itself, from our own reading of the customs register. It is not an allegation and nothing here is held against them: it is the reason there is nothing to discover at this step.
Imports it directly
Brings seafood into this country in its own name
Named as the importer of record on the customs register under 03054100, 16041100, 16042010, 16042070, 16052900, most recently May 2026. Because it crossed the border, it holds the certificate for those consignments, and that certificate names the origin and the establishment that processed it. Nothing at this step needs to be discovered; it needs to be asked for.
DO & CO. Event & Airline Catering Limited
CloseOn public record about this company. Something published is not a finding against it, and where the company answered, its answer is here too.
Imported it directly once, not since
Used to bring seafood in itself, last in June 2022
The register records it as the importer of record under 03061799, 03071190, but the last month on that line is June 2022. No seafood line of its own that is still running, so what it serves is bought inside the country and the seller is somewhere in the importer set.
a link we can provea likely link, not provennot knownwhat this panel is abouta point where public records run out. We leave it empty rather than guess who is there.