House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Food information

Seventh Report of Session 2004–2005

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005

HC 469 [Incorporating HC 690, Session 2003–2004] Published on 30 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.50

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies.

Current membership

Mr Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde) (Chairman)* Ms Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)* Mr Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall) David Burnside (Ulster Unionist, South Antrim) Mr David Drew (Labour, Stroud)* Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford) Mr Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-op, Edinburgh North and Leith)* Mr David Lepper (Labour, Brighton Pavilion) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater) Mr Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)* Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean) Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham Deptford)* Mrs Gillian Shephard (Conservative, South West Norfolk) Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South) David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire) Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood) Mr Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)*

*These Members were nominated as Members of the Sub-Committee on Food Information. Mr Mark Lazarowizc was Chairman of the Sub-Committee.

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom

A list of reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this report.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Matthew Hamlyn (Clerk), Fiona McLean (Second Clerk), Dr Antonia James and Jonathan Little (Committee Specialists), Marek Kubala (Inquiry Manager), Andy Boyd (Committee Assistant) and Anne Woolhouse (Secretary).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected].

Food information 3

Contents

Report Page

Summary 5

1 Introduction 7

2 Responsibility for food information policy within Government 8 Responsible bodies 8 8 Department of Health 9 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 9 Department for Education and Skills 10 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 11 Department for Trade and Industry 11 Local government 11 UK’s representation at EU level 12 ‘Joined-up’ government? 12 Our conclusions 14

3 and hygiene 15 Legal framework 15 International standards: Codex Alimentarius 15 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points 15 Government’s role 16 Residues Committee 17 Evidence received 17 Role of the FSA 18 Labelling for food safety purposes: labelling 18 Our conclusions 19

4 Food labelling: prepacked foods 20 Legal framework 20 What information is currently required? 21 General information 21 information 22 EU review of labelling requirements 23 What nutritional information should be required? 23 Current voluntary provision of information 23 Should provision of nutrition information be mandatory? 24 The need for contextual information 26 Nutrition signposting: a ‘traffic light’ system? 28 What other information should be required? 33 Means of production: ethical issues 33 Ingredient listing on alcohol 35

4

5 Food labelling: non-prepacked foods 36 What information should be required? 37 Non-prepacked food in the ‘eating out’ sector 37 Non-prepacked food in the retail sector 39 Our conclusions 39

6 Verifying food information: food assurance schemes 41 Legal requirements relating to farm assurance schemes 41 Evidence received 42 The British Farm Standard—the little red tractor 44 Our conclusions 46

7 Other sources of food information 47 Legal controls on what information is put before consumers 47 Consumer understanding and education 47 How well informed are consumers? 47 Who do consumers trust? 48 What is currently being done to inform and educate consumers? 48 What future plans does the Government have to inform and educate consumers? 50 Our conclusions 50

Conclusions and recommendations 52

Table of legal instruments, directives and guidelines mentioned in this report 58

Formal minutes 60

Witnesses 61

List of written evidence 62

List of unprinted written evidence 63

Reports from the Committee since 2001 64

Food information 5

Summary

Food information policy is not simply an issue of regulation; it encompasses public health initiatives, education within schools and advertising. Currently, responsibility for these areas is divided between at least six different government departments and agencies. It is not apparent to us that there is effective co-ordination between these bodies in respect of government policy and initiatives about food information, both domestically and at EU level. The Government should explicitly task Defra with lead responsibility for co- ordinating food information policy across both central and local government, and for representing the position of the UK Government at EU level.

Government has a vital role to play in providing definitive guidance which assists consumers to assess food safety risks. We commend the Food Standards Agency on the work it has done towards providing clear advice to consumers about food safety issues. However, we recommend that the Government undertake a speedy investigation into the events which resulted in the illegal dye, Sudan 1, making its way into the UK food chain.

Extensive nutrition information should be mandatory on all prepacked foods, and the Government should make the necessary legislative change a high priority matter for the UK’s forthcoming presidency of the EU. Nutrition information should be presented in a standard, tabular format and in plain English. Guideline daily amounts for energy consumption should be included on all labels, and the inclusion of guideline daily amounts for , , and salt should be the rule, rather than the exception. Where feasible, the same level of nutrition information should be given on food sold loose and food sold prepacked for direct sale in supermarkets and other food shops. Currently, there are few or no requirements for clear and meaningful labelling of such foods, and the Government seems to be doing little to address this gaping hole in food labelling requirements.

We are strongly supportive of the introduction of a UK-wide system of front-of-label nutrition signposting, to assist consumers in making healthier choices ‘at a glance’; speedy action by the Government is required to introduce such a system. The traffic light system has much to commend it but, whatever signposting system the Government decides to adopt, the determining factor should be clarity, rather than comprehensiveness.

In terms of achieving improvement in nutrition labelling on a voluntary basis, we are disappointed that major supermarket chains seem to be making little effort to influence their suppliers of non own-brand products. We urge them to enter into a dialogue with these suppliers to encourage them to introduce improved nutrition labelling, including nutrition signposting.

Those who sell or otherwise provide food in the eating out sector must take responsibility for providing healthy choices to their customers, and for highlighting those choices as healthy. The Government should work with the eating out sector to develop a ‘green light only’ nutrition signposting system to highlight healthy food choices.

Consumers should receive better information about ethical issues associated with food production. Although the scope of legislating for compulsory provision of such

6

information is limited by WTO agreements, failure by the to provide consumers with further information about these matters could well be interpreted as a failure to engage with the ethical implications of the industry’s activities. The Government should ensure the central registration of food assurance schemes.

Consumers are often faced with a range of contradictory messages about nutrition and , from a wide range of sources. In order to improve consumers’ knowledge and understanding of nutrition and diet, a broader education campaign about these matters is required, driven forward by both the Government and the food industry, working in partnership with each other. If consumers are ever to trust messages about diet and food, such messages must be presented in a coherent and authoritative manner. The Government needs to provide the industry with a single agenda with a clear list of priorities that both the Government and industry can work towards achieving. At the same time, the food industry has a key role to play in raising consumer awareness about nutrition and diet and in making healthier choices both available and attractive.

Food information 7

1 Introduction

1. In November 2003, we agreed to inquire into the ways in which messages about food are communicated to consumers by food producers and retailers, and by Government and others. We indicated that we would particularly consider how customers can be better informed about foods’ nutritional content, safety, means of production (for example, whether foods are organic or not, battery or free-range) and ethical considerations relevant to food, such as whether good labour practices were used. In considering these matters, we agreed we would look at the role of labelling, programmes of education, and other means of communication, and at food information in the context of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

2. We appointed a Sub-Committee to carry out the inquiry. The Sub-Committee was chaired by Mr Mark Lazarowicz; its other members were Candy Atherton, Mr David Drew, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Austin Mitchell, Joan Ruddock and Mr Bill Wiggin.

3. The Sub-Committee received 39 written memoranda and took oral evidence from: the Institute of Food Research; the Consumers’ Association (now known as Which?); the Medical Research Council’s Centre for Human Nutrition Research; Sustain; the National Farmers’ Union for England and Wales; Product Authentication Inspectorate; The Co-op; Tesco; Asda; Whitbread Restaurants; McDonald’s; the Royal Agricultural College, the Food and Drink Federation; the Trading Standards Institute; the Food Standards Agency and the Minister for Food, Farming and Sustainable Energy, Lord Whitty of Camberwell, together with Defra officials. We are grateful to all those who gave evidence or otherwise assisted with our inquiry.

4. Issues relevant to food information have also been examined by the House of Commons Health Committee in its report on Obesity, published in May 2004. Several of the Committee’s conclusions are relevant to our present inquiry, and we refer to them in the course of our report.1

1 Health Committee, Third Report of Session 2003–04, Obesity, HC 23–I

8 Food information

2 Responsibility for food information policy within Government

5. Responsibility for food information policy and food regulation within the Government sector is currently divided between a number of departments and agencies, principally Defra, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Department of Health. The FSA described the division of responsibilities to us as follows:

The FSA has lead responsibility in Government for general food labelling rules and for product-specific legislation on a number of specific foods. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the relevant devolved Departments lead on marketing standards, which often contain labelling measures, as well as on rules on country of origin labelling for . The Department for Trade and Industry is the lead Department for labelling rules on net quantity of prepacked foods.2

6. Some responsibility for food policy and regulation is also devolved to local government, particularly in the area of enforcement. Responsible bodies

Food Standards Agency 7. The FSA is a statutory body, independent of Government, and is accountable to Parliament through the health ministers. The Minister for Food, Farming and Sustainable Energy told us that the FSA is responsible for “mandatory information provided by regulation in relation to … food safety or nutritional content”.3 In the 2004 Spending Review, the Government identified two roles for the FSA: x a “traditional” role of fulfilling “public health functions of reducing food-borne illnesses, enforcing food law, and promoting best practice in the food industry”; and x a “newly-emphasised” role in “public dietary health improvement and the promotion of accurate and informative labelling in order to facilitate consumer choice”.4

In carrying out these roles, the FSA produces guidelines and recommendations, rather than instruments with legislative effect and, at official level, represents the UK Government on food and safety standards in the European Union (EU).

8. The Minister for Food commented on the decision to make the FSA responsible to Parliament via the health ministers, rather than the ministers for the then-Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF):

… it was felt at the time—and I think I would agree with this—that having the department which was basically a production department, which was even more a

2 Ev 132, annex, para 1 [Food Standards Agency] 3 Q 625 [Defra] 4 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2004: New Public Spending Plans 2005-2008, 12 July 2004, chapter 8, para 8.9; available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

Food information 9

production-focused department when it was MAFF, also responsible for the regulation at the consumer end was a conflict of interest … it seems to me quite a consistent line that the producer department and the main regulator ought probably to be separated.5

Department of Health 9. The Department of Health (DoH) has responsibilities relevant to food information which are distinct from those discharged by the FSA. In the period 2005–08, the DoH has been set a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of “halting the year-on-year rise in obesity among children under 11 by 2010 in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole.” This target is to be achieved jointly with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).6

10. As part of its role in promoting healthy lifestyles, the DoH recently published a Public Health White Paper.7 The White Paper discussed what can be done to assist consumers in making healthy choices in a consumer society. The DoH is also leading a food and health action plan intended “to help people in England improve their diets”.8 To achieve this plan, the DoH states that it is “working across Government, with the food industry, and with other stakeholders”.9 The FSA, Defra and the DfES are all involved with the action plan; Defra told us that “improving consumer information” will be a key focus of the plan.10

11. The food and health action plan was published only recently by the DoH, on 9 March 2005.11 The plan had been in development since July 2003, when an initial consultation paper was published.12 The plan is focused on nutrition: it sets out how the Government intends to deliver the nutrition commitments contained in its recent Public Health White Paper and other government actions on nutrition. The plan also forms part of the Government’s farming and food strategy; in its response to Sir Don ’s Policy Commission on Farming and Food, the Government undertook to produce such a plan.13

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 12. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) describes its role in food policy as acting as “sponsor department” for the UK food and drink manufacturing and retailing industries, including the food services sector. The food industry’s trade association, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), described the industry as “the largest manufacturing sector in the UK”.14 Defra’s focus in this role is on fostering and promoting greater

5 Q 656 [Defra] 6 HM Treasury, Public Service Agreements White Paper 2005–2008, 12 July 2004, chapter 3; available at www.hm- treasury.gov.uk 7 Department of Health, Choosing Health: making healthier choices easier, Cm 6374, November 2004, p 25 8 www.dh.gov.uk 9 www.dh.gov.uk 10 Ev 145 [Food Standards Agency] and ev 144 [Defra] 11 Department of Health, Choosing a better diet: a food and health action plan, 9 March 2005; available at www.dh.gov.uk. 12 A consultation document was published in July 2003: Department of Health, Food and health action plan: food and health problem analysis for comment, 31 July 2003. A summary of consultation responses was published in December 2003. A further consultation document was published in May 2004: Department of Health, Choosing Health? Choosing a Better Diet: A consultation on priorities for a food and health action plan, 6 May 2004. All documents are available at www.dh.gov.uk. 13 Defra, Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002; available at www.archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk. 14 www.fdf.org.uk

10 Food information

competitiveness and removing obstacles to growth; it offers help to industry with marketing, exporting and importing.15 In the period 2005–08, Defra has been set a PSA target to “promote a sustainable, competitive and safe food supply chain which meets consumers’ requirements”.16 Defra is also the co-ordinating department for the public procurement of food, and therefore influences the DfES, the DoH, the Prison Service and the armed forces, amongst others, in this matter.17

13. At EU level, Defra leads for the UK Government on EU legislation regulating means of production and production standards, and is responsible for the UK regulations implementing the EU legislation. Examples include egg and poultry marketing legislation, rules on origin labelling for fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal and marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables.18

14. When we asked the Minister for Food to identify who was responsible for food information within Government, he described Defra’s responsibilities as being distinct from the FSA’s responsibilities for information about food safety and nutritional content, in that they relate to:

other methods of information about food including assurance standards, retailers’ information and other forms of information in which we [Defra], as sponsor ministry, encourage the industry to provide as accurate and as detailed information as they can…19

15. The Minister also defined Defra’s position as ‘sponsor’ of the food industry as meaning that, rather than representing the industry’s views, it represented:

[the industry’s] long-term interest, which is a different thing from representing their views. Their long-term interest is in ensuring they have got informed, healthy, long- lived and understanding customers.20

Department for Education and Skills 16. As noted above, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) shares with the DoH and the DCMS the PSA target relating to obesity among children, because of its responsibility for policy on school meals.21 Decisions about who should provide school lunches and what their nutritional content should be are made by local education authorities; in the case of all secondary schools and some primary schools, these decisions are delegated to the schools’ governing bodies, together with the necessary funding.22 Since 1 April 2001, all school lunches

15 www.defra.gov.uk 16 HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 2005–2008, 12 July 2004, chapter 13; available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk 17 Q 631 [Defra] 18 Ev 145–146 [Defra] 19 Q 625 [Defra] 20 Q 637 [Defra] 21 HM Treasury, Public Service Agreements White Paper 2005–2008, 12 July 2004, chapter 2; available at www.hm- treasury.gov.uk 22 Under section 512A of the Education Act 1996, as amended by section 116 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

Food information 11

have been required to comply with minimum nutritional standards set by the Secretary of State.23

Department for Culture, Media and Sport 17. The DCMS shares with the DoH and the DfES the PSA target relating to obesity among children.24 The DCMS is responsible for increasing participation in sport by young people. It also shares, with the Department for Trade and Industry, responsibility for the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK’s communications industries. On 1 November 2004, Ofcom contracted out responsibility for television and radio advertising codes to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the body set up by the advertising industry to police the rules laid down in the advertising codes.25

Department for Trade and Industry 18. The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) is responsible for administering trading standards legislation, which regulates matters including weights and measures, trade descriptions and consumer protection.26

Local government 19. Much food legislation is enforced by local authorities, through their trading standards officers and environmental health officers. Trading standards officers are required by law to enforce 35 or so statutes; local authorities can choose to authorise their officers to enforce another 30 or so statutes. Central government periodically issues codes of practice advising local authorities on enforcement.

20. The Trading Standards Institute (TSI), which represents trading standards officers, told us that, on average, each local authority undertakes four prosecutions per year. It felt that authorities were probably deterred from bringing prosecutions by the difficult and time- consuming nature of the legal process, such as the six-month time limit on obtaining evidence, and by a lack of resources.27

21. The consumer interest group Sustain claimed that “most companies who break food labelling laws are likely to get away with it” and called for improved enforcement of food labelling law.28 Sustain described prosecutions for breaking food labelling laws as “extremely rare” and suggested companies are “getting away with it” because “local authority trading standards departments often do not have enough staff or money to take food companies (often major multinational firms) to court.”29 Sustain stated that central government support for food law enforcement has focused exclusively on food safety issues, such as fraud in the

23 The Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/1777) 24 HM Treasury, Public Service Agreements White Paper 2005–2008, 12 July 2004, chapter 14; available at www.hm- treasury.gov.uk 25 www.asa.org.uk 26 Including: the Weights and Measures Act 1985; the Trade Descriptions Act 1968; the Consumer Protection Act 1986; the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 27 Qq 538, 542–544 [TSI] 28 Ev 41 [Sustain] 29 Ev 41 [Sustain]

12 Food information

meat trade, and called on the FSA to offer support and funding for prosecutions for breaches of food labelling laws. Even where a court case is brought and won by a local authority, Sustain considered that “penalties for the company are weak, with low fines and precious little adverse publicity”.30 Sustain described a recent fine imposed on Nestlé by the courts for an illegal medicinal claim as “derisory … less than Nestlé’s paperclip budget probably”.31 UK’s representation at EU level 22. Given the number of government departments which share responsibility for food information policy and food regulation, we sought clarity from the Minister for Food about how the views of the UK Government on these matters are represented at EU level. The Minister described for us how the UK Government would respond to a Commission proposal to change the EU position on food labelling regulation. The FSA would be responsible for contact with the relevant Commission officials and would lead consultation across government departments, including Defra, in order to gain a cross-departmental view.32 Once a consensus position had “hopefully” been reached, the FSA would produce a detailed brief based on that position.

23. When the Commission proposal came to be debated at ministerial level, however, it would be Defra ministers who would take the lead in negotiations, despite the fact that the FSA is responsible to Parliament through the DoH ministers. This is because, at EU level, food labelling matters are dealt with in the Agriculture Council.33 The views of the UK Government would therefore be represented at the Council by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on the basis of the brief prepared by the FSA.34 ‘Joined-up’ government? 24. The FSA told us that it has concordats in place with both the Department of Health and Defra, setting out the division of responsibilities between each body.35 Despite this, a number of witnesses commented on the apparent lack of ‘joined-up’ government in the area of food information policy and enforcement. The FDF claimed “a lack of clarity, a lack of joined-up government” and commented that “the roles of the FSA and the DoH are sometimes difficult for manufacturers, and indeed other stakeholders up and down the food chain, to unpick”.36 The FDF said that it had “taken the view that both organisations are arms of government and that we must do our very best to not pick a path between them but to engage fully and completely with both operations”.37

25. Food retailers echoed the FDF’s comments. Asda said that the division of responsibilities within Government sometimes caused it “real problems”, and considered that:

30 Ev 41 [Sustain] 31 Qq 215–216 [Sustain] 32 Qq 659 and 662 [Defra] 33 Q 660 [Defra] 34 Qq 661 and 665 [Defra] 35 Q 589 [Food Standards Agency] 36 Q 523 [Food and Drink Federation] 37 Q 523 [Food and Drink Federation]

Food information 13

… it would be really helpful if we could have a completely joined-up agenda. I think there are lots of different parties. It is a very complex issue … a single agenda with a clear list of priorities that we all work towards would be the most helpful, from one source.38

Whitbread called on the Government to demonstrate a better understanding of the food sector, and suggested that it did not properly understand the needs of the food services sector in particular:

… a more joined-up approach would be helpful but, from our perspective, there is a more fundamental issue in that there is not sufficiency of understanding of the difference between the food service sectors and the other parts of the food chain: the producers and the retailers. So, a better start point for us—and we spend some time trying to achieve this—is to educate … government departments, [the] FSA and others about what our industry is. Everybody experiences it but they do not understand it.39

26. McDonald’s suggested that, from an industry perspective at least, food policy in Scotland appeared more ‘joined up’ than that in England and Wales:

… north of the border … we have found there are fewer players and there is really quite good co-ordination through the Scottish food tsar which has made the job a lot easier.40

The “food tsar” referred to is the Scottish Food and Health Co-ordinator, employed by the Scottish Executive’s Health Department. The post is currently filled by a dietician.

27. Witnesses outside the food industry also identified a lack of co-ordination. The TSI commented that it had “quite a few masters at central government level and I think sometimes there is confusion and maybe there is not the joined up element which we would like”.41 The lobby group Sustain described co-ordination of food policy across government as “a complete dog’s breakfast” and commented: “the Department of Health and Food Standards Agency fight. Defra does not really get involved most of the time. DfES is too busy with other stuff.”42

28. The Medical Research Council’s Resource Centre for Human Nutrition Research (HNR) has been involved in consultations on food information schemes initiated through the DoH, the FSA and the EU. On the basis of this experience, Dr Susan Jebb of the HNR commented that:

… there is too much fragmentation in government action in relation to food, that there is a lack of joined up initiatives across a whole range of different areas, that there are competing priorities coming from different departments and that makes it difficult for everybody: for scientists, for the food industry, for consumers, for anybody to know quite where they are.43

38 Qq 335 and 336 [Asda] 39 Q 429 [Whitbread Restaurants] 40 Q 473 [McDonald’s] 41 Q 560 [Trading Standards Institute] 42 Q 199 [Sustain] 43 Q 169 [Human Nutrition Research]

14 Food information

29. A majority of respondents to the DoH’s recent consultation on developing a food and health action plan also called for improved co-ordination. The Department’s summary of consultation responses stated that a majority believed that “better co-ordination between government departments, agencies, sectors and organisations was necessary, with one agency taking the lead role, and new resources.”44

Our conclusions 30. We support the existing separation within government of the producer department— Defra—from the main regulator—the Food Standards Agency. However, food information policy is not simply an issue of regulation; in particular, it encompasses public health initiatives, education within schools and advertising. At present, the main areas of responsibility are divided between the FSA, the Department of Health and Defra, and other responsibilities fall to the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Trade and Industry. It is not apparent to us that there is effective co-ordination between all these different players of government policy and initiatives in the field of food information, both domestically and at EU level.

31. We recommend that the Government explicitly task one government department with lead responsibility for co-ordinating food information policy across both central and local government, and for representing the position of the UK Government at EU level. We consider that Defra would be the most suitable department to assume this role. We also recommend that Defra assume joint responsibility for achieving the Public Service Agreement target of “halting the year-on-year rise in obesity among children under 11 by 2010 in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole”, alongside those departments already responsible for achieving the target (the DoH, the DfES and the DCMS).

32. We were concerned to hear suggestions that local authorities are being deterred from taking prosecutions for breaches of food law, in part due to a lack of resources, and that breaches of food labelling law are not being pursued. We recommend that the Government investigate whether it is indeed the case that local authorities are being deterred from taking prosecutions for breaches of food law, particularly food labelling law, and, if so, that it establish the reasons why. The Government must ensure that local authorities are sufficiently well-resourced to be able to take prosecutions against food manufacturers and retailers, whose legal budgets are of a size that does not prevent them from fully using the law to defend their interests.

44 www.dh.gov.uk

Food information 15

3 Food safety and hygiene

33. The provision of safe and fit food is something which we tend to take for granted in a modern society. However, as recent events in relation to the discovery of an illegal dye— Sudan 1—in chilli powder have demonstrated, consumers remain susceptible to large-scale public health ‘scares’. Legal framework 34. The key piece of legislation in ensuring safe food is the Food Safety Act 1990, which sets out the fundamental principles of the law in this area. The Act makes it an offence to sell or possess for sale food that does not comply with food safety requirements, and to render food injurious to health.45 Secondary legislation made under the Act provides detail on matters such as the chemical or microbiological safety of food, , food labelling and advertising.

35. From 1 January 2006, a ‘package’ of new EU food hygiene legislation will come into effect, intended to modernise and consolidate existing EU legislation.46 The legislation is intended to introduce a ‘farm to fork’ approach to food safety by including primary production, such as farming, in food hygiene legislation for the first time. The FSA states that the UK supported the introduction of the new legislation and has argued for some time that the current legislation, some of which is now 40 years old, is inconsistent and often difficult to enforce.47

International standards: Codex Alimentarius 36. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a joint body of the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, both United Nations bodies.48 It sets international standards with the purpose of protecting public health in respect of food and agricultural products, and also of facilitating fair practices in the food trade. Standards are developed through consensus, which means that decision-making can be very slow. The Codex Alimentarius is the series of food standards and related texts produced by the Commission, and provides reference standards for the WTO in the context of settling trade disputes.

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points 37. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system of guidelines was devised 30 years ago and has become the universally recognised and accepted method for food safety assurance. The system aims to reduce food-borne disease through the application of a

45 Sections 7 and 8 46 Regulation 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; Regulation 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin; Regulation 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption; Directive 2004/41 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662 and 92/118 and amending Decision 95/408 47 www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry 48 www.codexalimentarius.net

16 Food information

systematic approach to hazard and risk analysis and grew out of growing public concerns about food safety from public health authorities, the food industry and consumers.49

38. In 1993 the guidelines for the application of HACCP were adopted by the Codex Commission. The Codex Code on General Principles of Food Hygiene was revised to include recommendations for the application of the Codex HACCP Guidelines. In the EU and in most developed countries, the HACCP system is widely regarded as being crucial to the management of food safety and, in turn, consumer protection. The FSA advocates the use of the HACCP guidelines as the most effective way for businesses to ensure consumer protection. Government’s role 39. The FSA is primarily responsible for overseeing food safety in the UK, although any proceedings enforcing food safety legislation must be brought by local authorities, rather than the FSA. The FSA describes itself as an “independent food safety watchdog”: between 2001 and 2006, one of its key aims is to reduce by 20% by improving food safety right through the food chain.50 The FSA is now cited by consumers as the top “spontaneous” source of information about food standards and safety, an increase from 8% in 2000 to 20% in 2003.51

40. The recent alert caused by the presence of Sudan 1 in a batch of chilli powder provided a helpful demonstration of the role played by the FSA in such circumstances. On 18 February, the FSA advised people not to eat foods that had been inadvertently contaminated with an illegal dye, known as Sudan 1. The dye was found in a batch of chilli powder used by a food manufacturer, Premier Foods, to make a Worcester sauce; the sauce had then been used as an ingredient in other food products.52 A very significant number of products from a wide range of sources was affected—as at 1 March, 474 products from approximately 50 different manufacturers or suppliers.

41. Premier Foods notified the FSA that Sudan 1 had been detected in a sample of Worcester sauce on 7 February 2005, and provided the FSA with a list of more than 160 Premier Foods’ customers who had bought the affected products. The FSA then met twice with food industry representatives in two days, in order to require full disclosure by companies of their affected products, their removal from sale and appropriate publicity to inform consumers. Following the receipt of detailed information about the products affected, the FSA issued a press notice notifying the public of the problem and posted a list of affected products on its website. The Agency set a deadline of 24 February for the removal from sale of all contaminated products, and continued to provide updates by way of press notices and additions to the list of affected products.

42. In the past, the FSA has set up telephone help lines to answer consumer concerns about, for example, the potential problems of contamination of milk sold at the farm gate during the

49 See www.who.int/foodsafety 50 www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/ 51 Ev 129, para 8 [Food Standards Agency] 52 “Action taken to remove illegal dye found in wide range of foods on sale in UK”, FSA press release, 18 February 2005; available at www.food.gov.uk

Food information 17

foot and mouth crisis and contamination of sealed jars of baby foods by semicarbazide.53 Information and advice about food safety issues is available to consumers at the FSA’s website; advice about food handling and preparation is available on the FSA’s “eatwell” website.54

Pesticides Residues Committee 43. Since the 1970s the Government has had a programme of residues surveillance in food and drink, as part of statutory controls relating to pesticide approval. As of 2000 this has been overseen by the Pesticide Residues Committee, an independent non-departmental government body.55 The committee undertakes a programme of ‘rolling surveys’ which involves sampling foods, mostly from retail outlets, and testing them for residues.56 Evidence received 44. The British Retail Consortium (BRC), which represents the UK retail industry, suggested to us that food safety is not a significant problem in the UK: “UK legislation is quite clear—all marketed food that is properly processed, stored and prepared is safe for general consumption”.57 The FSA told us that “most food safety risks should be controlled during food production” and pointed to the risk that arises in the domestic environment, where “inappropriate preparation and storage practice … can introduce significant risk”.58

45. Which? (formerly the Consumers’ Association) was less convinced of the lack of risk attached to processed food, arguing that, while ideally foods should not be on sale if they are unsafe, in practice it is impossible to ensure that foods are completely risk-free.59 Dr Richard Baines, of the Royal Agricultural College, submitted that there was a lack of regulation of food hygiene matters in the UK, in that although “imported raw agricultural products will be subject to regulatory surveillance … home-grown produce is largely unregulated in terms of food hygiene!” 60

46. Whilst food safety risks are capable of regulation in the public sphere, risks also arise in respect of food hygiene in the home, an area which is not readily capable of regulation. The Institute of Food Research (IFR), a research facility sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, told us that, because consumers tend to demonstrate more concern about those risks which they perceive to be beyond their control, they may ignore microbiological risks in the kitchen, on the basis that they are in control of such risks.61 The IFR commented that a social climate in which, in general, less time is being spent by consumers in purchasing and preparing raw foods may also encourage an increased expectation that foods, as bought, should be completely safe. It considered that such

53 Ev 131, para 23 [Food Standards Agency]: the FSA told us that, in each case, fewer than 100 telephone calls were received. 54 www.food.gov.uk and www.eatwell.gov.uk 55 Ev 145 [Defra] 56 www.prc-uk.org 57 Ev 176, para 21 [British Retail Consortium] 58 Ev 130, para 18 [Food Standards Agency] 59 Ev 13, para 11 [Which?] (At the time, of taking evidence, Which? was known as the Consumers’ Association.) 60 Ev 105, paras 2.5 and 2.6 [Dr Richard Baines] 61 Ev 1, para 2 [Institute of Food Research]

18 Food information

consumer attitudes have implications for safety labelling on foods such as, for example, “chilled, ready-to-eat foods”.62

Role of the FSA 47. Which? welcomed the FSA’s general approach to communicating risk to consumers in specific cases, such as the risk that baby food could be contaminated by semicarbazide. Although the European Food Safety Authority had not considered the risk to be significant enough to advise consumers to change their eating habits, the FSA had nevertheless made information available to consumers, including advice about how consumers could prepare baby food at home.63 On the other hand, Which? believed that government advice could be clearer in some situations. For example, Which? considered that it was still unclear whether consumers should avoid eating more than one portion of oily fish a week on average, in light of concerns about high levels of dioxins and PCBs in such fish, on the one hand, and publicity about the potential health benefits of eating oily fish, on the other.64 The FSA has subsequently produced more definitive advice about this issue.65

Labelling for food safety purposes: allergen labelling 48. In the context of food safety, the IFR described precautionary food allergen labelling as a “critical issue” because of the “potentially fatal consequences” for susceptible individuals of inadequate labelling.66 We received some suggestions that allergen labelling is not as helpful as it might be. The General Consumer Council of Northern Ireland called for a “consistent approach to devices that draw attention to ”.67 Sustain criticised the “defensive use” of warnings such as May contain nuts on a wide range of products as being unhelpful to people with a nut .68

49. Subsequent to our concluding taking evidence on this inquiry, the law regulating allergen labelling has been strengthened. The relevant requirements are specified in the Food Labelling (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, which implement European Directive 2003/89/EC and came into force on 26 November 2004.69 From 25 November 2005, products that do not comply with the new rules will be prohibited from sale.70 The 2004 Regulations insert a new schedule into the Food Labelling Regulations 1996—Schedule AA1—which lists 12 ingredients known to cause or intolerances. These include cereals containing gluten, crustaceans, fish, eggs, peanuts, soybeans, milk, nuts, , mustard, seeds and sulphur dioxide or sulphites at specified levels.

50. The Regulations require that the labelling on any pre-packed food which contains any of the ingredients listed in Schedule AA1 must contain a clear reference to the Schedule AA1

62 Ev 1, para 2 [Institute of Food Research] 63 Ev 13-14, para 12 [Which?] 64 Ev 14, para 13 [Which?] 65 www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/oilyfishwebcast 66 Ev 1, para 2 [Institute of Food Research] 67 Ev 193 [General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland] 68 Ev 40 [Sustain] 69 Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 November 2003, which amended Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of ingredients present in foodstuffs. 70 Although products that have been labelled before that date may be sold while stocks last.

Food information 19

name—that is, the commonly used name. This requirement does not apply to food sold loose—non-prepacked—or food sold pre-packed for direct sale: the FSA states that it is “exploring options” for ensuring that the consumer is still provided with adequate information in such cases.71 The Regulations do not apply to the use of ‘may contain’ warnings about nuts, because they apply only where the Schedule AA1 ingredients have deliberately been added to the food. The FSA states that it is considering how best to encourage provision of clearer and more helpful information for consumers with food allergies in such cases and will consult on this “in due course”.72 Our conclusions 51. Consumers are often faced with a range of conflicting messages about food safety issues, from the media and other sources, without being provided with sufficient information and context to enable them to assess the risk involved. Government has a vital role to play in providing definitive guidance which assists consumers to assess food safety risks. We commend the Food Standards Agency on the work it has done, since its establishment in 2000, towards providing clear advice to consumers about food safety issues. We also congratulate the Agency on its initiative in launching a website providing information about food hygiene and preparation.

52. Clear and helpful labelling of allergens is a particularly crucial aspect of food safety. The defensive use of allergen warnings risks restricting consumer choice unnecessarily, and even undermining valid warnings—the ‘boy who cried wolf’ effect. We welcome recent legislation improving allergen labelling requirements. However, the new legislation applies only to allergens which have been deliberately added to food: labelling of foods which may inadvertently contain allergens remains unregulated. We recommend that the Government move quickly to consider how this legislation can be supplemented to regulate the defensive use of allergen warnings, so that consumers with food allergies are provided with clear and helpful allergen information. The Government should also ensure that proper channels of communication are in place between the food industry and medical scientists to allow for the effective flow of information about the latest scientific findings on allergies.

53. We were unable, in the time available, to take evidence about the recent discovery that an illegal and potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1, had made its way into the food chain, and therefore cannot draw any substantive conclusions about the Government’s role in these events. Nevertheless, we have noted the concern that, although the affected products were withdrawn from sale, the adulteration of chilli powder may have been going on undetected for several years. We are also somewhat surprised that it took the Italian authorities to detect the presence of Sudan 1 in a product manufactured in the UK, although we note that the FSA had asked the industry to ensure that chilli products imported prior to July 2003 were not contaminated with Sudan 1.73 The wide-spread nature of the contamination has demonstrated both the complexity of modern food supply chains and the apparently limited

71 www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/; see part 5 of this report. 72 www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/ 73 The contaminated batch of chilli powder dated from 2002, prior to the FSA’s commencement in May 2003 of a random sampling programme testing for the presence of Sudan 1 in chilli products: www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2005/feb/sudanlist#h_5

20 Food information

sources of ingredients available to food manufacturers, as the same Worcester sauce was used in hundreds of processed foods. We recommend that the Government undertake a speedy investigation into the events which resulted in the illegal dye, Sudan 1, making its way into the UK food chain. We are particularly concerned that the Government should establish the length of time for which the adulteration of chilli powder is likely to have gone undetected and why UK authorities did not detect this adulteration in a product used so extensively in UK . The Government and the FSA should also carry out work to determine the best way of communicating with the public about questions relating to the degree of risk actually associated with issues like Sudan 1. 4 Food labelling: prepacked foods

54. One of the most important sources for consumers of information about food is the information contained on . In a FSA survey, conducted in 2003, 78% of consumers said that they read food labels at least occasionally—of this 78%, 31% said they always read food labels, 26% usually and 21% occasionally.74 A report by IGD, a charity carrying out research for the food and grocery industry, found that 34% of consumers identified clearer food labelling as the main way in which the food industry could help them to make healthier choices.75 Different legal requirements apply to prepacked food and non- prepacked food. We deal with prepacked food in this part and non-prepacked food in the following part. Legal framework 55. The 1990 Act again provides the legal framework under which food labelling law is made in the UK. It also creates an offence of falsely or misleadingly describing or presenting food.76 Detailed requirements about what information must be provided on food labels are set out in the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations), which regulate the labelling, presentation and advertising of food to the final consumer. However, because regulation of food labelling is an area of EU competence, the 1996 Regulations primarily implement the relevant EU directives.77

56. The main directive is the Council Directive on the Labelling of Foodstuffs to be delivered to the Consumer 2000 (the 2000 Directive).78 The 2000 Directive regulates information provided to the consumer on the composition of the product, the manufacturer, the method of storage and preparation. Producers and manufacturers may choose to provide additional information, provided that it is accurate and not misleading. There is no requirement to apply the Directive to products exported outside the EU.

74 Ev 128, para 2 [Food Standards Agency] 75 IGD, Consumer Watch, June 2003; cited in Department of Health, Choosing a better diet: a food and health action plan, 9 March 2005, p 13 76 Section 15(1) 77 Council Directives 79/112/EEC, 89/398/EEC, 90/496/EEC and 2000/13/EC; Commission Directives 87/250/EEC, 94/54/EC and 2001/101/EC 78 Council Directive 2000/13/EC

Food information 21

57. In July 2003, the European Commission published a proposal for a European regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods.79 The proposed regulation would control nutrition and health claims made in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods delivered to the final consumer, including foods supplied to restaurants, hospitals, schools, canteens and similar mass caterers. In addition to ‘traditional’ nutrients such as calorific value, , , fat, fibre, sodium, and minerals, the regulation would cover other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, such as antioxidants and probiotic bacteria. The regulation would prevent the making of vague and unverifiable health claims—for example, claims that a drink “cleanses and refreshes your body, your soul” or that a fruit and seed bar will “help you stay on top of a busy life”, both found on products currently sold in the UK.80 We support the European Commission’s draft regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods, and trust that the UK Government will do all it can to facilitate the speedy implementation of the draft regulation.

58. In the international legal context, the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement) is relevant to food label regulation established for reasons other than to protect the life or health of people, animals, or plants. Regulation established to protect the life or health of people, animals, or plants is covered by the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPM Agreement). Article 2 of the TBT Agreement provides that regulation is illegal if it restricts international trade more than is “necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment [of that objective] would create.” Article 2 applies even if the regulation does not treat imports any differently from domestic products. Article 2 of the SPM Agreement provides that regulation is illegal if it is maintained “without sufficient scientific evidence”. What information is currently required?

General information 59. The 1996 Regulations define prepacked food as food packaged in such a way that it cannot be altered without interfering with the packaging and which is ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or to a catering establishment.81 All prepacked food must be marked or labelled with: x the name of the food x a list of ingredients (although some foods, such as certain fruits, vegetables and dairy products, are exempt from this requirement)82 x the appropriate ‘best before’ or ‘use-by’ date

79 COM [2003] 424; the proposal is currently awaiting the opinion of the European Parliament. The draft regulation was debated in European Standing Committee C in May 2004; the Committee supported the Government’s view that the measure would promote informed consumer choice and facilitate intra-Community trade. 80 Which? briefing, ‘The Hidden Truth? Health and Nutrition Claims’, January 2005, p 6 81 “Prepacked” food is defined in regulation 2 82 Regulation 18 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations)

22 Food information

x any special storage conditions or conditions of use (for example, “once opened, keep refrigerated and consume within 3 days” or “shake well before use”) x the name and address of the manufacturer or packer or of a seller and in certain cases: x particulars of the place of origin of the food x instructions for use, if it would be difficult to make appropriate use of the food without them.83

60. The 1996 Regulations also set out other, more detailed, requirements, many of which apply only to specific foods.84 For example, there are additional labelling requirements for food sold in vending machines, raw milk and food containing sweeteners, or polyols.85 Additional information can be given on food on a voluntary basis, provided that the information is true and not misleading. Under the Food Safety Act 1990, it is an offence for anyone to describe food in a way which is false, or likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality.86

61. Particulars of the place (not necessarily the country) of origin or provenance of a food must be shown if failure to give such information might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin of the food.87 “Place of origin” means the place in which a food last underwent a substantial change.88 The FSA’s guidelines on the 1996 Regulations give the example of olive oil pressed in Italy from olives grown in Greece. This could be described as “produced in Italy” or “made in Italy”, provided that the indication or other information given on the label did not imply that the olives themselves were Italian.89

62. Following a recent amendment to the 2000 Directive, it is obligatory to show all ingredients on the label.90 Previously, the so-called ‘25% rule’ had meant that it was not obligatory to label the components of any compound ingredients that made up less than 25% of the final product.

Nutrition information 63. Labelling on prepacked foods is not required to carry nutrition information except where a nutritional or health claim is made or where a food is intended for a particular nutritional use. What constitutes a nutritional claim is defined in Schedule 6 to the 1996 Regulations; examples would include claims such as “low fat”, “high fibre” and “low calorie”. Where nutritional labelling is required, or where it is provided voluntarily, it must be given in one of

83 Regulation 5 of the 1996 Regulations 84 Guidance notes on the 1996 Regulations are available at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodindustry 85 Regulations 29, 31 and 34 of the 1996 Regulations 86 Section 15 87 Regulation 5(f) of the 1996 Regulations 88 Section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 89 Guidance notes on labelling, available at www.foodstandards.gov.uk 90 Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003 amending Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs

Food information 23

two specified formats, known as a ‘group 1’ or a ‘group 2’ declaration. A declaration must be given for any nutrient about which a claim has been made.

64. A ‘group 1 declaration’ on a label—also known as the ‘big four’— must state values for the food’s energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat content. A ‘group 2 declaration’—also known as the ‘4 + 4’ or ‘big eight’—must state the big four plus values for sodium and fibre content plus: x what proportion of the carbohydrate is sugars, and x what proportion of the fat is saturated fat.

All values must be given in grams provided per 100 grams or 100 millilitres of the food in question, except for energy which must be expressed in both kilojoules and calories. An additional ‘per serving’ listing may also be given.

65. The Government recommends that a group 2 declaration is given on all foods, on a voluntary basis, because a group 2 declaration includes information on the key health-related nutrients.91

EU review of labelling requirements 66. The European Commission has announced that it intends to review community legislation on labelling in order to streamline current labelling legislation. The expected completion date is 2010. The Commission has indicated that it will produce a discussion document setting out its initial ideas later this year. The FSA has indicated that it intends to raise with the Commission for inclusion in the discussion paper the need for: x improved label clarity x a review of the current exemptions from listing certain additives92 x full ingredient listing on alcoholic drinks, and x clearer rules on origin labelling, to prevent misleading labelling where the origin of the product and its primary ingredients differ, and more mandatory origin information, especially on meat.93 What nutritional information should be required?

Current voluntary provision of information 67. The FDF estimated that 80% of pre-packaged, processed foodstuffs manufactured in the UK carry nutrition labelling on the packaging, many of them on a voluntary basis.94 The FDF described this as “a high level of information provision” and stated that there were sound reasons why some packs cannot carry nutrition information, such as the small size of the

91 Government guidance notes on nutritional labelling, p 3: available at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodindustry 92 That is, additives whose presence in the food is due solely to the fact that they are contained in an ingredient of the food, if they serve no significant technological function in the finished product, and additives used solely as a . 93 www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations 94 Ev 113, para 7 [Food and Drink Federation]

24 Food information

pack.95 Which? estimated that about 70% of products carried nutrition labelling.96 Both Which? and the TSI believed that, of the products that do not carry nutrition information, many tended to be high in fat, and salt.97 Which? agreed with the proposition that a lack of nutrition labelling may well indicate that a product has “something to hide”.98

Should provision of nutrition information be mandatory? 68. The FSA indicated to us that it supports the mandatory provision of nutrition information on all foods.99 It told us that its consumer research has indicated that 64% of consumers look for nutrition information on labels and that “people are becoming increasingly interested in healthier choices and they are looking for an easier format to use for nutrition information on labels”.100 In its recent Public Health White Paper, the Government undertook to “press vigorously” for progress before and during the UK presidency of the EU (from July to December 2005) to simplify nutrition labelling and make it mandatory on packaged foods.101

69. Consumer interest groups supported the mandatory provision of nutrition information on labels. Which? would like to see compulsory nutrition labelling of the ‘big eight’ on all pre- packaged foods, put in “a very clear format that is easy to understand, so consumers know instantly from one product to another and would be able to make comparisons in order to make an informed choice”.102 Which? referred to its own research, showing that, “on the whole”, people think nutrition labelling should be provided, in a consistent way.103 Sustain stated that surveys of consumers had repeatedly shown that “citizens want a great deal of information about the food they eat, and find current labelling information inadequate, almost impossible to understand and frequently illegible”.104

70. The FDF preferred to retain a voluntary approach to nutrition labelling, with the use of a standard format where nutrition information is given, and emphasised that the “primary role of the food label is to provide key information, not to act as a means of education”.105 It considered that, if nutrition labelling were to be made compulsory, then some exemptions— for example, in respect of small packs—would be necessary, and submitted that “the more additional information you put on a food label, the more you sacrifice clarity”.106 The British Soft Drinks Association described existing legal requirements as “not necessarily appropriate for drinks, particularly when these contain only certain nutrients. The result is that nutrition panels can be cluttered with zeros which confuse rather than inform.”107

95 Ev 113, para 7 [Food and Drink Federation] 96 Q 99 [Which?] 97 Ev 12-13, para 7 [Which?]; Q 535 [Trading Standards Institute] 98 Q 100 [Which?] 99 Q 565 [Food Standards Agency] 100 Qq 582 and 603 [Food Standards Agency] 101 Department of Health, Choosing Health: making healthier choices easier, Cm 6374, November 2004, p 25 102 Q 95 [Which?] 103 Q 103 [Which?] 104 Ev 37, para 2 [Sustain] 105 Q 513 and Ev 113 [Food and Drink Federation] 106 Qq 504 and 507 [Food and Drink Federation] 107 Ev 158, para 2.1.1 [British Soft Drinks Association]

Food information 25

Labelling: salt versus sodium 71. Labels which include information on the ‘big eight’ are required to state the amount of sodium in a food, rather than salt. Confusion arises because salt, by definition, contains sodium, whereas sodium is also present in other ingredients such as sodium bicarbonate and MSG. From a health perspective, it is sodium intake, rather than specifically salt, which has been linked to hypertension, heart disease and stroke.108 There is increasing awareness of the presence of salt in processed foods, due in large part to a recent Government campaign to persuade food manufacturers and processors to cut the level of salt in processed food.109 The FDF told us that, on the majority of occasions, salt is added to food primarily for reasons of taste.110

72. Research funded by the FSA has shown that many consumers would find information on salt levels more helpful than sodium declarations.111 The Co-op has carried out research showing that less than 25% of consumers knew the connection between salt and sodium.112 Dr Sîan Astley of the IFR commented that:

For most individuals sodium is fairly meaningless, whereas salt is easily understood … Labelling sodium I do not believe would be helpful, and nor do our experts; labelling salt is, as that will enable people to make the decision to reduce their salt intake.113

73. Consumer interest groups agreed that stating levels of sodium is not very meaningful for most consumers. Sustain argued that:

While technically correct to label sodium, since this is the element of (salt) responsible for raising blood pressure, very few citizens are aware of this fact. Nor do most people know that, to obtain a salt equivalent figure from the sodium that may be declared on the label, it is necessary to multiply it by roughly 2.5, then compare the resulting figure to the recommended daily maximum intake.114

74. On the other hand, the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Association (BCCCA) argued that it would be “unscientific and misleading” to label only salt, rather than sodium, because not all sodium comes from salt—for example, sodium bicarbonate is used as a raising agent in many baked goods. The BCCCA felt it would be confusing to consumers to give the salt content of a biscuit that does not contain in fact contain salt but does contain sodium bicarbonate. It proposed that labels should continue to state sodium content, with salt content labelled on a voluntary basis.115

108 Food and Drink Federation, Salt and your health, September 2004 109 In June 2004, the Minister for Public Health wrote to a number of major food manufacturers and retailers which, in her opinion, had failed to draw up adequate plans to cut salt in processed food. In February 2004, manufacturers had agreed to come up with an action plan to cut salt levels. The Minister wrote to those manufacturers whose plans she considered inadequate. See “Food chiefs hit back over salt claims”, The Guardian, 18 June 2004. 110 Q 528 [Food and Drink Federation] 111 Ev 129-130, para 14 [Food Standards Agency] 112 Q 286 [The Co-op] 113 Q 40 [Institute of Food Research] 114 Ev 39, [Sustain] 115 Ev 163, footnote 1 [Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association]

26 Food information

The need for contextual information 75. A number of witnesses and submitters emphasised that, if nutrition labelling is to be meaningful to consumers, it must be given in the context of wider provision of information about diet and nutrition. For example, Dr Astley of the IFR commented that she was “not sure” that nutrition labelling was helpful in assisting consumers to follow a well-balanced and nutritious diet because:

… the information that is conveyed is perhaps sufficient in terms of the information alone but it has no context and therefore perhaps for consumers it is difficult to interpret, particularly for their individual circumstances.116

76. Which? also emphasised the importance of contextual information:

For example, on here [indicating a sample product] it says 10 grammes of fat per 100 grammes—what does that mean? How does that relate to my daily diet? Is that a lot? Is that a little? Should I eat two of them? Should I eat three? We certainly think better communication of that information is necessary.117

Which? felt that, although the FSA produced useful information about what is rated ‘a lot’ and ‘a little’ in terms of fat, sugars, salt and fibre per 100 grammes of food, the Agency needed to increase its profile on issues like dietary advice, to make such information more readily accessible.118 There is currently no requirement for manufacturers to list guideline daily amounts for nutrients on labels.

77. The HNR described diet composition as a complex subject to communicate because it required:

… separate messages about calories, the proportion of specific types of fat, protein and and the additional health effects of food groups such as fruits and vegetables and alcohol and the importance and health of micronutrients.119

The HNR emphasised that any educational campaigns about food and diet must be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of individuals who are at different stages of changing their lifestyles:

… a pre-contemplation individual needs the motivation to even consider the need to make lifestyle changes, while an individual who has arrived at the action stage needs practical implementation strategies … There is a temptation for scientists and journalists to leap to providing action-oriented messages, yet the majority of the population have not yet reached this stage of change and hence the information fails to initiate change.120

78. Opinions varied about the best means of providing contextual information. The FSA indicated its support for including some contextual nutrition information on labels,

116 Q 4 [Institute of Food Research] 117 Q 95 [Which?] 118 Qq 95 and 130 [Which?]; see www.eatwell.gov.uk 119 Ev 29, para 11.1 [Human Nutrition Research] 120 Ev 29, para 11.2 [Human Nutrition Research]

Food information 27

acknowledging that its website “was probably not the best place to be providing that information”.121 The FDF felt that only “straightforward factual” nutrition information should be given and that it was the responsibility of Government to ensure that there was adequate advice to consumers to enable them to understand and use that information.122

Our conclusions 79. We consider that provision of information about the nutrient content of food should be mandatory on all prepacked foods. For such provision to be mandatory, legislative change at EU level will be required. We therefore welcome the Government’s recent undertaking to press vigorously for legislative change within the EU on this matter, and we urge the Government to make this a high priority matter for the UK’s forthcoming presidency of the EU. We consider that such mandatory nutrition information should be extensive and should therefore state values for the following nutrients: energy (expressed in both calories and kilojoules), protein, carbohydrate, including what proportion of the carbohydrate is sugars, fat, including what proportion of the fat is saturated fat, fibre, salt and sodium.

80. We consider that nutrition information should, in so far as practicable, be presented in a standard, tabular format, to assist consumers in identifying the information easily and in making comparisons between products. Exemptions from the requirements to use a standard format may be necessary in the case of small packs, although we would then expect nutrition information to be given in a linear format where practicable. Information should be given in plain English, with common names rather than (or in addition to) scientific names.

81. We have recommended that values for both salt and sodium should be stated. We consider this is the best means of addressing the current confusion amongst consumers about the relationship between the two. We commend the Government for the action it has taken to date to have food manufacturers and processors cut the level of salt in processed food. As a supplement to this action, we recommend that the Government carry out a specific, targeted programme of public education to inform consumers of the health implications associated with sodium intake.

82. Although important, mandatory provision of information about the nutrient content of food will be of limited use to the consumer without the provision of more general nutrition information. Such general information needs to enable consumers to establish the relevance of nutrient values to their own individual circumstances. We consider that it is primarily the role of the Food Standards Agency to formulate and promulgate this information, but we also consider that the food manufacturing and retail industry has a role to play in promulgation. In terms of labelling requirements, we consider that the inclusion on labels of guideline daily amounts for energy consumption should be mandatory, and we recommend that the Government push for the requisite legislative change at EU level. In respect of other key nutrients—fat, sugars, and salt—we consider

121 Qq 601–602 [Food Standards Agency] 122 Q 510 [Food and Drink Federation]

28 Food information

that the inclusion on labels of guideline daily amounts should be the rule, rather than the exception.

83. We discuss other means of promulgating general nutrition information below.

Nutrition signposting: a ‘traffic light’ system? 84. There has been much public debate about the idea of devising a system of front-of-label nutrition signposting in order to assist consumers in making healthier choices ‘at a glance’. The form of signposting can vary: for example, we were interested to hear from the FSA that Sweden and Finland currently operate a ‘green light only’ signposting system, whereby a symbol is used to indicate a healthier choice.123 The Co-op uses a nutrition signposting system on its own-brand food of ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ descriptors for each nutrient, based on a system developed by the Coronary Prevention Group.124

85. In the UK, much attention has been devoted to proposals for a so-called ‘traffic light’ system, which would use red, amber and green flashes on food labels to indicate a food’s nutritional value. In its May 2004 report on Obesity, the Health Committee specifically supported such a system and recommended that the Government legislate to make it compulsory:

… according to criteria devised by the FSA, which should be based on energy density. This would apply to all foods, Not only will such a system make it far easier for consumers to make easy choices, but it will also act as an incentive for the food industry to re-examine the content of their foods, to see if, for example, they could reduce fat or sugar to move their product from the ‘high’ category into the ‘medium’ category.125

Government proposals 86. The recent Public Health White Paper indicated that the DoH has started work with the FSA “to develop criteria that take account of fat, salt and sugar levels to indicate the contribution a food makes to a healthy balanced diet”.126 The Government aims to have introduced a system that could be used as a standard basis for signposting foods by mid 2005 and, by early 2006, to have a clear, straightforward signposting system in place. The Government intends that this system will be in common use and will enable “busy people” to “understand at a glance which foods can make a positive contribution to a healthy diet, and which are recommended to be eaten only in moderation or sparingly”.127 The Government will work with the food industry to develop its signposting approach.

87. In evidence to us, the FSA indicated that it considered that any such system would have to be implemented in addition to mandatory nutrition labelling, rather than instead of, because “otherwise … you do run into great difficulties in terms of oversimplification because there are so many individuals and groups of individuals who have particular needs, so you need

123 Q 587 [Food Standards Agency] 124 Ev 62 [The Co-op] 125 Health Committee, Third Report of Session 2003-04, Obesity, HC 23–1, para 216 126 Department of Health, Choosing Health: making healthier choices easier, Cm 6374, November 2004, p 25 127 Department of Health, Choosing Health: making healthier choices easier, Cm 6374, November 2004, p 25

Food information 29

quite a decent amount of information on a pack in order to serve those different needs”.128 The Public Health White Paper appears to indicate that the Government intends to pursue this approach.

Evidence received 88. A move to a nutrition signposting system was supported by consumer interest groups, who argued that a user-friendly system was needed to indicate to consumers whether a food is high, moderate or low in key nutrients such as fat, sugar and salt. Which? specifically advocated a traffic light-based labelling system, which would use red, amber and green flashes on food labels to indicate the level of fat, sugar and salt in a food, because it considered this would be the most accessible system for consumers:129

… the challenge now is to try and make the healthy choice the easy choice … [so that] when [consumers] are actually picking up products to come up with the most simple system possible, so [consumers] can do that without having to have detailed knowledge about what all these different nutrients mean …130

Which? called for the introduction of an “across the board” system to avoid the possibility of having a different system in each supermarket, for instance, because this would cause confusion.131

89. Proposals for nutrition signposting were not supported by the food manufacturing and retailing industries. The BRC told us that the majority of food retailers believed the use of high, medium and low descriptors for fat, sugar and salt on foods was potentially confusing. It cautioned against “any artificial segregation of foods into ‘good’ or ‘bad’” on the basis that this “ignores the overall nutrient profile of foods, including important micronutrients such as calcium, iron and B12”.132 The BRC also expressed concern that overly prescriptive approaches to nutrition labelling could discourage product innovation by the food industry, which would be detrimental to consumers.133

90. The BCCCA considered that a traffic light system would ignore portion size:

For example a 50 gram bar of chocolate confectionery that was 50% sugar would contain only 25 grams of sugar, whereas another food with perhaps only 20% sugar could easily have larger absolute amounts if the portion size was greater than 125 grams.134

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) was also opposed to the adoption of a ‘traffic light’ approach to labelling, describing it as “over-simplistic”.135

128 Qq 587–588 [Food Standards Agency] 129 Ev 13, para 8 [Which?] 130 Q 107 [Which?] 131 Q 97 [Which?] 132 Ev 178, paras 37 to 38 [British Retail Consortium] 133 Ev 177, para 36 [British Retail Consortium] 134 Ev 163, para 9 [Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association] 135 Ev 60 [National Farmers’ Union]

30 Food information

91. In addition to the concerns raised by industry, independent experts raised serious concerns about the operation of a nutrition signposting system based on a traffic light approach. Dr Astley of the IFR acknowledged that a traffic light system would perhaps work, because consumers are not currently reading food labels, but added:

It is not sufficient to inform; you must put it into context. You must provide the consumer with something to balance it against, perhaps to say not, “Do not consume the red label products”, but, “Do not consume more than four or five in a week, or four or five in a day” … There are limitations to the traffic light system. No system is going to be perfect. We cannot necessarily provide information for an individual.136

92. Dr Jebb of the HNR pointed out that one difficulty with a traffic light system is whether it is applied across or within categories of food. In other words, is the basis for deciding whether a bag of crisps should be labelled red, orange or green to be a comparison with all other bags of crisps—in which case, a brand with reduced salt and fat may well merit a green rating—or a comparison with all other foods—in which case, a red rating is probably inevitable, regardless of whether or not a brand has reduced its levels of salt and fat. Dr Jebb considered that the latter approach would discourage food companies from producing healthier versions of certain products, such as crisps, because such versions would still attract a red rating, regardless. Dr Jebb also pointed to the issue of what nutrient the rating system should be focused on: “is this just about fat … or is it about fat and salt or salt and sugar, and what about micro nutrients?”137 A good example of the difficulties on this point is the question of what rating cheese should attract under a traffic light system. Both Drs Astley and Jebb pointed out that cheese is high in fat and salt—which would suggest a red rating—but is also an important source of calcium—which would suggest a green.138

A voluntary scheme? 93. The introduction of any mandatory nutrition signposting scheme would require EU legislation. Introducing a voluntary scheme would obviously achieve much faster results. Given that over 90% of consumers now buy their groceries from the major supermarket retail chains, we explored with Asda and Tesco what influence they, as major retailers, could exert over the nutrition labelling of their branded suppliers in order to achieve full participation in any voluntary nutrition signposting scheme.139 The supermarkets’ evidence emphasised the improvements and changes they are making to their own-brand food ranges. Obviously, this is the area over which the supermarkets exercise most control, as well as being a significant area of sales: Asda stated that over half its total sales were of own-brand products.140 However, as regards the nutrition labelling practices of its suppliers of branded products (that is, non own-brand products), Asda told us that, whilst it could talk with them:

Obviously we have no power to tell them what to do. We can make suggestions, as Government and everybody else can, and I think probably the influence of the current

136 Qq 5, 8 and 13 [Institute of Food Research] 137 Q 178 [Human Nutrition Research] 138 Qq 7 [Institute of Food Research] and 178 [Human Nutrition Research] 139 Q 591 [Food Standards Agency] 140 Q 393 [Asda]

Food information 31

focus on obesity in the media, et cetera, will influence the branded manufacturers more than we would be able to do.141

Tesco agreed with Asda’s assessment and added that, if one individual retailer were to attempt to influence the nutrition labelling on a large manufacturer’s products, the manufacturer would reply by saying, “‘Actually, whatever size you think you are, we are in fact supplying a whole number of other retailers, both large and small, and introducing that sort of change just for you is very difficult’”.142

Retailer-initiated nutrition signposting schemes 94. In May 2004, Tesco announced its intention to trial a traffic light-based system of nutrition labelling from September 2004 on “hundreds of products”, with the potential to apply the initiative across its own-brand range over the next two years. Tesco intended to apply a red, amber or green marking to each of four nutrients: total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt.143 Subsequent research carried out by the Food Commission, a consumer interest group, suggested that, based on a comparison with the FSA’s nutritional guidelines, some products in Tesco’s own-brand ‘Healthy Living’ range would have to carry either amber or red lights.144

95. In the event, Tesco did not proceed with its trial of a traffic-light system in September, as intended. We understand that research carried out by Tesco revealed an ambivalent response from consumers to the proposed traffic light system, and a preference for a system based on guideline daily allowances. Tesco has indicated that the company is still finalising its ideas on the matter, commenting that “putting all foods into just three categories is an extremely challenging task.”145 We understand that Tesco intends to launch a nutrition signposting scheme in the next few months on a range of products, both healthy and less healthy.

96. In the interim, Sainsbury’s has launched its own nutrition signposting scheme. This features a front-of-pack ‘wheel of health’ which uses separate red, amber and green flashes in respect of five nutrients: salt, fat, saturated fat, added sugars and number of calories per serving. In addition, the flashes are used to demonstrate the contribution of these nutrients towards the guideline daily amount. The scheme was introduced in January 2005 on 30 of Sainsbury’s own-brand products; Sainsbury’s planned to apply the scheme to all its own label products at some stage.146

Recent developments 97. The Secretary of State for Health, Dr John Reid, recently announced the Government’s intention to proceed with a nutrition signposting scheme, during an appearance before the Health Committee.147 The Secretary of State indicated that, although he preferred to pursue a

141 Q 393 [Asda] 142 Qq 395–396 [Tesco] 143 “Tesco gives healthy eating the green light”, Tesco press release, 26 May 2004 144 The Guardian, “Red alert fear for Tesco over healthy eating range”, 27 July 2004; Food Commission, “Tesco: where red means ‘proceed’?”, 27 July 2004 145 “Government Public Health White Paper”, Tesco press release, 16 November 2004 146 “Sainsbury’s responds to Government's White Paper on Public Health”, Sainsbury’s press notice, 16 November 2004 147 Health Committee, The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm6374), uncorrected oral evidence, 23 February 2005, HC 358-i

32 Food information

voluntary scheme, if that were to prove unachievable the Government would pursue a mandatory scheme at EU level.148 Earlier media reports had said that the industry had warned that they would not co-operate with proposals for a traffic light system of nutrition signposting and had launched a “huge lobbying offensive to derail the plan” by challenging its “scientific validity”.149 The Secretary of State commented that “the best thing the industry can do here is engage with us” in introducing a signposting scheme.150

98. The Secretary of State did not go into the specifics of proposed nutrition signposting schemes, but stated that any scheme should be “a simplified, easy and understandable form of discovering whether the food [consumers] are buying is nutritious or not”.151 He described himself as “open about the format” of the nutrition signposting scheme, saying “I do not care whether it is 1, 2, 3, or A, B, C, or the colours of the rainbow …”.152

Our conclusions 99. We are strongly supportive of the introduction of a UK-wide system of front-of-label nutrition signposting, to assist consumers in making healthier choices ‘at a glance’. The traffic light system has much to commend it but, whatever signposting system the Government decides to adopt, the determining factor should be clarity, rather than comprehensiveness, although any system should, of course, be as scientifically sound as is practicable.

100. More broadly, because any signposting system will necessarily oversimplify the very complex information about what constitutes a healthy diet for each individual, in the context of his or her lifestyle, it is crucial that any UK-wide system be implemented in the context of a wider education campaign providing consumers with more detailed information about nutrition and healthy diets. For such a campaign to be effective, the Government and the food industry will need to work co-operatively in disseminating consistent messages.

101. Speedy action by the Government is required on the introduction of a nutrition signposting system. We would hope that the industry will, in consultation with the FSA and government, initially introduce such a scheme on a voluntary basis, as a mandatory system would take some time to be put in place because of the need for legislative change at EU level to achieve this. However, even if such a voluntary scheme were to be achieved, we consider that a mandatory scheme, applying at EU level, would still be necessary. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue legislative change at EU level to ensure that such a comprehensive and mandatory scheme of nutrition signposting is introduced.

102. We commend the initiatives being used by some of the major supermarkets in introducing their own nutrition signposting schemes. We trust that the Government will endeavour to work with these retailers to learn from their experiences in piloting nutrition signposting schemes, prior to finalising its own signposting scheme.

148 Health Committee, The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm6374), qq 5 and 65 149 Evening Standard, “Plan for ‘traffic light’ food labels faces axe”, 18 February 2005 150 Health Committee, The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm6374), q 68 151 Health Committee, The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm6374), q 65 152 Health Committee, The Government's Public Health White Paper (Cm6374), q 5

Food information 33

103. However, in order to be successful, we consider that any nutrition signposting system needs to be introduced across the board, so that consumers can draw meaningful comparisons between products. We trust that, once the Government has announced its preferred system of nutrition signposting, the major retailers will endeavour to comply with that system as soon as possible, to avoid consumer confusion.

104. In terms of achieving improvement in nutrition labelling on a voluntary basis, we are disappointed major supermarket chains seem to be making little effort to influence their suppliers of non own-brand products. It seems to us extremely unlikely that supermarket chains with as massive a market share as Asda and Tesco enjoy have as little influence over the practices of their branded suppliers as they claim. We therefore urge them to enter into a dialogue with these suppliers to encourage them to introduce improved nutrition labelling, including nutrition signposting, in the products which they supply where they currently do not do so. What other information should be required?

Means of production: ethical issues 105. There appears to be increasing awareness amongst consumers of ethical issues associated with food production, such as employment conditions, animal welfare, food integrity and environmental impacts. The Co-op told us that its 1994 and 2004 surveys of consumers’ attitudes to the ethics of the food industry had indicated that about 60% of people were more concerned now than they were ten years ago about ethical issues.153 This increasing awareness is evident in the recent proliferation in food assurance schemes relating to ethical issues.154 Examples of such schemes include: the Freedom Food scheme, set up in 1994, which indicates compliance with RSPCA animal welfare standards by farms and farm animal transport and slaughter;155 the LEAF scheme, set up in 1991, which promotes farm management which benefits the environment;156 and the Marine Stewardship Council’s certification scheme, started in 2000, which signifies environmentally responsible fishery management and practices.157 More recently, figures released by the Fair Trade Foundation showed that UK sales of products carrying the fair trade mark reached £140m in 2004, an increase of 51% on £92m in 2003. In 2003, about 150 retail and catering products carried the fair trade mark; in 2004, 834 did so.158

Evidence received 106. The Product Authentication Inspectorate, an independent food certification body, commented that, currently, “it is difficult for the consumer to distinguish between marketing claims and independently verified product information”.159 Which? believed that, as consumers have become more removed from food production, they want to know more

153 The Co-op, Shopping with attitude, May 2004; available at www.co-op.co.uk 154 We discuss food assurance schemes more generally in part 6, below. 155 www.rspca.org.uk 156 www.leafuk.org 157 www.msc.org 158 Fairtrade Foundation, “Fairtrade shows massive public response to man-made ‘economic tsunamis’”, 28 February 2005 159 Ev 48, para 3.3 [Product Authentification Inspectorate]

34 Food information

about where food has come from and how it has been produced.160 Which? considered that, in some cases this type of information needs to be provided on the label, whereas in others it is more appropriate to provide it through other means, such as helplines, leaflets and websites.

107. The FDF rejected the suggestion that information about means of production might be required on food labels—such as, for example, labelling of non-free-range eggs or hormone- added beef.161 In fact, the FDF opposed requirements to include any information other than that which it considered to be “essential”, and therefore opposed:

… the principle of having to put information on food labels regarding, for example, production technologies and processes … which makes little or no difference to the final composition of the food (except where it would be misleading not to give such information).162

108. The FDF considered that increasing the amount of information given on labels would restrict the legibility of essential information about food composition and safety.163 It argued that other means of conveying ethical information about a product will often be more appropriate, such as “corporate values statements and traditional product information provision”.164

Country of origin 109. Several submitters raised the question of country of origin labelling with us. Country of origin labelling is one means of providing consumers with information that may be relevant to many of the ethical issues associated with food production, although it also serves other purposes. Currently, particulars of the place of origin of a food must be shown only if failure to do so might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin of the food.

110. The NFU believed that current regulation of country of origin can be “highly misleading” and called for “a very simple label that just says ‘product of … packed in …’. If it does not say ‘packed in’ one assumes that the products are packed in the same country [in which they were produced]”.165 The NFU gave an example of the sort of labelling practices which it would like regulated:

… we saw [a rib eye steak] last week … where it had ‘product of the EU stamped all over it but then if you really looked in the small print it said ‘reared and slaughtered in Brazil’. I do not think that is honest and accurate labelling.166

111. In this respect, Sustain noted that few consumers realise that the presence of an EU flag on a food may mean only that the food’s ingredients were imported into the EU and then processed here—not that the ingredients actually originated in the EU.167 Which? called for a

160 Ev 14, para 15 [Which?] 161 Q 514 [Food and Drink Federation] 162 Ev 116, para 33 [Food and Drink Federation] 163 Ev 116, para 33 [Food and Drink Federation] 164 Ev 116, para 28 [Food and Drink Federation] 165 Ev 54 [National Farmers’ Union] and Q 279 [National Farmers’ Union] 166 Q 277 [National Farmers’ Union] 167 Ev 40 [Sustain]

Food information 35

requirement for food labels to give greater information about the country of origin of products.168

Our conclusions 112. Consumers generally have no means of independently verifying claims made on food labels, or elsewhere, about food production methods. At the same time, consumers are becomingly increasingly aware of, and concerned about, many of the ethical issues associated with food production, such as: x the employment conditions of those involved in producing the food x the welfare of animals farmed as food animals—for example, battery hens and veal calves x the integrity of some food processing methods—for example, adding hormones to beef and beef or protein to chicken x impacts on the surrounding environment arising from the way in which food may be produced—for example, the use of certain pesticides and fertilisers and the destruction or displacement of important flora and/or fauna.

113. Fundamentally, we consider consumers should receive better information about these ethical issues, either by way of food labelling or by other means, such as helplines, leaflets and websites. We appreciate that the scope of legislating for compulsory provision of such information, on either a UK or EU basis, is limited by the WTO Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Nevertheless, we consider that food producers, manufacturers and processors should consider ways in which they can provide consumers with further information about these matters. Failure to do so could well be interpreted by consumers as a failure to engage with the ethical implications of the industry’s activities.

Ingredient listing on alcohol 114. Currently, the ingredients of any drink with an alcoholic content of over 1.2% need not be stated on the label, although ingredients may be stated on a voluntary basis.169 Additionally, under the Food Labelling (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, if an alcoholic drink contains a specified allergen—such as sulphur dioxide or sulphites—its labelling must clearly indicate the presence of that allergen.170 The Co-op has had on-bottle labelling of ingredients in wine since 1999, and believed that it was the only retailer to have taken this action.

115. Alcohol seems to be exempt from ingredient listing because the process of its manufacture is closely regulated. Nevertheless, Sustain described it as “deeply depressing” that alcohol labelling “has languished behind even food, which is bad enough”.171 In addition

168 Ev 14, para 17 [Which?]; see paragraph 61, above. 169 Council Regulation 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine and Commission Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection of wine products 170 See paragraph 48. 171 Q 224 [Sustain]

36 Food information

to the lack of ingredient labelling, Sustain commented that labelling of alcoholic units is unclear.172

116. Currently, manufacturers of alcoholic drinks are exempt from listing their ingredients on the label, although ingredients may be stated on a voluntary basis. We recommend that the Government report to us on whether any action is currently being taken at EU level to require compulsory labelling of ingredients on alcoholic drinks and, if not, whether it has any plans to raise the matter at EU level itself. 5 Food labelling: non-prepacked foods

117. In this part of the report, we discuss food which is not prepacked or which has been prepacked for direct sale (hereafter referred to as “non-prepacked food”). The definition of “prepacked” in the 1996 Regulations means that non-prepacked food includes food sold loose from a supermarket’s delicatessen counter, loose fruit and vegetables and loose baked goods. Non-prepacked food also includes much of the food sold in the catering or food services sector. The 1996 Regulations also define food that is “prepacked for direct sale”. This constitutes food which is prepacked by a retailer for sale on the premises on which the food was packed, or for sale from a vehicle or stall.173 Examples are bread baked and sold on-site, sandwiches and salads which a café makes and sells on-site and much produce sold at farmers’ markets.174 What information is currently required? 118. Non-prepacked food falls under the same legal framework as that which applies to prepacked food: for example, the 2000 Directive applies to foods intended for supply to restaurants, hospitals, canteens and other ‘mass caterers’. However, non-prepacked food is in practice exempt from most or all of the general labelling requirements. Generally speaking, non-prepacked food need be labelled only with the name of the food and, where appropriate, with any additives.175 Where such food is sold from catering establishments, it is exempt from all such requirements.176

119. Specific regulations requiring additional information apply to greengrocery produce. Information about the nature of the produce, its country of origin, quality (for example, class I or class II) and, where applicable, the variety name must be made available at the point of retail, either as a label on prepacked produce or, in the case of loose produce, as a shelf label or display card.177

172 Q 224 [Sustain] 173 Regulation 2 174 Although flour confectionery (for example, shortbread, sponges, crumpets and pastry), bread and edible ices are still defined as being “prepacked for direct sale” if the producer sells them from premises that trade under the same name as the premises on which the food was produced: regulation 2, (b) of the definition of “prepacked for direct sale. 175 Regulation 23 176 Regulation 27 177 Ev 146 [Defra]

Food information 37

What information should be required?

Non-prepacked food in the ‘eating out’ sector 120. There are about 350,000 catering establishments in the UK.178 Eating out accounts for around one-third of UK consumers’ spending on food and drink and the figure is continuing to grow: the ‘eating out’ market as a whole is valued at £28.2 billion and accounts for some 4.4 billion “eating out occasions”.179

121. We received some evidence that, given that eating out accounts for such a significant proportion of the nation’s diet, improved food information should be available to consumers in the ‘eating out’ sector too—that is, restaurants, pubs, cafés and canteens—not just those purchasing prepacked food in the retail sector. The TSI commented on the lack of a requirement for food provided in this sector to be labelled with nutritional information; it believed that information about nutritional content “must be displayed for all foods no matter how they are sold”.180 Dr Astley of the IFR asked:

Why can we not ask McDonalds or Burger King, or whatever, to put labels on it? Not everything is bad about those foods; it is just the frequency that they are consumed that is an issue.181

The Meat and Livestock Commission advocated provision of information about means of production and country of origin, so that interested consumers are able to exercise choice in respect of these matters.182

122. We discussed what further food information might be provided to consumers in this sector with two large restaurant chains, Whitbread and McDonald’s. Whitbread describes itself as the largest operator of full service restaurants in the UK, with over 1,600 restaurants. Its UK brands include Beefeater (which serves over 18 million meals a year), Brewer’s Fayre (“the biggest UK pub restaurant brand”), Costa (“the UK's leading coffee shop in terms of both sales and the number of outlets”), Pizza Hut and TGI Fridays.183 McDonald’s has over 2.5 million customers a day in the UK, at over 1,000 restaurants. Worldwide, it has over 26,500 restaurants in 119 countries serving around 39 million customers a day, making McDonald’s “by far the largest food service company in the world”.184

123. The labels on all of McDonald’s pre-packaged foods carry nutrition information, and nutrition information is printed on the back of tray liners. As its food labels cannot, of course, be read until after purchase, McDonald’s also has a leaflet available in all its restaurants providing nutrition information, full country of origin information where possible, and full

178 Q 623 [Food Standards Agency] 179 Ev 174 [British Retail Consortium] and Ev 86, para 4.1 [Whitbread] 180 Ev 122, para 1.4 [Trading Standards Institute] 181 Q 19 [Institute of Food Research] 182 Ev 206, para 12 [Meat and Livestock Commission] 183 www.whitbread.co.uk; Pizza Hut is operated by Whitbread as part of a 50/50 joint venture. 184 www.mcdonalds.co.uk

38 Food information

allergen information.185 This information is also available on McDonald’s UK website and on its customer services helpline.186

124. Whitbread’s brands do not currently provide nutritional or ethical information “as a matter of course”.187 Whitbread opposed the imposition of any immediate requirements for the food services sector to provide further food information, questioning whether restaurants were the most appropriate environment in which to start the public education process on healthier eating:188

… restaurant dining is very clearly seen as a treat or social occasion, often a celebration. By comparison there is a functionality associated with shopping for food. In restaurants, people are more interested in those emotional aspects that influence their level of enjoyment, such as atmosphere, service, choice and value for money. Research to date has indicated that they are less interested in food production issues, nutritional content and animal welfare and country of origin issues [than] when compared to shopping for domestic use.189

125. Whitbread also pointed out that practical difficulties would arise for restaurants, in particular, were they required to provide nutrition information:

… restaurants serve dishes comprising a number of ingredients. Choice is a key element of restaurant dining which means that a typical table of diners will all choose different dishes or combinations of dishes from the same menu. Many of our restaurants will also offer ‘off-menu’ choices or ‘specials’ only available on that particular day. The menus will change with different regularity depending on the brand.190

Whitbread suggested that, were restaurants to be required to provide a comprehensive breakdown of nutritional and other information, “the risk is that the menu would become an unwieldy and incomprehensible tome”.191 Whitbread has experimented with displaying Weight Watchers points on one of its menus.192 It commented that “the research back from the majority of customers was that, when they come out for a treat, they do not want to be told that they are having their total calories in one particular dessert!”193

Signposting 126. Due to the likely practical difficulties were the eating out sector to be required to provide comprehensive nutrition information, it has been suggested that a nutrition signposting system would be particularly suitable for this sector. The FSA believed that nutritional signposting could, in principle, be used on menus in catering establishments to highlight

185 Ev 86, para 4.2 [Whitbread] 186 Ev 86-87, paras 4.3 to 4.5 [Whitbread] 187 Ev 87-88, para 6.1 [Whitbread] 188 Ev 89, para 9.1 [Whitbread] 189 Ev 87, para 5.2 [Whitbread] 190 Ev 87, para 5.3 [Whitbread] 191 Ev 89, para 9.2 [Whitbread] 192 Q 419 [Whitbread] 193 Q 420 [Whitbread]

Food information 39

choices high in fat, sugar or salt, and healthier options.194 Which? advocated the implementation of a traffic light system, in particular, in catering outlets, to make it easier to convey nutrition information.195

127. Whitbread, however, considered that a traffic light-based approach would create potential for a wide range of ‘typical values’ on any one food or meal, because: x the rating given would need to reflect the dish as served, including accompaniments and side orders x individual ingredients within a dish might change during the life of a menu due to non- availability or seasonality x it would be difficult to accommodate daily ‘specials’ or additions to the menu, and x nutrition content may vary according to nature of cooking method/equipment used.196

Non-prepacked food in the retail sector 128. We have discussed the sale of prepacked food in the retail sector in part 4. However, food is of course sold in other forms in this sector, including in a loose, unpacked form, or prepacked for direct sale (that is, prepacked by the retailer on the premises on which it is to be sold). Examples of food sold loose include fruit and vegetables, food sold in delicatessens, or from a delicatessen counter in a supermarket, fresh bread sold in bakeries and meat in a butcher’s shop.

129. Again, Which? advocated the adoption of a traffic-light-based approach as an effective way of conveying nutrition information about food sold loose.197 The TSI’s comments about the need for information about nutritional content to be provided for all foods, no matter how they are sold, applied equally to food sold in this way.198 Our conclusions 130. Currently, what requirements there are for clear and meaningful labelling are almost entirely confined to prepacked foods. Little or no information is offered at point-of-sale to consumers of non-prepacked foods. The Government seems to be doing little to address this gaping hole in food labelling requirements.

131. We recognise that it may not be feasible to provide the same range of nutritional information at point of sale to purchasers of non-prepacked foods as to those of prepacked food. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government should be working to ensure that clear and meaningful nutrition information is provided to the extent that it is feasible to do so on all foods purchased by consumers, including food purchased in the eating out sector and other food sold loose or prepacked for direct sale. The Government should work at the EU level to achieve policy change on these matters. In the interim, the

194 Ev 129-130, para 14 [Food Standards Agency] 195 Qq 115–116 [Which?] 196 Ev 89, para 9.2 [Whitbread] 197 Qq 115–116 [Which?] 198 Ev 122, para 1.4 [Trading Standards Institute]

40 Food information

Government should take action to encourage increased voluntary provision of nutrition and other information.

132. We set out separately below our specific conclusions on non-prepacked food provided within the context of the eating out sector, and on non-prepacked food provided outside this sector.

Non-prepacked food provided within the eating out sector 133. It has to be recognised that this sector does not lend itself to a uniform approach to food information provision, because the range of operations carried out in the sector is so varied. For example, it is much easier to envisage how information about nutrient content might be provided in a lunchtime ‘take out’ café where all the food is prepacked for direct sale, for instance, than in a restaurant with a wide range of dishes subject to change on a daily basis. We therefore consider it would be impracticable to require the same provision of extensive information about nutrient content which we have recommended in respect of prepacked food.

134. We consider that those who sell or otherwise provide food in the eating out sector must take responsibility for providing healthy choices to their customers, and for highlighting those choices as healthy. As noted above, the FSA told us that Sweden and Finland currently operate a ‘green light only’ signposting system, whereby a symbol is used to indicate a healthier choice. We recommend that the Government work with the eating out sector to develop a ‘green light only’ nutrition signposting system to highlight healthy food choices. The Government should devise appropriate nutritional standards to underpin this model.

135. The challenge for all those involved in the eating out industry is to lead its customers towards making healthier choices. We expect that any improvements to the information provided on prepacked food, in the retail sector, should lead to increased consumer understanding which will be carried over into the eating out sector. For example, if a consumer better understands the nutritional make-up of the pork pie he or she buys in a supermarket, that consumer should be able to carry over that understanding to any pork pies he or she may consume at the pub.

136. McDonald’s has demonstrated that it is possible to provide detailed nutritional information to its customers. If other major restaurant and chains are confident that their food offers at least as much nutritional value as does McDonald’s food, they should have no objections to making more detailed nutritional information available to their customers.

Non-prepacked food sold outside the eating out sector 137. We recommend that where it is feasible to do so, the level of nutrition information which we have recommended be required in respect of prepacked food should apply equally to food sold loose and food sold prepacked for direct sale in supermarkets and other food shops. We consider that it would be desirable for the same information about nutrient content to be provided, in the same standard, tabular format that we recommend above, although we do recognise that there may be some situations where it is not practical or necessary to provide as full a range of information as is provided on pre-

Food information 41

packed products. Again, this should assist consumers in identifying the information easily and in making comparisons between products. Likewise, any nutrition signposting system which may be adopted in respect of prepacked foods should also apply to food prepacked for direct sale.

138. We received virtually no evidence relating to catering services in institutions such as hospitals and schools. Nevertheless, we do not see any reason why the same principles should not apply to such institutions, and we recommend that the Government report to us on what work it is currently undertaking towards achieving such an outcome. 6 Verifying food information: food assurance schemes

139. Food assurance schemes are intended to provide consumers with a greater degree of information about the product assured, such as the way in which it has been produced, or an assurance that certain standards have been met. Some schemes exist with the purpose of assuring consumers that they are purchasing, for example, an organic product, or fish from a sustainably managed fishery.

140. There are a great many such schemes. Evidence suggested there might be at least 30 of them.199 Examples include the RSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme200, LEAF (Linking the Environment and Farming)201 and the British Farm Standard (the “Little Red Tractor”).202 Legal requirements relating to farm assurance schemes 141. Food (or farm) assurance schemes are a category of product certification schemes. The internationally recognised rules for operating product certification schemes are set out in the International Standards Organisation (ISO) Guide 65, which is analogous to European Standard EN 45011. Product certification schemes are voluntary initiatives, although for some schemes, compliance with EN 45011/ISO 65 is a statutory requirement. FSA guidance states that all UK food assurance schemes should be accredited to EN 45011 by the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS).203 Nevertheless, assurance schemes are privately owned and operated.204 They are not subject to any regulation other than assurance processes and certification dependent on those who run the individual scheme or schemes.

199 Ev 40 [Sustain] and Q 230 [Product Authentication Inspectorate] 200 Ev 180 [RSPCA] 201 www.leafuk.org/leaf 202 www.littleredtractor.org.uk/whatis.asp 203 FSA, Food assurance scheme guidance, 2003, p 2 204 Ev 146 [Defra]

42 Food information

Evidence received 142. Clive Dibben, an independent consultant working in the food certification and rural enterprise sectors, stated that “it is widely recognised, even by the [food assurance] schemes themselves, that they seek to mirror legal requirements rather than exceed them”.205 Dr Richard Baines of the Royal Agricultural College concurred with this view:

Most farm assurance schemes claim to encourage or ensure that systems of production meet consumer (or retailer) aspirations. However, the majority merely underpin legal farming in terms of environmental protection and animal welfare. This is why there is no premium for farm assured.206

143. He told us that consumers did not really gain anything from such assurance schemes and suggested that many schemes do not in fact even properly guarantee food safety.207 As an example, Dr Baines pointed to the British Farm Standard, or ‘little red tractor’, scheme, which he claimed was not actively managing safety because it did not require its member schemes to have HACCP in place. He stated that consumers were nevertheless being told that food carrying the little red tractor logo was safe.208

144. However, Dr Baines noted that some schemes do in fact exceed minimum legal requirements in terms of their systems of production. These included the adoption of integrated crop management in the Assured Produce scheme, additional environmental auditing under the LEAFMarque scheme and higher than legally mandated animal welfare under Freedom Foods.209 Dr Baines concluded that, although “other schemes claim to … promote systems of production that are environmentally and animal welfare sensitive, yet they merely require members to meet minimum legal requirements in these areas”.210

145. Some evidence noted the confusion caused by the number of schemes. The NFU thought there were probably too many of them.211 Which? argued that there was a growing sense of confusion surrounding the many assurance schemes, and the public needed to be made more aware of what they really meant.212 In 2003, the National Consumer Council (NCC) carried out a study of consumers’ views on voluntary food labelling, including food assurance schemes. It concluded that the proliferation of labels and logos has caused confusion and information-overload among consumers. The NCC’s research showed that consumers did not understand what the majority of the labels and logos mean, and that food assurance schemes were most often used as a marketing tool rather than a way of informing consumers and offering real choice.213 The NCC recommended that, in the absence of legislation, the FSA should “develop, champion and promote” a code of practice for food assurance schemes and should encourage maximum take up of the code across the food

205 Ev 169, para 31 (emphasis added) [Clive Dibben] 206 Ev 104 [Dr Richard Baines] 207 Qq 494–96 and ev 105, paras 2.5 and 2.6 [Dr Richard Baines] 208 Ev 106, para 3.2 [Dr Richard Baines] 209 Ev 106, para 4.1 [Dr Richard Baines] 210 Ev 106, para 4.1 [Dr Richard Baines] 211 Q 260 [National Farmers’ Union] 212 Q 147 [Which?]. The Product Authentication Inspectorate made similar points: q 240. 213 Ev 208 [National Consumer Council]. See also q 234 [Product Authentication Inspectorate]

Food information 43

industry.214 On this point, Mr Dibben commented that “various attempts have already been made to develop an overarching body to explain the merits of assurance schemes to UK consumers and to act as an authority on all UK assurance matters. As yet none has succeeded …”.215

146. The FSA stated that it would like to see some degree of collaboration between assurance schemes in order to provide the consumer with information with which to compare different schemes.216 In August 2003, the FSA published advice to scheme operators, which recommended that the following information should be easily accessible and clearly communicated to consumers: x what the scheme seeks to achieve and what advantages it offers consumers x in what ways, if any, the scheme standards exceed the legal minimum x how the scheme ensures that its standards are being met by member producers x the scheme’s arrangements for monitoring delivery of standards, for example through analysis of scheme produce x how instances of non-compliance are dealt with, and x the evidence base for any specific claim—for example, on food safety or quality.

The FSA also planned “to carry out a survey of the consumer information available from scheme operators and to publish a collation of this information to help inform consumer choice.”217

147. Dr Baines noted that, where schemes do require producers to meet additional conditions, there was no evidence of this adding value for those who deliver these enhanced conditions.218 To deal with this problem, he argued that producers delivering such additional requirements should be adequately rewarded, and that labelling should differentiate foods with these extra assurances so those consumers interested in such foods can identify and preferentially source them.219 He acknowledged that, if such a system were to work, consumers would have to be prepared to pay for the added value of the product, and that premium should then flow to the producer. Dr Baines cited one example of a product where producers had received a premium for committing to a higher level of biodiversity, and this cost had been passed to the consumer in terms of a higher price.220

214 National Consumer Council, Bamboozled, Baffled and Bombarded: consumers’ views on voluntary food labelling, February 2003, p 5 215 Ev 170, para 34 [Clive Dibben] 216 Ev 143 [Food Standards Agency] 217 Ev 131, para 26 [Food Standards Agency] 218 Ev 104 [Dr Richard Baines] 219 Ev 107, para 6.2 [Dr Richard Baines] 220 Ev 107, para 6.2 and q 500 [Dr Richard Baines]

44 Food information

Farm assurance schemes and non-own-brand labels 148. Large retailers sell both their own-brand products and also food produced under recognised assurance schemes. Dr Baines felt that the aim of the main multiple retailers was to promote their own brands of food. “Any additional ‘assurance label’ has the potential to dilute their own brand”.221 He suggested that, although the supermarkets claim to sell only farm assured products, this could not in fact be the case:

… the main retailers claim that the producers who supply ‘their’ integrators [processors] are farm assured … [yet] there is no formal audit of this in the [British Retail Consortium Standard] or equivalent standards … there is no audit trail to ensure only assured produce reaches and is sold by the retailers.222

149. However, the FDF told us that it had “great sympathy” for the general aims of farm assurance:

To ensure that consumers have reliable information, ethical and associated logos relating to production methods should be backed by established schemes, information on which is accessible to consumers and compliance with which is independently audited.223

The FDF told us in evidence that, although there was no “fundamental requirement” for retailers to sell farm assured produce, individual companies might well build this into their specifications, on a company basis.224 “Broadly speaking, the issue is to source materials to the required standards of safety and quality from wherever they happen to be available.”225

The British Farm Standard—the little red tractor 150. One of the best-known assurance schemes in the UK is the ‘little red tractor’, which, according to the NFU, has a 47% recognition level among the public.226 The NFU is a part- owner of the scheme, which was set up in 2000. The scheme is run by a separate organisation, Assured Food Standards (AFS), an organisation which is “owned by sections of the agri-food industry, including several of the farm assurance schemes, the National Farmers’ Union and the Meat and Livestock Commission”.227 The NFU described the scheme as follows:

Clear labelling of food with the red tractor logo denotes that it is farm assured … Through consolidation of all the assurance schemes under one logo, the consumer is better able to recognise farm assured product. Indeed a key driver in the development of red tractor was to reduce the number of logos associated with farm assurance to assist consumers in their purchasing decisions.228

221 Ev 106, para 4.4 [Dr Richard Baines] 222 Ev 105, para 2.4 and ev 106, para 4.4 [Dr Richard Baines] 223 Q 516 and ev 116, para 29 [Food and Drink Federation] 224 Q 515 [Food and Drink Federation] 225 Q 515 [Food and Drink Federation] 226 Q 262 [National Farmers’ Union] 227 www.littleredtractor.org.uk/contact.asp 228 Ev 55 [National Farmers’ Union]

Food information 45

One of the aims of the scheme, according to the NFU, was to “put a logo” on “a multitude of schemes … designed to give consumer reassurance”.229

151. We heard some specific criticisms of the scheme. In 2002, the FSA argued that the AFS was not independent enough, and recommended that a new independent organisation should be established to govern the ‘little red tractor’ scheme:

A new, independent governing body for Red Tractor schemes, along with measures to improve transparency and consistency across the board, are essential to meet the needs of the consumer.230

Subsequently, AFS was ‘re-constituted’ to form ‘AFS 2003’. However, Clive Dibben told us that this new body still did not have “a constitutionally independent structure and retains strong links with the industry … it is believed that the AFS 2003 Board retains a majority in favour of industry directors”.231 Mr Dibben suggested that AFS favours existing, industry- controlled schemes:

As such any assurance scheme wishing to use the British Farm Standard mark will be required to operate in the same way as AFS’s own schemes, rather than ensuring that any scheme deliver the equivalent outcome (essentially compliance with UK legislation).232

152. It is sometimes thought that food assured under the scheme is British.233 Which? pointed out that the red tractor logo does not indicate that a food comes from British farms, as consumers often believe; it merely denotes that a food has been produced in accordance with the British Farm Standard. The FSA has also said that “research shows that people wrongly assume the red tractor logo indicates a British product, but the logo can also be used on produce sourced outside the UK.”234 The little red tractor scheme website also appears to give the impression that the scheme applies only to British farmers. Although it avoids stating that only British farmers are eligible for the scheme, it nowhere states that food carrying the logo need not necessarily have been grown on a British farm.235

153. Clive Dibben was critical of the NFU’s role in respect of the scheme. He argued that the NFU had issued a press statement in 2003 which clearly implied country of origin attributes to the red tractor. He noted that certification schemes must permit access to all who are able to comply with their standards, and it was also questionable whether the use of a mark as a de facto country of origin label is consistent with the objectives of the EU single market or ISO Guide 65 with regard to the facilitation of trade.236

154. The NFU argued that they did not claim the tractor logo was ‘British’, but acknowledged that all the food assured under the scheme had, in fact, been British:

229 Q 261 [National Farmers’ Union] 230 FSA, ‘Call for shake-up of Food Assurance Schemes’, 9 July 2002 231 Ev 170, para 37 [Clive Dibben] 232 Ev 170, para 37 [Clive Dibben] 233 For example, ev 63 [The Co-Op] 234 Ev 169, para 27; FSA press notice 9 July 2002, 2002/2035 235 www.littleredtractor.org.uk 236 Ev 169, paras 26 and 28 [Clive Dibben]

46 Food information

no product has been licensed to the red tractor other than British product … what we cannot do because of the Single Market is state equivocally that the red tractor is British; that is illegal.237 Our conclusions 155. It is not at all clear that food assurance schemes are currently providing useful and meaningful information to consumers, and the proliferation of such schemes adds to the confusion. Few consumers are in a position to inquire into the veracity or reliability of the schemes’ claims. Furthermore, even where schemes are sound, they may certify nothing more than that required minimum standards have been met—something consumers should be able to take for granted without the need for assurance by an external, private body. We believe that most consumers are likely to assume that the fact that a food carries an assurance scheme mark means that it has exceeded legal requirements in some respect.

156. We recommend that the Government should ensure the central registration of food assurance schemes. All schemes should have to be registered and approved by an identified body. The FSA would be an obvious candidate for the task. The purpose of such schemes should be to certify that the product carrying the mark has either been: x produced or manufactured in a way which exceeds minimum legal standards—for example, in respect of the environment or animal welfare—or x has a ‘special characteristic’, such as meeting organic or vegan/vegetarian production requirements.

The registration body would have to satisfy itself that the operators of the schemes had appropriate verification systems in place to ensure that producers taking part in a scheme were fully meeting its requirements. We further recommend that the Government, in consultation with stakeholders, consider ways in which this kind of registration could limit the numbers of schemes in operation, and introduce some common elements in labelling, in order to make it easier for consumers to understand the schemes.

237 Q 268 [National Farmers’ Union]

Food information 47

7 Other sources of food information

157. In the course of giving oral evidence, the Minister for Food commented on the ways, other than labelling, in which consumers receive information about food:

… most of the messages that impact on people would not be the minutiae of the EU labelling standards or even the actual labels themselves, they will be the advertising, the way things are presented in the shops, the way they are presented on menus and the way they are presented in other literature which the industry create.

158. In this part, we briefly discuss these wider sources. Although FSA research has found that 78% of consumers read food labels at least occasionally, it has also shown that consumers get information about food issues from newspapers and magazines, television, supermarkets, and friends and family.238 Although the evidence we received tended to focus on the information consumers receive from food labelling, rather than from other sources, we nevertheless consider it is important that attention is paid to other sources of food information. Legal controls on what information is put before consumers 159. Outside labelling, advertising, marketing and trading of food are regulated to the extent that misleading statements are illegal.239 The 1990 Act makes it is an offence to publish an advertisement which falsely describes any food or which is likely to mislead the consumer as to the nature, substance or quality of any food.240 More broadly, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offence for a person acting in the course of a trade or business to make false or misleading statements about goods. The 2000 Directive prohibits advertising or presenting foods in such as a way as to mislead the purchaser or to attribute medicinal properties to foods.241 Consumer understanding and education

How well informed are consumers? 160. Opinions amongst our witnesses varied as to how well-informed consumers are about diet and nutrition. Dr Jebb of the HNR considered that consumers are confused because of the number of messages which they receive about these matters and the fact that “nutrition science is not straight forward”:

This is not where the one message ‘stop smoking’ meets all circumstances, all eventualities. With nutrition science you have endless different nutrients, endless different foods … That makes it phenomenally complicated for people to work their way through.242

238 Ev 128, para 2 [FSA]; see above paragraph 55. 239 Specific marketing standards apply to organic products, eggs, fresh fruit and vegetables, olive oil, preserved fish products and spirits: see the FSA’s website, www.food.gov.uk. 240 Section 15(2) 241 Article 2 242 Q 176 [Human Nutrition Research]

48 Food information

161. Tesco described consumers’ understanding and knowledge of nutritional information as “quite poor”, and Dr Astley of the IFR suggested that “if you took a large majority of the public and asked them what the labelling currently means, they do not understand it”.243 Research carried out by Which? “highlighted that many people were unclear about what constitutes ‘a lot’ and ‘a little’ in terms of fat, sugar and salt”.244 Which? found that consumers generally had a better understanding of how many portions of fruit and vegetables a day they should aim to eat, although 21% of men and 13% of women still thought that the recommended number was fewer than five.245

162. The FSA took a more optimistic view of consumers’ awareness of what kinds of foods they should be eating—“foods which contain less fat, less salt, … more fruit and vegetables”— describing it as “fairly high”.246 However, it pointed to the “huge variance between what people know and what people do” and identified the need to turn this knowledge into behavioural change as a key issue facing government.247 The FSA also observed that “the poorer people are, the less use they make of food information and the less access they have to food information and … conversely, the better off people are, the more food information they have”.248

Who do consumers trust? 163. Opinions were divided on the extent to which consumers trust food information provided by the Government. On the basis of its consumer surveys, the FSA considered that trust and confidence in the Agency had increased.249 The Minister for Food wasn’t certain that consumers trusted anyone:

It is pretty clear that [consumers] do not trust Government, they do not trust scientists and they do not trust the agriculture sector, they do not trust the food manufacturers and they do not even trust the newspapers. They trust slightly more the supermarkets … [although this] is not a particularly logical position … 250

And McDonald’s believed that consumers probably trust it more than they trust the Government.251

What is currently being done to inform and educate consumers? 164. From the perspective of the food industry, the BRC described food retailers as “expert communicators, in touch with millions of consumers every day” by way of point of purchase information, in-house magazines, leaflets and websites.252 The BRC told us that retailers also communicate with their customers through “non-traditional channels”, such as road shows,

243 Q 366 [Tesco]; Q 15 [Institute of Food Research] 244 Ev 13, para 9 [Which?] 245 Ev 13, para 9 [Which?] 246 Q 570 [Food Standards Agency] 247 Q 570 [Food Standards Agency] 248 Q 574 [Food Standards Agency] 249 Q 573 [Food Standards Agency] 250 Q 675 [Defra] 251 Q 446 [McDonald’s] 252 Ev 175, para 12 [British Retail Consortium]

Food information 49

customer care helplines and educational packs for schools.253 The FDF operates three websites providing consumers with information about issues such as healthy lifestyles and food safety.254 Amongst the supermarkets, by way of example, the Co-op provides information to consumers about products on labels, at point of sale, in leaflets, on its website and in response to inquiries to its free customer helpline and Waitrose branches hold a reference book containing detailed nutrition and special dietary information about its products and provide a range of fact sheets on nutrition and dietary issues.255

165. From the perspective of government, the FSA described its “consumer information strategy” as having two principal threads: encouraging improved food labelling; and providing consumer information and advice, both directly and via the media and other channels.256 Defra referred to its work with the following bodies and schemes: x Farming and Countryside Education, a body set up by the National Farmers’ Union and the Royal Agricultural Society in 2001 with the aim of increasing the number of school children who visit farms x the National Advisory Group for Growing Schools, a Government initiative set up in 2001 and funded by DfES which aims, amongst other things, to raise awareness of food and where it comes from x the educational access option under Defra’s Countryside Stewardship scheme, which currently has over 800 sites available for schools or local groups to visit and demonstrates, amongst other things, how farming links to a range of services, including food production x the statutory agriculture and horticulture levy boards, which produce information about the food produced by the sectors they cover.257

166. At a local level, the TSI told us that trading standards divisions within local authorities were “becoming more proactive in publicising the nutritional content of foods, particularly school meals and meals on wheels”.258

167. We were interested to hear from the IFR about an initiative in which it is involved in schools: a ‘smartcard scheme’, which monitors school students’ meal choices at point of purchase.259 The IFR considered that the scheme had potential to offer rewards to students if they could demonstrate they were purchasing a balanced diet, although the scheme can monitor only what students purchase, not what they actually consume.260

253 Ev 175, para 12 [British Retail Consortium] 254 www.foodfitness.org.uk, www.foodlink.org and www.foodfuture.org.uk 255 Ev 61 [The Co-op] and ev 165 [Waitrose] 256 Ev 128, para 2 [Food Standards Agency] 257 Ev 148 [Defra] 258 Ev 122, para 1.1 [Trading Standards Institute] 259 Ev 1, para 1 [Institute of Food Research] 260 Qq 32–37 [Institute of Food Research]

50 Food information

What future plans does the Government have to inform and educate consumers? 168. The food and health action plan recently published by the DoH sets out the actions which the Government plans to take to inform and educate consumers about nutrition.261 The plan prioritises action on diet and nutrition to reduce consumers’ intake of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar and to increase their consumption of fruit and vegetables. Specific action is proposed in respect of education campaigns about obesity, simplified food labelling in the form of nutrition signposting, and advertising and promoting food to children. The plan also acknowledges the need for Government to work with the food industry to increase access to healthier foods.

169. The delivery of the plan across government is to be overseen by the Cabinet Committee MISC 27, which is chaired by the Secretary of State for Health and supported by a Health Improvement Board made up of senior government officials. Other boards and steering groups “involving partners outside government and other stakeholders” will be convened “to help lead change and to report on progress”.262 Our conclusions 170. Given that FSA research has shown that 78% of consumers read food labels at least occasionally, clear and informative labels are obviously a key means of promoting informed consumer choice. However, labels are only one way in which consumers receive information about food. In order to improve consumers’ knowledge and understanding of nutrition and diet, a broader education campaign about these matters is required, driven forward by both the Government and the food industry, working in partnership with each other. Consumers are often faced with a range of contradictory messages about nutrition and diet, from a wide range of sources. Consequently, if consumers are ever to trust messages about diet and food, such messages must be presented in a coherent and authoritative manner. A consistent approach between industry-run consumer awareness programmes and Government-funded consumer education must be adopted, with a shared aim of delivering clear and consistent messages to consumers. The success of the Government’s ‘5 a day’ initiative demonstrates that Government and industry can work to promote the same simple message.

171. We are greatly encouraged by the positive moves made by the Government in this direction in its recently published food and health action plan. The plan engages with many of the themes raised in the course of our inquiry, and supports many of the conclusions we have reached in this report. Importantly, it also specifies target dates by which particular actions are to be achieved. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this plan, and the coherence of the messages delivered by it, in so far as it relates to the way in which consumers receive information about food.

261 Department of Health, Choosing a better diet: a food and health action plan, 9 March 2005 262 Ibid., p 37

Food information 51

Role of the Government 172. We consider that implementation of our earlier recommendation, that the Government explicitly task one government department with lead responsibility for co- ordinating food information policy across both central and local government, would assist enormously in achieving this consistent approach between the Government and the food industry. The industry should be able to rely on a definitive position on food information policy, issuing from a single source. The Government needs to provide the industry with a single agenda with a clear list of priorities that both the Government and industry can work towards achieving.

Role of the food industry 173. In its report on Obesity, the Health Committee called on the food industry to take voluntary actions to address the problem of obesity, such as pricing healthy foods in an affordable way, stopping forms of product placement that emphasise unhealthy foods (such as placing confectionery and snacks at supermarket checkouts) and phasing out ‘super-size’ portions.263

174. The Government appears to have paid some attention to the Committee’s recommendations. The FSA highlighted to us the “whole area of promotional activity” as one which the Government particularly needed to look at, especially in relation to commercial activity aimed at children.264 The FSA commented:

We want particularly to encourage supermarkets, for instance, when they are making ‘two for the price of one’ type offers, to take into account the nutritional quality of the food which they are encouraging people to buy more … as part of corporate social responsibility.265

175. The food industry clearly has a key role to play in raising consumer awareness about nutrition and diet and in making healthier choices both available and attractive. The figures which we have heard in the course of taking evidence demonstrate the role to be carried out by the major players, in particular. More than 90% of consumers now buy their food from the major supermarket retail chains, McDonald’s has over 2.5 million customers a day in the UK, Whitbread claims to lead both the UK pub restaurant market and the coffee shop market.266

176. Little benefit to consumers’ diet will be gained from improving the provision of nutrition information if such improvements do not go hand in hand with corresponding changes in industry practice. We reiterate the Health Committee’s call for the food industry to re-examine its practices with respect to matters such as pricing, product placement and portion size.

263 HC 23–I, (Session 2003–04), para 241 264 Q 580 [Food Standards Agency] 265 Q 580 [Food Standards Agency] 266 See above paragraphs 93 and 122.

52 Food information

Conclusions and recommendations

Responsibility for food information policy within Government 1. We support the existing separation within government of the producer department— Defra—from the main regulator—the Food Standards Agency. However, food information policy is not simply an issue of regulation; in particular, it encompasses public health initiatives, education within schools and advertising. At present, the main areas of responsibility are divided between the FSA, the Department of Health and Defra, and other responsibilities fall to the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Trade and Industry. It is not apparent to us that there is effective co-ordination between all these different players of government policy and initiatives in the field of food information, both domestically and at EU level. (Paragraph 30

2. We recommend that the Government explicitly task one government department with lead responsibility for co-ordinating food information policy across both central and local government, and for representing the position of the UK Government at EU level. We consider that Defra would be the most suitable department to assume this role. We also recommend that Defra assume joint responsibility for achieving the Public Service Agreement target of “halting the year-on-year rise in obesity among children under 11 by 2010 in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole”, alongside those departments already responsible for achieving the target (the DoH, the DfES and the DCMS). (Paragraph 31

3. We recommend that the Government investigate whether it is indeed the case that local authorities are being deterred from taking prosecutions for breaches of food law, particularly food labelling law, and, if so, that it establish the reasons why. The Government must ensure that local authorities are sufficiently well-resourced to be able to take prosecutions against food manufacturers and retailers, whose legal budgets are of a size that does not prevent them from fully using the law to defend their interests. (Paragraph 32 Food safety and hygiene 4. Government has a vital role to play in providing definitive guidance which assists consumers to assess food safety risks. We commend the Food Standards Agency on the work it has done, since its establishment in 2000, towards providing clear advice to consumers about food safety issues. We also congratulate the Agency on its initiative in launching a website providing information about food hygiene and preparation. (Paragraph 51)

5. We welcome recent legislation improving allergen labelling requirements. However, the new legislation applies only to allergens which have been deliberately added to food: labelling of foods which may inadvertently contain allergens remains unregulated. We recommend that the Government move quickly to consider how this legislation can be supplemented to regulate the defensive use of allergen warnings, so that consumers with food allergies are provided with clear and helpful allergen information. The

Food information 53

Government should also ensure that proper channels of communication are in place between the food industry and medical scientists to allow for the effective flow of information about the latest scientific findings on allergies. (Paragraph 52)

6. We recommend that the Government undertake a speedy investigation into the events which resulted in the illegal dye, Sudan 1, making its way into the UK food chain. We are particularly concerned that the Government should establish the length of time for which the adulteration of chilli powder is likely to have gone undetected and why UK authorities did not detect this adulteration in a product used so extensively in UK food processing. The Government and the FSA should also carry out work to determine the best way of communicating with the public about questions relating to the degree of risk actually associated with issues like Sudan 1. (Paragraph 53) Food labelling: prepacked foods 7. We support the European Commission’s draft regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods, and trust that the UK Government will do all it can to facilitate the speedy implementation of the draft regulation. (Paragraph 57)

8. We consider that provision of information about the nutrient content of food should be mandatory on all prepacked foods. For such provision to be mandatory, legislative change at EU level will be required. We therefore welcome the Government’s recent undertaking to press vigorously for legislative change within the EU on this matter, and we urge the Government to make this a high priority matter for the UK’s forthcoming presidency of the EU. We consider that such mandatory nutrition information should be extensive and should therefore state values for the following nutrients: energy (expressed in both calories and kilojoules), protein, carbohydrate, including what proportion of the carbohydrate is sugars, fat, including what proportion of the fat is saturated fat, fibre, salt and sodium. (Paragraph 79)

9. We consider that nutrition information should, in so far as practicable, be presented in a standard, tabular format, to assist consumers in identifying the information easily and in making comparisons between products. Exemptions from the requirements to use a standard format may be necessary in the case of small packs, although we would then expect nutrition information to be given in a linear format where practicable. Information should be given in plain English, with common names rather than (or in addition to) scientific names. (Paragraph 80)

10. We have recommended that values for both salt and sodium should be stated. We consider this is the best means of addressing the current confusion amongst consumers about the relationship between the two. We commend the Government for the action it has taken to date to have food manufacturers and processors cut the level of salt in processed food. As a supplement to this action, we recommend that the Government carry out a specific, targeted programme of public education to inform consumers of the health implications associated with sodium intake. (Paragraph 81)

11. Although important, mandatory provision of information about the nutrient content of food will be of limited use to the consumer without the provision of more general nutrition information. Such general information needs to enable consumers to

54 Food information

establish the relevance of nutrient values to their own individual circumstances. We consider that it is primarily the role of the Food Standards Agency to formulate and promulgate this information, but we also consider that the food manufacturing and retail industry has a role to play in promulgation. In terms of labelling requirements, we consider that the inclusion on labels of guideline daily amounts for energy consumption should be mandatory, and we recommend that the Government push for the requisite legislative change at EU level. In respect of other key nutrients—fat, sugars, and salt—we consider that the inclusion on labels of guideline daily amounts should be the rule, rather than the exception. (Paragraph 82)

12. We are strongly supportive of the introduction of a UK-wide system of front-of-label nutrition signposting, to assist consumers in making healthier choices ‘at a glance’. The traffic light system has much to commend it but, whatever signposting system the Government decides to adopt, the determining factor should be clarity, rather than comprehensiveness, although any system should, of course, be as scientifically sound as is practicable. (Paragraph 99)

13. More broadly, because any signposting system will necessarily oversimplify the very complex information about what constitutes a healthy diet for each individual, in the context of his or her lifestyle, it is crucial that any UK-wide system be implemented in the context of a wider education campaign providing consumers with more detailed information about nutrition and healthy diets. For such a campaign to be effective, the Government and the food industry will need to work co-operatively in disseminating consistent messages. (Paragraph 101)

14. Speedy action by the Government is required on the introduction of a nutrition signposting system. We would hope that the industry will, in consultation with the FSA and government, initially introduce such a scheme on a voluntary basis, as a mandatory system would take some time to be put in place because of the need for legislative change at EU level to achieve this. However, even if such a voluntary scheme were to be achieved, we consider that a mandatory scheme, applying at EU level, would still be necessary. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue legislative change at EU level to ensure that such a comprehensive and mandatory scheme of nutrition signposting is introduced. (Paragraph 101)

15. We commend the initiatives being used by some of the major supermarkets in introducing their own nutrition signposting schemes. We trust that the Government will endeavour to work with these retailers to learn from their experiences in piloting nutrition signposting schemes, prior to finalising its own signposting scheme. (Paragraph 102)

16. However, in order to be successful, we consider that any nutrition signposting system needs to be introduced across the board, so that consumers can draw meaningful comparisons between products. We trust that, once the Government has announced its preferred system of nutrition signposting, the major retailers will endeavour to comply with that system as soon as possible, to avoid consumer confusion. (Paragraph 104)

Food information 55

17. In terms of achieving improvement in nutrition labelling on a voluntary basis, we are disappointed major supermarket chains seem to be making little effort to influence their suppliers of non own-brand products. It seems to us extremely unlikely that supermarket chains with as massive a market share as Asda and Tesco enjoy have as little influence over the practices of their branded suppliers as they claim. We therefore urge them to enter into a dialogue with their suppliers of branded products to encourage them to introduce improved nutrition labelling, including nutrition signposting, in the products which they supply where they currently do not do so. (Paragraph 104)

18. Consumers generally have no means of independently verifying claims made on food labels, or elsewhere, about food production methods. At the same time, consumers are becomingly increasingly aware of, and concerned about, many of the ethical issues associated with food production (Paragraph 112)

19. Fundamentally, we consider consumers should receive better information about these ethical issues, either by way of food labelling or by other means, such as helplines, leaflets and websites. We appreciate that the scope of legislating for compulsory provision of such information, on either a UK or EU basis, is limited by the WTO Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Nevertheless, we consider that food producers, manufacturers and processors should consider ways in which they can provide consumers with further information about these matters. Failure to do so could well be interpreted by consumers as a failure to engage with the ethical implications of the industry’s activities. (Paragraph 113)

20. Currently, manufacturers of alcoholic drinks are exempt from listing their ingredients on the label, although ingredients may be stated on a voluntary basis. We recommend that the Government report to us on whether any action is currently being taken at EU level to require compulsory labelling of ingredients on alcoholic drinks and, if not, whether it has any plans to raise the matter at EU level itself. (Paragraph 116) Food labelling: non-prepacked foods 21. Currently, what requirements there are for clear and meaningful labelling are almost entirely confined to prepacked foods. Little or no information is offered at point-of-sale to consumers of non-prepacked foods. The Government seems to be doing little to address this gaping hole in food labelling requirements. (Paragraph 130)

22. We recognise that it may not be feasible to provide the same range of nutritional information at point of sale to purchasers of non-prepacked foods as to those of prepacked food. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government should be working to ensure that clear and meaningful nutrition information is provided to the extent that it is feasible to do so on all foods purchased by consumers, including food purchased in the eating out sector and other food sold loose or prepacked for direct sale. The Government should work at the EU level to achieve policy change on these matters. In the interim, the Government should take action to encourage increased voluntary provision of nutrition and other information. (Parqagraph 131)

56 Food information

23. We consider that those who sell or otherwise provide food in the eating out sector must take responsibility for providing healthy choices to their customers, and for highlighting those choices as healthy. We recommend that the Government work with the eating out sector to develop a ‘green light only’ nutrition signposting system to highlight healthy food choices. The Government should devise appropriate nutritional standards to underpin this model. (Paragraph 134)

24. The challenge for all those involved in the eating out industry is to lead its customers towards making healthier choices. (Paragraph 135)

25. We recommend that where it is feasible to do so, the level of nutrition information which we have recommended be required in respect of prepacked food should apply equally to food sold loose and food sold prepacked for direct sale in supermarkets and other food shops. We consider that it would be desirable for the same information about nutrient content to be provided, in the same standard, tabular format that we recommend above, although we do recognise that there may be some situations where it is not practical or necessary to provide as full a range of information as is provided on pre-packed products. Again, this should assist consumers in identifying the information easily and in making comparisons between products. Likewise, any nutrition signposting system which may be adopted in respect of prepacked foods should also apply to food prepacked for direct sale. (Paragraph 137)

26. We received virtually no evidence relating to catering services in institutions such as hospitals and schools. Nevertheless, we do not see any reason why the same principles should not apply to such institutions, and we recommend that the Government report to us on what work it is currently undertaking towards achieving such an outcome. (Paragraph 138) Verifying food information: food assurance schemes 27. It is not at all clear that food assurance schemes are currently providing useful and meaningful information to consumers, and the proliferation of such schemes adds to the confusion. Few consumers are in a position to inquire into the veracity or reliability of the schemes’ claims. Furthermore, even where schemes are sound, they may certify nothing more than that required minimum standards have been met—something consumers should be able to take for granted without the need for assurance by an external, private body. We believe that most consumers are likely to assume that the fact that a food carries an assurance scheme mark means that it has exceeded legal requirements in some respect. (Paragraph 155)

28. We recommend that the Government should ensure the central registration of food assurance schemes. All schemes should have to be registered and approved by an identified body. The FSA would be an obvious candidate for the task. The purpose of such schemes should be to certify that the product carrying the mark has either been:

x produced or manufactured in a way which exceeds minimum legal standards— for example, in respect of the environment or animal welfare—or

x has a ‘special characteristic’, such as meeting organic or vegan/vegetarian production requirements.

Food information 57

The registration body would have to satisfy itself that the operators of the schemes had appropriate verification systems in place to ensure that producers taking part in a scheme were fully meeting its requirements. We further recommend that the Government, in consultation with stakeholders, consider ways in which this kind of registration could limit the numbers of schemes in operation, and introduce some common elements in labelling, in order to make it easier for consumers to understand the schemes. (Paragraph 156) Other sources of food information 29. In order to improve consumers’ knowledge and understanding of nutrition and diet, a broader education campaign about these matters is required, driven forward by both the Government and the food industry, working in partnership with each other. Consumers are often faced with a range of contradictory messages about nutrition and diet, from a wide range of sources. Consequently, if consumers are ever to trust messages about diet and food, such messages must be presented in a coherent and authoritative manner. A consistent approach between industry-run consumer awareness programmes and Government-funded consumer education must be adopted, with a shared aim of delivering clear and consistent messages to consumers. (Paragraph 170)

30. We are greatly encouraged by the positive moves made by the Government in this direction in its recently published food and health action plan. The plan engages with many of the themes raised in the course of our inquiry, and supports many of the conclusions we have reached in this report. Importantly, it also specifies target dates by which particular actions are to be achieved. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this plan, and the coherence of the messages delivered by it, in so far as it relates to the way in which consumers receive information about food. (Paragraph 171)

31. We consider that implementation of our earlier recommendation, that the Government explicitly task one government department with lead responsibility for co-ordinating food information policy across both central and local government, would assist enormously in achieving this consistent approach between the Government and the food industry. The industry should be able to rely on a definitive position on food information policy, issuing from a single source. The Government needs to provide the industry with a single agenda with a clear list of priorities that both the Government and industry can work towards achieving. (Paragraph 172)

32. The food industry clearly has a key role to play in raising consumer awareness about nutrition and diet and in making healthier choices both available and attractive. (Paragraph 175)

33. Little benefit to consumers’ diet will be gained from improving the provision of nutrition information if such improvements do not go hand in hand with corresponding changes in industry practice. We reiterate the Health Committee’s call for the food industry to re-examine its practices with respect to matters such as pricing, product placement and portion size. (Paragraph 176)

58 Food information

Table of legal instruments, directives and guidelines mentioned in this report

Legal instrument/directive/guidelines Effect In force?

United Kingdom

Food Safety Act 1990 Sets out the fundamental principles Yes of food safety and labelling law; creates an offence of falsely or misleadingly describing or presenting food; and provides the legal framework under which EU legislation is implemented in the UK

Food Labelling Regulations 1996 Set out detailed requirements Yes about the labelling, presentation Implementing Council Directives and advertising of food to the final 79/112/EEC, 89/398/EEC, 90/496/EEC and consumer 2000/13/EC; Commission Directives 87/250/EEC, 94/54/EC and 2001/101/EC; Directive 2003/89/EC

Food Labelling (Amendment) (England) Insert new Schedule AA1 into the Yes; from 25 (No. 2) Regulations 2004 Food Labelling Regulations 1996; November Schedule AA1 lists 12 ingredients 2005, products Implementing Directive 2003/89/EC known to cause allergies or that do not intolerances comply with the new rules will be prohibited from sale

FSA guidelines and recommendations Provide non-legislative guidance Not applicable about application of food law

Consumer Credit Act 1974; Trade Set down trading standards Yes Descriptions Act 1968; Weights and Measures Act 1985; Consumer Protection Act 1986

European Union

Council Directive on the Labelling of Regulates information provided to Implemented Foodstuffs to be delivered to the the consumer on the composition in the UK by Consumer (2000/13/EC) (as amended by of the product, the manufacturer, the Food Commission Directive 2001/101/EC and the method of storage and Labelling Directive 2003/89/EC) preparation Regulations 1996

Food information 59

Legal instrument/directive/guidelines Effect In force?

European Union

Regulation 852/2004 on the hygiene of A ‘package’ of food hygiene From 1 foodstuffs; Regulation 853/2004 laying legislation, intended to modernise January 2006 down specific hygiene rules for food of and consolidate existing EU animal origin; Regulation 854/2004 laying legislation by introducing a ‘farm down specific rules for the organisation of to fork’ approach to food safety. official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption; Directive 2004/41 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662 and 92/118 and amending Decision 95/408

Council Regulation 1493/1999 on the Provide that the ingredients of any Yes common organisation of the market in drink with an alcoholic content of wine and Commission Regulation over 1.2% need not be stated on 753/2002 on the description, designation, the label, amongst other things presentation and protection of wine products

Commission proposal for a European Would control nutrition and health No regulation on nutrition and health claims claims made in the labelling, made on foods (COM [2003] 424) presentation and advertising of foods delivered to the final consumer, including foods supplied to restaurants, hospitals, schools, canteens and similar mass caterers

International

WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Applies to regulation established Yes Trade for reasons other than to protect the life or health of people, animals, or plants. Article 2 provides that regulation is illegal if it restricts international trade more than is “necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment [of that objective] would create”

WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Applies to regulation established to Yes Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures protect the life or health of people, animals, or plants. Article 2 provides that regulation is illegal if it is maintained “without sufficient scientific evidence”

Codex Alimentarius The series of food standards and In use in the related texts produced by the UK Codex Alimentarius Commission, which provides reference standards for the WTO in the context of settling trade disputes

60 Food information

Formal minutes

Wednesday 16 March 2005 Members present:

Mr Michael Jack, in the Chair

Mr Colin Breed Mr Austin Mitchell David Drew Paddy Tipping Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Mr Bill Wiggin Mr Mark Lazarowicz

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report [Food Information], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 176 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Seventh Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.–(The Chairman).

Several memoranda were ordered to be reported to the House.

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 22 March at Four o’clock.

Food information 61

Witnesses

Tuesday 15 June 2004 Page

Dr Sián Astley and Dr Nick Walton, Institute of Food Research Ev 2

Sue Davies and Michelle Smyth, Consumers’ Association (now known as Which?) Ev 16

Tuesday 22 June 2004

Dr Susan Jebb and Adrian Penrose, Medical Research Council’s Centre for Human Nutrition Research Ev 30

Jeanette Longfield, Sustain Ev 43

Linda Campbell and Paul Wright, Product Authentication Inspectorate Ev 48

Tim Bennett and Robin Tapper, National Farmers’ Union Ev 55

Tuesday 29 June 2004

David Croft and Adrian Hill, The Co-operative Group Ev 65

David North and Liz Kynoch, Tesco, and Penny Coates, Asda Stores Ev 75

Neil Riding, Paula Vennells, Paul Farrow and Mark Kerr, Whitbread Restaurants Ev 90

Julian Hilton-Johnson and Keith Kenny, McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd Ev 98

Dr Richard Baines, Royal Agricultural College Ev 108

62 Food information

Witnesses (continued)

Monday 12 July 2004

Martin Paterson, Valerie Saint and Michael Hunt, Food and Drink Federation Ev 117

David Pickering and Phil Thomas, Trading Standards Institute Ev 123

Neil Martinson and Rosemary Hignett, Food Standards Agency Ev 133

Tuesday 20 July 2004

Neil Martinson and Rosemary Hignett, Food Standards Agency Ev 137

Lord Whitty, Bill Scriven and Ian Newton, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 149

List of written evidence

Institute of Food Research Ev 1 Consumers’ Association (now known as Which?) Ev 12 Medical Research Council’s Centre for Human Nutrition Research Ev 27 Sustain Ev 37 Product Authentication Inspectorate Ltd Ev 47 National Farmers’ Union Ev 54,60 The Co-operative Group Ev 61,70 Asda Stores Ltd Ev 72 Whitbread Restaurants Ev 85 McDonald’s Restaurants Limited Ev 94 Dr Richard Baines Ev 104 Food and Drink Federation Ev 113,122 Trading Standards Service Ev 122 Food Standards Agency Ev 128,143 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 144

Food information 63

List of written evidence (continued)

British Soft Drinks Association Ltd Ev 158 British Medical Association Ev 160 The National Youth Agency Ev 160 Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Association Ev 161 Waitrose Ev 165 The Agricultural Biotechnology Council Ev 166 Clive Dibben Ev 166,172 The British Retail Consortium Ev 174 Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd Ev 178 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ev 180 Genesis Quality Assurance Limited Ev 182,185 Freedom Food Limited Ev 187 The Federation of Bakers and the National Association of British and Irish Millers Ev 190 The Farm Animal Welfare Council Ev 191 General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland Ev 192 Countryside Agency Ev 194 Advertising Association & Food Advertising Unit Ev 199 Biosciences Federation Ev 201 Meat and Livestock Commission Ev 205 English Farming & Food Partnerships Ev 207 The National Consumer Council Ev 208 The Family Farmers’ Association Ev 210 Assured Food Standards Ev 211

List of unprinted written evidence

An additional paper has been received from the following and has been reported to the House but to save printing costs it has not been printed and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons library where it may be inspected by members. Other copies are in the Record Office, House of Lords and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be addressed to the Record Office, House of Lords, London SW1 (tel: 020 7219 3074). Hours of inspection are from 9:30am to 5:00pm on Mondays to Fridays.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Supplementary memorandum)

64 Food information

Reports from the Committee since 2001

Session 2004–05 Sixth Report The future of UK fishing HC 122 Fifth Report The Government’s Rural Strategy and the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill HC 408–I Fourth Report Waste policy and the Landfill Directive HC 102 Third Report The Work of the Committee in 2004 HC 281 Second Report Dismantling Defunct Ships in the UK: Government Reply HC 257 First Report The draft Animal Welfare Bill (Reply, HC 385) HC 52–I

Session 2003–04 Nineteenth Report Pricing: follow–up HC 1186 Eighteenth Report Dismantling Defunct Ships in the UK (Reply, HC 257 Session 2004–05) HC 834 Seventeenth Report Agriculture and EU Enlargement (Reply, HC 221 Session 2004–05) HC 421 Sixteenth Report Climate Change, Water Security and Flooding (Reply, HC 101 Session 2004–05) HC 558 Fifteenth Report The Departmental Annual Report 2004 (Reply, HC 100 Session 2004–05) HC 707 Fourteenth Report Sites of Special Scientific Interest: conserving the Jewels of England’s Natural Heritage (Reply, HC 1255) HC 475 Thirteenth Report Bovine TB (Reply, HC 1130) HC 638 Twelfth Report Reform of the Sugar Regime (Reply, HC 1129) HC 550-I Eleventh Report GM Planting Regime (Reply, HC 1128) HC 607 Tenth Report Marine Environment: Government reply HC 706 Ninth Report Milk Pricing in the United Kingdom (Reply, HC 1036) HC 335 Eighth Report Gangmasters (follow up) (Reply, HC 1035) HC 455 Seventh Report Implementation of CAP Reform in the UK (Reply, HC 916) HC 226-I Sixth Report Marine Environment (Reply, HC 706) HC 76 Fifth Report The Food Standards Agency and Shellfish (Reply, HC 601) HC 248 Fourth Report End of Life Vehicles Directive and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (Reply, HC 557) HC 103 Third Report Caught in the net: by-catch of dolphins and HC 88 porpoises off the UK coast (Reply, HC 540) Second Report Annual Report of the Committee 2003 HC 225 First Report Water Pricing (Reply, HC 420) HC 121

Session 2002–03 Eighteenth Report Conduct of the GM Public Debate (Reply, HC 443 Session 2003-04) HC 220 Seventeenth Report Biofuels (Reply, HC 270 Session 2003-04)) HC 929-I Sixteenth Report Vets and Veterinary Services (Reply, HC 974 Session 2003–04) HC 703 Fifteenth Report New Covent Garden Market: a follow-up (Reply, HC 123 Session 2003-04) HC 901 Fourteenth Report Gangmasters (Reply, HC 122 Session 2003-04) HC 691 Thirteenth Report Poultry Farming in the United Kingdom (Reply, HC 1219) HC 79-I Twelfth Report The Departmental Annual Report 2003 (Reply, HC 1175) HC 832 Eleventh Report Rural Broadband (Reply, HC 1174) HC 587 Tenth Report Horticulture Research International (Reply, HC 1086) HC 873 Ninth Report The Delivery of Education in Rural Areas (Reply, HC 1085) HC 467 Eighth Report The Future of Waste Management (Reply, HC 1084) HC 385 Seventh Report Badgers and Bovine TB (Reply, HC 831) HC 432 Sixth Report Rural Payments Agency (Reply, HC 830) HC 382 Fifth Report The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Reply, HC 748) HC 394 Fourth Report Water Framework Directive (Reply, HC 749) HC 130 Third Report The Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (Reply, HC 615) HC 151 Second Report Annual Report of the Committee 2002 HC 269 First Report Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (Reply, HC 478) HC 110

Food information 65

Session 2001–02 Tenth Report The Role of Defra (Reply, HC 340, Session 2002-03) HC 991 Ninth Report The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World HC 550 (Reply, HC 384, Session 2002-03) Eighth Report Hazardous Waste (Reply, HC 1225) HC 919 Seventh Report Illegal Meat Imports (Reply, HC 1224) HC 968 Sixth Report Departmental Annual Report 2002 (Reply, HC 1223) HC 969 Fifth Report Genetically Modified Organisms (Reply, HC 1222) HC 767 Fourth Report Disposal of Refrigerators (Reply, HC 1226) HC 673 Third Report Radioactive Waste: The Government’s Consultation Process (Reply, HC 1221) HC 407 Second Report The Countryside Agency (Reply, HC 829) HC 386 First Report The Impact of Food and Mouth Disease (Reply, HC 856) HC 323

984188PAG1 Page Type [SO] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Food Information Sub-Committee

on Tuesday 15 June 2004

Members present

Mr Mark Lazarowicz, in the Chair

Mr David Drew Joan Ruddock Mr Michael Jack Mr Bill Wiggin

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Food Research

1.T he Nutritional Content of Foods IFR believes that it is important that nutritional information is presented to consumers in a balanced way. From a nutritional viewpoint, the vast majority of individual foods do not have an ideal composition and it is the frequency of consumption and the composition of the diet as a whole that are significant.Cheese, for example, whilst usually a high-fat food, can be an important component of a balanced diet and can contribute appreciably to overall calcium intake. Encouraging consumers—particularly children—to be aware of the long-term health implications of what they eat is critical.Such awareness requires balanced nutritional infor mation to be presented on the one hand and recognition by consumers on the other that they must make “active” choices.One important initiative in this field, involving IFR researchers, is the SMARTCARD scheme, which enables dietary choice through school meals to be monitored at point of purchase.Regulators, hea lth educators and the food industry all have a part to play in ensuring that consumers are presented with balanced, accurate nutritional and compositional information.This should include unambiguous informa tion on the eVects that food processing may have on composition.

2.T he Safety of Foods This has been a major topic of public concern from the 1980s onwards as a result of successive, high-profile episodes in the UK and elsewhere ( in eggs, BSE, GM crops, acrylamide).IFR is active in a number of research programmes aimed at exploring consumer attitudes to food-safety risks.An important principle is that consumers tend to demonstrate a greater level of concern in relation to risks that they perceive as being beyond their control; thus, microbiological risks in the kitchen may be ignored because the consumer believes (s)he is in control of them.This has implications fo r the safety labelling of (for example) chilled, ready-to-eat foods.Further, a social climate in which , in general, less time is being spent by consumers in the purchase and preparation of raw foods may tend to encourage an increased expectation that foods, as bought, should be completely safe. Against this background, it is very important that robust standards of (particularly) microbiological safety and shelf-life recommendation are maintained.This is particular ly so in the light of global sourcing practices.Precautionary food-allergen labelling is a critical issue in view of the potentially fatal consequences for susceptible individuals.

3.T he Means of Production of Foods There is considerable scope for confusion and misunderstanding in this area.Terms such as “pure” and “natural” may convey messages to the consumer that diVer from the precise definitions understood by regulators and by food manufacturers.The status of the term “natural” in r elation to GM products, for example, needs to be resolved.Terms such as “home-made” may have an imprec ise meaning.In some cases, consumers may not be clear what information is conveyed by a logo, for example the “Red Tractor” symbol. In recent years, there have been substantial advances in chemical profiling and spectroscopic techniques (notably SNIF-NMRC, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry and multi-element mass spectrometry) for the diVerentiation of food products according to their geographical origin and/or means of production.IFR is one of the lead organisations undertaking research in this field, funded under contracts from FSA and from the EC.Di Verentiation between organic and conventional production is in principle possible using isotope- ratio approaches.It may be possible to detect clear evidence in meat of ani mal movements prior to slaughter, 9841881001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

and thereby to confirm whether animals have been reared for the required period in a claimed region of origin.Such developments are increasingly important in underpinning la belling practices and in providing analytical evidence acceptable in courts of law. The EC has recently announced over 25 million Euro of funding under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) to two new Integrated Projects—SAFE FOOD and WELFARE QUALITY—under Priority 5— “Food Quality and Safety”, which are the first to take a “fork to farm” approach, addressing both consumer concerns and market demands.These new projects bring together researche rs from Europe and beyond on an unprecedented scale and with ambitious goals.The research activities will underpin the development of European standards of best practice in food quality and safety, through dialogue and knowledge exchange and the implementation of the European Research Area (ERA).The remit of WE LFARE QUALITY is “Integration of animal welfare in the food quality chain: from public concern to improved welfare and transparent quality”.Animal welfare practices a Vect “quality of life” for livestock, thereby influencing disease incidence and product quality, and are of substantial concern to both consumers and producers. Both Integrated Projects aim to restore consumer confidence whilst improving the quality of food, by stimulating the development of sustainable production systems.

4.E thical Considerations Many consumers take account of ethical considerations when buying foods, for example those sold under the “Fairtrade” logo.Consumers may not always be clear precisely what ben efits are associated with such designations.There are further concerns of energy e Yciency, agrochemical inputs and “food miles”.Some of these issues might in principle be addressed by the analytical approaches outlined in (3) above.Labour practices are problematic since they are not traceable though the food products themselves.Enforcement is therefore ultimately dependent upon inspection and certification.This i s a field where further research may be required to clarify current practices. 20 April 2004

Witnesses: Dr Siaˆn Astley, NuGO Communications Manager and Dr Nick Walton, Senior Research Scientist, Institute of Food Research, examined

Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon.Can I welcome you the last 14 years, 12 of which have been at t he to this first meeting in this series of evidence sessions Institute, with a specific interest in the eVect of looking at the question of food information.Can I dietary compounds on DNA damage and repair. say, first of all, if anyone wishes to remove their jacket please feel free to do so, if they have not done so already, given the heat of the day.Can I welcome Q4 Chairman: Could I begin by asking you to tell us you, Dr Astley.I understand you are now joined by how helpful you think the current food labelling Dr Walton from the Institute.Perhaps you could, requirements which are in existence are in assisting for the record, Doctor, tell us what your consumers to follow a well-balanced and nutritious responsibilities are within the Institute and then we diet.For example, is it satisfactory that provisional will go on to the questions? nutritional information is generally not Dr Walton: I am sorry? compulsory? Dr Astley: To take the first part of your question, I am not sure that the labels are helpful, but there are Q2 Chairman: Perhaps we can ask you, for the two problems in that.Firstly, the information that is record, to tell us what your post is in the Institute conveyed is perhaps suYcient in terms of the and then we will move on to the questions? information alone but it has no context and Dr Walton: I am a senior scientist in the Institute of therefore perhaps for consumers it is diYcult to Food Safety, Science Division, with a responsibility interpret, particularly for their individual for developing platform technologies within the circumstances.It depends what you are trying to Institute, and I am also a member of the Institute achieve with the labelling whether you can Science Communication Team; so my scientific determine it is useful.As for the second part, background is as a bio-chemist. compulsory labelling, I do not pretend to be an expert on that and I do not know that I have a Q3 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, Dr comment on it.My only remark is that, if you are Walton.Dr Astley, can I welcome you too to the going to do it, it should be useful for the consumer Committee and thank you for both your written to make choices. evidence and also coming to give evidence to us this afternoon.Dr Astley, do you want to introduce yourself as well? Q5 Chairman: Have you carried out any research in Dr Astley: I am currently the communications ways of indicating to consumers whether levels of manager for a European project, the European nutrients in food are high, moderate or low? Nutrigenomics Organisation, which has an interest Obviously, fat, sugar and salt.Have you done any specifically in the relationship between diet and research on this and what is your view of that kind genes.However, I have been a research scientist for of practice? 9841881002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton

Dr Astley: We have not done any specific research in a best guess system for a whole population, they are terms of the labelling.It is an area of interest to us not designed to provide information for the because we are trying to achieve choice for individual, and it is diYcult to provide information consumers in their food selection and their lifestyle for the individual, but, if a successful consensus and dietary behaviour.The concept of a tra Yc light could be achieved amongst those interested parties system would perhaps work: because one of the that that is an appropriate level for the population to problems with consumers at the moment is that they aim at, allowing for the fact that individuals may are not reading the labels.Most people when they have to modify it in one direction or another walk around their supermarkets selecting items according to their circumstances, according to their select because they want to eat that, or they think life style, then, yes, we should provide some sort of they should be eating that product; they do not context. actually read the labels.If you are going to try to convey information to encourage consumers to Q10 Mr Wiggin: I am going to ask you a question make choices that are positive for their own health, about diVerent types of labelling in a minute, but one you have to try to convey that in as simple a method of the things you are suggesting, particularly with Y as possible, and that is where the tra c light system the traYc lights, is that we have to tell people what has stemmed from, the idea that perhaps it could be is good for them and what is not when they are V used to convey information more e ectively whilst shopping.Once we have assumed that food is safe to still allowing more detailed information to be eat and therefore it can be sold in shops, is it not fair available, such as the current labelling. to say that people will read the labels later? Dr Astley: No, they do not. Q6 Chairman: It has been suggested, as you know, that a traYc light system could have the eVect of Q11 Mr Wiggin: When they are eating it, when they demonising particular— are curious? There are diVerent types of people: Dr Astley: Absolutely. people who may have a nut allergy, who need to read the label, people who may be mildly curious and Q7 Chairman:—foods in a way which might be people who think that the nanny state should tell inappropriate for that particular consumer’s needs? them what they should and should not eat.The truth Dr Astley: I think it is very important that is that people who need information might find it consumers understand that there are no bad or good easier to have a bar code reader that they take foods as such, there are only poor choices in dietary around the shop with them to check that there are no behaviour.It would be inappropriate for them to nuts in what they are buying, and the rest of us, who always assume that something that was labelled red may be less at risk, can take a totally diVerent should be excluded from the diet.If you were to take, approach, because more and more what we are for example, full-fat milk, because of the percentage seeing is that we are being told what is good and of fat that is in it, it might be labelled red, but it what is not; and you put your finger on it when you would not be appropriate, for example, for under- said you simply cannot simplify it that easily? fives to stop consuming full-fat milk.Another food Dr Astley: No, you cannot. that might be labelled red would be cheeses, both in terms of fat content and also salt content, but again it would be inappropriate if those items were entirely Q12 Mr Wiggin: So there must be a better way to excluded from the diet, since they provide a good do this? source of calcium. Dr Astley: A better way to what: to provide the information? Q8 Chairman: How would you try to ensure that balanced information was provided? Q13 Mr Wiggin: To inform the people that need to Dr Astley: I think that is the biggest diYculty you know and to stop telling us that we are all— have with the labelling.It is not su Ycient to inform; Dr Astley: I am not sure that you can categorise you must put it into context.You must provide the people any more easily than you can categorise food. consumer with something to balance it against, Who is to say at any one stage whether you need to perhaps to say not, “Do not consume the red label know that information or not? products”, but, “Do not consume more than four or five in a week, or four or five in a day”, so that it is Q14 Mr Wiggin: So the traYc light thing is not that balanced across the entire diet and not as a single useful, because you were just saying it was? item. Dr Astley: No, I am saying it may have a use.There are limitations to the traYc light system.No system Q9 Chairman: What about guideline daily amounts? is going to be perfect.We cannot necessarily provide Should that be included as a compulsory information for an individual.We c an perhaps take requirement? sub-groups of the population.A reasonably fit man Dr Astley: I think it would be very helpful to have between the ages of 20 and 50 might like to have X daily guideline amounts, but we have diYculty number of red products, X number of amber and X oVering guidelines for elements of the population in number of green during the day or during the week, terms of foods and nutrients as it is.We have the but there runs the potential that that individual may information from COMA, we have the publication have a genetic pre-disposition to cardiovascular of nutritional requirements, but those are based on disease that he is unaware of. 9841881002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 4 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton

Q15 Joan Ruddock: I think what you have begun to to a cafe, a restaurant, a fast-food outlet and buy describe is extremely important to us, particularly in food from the catering sector over which they have the context of what the Health Select Committee has no information and are unlikely to get any.How do said about obesity.So I would not agree with my we deal with that? colleague.It seems to me that there is a major Dr Astley: Again— concern that government has to have, which is that two-thirds of the population are deemed to be over- Q19 Mr Wiggin: It would blow your red spot count, weight or obese, and, given that is the case, perhaps would it not? most of us do need telling about what potentially Dr Astley: Absolutely, but perhaps if we are able to could be good and bad for us, so they are proposing facilitate a greater level of understanding in that there should be a compulsory labelling purchasing products that are labelled, that can be classification system that would enable people to eat carried over by the individual in their choices outside healthily.Would I be right in thinking that you those foods that are labelled.So if someone has the would say that that is not an easy thing, which I opportunity to buy, for example, a meat in a think you have said, but is it potentially possible supermarket that does have the label, they are going with a type of traYc light system, with the kind of to understand that that transfers to meat outside the guidance that you suggest, given that it is only supermarket; they are going to understand, if they appropriate as an average recommendation, but are looking at a dressing, for example, that is might not it take us much further than we are today purchased in a supermarket which has the labelling, where, unfortunately, so many people are making that it will equally apply to dressing outside the what seem to be the wrong choices for their supermarket context.I do appreciate that it is particular physique? diYcult to carry it across, but maybe we just have to Dr Astley: I certainly take your point.I think it has be creative in our ways.Why can we not ask to be understood, of course, that obesity is not McDonalds or Burger King, or whatever, to put simply about food choice, it is about a whole lifestyle labels on it? Not everything is bad about those foods; choice, and I think sometimes there is a false it is just the frequency that they are consumed that is separation of lifestyle and food choices which needs an issue. to be overcome.Anything that facilitates consumers to make choices in their food selection and their Q20 Mr Jack: You have illustrated already in what dietary behaviour within the context of their lifestyle you have said, Dr Astley, that this is a complex series can only be a good thing, but it is not helpful if we of interactions.During the war the message was that label the foods without putting it into context, if you ate carrots it would improve your night vision? without providing individuals with the additional Dr Astley: I believe they were hiding radar at the information.Not everybody is going to read it, not time! everybody reads the information that is currently available, but I suspect that if you took a large Q21 Mr Jack: It was some time later that I first of all majority of the public and asked them what the discovered that you had to eat 22 tons of carrots— labelling currently means, they do not understand it. Dr Astley: Exactly. There is a minority that does, there is a minority that has to for the sake of their own health, but they do not apparently understand the information that is Q22 Mr Jack:—before you had enough carotene to V being conveyed.To give you one example, on a fizzy have any measurable e ect, and that basically drink can you will find carbohydrate, X number of carrots were available and other foods were not.So grams.The choice not to split that down into if you wanted to divert the public you put out this starches and sugars means that for most individuals clear dietary message with a real gain at the end— they are aware they should eat a high carbohydrate “seeing in the dark”—but the reason for it was V diet; it looks like a sensible choice. totally di erent.Ever since I heard that it intrigued me.First of all, is there any body of research which V tells us what messages about food and lifestyle (the Q16 Mr Wiggin: There is a di erence between not interaction which you mentioned a moment ago) are reading something and not understanding it. actually picked up on and believed by the public? Dr Astley: Absolutely. Has anybody done any research? Dr Astley: There are groups.There is certainly a Q17 Mr Wiggin: I will just give you a chance to group at Waganingen University in the Netherlands clarify that a bit, because I think that you were right that looks at this, and TNO, which is the equivalent when you said they do not understand what they of the Institute of Food Research, if you like, but not read? identical, which is also in the Netherlands, and also Dr Astley: I think there is a large percentage that our own institute, who all have consumer science does not read it and there are those that do read it, departments which examine how the public respond perhaps, as you suggest, out of curiosity, but still do to scientific messages, the understanding, how much not necessarily obtain the information that they they believe, whether they trust the sources, etcetera. seeking from it. Q23 Mr Jack: Given that there are various attempts Q18 Mr Wiggin: That takes me into the next phase, to satisfy society: A, B, C, D and all these various which is people who may buy something to take descriptions, does any of this research touch on the away which may have information on it and then go diVerent ways that diVerent people from diVerent 9841881002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton backgrounds with diVerent educational potentials reflection, seemingly failed in its task to get across all and opportunities also react to this myriad of of the good messages, whereas it is required to get messages and information? celebrities associated with something like Atkins to Dr Astley: Yes, I believe that the National Centre for instantly break through to a public who, until they Social Research, based in London, has actually done try it, have no experience, so they have nothing to some research at diVerent levels as well.We certainly say, “Shall I or shan’t I? Okay, I will have a go have looked at the responses, yes.because X says the it Gover is good.”Does nment in dealing with this Department of Health need some Q24 Mr Jack: It would be very helpful, if I could ask of the X factor? you on behalf of the Committee, perhaps to distil Dr Astley: Perhaps you need to be honest about out, if there is some indication of that, because it what you are trying to achieve.It is more than strikes me that there is no shortage in total terms of informing; it is educating; to some extent it is even information about food and diet, but in specific manipulating, but manipulating with the view to the areas, as my colleagues have touched on already, benefit.Do you need part of the X factor? Yes, you there are areas of concern.Why does not the public probably do.You certainly need, if you are trying to react? None of this is new.We have had messages get these messages across, the cooperation of the about food and diet for as long as I can remember. media and those that are able to convey the message Dr Astley: There are a number of primary reasons to the public en mass. they do not react.The first is lack of trust: lack of trust of government, lack of trust of science, Q29 Joan Ruddock: Is it not possible that some of particularly in the UK, because of the issues related the very good messages and some of the science is to BSE and Salmonella in eggs.There is also a being drowned out by advertising and by the certain degree of cynicism because the science celebrity promotion of foods that are extremely bad message is seen as being confused and contradictory. for people because of their high content of salt and In fact that is not true, that is an issue with perhaps high content of sugar? a failing on the science and also a bias in the media Dr Astley: There is a problem with advertising which for looking for the threat or the sensational story implies health.They are not allowed to advertise on rather than the commonsense one. the basis of health claims unless they can be supported by scientific evidence, but we are all aware Q25 Mr Jack: So what do people trust? that there is advertising which implies, and that Dr Walton: People trust openness.They are not certainly drowns out a degree of the science.It is not afraid for people to say that they do not know or that as sexy; it does not come across in the same way in a people have to wait for the answers. media that is seeking sexy stories. Dr Astley: They are happy for us to say, “We believe that this diet generally is okay within limitations”, Q30 Mr Jack: I want to pick up on one thing you much more than us saying, “You should eat that”. said earlier about food labelling.You said, “It depends what you are trying to achieve.” What do Q26 Mr Jack: Let me pin you down on that, because you think food labelling should try to achieve? in recent times the Atkins diet has suddenly acquired Dr Astley: I think it should actually try to achieve to millions worldwide of adherence, and it would educate and in educating it then allows individuals appear that the recommendations have been trusted, to make choices for themselves, because you cannot to use your phrase, by a lot of people very quickly. give them information that they cannot use. Why is it that things like that can suddenly take oV whereas some of the messages about health, activity, Q31 Mr Jack: Does that imply, for example, on a lifestyle that you referred to earlier seem to be packet of biscuits, where you can have four or five Y di cult to get the same kind of response as lines of complex ingredients including many E something like the Atkins diet? numbers and chemical terms, that that is not Dr Astley: I would suggest that perhaps the Atkins labelling which is helpful to the consumer in diet has worked for two reasons: that people’s own choosing food? experience demonstrates that it works.Regardless of Dr Astley: I do not want to get dragged into the E some of the questionable medical risks related to it, number argument, but, no, I do not believe it is it does actually stem from dietary advice for desperately helpful for the consumer: because they individuals who have a particular problem have to go and look up what those E numbers are, processing carbohydrates, but it is just that it has and in some cases they are quite often food products been taken to an extreme.So we know that it works. themselves; they are things like vitamin C.Why not The other issue is those it is being supported by, such write vitamin C? It means something more to the as celebrity in the press. consumer than perhaps E whatever it is.Complex lines of ingredients—they are currently obliged to be Q27 Mr Jack: Are you saying that it is as important there, but if you are going to provide that extent of to get the right messenger as the message? information in terms of ingredients, why not also Dr Astley: Absolutely. provide the context for the nutritional labelling that will enable people to make use of it? Q28 Mr Jack: Why then has the world of Chairman: We are going to go into this point in a bit oYcialdom, according to a lot of findings, and the more detail in a minute, but can I ask Joan to take Health Select Committee report might be a up some points on education. 9841881002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 6 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton

Q32 Joan Ruddock: Yes; indeed.Part of your written Q34 Joan Ruddock: What were your findings about evidence said that you were involved in a project what the children were doing terms of choices? involving a Smartcard scheme in relation to schools Dr Astley: The project is not completed; so I am not and the purchasing of food by children.I wonder if able to discuss that. you could describe that briefly to us and then we would like to ask some questions about it? Q35 Joan Ruddock: Can you tell us when it might be Dr Astley: The Smartcard scheme stems from a completed? problem that we all have with nutritional Dr Astley: It will be completed in September 2004. assessment, that is to say that they are paper based. So, for example, an individual who you are trying to Q36 Joan Ruddock: A little too late for our inquiry, assess what they are eating would be given a food but, nonetheless, very pertinent to it.When you say diary and you may be asked to keep a note of what it is cheap, is it feasible that this sort of project could you consume during a day, a week, a month, be made available in every school? whatever.There are a number of other methods Dr Astley: Absolutely, yes.I think those that have for looking at these issues; food frequency been on the project would say that it was; and it has questionnaires, for example, so that you tell the a number of other, if you like, spins on it.The questioner how much you eat those, how frequently children can be rewarded if they have eaten a you eat them.There are a number of problems with number of foods that can be regarded as good, all of these methods, such as the fact I can guarantee although, as I say, I do not like the label of “good”. if I gave you all a bag of peas and asked you to put a portion out not one of you would give me the same Q37 Joan Ruddock: It is about balance? amount.Frankly, I do not remember what I ate Dr Astley: It is about balance for that individual, yesterday; I doubt you do either.So there are and, if they are seen to be eating a balanced diet, they fundamental problems in accurately recording this can be rewarded through that points scheme as well. information.There is also the problem that The credit card can work both ways: as well as consumers generally can be biased in their responses recording the information it can reward them with, to these questionnaires by the person asking the for example, a free purchase. questions.They [the questionnaires or the person putting the question] can imply that there are good Q38 Mr Wiggin: What diVerence is it going to make? and bad foods and so they [respondents] will tend to There are people who are obese, there are people give more information about the good foods and who have allergies, but if you are sort of normal in hold back the information of what they perceive as terms of your physique, how much does it matter bad foods.If you are to assess nutrition, assess and what are we really talking about here? choice, then you have to find as unbiased a way of Dr Astley: Thirty per cent of diseases that we determining food consumption as possible.The associate with ageing, such as cardiovascular Smartcard technology has existed for a number of disease, cancer, cataract, arthritis, etc, are directly other uses—it is literally the credit card swipe preventable through diet; so that diseases that technology—and it was given to a thousand pupils currently cause a huge impact in terms of both in local schools, and all it did was record what they mortality and morbidity in our ageing population purchased, not what they ate.So there is still the we know can be prevented through dietary choice. problem that if they did not eat the salad, it is still sitting on their tray, okay.That information that Q39 Mr Wiggin: And that will be specific.Could I was collected on these cards was then tied up with a ask you about things like sodium and salt? What is food choice data set in a full nutritional break down your view on how that should be labelled? which enabled the children to look at what they had Dr Astley: I am not an expert on sodium or salt, but eaten, in terms of both the foods themselves and also I have consulted with the individual in the Institute the nutrients, and to be able to discuss that within that is. their needs in terms of their diet.With 21st century technology, this kind of technology is very cheap but Q40 Mr Wiggin: I am going to ask you about protein a highly eVective way of determining what is eaten at as well, if you are checking it out? the point of purchase. Dr Astley: The issue with sodium and salt is an issue of understanding.For most individuals sodium is fairly meaningless, whereas salt is easily understood. Q33 Joan Ruddock: What did you do with the data? We should not be eating as much salt as we are.Most You have supplied it to the school children, they of our salt, however, stems from processed foods have had discussion about it presumably, but has it and not what we add at the table or what we add gone further? during cooking, although there is a strong argument Dr Astley: Not that I am aware of currently? for reducing both of those.Labelling sodium I do Dr Walton: I think it is being— not believe would be helpful, and nor do our experts; Dr Astley: Discussed? labelling salt is, as that will enable people to make Dr Walton: Yes, and we are looking for it be taken the decision to reduce their salt intake.Why does it up rather more widely.We are looking for matter if you reduce your salt intake? Because for opportunities to get it taken up basically.It would be some individuals there is the link between salt intake rather nice if it was taken up in a more widespread and high blood pressure: high blood pressure, sort of culture. cardiovascular disease, etcetera. 9841881002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton

Q41 Mr Wiggin: What about protein? and then give them in Fahrenheit for the sake of the Dr Astley: Protein.The clerk commented that British population, I see no harm in also having nobody suVers from protein deficiency in this calories on there. country.That is quite correct.There are very few, if any, individuals who suVer from protein deficiency Q48 Mr Wiggin: I totally understand why you are in this country.However, there are individuals for saying what you are saying, but I do not think, when whom a high protein intake is not appropriate— you look at your evidence earlier when you said most those with kidney disease in particular, diabetics people read the label but do not either understand it who have nephrology, changes in their kidneys as a or do not even both to read it, when we have result of diabetes, who do need to monitor their something like this, which you say is useful, under intake of protein—and therefore, for those pressure you still cannot tell me anything about my individuals, it is very helpful that that is there.I take kilojoule or my calorie that I need to know? your point that you could argue that those Dr Astley: I can tell you that you need two and a half individuals are given a way of assessing it through a thousand of them in a day? bar code system.However, we label all our products containing phenylalanine for a very small percentage of individuals who suVer from PKU, and Q49 Mr Wiggin: That is an awful lot of reading to those individuals who suVer from kidney disease, work out what my shopping trolley is worth, is it which means they have to watch their protein intake, not? are by far a greater number. Dr Astley: Yes, and that is why I say it is not a successful way of communicating much of this Q42 Mr Wiggin: What about the requirement for information. food labels to give energy measurements in calories or kilojoules? What is a kilojoule in terms we can Q50 Mr Wiggin: But you just told me it was the best understand? thing we did? Dr Astley: I do not think you need to worry about it. Dr Astley: It is the best we have. I am not being—.I cannot give you the precise Dr Walton: This can be done quite simply.If you can definition.Can you give a precise definition of imagine a sliding scale of colours, for example kilojoule? where, if you are consuming a food which is a red colour, as opposed to pale pink, then you are getting Q43 Mr Wiggin: Do not give a precise definition.My close to your recommended daily intake of calories question is quite the opposite.I do not want a precise for individuals.It could be as simple as that if you definition; I want to know roughly how a man in the wanted it to be.I think it is a bit of a red herring to street, such as myself, might understand what a get into talking about the numbers too much. kilojoule is.How far do I have to walk, how far do I have to jump, what do I have to do to use a kilojoule’s worth of energy? Q51 Chairman: Is not one of the points that putting Dr Astley: I did for the sake of the Committee look information into kilojoules as well is basically filling up the definition.Technically, it says that one calorie up a label with mixed information which hardly anybody understands simply takes up more space. is raising one gram of water one degree C.As you Y say, you do not need to worry about it. Just sticking to the calorie total would be su cient surely? Dr Walton: I think there is a general principle of two Q44 Mr Wiggin: You said that.I did not actually! styles of labelling, that you have easily readable Dr Astley: As an adult male, you need to consume bullet point labelling, preferably pictorial, for around 2,500 calories a day. maximum transfer of information to the wider population and for people who want more precise Q45 Mr Wiggin: So that is a Mars bar and a half or information who are taking the trouble to look at the something? labels and reading what is said. Dr Astley: Something about that, yes.

Q46 Mr Wiggin: How far do I have to go, or what Q52 Joan Ruddock: I was checking the bottle of juice do I have to do to burn oV a kilojoule’s worth of I drank at lunchtime to see how many kilojoules it energy? We are putting this on the food labels.Do had.It said 1600; so I am slightly worried already! I we need to bother? wanted to ask you about energy dense foods.Again Dr Astley: You do need to bother because the most the Select Committee on Health had something to successful way in which people are able to monitor say about this.They said they were highly calorific and to reduce their weight is by a calorie- without being correspondingly filling, and they are controlled diet. becoming increasingly available.What are they? Dr Walton: An energy dense food is a food that provides a lot of energy in relation to its overall Q47 Mr Wiggin: Do we therefore need to do mass, and very often not a lot else. kilojoules though? Dr Astley: Kilojoules are the SI unit, the standard scientific unit, metric unit, and therefore you do need Q53 Joan Ruddock: Presumably they are mostly that information.However, in the same way that we processed foods, are they? They are becoming give temperatures on weather charts in degrees C increasingly available. What is going on that we are 9841881002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 8 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton producing things that are so energy dense that they Q60 Mr Jack: But who is the “you”. are representing a problem, whereas most people Dr Astley:—using media. would think that getting energy is a good thing? Dr Walton: We are rather good at getting energy; Q61 Mr Jack: But who is the “you”? Should it be the that is part of the obesity problem.You cannot Government? Should be it be employers? Should it identify totally with processing.For example, raw be supermarkets? Who is the “you”? nuts are energy dense food by anybody’s definition. Dr Walton: I think there is government Dr Astley: The energy is being sourced from fat and responsibility to do this and I think that the public from sugar, which is why there can be a problem. would expect that the Government would take and have a leading role in doing that. Q54 Chairman: Why is there an apparent growth in Dr Astley: And the medical and associated this type of product on the market? professions. Dr Astley: Why is it a problem? Q62 Mr Jack: How do you respond to the fact that Q55 Chairman: What are the factors leading to this when the Government starts putting information growth in consumption? like that out it starts getting hit by the “nanny Dr Walton: Consumers buy them easily and they are state” label? V attractive to eat, attractively packaged. Dr Astley: Because there is a di erence between putting that information out in a way that is providing information, as Nick described, and Q56 Joan Ruddock: For example, are they the drinks oVering that information for use as opposed to that we see—I never drink any of these things, so I dictating what the individual should be doing. have no idea—these energy promoting drinks, fizzy stuV, coloured stuV? Are these products in this Q63 Mr Jack: Do you think that the Government category? V Dr Walton: I suspect that many people would define should make positive e orts, in other words not just them as energy dense foods. simply put information out in printed form? I mean there is a myriad of ways the Government communicates with the public, but do you think they Q57 Mr Jack: Can I follow on from that? Earlier on should be more proactive? Should there be more you said that a so-called “normal” man needed two interaction between individuals and representatives and a half thousand calories a day, but in your of the Government? Should there be individual earlier answers you quite rightly related the counselling on these matters? consumption of this energy to what people do, to Dr Astley: I think the Government should take every activity? opportunity and route that it can to put that Dr Astley: Absolutely. information out into the general public.Schools are one source.You can take that information out into Q58 Mr Jack: Have you done any work about how schools.You can take the information out through people put the two together in a meaningful way? consumer groups.You can encourage the food Because most people are out at work.They can industry to put that information out.There are a control what they have at breakfast.They are the number of ways in which the information can be recipients, by and large, of a range which has been taken out into the public sector. determined by others for lunch, if they are eating in their workplace or they go out to eat, and they might Q64 Mr Jack: But, if I read you correctly, within or might not have some choice about what happens that mix of opportunities and information you in the evening, depending on their ability to shop. currently do not believe that what is available now is Against that background, people have all kinds of satisfactory for the job that has to be done? varying uses of the energy that they put in, and, if Dr Astley: No, I do not. you start to analyse all the variables, it becomes a complex subject.Against that background you have Q65 Mr Jack: Right.That is very helpful.Let’s got somebody saying, “You have got to eat move on to the question of food safety.One of the healthier, you have got to take exercise, you have got things that strikes me is that you still have an awful to do this”.How do you think people ought to lot of problems arising particularly from when answer that question about what is right for them? people have eaten out of the home because they have Dr Astley: I do not think at the moment that they are all kinds of unspecified illness as a result of that, and able to do that with the information that is supplied. we have seen large increases of that in terms of There are charts that give suggestions of what you micro-biological safety.But if we have a look at the should consume if you have a sedentary job versus question of what people can influence themselves, do Y an active job.I do not think su cient information is you think that risks with food are properly available for individuals to make those decisions. communicated in the context of the labelling discussions we had earlier? Q59 Mr Jack: Let’s hold you at that point.Who Dr Walton: Not always.There are specific examples, would you think should make that information for example, where labels are actually hidden or are available? not easy to read.One that comes to mind is vacuum Dr Astley: I think initially you have to source that packaging where the label telling you that the from a scientific source and move it outwards— product is protectively wrapped is only legible once 9841881002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton you have removed the wrapping.This occasionally Q74 Mr Jack: You have fingered two organisations. happens.More information—simpler information, Has any work been done to identify where they are not more information, but simpler information currently deficient in those areas? could probably be given on foods with regard to how Dr Walton: There has been quite a lot of work, as I to store them, how long keep them, the portions you said before, on practices in the home from the should be using. assessment of risks and the assessment of people’s behaviour.The Food Standards Agency, for Q66 Mr Jack: Coming down to the work, has any example, is very active in thinking about work in work been done to identify or to analyse risks in the that area. context of home preparation of food? Dr Walton: A great deal. Q75 Mr Jack: Can you give me any examples of good practice? Q67 Mr Jack: So where is the area of maximum risk Dr Walton: Good practice, for example, would be that this poor labelling which you have mentioned a that you do not actually use a dish cloth, but you can moment ago is a contributor? In other words, where avoid it. is the area of maximum risk? Dr Walton: I would not like to say definitely, but Q76 Mr Jack: I meant whether you had seen any there is a lot of concern about preparation in the programmes of communication using the myriad of home. ways we can communicate by any oYcial agency, body or other? Q68 Mr Jack: Preparation? Dr Walton: I see what you mean.You mean good Dr Walton: About preparation of foods in the home. practice in communication with groups? Mr Jack: Absolutely. Q69 Mr Jack: Would you like to develop that, Q77 Joan Ruddock: There is current advertising by because clearly it is all right telling people what they the FSA, which I have seen, which is extremely ought to eat, but, if they cannot cook it or prepare it eVective.Dr Astley has seen it, has she? safely, we are into some diYculty.A bad experience Dr Astley: Yes. with good food can put people oV the good food? Dr Walton: Yes; several points.People tend to assume that what they do is safe, on the whole. Q78 Joan Ruddock: It is a good scheme? “Food safety, food poisoning is someone else’s risk. Dr Astley: Yes, the FSA currently have an advert It does not happen in my family.I prepare the food which describes the risk in the home using mimicked in the way I have always done and I do it as well as fluorescent technology to suggest how the transfer anybody and better than most.” That is what people occurs and how it can be prevented. do not recognise, that they are as likely as other people to have a food poisoning risk in the home. Q79 Mr Jack: Let’s move on to the question of They automatically assume that they are language as far as food is concerned.There are terms conforming to good practice. like “pure” and “natural” which have all kinds of connotations.Is there any kind of regulation or Q70 Mr Jack: But in terms of communicating those description to assist in the use of that kind of messages, you have described to me some of the risk language where, I suspect, if you asked somebody, factors.What I am still not quite clear about is what or asked individuals, they would have some idea of are the main causes of risk at home? what they meant by “pure” and “natural”, but, on Dr Walton: Dirty dish cloths is one. the other hand, those terms can sometimes be abused by people.I think “home made” is probably the favourite one, because “home made” is often Q71 Mr Jack: Dirty dish clothes? used by commercial purveyors of food and I have the Dr Walton: Yes. image of a sort of cottage industry, but that is not quite the way it is. Q72 Mr Jack: So labelling food products is not Dr Walton: This is quite a mine field.There is a lot of going to deal with dirty dish cloths? variation between diVerent terms.So as far as I am Dr Walton: The two are closely related.If you are aware, there is no statutory definition, for example, preparing raw meat, for example, you need to ensure of “farmhouse”.“Natural” is a particularly di Ycult that you look after the knife and the chopping board one, because that is the subject of quite complex properly and you do not spread the dish cloth regulation. around afterwards. Q80 Mr Jack: In your evidence you draw the Q73 Mr Jack: But, coming back to the Committee’s attention in numbered paragraph promulgation of good practice in that respect, who three, where you say, “The status of the term should do it and how should it be done? ‘natural’ in relation to GM products, for example, Dr Walton: Again, I think the Department of Health needs to be resolved.” Then you say, “Terms such as and the Food Standards Agency, for example, one ‘home made’ may have an imprecise meaning.” I would expect to take something of a lead in think we would agree with you on that.“In some promulgating the right sort of practices. cases consumers may not be clear what information 9841881002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 10 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton is conveyed by a logo: for example, the red tractor implies that it is British produce, when in fact what symbol.” Again, you have stated the problem very it labels is British standards have been achieved in clearly.What is the solution? that produce. Dr Walton: I think the solution probably is one of trying to make people—.First of all, standardising Q84 Mr Jack: But in terms of addressing the big definitions if possible, or at least having a code of issues, for example, if you synthesised all the practice at the very least, which makes it fairly plain chemicals which would add up to “the perfect two what you are talking about.“Natural” is very and a half thousand calorie a day diet for diYcult because under the term “natural” you can somebody”, and assume you could turn it into a actually have the production of food ingredients cube, a pill, or whatever, that would not by any which are a considerable way from what a consumer stretch of the imagination of the word “natural” be considers to be natural.For example, a lot of what I understand personally by that, but you would examples of biotransformations are permitted in the have produced a totally wholesome, safe, perfectly formation of natural flavours provided that no balanced, absolutely spot on chunk of food for that harsh chemistry is involved.In other words, a person to eat? biological production process can be described as Dr Walton: That is another issue, because there is a natural, but I think that the average consumer would perception in the public mind that chemicals are probably be unaware of that.I specify that one bad; so that is a confounding argument actually. because I think that is probably the most important 1 of them . Q85 Mr Jack: Does this not bring us to the heart of the problem: because people do not like consuming Q81 Mr Jack: But given that we have not time now their food in the way that I have described, as a to have the debate, if you are trying to have accuracy perfectly balanced chunk of chemical synthesis; they in communication, is it important that somebody prefer to acquire it in many and varied ways? Is that tries to rigorously address these issues? In terms of not part of the diYculty, that as soon as you go into the pecking order of priorities— the huge area of choice you are then into a much Dr Walton: I quite agree with you. more diYcult descriptive area as opposed to getting the thing that ticks all the boxes? Q82 Mr Jack:—is this one of the top areas to try and Dr Astley: Yes, but food is not just about providing sort out? our bodies with the nutrition that they need to grow Dr Walton: I think this is important.This is being and move and live successfully; food is a far more handled at two levels.It is being handled at a complex social interaction, choice, culture, religion. national level and, of course, there is the European They are all related in our choices in food. Commission level, and, of course, the Foods Standards Agency has been involved—it actually Q86 Mr Jack: Given that sometimes our choice of ran a consultation on food labelling not so long ago, religion can be rather a dangerous thing, is it not where on behalf of IFR we made some of these right to allow a bit of danger to creep into the points. consumption of food? Should we not be a little voyeuristic and say, “Yes, I will take a risk; I will try some of that”? Q83 Chairman: The crux of the issue is, bluntly, what Dr Walton: Yes, I think you raise another point, is the point, to some extent, having lots of which is that people do have an expectation that information about the calorific content or other food should be absolutely safe, and that in some material on the labels described in quasi scientific ways is an unrealistic expectation. terms when the entire packaging, the entire visual impression is designed to give people an impression Q87 Mr Jack: Is there any research to relate people’s something is healthy when, under any reasonable perceptions with reality to the type of issue that you analysis, it is not, it certainly would not be healthy in have just put before the Committee? diVerent circumstances, and does this not have to be Dr Astley: Yes. tackled much more seriously? Dr Walton: Yes, I think that is a slightly diVerent issue.I think the important thing is that consumers Q88 Mr Jack: What does that tell us, or have you should not be misled and I think there is a serious already told us? danger with the use of some of these terms.I think Dr Astley: Well, as Nick says, there is this “natural” is a case in point.Consumers are not being expectation that food is 100% safe, but then why honestly told what they are getting2. should food be 100% safe when air travel, car travel, Dr Astley: There is also a potential for walking down the street is not 100% safe? The public misunderstanding, the red tractor being the are capable of making risk assessment; they just have example.Most people assume that the red tractor to be provided with the information to make those assessments and take those choices. 1 “Important” in the sense of potential for lay misunderstanding of the term. Q89 Mr Jack: But perhaps the answer is that the 2 A specific issue arises where the everyday usage of a labelling public do not always have the right information to term diVers from a precise meaning defined in labelling regulations, with which consumers are unlikely to be make the risk assessment: because a lot of people are familiar; or conversely, where an everyday term has no quite happy to have a lifestyle on the dangerous side, defined meaning at all. that is that they do eat the wrong things, they eat too 9841881002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11

15 June2004 Dr Siaˆ n Astley and Dr Nick Walton many of them and they do not do any exercise, and very briefly, because we are running very much out expect that the Health Service, the ultimate repair of time, indicate what those techniques are and how service, will pick up the tab when the wheel falls oV? successful they are? Dr Astley: Yes, and there is also the point that Nick Dr Walton: These techniques are a variety of made that the expectation is that it will happen to profiling techniques.Th e best example in this area is someone else.Smoking, and I do not wish to be probably the technology that depends upon nuclear drawn into the argument on smoking, but smoking magnetic resonance spectroscopy and isotope-ratio is the classic example in that smokers always assume mass spectrometry to determine the adulteration of it will happen to someone else.wines, by finding sugars derived from non-gr ape sources.That sort of technology, coupled with mass Q90 Mr Jack: Let’s conclude this line of questioning spectrometry to look at the contents and about catering in this context about descriptions, distribution of other isotopes, can be used to build because in many cases the menu is designed to be an up a picture of the origin and processing of foods attractive shop window for the purveyor of food, and also the nutrition of animals.It requires quite whether it be of the mass variety, the branded sophisticated data treatment and a good database variety, or whether it be of the bespoke, a la carte, with which to compare the data of any individual best quality menu.People do not want to be sample; but the technique with regard to wine, and confronted by a lot of the detailed discussion we also I think olive oil now, is adopted as a European have been having now because they are going out for standard and progress is being made very rapidly in a good time; they are going out for a meal; they are relation to these technologies for diVerentiation of going out for social interaction.What responsibility geographical origin and for origin with regard to do you think that caterers and restaurateurs have in animal nutrition (for example, whether the animals terms of the descriptions that they use: because they have been fed on diets containing animal protein or do have a profound influence on the consumption vegetable protein) and in relation to crops (for habits of people in that over 40% of food spend is example, whether crops have been fed with nitrogen outside the home? of organic origin or nitrogen of inorganic origin) Dr Walton: I think they do have a responsibility.I which actually bears on the organic nutrition debate. suppose you can think to some extent of breaking So, yes, a lot of progress is being made, and quite down the sector, the catering sector, into sections.I fast.Progress has been made quite rapidly in the last think we would all agree that hospital caterers have four to five years in this subject.There are certain some responsibility to ensure that they provide a diet problems with it.One particular issue, for example, which is balanced and nutritious and which provides is in relation to the crops, like peas and an appropriate level of information.Quite the same beans, which diVer from other crops in that they fix considerations would not apply to the fast food nitrogen, atmospheric nitrogen, so this creates a outlet on the street corner.Nevertheless, I would problem of the isotope discrimination of nitrogen; expect that the Government has a role in but those sorts of problems can probably be encouraging such outlets to provide appropriate overcome or at least more can be recognised.So, yes, nutrition.this is a promising area.

Q91 Mr Jack: But given the mass purveyors of food, Q93 Joan Ruddock: For most foods is this still very do they have a responsibility to do more than is the much laboratory experimentation or is there case now in communicating information about, for suYcient investment to make this something which example, what is in the burger or the fish product, could be used for routinely testing and even in a the chicken product, so that you do at least have sense policing the whole food chain? some idea of what it is that is being presented to you? Dr Walton: The answer to both those questions is, Dr Walton: At the moment I do not think we have a “Yes”. culture where there is that responsibility in a very well developed way, but I suspect in years to come Q94 Joan Ruddock: Is the FSA the appropriate body that our culture may well be evolving. to be doing this sampling? Dr Walton: The FSA is already funding a substantial Q92 Joan Ruddock: Some of us try to avoid food amount of the research in collaboration with the risks by choosing organic.However, I think we also European Commission.W hether they would be the know, certainly on this Committee, that there may rightly appropriate organisation actually to do the be some real questions about whether many of the case law, if you like, is another matter. products labelled “organic” are truly organic.In Chairman: Thank you very much for answering our your evidence you suggest that there are testing questions so fully this afternoon.If there is any procedures that could tell us whether we have got additional written information which you feel would truly organic, whether we have got conventional, be helpful for us to have in the light of our questions, whether the animals, as we are told are coming from please feel free to send it to us.Thank you for coming a certain place, or whatever.I wonder if you could along to help us with our i nquiry. 9841881003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 12 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Consumers’ Association

Summary 1.Consumers’ Association welcomes this inquiry looking at food informat ion.As food processing and supply has become more complex in recent years, consumers have generally become more removed from food production and less familiar with the ingredients and methods used to produce it.As a result, we are much more reliant on the information that is provided by the food industry in order to make informed decisions about the food we eat based on the ingredients and nutrients it contains and the methods used to produce it.While there is a large body of food labelling legislation in pla ce we are concerned that there are still gaps.These include the need for clearer and more user-friendly nutr ition information, better controls over the claims made on food and more information on country of origin labelling.Ethical considerations are an important issue for many consumers and so labelling and information about particular processing and production methods that may raise concerns are important.Traceabili ty of foods and information about their origin is particularly important in this context.However in o rder to secure consumers’ ability to make informed decisions on these grounds, it is also important to ensure that ethical and consumer information considerations are given greater emphasis within international food standards. 2.Food labelling information also needs to be backed up by clear communica tion and advice from government.In the case of nutrition labelling this includes more promine nt and accessible information to help consumers put healthy eating advice into practice.While we have been pleased with the way that the Food Standards Agency has worked to be more open about food safety concerns—particularly when dealing issues where there remains scientific uncertainty, more still needs to be done to provide clearer information about how individual risks relate to each other and what this means for our eating habits.It is also essential that consumers are fully involved in decisions about the future direction of food and farming and that lessons are learnt from the poor handling of genetic modification. Consumers need to be consulted at the earliest opportunity in order to determine the likely acceptability of new technologies and processes and any subsequent information and labelling requirements.

Introduction 3.Consumers’ Association (CA) is an independent, not-for-profit consume r organisation with around 700,000 members.Entirely independent of government and industry, we are funded through the sale of our Which? range of consumer magazines and books.We campaign on a wide range of issues of importance to consumers, including food and health.The aim of CA’s food campaigns is to e nsure that all consumers have access to food that is safe, nutritious, of good quality and good value, and be able to make healthy lifestyle choices. 4.Food issues are one of our main campaigning areas and much of our work has f ocused on issues relating to information about food, including food labelling and the way that risks and other information about food are communicated more generally.We therefore very much welcom e this inquiry considering how consumers can be better informed. 5.Consumers have become increasingly reliant on information about the fo od that they eat in recent years.A number of factors have contributed to this including a greater rel iance on processed, ready- prepared foods; increasingly complex methods of production and processing including a lengthened and increasingly globalised supply chain; and a decline in food skills so that we are more dependent on the information provided by producers about the ingredients used in a food, its nutritional content and how it has been produced.At the same time there has been an increased interest in f ood and the way that it is produced as reflected by increased demand for organic and free-range foods and the growth in farmers’ markets.For some consumers, ethical aspects are important—for example t hrough choice of fair trade products, foods produced to high animal welfare standards or concerns about particular production methods, such as the use of genetic modification.For a whole variety of reas ons it is therefore essential that consumers are in a position to make informed choices about the foods that they eat.

Nutritional Content of Food 6.Poor diet is a major risk factor for diseases such as heart disease, cance r, stroke and diabetes.We face an obesity crisis with almost a quarter of the population now obese and a high incidence in children.It is therefore vital that consumers are in a position to make healthy food choices and are aware of government advice about what they should try to eat and the nutritional content of the foods they choose.We consider that there are four main areas where consumers are currently let down and where information provision needs to improve. 7.Firstly, nutrition information needs to be provided in a user-friendly format on all pre-packaged foods. At the moment this is voluntary although many manufacturers and retailers do provide this information. Some, however, still do not or only provide it on some products.Many produc ts that do not carry this information tend to be high in fat, sugar and salt.The European Commission plans to publish a proposal for review of the nutrition labelling directive this Summer which provides an opportunity to address this.It 9841881003 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13

is important that this legislation also requires that the information is provided in a standard and user- friendly format.Food Standards Agency (FSA) research for example indica tes that consumers would find high, medium and low banding included in the nutrition information panel useful.It is also essential that all relevant nutrients are specified.At the moment for example some manufa cturers just provide the ‘basic four’ nutrients (energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate) without providing information about saturated fat, sugar and salt levels when these are nutrients we should be trying to eat less of.We should also try to avoid trans , but these are not included in any form on the panel and can only be identified by looking for hydrogenated vegetable fat or oil in the list of ingredients.Again, infor mation about these fats should be provided in a format that is most useful to consumers. 8.Secondly, even when information is provided it can be di Ycult to make sense of it.It is important that nutrition information is put into context.We have therefore supported th e voluntary provision of guideline daily amounts (GDAs) for some nutrients by many manufacturers and retailers, as well as the use of high, medium and low banding as described above.However, we also believe that it is necessary to have a more user-friendly way of identifying whether products are high, medium or low in fat on the front of the pack. A “traYc light” type system would be a simple indication for consumers as to whether or not they were eating to many foods high in fat, sugar and salt and we are pleased that the FSA plans to look at such a scheme.However at the moment the FSA is only looking at this for foods promo ted to children when we consider it should be used for all pre-packaged foods.With an increasing n umber of meals now eaten outside the home, such a system could also be used in catering outlets. 9.A recent survey that we carried out in January 1 highlighted that many people were unclear about what constitutes “a lot” and “a little” in terms of fat, sugar and salt.People ge nerally had a better understanding of how many portions of fruit and vegetables a day they should aim to eat, although 21% of men and 13% of women still thought that the recommended number was less than five.This l evel of awareness reflects the fact that this has been an area where the government has put greater eVort with its “five a day” campaign. The FSA however clearly still needs to do more to promote what we should be eating for a healthy diet.It is for example very diYcult to find information about its “Balance of Good Health”, guideline daily amounts or advice on “a lot” and “a little” on the FSA web-site.The Agency also needs to launch a hard-hitting campaign that ‘markets’ healthy eating advice to consumers, motivates people to choose a healthy diet and explains how this can be put into practice.Supermarkets also have an impor tant role providing practical information and guidance on how to eat healthily in their stores.Our resea rch has shown that supermarkets are the most popular place to access information about healthy eating. 10.The final issue is that the information consumers receive about the nutr itional content of foods is all too often confused by claims that are made on foods.These can suggest that t he product is a healthy choice at first glance when in fact the opposite may be true.It is essential that leg islation is adopted at European level that defines nutrition claims such as “light” and “low fat” so that they are used consistently, requires claims about the health benefits of foods to be vetted prior to marketing and sets down nutrition profiles for foods that make nutrition or health claims.This will ensure that a prod uct cannot claim to have health benefits when it is high in fat, sugar and/or salt contradicting well-established advice that we should cut down on these nutrients.Unfortunately progress of this proposed legislation has now been delayed within the European Parliament and will not now be considered until the Autumn.We hav e similar concerns about the way that foods are often fortified when they are high in fat, sugar or salt and misleadingly suggesting that they have a healthy image.

The Safety of Foods 11.While ideally foods should not be on sale if they are unsafe, in practice it is impossible to ensure that foods are completely risk free.The challenge is to achieve a level of risk t hat is acceptable to the majority of the population.Some foods, for example, may present particular risks t o certain groups of the population. Dependent on the size and vulnerability of these groups, the risk presented can be dealt with by clear labelling.This is for example the case with certain allergens or with raw m ilk.We have welcomed the introduction of new legislation which will now require much fuller ingredients listing and in addition require that the most common allergens have to be indicated.

12.Recent food scares have however also highlighted the dilemmas involve d in managing food safety hazards when faced with scientific uncertainty.In such situations a preca utionary approach is needed, but determining just how precautionary to be may not be straightforward.Prov ision of information to consumers in such circumstances is therefore important so that they are in a position to make decisions about the level of risk that they consider acceptable for themselves and for their children.We have for example welcomed the approach that the FSA has taken in general to the way that it reaches decisions about managing risks, including opening up the expert scientific committees and appointing consumer representatives to them.We have also supported the open approach that it h as adopted to risk communication in specific cases—for example in relation to semicarbazide and the possibility that this chemical found in the seal of glass jars and considered to be a genotoxic carcinogen may be present in baby food.While the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) considered that the risk was not significant

1 We interviewed 1,995 people aged 16! face to face in January 2004. 9841881004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 14 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

enough to change eating habits, the FSA provided information including advice about how to prepare your own baby should you feel that the risk was one that should be avoided altogether.Similarly, we have welcomed the FSA’s openness over the possibility that BSE may have passed to sheep.It is known that BSE can be orally transmitted to sheep in experiments, but still unclear whether this could have happened in practice.Unlike cattle, Specified Risk Material (SRM) controls would pro vide suYcient protection from the infectivity as the disease would behave as with scrapie and go throughout the carcass.It is therefore essential that consumers continue to be made aware of what is and isn’t known so that they can decide whether or not they wish to change their own—or their children’s eating habits. 13.We have concerns that food safety issues or scares tend to receive a grea t deal of publicity when they first emerge and then appear to go away.While government advice may still st and, it may be diYcult to find and not reiterated regularly enough.For example, advice about consumpti on of raw eggs.It is important that this type of advice is regularly reviewed and communicated to the public.In some situations we feel that government advice could be clearer as in the case of the FSA’s advice about eating oily fish in light of high levels of dioxins and PCBs, but also the potential health benefits.It remai ns unclear whether consumers should avoid eating more than one portion of oily fish a week on average.Reta ilers also have an important role in providing easily accessible information at point of sale on food safety issues. 14.We also consider that more needs to be done at national and European leve l through the FSA and the EFSA to try to put risks into context and explain how they relate to other concerns.For example, there have been a number of scares concerning contaminants which are potentially carcinogenic in recent years including acrylamide, dioxins and semicarbazide for example.These are g enerally reported and communicated as individual risks relating to specific foodstuVs.The challenge for regulators is to improve communication of the relative risk they present.

The Means of Production of Foods 15.As consumers have become more removed from food production we want to kn ow more about where our food has come from and how it has been produced.In some cases this inform ation needs to be provided on the label, in others it is more appropriate to provide this through additional means, such as helplines, leaflets and web-sites for example.Some processes give rise to particular concerns and these need to be clearly labelled—for example, the use of genetic modification (GM) or .It is important that consumers are fully involved in the development of novel foods and processes in order to determine whether or not they are likely to be acceptable and what information requirements are likely to be.Lessons need to be learnt from the poor handling of GM and consumer attitudes and concerns to new technologies and production methods debated at the earliest opportunity and prior to marketing.Government and industry also needs to keep consumers informed about the methods that are used and how food production changes. In the case of genetic modification, we have welcomed the recently agreed legislation that will require GM derivatives to be labelled based on traceability.However it is also impor tant that consumers are kept informed of other uses of the technology, for example the widespread use of GM processing aids, and are fully involved in determining whether or not further uses of the technology are appropriate. 16.Traceability is in general becoming more important as consumers requi re greater information about the origin and the authenticity of the food that they buy.It is also necessa ry in order to verify claims that are made about particular production methods.Di Verent approaches to enforcement are also required to police such claims, including for example country of origin labelling and assurance schemes rather than merely end-product testing. 17.We would like to see greater information required about the country of o rigin of food products. Consumers are interested in this information for a range of reasons.For so me it may be that particular quality characteristics are associated with a particular country.For ot hers it may be that they wish to avoid products from a particular area because they have safety concerns for example.Our research has also highlighted that having the option to buy locally or at least domestically is an important aspect for a significant number of consumers and many consumers are interested in where their food comes from.2 18.Certain groups of consumers are interested in information about the wa y that animals have been reared and how particular food stuVs have been produced.Our research suggests that the main issues of concern include drugs used in animals, food safety problems as a result of modern methods of production, related to modern farming methods, animal welfare standards and use of pesticides.A significant number of consumers are now choosing organic foods as reflected by the ranges now available in supermarkets although reflecting concern about intensive farming practices.Assurance schemes are also an option.However, we have expressed concerns that these schemes may not go a s far as consumers expect. Provision of greater information in general about the way that food is produced should be encouraged, including for example details of the feed that has been used, or the extent to which pesticides have been used. This is the type of information that we consider could usefully be provided through use of helplines, in-store leaflets or on company web-sites.

2 Setting aside the CAP—the future for food production, Consumers’ Association policy report 2001: 1,002 adults aged 15 plus were interviewed in-home between 10–16 August 2001. 9841881005 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15

Ethical Considerations 19.Several of the examples we have discussed above demonstrate how consum ers are increasingly concerned about the ethics of food production.For some, particular food p roduction methods may be considered unethical and wish to be avoided.For others, animal welfare st andards may be most important. As raised in the terms of reference, some consumers may want to know about labour practices.These are all issues that companies should also be considering as part of corporate social responsibility. 20.It is however important that sharing of information is not just seen as a one-way flow of information. Consumers need to be involved in decisions about the types of food production systems that are appropriate. 21.We have concerns however that ethical aspects of food production are al l too often side-lined or given insuYcient prominence in discussions about food policy.The Committee’s terms of reference refer to matters of food information in the context of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While ethical aspects can be an important factor for many consumers in determining which products or brands they purchase the move towards globalisation of food standards could undermine consumers’ ability to make decisions on these grounds.

International Standards 22.The body that provides reference standards for the WTO when settling tr ade disputes is the joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation Codex Alimentarius Commission—and in particular the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.We are concerned that si nce the establishment of the WTO and the enhanced status of Codex standards, trade considerations have largely dominated decisions. With the WTO agreements—particularly the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreements in this context predominantly emphasising the pre-eminence of science, consumer information requirements based on ethical considerations could come under threat.Codex itself has recognised the importance of taking into account “other legitimate factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair practices in the food trade”, but these remain poorly defined and are to be determined on a case by case basis.The Codex Committee on Food L abelling is currently considering the approach that it should take to the labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods—an issue that has been on its agenda for many years but where consensus has yet to be achieved—and country of origin labelling although little progress has been made on this issue.Mor e generally Codex is considering the approach that should be taken to traceability of foods.However, it is c oncerning that some countries view this primarily as an issue of food safety, rather than one of consumer information.The issues on Codex’s agenda reinforce the importance of negotiations on international standards in order to ensure that consumer information requirements can be met and sustained at national level.

Conclusion 23.The nature of food production and supply mean that consumers’ demands f or information are increasing and the means of providing this information have become more complex.While there is a large body of legislation in place to deal with many aspects of food labelling, there are still gaps where consumers are not in a position to make an informed choice. 24.Nutrition information is a particular issue that needs to be addressed —including the development of a simpler approach and reinforcement of key nutrition messages by government and by the food industry. As we have highlighted, while the FSA has improved the way that information is communicated to the public, there is still a need for greater consistency in some areas and individual food risks need to be put into a broader context.Ethical considerations, particularly those relating to novel foods and processes are an important issue for many consumers.There is a need to improve the way that c onsumer information requirement are anticipated and handled in such circumstances.It is in th is area that the WTO context presents particular challenges.While it is important to ensure that food labelling requirements are not used as a pre-text for protectionism, we have concerns that the agreements and related standards currently give insuYcient consideration and emphasis to consumer information requirement, particularly those that are based on ethical and consumer “right to know” principles. April 2004 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 16 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: Ms Sue Davies, Principal Policy Adviser and Ms Michelle Smyth, Senior Public AVairs OYcer, Consumers’ Association, examined.

Q95 Chairman: Good afternoon, and thank you Ms Smyth: We know that the Food Standards very much for coming along to the Committee Agency is working on criteria for a traYc light today, and for your written evidence which you have system.This is in relation to foods specifically submitted previously.Our apologies for the fact that targeted at children.Obviously, we would like to see we are a little behind schedule.I see you have it across the board.Detailed work is going on at the brought some visual aids to assist in the presentation moment as to how that would look in practice.We today.I am looking forward to seeing how they have also seen the announcement a few weeks ago by relate to your evidence.Could I begin by asking you Tesco that they are going to introduce later on this what the Association thinks is the type of year, on a number of their own-brand products, a information that should be on food labels about the traYc light labelling system.It is certainly clear that nutritional content of food and how that diVers from people are taking this seriously, they are looking at what is currently required by law? the criteria, and we will just have to wait and see Ms Smyth: The main problem we find at the moment really how that will look in practice. in terms of nutritional information on products is that it is voluntary.Yes, there is some legislation, a Q97 Chairman: Should that type of system be European Directive, setting out a format for compulsory or should it be voluntary or flow from information about four of the main nutrients.But some form of code of practice? putting that information on the product is only Ms Smyth: Obviously, there is the issue of giving the compulsory if you were to make a claim about your industry the opportunity to respond, but we think particular product.So we do find that there are some such a system is needed now, and whilst we welcome manufacturers and some retailers that take this very what Tesco have done, we would like to see a system seriously, and do provide a lot of very useful, very across the board so you do not have diVerent clear information to their customers.I have an systems in each supermarket for instance, because example here from the Co-Op, with some clear information in terms of ingredients but, particularly that would take us back to square one, where the on this question, in terms of the nutrition panel. consumer would have to ask what it means in There are other products that do not give you that Tesco’s and what it means in Sainsbury’s for information at all.If I take another example here— instance.We would like to see that introduced as and, by the way, these are just some examples quickly as possible. illustrating the points that we may wish to make; we are not picking these out specifically—you will see Q98 Chairman: How would you ensure that there that it only gives very limited information; it only was some common understanding across products refers to carbohydrate and does not give a from diVerent shops, diVerent supermarkets? Would breakdown of sugars, for instance.There are many that be the duty of government, or the FSA, to variations out there on the market at the moment, so regulate that system in some way? there is a bit of a mix in terms of the information that Ms Smyth: We would see the FSA playing a clear consumers get.We would like to see compulsory role here in driving this forward and bringing all the nutrition labelling on all pre-packaged foods for the stakeholders together.It is important that there is full eight nutrients.Also, we would like to see that buy-in from the industry, consumer groups and put in a very clear format that is easy to understand, retailers right across the board.That is very so consumers can compare one product to another important if the scheme is going to work.Also, we and would be able to make comparisons in order to will see in the coming months proposals from the make an informed choice.Most importantly, it is European Commission in terms of a review of the about setting that information in context.There is Nutrition Labelling Directive, so perhaps there some nutritional information there.We also have could be some scope there for looking at such an information about guideline daily amounts, for issue.As I say, we will have to wait and see what instance, but we would like to see consumers made those proposals are. more aware of exactly what that means.For example, the Food Standards Agency has some very useful information in terms of what is rated “a lot” Q99 Joan Ruddock: I just wondered if you knew and “a little” in terms of fat, sugar and salt.For what sort of proportion of food and drink is actually example, on here it says 10 grammes of fat per 100 labelled? This is part of something that I got in the grammes—what does that mean? How does that House of Commons today at lunchtime, when I V relate to my daily diet? Is that a lot? Is that a little? could not find my organic yoghurt.I was o ered a Should I eat two of them? Should I eat three? We lemon mousse with a very nice House of Commons certainly think better communication of that label on it.It has no sell-by date.It has no labelling information is necessary.Thirdly, you talked earlier whatsoever.When I look inside it, I see it is bright about a traYc light labelling system, and we yellow—goodness knows what may have certainly think that would be an important and contributed to that! This is a second one, which I do useful way of sign-posting to consumers the not intend to eat.When I tried it, it was incredibly relationship in terms of fat, sugar and salt values of sweet, and I suspect it is full of all sorts of things that a particular food. I wish I had not consumed.How common is this? Ms Davies: We often hear a figure of 70% quoted; Q96 Chairman: How common is the provision of about 70% of products carry nutrition labelling.In some form of traYc light system or equivalent on the UK certainly we have more labelling than they food products at the moment, in your experience? do in other EU countries.A s Michelle pointed out, 9841881006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth in a lot of cases you just get the basic four nutrients, extraordinary case was one where the family had and when we have concerns about salt as well as seemingly put into the baby’s bottles the fizzy drinks sugar, it is not very helpful if you want information that are now so prevalent.Are there some products about them.While a lot do provide it, some do not, that really are becoming a danger to our children? and it tends to be the products that are higher in Ms Davies: It is diYcult to speak in terms of specific sugar or salt that do not have the information on products, but in terms of the argument about them.whether there are any such things as “good” and “bad” food, we think the boundaries have become Q100 Joan Ruddock: So it is the case that if there is blurred now.Obviously, you need to look at things no labelling, we may suspect correctly that they have in terms of overall diet but there are certainly foods, something to hide? as you mention, that are incredibly high in sugar or Ms Davies: Yes, that may be the case. incredibly high in salt, and you really would not want to be giving them to children on a regular basis. Which products those are is not always very clear, Q101 Chairman: How do you balance the need to and that is why we think that some kind of simplified provide information on the one hand, and the labelling system would help people to identify which argument that providing so much information can these products are.There is another issue which we confuse the consumer? Specifically, in the case of have identified from some of our research, where we products which are quite small, it has been suggested have looked at product ranges that are specifically by some of the producers that, for example, on a targeted at children.In some cases the retailers have small chocolate bar they cannot provide all the diVerent ranges and they give them various brand information anyway.How do you deal with this names which they claim to be ideal for children, but kind of issue? there are also products which have cartoon Ms Davies: It is an issue, but I think it is often characters on, for example, which will be specifically exaggerated the extent to which it is a problem.A lot promoted to children.When we have looked at some of products do provide information.Where retailers of those, things like some of the pasta shapes that have decided to do it voluntarily, they put a lot of have cartoon characters on, they can be very high in information on, and it is still perfectly legible.If you salt and therefore you would be better oV giving look to the US, for example, they have had the your child the adult version.So we are pleased that nutrition facts panel since the mid-Nineties on the Food Standards Agency has now put together an products.You need flexibility in certain action plan on the way that foods are promoted to circumstances where you might not be able to have children, and one of the things that they are doing is the full panel in the same position, but generally you looking at developing a traYc light system, and also can get it on most packaging.I think we have been looking at what criteria should be applied to foods concerned as well that often you cannot get essential that are specifically promoted to children.That is an information for consumers on the product, when a area where we think action is desperately needed, lot of the products manage to make room for various because it is a problem at the moment. promotions or various claims about the product.So any system does need to be flexible, but we think there is a need to have a consistent approach and Q103 Mr Jack: What research have you done with presentation that is as consistent as possible across consumers of all types to find out what information diVerent products. they do want on labels? Ms Smyth: Just on that point, we have an example Ms Davies: We have been doing work on food here of some products that have about 12 diVerent labelling going back probably over the last 15-20 languages on one package.Yes, it is putting years, and we have done research on a regular basis, information across, but it is extremely diYcult to asking consumers what kind of information they understand it with all the diVerent languages on the find useful, sometimes in relation to specific issues packet.Perhaps there is a case for manufacturers like GM labelling, nutrition labelling; in other cases simplifying the labelling in the sense of one language asking about understandability of labelling.There for each country to which they are selling their are certain things that come out as very clear that product, and not packaging that will go to ten people want information on.Our research shows diVerent countries.Just having one kind of that on the whole people think nutrition labelling packaging per country may be a way forward. should be provided, and it should be provided in a Chairman: You have been referring to examples.If consistent way.They also expect that if they have you would like to pass them round, I am sure the concerns about particular processes, for example, Committee will be interested.We promise not to eat that information should be provided on the label. them as they go by! Q104 Mr Jack: Let me stop you at this juncture.I Q102 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to ask you about had a session with Marks & Spencer some time ago, children and whether there are some products which and they told me that 10% of their customers were you think are ultra “dangerous”.I heard an item on what they called their “enquirers”.They were the the Today programme this morning in which they people who would demand the type of information were talking about the proportion of young that you have just put before the Committee.The children, which is very high in some parts of the rest take it as read that it is OK because it is M&S. country, who are having their milk teeth removed That is why I prefaced my question by asking how because they have been rotted.The most much research have you done of consu mers of all 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 18 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth types, because what you have described to me are the opportunity, who for a whole myriad of reasons are enquirers, the people who really want to know just happy to have something to eat.They do not everything that there is.I just wonder, when people have time to go into thi s detailed, dazzling analysis pick up this particular item, a Mars bar, do they relating their lifestyle to what they are eating and all make the kind of choice decision that you have just the rest of it.I just wond er whether in fact we are done based on the analysis of all that you have said, looking at this through a very narrow window when or do they say, “I want a quick energy fix—Mars in fact the spectrum of people versus knowledge, bar”? opportunity, is much more complex and diverse. Ms Davies: We have not broken it down to that Who is it we are trying to get at? degree.As you say, even within individuals, Ms Smyth: We have also heard earlier though that, depending on what you are buying a product for, in certainly in relation to obesity and diet-related a particular situation you may want information at disease, we are facing a public health time bomb, as one point and the next day you might decide ... it has been described, and we a re really going to have to face up to the fact that we do need to pay more Q105 Mr Jack: Let me just break that down.You attention to what we are eating, and we do need to say “you may want”.When it comes to looking at be more aware of what we do throughout our day in this very clear panel, for example, on these Co-Op relation to physical activity. lemon tarts, it is clear; there is a lot of useful information on this, but it is diYcult to put it into Q107 Mr Jack: Have you ever asked people who are context.I do not criticise the Co-Op for that because obese how it is they got there? they have occupied every square inch of one back Ms Davies: A lot of people are doing research into panel of this with a dazzling array of information of that, but I think the issue as well is to prevent people all kinds, shapes, sizes, descriptions: it is low protein, getting obese, to prevent people developing heart medium carbohydrate, high in sugar—hang on a disease, to prevent cancers, and clearly diet has an minute! It says here carbohydrate, medium, and important role.As you explain, a lot of people may then “of which sugars”, and then it has the word not be motivated to look at the information on the “high.” If I am one of your people looking at the back of the label, and that is why the challenge now detail of this, whilst it is commendably clear, I am is to try and make the healthy choice the easy choice now beginning to wonder whether it is good in and to try and motivate people to make healthy carbohydrate, it is high in sugar.In other words, choices, and when they are actually picking up what do people want to make some sense of all of products to come up with the most simple system this when it comes to the first time they buy this, in possible, so you can do that without having to have the context of trying to have week in, week out, detailed knowledge about what all these diVerent month in, month out, year in, year out, some variety nutrients mean and whether that is a lot or whether of diet? it is something you need to worry about or not. Ms Davies: I think labelling cannot be looked at in isolation.When you are looking at information like Q108 Mr Jack: Give us a quick view of how you that, it is a means for people to actually put any apply that philosophy to the restaurant and mass concerns they have or any issues that they are catering trade. particularly worried about into practice.In the case Ms Davies: That is more diYcult, but I think it is of nutrition labelling, we think it needs to be clear that people are eating out a lot more than ever simplified.We think it needs to be put in context as before, and we eat out for a lot of diVerent reasons much as possible on the label.The Co-Op goes a lot now.Traditionally, it tended to be the case that you further than some people in that they do have the would think, “I am going out for a celebration, a nice high, medium and low banding.You also need to meal, and why should I be bothered about what I am have more general information from the Food eating?” People increasingly buy sandwiches at Standards Agency for example, explaining what you lunchtime, they go to fast food outlets, as well as should be aiming to eat on a daily basis.When we going to restaurants for special occasions, and you have tried to find that advice, for example, on the need to look at what kind of information people Food Standards Agency’s website, it can be quite need in those circumstances.That is where we think diYcult to find the information that Michelle was the traYc light system would work well, in that if you talking about: the guideline daily amounts or the “a could develop that for pre-packaged food, lot” and “a little”, and even the Food Standards ultimately we want to see it extended to diVerent Agency’s plate which tells you about the diVerent catering outlets as well, so that people have a much food groups you should be aiming to eat overall. easier way of identifying which of the products are You need to have that information and that needs to particularly high in fat, sugar or salt, for example. be disseminated more eVectively, and people then need to understand when they are buying specific Q109 Mr Jack: Would you make that mandatory in products how they put that into practice. all types of outlet? Ms Davies: Ideally, we would like to think that the Q106 Mr Jack: Just a minute.You use words like industry would want to do it voluntarily, but the “people”; it could be all of us.The people on this important thing is that yo u need to have a consistent Committee are passionately interested in food; that approach.Unless you do make it mandatory, it is is why we are here asking all these questions.But di Ycult to ensure that everybody does apply it and there are many whose lifestyle, educational ability, that they do it in the same way. 9841881006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth

Q110 Mr Jack: Have you come across any examples Ms Davies: It is diYcult to see how that would be the of good practice that exist in this area already? case.There are examples on the market, but there Ms Davies: Not explicitly.Some outlets are starting are also a lot of products that can quite easily to look at providing nutrition information, but it is provide the information in a clear and simple way. very rarely provided.If you are buying pre-packaged On the one hand, food is becoming more globalised sandwiches from some places, you might have and we are getting products from all around the nutrition information on those, but again, it is how world, but in many ways, as a result, consumers you put that into context, because when you are want to have more information about the products eating out, even less than when you are buying pre- that they are eating because they might not packaged food, you are not going to want to try and necessarily know how it is produced or what has start analysing information; you want to have gone into it.We need to have clarity. something that is instantly recognisable. Q114 Mr Jack: I presume the reason why you put so much emphasis on the labelling aspect is because the Q111 Mr Drew: One of the growing trends—and majority of food is consumed from a packaged, you can see it on the Vienetta box and the Pringles manufactured source as opposed to loose. tube—we always seem to deal with Pringles on this Ms Davies: That is right.We are increasingly eating Committee.Pringles is our pet hate on the waste more processed foods and we have become much disposal front, and why they have that shape.Both more removed from the way that food is produced. those products are globally marketed, and there are One issue is about basic food skills: people are less on both of them seven or eight languages.I challenge aware now of exactly how foods are produced, but anyone who does not have very good eyesight to be even if you do know a lot about cooking, it is very able to find the information they are looking for.It is diYcult to know when you are buying a processed fair enough that we should be making these products food how much fat, sugar or salt is in there, or what accessible for people speaking languages other than kind of processes have been used. English, but there is a real problem in trying to label properly, because there is only so much information Q115 Mr Jack: You used the term “processed” but, you can put on one of those tubes, and it is for example, if you go into a bakery and you buy a completely inaccessible.What are your views on loaf of bread, a process has been involved to produce language issues as well as just the information? that loaf of bread.If you happen to go to a baker Ms Smyth: As you say, the label does have to be who has some Italian focaccia, for example, in which accessible, and there are some countries, in the there is salt and olive oil, so it has a high fat content European Union for example, that have a number of Y and a high salt content, you might for your own o cial languages and it is important that those particular circumstances be having something that languages are covered on the labels.But on the two V could be potentially wrong, but there is no label, no products there, there is such a variety of di erent information. languages, we would simply ask the question is it Ms Davies: That is where the traYc light system V really necessary to have 12 di erent languages on would be useful again, is it not? One of the diYculties one pack? Surely that could be broken down into when you are selling food loose is where you actually regions.For example, if that was going to Belgium, put the information.It would be much more it would need to have information in French, straightforward if you had a simple system like that Flemish and German because those are the three to be able to give people an indication of the oYcial languages. nutritional content.

Q112 Mr Drew: The problem with that is that Q116 Mr Jack: You are suggesting that even for nobody is going to actually look for the information products which are unpackaged, you would still on that wrapping, because you would have to want some form of information system? eVectively take five minutes per product.Nowadays, Ms Davies: Ideally, we need to develop the traYc most people shop in supermarkets for convenience, light system and come up with a workable approach. and by giving people so much information, it is We are pleased that the Food Standards Agency has completely meaningless. started to do that now, but it is looking specifically Ms Smyth: It is giving them nothing, yes. at food promoted to children, and ideally, we want a system that applies to adults as well, then we can look at how that is rolled out to diVerent types of Q113 Chairman: You would imagine the producer foods.Certainly there has always been a challenge might say that to provide packaging which contains about how to provide information on food in less languages means you could have less catering outlets and also food sold loose, but if you standardisation of the packaging across the have a much simpler system, that would be a way of countries in which it is sold across the world, and providing the information. therefore that would lead to a price consequence for the consumer.This might be a case where the Q117 Joan Ruddock: We have been talking about consequence of clearer information would be that languages.Interestingly enough, none of these the consumer would pay more.Is that the kind of languages oVered here are ones that are appropriate equation that we have to recognise and if necessary to the ethnic minorities of this country.I wonder if make that choice? you have done any research into this.There are 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 20 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth substantial ethnic minority communities where Q122 Joan Ruddock: The Health Select Committee reading of English skills are very low, especially called on this Government to legislate.You disagree amongst the women, and the older women, who may with that, do you? be purchasers of food.Is a tra Yc light system Ms Smyth: It is not a question of disagreeing with it. applicable there? It is a question of being aware that the overall Ms Davies: Yes, I think that would work really well. initiative has to be EU-wide, but certainly, what we You would obviously need to have communication are calling for is for the British Government to make behind it to explain exactly what the traYc light that message loud and clear in Brussels, with other system means.It is not a case of if you see a red, you EU member state governme nts, but also to carry on do not eat this food, but if you see red, and your with its development of a scheme and to present the shopping trolley is full of reds on a regular basis, Commission with a formula of how this could be then you are probably not getting a balanced diet.If applied, and also to see it rolled out at least on a you explain that, people would at least have a very voluntary basis here in the UK.Ultimately, simple way of choosing foods. however, on food labelling legislation, overall responsibility does lie with Brussels. Q118 Mr Jack: Do you think the French would accept your traYc light system on certain products, Q123 Chairman: You told us about the possibility of for example, such as foie gras? legislation on claims that are made.How widely Ms Davies: It is something we work very closely on should such legislation apply? Is it going to be able to with the consumer organisations across Europe, and deal with claims that produce is pure, natural, home- it is something that they are all very interested in and made, farmhouse, all these terms which we see, or that they are pushing in their own countries as well. are we talking about more specialised claims? Ms Smyth: The regulation is to harmonise health and nutrition claims, and we are certainly very Q119 Mr Jack: Are they getting universal acclaim supportive of the legislation, because we see on more from the French and Italian governments, the and more foods—we have brought some examples serious “foody” people? They are all queuing up to here—various claims, be they health-related or adopt this, are they? nutrition-related.You see things like “fat-free”, Ms Davies: It does not mean that you could not eat “reduced fat”, “light”, etc.There are some the food or you could not enjoy it; it just puts it in the guidelines from the Food Standards Agency in context that yes, it is a treat and you eat it on special relation to nutrition claims, but they do not cover all occasions; you do not eat it every day and it is not a the phrases that we see on products.For example, main part of your diet if it is high in fat, sugar or salt. there is not a definition for “light” and we have found with some products as well that “light” can Q120 Chairman: Just to be clear, are you suggesting mean anything from, say, 10g of fat per 100g to this traYc light system would apply on a Europe- about 16g of fat per 100g.Again, there is confusion wide basis? there for the consumer.What does “light” mean? Ms Davies: I think ideally, to get round the issue You have to turn over the product and really about how you would make it compulsory, because examine the label in detail.We certainly welcome the all food labelling legislation is decided at European setting of clear definitions.Also, we welcome in the level, it would have to be an EU initiative.As European Commission’s proposals the prior Michelle was saying, we have the review of the approval system for health claims.At the moment Nutrition Labelling Directive going on at the food products should not mislead the consumer, but moment and proposals are due this summer. the onus is very much on trading standards oYcers Hopefully, that will be an opportunity to look at to prove that the food manufacturer got it wrong. how nutrition labelling can be simplified.There is What the EU legislation would bring into place, if it also legislation looking at claims that is being is approved, is a prior approval system, so the developed at the moment as well.Both of those industry would have to submit its claims to be vetted provide opportunities for addressing the issue. first, before that claim could be put on the product. So at least when that claim is on the product—and I should just say that we certainly support claims; we Q121 Joan Ruddock: Are you suggesting that we Y think claims are useful and in our research could not have a tra c light food labelling system in consumers have told us that they like claims too, but this country unless it were to be done as an EU they just do not trust them at the moment—if you Directive? Then you are talking about years and have a prior approval system, you have that years, and possibly never getting it. certainty; you know that what you see claimed on Ms Davies: The way that the Food Standards that product has been vetted and therefore is Agency tends to work now, because most of the accurate and is useful. legislation has to come from Europe, is that you can do things working with industry and coming up with a standard and encouraging the industry to adopt it Q124 Mr Jack: You said a second ago that across the board.That is what we would like to do it consumers do not trust, yet in all the areas where in the short term, but ultimately, if you want to have consumers are said not to trust something, very large legislation, that would be a European initiative. quantities of these things are sold.If people did not 9841881006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth trust, you would think that they would not be sold.judgment basis for peopl e to decide on what they will Why is there this lack of fit between purchase and or will not eat, how can you decide on the message trust? about food to them? Ms Davies: It is interesting.When we have done Ms Davies: I am not sure I completely understand research, we have asked people “Do you find claims your point. on foods useful?” and people say they find them a helpful way to identify products when they are shopping in a hurry because they can look for the Q130 Mr Jack: For example, if I am going to buy a claim.When you ask them “Do you trust the car, I might say that fuel economy and the comfort claims?” they are sceptical about the claims. of the driver’s seat are the two most important things.I can define very clearly what it is I am looking for.I could go out and test every car in the Q125 Mr Jack: You have just said that your research marketplace and if those were my two criteria, I shows, so this is people saying they look for the could make my choice.As I add more criteria to it, claim, but then they do not trust their own judgment. it becomes a much more complicated choice and I That is eVectively what it says. therefore might look, for example, to authoritative Ms Davies: If you put yourself in a supermarket, you motoring magazines to help me sift out till I got see claims, and if you are interested in buying a down to my shortlist, and then I would make my healthy product, it is an easy way of identifying a choice.So I could go through if I wanted to a very healthy product, so they are tempted to buy the rigorous piece of analysis against a predetermined claims, but they are sceptical about them. set of selection criteria to choose the car which most met my needs.I suspect with food we do not go Q126 Mr Jack: Let me ask you the same question as through anything quite like that, but in terms of the I asked our previous witnesses: what does your myriad of messages which are currently whizzing research show that people do believe about what is around out there about “Eat more of this, eat less of said, in general terms, about food and food claims? that, do this, do that”, what are the things that What are the believable bits? people believe? Where do they go for their Ms Davies: Specifically in relation to claims, we have authoritative information that they say, “Yes, I do not asked people which claims they are more likely believe that, therefore I will use that piece of to believe or not.Certainly, when we have asked information, that source of information, to inform whether or not people think that claims should be me about my dietary requirements, my food approved and should be vetted, there is strong buying habits”? support for government doing that, so that they can Ms Davies: The research that we have done, which be sure that they can rely on the claims. was a few years ago now, showed that on the whole, it is consumer organisations and health Q127 Mr Jack: In terms of food messages in general, professionals that are seen to be the most trusted because we have had a long discussion about specific source of information, and subsequent research by conveyance of information about individual other bodies has reinforced that point.One of the products via labelling, but this is in the context of reasons that we campaigned for the Food Standards some wider messages about what is good and bad to Agency to be set up was to have a single, eat and in what relative quantities, what can you tell independent, trusted source of information on food us about how people form their judgment for issues, and I think the Food Standards Agency has themselves as to how they answer those questions in gone some way to do that in certain areas of its work, relation to their own individual consumption of but it still needs to increase its profile on issues like food? dietary advice, where it is very diYcult to actually Ms Davies: In terms of which bodies they are likely have that information.In terms of what is most to trust for advice? important and what people trust, it is very diYcult to say because I think it depends on people’s individual Q128 Mr Jack: In terms of when I am making a circumstances, their particular values, what they choice about whether to buy product A or B, or how think is important.We know that an increasing much of X or Y to consume a week, for example, if number of people want to buy organic.Our research somebody tells me that certain types of red meat are has shown that people are concerned about things high in cholesterol but on the other hand there are like animal welfare issues, use of veterinary drugs, beneficial vitamins and other chemicals in meat, so I that kind of thing, which fits in with that.As we take a decision, what are the things that people know, people do not always look at nutrition believe to inform their judgment as to what they information, but that is a challenge, because we should and should not eat? know the problems that are linked to diet, that that Ms Davies: It is not something that we have may not be a priority, but that is not a reason for not specifically asked in those terms, but I think it will putting the information on the label; it is a reason for depend on your own particular circumstances and putting it on in a clearer way and actually what issues particularly matter to you. encouraging people to make use of that information and showing what the benefits of that are.The same Q129 Mr Jack: If you cannot answer that question, goes for more straightforward food safety and we have talked about the way we communicate information.Again, it may not be something that on packaged food with a vast amount of labelling you particularly want to even think about when you information, and we do not know what forms the are buying a product, but if you are buying raw milk, 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 22 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth for example, you need to be told that you are taking the issue about presenting that in a clear way so that a particular risk by buying that product, and then you can easily see that information, which, again, is you can decide whether or not you want to carry on really a voluntary issue.As you will see with the tart and drink something that may have a higher risk of there, that is very clearly presented and there is a E.coli or . clear box setting out any potential allergens, whereas with the other products it can still be included in the Q131 Mr Drew: We are going to go on and look at list of ingredients. food safety and allergens, but I want to ask you a general question on that.Clearly, to some people, Q134 Joan Ruddock: When you say the ten most what they eat is a matter of life or death.In the common allergens, are we talking about listing food generality, there are strong ethical reasons why we ingredients that are known to cause the 10 most would want to give the consumer more information, but for some people, the knowledge that that common allergens and therefore you do not have to information is right outweighs all the other issues, list things that we have not yet discovered do cause because this is about somebody’s life being on the an allergy? line.How do you prioritise that? It has got a lot Ms Davies: Yes.There are two things.The better.My father-in-law is a celiac and to be fair, the ingredients list overall has been extended, because information is now much better than it ever has there used to be an exemption for compound been, but it is becoming more complicated. ingredients that made up less than 25% of the overall Obviously, to some extent it is up to the individual to product.If you have a pizza, for example, and it has carry their little booklet around and to then try and a bit of ham on it which makes up less than 25% of match that against what the packaging actually says. the pizza, you would not have to say what was in the Presumably you have had these debates and there is ham; you could just say “ham.” It has broken that not an easy answer, but there is an issue about down so there will be much fuller ingredients prioritisation. labelling.Potentially, if you have a more unusual Ms Smyth: No, clearly there is not an easy answer, allergic reaction, you will be able to see if that but we have certainly been very supportive of particular ingredient is in the product, but regardless legislation—again, Brussels-based—which has got of that, the ten more common allergens will have to rid of what is termed the 25% rule, and this will come be labelled.In the case of alcoholic drinks for into force later on this year and will mean that you example, there is no requirement for ingredients will have more information on the label in the sense listing, but if it contains something that people could that the ingredients listing will be broken down even have an allergic reaction to, that would have to be further, precisely to enable those consumers that do labelled now, so you will not get a full list of suVer various allergies, very serious food ingredients but you will have the allergens specified intolerances, etc, to have even more information in now. terms of the ingredients.Before, it used to be wrapped up or not mentioned if a food ingredient made up less than 25% of the overall ingredients. Q135 Joan Ruddock: We are dealing with Also, we have been very supportive of EU-wide ingredients that are known to cause allergies.Where legislation that will set out a positive list of food does GM lie in this? If you have GM derivatives ingredients that can cause allergies, and for that to which come below the labelling threshold for GM, be clearly labelled on the product.We would but it is believed by many that some kinds of GM certainly want to see this information very clearly products could be the cause of allergies but it is not labelled on the product because, as you rightly say, yet proven, you would not know, so we have no way for some people it can be a matter of life or death. of tracing that this might prove to be the case. Ms Davies: There is obviously separate legislation Q132 Joan Ruddock: Are you saying there is going dealing with GM, and we have been pleased that to be a stricter legal requirement in this area and finally now that it is being extended to GM everything will have to be listed? derivatives and will be based on traceability rather Ms Smyth: Yes. than based on what you can detect in the final product.There are guidance notes at the moment that the Food Standards Agency and Defra have put Q133 Joan Ruddock: How will this product here out, consulting on how that will actually be applied comply? We cannot read the Pringles multi- here.Obviously, there are still concerns about GM language presentation at the moment. and the potential for introducing unknown allergens Ms Smyth: That will certainly be a challenge for the that need to be addressed. manufacturers in relation to how they will comply, absolutely. Ms Davies: The legislation will not deal with clarity, Q136 Joan Ruddock: What about E numbers? How unfortunately.It will say that they will have to list do they lie in relation to this new procedure? the allergens if they are included in the product, and Ms Davies: Again, that is separate, in that they there is a list of the ten most common allergens.It would have to be shown in the list of ingredients. will also extend the list of ingredients so that compound ingredients that make up less than 25% of the overall product will now have to be labelled Q137 Joan Ruddock: But not related to allergens, whereas they did not have to be before.There is still although some of them c ause allergies, I understand. 9841881006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth

Ms Smyth: It is separate legislation.you have been exposed to one particular carcin ogen on a regular basis, when you get another food scare coming up, how significant is that in relation to your Q138 Mr Jack: Do you feel the Food Standards risk overall? We should be trying to put some of Agency is doing a good job in dealing with food these scares in a broader context and explain what risk issues? that means in terms of whether or not it is worth Ms Davies: We think it has really changed things.It changing your eating habits. has done some really good things.One of the big tests for it when it was set up was BSE.Obviously, it Q139 Mr Jack: You have put your finger on it was set up on the back of all of the problems with the because if you smoke, you can put a pretty high way that BSE was dealt with.We have certainly number on the risk factors, but given the risks that found it has been much more open and transparent potentially come, for example, on the oily fish in the way that it deals with food risks.One of the carcinogens argument, you do not really know at the things we think it has done particularly well is the starting point what risks you are exposed to. whole issue around BSE and the possibility of Nobody says you have a one in 10 million chance of whether or not BSE could have passed to sheep, for dying if you go over two oily fish portions a week.It example, where it has decided to deal with that in a is never put in terms like that.Why not? very open way, and explained that on the one hand, Ms Davies: It is just so diYcult to do, and often there it is known that BSE can be transmitted orally in is a great deal of uncertainty about these issues. experiments to sheep, it is known that sheep have been fed potentially infected feed, but it is not known Y whether sheep have developed BSE in practice, but Q140 Mr Jack: I do not accept that it is too di cult if they do have BSE or did have BSE, the controls to do.You put very proper emphasis in your earlier that we have in place would not be adequate remarks on BSE.The Government decided on a one because, unlike cattle, BSE would actually be in the in 5 million chance to say that the sale of beef on the muscle meat in sheep.Issues like that, which a few bone should be stopped.The Government was quite years ago would never have even reached the public capable of quantifying a very large risk and stopping domain, the Food Standards Agency, responding to something happening, yet you have just said it is all Y the criticisms in the BSE inquiry report, have been too di cult in other areas.When the government of much more open and have allowed the public to the day chooses to quantify risk, it appears to be able have that information and have accepted that if you to do so. are more open, people will not just panic; they can Ms Davies: There is often pressure to quantify risks. accept that you cannot have 100% certainty about food risks.That is something that we think they have Q141 Mr Jack: What brings the pressure? handled well.Other areas we think they are still Ms Davies: Ideally, people want to have quite fairly weak on and could do better.One of the straightforward information to be able to compare complicated areas that it has had to deal with a lot risks. recently is the whole issue of chemical contaminants in food.We have had lots of individual scares that Q142 Mr Jack: What you are saying is that on the have come up.For example, there was the issue of other things you have identified, there is not the acrylamide in fried and baked foods, which is still pressure to be able to make this risk comparison. being investigated further; the issue of Ms Davies: I think that there is, and sometimes there semicarbazide, which was formed in the seals on can be a temptation to try and put a figure on the jars; then the issues of dioxins and PCBs, for risk, but in the case of beef on the bone, that was a example, in oily fish.That is a really di Ycult issue very diYcult issue because ... because on the one hand, there is clear evidence that we should be eating more oily fish because it is Q143 Mr Jack: Surely you have got to be able to beneficial for our heart, but on the other hand, if you quantify risk, otherwise it is a risk where the odds are eat too many dioxins and PCBs, and it is known that so long that it is not worth bothering about.Either there are high levels in some oily fish, we are it is dangerous and quantifiable or it is not. increasing our cancer risk.So there is a risk/benefit Otherwise, you are into the realm of supposition, are balance that the Food Standards Agency has to you not? Does this not lie at the heart of some of the weigh up.We still feel that it could have been much problems of communicating risk? There is always more explicit in its advice, because it puts it out in a the possibility that almost anything—life itself—is back-to-front kind of way, where it says at the dangerous, but you take the risk.You do not moment that you should eat two portions of fish a actually sit and do a risk calculation.You do not week, one of which should be oily.If you ask, “Does have a spectrum of them.Yet we are being told that that mean we should not be eating more than one we have got to look at this potential carcinogen, but portion of oily fish on average a week?” you do not with no numbers because it is all too diYcult. get a straight answer.The other issue, but it is Ms Davies: Ideally, yes, it would be much easier if perhaps diYcult to criticise them on this because it is you could quantify the risk but if you take BSE, for a very complex area, is that we get lots of individual example, where we do not really know what the food scares that come out in relation to specific infective dose is, it is not clear what the incubation carcinogens, but it is very rarely communicated to period is, it is not clear whether certain groups in the the public in terms of what that means overall, population are protected against BSE, it is not because we go out and we choose food.If you think known whether or not it is in sheep.There are so 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 24 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth many things that we still do not know about BSE, so or not they take their own precautionary measures you can not put a figure on it.If you look at the over and whether they change their own eating habits or 30 months rule, the Food Standards Agency put a those of their children as a result of that information. figure on what they thought the risk would be of I think it is incredibly complicated, and in a lot of removing the over 30 months rule compared with the cases you can only really quantify the risk on a case risk that ... by case basis, based on what is and is not known, always trying to do more research in order to Q144 Mr Jack: What I am driving at—and you have become more specific about what the risk is. answered the question immaculately—is at what point should we be bothered in communicating a Q147 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to ask you about food risk? What you have described in your earlier assurance schemes, because you have given us some remarks was a whole series of possible risks.You evidence which suggests t hat perhaps they do not do then said it is too complicated to work out a number, all it says on the label.I wonder if you could just yet earlier on in our evidence we were talking about expand a bit on that. the benefits of a simple traYc light approach.Should Ms Smyth: We have looked at food assurance we have green risks, amber risks and red risks? schemes in our Which? magazines a number of times Ms Davies: I think those are quite diVerent issues over many years and yes, we have increasingly found though, because there you are dealing with that there are more and more of these schemes out something where there is very strong evidence that there.There is confusion really, in the sense that we should be trying to cut down on fat, sugar and consumers, from our research, are not necessarily salt and that there are clear health benefits if we do aware of what that particular scheme means.They that for a lot of people, whereas with some of the may think that scheme means more than it does, contaminants and safety issues that you are just perhaps from an animal welfare perspective, for mentioning, there is still a great deal of uncertainty instance.A few mont hs ago we did a report in our about those, and it can be very diYcult to be specific. Which? magazine looking at meat assurance schemes, with the red tractor logo as one example. Q145 Mr Jack: Are you saying we should simply We found that there were some retailers that comply follow a precautionary process on every one, cut out with those standards but do not put the logo on the trying to quantify it and just say that there could be food product, or actually have standards that go a a danger? little bit beyond that, etc.There are many variations Ms Davies: I think we should try to quantify it, but out there in the marketplace which mean that it is we have to expect that in some cases it is not going diYcult for consumers to have real certainty as to to be possible to quantify it.When you are talking what it means, particularly if you want to make about precautionary measures, we are getting into ethical choices, for instance, when you are buying the realms of how precautionary you should be, and your food.We would suggest that the challenge that how you deal with the potential risks and benefits in lies ahead for these schemes is that the relation to particular safety issues. communication channels are improved, that there is greater awareness among consumers as to what exactly it means, and obviously that there is Q146 Mr Jack: If, for example, with oily fish, there transparency within these schemes in the sense that was a high percentage of an improvement in it is clear what the criteria are, it is clear that they are somebody’s health through eating more than two regularly enforced and inspected, and also it is clear portions a day, are we not going to be able to balance what happens if it is found that there is a particular that oV against the risk factors that go with it? manufacturer who is not complying with the scheme Ms Davies: That is where the Food Standards and needs to be struck oV.Clarity is needed, and also Agency has come up with its advice, which we think making the public more aware of what they could be clearer, that you eat two portions of fish a actually mean. week, one of which should be oily.The Food Standards Agency has been very good at this in a lot of areas, of actually explaining what is and is not Q148 Joan Ruddock: It is obviously confusing.Are known.There is the issue of to what extent you you suggesting some of them might be misleading regulate when you have uncertainty and to what as well? extent you need to have further risk management Ms Smyth: There are just so many out there that it measures, but in some cases—and again, BSE is very diYcult to have certainty when you are illustrates it well, where it is estimated that if we did buying your eggs, for instance, exactly what a have BSE in sheep, the measures would only in fact particular mark may mean.We just need remove a third of the infectivity in sheep.Then you improvement on the communication side, and need to communicate that uncertainty, even if it is transparency as well, so that if there are any not possible to quantify what that risk is.Some misleading elements to any schemes, that is quickly people may have been exposed to BSE through beef, cleared up. you may have children that were not exposed to that, so what is the relative risk for them? You have to Q149 Joan Ruddock: Should they not be massively explain to people what is and is not known, how reduced so that we could have a small number of eVective the measures would be if that particular risk schemes that people could then understand, get the was realised, and then at least people are in a message, and they could be policed? At the moment, position to make up their own minds about whether I suspect they just are not. 9841881006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth

Ms Smyth: That could certainly be a potential become much more removed from where our food is solution in looking at means of communication.One originally produced, we want to have much more means of communication may be to start by information about food because we want to know reducing the number of these schemes so that it is about it and there is greater demand for traceability, clearer to the consumer. for example.As a result of that, there is a greater focus on international harmonisation and setting Q150 Chairman: Do you have any idea how many of standards.Under the WTO, there are two such schemes are actually in existence? agreements, the sanitary and phytosanitary Ms Davies: No. agreement, which deals with plant and animal Ms Smyth: We can let you know that in writing, but health, and the technical barriers to trade we do not know oVhand, I am afraid. agreement.Those agreements reference the Codex Chairman: It would be useful to know how many of Alimentarius Commission, which has an these schemes have a genuine, independent audit of unfortunate name in that it automatically sounds the claims that are made. incredibly uninteresting.That is a joint Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Q151 Joan Ruddock: It would be useful to know how Organisation body that sets international standards the Red Tractor scheme is working. and it has a dual mandate, which is to protect public Ms Smyth: Can we send that in to you? health and also to facilitate fair practices in the food Chairman: It would be very helpful if you could trade.This is something that we have followed for provide that information. many years, because we are members of Consumers International, a global consumer association with Q152 Mr Drew: Looking at this idea of public 230 members around the world, and they are participation in the process of labelling, you have recognised as observers at Codex.Codex existed already touched on this so I will not go into it in any before the World Trade Organisation and was a way great detail, but is there not a danger of consumer of coming up with common understandings on activism, and they are the people who will determine issues like labelling and food quality, but since the what they want to see in terms of labelling? How do WTO was established, and it has this new status as Y you get to the wider public and get a feel for what a reference text, it has become very di cult to ensure information they feel is appropriate? that issues around ethics and consumer information Ms Davies: There are more methods available now requirements are adequately addressed within to try and find out what the public thinks about Codex.Certainly, when we have gone to meetings in diVerent issues.Last year, for example, we jointly recent years, for example, the Food Labelling organised a citizens’ jury together with Greenpeace, Committee which took place a couple of months Unilever and the Co-Op to try and get a better ago, it is clear that trade concerns are becoming understanding of people’s attitudes towards GM much more prominent in those discussions.In many and feed that into the public debate.That is just one ways, Codex should be the mechanism to make sure example of the sorts of methods that are available. that we can have this information on a global basis. GM is quite a good example of failure to try and If we are talking about GM labelling or country of listen to the public and find out what people would origin for example, international standards are think about the technology, about the potential important.Certainly Consumers International is benefits, information requirements at an early stage, able to develop global positions from its which has now resulted in large-scale rejection of the membership to present at Codex, but things have technology.When looking at other changes at that become so slow now because everything is always kind of level to the food chain, it is important to dominated by trade interests, and discussions about involve the public at an early stage, ideally at the the role that science should play versus other research stage and, as you say, not just have people legitimate factors like ethics and broader societal who have a particular interest in the issue but make concerns.In many ways, they are becoming sure that you are talking to representative groups of increasingly marginalised.It is something that we the population and trying to understand what their are concerned about.There was a review of Codex limits of acceptability are, where particular last year, and we hoped that that would be an developments could be useful, and not waiting until opportunity for the governing bodies, the FAO and it is ready to come to market before you have that the WHO, to try and confront these issues, but it was kind of debate. not really addressed at all.If you look at some of the issues that are on Codex’s agenda in terms of Q153 Joan Ruddock: We are going to wind up the labelling, GM labelling has been around for seven or session on this last point, which is to look very eight years, and every year countries from all around quickly at the biggest international issue, which is the world discuss it and no progress is made, and the World Trade Organisation and globalisation of they go away and go back again the next year, food, and the extent to which that might be because the fear is that as soon as you have a mitigating against consumers’ ability to make standard on GM labelling that would allow for decisions on ethical grounds, particularly.Is there comprehensive consumer information, it would anything you would like to say to us on that? prevent certain countries from making complaints Ms Davies: We think it is interesting that, on the one to the World Trade Organisation because it would hand, as a result of globalisation, and because the aVect their trade interests.It is a real shame, we feel, food supply chain has become much longer, we have that consumer interests are sidelined by too many 9841881006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 26 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

15 June 2004 Ms Sue Davies and Ms Michelle Smyth countries.Although certainly this does not apply for those three options , because of the idea that there all countries, and it is very important that the EU would be a standard and the potential WTO and the UK government takes a strong stance in implications.Codex did agree a couple of years ago these kinds of international discussions, but it is very that it did have a role taking into account other diYcult to get these ethical issues recognised there. legitimate factors, and that that would be dealt with on a case by case basis.So there is the flexibility to take account of ethical and environmental issues, Q154 Joan Ruddock: Overall, you are clearly but again, when they are considered they have to be pessimistic.Is Codex making any progress in any of decided on the basis of consensus, which is right the areas that we have discussed today? when you are setting international standards, and it Y Ms Davies: The di culty is that Codex is very slow is very diYcult to make progress.They are also anyway, because it makes decisions based on discussing a code of ethics, for example, in consensus, and when you have so many countries international trade, and that will go to the Codex from around the world, it is very diYcult to reach a Commission meeting in July this year.That has consensus on issues.If you look at the Labelling become bogged down in debates about trade issues, Committee, there are issues there now like country and rather than actually having any reference to of origin labelling, which has not really made any ethics, many countries just want it to have constant progress; there is GM labelling, where there is a references to the WTO and its trade agreements.It is proposal on the table which would actually allow for a shame that what is important, a body that is three types of labelling, which should satisfy the harmonising food standards and is a way to systems that are used in most countries; the narrow facilitate greater consumer information and greater labelling in the US based on any compositional consumer protection, is getting bogged down in its changes or introduction of allergens, labelling based relationship with the WTO. on what you can detect in the final product, as well Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for as the new EU rules based on labelling of derivatives, answering our questions so fully.It has been but that still has not been able to progress even with extremely useful. 9744972008 Page Type [SO] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27

on Tuesday 22 June 2004

Members present:

Mr Mark Lazarowicz, in the Chair

Mr Michael Jack Joan Ruddock Mr Austin Mitchell Mr Bill Wiggin

Memorandum submitted by the Medical Research Council’s Centre for Human Nutrition Research

Executive Summary Consumers need enhanced quality not quantity of information on nutrition issues.Public policy about food and diet must be built on evidence-based nutrition science.Many stak eholders play a role in communicating food messages.A holistic approach is urgently needed to se t an overall context, to ensure a consistency of approach and to build a nationwide framework that facilitates the necessary changes, from a public health perspective, in lifestyle and diet.Government must t ake a central steering role and encourage others to make the promotion of positive messages about food and diet a higher priority. HNR supports the FSA in its encouragement of industry to take a responsible approach to food promotion.Journalists and scientists need to work in partnership to ensu re that media reporting becomes a more consistent force for good in the promotion of messages about food and diet.Health professionals need to be given greater support and improved training in nutrition in order that they may fulfil their critical roles in this complex area.

1.MRC H uman Nutrition Research In the UK, the Medical Research Council (MRC) has a commitment to the dissemination of scientific knowledge to improve public health.The Nutrition and Health Communicati ons group at MRC Human Nutrition Research, Cambridge, has a particular responsibility for the translation of nutrition science into policy and practice.We liaise with other parts of government, indust ry, the media, charities and others to respond to their individual needs with respect to obesity and other areas where nutrition makes a significant contribution to public health.The group provides independe nt scientific information on nutrition and health to external stakeholders and a balanced perspective on recent scientific developments.

2.I ntroduction 2.1 Stories about food and links to public health appear almost daily in the media.There is no shortage of information available to the public through a wide variety of sources, though a significant proportion of it either contains inaccuracies or represents the views of vested interests.Consumers need enhanced quality not quantity of information on nutrition issues. 2.2 The recent Wanless Report1 has highlighted once again that a poor diet is one of the key factors underpinning the rising burden of ill health.This can only be addressed by raising awareness, improving knowledge and initiating long-term lifestyle changes across society at large.But public policy about food and diet must be built on evidence-based nutrition science.In promoting t his, communication must be eVective enough to “fill the gap” between scientific and technical experts, government and other policy makers and the general public. 2.3 Each of us is exposed to thousands of messages every day, many of which relate to food and lifestyles.Many di Verent stakeholders have a role in communicating messages about food to either groups of or individual consumers.These include government, both central and lo cal, manufacturers and retailers, employers, schools, health professionals, parents and individuals.Scientists have a role in helping to frame the debate about what information is important for consumers and to comment on proposed campaigns and messages from many of these groups.A holistic approach is ne eded to set an overall context for communicating messages about food to consumers and to ensure a consistency of approach. In addition, eVective communication between the diVerent stakeholders is essential to build a nationwide framework to facilitate the necessary changes in lifestyle needed to make individual food choices more beneficial from a health perspective.

1 Securing Good Health for the Whole Population Final Report by Derek Wanless. 9744972001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 28 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

3.G overnment 3.1 HNR is involved in consultations on food information schemes initiated through the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency and EU.Our own communications expe rience suggests that government departments must act in unison if they are to play a central steering role in delivering consistent, simple and well-researched messages, which are flexible enough to remain relevant to diVerent ages throughout the life-course.In addition, since many dietary issues a re strongly correlated to socio- economic factors, consumer-oriented messages must address the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society.In order to achieve maximum e Vectiveness, government would ideally catalyse the development of a multi-sectoral and long-term communications strategy, which would encompass all dietary and physical activity risks for chronic diseases together, alongside other public health risks such as smoking and ensure that it was adequately resourced, monitored and evaluated.

4.S chools 4.1 A recent HNR initiative, A Leaner Fitter Future2 showed that many school management teams are too preoccupied with funding crises and work force issues to consider food information a priority. This is unfortunate as schools are in a powerful position to promote positive messages about food and diet, both through finding time in the school curriculum and through catering and other policies adopted by the school.For example, renewed emphasis on nutrition in the curriculu m, the promotion of cost- eVective healthy eating options and rigorous vending machines policies would send consistent messages to pupils and would support, rather than hinder, healthy eating habits.In addition, schools should be encouraged to develop partnerships with parents to continue to communicate about food appropriately.

5.I ndustry 5.1 HNR regularly engages with industry in both formal and informal dialogue and is consulted on nutrition and health issues relevant to the food industry.We have underta ken specific projects with industry, including data analysis, scientific reviews and consumer awareness programmes.The food industry is estimated to spend £450 million each year on advertising in the UK.According to the recent FSA Hastings review on advertising to children, 75% is spent advertising breakfast cereals, confectionary, soft drinks and savoury snacks to children.Several major companies are no w taking active steps to investigate how the communications of nutrient information may be improved, such as “nutritional benchmarking”, although this can sometimes lead to potential for confusion in the minds of the consumer, or at least diluted impact, as in the case of “own-brand” five-a-day logos for fruit and vegetables.HNR supports the eVorts of the FSA to encourage industry to take a more responsible approach to the promotion of food and the related nutrition messages.

6.M edia 6.1 The main way in which HNR scientists communicate messages about food to the public is through the media.Managing the flow of scientific information to the public has beco me especially challenging in recent years.Most people get information from television, newspapers , radio and the Internet, with relatively little coming from the scientific press. 6.2 In a culture that demands openness and transparency, the concept that scientific debate can be held behind closed doors is outdated.A responsible media can facilitate a n informed dialogue between authoritative scientists and the public and advances in information technology allow the dissemination of scientific developments to the public more quickly than ever before.In a ddition, the ever-growing requirement for a greater consumer involvement in decision making, especially in the context of issues such as nutrition, which have a direct impact on public health.Both of thes e factors demand a sophisticated communication network. 6.3 The provision of independent and authoritative information on nutrition in a timely manner is an important step in promoting accurate and responsible reporting of food and diet related stories.This is a particular challenge in a field as broad as nutrition, which lacks a clearly defined professional status.

7.S cientists 7.1 Journalists are keen to seek out independent voices and this has resulted in scientists becoming increasingly visible in the public arena.Scientists can help the media th rough identifying the source and status of new information, thus allowing consumers to make informed judgement about its credibility and putting findings in a context that can be useful for consumers, such as by contrasting with existing knowledge and future research needs.If journalists and scientists work i n partnership, it can help to reduce the risk of new and unconfirmed reports reaching the front pages, only to be apparently refuted the following week.

2 A Leaner Fitter Future—Options for Action is available from www.mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk 9744972001 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29

7.2 Inaccurate or partial media reporting of food stories, however, can also undermine the interests of both parties.This can happen, for instance, in the reporting of studies involving a small sample size or where they have been inadequately peer-reviewed, or where preliminary scientific findings are being reported.In addition, the media can sometimes foster controversy where l ittle or none exists, such as industrial collaboration with scientists, which can also have the eVect of undermining public confidence in scientific communications.

8.S cientific Method 8.1 The media likes clear-cut stories, or controversial ones, but there is a potential conflict here with established scientific method, which doesn’t deal with certainties.Publ ic understanding of the scientific method is also highly variable, and the process by which scientific evidence is translated into policy is frequently unclear.This can lead to public misunderstanding of science o r enhanced perceptions that scientific advice changes too frequently.

9.F ood Labelling 9.1 Food labelling is an important element in the provision of nutrition information to consumers, but consumers must be able to interpret the data appropriately to make meaningful choices and changes to their diet. 9.2 HNR supports the work of the Joint Health Claims Initiative, but recognises that this will be superseded by forthcoming EU legislation.

10.H ealth Practitioners 10.1 Health practitioners are an important source of information on food and nutrition and HNR would like to see more emphasis placed on nutrition in their training, especially in formal nutrition and medical curricula.It is also important that the public are able to identif y appropriate trained nutritionists and we support the development of a Register of Nutritionists and accreditation of nutrition courses by the Nutrition Society.

11.E ducational Campaigns 11.1 Educational campaigns require a long-term strategy and adequate resourcing to be successful.In recent years, the government-led campaigns to encourage consumers to eat more fruit and vegetables and to consume more oily fish have increased the level of awareness of the importance of these food groups at least in some sub-groups of the population.Diet composition is a complex subject to communicate, requiring separate messages about calories, the proportion of specific types of fat, protein and carbohydrates and the additional health eVects of food groups such as fruits and vegetables and alcohol and the importance and health eVects of micronutrients.Such a diverse range of messages about food can be diYcult for consumers to assimilate, potentially leading to a perception of scientific discord or confused public policy. 11.2 Educational campaigns about food and diet also need to be flexible enough to meet the needs of individuals at diVerent stages of “lifestyle change”.For example, research in the behaviou ral sciences into obesity has developed useful models to describe the “stage of change” of an individual at any moment in time, ranging through pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance and relapse.These models acknowledge that the messages for individuals need to be tailored to their needs at the time.Thus a pre-contemplation individual needs the motivation to e ven consider the need to make lifestyle changes, while an individual who has arrived at the action stage needs practical implementation strategies.Newspapers, and to a lesser extent magazines, sell to a broad c ross-section of society with respect to their personal weight agenda.There is a temptation for scienti sts and journalists to leap to providing action-orientated messages, yet the majority of the population have not yet reached this stage of change and hence the information fails to initiate change.Instead, a gr eater emphasis on messages that raise awareness of the links between food and health in order to move individuals into the preparation stage is needed.

12.A dvertising 12.1 HNR has no specific scientific expertise in the impact of advertising on food choices. April 2004 9744972001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 30 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: Dr Susan Jebb, and Mr Adrian Penrose, Medical Research Council’s Centre for Human Nutrition Research, examined

Q155 Chairman: Good afternoon, Dr Jebb, and salt; we have seen particular emphasis of that in Mr Penrose.Welcome to the meeting of the Food recent years.There is also a recognition of the need Information Sub-Committee.I look forward to to cut saturated fat.Thatis an interesting message what you have to tell us about today.I understand because it is a very clear and widespread agreement you want to make a very short statement before we between scientists and policy makers.It is also one ask you about your work done at the centre.We of the messages which maybe 20 years ago was do have a very heavy timetable this afternoon, so clearer than it is now.Con sumers are increasingly if you want to make that statement as briefly as confused about the diVerent types of fat and the possible we would appreciate that.If you would issues in relation to satur ates, monounsaturates, like to make that brief statement at this point. polyunsaturates: Is the issue obesity? Is it heart Dr Jebb: Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to disease? Is it cancer? I think that is a classic area come and speak with you today.We are here really where the science is very clear that we should be representing the Medical Research Council Human cutting saturated fat.T hat is the key message.The Nutritional Research Centre based in Cambridge. policy is actually very clear, but I think for a variety Our emphasis is really on strategic and applied of reasons consumers are increasingly confused. aspects of public health nutrition; we are first and foremost a research unit.What makes us slightly V Q158 Chairman: Which types of messengers do you di erent from most other research institutes, and think are the best to deliver that message to the certainly within the MRC, is that we have a specific public? We heard evidence last week that the public communications function which is in-house and really did not trust messages coming from not just headed up by myself as a research scientist.I, in government but government-related oYcial bodies parallel, am responsible for our programme of work when it comes to food information.Who do you feel on nutrition and long-term health outcomes as well the public trust most and how should these messages as heading our nutrition communications group, best be conveyed? which works with consumers, the media, and also a Dr Jebb: There are many ways of answering that wide range of other stakeholders, including question.The surveys show that people trust health industry, health professionals and the Government. professionals, their doctors, very highly.They rate I think that puts us at a particularly interesting niche them very highly, but if we think that we are going to as far as this particular inquiry is concerned with, if improve the nutritional understanding of the entire you like, a foot in both camps in terms of the nation doing this through health professionals, that evidence base, and, secondly, the translation into would be naive.The question is not so much the best, policy and practice.I am really going to be trying to the most trusted group, but which is going to be the speak to you today with that perspective, which is V best strategy? If you take that approach, I think the perhaps a little bit di erent than you may be answer is that there is no one group who are well accustomed to with other MRC scientists. positioned to take that on in a single-handed fashion.The reason we have problems at the Q156 Chairman: Thank you.That is very helpful moment I think is the inconsistency between indeed.di Verent groups, not only sometimes in the core Dr Jebb: I should perhaps introduce my colleague, messages but certainly in the way they are portrayed. Adrian Penrose, who is our communications What I think we really need is for there to be manager and has a background and expertise in consistency of messages across the diVerent communications as opposed to my own expertise in people communicating.Di Verent people, diVerent nutritional science first and foremost. stakeholders are able to communicate well to diVerent groups at diVerent times and in diVerent Q157 Chairman: I was very struck by the first places.There is no one organisation which is going to be able to address everybody equally and statement in your written evidence that consumers V need enhanced quality not quantity of information e ectively all of the time. Mr Penrose: I think it is important to remember as on nutrition issues.I think that has been a theme of V much of the evidence that we have had.Everyone well that science is very di erent to policy.Science is comes up with a long list of information which there to answer specific questions, but it is ethically should be provided; that, of course, illustrates the neutral.It does not make assessments about risk or problem.I was struck by your point regarding the benefit.What we are looking for is some kind of diversity of messages amongst both the scientific and system that can mind the gap between scientists, the public policy communities on these issues.How what Government is saying and what consumers are far is it possible to say there is actually a general understanding, that is really what we are looking body of agreement amongst those scientists and for now. Chairman: policy makers on some of the key matters relating to Austin, do you want to follow that up? food and diet, the key messages that should be given out to the public? Q159 Mr Mitchell: What should I rely on in terms of Dr Jebb: I think there is very good agreement on the the kind of food that we should eat or should not headline issues, the big topics.Those would be, for eat? As you say, satura ted fats are bad for us; where example, fruit and vegetables; the need to increase do I get saturated fats? I am made to eat forcibly fruit and vegetable consumption.We have the five a (because my wife is a New Z ealander), butter in day programme.There would also be the need to cut enormous quantities to help the export market in 9744972002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose

New Zealand.Is she killing me? Should I be eating me—I did it”.Whyhas there been such an uptake for Flora? What is the impact of your research on a that, and yet trying to get through the message that market which is dominated by commercial you started your evidence with seems to be so products? The butter makers attack, wanting you to darned hard? take butter or the sugar makers, sugar.How do you Dr Jebb: I think that is a classic example of where fit your advice into the commercial market? anecdote, endorsement and culture has steered Dr Jebb: Of course, one of the huge benefits of being public habits, dietary habits in a way that scientific a Medical Research Council is that we do have the evidence does not always achieve.Of course, there luxury of that commercial independence.That is not are some examples wher e scientific evidence has to say that we do not work with the food industry. moved it, but in that example, it was a whole range We do, but we are able to do it from a position in of social and cultural factors which encouraged which we are predominantly independently funded people to adopt that particular dietary approach. and which we are known for the quality and What it shows is that dietary habits are not set just credibility of our research.So we are able to take by science or by health priorities.They are set by a forward our research agenda I think in a very whole range of other issues which are going on.We rigorous and robust way which is free of vested need to understand that and to understand why it is interests.so di Ycult to change behaviour through the mechanisms which you, as policy makers, or we, as Q160 Mr Mitchell: Do you say: “Do not eat butter”? scientists, have at our disposal. Dr Jebb: I do say that you will be better oV choosing an alternative spread, yes. Q164 Mr Jack: If I have heard you correctly, we are not communicating the messages properly? Q161 Mr Jack: In paragraph 11.2 of your evidence, Dr Jebb: We are not always communicating them in you say there is a temptation for scientists and a way which motivates people to adopt them. journalists to leap to providing action-orientated messages, yet the majority of the population have Q165 Mr Jack: Safe and sensible does not sound to not yet reached this stage.What evidence do you me like a very good way forward.Anecdote, have for that statement? promise, chat, grapevine: those might be better ways Dr Jebb: There is quite a body of research, not our to get our messages across. own I hasten to add, which has looked at people’s Dr Jebb: The grapevine is a fantastic way of doing it. readiness to change in a whole variety of diVerent We have seen—I think Mr Mitchell mentioned aspects of their life.The one I am most familiar with, Flora early on—Flora was an example of where of course, is obesity.We, as health professionals marketeers within the food industry brought the assume, say, as clinical dieticians, if somebody word “polyunsaturates” to public attention.They comes in through the door who needs to lose weight, had a very sophisticated advertising campaign.That there is a tendency to assume that they are ready to was founded on scientific evidence that there were do it, they are motivated, they want to lose weight, real health benefits in switching from saturated to and so forth.In fact, sometimes they are simply there polyunsaturated mar garine.That was a time where because their doctor told them to go and see the we had the scientists giving out the scientific message dietician.They have not made that mind shift that and the marketeers marke ting that message in a way this is an important issue for them, that they need to which neither Government nor scientists tend to do take some action.So if you are dealing with in a more entertaining way perha ps and also we have somebody who is in this stage where it is not even on the food industry providing a product which met their agenda why they should change then what you that need.Then we got real change and there was a need to be doing is giving them messages which dramatic shift in eating habits. explain to them the health benefits or what they might hope to achieve by the change; rather than Q166 Mr Jack: Is there a paradox between the telling them they should have Flora rather than purveyors of a spread which claims to reduce butter. cholesterol in terms of the message: “spread fat: reduce cholesterol”? Q162 Mr Jack: Not everybody has the benefit of a Dr Jebb: That has been a tricky one.But I think that one-to-one with you? the manufacturers of plant stanols and plant sterol Dr Jebb: Yes, that’s true esters have worked very hard to do it in a very responsible way, not least ensuring that they provide Q163 Mr Jack: What, from your experience, are the low fat options for each of those products so that things that people believe? I asked this question last one can get the same cholesterol lowering benefits week so I shall ask it to you.I have been struck by the from a plant sterol ester low fat product.I think unbelievable take-up of the Atkins Diet.From being ideally one would like to see it in a fat-free product, not on the radar it suddenly becomes the number but they have really tried to do that in a very one thing that people are doing.I was interested to responsible way. know what actually motivated people to accept lock, stock and barrel a diet which has been the subject Q167 Mr Jack: Let me finally take you up on a point of considerable debate but where advocates that you make in paragraph 5.1 of your evidence. immediately start to become Evangelists and there You say: “Several major companies are now taking was no oYcial input.They just said, “That is for active steps to investigate how the communications 9744972002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 32 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose of nutrient information may be improved such government overlap, or whatever.What are your as nutritional benchmarking.” That is terribly views of how the Government itself is approaching responsible and very scientific.Does that mean they these issues? do not stand a prayer of getting that information Dr Jebb: I think there are two parts to that one through in the light of what you said earlier about question.One is how Government is approaching people picking up on and acting on things like the those issues.Secondly, how easy scientists find it. Atkins Diet? Perhaps I will take them in that order.We certainly Dr Jebb: No, I do not think it does.The point I was perceive, and I do not think we are alone amongst making earlier is that people make their dietary the academic community, in feeling that there is too choices for all sorts of reasons.Di Verent factors much fragmentation in government action in motivate people at diVerent times and in diVerent relation to food, that there is a lack of joined up places.Often the people who are the most educated initiatives across a whole range of diVerent areas, and health conscious, who have made the that there are competing priorities coming from fundamental decision, they want to change their diVerent departments and that makes it diYcult for diet, they know what it is they are trying to do.They everybody: for scientists, for the food industry, for are the people who need the nutrition labelling. consumers, for anybody to know quite where they When they are in the supermarket they can look at are.I am cautiously optimistic that that message has the labels and they can make the right choice.For been heard by Government.Particularly over recent them, improving nutritional labelling, making it months the obesity issue has highlighted that more sophisticated will be really helpful to move enormously at the Select Committee inquiry; in those people a little bit further on into a healthier other areas too.Now we have things like the Activity diet. Coordination Team, the Food and Health Action Plan, both of which are in principle across government.So I think it seems to me that the Q168 Chairman: You point out in the same message has been heard.Whether it has been fully paragraph that Michael just referred to that the food acted upon is probably too early to judge, but I really industry is estimated to spend £450 million each year truly hope that that is the case because food cuts advertising in the UK.Is it not predominantly a right across government.We get into DFES with result of a factor that when a product is advertised issues in schools.We get into DFID.All over if we every half an hour or so on commercial TV it has a are going to make progress, it has to be joined up.As much higher likelihood of persuading people of its far as scientists are concerned, having a joined-up content than the occasional food information government would help us enormously to interact. message from Government? How far, in fact, can the Scientists are not trained in policy issues at all—I free information in messages compete with the have sort of slipped into this.When faced with policy weight of advertising? consultations I notice that we are one of relatively Dr Jebb: As we have said earlier, there is a whole mix few academic institutions who actually respond to of influences on what people are choosing to do. those consultations.They take an enormous amount Advertising is one of them.I can only refer you—I of time.We sometimes feel like we are . am sure you have seen it already—to the FSA Just recently we have the White Paper, the Food and commissioned review from Gerard Hastings which Health Action Plan, we have the activity plan, the looked at the impact of advertising on food choices FSA Strategic Plan, this Defra one, the promotion in children in great detail.It showed that, yes, it did of foods to children.It is absolutely mind boggling. impact, but that it was almost impossible to quantify We try to respond to those and that is really our the magnitude of that impact alongside all the other eVort to engage with Government.The fact is that I influences on food choices. think it would not occur to us really to come directly, Mr Penrose: Food budgeting is very complex in most instances, to ministries to talk about issues. because of the kinds of people who are likely to be That is not really the way scientists work.We tend interested in reading the nutrient labels are probably to sit there and wait to be summoned.I think it is also making decisions about things like unfortunate that Government does not make more sustainability, where the food is coming from, use of scientists to help them in developing the whether it is organic, whether it is produced locally evidence base, in developing policy.There are clearly which makes the actual purchasing decision very one or two important advisory committees, but complex for that person. perhaps they are not even used as much as they might be. Q169 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to ask you to look at the Government’s role in transmitting food Q170 Joan Ruddock: If I may interrupt you, do you information messages.You said I think in your have a suggestion to make? You are already evidence that you were involved with the overwhelmed you told us, how would you like to do Department of Health, the FSA and the EU, not more work? Defra.Where, in fact, food is split in terms of Dr Jebb: I think that certainly at the Medical government departments between Defra and the Research Council we are part of Government.I FSA, which of course reports to health ministers.I think that there could b e some useful discussions at just wonder how diYcult it is for organisations like a very senior level as to how the Medical Research your own and lobby groups in general to interface Council should best be using its science to inform with government, how much confusion you find the policy because it certainly seems to me that it is a 9744972002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose rather ad hoc arrangement at the present time.to keep the pressure on, but we need them to do Looking at it from the other angle, I am acutely much more on fat and sugar and a whole load of aware, talking with the nutrition scientists in the other things too.We ha ve to stay positively engaged. Department of Health, that there are fewer of them than ever before. Q174 Joan Ruddock: Are you saying: “do not regulate, just put more pressure on getting Q171 Joan Ruddock: Really? agreement”? Dr Jebb: Yet nutrition is on the agenda in such a Dr Jebb: At this stage, I think we are making major way that they are under enormous pressure.I significant progress with voluntary action.I think think that we have to find a way of getting in skilled that if we can continue to do that then that is what expertise from outside in order to inform policy; we should do.Because if we go for regulation what consultations are one way of doing it, but I am not we will end up with is diverting a proportion of the sure it is always the most eVective. industry into finding a loophole rather than trying to find positive ways of making progress.Having said that, regulation clearly has to be there as the stick, Q172 Joan Ruddock: I think you have just written a the Government needs to wield a regulatory stick Parliamentary question on how many nutrition and be prepared to use it if necessary, but I am not scientists there are in the Department of Health. sure that we are at that point yet. Thank you for that. Dr Jebb: Certainly, there are fewer than there were Q175 Mr Mitchell: Does that mean you are not a couple of years ago. happy with the European Union’s approach? It seems to me to be a matter of imposing labelling Q173 Joan Ruddock: Should that prove to be the definitions on the consumer.If you say your case, and I have no doubt you must be right, that is preference is for the voluntary approach when a serious matter I think for us to consider.I would making progress, what is going to happen when this like to just refer also to a point that you yourself is imposed on us? made about the Minister for Public Health and the Dr Jebb: There are two separate issues here.I was messages about cutting salt.Do you think that was talking about voluntary changes in product a useful initiative and is it your belief that composition and product innovation and so forth. Government needs to legislate in this area because That is quite diVerent from regulation in relation to we know there is a lot of voluntarism in this cut. labelling.There is already labelling taking place.I Clearly, there are messages going to people who are think that regulation may be necessary in order to taking very little or no notice of the previous pleas of ensure it is done in a consistent way, but again, with Government. labelling, it seems to me that there is actually a lot of Dr Jebb: Firstly, it has been absolutely essential, agreement that we need good, informative labelling. vital and very important that Government has said Consumers want it, Government wants it, scientists loud and clearly that salt matters, and called upon want it and I certainly have not heard the food the food industry in no uncertain terms to cut salt industry objecting to having clear and informative intakes.That has been critical; the salt debate has labelling.The question is how can we do that? What been rumbling for years.There has been actually we really need to do is to get people together and stunningly little progress until the last six months or come up with a better system.I think we have to stop a year.Some progress: we have seen salt in bread pretending there is a perfect system.I am not sure come down over the last few years.I have to say my there is, but we need a better system which people are feeling, and I think it is shared by my colleagues, is prepared to sign up to and use consistently.At the that we are seeing real progress on salt within the moment, labelling is becoming bigger than it ought food industry.Of course, we would all like more and to be.It is becoming a bit of a diversion.We spend more quickly, and so forth, but we are seeing such so much time and energy worrying about labelling substantive progress compared to what we have had when it is only one small part of the overall issue of two, three, four years ago.My own feeling is that at how are we going to improve things to help this stage of the game we should be highlighting consumers to help themselves to a better diet.We those people who have done the most, achieved the need to ring fence labelling into a discreet working most, and applauding that.That might actually be a group who get on and come up with some practical, more constructive strategy.So naming and praising workable solutions and the rest of us should get on rather than naming and shaming I think would have in making progress in other areas. been my choice.We are moving in the right direction and what we want is to keep that bandwagon going Q176 Mr Mitchell: That depends on receptive and going at an impressive rate.I think we need to consumers at the other end.You worried me there remember that with these nutrition things—if we earlier by your emphasis on the grapevine.The want the food industry to start producing healthier grapevine is like the internet; is it not? All sorts of options and marketing and supporting those—we rubbish flows through it.Yo u mentioned earlier have to do it with them.If they dig their heels in and Flora.From time to time there are articles saying refuse to do anything we will all be worse oV.I really Flora is a waste of money, it is overpriced and is not do believe we have to do this in partnership and a going to do you any good.You might as well stick spirit of constructive engagement is what is required.to butter.Yousee a ll sorts of stuV about drinking a I think they are making progress with salt.We need glass of red wine a day.So I inevitably go in for 9744972002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 34 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose excess and drink three or four, but it helps your Dr Jebb: Let us take traYc lights head on.The tra Yc heart.You see organic food: that is good for you and light system is initially attractive because it sounds good for your children.Yet the Food Standards so simple and it sounds like i t is going to cut through Agency tells us it is a lot of rubbish.We feed milk to all this and give the consumers a simple red, yellow, kids at school then tell them not to drink milk when green signal.That is its attraction; it is also its flaw. they get older.The fish and chip shops were strung Because it is so simplistic how on earth are you going up with posters saying: “fish and chips, the health to compress all this great complexity of nutritional food”.Now we are told fish and chips are bad for science into a single three point system? To give you you, but then we are told fish is a brain food.What some of the issues: are you g oing to use these traYc is the consumer to believe in all this? lights to indicate to consumers the choices within a Dr Jebb: I recognise absolutely all of that and I category or across categories? What I mean by that completely understand and share your concerns that is, take reduced fat crisps.Reduced fat crisps clearly consumers are confused.They are confused because have less fat in than the original.Does that mean there are so many messages.This comes back to the that the original is a red food but the reduced fat is whole issue that nutrition science is not straight a yellow food because it is a healthier choice relative forward.This is not smoking where the one message to the full fat variety.It is not a healthier choice “stop smoking” meets all circumstances, all compared with a .So if y ou are trying to have eventualities.With nutrition science you have one traYc light system which works across endless diVerent nutrients, endless diVerent foods.It categories it becomes very di Ycult.Then if you were is probably at the end of the day the combination of doing it across categories probably all of these high that which really matters.That makes it fat savoury snacks would all be red .That would phenomenally complicated for people to work their instantly discourage food companies from way through.Where do they look to for good producing healthier versions of those because they information? That is hard.I think they do still have were always going to be a red.A tra Yc light becomes some trust in independent scientists.They still like to very di Ycult if you are trying to match up the hear that the scientists have said something.Of maximum benefits within a category, with a cross course, that has been hit by some of the recent scare category cutting scheme.The other issue is what stories and worries, not least BSE, but scientists are nutrient are you going to focus on? Is this just about still there and I think have some trust with the fat, which I was talking about, or is it about fat and public.I think Government still does have some salt or salt and sugar, and what about micro trust.The Food Standards Agency has done a lot to nutrients? Then you got in to the whole issue of work with consumers and to bring the evidence in producing a very complex nutritional score.That front of consumers.We are not going to solve this becomes mind bogglingly d iYcult.It may be overnight, but we all have to be working in the same necessary for foods like cheese because cheese is high direction.The other thing we have to recognise is in fat, it is high in salt b ut it is an important source that consumers’ level of scientific understanding is of calcium.Would we really want to label cheese as actually very low.That makes it di Ycult not just to red because it is high in fat and salt? Maybe not.This teach them about good nutrition but about so many is not the time or place to go into the pros and cons other things as well.It is about risk.Consumer of all the systems, but I can assure you this exactly understanding of risk is very confused.It is even what the FSA working group, which I sit on, is about averages.People have real di Yculty grasping looking at in great detail, not only for a traYc light the basic concepts.So we need to up-skill consumers system but looking at a whole range of options in their basic understanding of science alongside which are being used nationally and internationally. more specific nutritional issues. Q179 Mr Mitchell: It sounds impossibly Q177 Mr Mitchell: You are going to tell me I am too complicated.What you are saying, I take it, is it is old for it.How useful would labelling be in this? di Ycult to provide additional labelling information Nutrition: it is diYcult for consumers to choose to show information to the consumers unless you what a nutritious diet is.Should provision of also educate consumers.The two steps have to go nutritional information be part of a label system? hand in hand. Should that be compulsory? Dr Jebb: Absolutely, yes.You need an educated Dr Jebb: Of course, we have nutritional labelling and consumer who knows how to use the label, knows information in the declaration at the moment, but I what they are looking for and is also already guess what you are getting at is the idea of a firmer motivated to want to go to that time and trouble. guide as to what is healthier food.This is an issue which the Food Standards Agency is working on Q180 Mr Mitchell: Okay.Are you also saying the actively at the moment as part of their work on the diVerences in traYc lights, between diVerent kinds of promotion of foods to children.I guess it brings us food, but there is no such thing as good food? There to the heart of the good food/ bad food, good diet/ is such a thing as good diet but good food, bad food bad diet story. is not on the same dimension? Dr Jebb: To some extent.Clearly, there are no foods Q178 Mr Mitchell: It also takes us to the traYc light which are so good that if you eat them they override system.Should you tell them what the nutrients are everything else in your diet.Clearly, there are no and should they be signalled by a kind of traYc single foods which are, to put it bluntly, going to kill light system? you tomorrow.It does not work like that.It is about 9744972002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose the overall balance.If you just talk about good what proportion of their ca lories they want to spend foods, bad foods, it ignores all of the important onthissnack.Ithinkthatisastart.Itisarathersimple issues about how often you consume that food, thing but rather helpful to people.The complexity about the portion and size that you consume.So, of comes with how many nutrients do you want to do course, one has to say there are good diets and poor that for? Thatis where it becomesmuch, much harder diets, but the problem is that this has become a real and alsoharder at a populationlevel.We can sayif we mantra.The food industry uses it to hide behind. think of macro nutrients, the energy providing There are no good and bad foods: end of story.They nutrients, that in general people are consuming too use it as a closing statement to avoid moving any many calories for their energy needs, which is why further forward.I think it is quite clear, common most people are getting fatter.In general, they are sense and rational consumers are quite clear that consuming too much saturated fat and are there are some foods which provide quite a lot of consuming too much salt.We can set some guidelines energy and virtually no other nutrients.Sugar-rich for those, but if you start looking at micro nutrients soft drinks would be a prime example of that.They you get much bigger disparities with the population. know it is perfectly possible to get the same number of calories from a diVerent food which contains a lot of other nutrients and that that other food would be Q183 Mr Jack: I am going to stop you there.Is there a healthier choice than the food which is just calorie any research to show us of all the things you have just rich which contains no nutrients.I think the Food discussed, what the relative levels of awareness are Standards Agency has done a good job, in a way, of from people? In other words, what messages get putting the whole issue in the spotlight and saying through about all these things and upon those quite pragmatically: surely it is clear that there are messages? What proportion of the population some foods which are healthier than others? Whilst actually reacts to them? You said that: “I think the it may sound like a bit of a cop out I think it has message was much clearer 20 years ago”, about actually moved the discussion on a bit to start saying saturated fat.I suppose my sort of question is, as the that there are some healthier and some less healthy fat issue has come up the agenda, what has clouded options. the message? What makes it less clear? Was there some period where people had a much better idea of Q181 Mr Jack: How do you communicate the what they ought to be eating and had worked out benchmarking messages? Because listening to what strategies to achieve a good diet? But now we you were saying earlier on about micro nutrients, eVectively are getting a message saying that people vitamins, salt, sugar, fat, it is quite diYcult if you are have picked up a lot of bad messages, so they have where you are to thensay: how do I benchmark where bad diets. I ought to be? How do I know how many grammes of Dr Jebb: They have become confused.I think the fat this,thatandtheotherthingIoughttobeconsuming? one I would specifically put at Atkins’ door where we How do I develop the awareness so that in my have had the emphasis that actually eat as much fat as everyday workings where I have for some period of you like, it is absolutely fine.That I think has really time control over what I eat because I prepare it and undermined what had been a very consistent and other times I have subcontracted that to a whole coherent message that too much saturated fat was variety of people who have provided me with my bad for your heart. meal? How do you get through to people the starting point and also the simple information that enables them, to at least be aware at the back of their minds Q184 Mr Wiggin: Can you accept with the Atkins that, as they go through their week consuming all this Diet the reason that people do it is that it actually variety of foods prepared in all these variety of ways works, whereas all the other diets we have been told that, they are either above or below where they ought about running up to now: “I have tried it and it to be to hit the Nirvana of the perfect diet. works”. DrJebb:ItisdiYcultandyouareabsolutelyrightthat Mr Jack: What do you mean by “works”? this is an important secondary element of the labelling.We have started this by putting the guideline daily amounts on packets which tell you Q185 Mr Wiggin: It works.It does what the book typically that a woman needs 2,000 calories and a says; it works.None of the others do. man needs 2,500, and sets out the goals for fat, for Dr Jebb: All diets, if you do what it says in the book, example. work because they are all low calorie diets.The problem is that people find them diYcult to stick to. Q182 Mr Jack: Like: “A Mars a day helps you work, For some people, by no means everybody, some rest and play”? people have found that the Atkins Diet works for Dr Jebb: Fortunately they do not use that any more. them in the sense that it fits in with their lifestyle.The So we have started to do that, to give people the research evidence shows that if you look at people benchmarks about where they should be.They can, over the course of a year within the context of a therefore, look and let us use the Mars bar example. clinical trial people do equally as well, or equally as They can take a king size Mars bar versus a snack size poorly following, Atkins as they do following a one.They can see the king size provides about 20% of traditional low fat diet.The anecdotal impression at their daily energy needs in a single item, whereas the themoment isthat itis wildlysuccessful.Theresearch snack one provides only 10%.They can then decide evidence is that it is equa lly as eVective as other diets. 9744972002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 36 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Dr Susan Jebb and Mr Adrian Penrose

Q186 Mr Wiggin: The diYculty is, and I think this is simpleonthefrontofthepacket.Thatisnotout ofthe why it is so important, a lot of what you have been bounds of possibility but it will require a lot of careful saying has been about what is good for you and what working up to sort that out.I think what you may be is not.The only message—I think Austin said it asking for is something which is perhaps a little bit earlier—wasthataglassofwinewasactuallygoodfor diVerent and is perhaps more analogous to some of your heart, it was red wine.A lot of the information the flashes we see, logos we see on products already. we have been given about food has been, “if you eat So things like, for example, the folic acid logo.If you too much salt it will harden your arteries, and that is are trying to increase your folic acid there is a logo bad for you”.At that point you say, “I will try and eat which some companies u se which tells you that this a bit less”, but it is already in the processed food. product is particularly high in folic acid.This is also There is no control that an individual can actually used in a more medical context for people with take, in real terms, over their diet until they do allergies.They are marked up and used to indicate a something fairly extreme like Atkins.vegetarian food and th so on.Ithink ere may be Dr Jebb: I refute that.Salt is an unusual one because opportunitiesfor againcoming backto usingpositive around 75% of the salt people consume is consumed messagestoflagupthat thereareparticularattributes as part of processed food.So they have less control of this food which might mean you really might over their salt intake than they do over other things.actively want to choo se this.In doing so, we have to Of course, one does choose to what extent you use make the hope that that displaces something else processed foods versus fresh foods, but that decision from the diet.If one is going to go down that route is madefor allsorts ofreasons.Forother areaspeople clearly you need to do a lot of research to ensure you have a huge amount of choice: they choose how much are achieving what you thought it was you were fruit and vegetables they consume; they choose doing, but there may be some mileage in that which whether they cut the fat oV their meat or not; they harnesses many of the points you are making about choose what kind of breakfast cereal they have.I simplicity, about positive messages, and so forth. think you make an interesting point about the Mr Penrose: I think underlying this is the need to diVerence between positive and negative messages. communicate the whole message.Part of the problem We have become much more aware of using positive at the moment is that we have food messages, dietary messages.We have seen five a day for fruit and veg.It messages and physical activity messages.Whatever is a very positive campaign.We are seeing in the system we choose we have to m ake sure that the United States things like whole grain, putting the nutrients and concepts are linked to specific foods to emphasis on choosing good carbohydrates with the enable us to be able to turn these abstracts into low glycaemic index messagebeing promoted.I think shopping lists so that people can do something that is a learning curve we have been through and we tangible. are now trying to adopt more positive messages. Q188 MrJack: You havesent me acomplex message: Q187 Joan Ruddock: I just wanted to take you back what is the hypo—whatever it was—index? for a moment to the traYc light system.As you say, it Dr Jebb: Low glycaemic index.Glycaemic index is a is so simple and so attractive.When we began this measure of the extent to which a food raises your inquiry I was hoping very much we might end up blood sugar level.Quite clear ly for people who suVer saying “Do that”, if the one thing we could say would from diabetes it is extremely helpful and valuable to be do that.So I am concerned, but I understand choose foods which have a rath er low tendency or exactly why you said it is a flaw.Can you not envisage make a small increase in your blood glucose levels. any system that is as simple as that in terms of the But this message, to my mind, is being portrayed consumer looking at the product that could be more generally to consumers in advance of the accompaniedbyaframework?So,forexample,ifyou scientific evidence really being marshalled.We do not are eating more than X reds per week you must stop have any good categorical evidence that for the and think.If you are eating this combination your averagepersonchoosing lowglycaemicindexfoodsis picture looks like a nice sunny yellow, you are going to make you lose weight or reduce your risk to probably okay.Is there any way we might be looking these various diseases. It is probable, the evidence is to achieve something that has a simplicity? I know tending in that direction, but it is by no means when I shop I have no time, and most women that are concrete yet. shoppers are like me, they just do not have the time. Mr Jack: I feel better already. Dr Jebb: I do not think you should throw the traYc light system out altogether at this point.What I was Q189 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for trying to do is to illustrate some of the complexities of coming along to give us your evidence.It has been it.However, it is perfectly possible that one has an very interesting.If t here is anything you want to add incredibly complex system of definitions and in writing having given us evidence today, in light of profiling which all goes on behind the scenes, which whatyousaid,feel freetosenditinto usinduecourse. policy makers have set, which scientists have agreed, Otherwise I thank you very much indeed for your which the food industry are very aware of, and that evidence this afternoon. actually the manifestation of that is something very Dr Jebb: Thank you. 9744972002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37

Memorandum submitted by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming

1.I ntroduction

Sustain advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improvethe working and living environment,enrich society and culture andpromote equity.We represent around 100 national public interest organisations, and are independent of the agri-food industry. Current work includes: — Promoting citizens’ participation in food policy making processes. — Reforming farming and food systems, in the UK, via the Common Agricultural Policy and through the World Trade Organisation. — Tackling food poverty. — Promoting five portions of fruit and veg a day. — Facilitating a sustainable London food economy. — Encouraging sustainable food supplies in public sector catering. — Protecting children from junk . Unfortunately, there has not been time to consult fully with our membership on this submission so it does not represent the detailed views of all relevant members.However, it is ba sed on extensive work we have done with them in the past, and on their respective published policy positions on the issues covered by this inquiry, so the general principles outlined are widely supported.Given t he very broad scope of the inquiry, which we warmly welcome, Sustain would be very happy to appear before the committee to expand on the range of issues summarised in this submission.

2.W hy do we Need Food Information?

One of the main conclusions of Sir Don Curry’s report into the future of farming and food3 was that citizens have become almost entirely disconnected from the land and from the farming systems that produce our food, and that this has a number of negative consequences.One of these i s that people know very little about the realities of food production.Surveys continue to show that, for example, some children think oranges are grown in Britain4 and some people think margarine is made from milk.5 In a largely urban society, these gaps in our knowledge are perhaps not surprising.In previous decades these gaps may have been filled by schools teaching about farming and food in the curriculum, complemented by practical skills such as cooking in fully equipped domestic science rooms and growing in school farms and gardens.However, although food education and skills hav e a place in the National Curriculum, the content and practice vary widely.There is much anecdotal evidence indicating that children are as likely to be engaged in designing a box for a pizza, as they are creating and baking one or—even less likely—growing any of the ingredients. Even if we were fully connected to and informed about the farming and food system, most of the food we buy now comes packaged, and often processed, so the ingredients are simply not visible.Information about what is in the package is therefore essential if the market is to work eVectively and consumers are to make informed choices.However, it has been argued that inadequate food la belling is an example of market failure.6.This submission will also argue that the information that consumers need to exercise choice and send the correct signals to the market has, over decades, been distorted, oVered only partially and often simply withheld. This is despite the fact that public interest groups have been campaigning over the same decades for citizens’ right to compulsory, comprehensive and comprehensible food labelling.These demands have been supported by a large volume of research over the years, both from these organisations,7 and from government (dating back to the now defunct Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and currently the Food Standards Agency).Each survey continues to show that citizens want a great deal of information about the food they eat, and find current labelling information inadequate, almost impossible to understand and frequently illegible.

3 Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (2002) Farming and Food: A sustainable future.www.cabinet- oYce.gov.uk/farming. 4 National Farmers Union (1999) Ham from Deer and Margarine from Cows? NFU: London. 5 c/o British Farming (2003) Survey of the public’s understanding of food and the countryside. www.cobritishfarming.org.uk 6 Lang, T (1995) The contradictions of food labelling policy.Information D esign Journal 8/1, 3–16. 7 In particular, the Consumers Association, www.which.net/campaigns/food/nutrition/index.html, the Food Commission, www.foodcomm.org.uk, and the National Consumer Council www.ncc.org.uk 9744972003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 38 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

3.H ow can we Obtain Food Information?

— Labelling.

The list of information which must appear on a label is rather short.8 It comprises the name of the product, its weight or volume, the ingredients, the date by which the product should be consumed, and the name and address of the manufacturer or distributor.However, there are some looph oles even to this short list, for example some baked goods seem to be exempt from declaring their weight, and alcoholic drinks still do not need to list their ingredients.9 Even the name can be misleading, since it is still legal that, for example, cheese flavour crisps contain no cheese whatsoever, while cheese flavoured crisps should contain at least some cheese.More information than the legal minimum is often given, and we cove r most of this in section 4 below, but surveys continue to show a small number of products fail even to carry the legal minimum information.10 New survey work in the sector of fruit juice and juice drinks shows that many imported products may carry, for instance, nutritional information—but in a non-EU standard format, usually American, using scientific terminology unfamiliar to a UK market.11

Education

We have argued above that provision of food education and skills in schools is not universally adequate. Even if it were, however, schools-based education would fail to reach those who have already left school, except indirectly via schoolchildren in their families.Thus a number of o ther mechanisms are being used, as described below.

Other means of communication

In the past, government has produced vast quantities of leaflets intended to inform citizens about various aspects of food, all of which have been almost entirely useless.12 Increasingly, the Food Standards Agency, as the oYcial body with responsibility for most food labelling and information, is using electronic media, particularly its website and, for particular campaigns, TV and radio ads and articles placed in a variety of print media.While cheaper, and less environmentally wasteful than print ing hundreds of thousands of leaflets, eVectiveness in raising awareness varies a great deal.

Food companies also generate a huge volume of information about their products through all media, both paid for and as part of editorial coverage, and retailers often also provide a variety of information in-store. Evidence on the eVectiveness of this commercially generated information is, as far as we know, not in the public domain.However, the Co-op has been unique among retailers since it has not only provided its customers with information, but also produced a series of campaigning reports, arguing for improvements in food labelling, information and food quality.The Co-op has also delibe rately broken food laws where it considers that, based on good research, doing so improves the information available to citizens.13

Public interest groups also provide citizens with information through their campaigns and other activities, mentioned throughout this submission.Many are engaged in work, in tune wi th the Curry Commission recommendations, to reconnect people—particularly children—with our food supply, including: farm visits, allotment regeneration, curriculum materials, farmers markets, teacher training, farms and gardens in or near schools, and cooking clubs in community settings.This work is often h ighly valued by the people involved but it is, by its nature, fragmented and piecemeal, only reaching a small proportion of the population.

8 Food Commission (2001) Reading food labels.Food Commission: London. 9 See the longstanding work by the Campaign for Real Ale www.camra.org.uk 10 Organix (2004) Carrots or Chemistry? Snacking and child health.Organix: Christchurch. www.babyorganix.co.uk. This survey found 10% of children’s snack products had no weight declaration. 11 Food Standards Agency, in press (due June 2004) “Labelling of fruit juices, fruit juice drinks and other similar products”. London: Food Standards Agency. 12 Health Promotion Authority for Wales (1992) Crutches, confetti, or useful tools Good Health Wales Technical Report Number 3.Health Promotion Authority for Wales: Cardi V. 13 The Co-op (2002) The Lie of the Label II. The Co-operative Group: Manchester. www.co-op.co.uk. See also The Lie of the Label (1997) and a series of reports on issues such as food advertising to children, pesticides, social inclusion and animal welfare. 9744972003 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39

4.W hat Kind of Food Information do Citizens Want?

The following merely sketches the potential for and limitations of information oVered to consumers about a wide range of inter-related issues.

Nutrition

Legal requirements state that nutrition information need only be given on a label if a nutrition or health claim is made, or if foods are designed for particular nutritional uses.In practice, most companies do oVer some nutrition information on their products, even when not legally obliged to do so, but it is rarely comprehensive, and even more rarely comprehensible.Where nutrition is g iven on a voluntary basis, the following restrictions apply: — Energy.This must be given in terms of kilojoules (kJ) which almost no non- experts understand, and kilocalories (kcal), almost universally referred to and understood as calories. — Protein.This information must be given (along with energy, total fat and total carbohydrate) if any nutrition information is listed.However, protein content information i s almost completely useless, since protein deficiency is virtually unheard of in rich countries. — Fats.Information about fat content is useful to consumers, and indeed ma ny producers make claims about the fat content of their product, but these are almost always misleading.For example: despite oYcial advice to avoid “% fat-free” claims on food (as these usually give the false impression that the product is low fat), the practice continues.By contra st, information about hydrogenated (or trans) fats is almost completely absent, despite Food Standards Agency advice that this type of fat is even more damaging than saturated fat in increases the risk of coronary heart disease. — Sugars and other carbohydrates.A total carbohydrate figure on a food labe l is worthless, since we should be eating more of one type (complex) and less of another (simple—also known as sugars). Sugar information is often hidden on a label’s ingredients list under several diVerent ingredient headings such as sucrose, fructose, glucose, dextrose, maltose and others. — Fibre.There are currently three di Verent methods of measuring fibre which produce diVerent figures.After years of haggling over the definition of fibre for food labelli ng purposes there is still no “oYcial” method, so comparing products for their fibre content (if fibre information is given or claims about fibre content are made) is just impossible.14 — Sodium and salt.While technically correct to label sodium, since this is the element of sodium chloride (salt) responsible for raising blood pressure, very few citizens are aware of this fact.Nor do most people know that, to obtain a salt equivalent figure from the sodium that may be declared on the label, it is necessary to multiply it by roughly 2.5, then compare the resulting figure to the recommended daily maximum intake. — Vitamins and minerals.Although essential for good health, when they are consumed in foods that are naturally rich in useful micronutrients, vitamins and minerals are often added to “junk” foods (processed foods high in fat, salt or sugar).Many products fortified in thi s way overstate the importance of the added vitamins and minerals—especially in foods targeted at young children. — Health claims.The Joint Health Claims Initiative, 15 a tripartite initiative involving the food industry, food law enforcement oYcers and consumers, has developed a robust system for developing health claims that withstand independent scientific scrutiny.Unfortunately, the system is voluntary and not widely used, and the EU health claims directive, which would have given statutory backing to a similarly robust system, has recently been delayed, yet again.16

A scientifically rigorous system has been devised17 to label nutrients high, medium or low.This system has been used by the Co-op on its own-label products for a decade, and a number of government-funded research projects have shown that people find it easy to understand and to use.It would be straightforward to link this system to “traYc light” labelling, a proposal with a long history which has recently been resurrected.

14 Food Magazine (2001) Fibre labelling—a bad situation is about to get worse. No 52 January/March 2001.Food Commission: London. 15 www.jhci.co.uk 16 Food Standards Agency (2004) Nutrition and health claims proposal: com(2003)424.Bulletin on the Brus sels negotiations. Issue 12, April 2004. FSA: London. 17 Coronary Prevention Group (1990). Nutrition banding.A scientific system for labelling the nutrient content of foods. CPG: London; Black A, Rayner M (1992). Just read the label. London: HMSO. 9744972003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 40 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Safety Despite being a vital aspect of food information, safety information remains flawed. — Storage and cooking instructions.Many people remain confused about the diVerence between “use-by” dates (on highly perishable food) and “best before” dates on less perishable items.A recent survey found information about the dangers of unpasteurised dairy products for pregnant women was rarely on the label or available at retailer “deli” counters18. — Allergens.Many manufacturers and retailers are now improving the infor mation available to people suVering from a range of allergic/intolerant reactions to some foods/ ingredients, though this remains inconsistent and inadequate.However, the defensive use of “ may contain nuts” on a very wide range of products has been widely criticised as being unhelpful to people with nut allergy. — Additives.A recent study 19 has revealed that some children may be consuming as many as 80 diVerent additives each day, some of which are banned in other countries due to safety concerns20. Even where rules exist on the prominence to be given to additives causing concern eg on labelling of sweeteners, some manufacturers persist in concealing the information. — Agrichemical residues.EU laws specify the maximum amount of residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines that should be found in food.While most citizens wou ld not want any such residues left in their food, regular surveys continue to find them, sometimes above what is legally permitted21 and in “cocktails” of combinations that have not been tested. — Strength of alcoholic drinks.As far as we are aware, the Co-op remains the only retailer to label alcoholic drinks with the number of units of alcohol they contain.This all ows customers to link their consumption directly to government information on the number of alcohol units that can safely be consumed by men (21 per week) and women (14 per week).This task is v irtually impossible with customary alcohol by volume (ABV) labelling.

Production and processing methods Historically, this area of food information has received less attention than nutrition and safety, but seems to be growing in importance as issues around sustainable development become more integrated into the mainstream. — Quality marks and assurance schemes.These include, but are not restrict ed to organic and other sustainable farming (or fishing) methods.A recent Sustain publication 22 lists over 30 such schemes, without claiming to be comprehensive, and the number continues to grow.Th e National Consumer Council has noted23 that these schemes are often “more likely to confuse and mislead consumers rather than inform them” and made a number of recommendations for improvement. — Genetically Modified Organisms.It is clear from a variety of sources that most citizens have profound reservations about GMOs or any derivatives in their food, and their minimum requirement is information to be able to choose to avoid this technology in its entirety if they wish. So far, despite recent legislation to improve labelling, this requirement remains unfulfilled24. — Irradiation.As with GMOs, there are serious concerns about the use of thi s technology, and in practice the only irradiated food products on the UK market are some herbs, spices and dietary supplements.These must be labelled as having been treated with ionising i rradiation.However, FSA surveys have shown some products, particularly food supplements, are being sold illegally, with their irradiated ingredients undeclared. — Country and region of origin.Increasing numbers of citizens want to supp ort sustainable development by buying local produce25.However, few realise that the presence of a union flag on a product may mean merely that imported ingredients have been processed here. — Meaningless claims.Despite volumes of guidance exhorting companies no t to use claims with no legal status, or with no supporting standards, terms such as “traditional”, “farmhouse”, “selected”, “wholesome” and so forth continue to be widely used.Similarl y pictures of fruit and vegetables continue to adorn packages of products containing little—and often no—fruit or vegetables.

18 HUSH. UK E.Coli Support Group. Survey published in 2003. www.ecoli-uk.com 19 Organix (2004) Carrots or Chemistry? Snacking and child health. Organix: Christchurch. www.babyorganix.co.uk 20 See information produced by the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group, www.hacsg.org.uk 21 See regular analyses of statistics produced by the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate by, among others, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk) and the Soil Association (www.soilassociation.org). 22 Petts J, Peckham, C (2003) Good Food on the Public Plate: A manual for sustainability in public sector food and catering. Sustain: London. 23 National Consumer Council (2003) Bamboozled, BaZed and Bombarded. NCC: London. 24 For the most up-to-date information about legislative developments, please see the website of the Five Year Freeze, the multi- sector coalition urging caution in this field www.fiveyearfreeze.org 25 Jones, A (2001) Eating Oil: Food supply in a changing climate. Sustain/Elm Farm Research Centre: London. 9744972003 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41

Ethical considerations

As with production and processing methods, ethical considerations seem to be growing in importance for increasing numbers of citizens. — Animal welfare.Vegetarian and vegans continue to find labelling unhelpf ul in following their ethical principles, particularly for ingredients derived from animal sources26.Those who wish to eat animal products from high welfare systems are faced with a range of confusing choices including organic labelling, the RSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme, and a variety of smaller schemes.

— Fair trade.The Fair Trade Foundation 27 (and also Oxfam and Traidcraft) independently certify products to ensure that producers in the South receive a fair price and have decent working conditions.Given the inadequacy of the voluntary code of practice coveri ng supermarkets’ dealing with their suppliers, many are arguing for a similar “fair trade” approach for producers in the North28. — Religious requirements.While it is essential for some faith groups to co nsume only those products certified by their religion, citizens of other religions or with ethical concerns may wish to avoid precisely these products.They may consider, for example, that some slaug hter methods undermine animal welfare.However, surplus products from religious slaughter can b e used, unlabelled, in the food chain.

5.W hy aren’t Citizens Getting the Food Information They Want?

The previous analysis of food information, albeit in outline, demonstrates that parts of the food industry remain unwilling to provide accurate, full and clear information.This is not surprising since, unless all companies are legally obliged to provide it (and they are not) and until the legislation is rigorously enforced (and it is not, see below) companies will be at a competitive disadvantage if they reveal more than their rival firms.It is significant, therefore, that the company that has o Vered most food information—the Co-op—is not a plc. In the USA legislation has compelled companies to give more nutrition information than is required in the EU, and restricted the health claims that can be made on labels.Unsurpr isingly, research has shown this approach to be popular among citizens, but less so among food companies, as a result of which restrictions on health claims are now being weakened29. Food companies often claim that there is not enough room on the label, to provide all the information that people want.While this has some validity for very small packages, a cu rsory glance at food packaging will demonstrate that non-essential marketing material takes up the majority of space.However, there is a genuine problem with providing information about the increasing proportion of our food that is eaten outside the home, particularly from catering outlets. Even if legislation about food information and labelling was improved, the issue of enforcement would need to be tackled.Every issue of the quarterly Food Magazine30 catalogues misleading and possibly illegal labelling, and written complaints are regularly sent to the relevant local authority trading standards oYce. However, prosecutions for breaking food labelling laws are extremely rare.Local authority trading standards departments often do not have enough staV or money to take food companies (often major multinational firms) to court.Central government support for food law enf orcement has focused exclusively (and perhaps understandably) on food safety issues such as fraud in the meat trade.Even if a court case is brought and won by a local authority, penalties for the company are weak, with low fines and precious little adverse publicity.In other words, most companies who break food labellin g laws are likely to get away with it. Moreover, the information and, perhaps more relevant, imagery conveyed in advertising and other marketing promotions can eclipse any details that might be provided on a label.The case for prohibiting junk food marketing to children is now well-known31.While marketing does not a Vect adults in the same way as children, it is clearly intended to influence adults’ purchasing patterns and, although comparative figures are not available, it is likely that considerably more money is spent on marketing campaigns than on

26 See information provided by the Vegetarian Society, www.vegsoc.org and by Vega Research, www.vegaresearch.org 27 See www.fairtrade.org.uk 28 The Soil Association may shortly be launching such a scheme, www.soilassociation.org 29 See information from the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, www.cspinet.org 30 Produced by the Food Commission: London, www.foodcomm.org.uk 31 Powell, C.(2004) Children’s Food and Health: Why legislation is urgently required to protect children from unhealthy food advertising and promotions. A submission to government in March 2004.Sustain: London. 9744972004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 42 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

providing information on labelling and in other ways.Moreover, if enforc ement of food labelling laws is inadequate, then enforcement of codes of practice supposedly controlling broadcast32 and non-broadcast advertising is close to non-existent, and actually non-existent for the internet33. There is, it is true, limited room for the UK Government to manoeuvre on food labelling issues in particular, given that all labelling legislation is set at EU level.Howev er, as noted above, where there is good evidence that citizens will be helped, not harmed by breaking EU labelling laws, the Co-op has broken them in citizens’ interests. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) adds another layer of diYculty.The USA has been particularly vocal in arguing that governments who require labelling of, for example, country of origin or processing and production methods are erecting unjustifiable, and therefore illegal barriers to trade.However, it is helpful that the WTO has recently overturned its previous two decisions, in the shrimp-turtle case, so that countries may indeed specify processing and production methods that, say, protect wildlife so long as these are not applied in a discriminatory manner34.It is less helpful that the WTO often takes its cue, on food matters, from the Codex Alimentarius, the UN system for setting rules about food which is globally traded, since global corporations play a large and unwarranted role in how these rules are set35. 6.What should be done, and by whom, to improve the quality of food (and infor mation)? We are led, by the weakness described in the availability of food information, to the following general recommendations: — The UK government should join with other EU states to demand changes in the WTO approach to food information.Currently trade considerations are treated as more i mportant than citizens’ right to know about their food.This is not acceptable.If Codex is to be used to set standards, the influence of private companies must be reduced and the food standards set should be a floor (below which food traders must not fall) not a ceiling (allowing countries to set higher standards if they wish). — EU rules on food information across the full range of issues should also be improved.However, based on past experience, this will take considerable time.In the meantim e, member states that can demonstrate that their non-EU conforming systems provide better food information for citizens should not be penalised, but encouraged. — At UK level, there is an urgent need to toughen up the enforcement of rules on food information, except where this would inhibit helpful information and/or formats (see EU recommendation above).As a matter of urgency, given the obesity epidemic, government sho uld introduce legal protection for children from junk food marketing.There is a high and growi ng level of public support for this measure.36 Broadcast and non-broadcast advertising, including the internet, should be more—not less—tightly regulated.However, Government appears to be encouraging Ofcom down the path of “light-touch” self-regulation, an approach which has been shown not to work in the Advertising Standards Authority’s sphere of non-broadcast advertising.37 At the same time, the Food Standards Agency should oVer support and funding for trading standards oYcers to prosecute companies breaking food labelling laws.In addition, th e Agency has a practice of “naming and shaming” companies who, for example, have too much salt in their products.This approach could usefully be extended to include companies w ho routinely flout labelling laws and guidance.Some further research may need to be funded to solve the problems of communicating information about food sold without packaging, and in catering outlets. — There appears to be overwhelming support for making food education and skills a more central part of school life, both in the curriculum and outside it.Legislation may be needed to prevent the wide variations in practice that are reported.Meanwhile, Government cou ld instruct Ofsted to make food education and skills an integral part of school inspections. Pending these changes, public interest organisations, such as those referenced in this submission, will continue to do their best to encourage citizens to demand better food information, including on labelling, complain more when this information is inadequate and use their purchasing power to reward good practice and punish recalcitrant companies.

32 Powell, C (2004) The future regulation of broadcast advertising: Response to the Ofcom consultation by Sustain. January 2004. Sustain: London. 33 The Food Commission (2002) Advertising authorities fail to regulate internet slimming ads. The Food Magazine February 2002. 34 Commission by Compassion in World Farming (2003) WTO—the Greatest Threat Facing Animal Protection Today. CIWF Trust: Petersfield. 35 Avery, N, Drake, M, Lang, T (1993) Cracking the Codex: An analysis of who sets world food trade standards. National Food Alliance.Available from Sustain: London. 36 At time of writing, the Sustain campaign on this issue has the support of 113 national organisations.Please check the website for the latest number, www.sustainweb.org 37 Dibb, S (1996) Slim hopes: The results of a survey of slimming advertising. National Food Alliance.Available from Sustain: London. 9744972004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43

However, experience to date shows that improving the quality of food information is necessary, but not suYcient to improve the sustainability of our farming and food system.The rec ommendations in the Curry report, complex and interconnected as they are, need to be implemented by Government as a whole, not piecemeal. 23 April 2004

Witness: Ms Jeanette Longfield, Sustain, examined

Q190 Chairman: Good afternoon, Jeanette community, of oYcials and legislators to come up Longfield.You are the coordinator of Sustain? with a system where everything is covered? How 22 June 2004 Ms Jeanette Longfield hard can that be? Ms Longfield: Yes, that is me. Chairman: Welcome to the Committee this Q196 Mr Wiggin: It is expensive.What about tra Yc afternoon.Thank you for coming along to give oral lights; you heard about that I think.What does evidence this afternoon.Bill Wiggin will start the Sustain feel about the traYc light system? questions. Ms Longfield: Sorry, the reason why I am grinning is because about 20 years ago, I think, a very similar Q191 Mr Wiggin: How helpful is the current food system was suggested, explored exhaustively, and labelling requirements assisting consumers in everybody said, “That is too hard, we do not following a balanced diet? understand it” and, now we are having another look. Ms Longfield: Mainly rubbish, really.They are Again, I think it is not beyond the wit of man, incomplete,incomprehensible,voluntary,confusing, woman and beast to come up with a system that and fairly useless. makes it easier.In Australia they have Pick the Tick, and in Sweden they still have the key hole system, in Q192 Mr Wiggin: In your evidence you refer to other parts of the world they probably have other loopholes in the current labelling regulation, for ways of doing it.None of them is perfect, but it is example baked goods are exempt from declaring surely not impossible to make it easier; even if they their weight, alcoholic drinks from their list of do not turn out to be traYc lights it will be something ingredients.Excepting for a moment the limitations that makes it easier. of information required by present legislation, what about the uniform application? What do you feel Q197 Mr Wiggin: What do you do with things like about that? very small amounts or diYcult foods: unpackaged Ms Longfield: That some goods seem to be exempt? meat, vegetables, that kind of stuV? Ms Longfield: With loose foods I am sure if you Q193 Mr Wiggin: Sorry? could solve the problem of simplifying the Ms Longfield: What do I feel about some goods information you want to give, you have to have apparently being exempt? labels and tickets somewhere, stuV with a price on.

Q194 Mr Wiggin: The fact that it does not apply Q198 Mr Wiggin: On the menu when you go into the uniformly across all goods. restaurant, I think? Ms Longfield: I rang up a colleague in Laycors this Ms Longfield: With loose foods you can put it on afternoon before I came: that is the Local wherever you put the ticket information, what the Authority’s Coordinators of Regulatory Services, price is and what have you.With catering, it depends the Trading Standards OYcers who enforce food on the catering.If it is in a sandwich shop or a fast labelling law.I said: “Why is it that some products food restaurant where basically day in and day out do not seem to be weighed, measured?” He said to you are selling the same stuV, made to a recipe, do me: “Ah, well”.I will truncate the half an hour into a the analysis, get the label: not hard.If you are eating couple of minutes.It is some relic of old weights and somewhere posh where it is cooked from scratch measures legislation, apparently, and cross-referring every day and you are probably not going to eat to food legislation because weights and measures there very often because it is posh, so it does not covers more than just food and taking definitions matter if you eat there to be honest. from one bit of law that does not really apply to Mr Wiggin: It does if you are legislating there another bit of law and you just end up with these unfortunately, but thank you very much. stupid gaps.He agreed that it was anomalous and ought to be sorted out and it was probably on Q199 Joan Ruddock: I want to ask you about action somebody’s list of things to do at some point, but at government level and how well coordinated you nobody has done it because it is kind of boring. think the departments are in terms of food policy and the communication of food messages et cetera? Q195 Mr Wiggin: How would you like to see it Ms Longfield: They are not.The Department of develop? Health and Food Standards Agency fight.Defra Ms Longfield: I just cannot see—there is no reason does not really get involved most of the time.DfES that I can see that is defensible for having any foods is too busy with other stuV.It is just a complete dog’s that are exempt.It surely cannot be beyond the breakfast really. wit of the collective expertise of the scientific Mr Wiggin: On labels. 9744972004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 44 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Ms Jeanette Longfield

Q200 Chairman: This is a joined-up Government, do enforce it, it is then enforced at local level.That is a you mind? whole new area of diYculty and problems.It is not Ms Longfield: Yes.It is a really good idea.I think beyond possibility that the consumer committee that somebody should do it. could get better and could get a grip of things like food labelling, and that is part of food information. Q201 Joan Ruddock: When you hear messages We just have not done it yet.Perhaps a good prod coming out, such as came out from the Public Health from the committee might help. Minister recently, is that something that you think is useful or do you just say: “what does that count because nobody else is going to follow through?” Q205 Mr Jack: Can I just take you to paragraph 5 Ms Longfield: I have a suspicion that is probably the of your written evidence? You make an interesting result of some departmental warfare really, not part observation.You say: “In the USA the legislation of an integrated approach to try to get the industry has compelled companies to give more nutrition to do the right thing.I think there is probably blood information than is required in the European Union splattered all over someone’s carpet over that one. and restricted the health claims that can be made on labels.” Then you go on to say: “Unsurprisingly, this Q202 Joan Ruddock: That is a very cynical view you approach has shown to be popular amongst have here. citizens”.Can you expand and a bit on that? Ms Longfield: I am sorry.I have been doing it too Ms Longfield: Yes.They did research to see if people long, have I not? I should be a dancing teacher, could use it and understand it; they could.It is a clear which is what I wanted to do in the first place. white box with black lettering, quite large type, as Mr Jack: We do special camps.Mr Mitchell does large as you can get on the size of the packaging.It strictly ballroom. is standardised so it looks exactly the same on every single packet.People like it because they can see it Q203 Joan Ruddock: The FSA has set up a consumer easily.They know what it is meant to mean.Clearly, committee “to help ensure the views and interests of it is not perfect because it has not revolutionised the consumers are represented”, and indeed Sustain is American dietary patterns but at least it is not for on that committee.Tell us something about your knowing what is in the packet. experiences on that committee. Ms Longfield: I think we spent a good 12 months Q206 Mr Jack: Given that one is trying to trying to work out what the agency wanted us to do. understand what consumers believe and then what There have been some unfortunate problems with they do with that information, does this research rapid turnover of representatives of the committee actually go the next step and say, “Having seen and so we have not been able to settle all that kind of stuV.Because the agency is the whole thing set up information which they say is good and it is popular, to be the consumer champion, and I am not sure it is that part of an information exercise which the has entirely achieved that yet but at least it is trying. individuals are carrying out saying, I can now work It is not entirely obvious what a special consumer out buying this, buying that adds up to a good diet.” committee would do in an organisation that is I was interested to know what use people made of entirely dedicated, at least on the face of it, to this information. promoting a consumer view.We have discussed Ms Longfield: I do not think the research went that some extremely interesting issues.We have looked at far.I think it was looking at recognition and food promotion to children, food irradiation, GM comprehension and working with the formats side.I food.What else? Food authenticity and also some do not think it went as far as working out what labelling issues, but I have to say I could not hand on impact it had on their buying habits.I may be wrong. heart say that it has been a wild success and shows the way that we should go.I think it has struggled a bit, to be honest. Q207 Mr Jack: The reason I ask that question, and we saw some examples of it last week here, was that the Co-op has gone beyond the requirements of the Q204 Joan Ruddock: So if the Committee has not had the kind of input that we might imagine, people EU labelling law.The Coop has decided that would be saying this is how consumers behave.This producing panels, I think we saw it on a packet of is the diYculty consumers have absorbing messages, jam tarts: very clear, lots of information, but V the time problems with seeing what is on the label. e ectively they had broken the law.Is it right that They are too complicated.It has not had that kind companies do that? What is your view about what of input on that issue of labelling. the Co-op did? Ms Longfield: No, it has not.In fact, there is a whole Ms Longfield: I think if you could show, and I think separate bit of FSA machinery dealing with labelling you have shown, that it is helpful when people are to which we have made bits of contributions as the looking for information on a label that the way that consumer committee, but I think one of the they have broken the law makes it easier rather than problems with labelling has been not just the sheer harder, then frankly I am all for it.If they had volume of labelling and legislation that comes at it broken the law and made it even worse than it from Brussels dealing with all of that, but also the already is, then obviously I would not be in favour, issue of enforcement of food labelling and legislation but if you can demonstrate by robust research that which they are not in control of.Because they do not it is helping, then why n ot? 9744972004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45

22 June 2004 Ms Jeanette Longfield

Q208 Mr Jack: What does that say in your judgment the moment of selection of the item who may then about EU labelling requirements then? subsequently make use of all the information that is Ms Longfield: EU labelling legislation is just a on the label.I suppose the short answer i s what is the nightmare.It was never designed when it was most read part of the label? What do people react to? established, certainly for nutrition, probably for lots Miss Ruddock was asking the question earlier on of other issues as well, it was never designed purely about traYc lights, in other words, labelling is being to help citizens make good choices.It was the result o Vered up by many people as a principal form of of, and continues to be the result of, the usual communication of a wide variety of pieces of political compromises that have to be made between information about a particular manufactured food various lobby groups and industries and diVerent item in all kinds of context.I am just intrigued to political factions.What you end up with is a dog’s know what use is made of al l that information by breakfast of labelling, which was never designed in diVerent categories of people. the first place to help consumers and so it does not. Ms Longfield: I think probably you are going to be having evidence from other people in the food Q209 Mr Jack: Do you think that the UK industry later on in these sessions, are you not? It Government has a role to give advice about perhaps would be really interesting to know if they bring with what those who use labelling to communicate them any of their label’s designers, the people who messages should do, if you like, to go beyond the make packaging really attractive, so that you reach minimum requirements in terms of EU labelling out and buy it oV the shelf.They know what kinds of regimes? things catch people’s eyes: what colours work, what Ms Longfield: Absolutely.There are clearly two shapes work, what images work.What makes a piece things that a UK Government can do.You can go of packaging, not just the label but the shape, and into Europe to say, “This is rubbish, it needs to be what makes it attractive? But of course they use that changed.Do what you need to do; make certain to to sell you stuV, not necessarily to tell any of us what get friends to help to do that.That is going to take a we want to know.That is the stu V that is shoved long time.” Meanwhile, you say, “okay, let us see round the back in the small print and tiny box, what what can work better and let us encourage people to have you.So the extent to which people look at and do it.” If that is breaking the law, well, take us to use particular bits of information depends quite a court then.I simply cannot imagine that anybody in lot, I think, on how the whole thing is designed.You the European Commission were to take a country to can design it so that it is attractive and easy or you court for making labelling easy to understand for can design it so it is hard. consumers. Q212 Chairman: How far do any of the regulations Q210 Mr Jack: Finally, one question.Is there any about the information contained in labels research to show, if you like, it might sound like the counterbalance the type of message that is given over idiot question, what use people make of labelling by advertising? On the rare occasions I unwisely go apart from identifying the product is the one that with one of my children to the supermarket, they they actually want to buy? immediately go to the highest sugar content Ms Longfield: There is loads of research on what use breakfast cereal they can find.They point out, “It consumers make of labelling.It depends on what says here it has five vitamins”.How far does that research question you are asking.When you do your kind of overall packaging counteract the overall research you have to have a very tightly defined message it wants to get over? question, otherwise it is too big and you cannot get Ms Longfield: I think one of the things that was anything sensible out.Depending on what you ask, really interesting about the remit that this committee you can come out with research that consumers took was that you called the whole thing Food never look at labels, they think it is completely Information, and labelling is only one of the things pointless, they always buy the same thing, or you are looking at.You are looking at advertising research at the other end of the spectrum that shows and Government communications and world trade, that people always look at labelling and find it the whole world of information that is available to extremely important to look for particular people when they are choosing food, and you are ingredients or provenance or whatever it is they are right: labelling is just a tidgy bit.It is absolutely looking for.You get completely contradictory necessary to get it right and as clear as possible but results depending on which research question you on its own is completely insuYcient.There are all ask.Sometimes people look and look really carefully because they have particular reasons for doing that. sorts of other things that encourage people to choose Sometimes they just have a quick glance and what they choose or discourage people from sometimes they do not look at all. choosing things; advertising is clearly one of them.I am sure that some of the Members of the Committee might know that Sustain is running a children’s food Q211 Mr Jack: I think what was going through my bill campaign to try to get legal protection for mind is that you might say that 100% of people will children from junk food advertising for precisely quickly look at a label to make certain it is what they that reason. thought it was, what they were going to buy.As you go down through all the categories of information that were available on labels there must again, by Q213 Mr Wiggin: How do you decide what is junk definition, be a diVerent proportion of consumers at food and what is good for them? 9744972004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 46 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Ms Jeanette Longfield

Ms Longfield: It comes back to what Susan Jebb was other, I am speaking as a Labour MP now and that talking about before about developing the criteria, is our position.If there are going to be prosecutions which is this huge lump of iceberg underneath the it is going to develop an antagonistic relationship, is surface which will come up with what we hope will it not? Are we not better seeking co-operation? be a single definition.There is a paper which has Ms Longfield: Should they not just be abiding by the been produced by Dr Mike Raynor who is doing law? I have not got a problem with being some of the work in the Food Standards Agency in antagonistic against companies that are breaking the Committee on which Susan Jebb sits.It is doing the law. exactly that kind of working on the definition of the iceberg because it looks at levels of total fat, diVerent kinds of fat, sugar, salt and so on.It is complicated Q218 Mr Wiggin: Like the Co-op. but it can be done and, as I said before, has already Ms Longfield: Exactly, if you can show that it is been done in several countries so it is not that hard helpful, if you can show that you are doing it for a to do. reason.

Q214 Mr Mitchell: There are not many—I do not know of any—prosecutions for breaking the Q219 Mr Wiggin: Do you not feel that that puts you labelling law.Why is that? Is that because the in a very awkward position because the shredded manufacturers are so virtuous and fully compliant advertisement saying it is good for your heart or is it because they are not bothering to prosecute? was supposed to be encouraging you to look after Ms Longfield: There is a real problem with food your heart as well? labelling prosecutions.First of all, there are not Ms Longfield: The problem was that the type of fibre enough trading standards oYcers to go round and in shredded wheat was not at the time that they were they have to cover all trading standards not just food making those claims the kind of fibre that is so in the list of priorities it is not all that high supposed to help you reduce heart disease, so it was because, apart from extremely rare examples like nut not all that helpful, and indeed arguably not true. allergy and anaphylactic shock, people are not going to die from bad food labelling.It is an accumulation of misinformation and misleading information that Q220 Mr Mitchell: So you would advocate a more causes the problem, so it is not high on their list of vigorous checking of claims and an increase in things to do.Also you need cash to take these cases penalties? to court and because it is done at a local level and Ms Longfield: Absolutely because once companies because there are not very many trading standards have got the idea that they are not going to be getting oYcers and they have not got very big budgets, then away with it then I am sure that they will quite taking a multi-national food company to court for a quickly start behaving.In fact, there is an incentive misleading label is quite risky and expensive and to push the boundaries of the law as far as you understandably, not very many of them want to do possibly can and beyond because you know you can it so in the end what happens is companies get away get away with it, by and large, and if you do not do with it. it then your competitor will and you will be at a competitive disadvantage.The mythical level Q215 Mr Mitchell: Has any multi-national company playing field—at least the law should do that. been taken to court? Mr Mitchell: Thank you. Ms Longfield: Yes, there is a particularly vigorous and good trading standards oYcer in Shropshire called David Walker.He has been a senior trading Q221 Mr Wiggin: My question is to some extent standards oYcer for a lot of years now and has the covered already.What leads you to conclude that backing of his local council.He has taken a lot of global corporations play a large and unwarranted companies to court over his career but a recent one rule in how the Codex rules are set? was Nestle´ because at the time they had some heart Ms Longfield: We did some research, admittedly packaging and heart disease risk reduction claims all rather elderly research now, looking at the over their shredded wheat and he considered that composition of the committees that advise Codex that was an illegal medicinal claim, took them to and we found a preponderance of companies from court and won, which was an extremely brave rich, northern companies on those committees and thing do. we thought that that was probably not right given it is supposed to be an inter-governmental agency. Q216 Mr Mitchell: What was the fine? Governments around the world were relying rather Ms Longfield: It was derisory, a few thousand heavily on expertise from private industry and pounds I think.It is less than Nestle´’s paperclip governments in poorer countries were not getting budget probably and all that eVort for that, so it is much of a look in either and consumer organisations really diYcult for them. and environmental organisations and others, who might be expected to try to counter-balance the Q217 Mr Mitchell: Yes, what is a problem in a sense private sector interest, were almost invisible just is that we are a nice government and we want because they could not aVord to get to all of the friendly relations with business and capital, we do international meetings, so it is horribly skewed in not want to be sitting in trenches sniping at each favour of rich countries and rich companies. 9744972004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47

22 June 2004 Ms Jeanette Longfield

Q222 Mr Wiggin: That is one side of it.The other them any more.” The countries concerned sai d, side, of course, is the way things are produced and “You cannot do that, that is a barrier to trade,” how much consumers want to know about that and complained to the WTO and I think the WTO at first whether that constitutes good information or an said, “Oh yes, that is quite right, you cannot do actual barrier to trade.How do we deal with that? that,” but then there was a n appeal and counter- Ms Longfield: There are lots of conflicting appeal.The final ruling, I think, is that the US can interpretations about what you can and cannot do in indeed impose restrictions on the types of shrimp this area.Some people say, “Well, of course the that are imported and they must indeed protect World Trade Organisation says you cannot do turtles but they have to apply that to their own that.” I think it is called PPMs, processing and fishing fleet.They have to apply it to everybody’s production methods.Other people have looked at fishing fleet not just parti cular countries, so provided their interpretation of the rules and the law and that the rules are implemented fairly and openly, my various test cases and said, “No you can, provided understanding is that you can do it, but it is too that ...“ So, for example, there have been cases to much eVort and you should not have to go through do with dolphin-friendly tuna and turtle-friendly all of that to get there.It should be something that is shrimps where restrictions have been imposed to try encouraged rather than something that you have to to protect wildlife and the countries whose exports battle for. have been aVected by this have said, “Excuse me, you can’t do that.” It appears that provided you do Q224 Chairman: Turning away from turtles to not discriminate between countries and say that one another subject close to the Committee’s heart— has to protect dolphins and one does not or one has alcohol—why do you think that very few retailers or to protect turtles and one does not, and provided producers give information about the number of that you are not overly prescriptive in how the units of alcohol contained in a bottle or other protection occurs, then you can indeed do these container? kinds of things, or this is what I am told by people Ms Longfield: I imagine it is because they do not who know more about these things than I do.It is particularly want to tell people because it is helpful absolutely essential that it is allowed, not only information.It is deeply depressing that the whole allowed but encouraged because what is the point in alcohol labelling field has languished behind even having a world full of free trade when the food, which is bad enough.You cannot get environment is shot to hell? It makes no sense. ingredient labelling, you do not get clear unit labelling (apart from the Co-op) and when we are facing an alcohol problem in this country you would Q223 Mr Wiggin: Perhaps you would like to say a think that more eVort would be put into that little bit more about the shrimp-turtle case because I direction.I do not think it is a technical problem.In feel the same way about it as you in terms of dolphin- fact, it cannot be a technical problem because the friendly tuna and then I get really cross when this Co-op has done it.It is simply a lack of willingness, select committee looks into the dolphin by-catch and as far as I can see. finds that the bass fishermen are slaughtering dolphins with their nets and we are not allowed to Q225 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for say anything about that.Perhaps you can talk about coming along to give us evidence this afternoon. the shrimp-turtle case. What you have had to say to us has been veryhelpful. Ms Longfield: My understanding is that it was a If after today’s session there is any additional written ruling by the US that said they would not import information you think it would be useful for us to shrimps from a range of countries because the way have in light of what you have said today then they caught the shrimps had an unacceptably high obviously we will be happy to receive that.Once casualty rate amongst turtles who were getting again, thank you for coming along this afternoon. caught so they said, “We are not going to import Ms Longfield: Thank you very much for asking me.

Memorandum submitted by the Product Authentication Inspectorate Ltd (PAI) 1.Product Authentication Inspectorate Ltd (PAI) is one of the leading app roved certifiers of food products, food authenticity, labelling claims and food chain traceability in Europe.PAI is well known in the British Food Industry and has developed a strong reputation for its knowledge, skills and appreciation of the issues concerning food product certification.It is also perceived b y many as the only truly independent Food Certification Body in the UK.

2.C ompany Background 2.1 PAI was launched in 1997 to meet a new need in the food industry caused by a collapse of consumer confidence in the food chain throughout Europe and inadequate and misleading food labelling.It provides UKAS accredited independent certification and inspection services to the food industry. 2.2 A subsidiary Italian company was formed at the same time to meet the needs of a similar situation in Italy, which is the largest food-producing region in Europe. 9744972005 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 48 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

2.3 PAI has developed with specially appointed technical advisory panels a range of standards in the food chain, which are accepted as leading edge in terms of quality, safety, environment and animal welfare. 2.4 PAI holds accreditations by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for EN 45011. 2.5 PAI is responsible for certifying a number of food products throughout Europe.These include beers, cheeses, vegetables, cooked and shellfish.PAI’s business also incl udes the traceability, quality and welfare of Pig Farms and Beef Herds. 2.6 Another significant areas of PAI’s work is the assurance of all feed materials used in the production of animal feed, whether they are primary products of processing or by-products and regardless of their country of origin. 2.7 It counts amongst its UK clients: Stilton Cheeses, Scottish Courage, Shepherd Neame, United Kingdom Agricultural Supplies Trade Association (UKASTA), West Country Farmhouse Cheddar, Meadow Valley Livestock, most major UK retailers, Diageo, British Sugar, Genesis, Assured British Pigs.

3.C ommunication 3.1 PAI welcomes the setting up of the sub-committee. It shares the concern regarding messages about food.It considers there is a need to simplify and at the same time improve th e information provided to the consumer. 3.2 One of the problems facing the consumer is the multiplicity of marks coupled with a lack of information in support of the marks.This can mislead the consumer rather t han enable a truly informed choice. 3.3 It is diYcult for the consumer to distinguish between marketing claims and independently verified product information.Also to di Verentiate between the merits of the various schemes. 3.4 The consumer would benefit from an awareness programme relating to product marking. 3.4.1 Education would enable the market to operate more eVectively in that the choice of schemes need not be limited other than by market forces and safety requirements.A bette r informed consumer is in a position to purchase the level of assurance desired over and above the minimum legal requirements eg the importance of animal welfare or flavour or production methods etc 3.4.2 The awareness programme should include the merits for consumers of looking for independent accredited product certification to provide confidence that the product meets the specified standard.

4.F ood Safety 4.1 Whilst considering messages about food safety, PAI would like to draw the committee’s attention to the importance of emphasising a need for full traceability of all animal feed materials and other food ingredients as contributors to overall food safety. 4.1.1 The safety of the ingredients that go into animal feed is critical to the safety of the meat related food chain.Messages about food safety are potentially misleading if they simp ly begin with food production and do not address the integrity of the ingredients. 4.1.2 Assurances regarding food safety need to be able to demonstrate full traceability of the raw materials, through production and distribution and through to the supermarket shelf. 4.1.3 The same equally applies to all ingredients that are supplied into the food chain whether they be spices from the Far East or soya from Brazil or rice from India or chickens from Poland. 19 April 2004

Witnesses: Ms Linda Campbell, Chairman, and Mr Paul Wright, Managing Director, Product Authentication Inspectorate, examined.

Q226 Chairman: Good afternoon, Ms Campbell and you are the Chairman of the Product Authentication Mr Wright, welcome to the Committee this Inspectorate and, Mr Wright, you are the Managing afternoon.I hope we have not disturbed you by Director; is that correct? bringing you along a little earlier in the programme Mr Wright: Yes. than was originally indicated.We are very grateful indeed that you were here a bit ahead of time so that we can use the time usefully.We would like to thank you for the evidence you sent in in writing and look Q227 Chairman: I wonder if I could begin by asking forward to what you have got to tell us today in your you to tell us a bit about what is involved in oral evidence.Linda Campbell, I understand that certifying a farm assurance scheme.Take the 9744972006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright

National Goats’ Milk Scheme as an example; what and they satisfy us that they have been addressed, inspections do you carry out, how regularly, where certification will continue.If not, it will be do you go, what do you look for? withdrawn. Ms Campbell: Paul is the goat man! Mr Wright: We are the verifiers for the National Q230 Chairman: One suggestion is that there are Goats’ Milk Scheme which was a scheme that was about 30 or so such farm assurance schemes developed to allow it to attract a red tractor logo operating in the country, maybe more.Can you give marking and the Goats’ Milk Scheme is built around us an estimate of the number of farm assurance the current national dairy farm assurance scheme for schemes currently operating in Britain? cows’ milk.Because there are certain di Verences Ms Campbell: It will be quite diYcult to give you a between goats and cows it was a scheme that was precise number because there are so many diVerent adapted for goats’ milk.There are only a very, very reasons why there may be a scheme.The 30 probably small number of goat farms that are actually in this is conservative but it might be in the right region and scheme, probably as few as 13 or 14, and in order to I think the thing to recognise about the number of get the red tractor logo they were advised to have diVerent schemes is that they are covering so many independent verification and certification of their diVerent aspects.There may be schemes there that farms meeting those standards.In order to comply are covering quality, there may be other things to do with the standards that have been prepared we visit with safety or animal welfare, or it could even be to each of the goat farms once a year with our auditors do with regionality of foods.There are just so much and confirm and check that they are in compliance diVerent aspects that might require a scheme. with their own standards.If they are in compliance Following on from what Paul said about the Goats’ then they continue to be certified and if they are not Milk Scheme, when you are asking what is involved in compliance then we do what is commonly called in a farm assurance scheme I think the key thing to “raised non-conformances”, which they have to bear in mind is what is involved depends entirely address before certification can continue.Each audit upon what is in the standard and so that is actually will take something in the order, depending on the the nub of the issue, what is actually in the standard, scale and size, of two and a half to three and a half rather than saying typically a farm assurance scheme hours on site. is X or Y.A farm assurance scheme will assure you that that farm complies with whatever is in the Q228 Chairman: What actually happens? How particular standard against which they are requiring many of your staV or the people you are contracting certification. go out to the particular farms? What do they look for? Q231 Chairman: In the guidance from the FSA it Mr Wright: Just one member goes out and he has the states, I understand, that all the food assurance scheme standard and he has the check list, which schemes in the UK should be accredited to might cover a variety of things.I am not totally European Standard EN 45011 by the UK familiar with every aspect of the Goats’ Milk Accreditation Service.What proportion of these Scheme but it will actually examine production, it schemes actually achieves that accreditation at the will examine welfare, it will examine husbandry, it moment? will examine medical records, it will examine Ms Campbell: Again, I would not be able to answer veterinary reports, and it will seek confirmation that that.I am not even sure UKAS could answer it they are adequate in compliance with the standards. because it would not necessarily know what schemes One person will do that.Those reports are then have not complied.It is guidance and I think most submitted back to us by the auditor, who is a of the scheme owners would seek to ensure that their contracted auditor to us and who has experience in schemes are accredited, but I do not think that it is that particular industry, and they are then subject to necessary that all the schemes do meet that review by other experienced reviewers and at that requirement.Also what tends to happen in terms of point the report is reviewed for accuracy, objectivity, accreditation is that some schemes can predate this impartiality and completeness. requirement so there tends to be a practical arrangement to enable schemes to come into Q229 Chairman: What sanctions do you employ if compliance with it.Again, a lot will depend on the the recommendations of the review team are not particular owners of the standards or schemes as to complied with? how definitive they are about the need to meet that Mr Wright: In the first instance of the requirement and/or what terms of time they give in recommendation if they are not in compliance they order for schemes to become compliant with it. do not get certified.They are then asked to put forward their corrective actions for any non- Q232 Chairman: Take, for example, the schemes compliances and immediately on confirmation that which you certify, how many of the ones for which all their all non-compliances are what is called closed you are responsible in some way meet the European oV they will be certified.For continuing certification standard? at the end of each surveillance visit, if there are seen Ms Campbell: I should think probably most of them, to be non-compliances, certification will continue do they not, Paul? for a period of 30 days during which time they are Mr Wright: Where there is a specific requirement for asked to address those non-compliances again. EN 45011 accreditation, it is always our policy to Providing they do address those non-compliances pursue those accreditations.Accreditation can take 9744972006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 50 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright a year.It can take 18 months to build a scheme and end product or the way that i t is being produced, that satisfy UKAS that this scheme is in compliance. you should be able to diVerentiate between those Where there are schemes that do not require 45011— who are simply saying, “I am having a rigorous and I am hesitant to think of any at the present assessment and I am meeting the minimum,” as time—then we would not necessarily go for EN opposed to, in whatever way they do, exceeding the 45011 because it is an expensive cost burden to the minimum and perhaps adding something on as well? smaller schemes.I will give you an example of that. Ms Campbell: Very much so.I think there is a need We certify Whitstable oysters and it is a requirement for consumers to be able to understand what the under EU regulations that the scheme operates to various schemes deliver.In many respects many of EN 45011 accreditation.Whitstable oysters, the schemes are not necessarily developed in however, is one single producer in Whitstable in response to consumer needs.They may be there in Kent where to develop a scheme and to accredit that response to purchasers’ needs further back in the particular scheme would be so burdensome to the food chain, not the end consumer, and there is a organisation concerned that what we do is we simply danger that we do as a consumer pick up completely operate to EN 45011 in that instance.Very rarely is mixed messages.We do not actually know what the that the case but it is such a small operation that it various logos mean.It is not easy for us to be able to is agreed with Defra that in that instance we simply tell, as a consumer, whether it is a marketing claim or operate to EN 45011.It does not make any whether it is an independently verified scheme.From fundamental diVerence, it is just less burdensome on the basic level it is quite hard for a consumer to the poor old Whitstable oyster catcher. diVerentiate between those two things, so I think it is quite important that there is an ability to be able to Q233 Mr Jack: In evidence to the Committee from demonstrate that something has been independently Mr Clive Dibben, an independent consultant, he verified and that this is not just a marketing claim. said that the majority of these schemes in which you are involved, certifying simply mirrors the basic legal Q235 Mr Jack: Have you seen any research to talk requirements in their respective areas of operation about what consumers’ perceptions are of the so they give some degree of assurance that people are multiplicity of schemes that are around, in other playing by the rules but they do not, if you like, go words what they understand? It is quite interesting beyond the minimum standard.Do you agree with to see sitting in this Committee the number of people Mr Dibben’s assessment? who, for example, have organic schemes, which have Ms Campbell: I think there will be a number of a variety of diVerent requirements for products schemes that are predominantly based on minimum under that scheme’s certification process to be requirements and you could perhaps ask yourself the counted as organic.There are European legal question why bother with the schemes if they are requirements to set minimum baseline standards but merely minimum requirements? I think that is some schemes are far more rigorous in their because producers have seen the need to be able to application than others.It is very di Ycult for demonstrate that they are in fact meeting those somebody who says, “I would like to try organic for minimum requirements and that it is quite important the first time,” to know whether they were getting the to purchasers, not necessarily the consumer but in most rigorous or just the basic. the food chain, to know that they are meeting those Ms Campbell: I think it is extremely diYcult because minimum requirements because obviously there is again government has got the very hard choice of no policing of every individual producer to be able deciding whether it tries to enforce standards that to demonstrate that, so this is one means of being are beyond the legal requirement.We have seen able to show that.I think there are, though, many, recently this week someone, I cannot precisely many schemes where they do go beyond the remember who it was, who was confirming that there minimum legal requirement when they are was a feeling in the UK that sometimes we responding to what consumer needs are because interpreted the EU standards beyond that which our again it is often consumers who are asking for things European neighbours did, and certainly in terms of that go way beyond what is sensible to legislate for, the organic area, I know there was a lot of debate in and therefore there is a need in the voluntary sector terms of whether UK organics should be allowed to to be able to develop schemes in response to that, so lower their standards, if you like, to comply with the again things that we are seeing to do with animal EU requirements, lower than many of the existing welfare or the provenance of products may be organic schemes that were here in the UK, and it was something that will go beyond legislation but they an extremely diYcult area.I think overall there was are a particular producer seeing that they are a feel that as a minimum there has to be a level responding to consumer needs, so I do think you playing field between the UK and Europe and that have a mixture of both. we should not penalise UK organic farmers but, equally, there should be the opportunity, if Q234 Mr Jack: Do you not therefore think the consumers are demanding more than that standard, implication is that if people see some kind of to be able to promote organic schemes that meet message of assurance, some kind of scheme, that higher standards and to be able to build beyond that they think that the product area is better than the minimum legal requirement.Again, like all things, minimum? Do you not think that informing people the more choice that you have the more diYcult it is (because these schemes are designed to send out to get a message over to the consumer.That does some kind of message) either about the nature of the make it much more complex, but I think on balance 9744972006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright the preference would be to enable that choice and we Mr Wright: If you take food safety schemes such as have to work harder at trying to simplify the many the BRC scheme that is where the manufacturers pay messages that are there and to hopefully make it a for that assurance, usually at the behest of the little bit easier for people to quite quickly establish retailers one has to say, but it is a common enough benchmark baselines and then those that are problem that you define and it is not one that we interested, and we have to accept that not all of us should have a view on. are prepared to put that eVort into our shopping necessarily to research what each individual schemes Q239 Mr Wiggin: You are in the middle but the means but that those of us who are interested and do diYculty for us is that we are trying to talk about wish to know more about what is behind the various food information and it is all the wrong way round. schemes we have easier access to that information. The people who will actually be serving the consumers are the supermarkets/the shops but they Q236 Mr Wiggin: I am very curious about this are not the ones who are taking a great deal of because a lot of my constituents who are farmers interest in this.It is the producers who are doing it complain that they pay to join various schemes and to promote their product. they do not get much for it.Do you not feel that the Mr Wright: You have to identify benefits too and boot is really on the wrong foot and it should be us that is probably the trick for scheme owners.If they the consumers who are paying for your schemes? I are having to sell that to their members, bearing in have no diYculty with what you are doing. mind that most of the traditional schemes have been Essentially you are policing to ensure that we the NFU driven in the past, quite obviously it is the consumers get what we think we are going to get. NFU’s members to some extent whom they are Should not the supermarkets be paying for that? trying to represent.If you are looking at it from that Ms Campbell: When you say “our” schemes, we are viewpoint and the way it was marketed in the past— the independent verifier of other people’s schemes. to actually give benefits and put assurance back into They are not our schemes and our job is purely to be the food chain where there was a degree of cynicism able to come in and be able to verify those claims. and scepticism with all the claims being made That is not to say we are not involved in helping to particularly from the farm side (and most of the food develop certain schemes because obviously as part of scares have emanated from the farm side in latter developing any scheme if you are going to have it years)—then there was a genuine desire in the assessed you need to consider certain elements in it industry to put more confidence back into the food as you develop that scheme otherwise it would be chain by having assurance schemes, so there is some impossible to assess that scheme.At the end of the benefit to it.Would we have been so successful in day the consumer always pays, do they not? getting beef back on the menu without farm assurance schemes? It is an open question. Q237 Mr Wiggin: No, definitely they do not pay when it comes to farm assurance, definitely they do Q240 Joan Ruddock: I suspect that it may not be not, because there are diVerent schemes, as you about getting a market edge in terms of premium but rightly identified, and some will be better, some will it may be about market share and people are having be diVerent, some will be cheaper, some will be more these schemes to make sure they can actually sell expensive.Very often, with farm assurance schemes their produce and that that is part of it.As a person particularly, ultimately the farmer pays and there is who only buys organic I have to say I have no no actual premium for selling an accredited product experience of these schemes whatsoever.As a and that is the point, I am trying to get to. consumer I do not take any notice of them.What is Mr Wright: I think you have to go back to the the evidence that others are taking notice? It sounds history of farm assurance schemes which were from what you have been saying that there is a lot of confusion, that it may not be consumer led, so to originally membership driven.They were there to V respond to the scares of the early 1990s and BSE in what extent are consumers aware of the di erences the mid-1990s.If you take the farm assurance in schemes? Is there research on this? schemes as they are now there is a negative to it Mr Wright: A lot of this is the confusion of these nowadays because if you are not farm assured you schemes themselves.Do they represent quality? Do often cannot shift your stock.That is the negative. they represent welfare? Do they represent safety? Do they represent something else? If the message is mixed, as I believe it is, and if we are looking at the Q238 Mr Wiggin: That is why I am putting it to you little red tractor as an example of that, I am not so that whilst what you are doing is great, the problem certain that means an awful lot to people because I for us with food is this is a very negative type am not awfully certain that anybody knows what it problem we have got now.People are putting in does represent—British farm standards or not schemes whereby they cannot sell otherwise but that British farm standards, quality or not quality? A red is the wrong way round.Surely it should be the tractor mark on a scrag end of l amb? Who knows? supermarkets saying, “We will only buy from the To enhance the point that Mr Jack made with regard schemes we run”? You may well be the verifier of to organics, with organics of course you have a that but that is not the way it is happening at the generally discerning purchaser who does know what moment.The scheme managers are the ones organic means.When you have got a l ittle red insisting that farmers cannot sell their crop tractor sitting on a logo in a small supermarket that otherwise.discernment is not there and that is where the 9744972006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 52 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright education comes into it, which is what we are saying terms of getting over a credible message is that both here, and part of the remit of the committee is how organisations are seen as being impartial, far you take the education on it, but I am not certain independent and competent, and I think for that any of the major schemes actually have the anybody to listen to any message that is coming out consumer recognition that they should have.of anywhere it is essential th at they are able to demonstrate that.So for me looking for somewhere Q241 Joan Ruddock: Clearly that is an example of a to start to help to bring the messages together and to less well-understood scheme.Have you got an be able to provide something that consumers could example of a particularly well-run scheme? trust, I would start by looking at those two Mr Wright: I would mention the Soil Association organisations and seeing if there was any way in schemes as being particularly well-known and I which either their remit or their resources could be think most people who buy a Soil Association- extended and, with co-operation between the two certified product know pretty well what they are organisations, whether they would be able to help to getting, but that is down to their discernment.I deliver a solution to it. cannot think of any others that immediately spring to mind. Q247 Joan Ruddock: Are you conscious of new schemes being on the drawing board? Q242 Joan Ruddock: I was going to suggest that you Ms Campbell: I think there are probably new leave that aside because it is not really comparable schemes all the time, yes, absolutely. because it is a whole category of produce right across the board and there is a diVerent connotation to Q248 Joan Ruddock: So we can see an even greater organics which is a single word and which means increase of schemes and greater confusion arising if something precise.There is no other scheme like the nothing is done? badging schemes that you can point to as being Mr Wright: You might see a greater increase but you successful? also might see a better result because in the past farm Mr Wright: The one that has got nearest to public assurance schemes particularly have been quite acceptance is probably Quality British pork.I think prescriptive in the way they stipulate what you must people do recognise that as a valiant attempt at have and what you must do and what you must not putting quality into the British pig business. do.That is good and that is sound but the modern way of thinking about farm assurance schemes is Q243 Joan Ruddock: What does it mean? that they should be outcome based so you are Mr Wright: Quality. actually looking at the outcomes and how they get to the outcomes is of interest obviously because if they Q244 Joan Ruddock: What does quality mean? are doing anything illegal that would not satisfy the Mr Wright: Well, it is a mixture of things but they do outcome.Generally speaking, if y ou are looking at market it as quality whereas some of the other an outcome that is the way modern farm assurance schemes do not.schemes are going. Ms Campbell: I think there are many, many drivers Q245 Joan Ruddock: I think I have seen it, yes. that are going to say there are going to be more and Mr Wright: They do market it as quality whereas more schemes, and not least the drivers are the some of the others do not.They are certified to a consumers themselves because we are getting more particular standard. and more discerning consumers who want to know more about where their products come from and Q246 Joan Ruddock: We had some evidence again associated with that of course we have got the from Clive Dibben, who has been referred to increasing globalisation of food and where we previously, saying that “various attempts have source our ingredients from, and people are getting already been made to develop an overarching body more and more concerned about traceability of the to explain the merits of assurance schemes to UK food chain.We were all very comfortable when we consumers ...”Do you think there is any value in were buying it from our local producer and we all are that? perhaps much more sceptical now that we are very Ms Campbell: An overarching body? I think there is much based in a supermarket economy in the UK always a benefit if you can gain co-operation and and perhaps we are getting increasingly concerned consolidation so you can simplify the message.I because we are seeing even more of that sourcing think that there are already organisations out there having to go overseas.I think the drivers are there that may be able to extend their remit to enable them for more schemes not less schemes and therefore I to fulfil their role.I am not sure whether there is suppose it is beholden upon us to try and find ways necessarily any great benefit in reinventing the in which we can ensure that whilst there may be more wheel.Potentially you have got the Food Standards schemes because we have many more choices we Agency whose remit could be extended.You have have got to work harder at trying to enable that also got UKAS, which we heard earlier is the UK information to be digestible to those who are seeking Accreditation Service, whose job is to ensure that the information. anybody like PAI, who provides independent validation, is competent to do so, and I think the key Q249 Chairman: You have hit upon a crucial point thing both about the FSA and UKAS that is quite because we had written evidence from the National important to anything that you are trying to do in Consumer Council to the eVect that having studied 9744972006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright consumers’ views on voluntary schemes their the retailers’ involvement in it.Retailers are always conclusion was that the schemes were more likely to going to be competitive, they are always looking for confuse and mislead consumers rather than inform an edge on it.One of the qu estions you might ask of them.We are getting more and more schemes both the retailers is what is driving them? Is it due domestically and from other countries and most of diligence, is it consumer trust or a variety of other us will recognise some of the marks from Germany things that is doing it? To actually ask for a saying recycled material is being used in a container reduction in the number of schemes is almost an by the Soil Association, or the equivalent.If we are impossibility because every retailer is looking for an going to get more and more of these kinds of edge on their competitors in that regard usually with schemes it is going to cause both confusion of the a view to gaining trust but very often for due consumer and further devalue the schemes which diligence purposes. you currently verify. Ms Campbell: It is also perhaps worthwhile Ms Campbell: I think there are problems.We cannot mentioning that the panel talked about the 445011 ignore the internationalisation and we cannot ignore standard, and that is the standard the independent the fact that consumers have strong opinions.They verifier, the PAI (if we are accredited by UKAS) has may be many and varied and they may want to be to meet and ensure that schemes meet.The one thing able to meet their particular desires.I think it is that it does do is that whilst we do not set the actual important, therefore, that we maintain a focus that standards if they are to meet 45011 we have to be the schemes are independently verified because I able to demonstrate that that standard or that think that is one way that you can start to increase scheme did have input from all the key interested the confidence levels.That is the first thing—that parties.I still think that potentially it is quite hard they cannot just self-declare, if you like, that they for consumers to input into those schemes but there meet those criteria—and I think independent is a mechanism to say it should not be driven by a verification is very important.I also think that as particular interest.Q uite a lot of eVort does go into part of that independent verification should be the trying to ensure that appropriate people are around ability to access information on what the various the table in developing those schemes and at times it schemes mean.If you take the organic one, if you is probably quite hard to be able to get consumer look at that internationally, it is very diVerent and input because again it is quite time-consuming and you are not necessarily getting the same things.You demanding.That is one of the di Yculties I know the may know what the Soil Association label means but schemes themselves face—trying to be able to get there are other organic schemes and they mean that input. something diVerent, so you have, I would think, exactly the same issues in the organic sector as you do in the normal farm assurance sector because you Q251 Mr Wiggin: Taking a wheat scheme, you go will have certain schemes that are driven by the around and you make sure there are no light bulbs so that no glass can fall into the wheat and no birds particular needs of a market-place and the consumer V who wants to set those higher standards, and it is can get into grain store, but the wheat goes o to the worthwhile developing a scheme because people will miller, he turns it into bread which goes into a respond to it and, equally, as we talked about earlier, supermarket, and if the wheat is not the right price you have got the EU requirements on organics he will buy his wheat from another country abroad which do not require necessarily all the extra which will not have been verified perhaps by you.So safeguards that we may prefer in the UK, so there now we have got as consumers the problem of are many issues in terms of imported foods that can choosing the shop we go to, then buying bread come in with the various diVerent labels as well as produced by a type of miller which we hope will have the various schemes that we can invent ourselves in used grain from one of your verified schemes, so then the UK, so I think the answer is that we are certainly we have to make sure we have got the right verifier going to have to work harder at trying to make that as well and that it comes from a scheme that we think information available and, regrettably, the is a good scheme, and again Ms Ruddock was consumer is probably going to have to work harder talking about her organic interest but that applies in bothering to find out that information, but we have organic just as much as in any other sort.Now we just got to make it as easy as possible to make it have got an even more complicated system of available. choosing what is good for us than we had before. Surely by having this legislation we can get rid of the assurances because all food must live up to the Q250 Chairman: A body like yours can only verify standard otherwise the law has been broken, so your independently the claims which you have been asked role is just as important but you should be policing to verify.You do not control how they are marketed, as opposed to verifying that people are complying you do not specify what criteria are to be verified.It with the scheme and tha t would simplify it surely? Is is very much “we develop a scheme and we decide that one of the things we should be looking at? what is to be in the scheme.” Mr Wright: Maybe you should be looking at it but Mr Wright: If we are asked to help develop schemes it is market pressures.I know increasingly that the then we will develop schemes but we do not sit there millers are sourcing their wheat from assured in adjudication as to what is a good scheme or is not sources in the UK but in times of shortage a good scheme.We are asked to develop things.The commercial consideratio ns come into play and that one thing that you should take into account when is a question that you must ask of them.There is a you are looking at the development of a scheme is lot coming in and pressures are developing in 9744972006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 54 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June2004 Ms Linda Campbelland Mr Paul Wright production so that over a period of time, Q254 Mr Wiggin: I agree with you on that, that increasingly so, assured wheat in your example is every claim should be policed eVectively. actually being consumed by us in the bread that we Mr Wright: That is right and if we go back to eat. something like the animal feed materials, we can do Ms Campbell: I think there would be diYculties an awful lot of traceability of the raw materials that because you have got to look at the whole food chain goes into animal feed and there is no doubt there is and policing the end product would not necessarily more integrity in animal feed than there is in the be able to tell you everything. human food chain at the moment.It is because of the scares in the past that we are deploying a standard that makes sure that anything that is produced for Q252 Mr Wiggin: I meant policing the process the animal feed industry in the UK has got product because we cannot police the end product.As a integrity associated with it.Having said that, I consumer we are doing that eVectively with our suppose it is only because we eat the livestock that it money.We need to be sure that whatever is for sale can have that impact.It is interesting that what we in our supermarkets is as healthy as it is supposed do in the animal feed chain is not necessarily what we to be. are doing in the human food chain and it is no good, in our view, having a food safety standard that sits Ms Campbell: Which is what the validation process above the processing of it and manufacturing of it if tries to do.Depending on the various schemes, the you do not know that what you have imported from whole chain is traceable going back the way from the Brazil or the Eastern Bloc or Far East in terms of ingredients that come in in feed, et cetera. spices and all the other things have got integrity themselves.We open a can of worms with that but I Y Q253 Mr Wiggin: That is right because now as a am absolutely convinced that it is insu cient to just look at safety in the manufacturing process.What consumer I have to not only check the E-numbers about the integrity of the materials? We have done it but I also have to check who validated it.That is the in our animal feed; we should be able to do it in problem. human food. Mr Wright: In the submission we talk about (or Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming perhaps we do not and perhaps we talked about it along this afternoon to give us evidence.It has been afterwards) the fact that the verification of all claims very helpful indeed.If there is any additional written should be independently verified.That would be our evidence you want to submit in the light of your position.We would say that, would we not, but we comments today feel free to do so if you so wish.It think that is a sound start point. will be useful to us.Thank you very much indeed.

Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers’ Union

The NFU represents approximately 75% of farm production in England and Wales.We represent sectors as diverse as dairy, cereals, sugar, livestock (beef and lamb), poultry, horticulture and potatoes.The majority of our members produce primary agricultural product although an increasingly large number are adding value through further processing or packaging to produce a finished food product.In addition we represent a number of farmer controlled businesses or co-operatives many of which are involved in further processing but on a much larger scale.

The Committee’s terms of reference are quite broad.Several of the issues r aised are of primary importance to the British farmer, whilst others are very important to the food chain as a whole.Please find attached a joint response made by the NFU together with the British Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Federation and the British Hospitality Association, to a Department of Health Nutrition forum paper last year, which highlights our position on food relating to health and nutrition [not printed].

The overarching need should be to provide the general population with a better understanding of what is meant by a healthy lifestyle and diet.This has to be balanced against wha t is a reasonable level of physical activity.

Whilst the important areas of nutrition, safety, and production standards are considered under the broad heading of food information, the NFU would also ask that the Committee have careful regard to the importance of country of origin labelling of foodstuVs.Consumers have a clear interest in where food was primarily produced and processed, and we are concerned that under current regulation and practice labels can be highly misleading.The NFU supports the clear labelling of foodstu Vs and country of origin must be a priority within this.

On a related point the terms of reference also appear to be confined to production and retailing.The NFU would urge the Committee to consider the role of the food service sector in delivering food information to consumers as well.The NFU fully supports the MLC’s Menu Transparency init iative in this regard. 9744972007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55

In addition to the issues covered in the Food and Health Action Plan policy statement referred to above, the NFU would like to make the following points:

Food safety All links of the supply chain have responsibility for food safety.As part o f the food chain, British agriculture wants to act responsibly and has put in place a number of measures to ensure that food is safe. In particular Assurance Scheme protocols have been designed with food safety as a primary objective.Clear labelling of food with the Red Tractor logo denotes that it is farm assured. The NFU works closely with industry and government to ensure that standards are maintained and regularly reviewed.Through the consolidation of all the assurance schemes under one logo, the consumer is better able to recognise farm assured product.Indeed a key driver in the development of Red Tractor was t o reduce the number of logos associated with farm assurance to assist consumers in their purchasing decisions

Production systems These are also covered by assurance schemes.The NFU supports all forms of p rimary production providing all the necessary requirements of health and safety are maintained.If foodstu Vs are labelled to denote the system of production employed then this labelling must not mislead the consumer.Furthermore if labelling is used to denote production systems then it must be used positively, informing customers rather than using subjective claims, which are made at the expense of other systems.

Ethical considerations The NFU works with unions, regulators and government to ensure that labour standards meet statutory requirements.We strongly support Jim Sheridan’s Bill to introduce a lice nsing scheme for gangmasters in our industry.Again the NFU would support clear and accurate labelling in t his area so consumers are not confused. Information currently provided on food in the retail sector is generally of a good standard.Nutritional information, sell-by and use-by dates are on the whole accurate, while information on assurance schemes and production methods are now more widely available.Above all labelling should be clear and inform the consumer.The industry should guard against information overload as well .If too much information appears on the label then consumers may not always discern the key information they require. April 2004

Witnesses: Mr Tim Bennett, President, and Mr Robin Tapper, Head of Food and Farming, National Farmers’ Union, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Bennett and Mr Mr Bennett: I am rather surprised by the latter one Tapper.First of all, my apologies for changing the as someone who is a farmer as well as President of agenda round so you are a bit later than you the NFU because over the last few years there has otherwise would have been but, as you will been quite a marked tightening of regulation in appreciate, we wanted to make the best use of the terms of food safety, and quite rightly so.As a time available as we had moved slightly ahead of our farmer I am subject to very stringent hygiene time table.Welcome this afternoon.Could I thank through the meat chain an d in terms of pesticide you for the written evidence which you have usage and in the way that pesticides are authorised submitted to us and we look forward to what you there is very tight regulation but what the industry have got to give us in oral evidence this afternoon. also does is go beyond that and look at the industry Could I invite Joan Ruddock to start the questions.doing things like the vo luntary initiative in the use of pesticides.We are also a key part of the responsible Q255 Joan Ruddock: To start with food safety, as so use of medicines initiative working with others, so I often is the case with these inquiries, we have think regulation has tightened up considerably in received written evidence which is quite recent years and if you look at the results in terms of contradictory.We have the British Retail food safety then you see some results from that, and Consortium saying that food safety is not a certainly if you go abroad and look at the way significant problem.They say that: “UK legislation hygiene regulation is applied and the way the is quite clear—all marketed food that is properly regulation is there you will find significantly more processed, stored and prepared is safe for general attempt to do it correctly, with greater cost to our consumption.” We also have evidence from Dr industry I may add, than you get abroad, but I think Richard Bain from the Royal Agricultural College also we as an industry have always tried to look in Gloucester suggesting that: “ ... home-grown ahead and see what are the problems that are coming produce is largely unregulated in terms of food because sometimes, if there is an issue, legislation hygiene.” How do you react to those two bits of trails behind problems and that is why we try to be evidence? proactive in these areas as well. 9744972008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 56 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Mr Tim Bennett and Mr Robin Tapper

Q256 Joan Ruddock: Could it be the case that good are probably receiving a much lower rate of return farmers like yourself are obviously pitching up for for their product than those that are selling into the the highest possible standards but others in the UK organised market that Tim refers to. are not and that might have led to this comment? Joan Ruddock: So the Eddy Grundy incident on The What precise regulations are you required to meet in Archers is complete fantasy, is it? terms of hygiene? Mr Bennett: It depends what sector of agriculture Q258 Mr Jack: Not as far as Eddy is concerned. you are in but if you were like me—and I have just Mr Tapper: I am not an Archers’ listener but, yes, recently given up dairy farming—I would be subject everything has got a market at a price and I think our to the milk and hygiene regulations on which there job is to ensure that the best product gets the best will be a spot inspection not an announced price in the best market and that we can literally inspection.We are also subject to trading standards market that, we can inform the customer that those inspection in terms of animal records and indeed products have had due diligence. making sure that the milk is milk and there is no water in it.You have got all that.If you are a beef Q259 Joan Ruddock: Would you share the British farmer you have got the animal identification, not Retail Consortium’s view then that British food is only through trading standards but also for the safe, that is it? British Cattle Movement Service so if you have not Mr Bennett: British food has got good regulation got a passport for an animal and you have not got behind it.I think the industry itself puts a lot of e Vort a history of that animal and where it has been, then into making sure it is safe.To be quite blunt about eVectively it is worthless because you have not got a it, if our consumers do not feel safe then we have not market.There is lots of regulation.Recently I had an got a business and so it is our job to make sure if inspection, for example, for checking the welfare of there is some perception or even genuine concerns the animals, calves as it happened to be, from a from the people to whom we sell then we have to put Ministry inspector.While they were there they that right.Sometimes you try to put things right even checked the records to see what medicines I had used if there is not necessarily a health scare.It is not just and whether I had used them correctly and also what about getting it right for the consumer, it is also we call the movement book to check that my records about making sure the consumer is completely are up-to-date.A lot of us farmers would say that happy and you get the nuances from them about there are quite a lot of people who can check what their perceptions. we do in terms of food safety.What we would want to do, of course, is we are in a global world and we Q260 Chairman: I think you heard part of our have to be shown to be better than anyone else discussion about the question of food assurance because hopefully that will give us an edge with our schemes.Could you first of all give us your estimate consumer.I have to say that farmers who do not of the number of such schemes that are in operation practise good practice probably will not have a in Britain and then tell us whether you are in favour market-place.If they have not got one today they of fewer such schemes or a consolidation of such certainly will not have one in the future. schemes being brought into eVect? Could you perhaps say whether you favour a consolidation or reduction in the number of such schemes and if you Q257 Joan Ruddock: Unless they are selling it down would, perhaps most importantly, how would you a local market and they are not requiring themselves achieve that? to go through retailers and supermarkets or Mr Bennett: I would not know the exact number of whatever.So there is some escape route for some schemes out there but I agree that there are probably people, is there not? too many.I think it depends how you determine those schemes.Farm assurance really got going in Mr Bennett: If you are selling meat you have to go terms of independent verification of farm standards through an oYcial slaughter house so you are back in mid-1995–96, somewhere round the BSE subject to all those sorts of regulations.You still scare, and the schemes developed on a sector-by- have inspections even if you sell eggs at a farmers’ sector basis.As those schemes developed we in the market.You would still be subject to the regulations NFU felt that we had got lots of schemes, lots of on farm.There is no doubt at all however in terms of inspections and we needed to consolidate them.We the market-place that if you are selling into the retail have been working to try and get some consolidation sector the market-place itself drives very high in.We have got the Assured Food Standards whose standards because the consumer through the ultimate remit hopefully will then control that.It is customers and the retailers in the food chain set the an independent body which as part of it will standards and those standards can vary because hopefully end up consolidating a lot of the schemes. every retailer, particularly the ones that go for We have had some success.At least we tend to get quality produce in the south of England, would single inspections.If you are a cereal and beef farmer probably add extra conditions for being a customer or dairy and beef farmer, for example, which is a of theirs. scheme we are working on now, you now get single Mr Tapper: I think the household-type markets or inspections so there is some sort of integration. the street-type markets that you referred to really is What you cannot avoid is that there will be some the last chance saloon.We are talking about return retailers who for competitive reasons or their own here and people who are selling into these markets particular market-place will want to add something 9744972008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57

22 June 2004 Mr Tim Bennett and Mr Robin Tapper to basic farm assurance schemes.Even then there is Mr Tapper: Yes, we have done two pieces of no reason at all why that cannot be done at the same research.First of all, there was some research on time.So we are in favour of consolidation but we recognition and the red tractor has something like want something like Assured Food Standards to 47% recognition amongst customers.That is second drive it to make sure that it is being done correctly so only to the lion mark on eggs, so it was a great that it is not just a trade association doing it.I think success from that point of view.The least success is it is very important for the independence and on the understanding of what the red tractor means integrity of these schemes that it is done properly and there the recognition is low.I think it is low for and not just farmers saying that they want to make two reasons.First of all, there is confusion.People this a bit simpler.However, we agree with the see it as a nationality mark sometimes when it is not. consolidation. We would like to think that people thought of it as British but we certainly cannot promote it as that because of the state aid rules, amongst other things. Q261 Chairman: Is it not a bit odd that in a world There is also the issue that we are very conscious of where the food retail sector is heavily dominated by that we have not marketed what exactly it does a very few major players that no-one seems to be able mean.Of course, unlike eggs where you have got a to tell us how many schemes are in operation or one-product industry, the message in agriculture is indeed just simply give us a list of the fields which much more complicated.You might have carrots at they cover? I am not blaming you for that but these one end of the scheme, which is fairly do purport to be national schemes in most cases, I straightforward, but you might have a meat product understand, and yet nobody seems to know what is at the other end which could be very complex, and out there.Does that in itself not say something about so trying to get a simple message across the whole of the problem? agriculture is quite diYcult, but we are trying to Mr Bennett: We could probably give you a fairly develop such a scheme. comprehensive list of schemes but I would take the point that I think we need to consolidate those schemes because across all those sectors there tend Q263 Mr Jack: So you have 47% of consumers to be diVerent schemes and indeed in the organic recognising a label with a meaningless background sector there are diVerent inspection schemes so there to it? They have not got a clue what they are is an opportunity to do that and we are encouraging recognising. people to do that, and I think we are having some Mr Bennett: I think it is fair to say that it signifies success certainly in the sector schemes. someone has put some assurance in there but they Mr Tapper: There is a dichotomy there as well.You would not know exactly what that is.That would be have got schemes which are set up such as the red true of most of these logos.Even the organic labels tractor scheme which is eVectively a standard, a sort of the Soil Association people know it is organic but of kite mark if you like, and then you have got other not many would know the detailed scheme schemes which I think were mentioned by previous standards. witnesses which may refer to provenance or particular elements of a product.It is very di Ycult to Q264 Mr Jack: Do you not think in a way if one draw a line there.Certainly from the retail point of were to do an article in some salacious newspaper view and from the customer point of view they and it said “owners of red tractor scheme would say they are too many schemes and again we acknowledge that lots of people recognise the label are trying to get to one standard which forms the but the whole thing is a meaningless myth” that the basis upon which other people may want to build whole thing would collapse round its ears, would it extra bits and pieces if they so wish.We need one not? standard across the chain so the consumer knows Mr Bennett: I do not think that is the case.I think the that what they are buying is safe and meets certain Food Standards Agency came up with that research, guidelines. they quoted something like 40% a couple of years Mr Bennett: The rationale of the red tractor was to back, and then also stated that there was a need to try and put a logo that reflected a multitude of increase the understanding behind those logos, schemes that were designed to give consumer which is the same as Tim says. reassurance.That is what we are still trying to do. Chairman: That leads neatly to Michael Jack who wants to ask about the red tractor scheme. Q265 Mr Jack: What are you doing to address that? Mr Bennett: I think that is important.It goes along the lines in a sense we have tried to integrate the Q262 Mr Jack: What research has the red tractor schemes into Assured Farm Standards which the scheme done to see what messages the consumers are scheme is part of and obviously there are actually picking up of assurance (because this independents on that board and that is an inquiry is about food information) and to check that independent body and they will actually market the scheme is designed in as simple a way as possible what is behind that red tractor.We will obviously to send out some indication about the way that the help promote that as the NFU but it is for Assured food is produced to the consumer? Have you done Food Standards to get the commercial plan about any research to find out what people actually believe how to explain the standards.We are in discussions it all means? with them on that at this particular time. 9744972008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 58 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Mr Tim Bennett and Mr Robin Tapper

Mr Jack: You may be in discussions but you have achieved and that fulfils our place in the market- allowed this thing to promulgate that so people do, place.You are quite right that beyond that you can I am afraid, think it is a country of origin marking. add, in terms of eating quality and things like that, You have been quite candid with the Committee in other things.Can I go back on the British thing; saying that as a piece of communication you cannot because of state aid rules, whether we like them or market it as such, and you acknowledge the fact that not, we cannot claim it as a British logo.We did not people outside the United Kingdom could come into set the rules on that, they were set by politicians, if I the scheme, but you have not at this stage said to me, may say so, whether we think them right or not. “We are going to do something comprehensive.” What we have got at the moment is that it has to be “We are in discussion,” is what I hear and yet people licensed and what we do know is that no product has are supposed to derive a glowing sense that if they been licensed to the red tractor other than British get a product with the red tractor on, somehow it is product and the customers/the retailers have only good, wholesome, high standard— brought red tractor produce that is British because Joan Ruddock: Who says so? they can do it in the market-place as customers to say it is only British with the red tractor, but what we cannot do because of the Single Market is state Q266 Mr Jack: Just a minute, I have not finished the equivocally that the red tractor is British; that is sentence.When I was looking at a publication which illegal. the Consumers’ Association sent to the Committee they said: “The red tractor scheme also allows Q269 Chairman: Just one point if I may.You did birds”—this is in connection with poultry—“to be indicate that you thought it would be relatively reared in more cramped conditions than simple to produce a list of the various farm recommended by the Government.” Is that a correct assurance schemes which as far as you knew were in statement? existence.I am sure that it would indeed be very Mr Bennett: I could look at the standards of every helpful to the Committee if you were to provide us single scheme and come back with an answer to you with that type of arrangement.If you could do that, on that one.It certainly would not be below the legal that would be very helpful. standards, I can assure you of that.In fact the lion Mr Bennett: We would be delighted to do that, eggs scheme is not part of the red tractor scheme. Chairman.

Q267 Mr Jack: So the best you can say to us is that Q270 Mr Wiggin: I am a big fan of the red tractor this great scheme of assurance simply reassures the scheme, as you might imagine, because I laid out an public (or if they really understood—the 47%—what example to the previous witnesses about how the was behind it) that farmers have met the basic farmer can go to the trouble to go through all the minimum criteria? assurance scheme and then watch in horror as Mr Bennett: We are saying a lot more than that. perhaps his miller will simply buy in cheaper wheat What we are actually saying is that these are the legal from abroad.One of the questions I wanted to know requirements (and very often the schemes go beyond is once I have got my little red tractor I know that all that) but on top of that these schemes have been the way through—if it is on a loaf of bread—that the wheat will be have been properly assured, will it not? independently verified to make sure that this How many people are trying to put little red tractors product has been independently verified, and I think on their production who should not be? I have read that is an important reassurance for consumers. about something in Spain where we suddenly saw little red tractors appearing.How much of that Q268 Mr Jack: But in terms of the many things that goes on? you might want to get across to consumers—for Mr Tapper: Very, very, very little.Certainly in the example, animal welfare, which very important, two instances that I am aware of that happened in good biosecurity, disease control, the quality of the the last six months they have been purely production food that is being produced in terms of meeting errors and in both cases the product was withdrawn from display, returned and not put back into the specification and so on and so forth, is it right to food chain, and I believe that is a responsible have a system that dilutes all of that into one label approach.So we are pretty certain that everything when in actual fact the power of any one of the areas, that is assured is assured and is at the moment as just indicated, may be of greater advantage to British. farmers trying to sell and diVerentiate product—and I will say British product—from other people because you have diluted it all under one rather Q271 Mr Wiggin: What about people trying to meaningless label that people do not understand so pretend that they qualify for little red tractors when that a lot of very good messages are not actually they do not? getting out? Mr Tapper: We are certainly not aware of that. Mr Bennett: The intention of farm assurance and the red tractor was to make sure that there was good Q272 Joan Ruddock: Just on this little red tractor practice taking place on farms that was business, is there any evidence that people are more independently verified to show that legal standards likely to buy something that is labelled little red were being met, and that is what the schemes have tractor than not? 9744972008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59

22 June 2004 Mr Tim Bennett and Mr Robin Tapper

Mr Bennett: We have certainly had support from the surely, ultimately, that is for the benefit of the food chain for this little red tractor so normally if consumer otherwise why pass the legislation? there is support from our ultimate customers for it then they feel that that is something that people Q277 Joan Ruddock: We are going to vote in two value. minutes but just to take you on to something which I know is dear to your hearts and that is country of origin; you believe, I understand, that country of Q273 Joan Ruddock: It is not the same as saying they original labels can be misleading.Just give us a word choose it because it has got the little red tractor on it on that and what you think should be done? when they are doing their own shopping. Mr Bennett: I actually think labelling is very Mr Bennett: There is a process to this.First of all, we important.It is obviously important to us as an had farm assurance to reassure people at our end of industry if we can get the consumer to want to buy the supply chain.Having done that, we looked at our product, and if the labelling is misleading then it how we could develop a logo that indicated to the is obviously damaging to ourselves, but I do not consumer we have done that.We have got to that think anyone has an interest in misleading the process and recognition is reasonably good.What consumer.To give you an example of country of we have now got to do, which I think is a much more origin, we saw one last week and we have probably diYcult thing to do but we have to do that, as you still got it in our building which we can show you (it quite rightly indicated, is make sure that people happened to be rib eye steak) where it had “product understand what lies behind it so that people can feel of the EU” stamped all over it but then if you really more reassured by this.The end game to this is I looked in the small print it said “reared and want to make sure that consumers buy my product slaughtered in Brazil”.I do not think that is honest because I have done a little bit more than my and accurate labelling.If I may say so, recently in the competitors and that is what we are trying to do— United States their labelling, both nutrition wise and to reassure and make people feel confident in buying on these other things, seems to be slightly better than that product.It is not straightforward to inform the ours, which rather surprised me. consumer and they will know all about it; it is quite a lengthy process. Q278 Joan Ruddock: That is a very good example.If it is reared and slaughtered in Brazil, there is no processing process, is there? A piece of meat reared Q274 Joan Ruddock: I think you oVered no evidence and slaughtered in Brazil. at all that it makes the slightest diVerence to the Mr Bennett: The law allows you to put “product of consumer at the point of purchase doing the family EU” on it if it is processed.I guess what happened shopping.They may be randomly buying red tractor there is that it was reared and slaughtered in Brazil meat or non-red tractor meat from everything we and then was cut up and processed in the UK. have heard at this Committee.I can accept the point Joan Ruddock: Cut up is “processed” by the of sale to the retailer from the farmer of course, but definition of the EU? We have a few more questions at the other end there is no evidence from what you but I think the Chairman would like us to stop. have said. Mr Tapper: The only thing I would say is that the Q279 Chairman: If you want to briefly follow up on major retailers, if they are buying British meat, to the last point, we have one minute left before we take your example, would only be selling red tractor finish the meeting. British meat so from that point of view— Mr Tapper: What we would like is a very simple label that just says “product of ...packed in ...”If it does not say “packed in” one assumes that the products Q275 Joan Ruddock: The consumer does not have are packed in the same country.That would be a a choice. very simple one to get across.It would certainly fulfil Mr Tapper: The consumer does not have a choice our requirements and I think it would be very easy but is that not the right answer in that the for the customer.Some companies already do it and supermarkets are acting responsibly by supporting I think it should be standard. their own tractor which in itself is a responsible action about food safety, provenance and all the Q280 Chairman: But for the food that is being various agricultural— processed do you think there is a need to label ingredients by country of origin? Mr Tapper: Yes for the major ingredients so if you Q276 Joan Ruddock: I think that is a huge are selling chicken tikka you can say “chicken philosophical debate and we have not got time to get tikka—produced in the UK, made from chicken into that. from wherever” because it is chicken that you are Mr Bennett: Can I come back to that.They do have a actually selling there, and that is the ingredient that choice because on that shelf there are products from the customers, I would assume, are most other countries that have not got a red tractor on concerned about. them, so they have that choice.If the legislators pass Chairman: I think that division bell brings us legislation and if we can make sure that that naturally to the end of our questions in any event.I legislation is being enacted and it is being would like to thank you for coming along this independently verified and marked up as a logo, afternoon, it has been very helpful.If there is any 9744972008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:55:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 60 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

22 June 2004 Mr Tim Bennett and Mr Robin Tapper written evidence you wish to submit further to your the information on farm assurance schemes which comments today we are certainly very happy to you were kind enough to say you would provide. receive it and again we await with interest receiving Thank you very much for coming along.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the National Farmers’ Union

Farm Assurance Organisations As requested, please find attached a summary of farm assurance organisations.This should not be viewed as exhaustive but does demonstrate the number and complexity of schemes which exist.

Understanding of Red Tractor Logo The Government agreed with the recommendation of the Curry Commission that the Red Tractor should be a baseline standard that all food should attain and that the standards underpinning it need to be owned by the whole food chain and managed by Assured Food Standards on their behalf. The incorporation of all existing sector standards setting bodies into an independent Assured Food Standards (AFS II) under the Red Tractor logo has now been completed.As deb ated at the Efra Select Committee, the next urgent priority is to communicate the meaning and benefits represented by the Red Tractor logo to the consumer. As a major stakeholder in the new AFS II, the NFU is committed to supporting the Red Tractor scheme. We believe that as we move towards a decoupled, market focussed industry, the Red Tractor will provide the customer and the ultimate consumer at all stages in the chain with the necessary confidence that all products bearing the logo have been produced to independently accredited production standards and that the integrity of the product is assured.

Labelling The NFU strongly supports the need for clear unambiguous labelling.In the important areas of health and nutrition, labelling must be easy to understand but not over simplistic such as the proposed “traYc light” approach which the NFU does not support.The NFU favours a form of nut ritional information which provides, for example, the amounts of fat, salt and sugar in a product as a percentage of the recommended daily amounts (RDA). We should also like to reiterate the point made in our evidence concerning the importance of clear country of origin labelling of food.Consumers have a clear interest in where food w as primarily produced and processed.We are concerned that under current regulation and practice, l abels can be highly misleading. The NFU recommends the adoption of product of ...,packed/processed in ... .For composite products, the country of origin should relate to the key ingredients eg for a chicken curry the information should relate to the primary source of the chicken.In this instance, product of the UK mad e with chicken produced in .... We have also taken the opportunity to provide the Committee with what we believe to be a grossly misleading example of labelling even though legal [not printed].Most cus tomers could be forgiven for believing that this label refers to product produced in the UK or at the very least, the EU.On closer examination, a customer might believe it to have been sourced in Northern Ireland.Only when the label is magnified can it be discovered with diYculty that this is in fact Brazilian beef packed in Northern Ireland. This example was purchased in a major supermarket in Shrewsbury on 6 June 2004. July 2004 9893012012 Page Type [SO] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61

Tuesday 29 June 2004

Members present:

Mr Mark Lazarowicz, in the Chair

Mr Michael Jack Joan Ruddock Mr Austin Mitchell

Memorandum submitted by the Co-operative Group

The Co-operative Movement comprises 45 retail Co-operative Societies across the UK operating some 4,000 retail outlets.The Co-operative Group is the largest Co-operative Society, operating as a consumer owned co-operative, and comprises of a family of businesses whose activities range from food to finance and from farms to funerals.Food retailing is core to our activities, provi ding almost half of the Group’s turnover. The Co-operative Group provides the Movement’s own label, Co-op Brand, comprising some 4,000 lines.Through the Co-operative Retail Trading Group, an organisation of Co-operative societies, it provides the buying and marketing function for all these UK consumer-owned Co-operatives.

Background The Co-op’s Right to Know policy is a commitment to provide the facts people need to make informed purchasing decisions.Facts about products are supplied to consumers on l abels, at point of sale, in leaflets, on our website (www.co-op.co.uk) and in response to individual letters, e-mails or phone calls to our freephone customer careline. Clear labelling plays a vital role in helping people know exactly what they are buying.The Co-op prides itself on its clear, comprehensive and well presented labelling where it sets the standard for the retail industry.In 1997 the Co-op produced a code of practice for labelling and ca lled on industry to adhere to it. Many of the ground-breaking initiatives in the code are now either legal requirements (QUID labelling) or subject to FSA labelling guidelines (origin labelling, marketing terms such as fresh, traditional, etc). The FSA Labelling Action Plan has built on the Co-op Code of Practice, taking it forward.We welcome their initiatives in this field.We believe they get to the heart of what cons umers need to select appropriate products.They are constrained by EU Labelling regulations which preclud e the introduction of mandatory approaches, leaving them to rely on industry’s goodwill to adopt guidelines.

The Nutrition Content of Foods The Co-op has voluntarily provided nutrition information on pre-packed foods since 1986 which, since 1993, has had to comply with legally prescribed formats of the EU Nutrition Labelling directive (90/496/ EEC).Having a standard format is good from the point of view of consumers, e nsuring they can compare products from diVerent brands.However, this puts the labelling into a straightjacket whic h does not allow innovation and adaptation to meet consumer needs.Based on textbook nutri tion, it has familiarised consumers with the names of nutrients but does not relate well to the health messages and advice given to consumers, nor does it put the information into context to help consumers make use of it.Allowing a short and a long form and making the 100 gram portion the basic information has, over time, resulted in denying consumers key information to make healthy eating choices.Information on the key nutrients of health messages; sugar, salt (sodium) and saturated fats are excluded from the short format.Our research has shown that branded products high in sugar and salt are the very ones to adopt the short format and use only a 100 gram serving.1 The latter does not help consumers to readily relate what they consume in a serving; two biscuits or ° pack, with the detailed information given. To address these and other issues, the Co-op has introduced the following adaptations into its nutrition labelling policy: — Full nutrition labelling (seven nutrients and energy) on all Co-op Brands. — Declarations on both 100 grams and a serving on all products.

1 NOP Consumer Research conducted 1,061 face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the UK population. Completed July 2002. 9893012001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 62 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

— Declarations per serving preceding those per 100 grams in line with IGD research findings.2 — HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW descriptors, based on a system developed by the Coronary Prevention Group3 accompanying each nutrient.This approach, unique to the Co-op, puts the information in context for consumers.It has also been shown in several con sumer studies,4 most recently by the FSA,5 to be both preferred and to perform best. — Salt declared as well as sodium.Research, including our own, 6 consistently shows that consumers are confused about the relationship between salt and sodium.Provision of information on labels about sodium is unhelpful since all health messages relate to salt. — Flashes on front-of-pack show Calories, fat and salt per serving.Other r etailers have introduced this on their healthy eating ranges.The Co-op applies it across the Co-op B rand range. — Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) for Calories, fat and salt for the average man or woman to put nutrition information in context in line with IGD research.7 — Rounding of decimal points to facilitate calculation. — “Eat More” roundel on front-of-pack to encourage consumption of certain categories of food; starchy carbohydrates (bread, pasta and potatoes) and oily fish. — “5-a-day” logo on front-of-pack to encourage consumption of fruit and vegetables.Although using DoH criteria, the logo was developed by the Co-op to be more impactful and universally applicable than that developed by DoH. — Healthy Living range—a range of products which meet healthy living criteria, identified by special logo and livery as a signpost to consumers seeking the healthy option.

In addition, we would like to implement other measures which our consumer research shows us improves consumer understanding of nutrition information.8 Although we have trialled these on-pack, they contravene current legal requirements, so had to be abandoned. — Re-ordering of the nutrients to give priority to key, healthy eating information; Calories, fat, saturates and salt. — Putting salt not sodium content. — Adding portions of fruit and vegetables. — Abandoning Joules as a measure of energy to allow space for more useful information.Research shows consumers do not understand Joules.9 — Omitting protein from all labels and declaring fibre only where relevant, so providing more space to improve presentation and avoid confusion by overly complex information.

Our research and proposals are described in the attached booklet “The Lie of the Label II”10 [not printed].

On certain products we go further.In particular, on alcoholic drinks, whe re labelling is very prescriptive, we go beyond the law, providing: — Ingredient lists including information on processing aids on the advice of our Consumer Jury.This is not mandatory on these products.The Co-op is the only brand to include th is information. — Sensible drinking guides, repeating the current DoH advice on sensible drinking.

2 Voluntary Nutrition Labelling Guidelines to Benefit the Consumer—Voluntary Nutrition Research Findings, IGD, February 1988. 3 “Just Read the Label: Understanding nutrition information in numeric, verbal and graphical formats”.The Coronary Prevention Group, Alison Black and Michael Rayner, 1992, London, HMSO. 4 “Just Read the Label: Understanding nutrition information in numeric, verbal and graphical formats”.The Coronary Prevention Group, Alison Black and Michael Rayner, 1992, London, HMSO; The Consumers’ Association, The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, National Consumer Council “Consumer Attitudes to and Understanding of Nutrition Labelling”, British Market Research Bureau, 1985. 5 Nutrition Label Testing, Food Standards Agency, November 2003. 6 NOP Consumer Research conducted 1,061 face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the UK population. Completed July 2002. 7 Voluntary Nutrition Labelling Guidelines to Benefit the Consumer—Voluntary Nutrition Research Findings, IGD, February 1988. 8 NOP Consumer Research conducted 1,061 face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the UK population. Completed July 2002. 9 NOP Consumer Research conducted 1,061 face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the UK population. Completed July 2002. 10 Lie of the Label II, the Co-operative Group, August 2002. 9893012002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63

— Alcohol units; units per glass and number of glasses per bottle on spirits, units per bottle and number of glasses per bottle on wines and units per can/bottle on beer, as agreed with our Consumer Jury. — Calories per standard glass/can/bottle as appropriate.

Safety of Foods The safety of foods can be prejudiced if they are stored too long, at the wrong temperatures or cooked inappropriately.It is a legal requirement to label foods with a “use by” da te, if they are highly perishable, or with a “best before” date where prolonged storage leads to deterioration of quality rather than microbial deterioration.To guide consumers we include with the date mark, on all chi lled food, the advice to keep the product in a fridge at 2 to 5)C and for frozen foods, in a freezer at "18)C.This reminds consumers of the recommended temperatures for fridges and freezers. The majority of products carry cooking guidelines.In the case of meat and p oultry, under a Food Safety header, consumers are reminded of the need to cook the food thoroughly with an indication of how this can be judged, accompanied by other statements on hygiene and handling, where space permits.

FOOD SAFETY

Ensure food is piping hot, an even colour throughout, and no pink bits can be seen.Always wash work surfaces, cutting boards, utensils and hands before and after preparing food.

Some consumers need special advice.To help consumers allergic to particu lar ingredients avoid foods containing them, the Co-op not only labels all ingredients, but highlights the presence of nuts and eight other most common, serious allergens (Eggs, Fish, Shellfish, Milk, Soya, Gluten, Sesame and Sulphites) as follows:

ALLERGY ADVICE

Contains Peanuts, Fish, Milk

Because of the very serious risk of anaphylactic shock from traces of nuts or sesame seeds, where there is the potential for cross contamination, the allergy advice also indicates that the product is made in a factory handling nuts and/or sesame seeds. The Co-op also uses labels to remind consumers of Government advice, for example, advice to pregnant women about the risks from consuming raw milk cheeses or from excess vitamin A in liver, or from caVeine in coVee, tea, chocolate, medicines and certain soft drinks. In-store point of sale is used to highlight similar, key messages on chilled food safety, allergy advice and risks from consumption of paˆte´, cheese and raw eggs.

The Means of Production of Foods Like other retailers, the Co-op has a range of organic foods which are easily identified in-store by a distinctive logo. All eggs are labelled to indicate whether they are free-range or from caged hens.Indeed, it was the Co-op who provoked the EU to introduce the term from caged hens to identify battery hens’ eggs by labelling eggs intensively produced, despite this being illegal at the time.Eggs used in recipe products are similarly labelled to indicate their source. The Co-op supported the development of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme to improve welfare standards for animals at all stages of the food chain.We stock poultry, meat and eggs m eeting the standards.These can be distinguished by the Freedom Foods logo. The little red tractor logo is carried on a majority of fresh meat and produce, indicating it has been grown to Farm Assurance standards.Sadly, the logo is restricted to British prod uce, so although we require the same standards from overseas suppliers, we cannot use the logo. The Co-op recognises that consumers are concerned about the use of pesticides.It has introduced its own code of practice, banning some pesticides and restricting others.Such pr oduce is nevertheless conventionally grown.To make this clear to consumers, packs carry the following message: “Conventionally Grown—reducing, banning and controlling pesticide use” The back of pack (where room permits) will carry the following explanation, under a Conventionally Grown header: 9893012003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 64 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

CONVENTIONALLY GROWN

Most produce, including that sold by the Co-op, is grown using pesticides to help control crop damage.However, for Co-op Brand, we ban some chemicals, control and reduce reliance on others and encourage alternative methods. For further information, contact our Customer Relations Department.

Genetic modification (GM) is a concern for many consumers who wish to avoid GM foods and ingredients.For some, this extends to any product touched by the technolo gy.The Co-op’s policy on GM took a lead by committing to label foods produced using GM.We are the only re tailer to label cheese when it has been made with the chymosin produced by GM, making it suitable for vegetarians.Such cheeses are clearly labelled: “Made using genetic modification and so free from animal rennet”. Similarly, we are endeavouring to respect consumers’ wishes by eliminating GM from the feed of food producing animals; meat, fish, milk and eggs.Where we are successful, this is clearly stated on-pack with reference to non-GM feed. In the case of eggs we have also removed the colourant added to feed to enhance the colour of the . Both issues are communicated by the roundel shown on the packet. Ethical Considerations The Co-op believes it is wrong for the majority of the world’s citizens to be condemned to a life of poverty and firmly advocates the protection of human rights for workers in all countries.The two main ways of tackling the issues are Ethical Trading (also known as sound sourcing) and Fair Trade. The two approaches are complementary. Ethical Trading is primarily aimed at ensuring basic human rights and a safe and decent working environment for employees of supplying producers and manufacturers.The approach therefore covers the vast majority of our suppliers and, as such, does not require special labelling. Fairtrade seeks to guarantee a better deal for the world’s disadvantaged growers and small-scale producers.Aimed primarily at marginalized independent growers and prod ucers in the world’s poorest countries, fairtrade ensures they receive payment that exceeds the market place norm and includes an additional premium to support producer programmes. The Co-op has pioneered the development of fairtrade in the supermarket sector, being the first retailer to develop and launch an own brand fairtrade product.Our ultimate objecti ve is to bring Fairtrade into the mainstream.We have fairtrade products in more stores than any other retai ler, improving consumer access. A distinctive livery, together with the Co-op Fair Trade logo and the FAIRTRADE Mark, readily identify products in the Co-op Brand range which meet the criteria of the Fairtrade Foundation. We have also pledged to include Fairtrade ingredients in products wherever we can.In order to qualify for the Fair Trade branding at least 20% of the total must comprise Fairtrade or Fairly Traded ingredients. Such products carry the FAIRTRADE mark but not the Co-op Fair Trade logo.Ea ch Fairtrade or Fairly Traded ingredient is identified in the ingredient list.A line below will id entify the percentage of Fairtrade or Fairly Traded ingredients.

INGREDIENTS

(greatest first): Sugar, Fairtrade Cocoa Butter, Skimmed Milk Powder, Milk Powder, Fairtrade Cocoa Mass, Crisped Rice (70%), Butterfat, Emulsifier (Lecithins—Soya), Flavouring. MILK CHOCOLATE CONTAINS COCOA SOLIDS 32% MINIMUM AND MILK SOLIDS 27% MINIMUM 32% FAIRTRADE INGREDIENTS

Where there are some ingredients that are not Fairtrade or Fairly Traded, the amount is always repeated under the product name, eg: Fairtrade Cranberry Sauce Contains 20% Fairtrade Sugar Uniquely among supermarkets the Co-op has run a national TV campaign dedicated to the support of fair trade, in addition to awareness building adverts in national press and magazines. 9893012003 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65

Summary The examples above provide a flavour of the way the Co-op uses labelling, in particular, to make consumers better informed about the nutritional content of foods, how to handle and consume foods safely, how foods have been produced and where good labour practices are used.Furt her examples are provided in the attached leaflets [not printed] and can be found on our website; www.co-op.co.uk 19 April 2004

Witnesses: Mr David Croft, Head of Co-op Brand and Technical, and Mr Adrian Hill, Policy and Standards Manger of Co-op Brand, examined.

Chairman: Welcome to the meeting of the Sub- information that they can use to have a balanced Committee on Food Information.My apologies for diet, or indeed in terms of any of the product areas keeping you waiting a little.Our first witnesses are that we could talk about. from the Co-op Group: David Croft, who is the Head of Co-op Brand and Technical, and Adrian Q284 Mr Mitchell: You have been campaigning for Hill, the Policy and Standards Manager of the Co- a “high, medium, low” system of marking, denoting op brand.Welcome to the Committee and thank you the nutritional quality of products, and you have for sending your written evidence.We look forward been arguing for that for a long time.What success to your oral evidence this afternoon. have you had in achieving it? Mr Hill: “High, medium, low” is on every product we can get a nutrition panel, which are the vast Q281 Mr Mitchell: The Co-op has always taken an majority.Research is ongoing.We have dipped into enlightened position on labelling and quality it every now and then, and our market research improvement, and I say that despite not being a Co- shows that consumers like that, in preference to pie op MP; but when the Health Committee report charts, bar charts or other graphical indications.It recommended voluntary action by the industry, the is based on a sound scientific basis, although it Co-op expressed doubts as to whether voluntary would be fair to say that our research shows that the action would work.What could voluntary action by public are not necessarily bothered about the science the industry achieve, do you think? behind something, as long as it delivers what they Mr Croft: From my own perspective, voluntary can use.Since we have been doing it, it has been well action has obviously allowed us to implement a received by the public and opinion formers, but we whole range of customer information, whether it is are constrained by legislation at the moment. related to nutrition labelling or supportive labelling in terms of the nature of the products, the history of the products and their pedigree.One of the Q285 Mr Mitchell: Has anybody else taken it up? That is just your own customers and your own diYculties of voluntary labelling going forward, products. particularly when you start to get into the complex Mr Hill: Recently, there has been a high-profile areas of nutrition, is the question of consistency and instance: Tesco have adopted that as well. whether that leads to more confusion for consumers Mr Croft: Or will be at least taking a trial out later rather than the aim we all have of providing clear on this year. information that they can readily understand. Q286 Mr Mitchell: What kind of areas would you Q282 Mr Mitchell: You mean consistency across the advocate legislation or compulsion on? industry? Mr Croft: There are areas where the legislation Mr Croft: Yes. currently creates some anomalies, for example if we were to look at nutrition labelling.One of those is on the nutrition declaration and the use of “sodium” Q283 Mr Mitchell: So we are all measuring from the rather than “salt”.One of the things we have same stick, as it were.Is that not attainable? researched and have been advocating for some time Mr Croft: It is diYcult to see how it would be is that consumers readily understand “salt” and are attainable from a voluntary basis.Whilst we have actually told by GPs to regulate the amount of salt been supporting, on nutrition labelling in particular, in their diet; and yet the full nutrition panel requires a number of steps over the past decade or so, we have you to put “sodium” on, and less than about 25% of singularly failed to see widespread adoption of that. consumers, when we researched it, know the It is reassuring that in the last few weeks we have connection between salt and sodium.We think that seen one of our competitors making similar steps is the sort of area where legislation needs to be clear. forward.As we look at the totality of nutrition Another example is where we talk about claims, labelling, there are areas of inconsistency and areas typically claims on products that are 90% fat-free. where guidance perhaps is not addressed in the same That still leaves, obviously, 10% of the product that way, so there are inconsistencies between the way the could be fat, which could be a very high amount of guidance is interpreted and what the legislation fat.That is something that the Government states.We think that there is definitely a need for a guidance already recognises as being inappropriate degree of consistency and application of those things and confusing, and yet it is still not enshrined in in order to make certain that consumers receive clear legislation, to clarify it for the consumer.There are 9893012004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 66 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June2004 Mr David Croft and Mr Adrian Hill a number of anomalies like that where a greater Mr Croft: Six grammes of salt.I will let you answer degree of consistency would be valuable for the one for sugar!1 consumers, in terms of getting the information that Mr Hill: Sugar, I am not too sure of. makes the content of products much clearer for them. Q290 Mr Jack: Right, so you two are in charge of labelling and you are giving all this information to the customers, but we have a 50% score on the Q287 Chairman: Why do you think there has been, average daily intake.In your evidence to us, you as it would appear there has, such resistance from have flashes on page 2, on the front and the back, the industry for the traYc-light type of system that showing calories, fat and salt.The reason I asked you have been operating for some time? You have that question was that I am interested to know how said in your evidence that you have been consumers ought to be able to acquire a benchmark campaigning since 1986 for that type of system to be to know how they are doing, in terms of their intake introduced, and yet it has not exactly been taken up of these substances.Do you contribute to educating with alacrity by industry, so it would appear. your customers in this respect? Mr Hill: Can we just clarify that? We do not operate Mr Croft: I think we do in a number of ways.As the a traYc-light system, we use “high, medium, low”. starting point, the roundel on the front of the pack We have discussed and looked at traYc-light leads you to look in more detail at the information systems, but we have not adopted them.We think that is there; so our “high, medium, low” will express there is a diVerence. the amount of each nutrient, in terms of high, Mr Croft: It is diYcult to comment on the medium, or low, on the back of the pack.Wherever motivations of other parts of the industry, but from possible, where space allows on the pack, we also put our perspective, being consumer-owned, we have guideline daily amounts.With that information, you endeavoured to look at the spirit of the legislation, can compare that product. and trust that the spirit of the legislation was always in protecting consumers or giving a stronger set of Q291 Mr Jack: On some of your pack products you advice for consumers.When we develop new do have it! When we had the Consumers’ approaches, be it in terms of labelling or product Association as a witness, they very kindly brought authentification, then we have done it with the along one of your packs of jam tarts, and it was interests of the consumer at heart.We have done a packed full of information as well as jam; but are you lot of lengthy research with consumers, which you saying that somewhere on your products there is an would expect any retailer to do, but we have also average daily intake box as well? hosted consumer juries to give clear advice on how Mr Croft: Not on all of them.We endeavour to do our policy might develop, and particularly in the as much as we can where space permits.I have an case of labelling, where there were some question example here.Unfortunately, this is one for sponge marks over the position a typical industry might take cakes, but we have a lot of information that is legally required in terms of the ingredients that are present. and the position that we wish to take.We would For each of the diVerent cakes the nutrition consult our consumer jury over the issue and see declaration is using our “high, medium, low”, but what their perception of the whole issue was, and try because of the amount of information we have to put and bring it down to a practical level, so that at the on that, it is very diYcult to put the guideline daily end of the day you have information that is amounts on as well. meaningful to people.That is what we thought the spirit of the legislation was designed to generate. Q292 Mr Jack: You mentioned a moment ago your customer panels and the work that you do to assess Q288 Mr Mitchell: When it comes down to the cold how your customers use the “high, medium, low”. How aware are the customers on the panel of the cash test, do you find that more information pays? simple question I asked at the beginning: what is the You say consumers like it, which presumably you recommended daily intake? If they are not, they do find out from surveys, but does it lead to an increase not have anything to relate all this information to, in sales? do they? Mr Hill: It does not lead to a decrease. Mr Croft: No, and that is where I think “high, Mr Croft: Most importantly, it exemplifies our medium, low” starts to give them clearer guidance.I brand as a brand that you can trust.If we are suspect that until very recently not that many people prepared to be open and honest about what we put knew about the amount of salt that was in food, on our labels, far beyond what the legislation might whether added salt or salt that was naturally require or what the rest of industry might say, to me occurring.There has been much debate about it is about people being able to have trust in what the whether the limit should be set at six or whether it Co-op does, and fundamentally that is where we should be diVerent from that.There is a growing would position ourselves as being a consumer- awareness amongst consumers about what a healthy owned organisation. diet should comprise of, but whether they know specifically what individual nutrition criteria they have to achieve is still debatable.That is where clear Q289 Mr Jack: Mr Croft, can you refresh my memory: what is the recommended average daily 1 There is no oYcially agreed recommended guideline daily intake of salt, and then sugar? amount for sugar. 9893012004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67

29 June2004 Mr David Croft and Mr Adrian Hill signposting is probably most important, to try and at how we can expand that, but we feel there is an give an indication of the overall trend within a opportunity to look at shelf-edge labelling as product or series of products, as to being high, another way of providing more information. medium or low in certain criteria. Q298 Mr Jack: I ask because if you go across the Q293 Mr Jack: Whose role is, do you think, to make catalogue of foods, we have a very detailed amount certain that consumers know what the benchmark is of information on certain packaged items, and the on these daily intakes? nearer we move away to the naturally occurring Mr Croft: It is a combination of people’s roles.We item, the less of the information we have just been have a role to play, and that is where labelling comes talking about is available.How, given that there is into it.That is why things like “high, medium, low” not a uniformity of information, does the consumer and guideline daily amounts are very important. make up their mind, if they are doing a one-stop However, clearly there is also a role in terms of shop at the Co-op, that they are buying balance in broader education—and whether that is through the their diet? health service, or through standard education Mr Croft: In terms of loose products, things such as practice, is diYcult to say.We have worked closely bread from an in-store bakery, or products from a with community nutritionists in various parts of the delicatessen, then we also provide a manual of country to try and generate wider awareness of what information that is available on display so that a healthy diet means, so that people can actively people can look at the product.It gives the full select products to support that with a bit more nutrition breakdown, in the same way as you would understanding.The label on its own is one part of see it on a pre-packed product.It is just a manual that equation, but it does still need a broader that is available next to the display stand so that awareness of what constitutes a healthy diet. people can select from that and have a reasonable understanding of what those products are as well. Q294 Mr Jack: In terms of the categories that you sell, how do you decide within a category what gets Q299 Mr Jack: Is there a danger that the “high, the “high, medium, low” indicators? medium, low” approach ignores some of the Mr Hill: Where possible and where space permits, complexities, for example, of micronutrient we try and get the full nutrition panel on all arguments, because some of those things can be products.Clearly, a salmon paste and a ready meal V absolutely vital to some people’s health and well- or a pizza, are two di erent sizes of labels; so we do being, and making judgment calls, for example, on not diVerentiate category to category.We try and vitamins, as to whether people are getting the get a full nutrition label on every product we can. required dosage of those, is quite diYcult to find out. How do you resolve what could be an apparent Q295 Mr Jack: How do you deal with a product like paradox in a very important area in enabling people cheese, which may have quite a lot of salt in it but to decide in total whether they are giving themselves some good calcium, and some people will say it is what we all might like to call a “healthy” diet? potentially dangerous and others will say it is an Mr Croft: You have to be wary about absolute “must have” in the diet? How does your micronutrients, particularly the addition of system deal with cheese? vitamins.From our perspective, we make it clear Mr Hill: The labels for cheese generally preclude about the presence of added vitamins, but the “high, having a nutrition panel; so where possible we put medium, low” also looks at the broader nutrition. linear nutrition. What we would be wary of are situations whereby products are perhaps marketed on the basis of Q296 Mr Jack: In other words, you are saying that having added vitamins, and yet still are very high in the European Union labelling requirements do not fat, for example, or sugar, as is the case for certain allow you to do what you want to do on that. chocolate spreads for example.We are certainly not Mr Hill: No; it is just that the label physically is not against added nutrients and particularly added big enough to accommodate a legal nutrition panel. vitamins, but it is important to look at the overall If that was cut down, which is something we have product context and make certain that by suggesting been campaigning for, then possibly the space may that something has added vitamins it is be there.In that case, we would revert to linear automatically more healthy for you.It might be nutrition, which gives it in a line. more healthy for you than the direct comparison, but in the case of a chocolate spread there is still a lot of fat and sugar in there, and to eat it every day, Q297 Mr Jack: What about shelf markers; do you almost regardless of the amount of extra vitamins it use those to substitute the labelling or to make up for gives you, might still not be very good for a the fact that you cannot put it on the product, but balanced diet. the customer might like the information? Mr Croft: We do not at the moment.It is something we are going to trial later on this year as a means of Q300 Mr Jack: You mentioned your consumer providing more information on the front of the panel, and it is clear that you listen to your pack, on the front selling face of the product.At the customers a lot.What evidence, since you went into moment, we do have a roundel, and we are looking “high, medium, low”, have you found that people 9893012004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 68 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June2004 Mr David Croft and Mr Adrian Hill have altered their purchasing behaviour to take into Q305 Mr Mitchell: What are they? account the additional information that you are Mr Hill: It is a type of vegetable oil—a type of fatty making available? acid, a bit like saturated fat or mono-unsaturated Mr Croft: As I said before, “high, medium, low” is fat.They are just one particular type.The chemistry part of a broad section of information in terms of is beyond me, but there was concern about them in healthier diet options and giving people more that they contributed to some heart diseases.We information about their diet.We have seen a quite researched it and found that certain products were considerable increase in fresh fruit and vegetable prone to have high levels of trans-fatty acids, so in sales quite considerably over the last few years.That certain products such as digestive biscuits and partly reflects a change in the style of our stores, but similar things we picked that out and highlighted it also reflects the fact that consumers are more whether those were contained in high amounts or aware of what they are consuming and want to have not. more fresh fruit and vegetables within their diet. Q306 Mr Mitchell: It tells you here, “on fats, biscuits and meat products”, so it is just specific products? Q301 Mr Jack: Given that the spend on food Mr Hill: Those were the only ones that we identified remains slightly declining, if anything, as a would readily have a large amount of it in, purely proportion of income, is there a corollary that you because of the fats they used in their industrial have noticed that other areas, perhaps “less processing. obviously healthy parts” of the shopping basket are Mr Croft: Part of the issue there is whether we can going down? Are they buying more fruit and then re-formulate it to avoid that type of fat in the vegetables to compensate that they are having a product, which is something that we are looking at whizzo time on other things, but they think they had now.The other point that I should add about better have a bit of fruit and veg as well because allergies is that we also provide information for people are saying that is good? consumers who may be concerned about the Mr Croft: I could not say.There is certainly a potential eVects of things like broader awareness of what a healthy diet artificial colours.We highlight where those colours constitutes.I think that probably accounts for some are used, and indicate again, as Adrian said before, of the increases in sales of healthier products, or that they may be associated with food intolerance— perhaps lower fat alternatives of standard products; colours like , for example, which are but it is true to say that consumers still like a bar of perfectly legal to use, and yet there is a growing body chocolate every now and again. of concern that they may be associated with some form of food intolerance. Q302 Mr Mitchell: You also provide advice on allergy and food intolerance stuV on the labels.To Q307 Mr Mitchell: You also provide information in what extent does the information you provide there Braille on some products.How widespread is that? on allergens go beyond what you need to do legally? Mr Hill: Currently, we have got that on 350 products.The example that was given had Braille Mr Hill: For many years we have split out the on, and I have another couple of products with allergens that we have thought were the top six or Braille on.Admittedly, it is fairly basic because of seven, which have now been almost adopted by the the space constraints.We give the name and, where EC—for example peanuts and cow’s milk, fish, soya. possible, the cooking instructions.We have found We have split those out into a separate clear box, that most blind people tend to shop with a sighted always associated with the ingredients panel shopper.It is in the house that they have issues in underneath it. telling one product from another; so we indicate the name and possibly cooking guidelines. Q303 Mr Mitchell: By providing more detail then, you have gone beyond the law. Q308 Mr Mitchell: That is 350 out of how many? Mr Hill: We have just picked out when the allergens Mr Hill: We have 4,500 at the moment.We started are present in the food.There is a clear header oV—every journey starts with a single step! We “allergy advice” and then we say whether it contains started oV with all medicines, for I would hope fish or shellfish or cow’s milk or what-have-you.It is obvious reasons, and we are now looking to get it on a shortcut for people who have concerns about as many products as possible.It is put into the design allergens, to look there rather than having to look brief wherever possible.Constraints are that through the full ingredients panel. sometimes the print process does not allow it, and the substrates, the varnishes and that sort of thing, do mean that we cannot get Braille on, but where Q304 Mr Mitchell: You identify trans-fatty acids on possible we do.It is an increasing number. some types of food labels.You had better tell me Mr Mitchell: How long has the Co-op been this what they are first of all, because I am not quite sure. virtuous? I cannot remember that it was that What are they, and if they are dangerous why do you concerned—or indeed anybody was—when I not identify them on all food labels? worked at the Co-op biscuit factory in Crumpsall in Mr Hill: It was some time ago that there was a Manchester.That, mark you, was a long time ago. widespread concern about trans-fatty acids in the Mr Jack: The quality of biscuits has definitely diet. improved since then! 9893012004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 69

29 June2004 Mr David Croft and Mr Adrian Hill

Q309 Mr Mitchell: I was very unskilled labour! At that triggers a reaction from the public.Yo u have what point did you begin this process of provision of given us some indication of that.You did not full information? Was that in a public-spirited way, mention the newspapers as a source of information, or did you consider that virtue would pay? but when they carry stories that eVectively say there Mr Croft: The Co-op movement was obviously is another food scare, do those show up fairly founded in the interests of consumers.How we are quickly in what happens on the sales floor, or are looking at products now is very much about they generally ignored? bringing co-operative values and principles into how Mr Croft: I think it depends on the nature of the we look at our product formulation.The issue.Generallyspeaking, media c overage of food information that we provide about being open and scares leads to a relatively quick reaction from honest fully delivers two of the key Co-op values.consumers, in terms of ch anges in their purchasing What we are doing in terms of our product patterns.We certainly saw that with issues such as development and information provision to BSE.Conversely, however, medi a coverage in terms consumers, in terms of how we source products, of healthier diets has a slower build, although through for example initiatives such as Fair Trade, everybody in the food industry is seeing a rise in is delivering what increasingly consumers are interest in low-carbohydrate diets; and that is driven turning to us and saying that is what they expect by media coverage of, for example, the Atkins Diet. large organisations, be it retailers or manufacturers, My personal opinion is that it takes a little bit longer to deliver as part of the broader social responsibility for those positive indicators to be picked up by they expect from large organisations.Ever consumers, but a food scare has an immediate increasingly, the research we do tells us that people reaction, and I think that is because it is more want to see more of that sort of activity from large emotive as far as members of the public are organisations.It certainly fits with our concerned, and it is understanda ble that they would organisational values, and if it delivers a commercial react to it fairly quickly. benefit to us by demonstrating the trustworthiness of the co-operative brand, that is not something we are Q313 Chairman: You said that you felt consumers going to shy away from either. wanted more information about the products that they were buying and consuming, but at the same Q310 Mr Mitchell: Over how long a period? time you pointed out that there is a need to simplify Mr Croft: The labelling policy has really been the information on packaging.How do you developed with most strength over the last 20 years reconcile these two tensions, on the one hand a or so, which reflects the increased consumer requirement to have more information and on the awareness of all matters relating to food, and indeed other hand a requirement to try and keep it as simple supermarket activity, which has probably as possible? Has there not got to be a choice made culminated in the last five to ten years in a lot of close about what are the priorities for the information that scrutiny of how major organisations in the food is provided? industry operate. Mr Croft: Increasingly, I think there has to be a choice that prioritises the information.From the Q311 Mr Jack: What does your questioning of work that we did about three years ago now on consumers tell you about which source of labelling, within which we suggested an alternative information on food consumers put their most trust nutrition panel, which helped to prioritise the order in? Who do they believe? of the nutrients, for example, and the way the Mr Croft: They have limited trust in a number of information was portrayed, it was clear to us that people.Some of the research that we have done consumers were seeing a lot of information and not suggested that on certain issues government advice necessarily taking as much out of it as we had hoped. was preferred, and in certain issues government I am certain that the legislators who generated the advice was not considered in the same way.That need for that nutrition format would have felt that reflects the way that some of the food scares over the as well.There is an argument, which needs further early and mid-nineties were handled, both by debate, that suggests the amount of information on industry and regulators.Consumer groups are packs does start to become meaningless to usually seen in a very positive light because with a consumers in certain areas.We tried to address that consumer perspective they clearly have no axe to and begin that debate in our campaign some two grind that is commercially driven.They do see years ago now. information from major organisations as something to be questioned in the first instance, until they can Q314 Chairman: How clear is it to you, as a retailer, be confident that it is stated with the right sentiment. are the messages coming from Government about the type of food information they would expect you Q312 Mr Jack: It would be very helpful to us if you to provide in food information? could develop that point.There are lot of people in Mr Croft: It is fair to say that we do from time to the food information business.Some, like the Food time see conflicting indicators.On the one hand, Standards Agency, try to be even-handed, balanced, there are messages about what healthy eating should very careful and very scientific.There are others that include, or what diet considerations people should come from a biased point of view, in whatever views take from the Department of Health; and yet from they put across.There is an ocean of information out the regulatory point of view those issues might be there.I am personally interested to know what it is contrary to the current legislation.For example, 9893012004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 70 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June2004 Mr David Croft and Mr Adrian Hill some time ago we were in discussion over the Q317 Chairman: Can I ask you about the willingness inclusion of folic acid, and there was a clear of consumers to carry out in their purchasing indication from the Department of Health that folic patterns the conclusion that we should draw from acid was a dietary supplement that people should the information that is provided.You said in your support; and yet putting information about it on research that up to 84% of consumers were prepared pack was fraught with diYculties because it could be to pay more for products of higher ethical standards. construed as a health claim.We are not advocating a Have you evidence from y our own sales that free-for-all in terms of health claims associated with customers are indeed prepared to pay a little extra food products, but there seems to be a need for for higher ethical standards? consideration of the diVerent messages that diVerent Mr Croft: Very much so.At that level the definition arms of government might suggest in relation to of an ethical product can be quite broad, but if, for food. example, we were to look at Fair Trade, what we have seen on Fair Trade products is a growth in sales as people compare our own Fair Trade products like Q315 Mr Jack: Who decides the boundaries coVee, for example, with major brands; and they between low, medium and high? recognise a degree of additional value that the Fair Mr Hill: They are based on the contribution of each Trade accreditation brings.Of course, those nutrient towards the overall energy in the product— products remain competitively priced with the the calories in the actual product itself.They are brands, and we have seen sales growth in all areas based on the Coronary Prevention Group bandings where we have introduced a Fair Trade product, as of what consists of a balanced diet.For instance, consumers move towards those ranges. they said that 33% of the diet should be fat, so the band fat to be medium is 49.5% down to about 15%, Q318 Chairman: Is that a substantial increase? and that would be medium.Anything under that Mr Croft: For example, in the case of chocolate—if would be low, and anything above 49.5% would be I can mention chocolate whilst we have been talking high.That is the fat contribution towards the about nutrition characteristics—we have seen an calories of the product, rather than as an absolute. increase such that in certain product areas, our dark Mr Croft: That was the process we developed with chocolate for example outsells the major brand.This the Coronary Prevention Group, as a means of is a very competitive product category and there is a involving their expertise in how these nutritional lot of advertising spend from major brands in terms signpostings should be developed.It is fair to say of things like coVee and chocolate; and we are seeing that in the light of the Select Committee on Health, more consumers buying in to Fair Trade because more scrutiny is being given as to how the they perceive a strong value with it. signposting should work.We recognise in certain Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for your products, particularly where the energy level is very evidence this afternoon, which has been extremely low, that even our system has some issues that we helpful. need to address.We think there is scope for further discussion and development on that front now. Q319 Mr Jack: Your Fair Trade chocolate cake is seriously dangerous because it is rather good, and I am always tempted to buy another one, I am afraid! Q316 Mr Jack: I suppose, if you really were a Mr Croft: Much as I would like to, I cannot glutton, you could get yourself into the danger zone advocate eating it at every meal! if you consumed too many things that might get on the low scale of something, in a theoretical sense. Q320 Chairman: If you want to write with any Mr Croft: I would not have thought so, if it were additional information to the Committee to expand all low. upon your evidence this afternoon, please feel free to Mr Hill: But for medium and high you might. do so, but do not feel under any compulsion to Mr Croft: If you are always eating medium and provide any more information.Thank you very high—well, we would always advocate a balanced much for your evidence this afternoon. diet, which balances some products with high and Mr Croft: I will certainly trace the research that we some with medium and low, obviously. had in terms of consumer trust in diVerent bodies.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Co-operative Group Following the evidence session on Tuesday 29 June, the Cooperative Group would like to submit the following, supplementary evidence.

Voluntary versus Mandatory Nutrition Information The Co-op would like to reiterate its support for mandatory nutrition labelling.With minor exceptions, the provision of nutrition labelling has to date been voluntary.For those providing this information voluntarily, there has been the option to choose either a short (three nutrients and energy) or a long (seven nutrients and energy) format.Although uptake amongst UK brands is high, t here are exceptions and many imported brands fail to provide nutrition information.Secondly, many br ands choose to give only the short format, denying consumers information on those nutrients at the heart of health messages; saturated fats, 9893012005 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 71

sugars and sodium, the legally prescribed way for providing an indication of salt.Our research shows that those brands which choose to give only this limited information are those which are high in sugars, fats and salts where such information would be of particular interest to consumers.Only if nutrition information were made mandatory could consumers be guaranteed the information to make comparisons across all products.

Preferred Format

Reducing the number of nutrients and selecting only the most useful to consumers is important.Too much information only confuses and complicates their task.It is also more di Ycult to display the information in a clear and accessible way on packs, especially small or awkwardly shaped packs where there is competition for space from other important and legally required information such as Use By dates and ingredient lists. Our research would suggest that the following would be optimum to meet the needs of the majority of consumers whilst supporting the Government’s key messages.

Typical Values Per Pack Per 100g (57g) Calories 140 kcal 245 kcal Fat 11g 19g High (of which saturates) 5g 9g High Salt 0.6g 1g High Carbohydrate 1g 2g Low (of which sugars) Trace Trace Low Fruit and Vegetables 1 Portion 2 Portions

Signposting

We would like to express our support for Government-led standards for signposting of foods.We disagree with industry colleagues who believe this can be agreed voluntarily by industry bodies.Whilst industry has a lot of experience to bring to the table, we believe an impartial arbiter is needed to facilitate the negotiations.We are therefore pleased to see that the FSA board has agr eed to the FSA’s action plan on food promotion and children’s diets which includes a commitment to publish best practice advice on signposting and guidance on “high”, “medium” and “low” nutrition labelling with a target date of June 2005.

The Role of Labelling in Healthy Eating

Labelling alone cannot educate consumers but it can provide a very useful tool to support educational campaigns.To be able to do so there needs to be clear and consistent message s from Government which need to reflect what is legally permitted on labels.We have a classic dilemm a at the moment where the Government tells consumers to eat less salt but all that consumers see on labels is the sodium content— because that is the legally prescribed nutrient.

There is a need for a “joined-up” approach by the Government and its Agencies, to provide simple, consistent messages about food (perhaps limited to three key statements—Less Salt, Less Fat, five a day), and to include these in a larger public health strategy, which includes health education in schools, sports in schools, exercise for the population as a whole, etc.

Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs)

The Committee asked us about Guideline Daily Amounts for salt and sugars.O ur witnesses were unable to provide a figure for sugars.The reason is quite simply that no “o Ycial” GDA has been agreed for sugars. At the present time oYcially agreed GDAs cover Calories, fat, saturated fat and salt.If the GDA a pproach were to be adopted as the way ahead, it would be necessary to agree additional GDAs. 21 July 2004 9893012006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 72 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by ASDA Stores Ltd

1.W ho We Are 1.1 We operate 265 stores in England, Scotland and Wales and have 22 distribution depots.We are proud to serve over 11 million customers each week. 1.2 Our mission is to be Britain’s best value retailer exceeding customer’s needs with a key purpose of making goods and services more aVordable for everyone.We are able to achieve this objective by operating from an Every Day Low Price and Every Day Low Cost strategy. 1.3 ASDA has repeatedly been shown to be Britain’s “best value supermarket” by industry journal the Grocer. ASDA has reduced its average full basket price from £38.57 to £36.45 this year. 1.4 This year AC Neilson’s consumer panel (7,133 households) voted ASDA as Britain’s best value supermarket for the third year running as well as top supermarket for service to its customers. 1.5 ASDA has ranked in the top three in the Financial Times “Best Workplaces Survey” in 2003 and 2004.In 2002, ASDA was presented with the Castle Award.The judges praised : “...the progressive culture relating to rethinking the nature and structure of management jobs for women.” We pride ourselves on our people friendly working policies. 1.6 Our customers those defining themselves as ASDA main shoppers—have also rated us as best for: — Supporting healthy eating through own brand ranges of brand food and drink. — Promoting healthy eating through store activities and events. — Clearly communicating the nutritional content of own brand products. This information has been drawn from a monthly tracker survey—independently conducted of 900 shoppers—450 of whom are main ASDA shoppers

2.O verview 2.1 Own label retailers have been very active over the years in promoting diet and health information enabling choice for their customers. 2.2 There needs to be very careful analysis of the diet and health needs of our society and what they priorities for communication are.Is the priority salt and hypertension, fat consumption and obesity, sugar consumption and children’s teeth, fibre consumption and reduction of cancer? 2.3 Solutions must be customer-centered—they must help consumers to make well-informed choices about their own diet and health.This is particularly important for parent s. 2.4 We believe that a plethora of priorities and approaches can only add to customer confusion.

3.O n-Pack Labelling 3.1 Customers have relatively little time in practice to make product selections at the shelf edge (research has shown an average of 14 seconds in the case of sausages to consider all aspects of selection including brand variety, size, price and quality).It is therefore clear that any informat ion we provide on nutrition and health must be both simple and readily available to the consumer. 3.2 It is ASDA policy to declare the “full 8” nutrition information in the form of a table wherever space permits, with information per 100g and per serving.An additional highlig hted box provides fat, calories and salt values per serving—this has been on packs for over five years. 3.3 We provide GDAs (Guideline Daily Amounts for energy intake) on selected packs, on our website and in literature for calories, fat, saturated fat and salt. 3.5 ASDA “Good for you!”, our healthy eating brand and our latest brand to be re-launched, carries front of pack messaging showing “at a glance” values for calories, fat and saturated fat per serving also the % fat content.These have proved very popular with customers and we are look ing at whether we should roll out this approach to other ASDA packs. 3.6 We also communicate health messages on the front of pack through a range of icons such as low fat (for naturally low fat foods) and high in vitamin C.We are assessing the con sumer demand for health improvement icons for example, “now 10% less fat”, or “20% less salt”.This supports our extensive Food Pledge programme to reduce fat, salt and sugar in our foods. 3.8 The ASDA Food Pledge programme started in 1998 with a focus purely on salt.In 2002, we increased the focus to reducing fat, sugar, additives and allergens.In May 2004 we la unched a new fat, salt and sugar policy with maximum values and lower target values for all ASDA brand product categories.Priorities for delivery in early 2005 include sandwiches, soups, all products in our “Smart Price” value and “Good for you!” healthy brand ranges plus any planned category re-launches. 9893012006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73

3.9 We believe that reductions in the levels of fat, sugar and salt will only be a success if: — they are gradual so that they are accepted by consumers as their palates change; and — the food industry moves together.The retail industry, a number of key man ufacturers and food service operations are making large scale product changes.We question wh ether smaller manufacturers, independent restaurants and local “take-away” shops are adapting their recipes in a similar manner. 3.10 Asda was the first retailer to work with the Department of Health and to introduce their five-a-day logo on our fruit and vegetable packs.We are currently rolling out the logo to more areas (initially frozen and some fresh fruit and vegetables).We also worked with the DOH to trial sh elf edge labels in our stores with their branding. 3.11 We have for a number of years sought to avoid the presence of unnecessary allergens in our own- label products.We have highlighted for our customers the presence of thes e key allergens—wheat, gluten, shellfish, nuts, milk, Soya—by means of a separate “contains” box.We are ex tending this to include the latest revision to the food labelling directive by including thirteen major serious allergens on pack. 3.12 In addition to allergen declaration in ingredients listings, all own-label packaging will carry an “allergy advice” box for additional emphasis.During the transition peri od to extending the list of allergens, we will indicate in the allergy advice box the number of major serious allergens the product has been assessed for. 3.13 To optimize consistency for UK consumers we were also the first retailer to use the Coeliac UK Gluten-free symbol on relevant ASDA brand foods and it is now widely used on our packs. 3.14 We have a stringent auditing policy to ensure that any “free-from” claims on packs are correct.We do not want “may contain” or equivalent labelling on more products than necessary because this limits the choice for allergy suVers but at the same time we are, of course, acutely aware that customer safety must be our absolute priority.

4.O ther ASDA Nutrition Information 4.1 We have provided customers with supporting nutrition advice and information for many years and some elements are described in this section.Here are our main initiatives . 4.2 Our “Big” school curriculum education programme, which is now in its seventh year and its fourth year focusing on health.The Big Healthy Eat 2004–06 will focus on healthy e ating especially five-a-day and will reach one million school children through in store walking trails, educational visits to our stores, teachers notes, parents notes to support the health messages for children and a dedicated ASDA web micro site.Healthy Eating is the topic most popular with our stores, due to schoo l demand for materials—this shows the real need for a greater formalised school curriculum health, nutrition and cooking programme. 4.3 We have a range of ASDA healthy eating leaflets (Healthy Living, Diabetes, five-a-day and Allergies and Intolerances).These are displayed in stores and requested by nurses, dieticians, GP surgeries and schools for wide scale education. 4.4 ASDA “Healthy Living for Everyone” website, provides: — fact sheets on topics including fat, salt and sugar, diabetes, heart disease, five-a-day; — diets for children, healthy eating, allergies and more, with many additions planned; — diet plans especially “Good for you!” and “Smart Price” (healthy eating on a budget); — store tour guides for use by the public and health professionals; we have a database of around 200 health professionals working with us locally and are rapidly expanding this; — 30 new monthly healthy recipes with fat and calorie values; — hyper link to NHS Direct and links to/ information from health related charities; and — an ASDA Health Exhibition Stand taken out to events for health professionals and the general public, 4.5 Articles in ASDA Magazine and other magazines on ASDA’s health activity, our healthy ranges especially “Good for you!” and articles in health professionals’ publications including NHS directories. 4.6 ASDA Pharmacy health checks in store supported with basic health advice including blood pressure and diabetes testing. 4.7 We have nutrition education incorporated into our store colleague training programme, so that by end 2005, 50,000 colleagues will have basic nutrition and allergy knowledge. 4.8 We are investigating other health promotion and education opportunities to be launched in 2005. 9893012006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 74 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

5.F uture Labelling Formats 5.1 We believe there must be common criteria for any potential energy density, traYc light or high/ medium/ low labelling approach.Stakeholders need to act quickly and work together to develop them before various labelling regimes and criteria are in place, potentially causing even greater confusion to the customer.Otherwise the same product could be rated red/high in one store o r for one brand but amber/ medium in another. 5.2 Any labelling proposal must be properly researched both from an expert nutritional and consumer perspective so that it does not have negative impact on the UK nutrient intake, especially from main food groups such as meat, dairy and fruit and vegetables.Labelling as being high sugar and cheese as being high fat, calorie, saturated fat and salt (just for two examples) would not be in consumers’ interest because of five-a-day or calcium intakes.Twenty per cent of children do not eat fruit during the week (source: Department of Health survey) and one in 12 women have osteoporosis. 5.3 Labelling must take into account the diVerent nutritional needs of groups within our society, for example children, older people, pregnant women.We believe it is importan t to have agreement on what labelling information is also applicable for children’s products for example. 5.4 The Department of Health must work closely with our sector in determining the five-a-day criteria for composite products to support the overall objective of increasing awareness of what counts as a “five- a-day serving”.These must be relevant for all consumers not just those who are already “healthy eaters”.

6.L egal Constraints 6.1 We are faced with a number of labelling and product development constraints which restrict our ability to provide information and choice for our customers. 6.2 We cannot legally provide a salt value where space prevents sodium values being declared in the nutritional table.Given the national focus on salt (which is much more wid ely understood than sodium) we need to be able to provide these values. 6.3 Regulations dictate or determine minimum fat contents for traditional cheeses, cream, evaporated milk, butter, spreads and chocolate.We are legally prevented from reduci ng the fat content by 10%! 6.4 Regulations also prevent a simple 10% sugar reduction in standard jams and marmalade.We can make 25% less fat/sugar versions but these are diVerent, additional products with altered qualities and sometimes prices.Reduced sugar jam, for example, will always cost more to produce because as the sugar content goes down the fruit content goes up and not all consumers are able or willing to pay the higher prices. 6.5 EU rules currently prevent the making of any claim that a food is capable of treating, curing or preventing any disease on medical condition.This coupled with incidents of unreasonable enforcement make it more diYcult for retailer to support key Government campaigns.An example would be the potential illegality of promoting the Department of Health’s message that eating five-a-day can help to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease initiatives. 6.6 Only use of adult RDAs for vitamins and minerals is permitted on pack by EU requirements.Adult RDAs are not relevant to children but are the only legally permitted measure for indicating the % of the daily vitamin or requirement a serving of a food or drink provides. 20mg of Vitamin C is a third of the adult RDA but actually two thirds of the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for 7–10 year olds.So a pack can only declare that the product contains one-third of the child’s requirement when actually it is two-thirds the daily requirement.This labelling could lead to the over-consumption of certain vitamins and shows the inflexibility if the current regime.

6.7 We are concerned at EU nutrition and health claims proposals that might remove our ability to use healthy brand range descriptors, such as “Good for You!” which is our primary means of enabling customers to identify and choose healthy options in their weekly shop.We a re also concerned that having a closed list of potential claims will be too inflexible to meet changing customer needs for example low calorie claims are excluded.

7.C ountry of Origin 7.1 Our policy is to label country of origin, production and packing. 7.2 Whilst there is no legal requirement to declare country of origin on processed foods (as opposed to meat, fruit and vegetables) to enable customer choice we have always done so.This used to be on the basis of where the final product was produced but now reflects also the origin of key value ingredients where this might diVer. 7.3 In providing country of origin information, we need to be careful that this does not increase packaging costs where origin of ingredients may change at short notice. 9893012006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75

8.T he Means of Production of Food 8.1 Methods of production messages are diYcult to distil into easy to understand customer communication. 8.2 Organic—There are over 10 organic certification bodies, several of which have diVering production requirements (over the base UK legal minimum) yet the products are all sold as organic.Each certification body has its own on-pack logo—again, potentially adding to customer confusion. 8.3 “Organic” is the clearest message at present oVered to customers.“Free range” is a term widely used and some groups, particularly Compassion in World Farming, actively encourage consumers to purchase free range products. 8.4 Free Range—Only poultry has defined standards for free range production (and there are two standards; free range and traditional free range related to the age of the birds). 8.5 There is no definition of free range beef and lamb yet consumers are being exalted to buy these products.We would be happy to stock them if we knew what they were—we are cri ticised for not stocking a product that doesn’t exist! 8.6 Little Red Tractor—The Little Red Tractor has been widely supported by British retailing but there appears to be some customer confusion about what the mark actually means.T his is not helped by the fact that it does not apply to all production, for example, the pig industry has a Quality Standard mark and the egg sector uses the red lion—not a single coherent message.

9.F ood Safety 9.1 Assisting customers to store and prepare food safely is a key priority. 9.2 All packs carry “use by” or “best before” and appropriate storage instructions.Products also carry cooking instruction and these are carefully checked. 9.3 Products also carry voluntary storage and use instructions for after purchase for example “eat within three days of opening”. 9.4 Instructions are also given on outdoor and barbeque products to assist the customer to store and cook safely. 9.5 Key messages of the meaning on date codes appear in leaflets on our in-house magazine on a regular basis. 9.6 All packs carry supplier identification and traceability information for internal control purposes.This allows us to respond quickly when customer concerns are raised or we identify issues regarding a particular product.

10.E thical Considerations 10.1 We have been a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) since 1998 and we have a strong relationship with them. 10.2 We have adopted ETI Base Code in its entirety, stating suppliers must not use child labour, forced labour and discrimination. 10.3 Our code is enforced through third party audits. Our audit programme for this year focuses on high risk suppliers by country and by product. 10.4 We are a member of tripartite working groups which includes retailers, NGOs and trade unions, designed to address gangmasters in the UK, health and safety issues in China, home workers around the world and smallholders. 25 June 2004

Witnesses: Mr David North, CSR and Government AVairs Director, Ms Liz Kynoch, Technical and Trading Law Director, Tesco, and Ms Penny Coates, Brand Manager, Asda, examined.

Q321 Chairman: Good afternoon.Welcome to the of Commons a few months ago said that consume rs Committee.We have as witnesses Mr David North were uncertain about whom to trust.They felt they and Ms Liz Kynoch from Tesco, and Ms Penny lacked knowledge on food safety and nutrition and Coates from Asda.Thank you for the written were not confident about who to turn to for reliable evidence provided to us earlier by Asda.We look information and advice.Where do you think the forward to hearing what you have to say to us in most suitable means of providing information answer to our questions.I will begin with a question should be placed? Who do you think should take the that is addressed to both Tesco and Asda.Tesco, in lead in providing information to consumers of that its evidence to the Health Committee of the House type? 9893012007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:49 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 76 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Mr North: Our view is, rather as the representatives sponsorship and repeat promotions should only be from the Co-op said, that responsibility or the role used for healthier foods.Is that not a fair approach of providing information rests with a number of to take? diVerent organisations or sectors.What our Mr North: In terms of promoting healthier diets for customers tell us, again as the Co-op is saying, is that children, again there is a range of techniques that can they trust diVerent sources on diVerent pieces of be taken, and a range that are successful.To take information.On specific information, for example, one example of our fruit and vegetable products, last they might trust brands like Tesco; on food safety year we took the phrase “reverse pester power” with messages, they are increasingly likely to trust our fruit products, and managed significantly to agencies like the Food Standards Agency or increase our sales of by linking it to a Barbie whatever.It will rather depend on the issue or on Doll campaign, and they were our best-selling apples the product. for a while.There are other factors obviously that Ms Coates: As David says, in terms of trust there are will influence low income diets, including low a number of diVerent sources of information to income diets among children.One of those is the customers, and they include the press and the location of stores and the price of food as well.An Government.A lot of customers say that they are interesting piece of research was carried out in one heavily influenced, particularly women when they of our stores in Seacroft in Leeds where the become influenced, by the advice that they get from University of Southampton did some research and clinics and so on.Schools have a big part to play in found that by putting a new store in that area where the education of customers, as do we, and food retail and food retail provision previously had been manufacturers.It is very much a joint e Vort, and we poor, the period following our opening of the store all need to work together to one agenda to achieve showed an increase of one-third in fresh fruit and that. vegetable consumption amongst the lowest income consumers.There are ranges of approaches.

Q322 Chairman: Do you not think there could be a Q324 Joan Ruddock: I apologise if anyone has asked greater role played by in-store placement, in-store this before but I was at a ministerial meeting and that advertising, for example? You will see is why I was late.You mention pester power.I just advertisements in supermarkets, and products being wondered if you, in using that term, were trying to pushed by the retailer that you do not see in the same encourage a certain form of behaviour from children way with encouragement of fruit for example. towards their parents.Is that right? Ms Coates: We do try and balance the advertising Mr North: No.I think it is a term that is sometimes and their promotions, and the placement of used as a critical term for an allegation of behaviour. products in-store.For instance, in almost all of our The point that I was making was simply that one can stores the first products that you come across when use promotional techniques in relation to fresh fruit you go in are fruit and vegetables.The healthy- and vegetables, just as one might in relation to other eating ranges are clearly marked.We do not tend to products. promote products anyway within Asda.The sort of levels of promotion we have, or multi-buys and Q325 Joan Ruddock: Does that not mean that you things, would apply equally to less healthy items as are suggesting to a child that the child should pester healthy items.We do provide choice in that.If you the parent to buy a product in your store? are asking if we could put more focus on promoting Mr North: No, as I say, I was using a term that is healthy foods, then I am sure we could, and we can commonly used as a criticism of techniques and work towards that. saying that one might make that criticism of Mr North: I very much agree with what Penny has something that was used to promote fruit and said.When we counted up, on an average basis, vegetables. weekly promotions across our fruit, vegetables and salad ranges, we counted up typically to around 80 Q326 Joan Ruddock: Did you use it or did you not? or so per week.That compares with, for example, That is what I am trying to get at? confectionery, around 15 promotions in an average Mr North: I referred to it as being an allegation that week, albeit rising to around 50 or so at key times of was made and said that we were promoting fruit and the year such as Christmas and Easter.The other vegetables. relevant point is that when one looks at the total amount we spend on promoting produce, that is Q327 Joan Ruddock: Did you use pester power in fruit, vegetables and salads, and express that as a some way to promote fruit and vegetables? percentage of our total promotional spend, then that Mr North: No.What I said was that this was a amount spent on produce will exceed the proportion phrase that was used, but that, if one looked at what of the total sales of those products. we were doing in respect of fruit and vegetables, that was linking fruit and vegetables to a Barbie doll promotion that had been very successful in selling Q323 Chairman: I came across a document that I fresh produce. think was circulated to all MPs from the charity Ms Coates: We are actually running a programme NCH recently about issues of healthy diets, called “The Big Healthy Eat”, which is aimed at particularly for children and families on lower children and taking children round a nutritional incomes.One of their suggestions was that trail.There is a trail for di Verent ages.We are 9893012007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates actually running that across the country.One much information on there.” I think it varies million children will go through this across a four- enormously between individual customers and their year period.We have been running “big healthy” requirements.I suppose wh at we are trying to do is campaigns for schools a total of seven years.We find a way through this that satisfies most customers. believe that encouraging children to try diVerent healthy options through groups like this, and Q334 Mr Mitchell: Have you anything to add to enjoying them and then coming back and wanting that? Am I being unduly cynical? more, is a good way to encourage them to eat Ms Kynoch: You ask if this is a recent thing, but healthily.That is one of the techniques that is most of the retailers have had a healthy range for a working for us at the moment. number of years.I think ours is 25 years old. Providing healthier products is not something that is Q328 Mr Mitchell: It is a long time ago since I was desperately new.I think I would agree with what a kid but I remember that towns in the north were Penny Coates has said: we are very driven by what dominated by a kind of religious competition our customers want and if they tell us that they want between the Methodists, Congregationalists, more healthy products, or they tell us they want Catholics and Anglicans.Now the titanic struggle clearer labelling, then that is exactly what we do.We which dominates their lives is Asda versus Tesco. do that based on customer research.Healthy You belong to one denomination or the other.I am products per se are not particularly new. just wondering how far the concern with virtual food standards is really a result of that competitive Q335 Mr Mitchell: When it comes to government pressure.Is being virtuous on healthy eating and responsibility, everything seems to split up.It is not eYcient labelling an essential part of competition only British responsibility; it is European these days? responsibility and you have the split between Defra Ms Coates: I think it is an essential part of and the Food Standards Authority.How clear is it conscience and responsibility. to you as retailers who is responsible in government for agreeing and communicating full information? Q329 Mr Mitchell: Yes, but it is conscience only Ms Coates: I think it would be really helpful if we recently discovered. could have a completely joined-up agenda.I think Ms Coates: It has probably been highlighted more there are lots of diVerent parties.It is a very complex recently but I think nutrition has always been at least issue.From my point of view, a single agenda with a considered.I think that would be true for all of the clear list of priorities that we all work towards would grocers. be the most helpful, from one source. Q330 Mr Mitchell: Are you doing it because they are Q336 Mr Mitchell: Does this division of authority doing it and vice versa? cause you real problems? Ms Coates: No.We are doing it because customers Ms Coates: It does sometimes, yes. want it.

Q331 Mr Mitchell: Is it an aid to sales? Q337 Mr Mitchell: How about Tesco? Ms Coates: I guess that depends on the individual Ms Kynoch: I would echo that to a certain extent. customer and what it is that they are looking for.It Clearly there is a Health Protection Agency now and may be for some customers that having more a Food Standards Agency.Some points and agendas information about health and healthy campaigns is which are similar would be very helpful to all of us. an aid to sales but, at the end of the day, it is a combination of a social responsibility, and hopefully Q338 Mr Mitchell: What is your experience of everything we do is that. working with government agencies and government organisations on issues like this? Q332 Mr Mitchell: You must have done surveys to Ms Coates: Perhaps this is limited and my colleagues show what the customer wants and whether it pays may add to it.I think that whatever is the most or not? topical point of the day is pushed very hard by the Ms Coates: Yes. Food Standards Agency to retailers in particular, but the food industry, of course, is larger than just Q333 Mr Mitchell: What do the surveys say? retailers.Whilst I think we all accept we have a very Ms Coates: What customers want in terms of huge part to play, the industry is very wide and a information on nutrition and things varies an awful great number of products are now consumed outside lot customer to customer.Often women, once they the home and not purchased from retailers.There become pregnant, become a lot more interested in must be a holistic approach from the Food nutrition and healthy eating.That is one of the Standards Agency or the Health Protection Agency points in their life that seems to turn them more to the industry as a whole.I believe they do talk to V towards taking more notice of information.The di erent sectors of the industry.I would say that, counter to that is that we do get an awful lot of yes, they are challenging and we hope we can step up feedback that says, “I just do not have time to look to the mark and do the art of the possible. at this.I have three children and a trolley going around a busy store and I have a few seconds to Q339 Mr Mitchell: How frequently do you have make a decision on what I purchase.You have too contact with Government on these issues? 9893012007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 78 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Mr North: I think contact of one sort or another play a game of football afterwards, there are certain would be almost daily, whether it is on an individual nutrients, potassium and things in potatoes that are issue or on wider ranging issues like obesity.Contact quite good for them. I think it is all about balance. with Government is frequent. It is limiting things with may be high fat, sugar and salt, all things that do not actually fit with that Q340 Mr Mitchell: Would you welcome individual’s requirements for their healthy body, Government laying down standards which you then which obviously, with lots of allergies and things put on the labelling, or is this best left to industry co- around, do vary enormously by individual. operation? Mr North: I think it must depend on the issue. Q345 Joan Ruddock: Does that imply that you think that there is nothing supermarkets should do about Q341 Mr Mitchell: That is a good political answer. their current products to make them healthier? Take the nutritional value of salt.Would you prefer Ms Coates: We are doing an awful lot, and so that is a clear government message that you label it this way not the case.We are all trying to make reductions at or that way? the moment in things like salt, fat and sugar.We are Mr North: On labelling or on nutritional content? trying to do it with the very best intentions, recognising that one of the overriding issues in Q342 Mr Mitchell: On labelling? society at the moment is obesity. Mr North: It would depend on the evidence base as to the issue.There clearly are areas where labelling Q346 Joan Ruddock: Asda, I believe, has said that has been set down by government action.Whether over the past three years you have taken one one would want to go further than that at this stage, thousand tonnes of salt out of your products. I do not know.I think it would be di Ycult.It is Y Ms Coates: Yes, and we are taking more.We are di cult to answer that question as an absolute reducing salt in 1,000 products this year.I am not without having a specific proposal in mind, I fear. sure that was the number that I had in my mind.I do Ms Kynoch: May I add to that and say that there are not know what the number is.I know we are obviously clear guidelines from the Government reducing salt in 1,000 products this year, and we now about labelling and that is what retailers do; we have been removing slat for the past five years from comply with legislation and nutrition as well. products. Colleagues from the Co-op mentioned that the reason sodium is on there and not salt is that that is a government requirement and additionally adding Q347 Joan Ruddock: You acknowledge that there is salt is what some retailers have done voluntarily.To great scope for removing salt from processed foods make changes to that legislation, perhaps one of the in supermarkets? questions is: “Does this go back to the EU because Ms Coates: I think there is scope for gradually they are the ones who actually set it in the first reducing salt, fat and sugar.One thing that we have place?” You first asked us whether it would be a to be aware of is that if we do suddenly take a lot of good idea to co-operate with industry.Yes, I do salt out of a product, then it does make a big think it is a good idea to co-operate with industry diVerence to the taste.It is about gradually weaning because, frankly, that is where a lot of the knowledge people oV things and I think again that will be a actually is. united approach to gradually lessening thing like salt content in products.I was thinking about this on my Q343 Mr Mitchell: Would you welcome government very long train journey down here, and I apologise direction? that it was delayed by two and a half hours.I was Ms Coates: I agree with your comments.I am not forced to stand in a smoking carriage because there sure that it is necessary to introduce legislation but I was nowhere else to go.I personally do not smoke do think that a united approach between industry and never have but I was exposed to quite a lot of and Government would be the right way to do it.I smoke as a child.I used to be able to tolerate it and think we need to be in agreement.It does not it was fine.Gradually I have moved myself into an necessarily have to be legislated for because I do not environment where there is no smoke at all.There V think there is anybody that does not want to do it. was a di erence going back to being forced into that environment; it was exceptionally claustrophobic.I think there is quite a similarity in some ways with Q344 Joan Ruddock: From what I have heard, I salt because gradually you eat less and less.I would like to ask you all really: why should not all personally have been trying to eat less and less, but our foods be healthy foods? You say you do healthy if I eat very salty products now, I really notice.I options, you do healthy eats, healthy promotions. think it is about gradually educating and gradually Why should not all our food be healthy? removing to get to a sensible point for everybody. Ms Coates: I think to some extent the definition of “healthy” depends on who you are, how much exercise you take, whether you are a growing child Q348 Joan Ruddock: How helpful do you think the or whereabouts you are in your life stage.A balance intervention recently by the Minister of Health has of food and calories/in calories/out is really what been in highlighting the failure of so many matters.A packet of crisps, for instance, may be manufacturers to take salt out of their processed considered unhealthy to an obese person who is not products, or not to take it out, as you rightly say, but taking exercise, but for a child who is going to go and to reduce it? 9893012007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Ms Coates: I think it is absolutely the right intention Ms Coates: I am not sure that they have actually to reduce salt. tried yet doing something united between something like the BRC and a single government group to set a policy and a single plan to prioritise and into which Q349 Joan Ruddock: Do you think naming and everybody has input, a single plan on which we all shaming is not appropriate? work together.If we set up such a group in Ms Coates: It is certainly not very motivating when government, it may be a separate nutritional board you have done a lot of hard work. or it may be one of the existing bodies, together with the BRC, that could work.I think it would help in Q350 Joan Ruddock: But not enough? terms of clarity as to what the priorities are because Ms Coates: That is debatable, I guess. obviously there is a limited number of things we can work on at one time.Having that clarity of priorities and a single set of priorities would be really helpful. Q351 Joan Ruddock: How do we arrive at a position Ms Kynoch: I think we are moving towards that where we know what is enough? Who is going to through the BRC.That is where obviously you do decide that if each supermarket chooses to go down get all the retailers coming together.We have agreed its own path when we all know that an enormous a common point from the British Retail Consortium amount could be done? point of view.I believe that is with the Food Ms Coates: Again, I think there are a number of Standards Agency. things that we could do and various aspects for reducing things like salt, fat and sugar.I think that is where we could have a united approach, and you Q354 Joan Ruddock: If we re-visit this inquiry in a mentioned the Minister’s initiatives on salt, which in year’s time, will you have cracked it? its own right is good.There are other things like fat Ms Kynoch: We will certainly have done what we and sugar that we need to look at altogether.If we said we would do in that paper the BRC presented could get to a point of having a single agenda that is because the intention is to do that and do more prioritised with timescales and follow-up, then I over time. think that would be a great place for everybody to be.Certainly, I think I speak for all of us in being Q355 Chairman: Is there not really a problem here very happy to be involved in something like that. though about the reliance upon the industry co- Joan Ruddock: Does that go for Tesco’s? operating amongst the major players at least? I think in the evidence from Asda, you yourself said that although the retail industry, a number of key Q352 Chairman: From Tesco’s point of view, do you manufacturers and food service operations, are endorse what has been said? making large-scale product changes in respect of Mr North: We do endorse what has been said.On levels of fat, sugar and salt, you were questioning salt, it is an area where the industry can work whether smaller manufacturers, independent together, where for example we are working with our restaurants and local take-away shops were competitors through the British Retail Consortium. adapting recipes in a similar manner.Is there not a Obviously we have heard what the Minister has had big problem here that for information to have a real to say.We will continue to work with our colleagues impact on the consumer there has got to be some in the British Retail Consortium to achieve progress standardisation across all the various outlets? If on salt. people are moving forward at their own pace to a Ms Kynoch: There are obviously a few products faster or slower extent, you are not going to get the which have to have salt in them because it is a form full benefits that you could have from a standardised of .It is not as if you can remove salt approach, which I think must surely require some from absolutely everything.The bread industry did government intervention? How would you respond do just that.They took salt levels down over time so to that? V that palatability is not adversely a ected and Ms Coates: I would agree that we do need a single V e ectively people stop wanting to buy great product approach.I think we need to have some sort of time ranges.Certainly as far as Tesco is concerned, in lines.We just need to involve a number of people in terms of NPD it is now on the agenda and we are what their approach is and make sure that it is saying that as we are developing a product, then we practical for all parties to achieve time lines.I will look to minimise the salt, which means that you absolute agree: I think a common approach is right. have to work harder to make the other ingredients perform in terms of flavour. Q356 Chairman: That would require government regulation.Would you accept that? Q353 Joan Ruddock: Accepting all of that, what I Ms Coates: If parties are not prepared to comply am trying to find is how we are going to arrive at anyway, and I think most parties would be, it is some agreed position because the evidence so far is probably lack of information and understanding or that you are not getting to a point where you have a resources that is generally the problem rather than common agreement across the industry, a common willingness to produce the right food and serve the time frame.You have had years and years and years right food to customers. in which to do it.How is it going to happen? Mr North: I would agree with Penny Coates that the Otherwise we would have to say to Government that more various parts of industry can work together on Government should legislate. this, the better.On your second question about 9893012007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 80 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates whether that requires the Government to regulate, I front of the pack; there will be green, amber and red. would wonder about the practicality of doing that, There is an acknowledgment from them that they particularly given the point that you made about understand that, that they understand that the Asda’s evidence in relation to the catering and other products in the green zone are the products which of sectors and whether one could really legislate in a course are going to be good for you.That does not way for limited salt across the board in products. preclude them wishing to buy products which in some cases may be labelled red for perhaps fat Q357 Chairman: There is one specific point which because they know that they should not have too arises from these questions.Can I ask you in each of much of that.Really it was down to customers your cases: how do you convey nutritional telling us what they wanted.Of course, we provided information to your customers about food that is various ideas, but this is the science behind it.The sold loose rather than packaged foods: for example, customers are the ones to listen to in this instance. the fish counter, the delicatessen counter or That is why we have chosen to go with a traYc whatever? lighting system on the front of our packs. Ms Coates: From Asda’s point of view, we certainly have nutrition information leaflets and we have Q361 Mr Mitchell: I understand that.You are going information on websites.When you see products on to have traYc lights for fat, concentrated fat, sugar counters and things, you will see what we call a little and salt.If you take marmalade, I like marmalade, (pentics) stuck in the product, a little plastic label. so it is going to be green—green for guzzle in my On the back of that label is the nutritional case—on everything except sugar, where it is going information.It is there on request.Obviously things to be red.That is a bit confusing, is it not? vary by weight; it is not automatically provided on Ms Kynoch: You have chosen something that you the label for the customer at this stage but the only need a little drop of each day, I suppose, so it information is there so that any requests can be would be quite diYcult to overdose fully on answered at the counter because the information is marmalade.To be fair, nutrition is a very complex on the back of the price label, which is what the subject and trying to explain even what we deem as customer sees. scientists as a relatively simple calorific fat content is hugely diYcult.What we are doing is Q358 Chairman: This would require the customer to oversimplifying it by going for the traYc light ask for the information.It is not obvious at first system.You do not just eat marmalade all day, so sight? that is only going to be little bit of your diet.Clearly Ms Coates: It would require him either to ask for the I am sure you will then balance what you have for information or to look it up on the website or in one your breakfast, your marmalade, by choosing some of our nutritional or healthy eating leaflets. other products which are green, so you will be choosing a good quality breakfast cereal with Q359 Chairman: In your experience, do many skimmed or reduced fat milk in order to balance customers ask for that information when they buy that.People did not see products labelled red as evil their cheese or whatever? and that they must not eat them; they accept that life Ms Coates: Not a lot of customers do that, no. is a balance.I think no customer would expect a nice Ms Kynoch: It would be exactly the same for Tesco, cream bun is going to be pretty green but they will including not many customers actually asking us for probably balance that by making sure that they have that information but it is available at the point at the healthier options as part of that meal or as part which you buy it and on the website and in leaflets, of another meal during the day. pretty much as Asda have said. Q362 Mr Mitchell: I am not sure I have got the Q360 Mr Mitchell: Tesco’s recently got a traYc willpower to do that. lights system, which is going to start in September.I Ms Kynoch: We have not started selling willpower think it is the kind of thing that the Consumers’ tablets yet but I suppose it is a possibility. Association has been urging.Why did you decide that the time was right to do this? Q363 Mr Mitchell: As a follow-up to that, I get very Ms Kynoch: We are constantly doing customer confused by the conflicting warnings given by research and asking customers what they want.One various health people. I am not quite sure really of the things they are telling us is that nutritional whether we have a scientific basis for the information and information in general on the pack information about the eVect of salt, the eVect of is very confusing.I know that you have just had a sugar, the eVect of fat, and so on.Are all these cases long conversation with the Co-op about that very suYciently proven to simplify them into a traYc point.They are saying it is confusing.One of the light system? things we look to do is see what information we Ms Kynoch: If they are not suYciently proven, there could possibly provide that is as meaningful as is some extremely strong evidence to suggest that possible and that would be simpler for consumers.sodium disrupts the sodi um pump in your body that That is why we have come up with the traYc lights leads to coronary heart disease, much the same as system.We have gone through various stages of with smoking and, yes, you ca n get lung cancer and mock-ups and looked at it with consumers.They all sorts of other things.If you like, it is beyond have said that they feel this would be good for them; circumstantial evidence, so it is enough to be taking it is quick and easy to recognise.It will be on the heed of.You are right that food is made up of a 9893012007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates number of diVerent components.Fat could be one of Q367 Mr Jack: We have on the one hand a lot of them; sugar could be another.There is salt to information but poor benchmarking.Do both of consider and then there is the overall calorific you run what might be described as healthy eating content.There are negative messages about too ranges? much of each of those.It is not that the messages are Ms Coates: Yes. conflicting.It just so happens that food is a mixture of all of those things, which is why it makes it very Q368 Mr Jack: You label these accordingly so that diYcult. people can diVerentiate between the unhealthy stuV and the healthy stuV. Q364 Chairman: Will Asda introduce a traYc Ms Kynoch: It is very clear; in Tesco’s case it is a lights system? brand all of its own that we have been running for 25 Ms Coates: We have clearly discussed the traYc light years, so it is easily recognizable, yes. system.I think you are probably aware of some of the packaging we have at the moment.Customers Q369 Mr Jack: How do you decide what goes into say that things like the medals on this box work very the brand? well for them because these are quite clear and they Ms Kynoch: I suppose it is like any product can spot them.The opportunity to turn those into development: in some cases you are following food traYc lights is obviously there.We were really trends, and that is why you launch ranges of sushi if waiting to see whether we decided as an industry to that was in vogue.At the time when you are go with the common approach, because I think it is launching a product, you may well consider whether a very positive approach to take, provided we decide it should be a healthy living product, whether it what we are traYc lighting and we do it consistently. should be a Finest product or whether there is room Otherwise if, heaven forbid, some of Asda’s for a Value line.I think it really just depends.It is shoppers were to shop in Tesco one day, we would driven by what consumers want to buy essentially. want to make sure that red and amber and green were consistent in all of the supermarkets.I guess. Q370 Mr Jack: It is driven by what consumers want to buy and yet in your previous answer you told me Q365 Mr Jack: How much work do you do in that, in terms of awareness of what they ought to be deciding what the base knowledge is of your buying, there was a low awareness. customers about the various sorts of average daily Ms Kynoch: It is the NPD [New Product intakes that they are supposed to have? If you do not Development] of products; if it is in vogue to eat do this, all of this discussion about all this sushi, then we will launch a range of sushi.The information is a bit meaningless because there is no question I answered was separated somewhat from benchmark against which to compare it.Do you feel their ability to understand a nutritional label on a (a) any obligation to help your customers know that pack.You extend product ranges because that is information and (b) do you provide it? what people want to buy, not necessarily because Ms Coates: We provide recommended daily they need to buy a reduced fat product.In many allowances on packs according to the current cases it is not possible to make a product fit into the recommendations.I think again the data is that the tight criteria we have for healthy living, and so you recommended daily intakes would vary according to add to the ranges those products that it is physically age, size and whether you want to reduce weight. possible to make with low fat and lower sugar and lower salt.

Q366 Mr Jack: The question I asked is not so much Q371 Mr Jack: I am wondering how meaningful you what you are doing but do your customers know actually feel putting labels like “healthy eating” on a this? In terms of your service, both companies spend product actually is? a lot of time talking to customers.What is the level Mr North: On that point, there is a question of trust of customer awareness about what they ought to be on the part of the customer.As Liz Kynoch was taking in? saying, our Healthy Living range was launched in Ms Kynoch: I think it is very low indeed.People are the mid-1980s.We also have a Healthy Living Club, very influenced by the media.If there is talk of fat for which I think we have 175,000 members, and so being very bad for you, saturated fat, then that is we communicate through our Healthy Living Club what they pick upon.If the latest media topic is salt, messages about healthy living and healthy eating. then that will also be picked up on.At best, the Our customers do not generally come in and say, guideline daily amount, the 2,000 calories for “What is the specification for a product to enter the women and 2,500 calories for men, is probably a Healthy Living brand?” although if they did, we more recognizable phrase.I think people see that would be able to tell them, for example, that it must amount and can in some cases decided to add up and contain 10% less sodium or 3% less fat, or whatever, make sure that they do not have more than that than a standard product.They trust the brand if they intake a day.In general terms, unless you happen to want to eat a product that, combined with other be a scientist or a nutritionist, I would say that the things they do in their lives, will on balance give consumers’ understanding and knowledge is quite them healthier living and our Healthy Living brand poor. will do that for them, or will help them to do it. 9893012007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 82 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Q372 Mr Jack: You do not think it is a conscience system, then doing something on energy density or thing, do you? They have one of your healthy meals something that is most important to the majority of a week and then think, “Right, I have done that.I customers was what we were concerned about. can go back and indulge now”? Ms Coates: We do not want customers who say they Q376 Mr Jack: Can you tell me what energy eat the Health Eating range during the week and density is? then they will have other ranges at the weekend or go Ms Coates: Calories per 100 grams. out to eat at the weekend.Some customers consciously do that if they are watching weight. Q377 Mr Jack: What contact do you have with other supermarkets in other parts of the Community Q373 Mr Jack: Is that what we would call a about how they react to all this? Are people in Italy, balanced diet? France and Germany as obsessed about all of this as Ms Coates: We do not encourage them to do that. we appear to becoming here? They choose to do so. Ms Coates: I do not know the answer to that.

Q374 Mr Jack: What I am trying to get at is whether, Q378 Mr Jack: You have the European Union busy with all this information, people say, “Yes, I reviewing this nutritional labelling for a universal understand it, yes I believe it, yes, I will react to it”? application throughout 25 countries in the I am interested in terms of the feedback you get from European Union and you have not talked to another customers.You said, Mr North, a minute ago that retailer about it? you had 175,000 people in your Healthy Living Club Ms Coates: We talk as part of the BRC.We are “and we send them messages”.What questions do obviously not in contact with other retailers on a they come back and ask you? I presume this club is regular basis for competition reasons.We would interactive, is it? talk through the BRC generally on topics like this. We have been doing that on a UK basis rather than Mr North: It is and customers will come back with a European basis. questions.It is precisely those sorts of questions that have led us to develop our traYc lights system.When we ask customers or when customers speak to us Q379 Mr Jack: From evidence that we have heard spontaneously, one can see an increasing trend of before, there are some serious questions about customers saying, “We are more concerned about labelling, full stop: purpose, content and all the rest healthy living.We are more concerned about issues of it.This is universal labelling across Europe.I am like obesity”, partly because of what they read and just surprised that there has not been any dialogue partly because of what they see and experience. store chain to store chain.Maybe that is the way that What they will then say is, “We understand that you are approaching these matters.What about retailers, manufacturers, or whatever, provide lots Tesco, because you have a presence in other of information”.Nonetheless, again as I think we Community countries, in Hungary and in Poland? heard during the evidence that you took from the Mr North: We do have a presence in some other Co-op, they will say on the one hand that there is Member States.There is dialogue through bodies already a plethora of information but that, perhaps like EuroCommerce.Although the response will V because of the amount of information, some of it is di er Member State to Member State and an issue hard to understand and hard to interpret.That was like obesity will have a higher profile in some why we then devised, for example, the traYc lights countries than in others, the concerns that Penny system and customers responded by saying, “If you Coates has expressed about the proposed Directive were to do that, then we would, on balance, find that I think were pretty widely shared.That is why the Commission has said that it will look again.It is helpful”.As Liz Kynoch said earlier, they did not V respond by saying, “If we saw red, we would not eat important sometimes to di erentiate between the it or would not buy it.We would act with objectives behind the proposed legislation, some of moderation in choosing between products and in which were perfectly laudable, and sometimes what one fears might be perverse eVects.For example, we choosing an overall balance of products”. were concerned that our Healthy Living products would be threatened by that Directive, which we Q375 Mr Jack: Let us move on to Europe because a thought was a perverse eVect.It is similar to the lot of the labelling requirements come out of perverse eVects of some other legislation, for Europe.I gather that Asda have expressed concern example the reason why both ourselves and Penny about the review that is to take place on nutrition Coates’s company are being prosecuted by Trading labelling.Would you like to tell us why? Standards departments for promoting the Ms Coates: I think at the time we raised concern Government “five a day” message. about the review into nutrition labelling it was about having individual traYc lights for salt, fat and sugar, Q380 Mr Jack: You are being prosecuted.Why? or having a traYc light that represented salt, fat and Mr North: The claim or the allegation is that, at least sugar.It may be that one is very high and one is very in our case, repeating the Government’s message low.I think we just wanted to make sure that a that eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day balanced diet was introduced.If we were going to helps prevent cancer is a health claim that is support something like a traYc light labelling technically prohibited by existing legislation. 9893012007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 83

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Q381 Mr Jack: Just out of idle curiosity, why have Q387 Joan Ruddock: It is just a private company. they picked on you because other people seem to What happens with Tesco? dwell on this? The Government themselves Ms Kynoch: The process for Tesco own label promote this? products is very much as Penny Coates has Mr North: It is probably a question that we described, and the independent product test are sometimes wonder about ourselves.It depends on done by Law Labs.I think they are getting a lot of the specific wording that is used.In our case, we did business because we use them as well.I think you for a time use the wording that we took from the actually mentioned the brands.Did you ask us a NHS, and in fact developed with our partners on question about whether we checked that branded this, Cancer Research UK, which was that eating products were actually legally compliant? five a day helps prevent cancer.It was that specific wording that they objected to, notwithstanding the Q388 Joan Ruddock: I was making a distinction fact that it was precisely the same wording that the between your own brand, and I assume you control Government was using.I think Asda have had a the labelling of your own brands, and those brands similar experience. which are not your own but are coming from other Ms Coates: Yes. manufacturers.I wondered if you saw yourselves as being responsible for checking that the labels from Q382 Mr Jack: Do you think that sends out a those other manufacturers complied with labelling confusing stream of information to the customer, law. that the simple message “five a day” and all that goes Ms Kynoch: That is only if we actually had a concern with it ends up with their favourite purveyor of food about the technical competency of that supplier. being taken to court? Clearly when it is Mars or a worldwide company or Mr North: Customers will have noticed, if they look Heinz baked beans, I think they have plenty of at our “five a day” ranges, that our message has technical resources to ensure that their products changed from one that we thought was perfectly comply with all legislation, including labelling.We objectively justified, which was that it helps prevent do risk assessment depending on the supplier, but cancer, to one that is something along the lines of that would extend beyond foods to electrical goods “for a healthier lifestyle” and they will wonder why as well. that message has been diluted.I think their wondering why it has been diluted is probably not Q389 Joan Ruddock: When we were visiting as a helpful in promoting the “five a day” message. select committee the accession countries, Tesco’s was already taking quite a lot of local product and manufactured goods presumably from those Q383 Joan Ruddock: I was just wondering if they countries.They had very little in place for regulating really did notice.I must say, when I am in a anything as far as we could tell.Would you assess supermarket, I notice nothing except where the that new supplier as a high risk and make certain product is that I want to buy.You have research on that you got the right labelling and compliance? Is this.I wanted to ask about prosecutions, but from a that what you are saying? slightly diVerent angle.To what extent do you feel Ms Kynoch: In those counties that we deal with in yourselves responsible to see that the labels as what was the old eastern bloc we have a very small applied by manufacturers, other than your own proportion of Tesco own brand product but, brands, actually comply with labelling law? Do you whichever country we are in, Tesco brand products have a checking process or do you just depend on the are taken care of 100% by the technical team within manufacturer doing the right thing? our company, whether it is in Poland or back in head Ms Coates: We have an independent check so that oYce in the UK.To the extent to which our manufacturers check depending on whether the operations in those countries are able to screen the products are assessed as being high, medium or low labels of every brand manufacturer, we are not able risk.The frequency of the checking by the to do that. manufacturers is determined by which category they fall into, but every product is checked both at the Q390 Joan Ruddock: So there could be products time that it is actually launched and annually by an being sold by your company, certainly in other independent body as well, or at least annually. countries where the labelling might not be compliant.What about in the UK? Have you had Q384 Joan Ruddock: When you say “an independent examples where you have sold products that are not body”, you mean a body independent of what? compliant? Ms Coates: It is independent of the supplier and of Ms Kynoch: I am not aware of any. us. Q391 Joan Ruddock: Have you any knowledge of prosecutions ever having happened? Q385 Joan Ruddock: That is of both? Ms Coates: No. Ms Coates: Yes. Q392 Joan Ruddock: We have been given evidence Q386 Joan Ruddock: What is that body? that suggests there are very few prosecutions in this Ms Coates: We actually use Law Labs, a company field but not necessarily that there is 100% in Birmingham. compliance. 9893012007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 84 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Ms Kynoch: I think that is probably true because system, we are pretty confident that if it proves there are an awful lot of products with an awful lot helpful to customers, then pretty rapidly others will of labels and Trading Standards’ ability to screen all take it on.To look at a historical example, I think we of those would be limited, I suppose. were either the first major retailer or very close to the first major retailer, to introduce the nutrition panel Q393 Chairman: Turning away from the question of on products, long before it became compulsory. making sure that manufacturers of products meet That very quickly became a non-Tesco exclusive the legal requirements for labelling, can I ask you idea because the manufacturers realised that it was how much pressure you put on those manufacturers something that consumers found helpful. from whom you purchase products for sale to meet some of the wider objectives of nutrition Q396 Chairman: If your traYc light system is a information, information for the consumer, and so success, then surely you can say to the external on? We heard about the information that you are producers who supply you, “We want you to have putting in place on your own brand products.That, that information on the products that we are selling of course, is only a relatively small proportion of our stores and, if you do not provide it, we will not what you are selling.How do you try to ensure that buy from you”.Surely you are in a position to be these other external producers aim to reach the able to exercise that kind of power over the standards that you yourselves are trying to set? producers? Ms Coates: I think that is where the joined-up Mr North: As Penny Coates has said, one can have approach comes in.Actually, the own-branded a debate about whether retailers really do have that items are over half of Asda’s sales certainly, so it is power.If one individual retailer were to say that, quite a large proportion of our sales.In terms of then the large manufacturers would reply by saying, influence on branded suppliers, I think we can talk “Actually, whatever size you think you are, we are in with branded suppliers.Obviously we have no fact supplying a whole number of other retailers, power to tell them what to do.We can make both large and small, and introducing that sort of suggestions, as Government and everybody else can, change just for you is very diYcult”. and I think probably the influence of the current focus on obesity in the media, et cetera, will influence the branded manufacturers more than we would be Q397 Mr Jack: Is it really true to say then that the able to do. massive Asda Wal-Mart is at the mercy of its suppliers when it comes to what is printed on labels? This is a revelation to me. Q394 Chairman: Surely you do a have a lot of Ms Coates: The size of companies like P&G and power? You are major players in the market.You Mars, et cetera, and remember we are buying as can influence them, surely, by your purchasing Asda in the UK and we do not buy as part of a global decisions.To give an example which I put to the purchase— Committee last week, on the rare occasions I go unwisely with my children to the supermarket and we go to the breakfast cereal counter, inevitably I am Q398 Mr Jack: I cannot help but think a little trans- dragged towards the highest priced goods, the ones Atlantic nudge and a wink might get you down the which have the most chocolate and sugar in them. line to where you want to be.Certainly, as we come Not surprisingly perhaps, given the advertising and down the supply side, you do have a profound the nature of the packaging, those are the ones that influence on what people do. are attractive.I think that is an example of pester Ms Coates: I think Tesco might have an issue if we power, which we discussed earlier.How is all your tried to dictate what manufacturers did in the UK. good work in terms of traYc lights or other information going to counterbalance that kind of Q399 Mr Jack: I suppose it is a question of whether eVect of advertising on packaging from external collectively, in conversations with the supply side producers? Have you not got some responsibility to through organisations like the British Retail influence the kind of way in which these products are Consortium, there is any feeling of a need to advertised, packaged and sold to the consumer? promote jointly on behalf of retailers food Ms Coates: It is quite an interesting debate, is it not? information messages of the type we have been It is about whether we are there to sieve what we sell discussing on a broad band as far as the supply side for customers or we are there to provide the choice is concerned.The message I am getting from you is and the information for customers.That is a that if somebody has a big, successful brand, it will diVerent debate really because we cannot force be they who dictate the food messages that we all branded manufacturers to do things.We can make stare at on our breakfast tables, not you as the suggestions, as can Government and other parties, retailer. but we cannot force them. Ms Coates: I think there is a joint responsibility again.This is where we could have a single agenda Q395 Chairman: What is the response of Tesco to with the food manufacturers involved in that. this area? Obviously in terms of expertise, nutrition and Mr North: I would agree with much of what Penny things, a lot of the large food manufacturers are Coates has said.Another interesting point is that, in bigger than any of th e individual manufacturers that a competitive market, good ideas can spread quite would supply us as private label suppliers.The quickly.If you take the example of our tra Yc light expertise is there. 9893012007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 85

29 June 2004 Mr David North, Ms Liz Kynoch and Ms Penny Coates

Q400 Mr Jack: Will you turn the question around back wall that said, “Food Information”. What the other way? Given that you are very aware of this, should I have expected to have found in the blue are you happy with the situation? If I said to you, display with the transparent plastic inserts in it “Give me an example of good practice in messages where it said “Food Information”? What would I about health, food, nutrition, salt, et cetera, from a have found there, do you think? major manufacturer whose brand you accept”, what Mr North: I do sense that what we might have would that be? Have you got a corresponding expected you to find and what you actually found example of bad practice that does not, in your might be two diVerent things! Were it to have been judgment, communicate those important messages? stocked properly, then I think you should have For example, if you take breakfast cereals, they tend found quite a range of pieces of information.For to be within the framework of people thinking that example, this is one of our latest leaflets on our these are healthy things to eat, and yet, as the glycaemic index initiative, “Feel fuller for longer and Chairman has indicated, sometimes there are help control your weight” or, for example, breakfast products which in his judgment, not his information on food additives, organic foods or a children’s, may have the adverse eVect.Do you look whole range of issues.I suspect we do not make sure at labels and say, “That is good”, “that is bad” and, that these are always 100% stocked, although we do if so, do you feed any of that information back to try our best. major branding manufacturers? Ms Coates: In thinking about the number of Q403 Mr Jack: You have answered the question products that are supplied to us, the expertise within very astutely.I will not tell you what I did find.You the individual manufacturers and their level of can always go up to Kennington and find it yourself. awareness and activities in food and nutrition, I In fairness, there are some Tesco stores which I have think they are well aware of anything that we would been into which have had the range and style of be able to tell them. leaflets that you have talked about, but in terms of actually how high the priority is in ensuring that your materials produced centrally to communicate Q401 Mr Jack: I am intrigued that there is so little these messages are always available to customers, analysis of this.You are more or less saying that the that may be lower down on the priority in terms of manufacturers will always get it right. store management than other functions about Ms Coates: I am not sure that is what I am saying.I selling products. think I am saying that Kellogg’s, who probably Mr North: It is also not the only method by which we provide at both ends of the spectrum that you communicate to customers; for example, our Club discussed, are providing a choice for a variety of V V Card Magazine or, as I mentioned early, our Healthy di erent needs and a variety of di erent customers. Living Club, our Baby and Toddler Club or our They are obviously researching the customer base to Organic Club.There is a range of ways of determine what they think is most appropriate to communicating with customers, and obviously some sell.Similarly, we would do the same.I think it work better than others. comes back to this debate as to whether you are Chairman: The next time Mr Jack visits the asking us actually to sieve and filter products and Kennington Tesco, it will be bulging with food just sell what we believe is the right thing to sell, or information leaflets.Thank you very much indeed whether we should be selling across the whole for your evidence this afternoon.That has been customer base what the customers want.At the genuinely helpful.There are a couple of issues which moment, we are at the latter of those two.That is the we have not been able to cover in the time this position we are in. afternoon.If you do not mind, we will ask you to answer those in writing.We will let you know what Q402 Mr Jack: I want to ask one question of Tesco, those questions are.If there are any additional if I may.In my local Tesco in Kennington, I went in points which you feel it would be helpful for us to to have a look to see what information was available. have as a result of today’s session, please do let us My eyes lit up when I saw this great big thing on the have that.Once again, thank you very much indeed.

Memorandum submitted by Whitbread

1.In this paper we set out to provide background to Whitbread and our food bu sinesses, look at the eating out market and the attitudes and behaviours of our customers, explain our oVering to customers and consider the food information we provide to our customers.

2.1 The Whitbread Business Whitbread is the leisure business. Having ended our 258-year association with brewing in May 2000, the Company has focused on value creation for shareholders through the management of the UK’s most popular branded leisure businesses. 9893012008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 86 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

The Company’s aim is underpinned by a strategy of organic growth for leading businesses in expanding sectors of the leisure markets.Whitbread owns and operates leading brand s in hotels, restaurants and sports, health and fitness clubs. The Company was founded in 1742 and has been listed on the London Stock Exchange since 1948 and is a member of the FTSE 100 and FTSE4Good indices.

2.2 Key facts Whitbread: — Employs over 65,000 people and has a turnover of over £1.8 billion and net assets of around £2.9 billion (2002–03). — Owns and operates a number of leading brands, including: — High Street Restaurants: — Costa, TGI Friday’s, Pizza Hut, Maredo (Germany). — Pub Restaurants: — Brewsters, Brewers Fayre, Beefeater, Out & Out. — Hotels: — Marriott, Travel Inn. — Health and Fitness Clubs: — David Lloyd Leisure. With 1,477 branded restaurant outlets, 364 hotels and 56 tennis health and fitness clubs, Whitbread is one of the largest operators in the UK eating out market. Our pub restaurant brands—Brewers Fayre, Brewsters, Beefeater— account for over 40% of the UK’s branded pub restaurant sector.These pub restaurants serve more than 32 mi llion meals each year.

3.T he Catering Industry Catering and Leisure (Hospitality), which is defined as “the serviced provision of food, beverages, accommodation, leisure and other facilities purchased outside the home” is one of the UK’s largest industries. — Cafes, clubs, hotels, public houses, restaurants, etc, in the UK number over 300,000 approximately 80% of which are independently owned and operated by SMEs. — The industry employs over 2.5 million people (about 10% of the total UK workforce) and generates revenue of around £50 billion per annum. — The SME nature of the industry is demonstrated by the simple average that less than nine staV are employed per outlet. — Currently some one in five of all new jobs are created in the hospitality sector.

4.T he Eating-Out Market 4.1 The eating out market as a whole is valued at £28.2 billion and accounts for some 4.4 billion eating occasions.The market comprises a variety of di Verent oVerings. 4.2 Going forward the markets in which we operate we believe will grow by around two points of volume per annum.We note that penetration (those who have eaten out in the last wee k) continues to grow.The drivers of this growth are: — increased economic wealth in the middle market; — increase in “casual” eating out; — time (dual income families etc.); — improved quality and choice available locally; and — branded supply showing highest growth. 4.3 The High Street restaurant sector is valued at c £19 billion and accounts for some 3.2 billion eating out occasions.Research shows that consumers visit these restaurants for two key activities; for sustenance or as a treat (often as an adjunct to another activity eg shopping or entertainment). 4.4. The Pub Restaurant sector has a market value of c £5.5 billion accounting for some 0.7 billion eating occasions.The average spend per occasion is £7.85.In this sector sociali sing or treating is the key reason for customer visits where food is the primary focus. 9893012008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 87

5.O verview

5.1 Food information There are three significant factors that influence Whitbread’s approach towards providing information to consumers: — What the consumer needs or wants to know. — How best to inform them. — The mechanics of accurate information provision against the background of providing a dish or meal as a social occasion rather than food as a packaged product.

5.2 Consumer attitudes when eating out The profit sector of the catering industry is highly competitive.The need f or Whitbread’s restaurant brands to anticipate and respond to the views of its customers is paramount.We therefore undertake a considerable amount of consumer research to inform our decisions and react to feedback from our guests. This feedback and our research and that undertaken by others, including the Food Standards Agency, has consistently identified some fundamental diVerences in consumer attitudes towards consumer information when eating out and when shopping. The evidence suggests a key distinction in that restaurant dining is very clearly seen as a treat or social occasion, often a celebration.By comparison there is a functionality ass ociated with shopping for food. In restaurants people are more interested in those emotional aspects that influence their level of enjoyment, such as atmosphere, service, choice and value for money.Resea rch to date has indicated that they are less interested in food production issues, nutritional content and animal welfare and country of origin issues when compared to shopping for domestic use. We believe that a very important exception to this relates to information required for those with food allergies.[See paragraph 7 below] Whitbread has recently also researched parental attitudes in relation to making choices on behalf of their children when eating out and a similar picture emerges.For this group heal thy eating, when eating out, was low down the hierarchy of parental concerns behind road safety, bullying, accidents, health scares, eg MMR, “stranger danger” and general health.This is because restaurant din ing is focused on enjoyment rather than healthy eating.Parents consider that one night o V will not do harm and be countered by careful buying and cooking at home the remainder of the time.

5.3 Practical issues In addition, restaurants serve dishes comprising a number of ingredients.Choice is a key element of restaurant dining which means that a typical table of diners will all choosediVerent dishes or combinations of dishes from the same menu.Many of our restaurants will also o Ver “oV-menu” choices or “specials” only available on that particular day.The menus will change with di Verent regularity depending on the brand. Whitbread’s food and drink spend is c.£335 million per year of which over 90 % is purchased through our central procurement team and then dispersed into our brands’ restaurants.Because of the range and scope of our operations, Whitbread currently has 186 food suppliers providing a range of 4,900 products. In addition, we have 97 drinks suppliers supplying some 1,300 products.

6.T he Nutritional Content of Food

6.1 Communication of the nutritional content of foods Currently our brands do not as a matter of course provide nutritional information. The primary reason for this is because of our experience that our customers do not ask for this type of information.To date this has also been confirmed by our consumer research. However, consumer attitudes may well change over time particularly in light of government and media interest in the issue. Notwithstanding this, Whitbread has been addressing the issue of healthier options following challenges laid down by the FSA and DoH Ministers about salt content.We extended this t o include sugar and fat content. The results of this activity include: — All Whitbread suppliers have been briefed on the Company’s “healthier eating” initiative and challenged to reduce salt, fat and sugar levels wherever possible without compromising taste. — We tackled high volume lines and children’s menus first. — Product and ingredient brief forms now include a requirement to record salt, sugar and fat content. 9893012008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 88 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

— All new product development must meet the new requirements for lowest possible levels of salt, sugar and fat. — All reformulations include details of salt, sugar and fat content in order to provide a trackable record of reductions made. — Actions have been taken to change the mindset of marketers when developing menus to encourage the inclusion of “healthier eating” choices eg pasta/rice, salad, fresh fruit, water. — Explicit demonstrations of the Company’s commitment to “healthier eating” to our supply base (eg Supplier Conference stands and presentations) restaurant managers (eg Brewers Fayre Showcase House Manager handout) and head oYce staV. We also use the same suppliers as some of the leading food retailers (eg bread and breakfast cereals) and benefit from the salt reductions they have already introduced. We have briefed the FSA on this initiative and on progress to date and will keep them updated on developments.

7.F ood Safety—Allergies

Notwithstanding the importance of ensuring that all of our outlets take full account of food safety and hygiene issues, we believe it is vital that accurate information is provided to suVerers for those dishes which contain ingredients of special interest to them.This is the p rincipal food safety issue we believe it is important that we communicate clearly to all of our customers. The drivers for food allergy information include: — Severe food allergies can kill. — Eating out can place allergy suVerers in a vulnerable/hazardous situation. — All food businesses have a duty of care to their customers. — Businesses need to protect and enhance their (brand) reputations. — More people are suVering from severe food allergies. — Allergy suVerers show loyalty to businesses that allow them to choose their meals with confidence. Whitbread has worked closely with the FSA and other interested bodies including The Campaign to develop what has become known as the Four-Strand Approach: 1.Accurate and consistent labelling/provision of information by suppli ers. 2.Training and awareness of designated employees. 3.Standard operating procedures. 4.Guest information available on request. Whitbread menus include the printed statement: “Customers concerned about the presence of nuts, seeds or other allergens in our food are welcome to ask a member of staV for assistance when choosing their meal”. A detailed data sheet showing the allergy status of ingredients contained in each dish is retained back of house and is available to staV.On request, this information is shared with the customer to help ensure th at he/she makes an appropriate choice. The data sheet is updated centrally eg at menu change, and communicated electronically to outlets via the brand’s individual intranet sites.

8.T he Means of Production of Foods (eg Organic,Battery, or Free Range) and Ethical Considerations (Such as Whether Good Labour Practices were Used)

As has already been stated, in our experience there is currently little demand from our customers for this type of information when eating out. However, in our competitive market place we aim to anticipate changes in the wants and needs of our customers.Were we to detect a shift in consumer attitudes towards the prov ision of information on these subjects we would want to respond positively. 9893012008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 89

9.R ole of Labelling

9.1 Consumer Information The provision of consumer information in full service restaurants needs to reflect both the practicalities of the restaurant environment, including sourcing and procurement policies, and the attitudes of customers when eating out. As has already been stated, consumer attitudes when eating in restaurants are diVerent and suggest a significantly reduced demand for information reflecting the social nature of the restaurant experience.This may or may not be the case in other out of home eating environments eg fast food restaurants and workplace restaurants. This is a fundamental issue.Given current consumer attitudes, we would qu estion whether restaurants are the most appropriate environment to start to promote the public education process on healthier eating. That said, it is likely that consumers will respond positively to healthier eating education campaigns and more relevant labelling information on packaged products in other environments.Once that has happened it may lead to an increase in consumer demand for similar information when eating out in restaurants. At that point we will want to be able to respond to any increase in requests for information from our customers in the appropriate way.

9.2 Communication methods In our full service restaurants the menu fulfils the role of the primary consumer communication tool.This is supported by additional information provided on request by our waiting staV.We also make use of brand web sites for restaurant location details, menus and restaurant facilities. We believe there would be significant practical problems in providing a comprehensive breakdown of nutritional and other information in the form given on packaged products. If this were to become a legal requirement the risk is that the menu would become an unwieldy and incomprehensible tome. The idea of a “traYc light” system has been suggested and this simpler and more readily understood mechanism could have some superficial appeal. However, given the current attitude of consumers when eating in our restaurants it is a matter of debate how much influence this additional information would have on the menu choices customers make. There would also be significant practical diYculties.Significantly the introduction of such a system would require a standard approach to be agreed and adopted to establish the statistical basis for each of the three “traYc lights”. For restaurants this would need to reflect the dish as served, including accompaniments and side orders etc.It is di Ycult to see how it could be applied in practice with both accuracy and consistency for the following reasons: — A very wide ranging portfolio of meals, including many ingredients. — Individual ingredients within a dish may change during the life of a menu due to eg non- availability/seasonality. — Ingredients may be sourced locally. — Particular diYculty in accommodating daily “specials” or additions to the menu. — Nutrition content may vary according to nature of cooking method/equipment used.potential for a wide range of “typical values”. — Complex messages to be communicated simply. — Don’t want to lose or devalue the lifesaving information regarding allergies. These challenges are significant even for a company the size of Whitbread with branded, company- managed restaurants, a centrally controlled supply chain and business relationships with a number of key suppliers.They would be even more di Ycult for SMEs in the restaurant sector to introduce.

9.3 Education programmes We understand that all parts of the food industry have a responsibility to encourage our customers to follow a healthier diet.The evidence of increased health risks associate d with obesity is very worrying for society as a whole. However, we believe that the restaurant environment, with its focus on sociability and “treat”, should take the lead from its customers in providing additional information about the food it serves. In the meantime the key priority for us is the food safety issue associated with allergy information.In addition Whitbread is responding to the healthier eating debate by working with suppliers to develop healthier dishes with lower salt, sugar and fat content. 9893012008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 90 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Increasing public awareness of healthier eating requires a comprehensive communication strategy similar to that associated with drink driving, car seatbelts and smoking.Schools also have an important role to play in educating the young.

8.C onclusion Restaurant customers are enjoying a sociable event and, as a consequence, have a diVerent attitude towards their information needs than when shopping in a supermarket. For this reason we would question whether the restaurant environment is the most appropriate to launch a “healthier eating” initiative. However, as consumers respond to the “healthier eating” message promulgated elsewhere we would want to respond positively to requests for more information on those issues of most concern. 24 June 2004

Witnesses: Mr Neil Riding, Managing Director, Beefeater; Ms Paula Vennells, Marketing and Strategy Director, Whitbread Restaurants, Mr Paul Farrow, Director of Food and Drink Procurement, and Mr Mark Kerr, Public AVairs Director, Whitbread Restaurants, examined.

Q404 Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to supermarkets, so is that message not going to then this session of the Food Information Sub- be negative if they are not getting information from Committee.I understand that you want to make a people like yourselves? very short statement before we asked you our Mr Riding: We have a role to play and there are a questions.We are happy to take that if it is short number of bodies here that have a role to play in this. because, as you will appreciate, we are running a The point that we were highlighting here is the little behind time.I would invite you to make that nature of our business an d that people tend to treat statement and perhaps introduce your fellow it as a bit more of an indulgence, a bit more treat and witnesses.it is a lot less regular than a meal occasion at home, Mr Riding: Firstly, thank you for inviting us and for example.Research would tell us that people tend including us.Secondly, if I can introduce my to not perhaps take into accou nt health issues in the colleagues and what we do.My name is Neil Riding same way as they would in a supermarket, for and I am the Managing Director of Beefeater example. Restaurants.My colleague Mark is the Corporate AVairs Director for Whitbread, Paula is the Q406 Chairman: Is it not up to consumers to make Marketing Director for Whitbread Restaurants and their own decision about how far they want to treat Paul is the Procurement Director for Whitbread themselves in spite of what is necessarily the most Restaurants.We are here to represent Whitbread healthiest option? Surely, there should be the and as such our views should not be taken as information available in order that they can make representing the hospitality industry as a whole.I the choice.For example, would it not make sense to have three points to make which might be helpful provide information about alcohol units in drinks? before we do start.As you will see from our Mr Riding: We do provide alcohol information. submission, we operate a number of diVerent Outside a very discrete area of food allergies and brands, restaurants, cafe´s and health and fitness intolerances, we do not get asked for that type of operations.All of our outlets serve food and drink information.Again, it is the nature of our business. and all our pub and High Street restaurants are table If people come out, it tends to be with family or with service; that means that food is ordered from a menu friends, it is a weekend and they may not have been and then delivered to table. out for three or four weeks or whatever and people tend to suspend their judgment as to what might be Q405 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for healthy or not.The other thing that we would point those helpful and short introductory comments. to is that people tend to select from a wide range of From the evidence that you have submitted in items on a menu and that could be anything from the writing, it would seem your view is that there is not full steak with chips through to salads. a need for the restaurant/pub/cafe´ sector to be required to provide food information but you said Q407 Chairman: If I went into your restaurants, that you would question whether restaurants were would I find information about the alcohol units and the most appropriate environment to start to the drinks on the menu or would I find information promote a public education process of healthier about the calorie content or other food information eating.Is it not somewhat irresponsible to suggest on the menu? that your sector does not have a duty to its Mr Riding: On the menu, you would find a brief customers in this way? With people spending more description of what the meal comprises.It is a legal and more money eating out, drinking out and requirement to actually tell people what the alcohol whatever, is there not a strong case for the content is and that is made available to people.What requirements for food information being much you would find is a message on the menu which stronger in your sector? People are trying to eat suggests that if you are worried about content healthily and in what they buy from the because of allergy or intolerance, you should ask a 9893012009 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 91

29 June 2004 Mr Neil Riding, Ms Paula Vennells, Mr Paul Farrow and Mr Mark Kerr member of staV and then what we do is supply—if I Mr Kerr: I think it is fair to say that the catering can wave this before you—that, which is allergy and industry has been slower into this debate than the intolerance information for one menu in one brand supermarkets.Our resea rch consistently shows, as and one of the things that we have to face is that, Neil said, that the majority of people are not when people come out and they want to get the interested.Indeed, there is qu ite a chunk of people information they need from a menu, if we tried to who actively do not want to know because of the put all that on to a menu, what would that look like? nature of the experience they are going to have in a We clearly have a role to play in here somewhere and restaurant.However, it would be naı¨ve of us and it was fascinating to listen to our colleagues from stupid to not assume that customer reaction might supermarkets as to what traYc lights may look like change over time, partly because of initiatives that because we would be extremely interested in taking the supermarkets and others have taken.As a some of that learning and applying it to some of consequence, we have started from perhaps a our menus.standing start with our suppliers to look at the issue Chairman: It would be helpful if you could provide of salt because that was one that the Government the Committee with the document which you have particularly wanted us to look to and, at the same just been indicating, if you are able to do that. time, we took fat and sugar on board as well because it seemed fairly self evident to us that they were going Q408 Joan Ruddock: How often are you asked for to be the next targets.So, this is the beginning of the anything at all? piece of work which has been going now for around Mr Riding: In terms of allergies and intolerances? 12 to 18 months.It is exceptionally complex for us to do it for a lot of the reasons that were described earlier by the supermarkets multiplied by the fact Q409 Joan Ruddock: Yes.You have a notice saying, that we are serving dishes not packaged products, so “If want more information, ask us.” How often do it does become more diYcult.What this was meant people actually ask you about anything? to identify is that we are not doing nothing.What we Mr Riding: In an average restaurant, probably two are doing is getting our information in the right place or three times in the evening and that would be and, when the customer identifies the fact that they specific to allergies.I personally have an allergy to would like that information, we will then be able to dairy products.We had lunch in the Marriot Hotel react with accurate information in the right form but across the way and I asked if they could give me we do not know what form that would be and we do some advice and they were able to give me advice not quite know when the customer is going to make and actually cook me something to order that did that request in our environment. not include dairy.What we do not get asked for is anything to do with nutritional content.Again, we Q412 Mr Jack: One of the things that forms part of have a role to play in this but we see that this is a the Whitbread oVer are David Lloyd leisure centres. going to be a start of a big educational journey and Bearing in mind that people who go to enjoy those clearly our role is going to grow.Where our role lies facilities are pretty clued up about exercise, fitness alongside skills, some of the big supermarkets etc, we and diet, do you oVer any special information to are not quite so sure yet but one thing we are your customers in those environments? absolutely sure on is that this is a big issue and it is Ms Vennells: Yes, we do.On the menus in David going to stay and get bigger for us. Lloyd, we make healthy suggestions/observations on the menu pages and the menus are designed more Q410 Mr Jack: In paragraph six of your evidence to from a healthy eating point of view and the simple the Committee, you say, “Currently our brands do reason for that is that that is actually what those not as a matter of course provide nutritional customers have asked for. information” and you say that the primary reason for that is that people do not ask for it.What do you Q413 Mr Jack: Do I deduce from that that those feel obliged to oVer people by way of information? who are the self-selecting segment of the market who Mr Riding: At the moment, we oVer the information have decided that healthy living is what they want that you see in front of you there which is what we do are happy to have their knowledge base advanced get asked for, so that is specific to people’s identified but the rest of your customers who do not appear to allergies and intolerances. be in that category do not get any help at all? Ms Vennells: They are not in the same category at Q411 Mr Jack: In the same paragraph, you go on to all.David Lloyd customers are in David Lloyd regale us with the information about, “All leisure centres because they are expending calories Whitbread suppliers have been briefed on the and they snack occasionally when they are there.It Company’s ‘healthier eating’ initiative.” That is is not a big part of David Lloyd at all.The customers wonderful.Then you talk about “Product and who come into Whitbread’s other restaurant brands ingredient brief forms now include a requirement to are there for a family treat in the vast majority of record salt, sugar and fat”, so you are building up cases which are very, very diVerent usage occasions the awareness of all this stuV.Do you not think that altogether.As Mark said, if the customers coming a simple message to customers, “In formulating our into our restaurants want that information, we will, menus, we have taken into account the need to over a period of time, be able to give it to them.The minimise blah-blah-blah” and give a message of challenge for us that we are really struggling with reassurance? and it was, in a sense from my point of view, not 9893012009 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 92 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr Neil Riding, Ms Paula Vennells, Mr Paul Farrow and Mr Mark Kerr helpful in hearing the supermarkets because, if they information but that is not terribly helpful when you have problems with labelling, then for me to think are sitting at the table making your choice.I think how I get nutritional information on to a menu is that the choice is there; we will increase the oVer of very diYcult.We are having conversations and we food on the menu that will reflect what customers met recently with the FSA and shared with them the want because it is commercial business and, as I said work that we are doing.We are coming here to say before, the depth with which the other food that we are very aware of this, we realise it is suppliers, supermarkets and others, get their important, but Whitbread has for hundreds of years education into the psyche will determine how people been a very responsible company and we are make the choices on restaurant menus. continuing with that approach.However, we do not Mr Mitchell: What a terrible puritan you are! I do actually know what the answer is just yet. not go into a restaurant to have sermons preached at me about what is good for me or to have a label on Q414 Joan Ruddock: There is a huge diVerence if the huge chocolate cake saying, “This will make you you are oVering a fatty mixed grill with big chips and fat.” I go in to eat it loads of salt and it is delicious—I can hear Michael Joan Ruddock: We have it in the House of salivating away there!—and a huge great sugary pie Commons. with masses of cream and chocolate droppings on the top swilled down with a few lagers and having the Q416 Mr Mitchell: We have a diVerence in the pasta with some fish, salad and a glass of red wine. House of Commons in that the restaurant actually You know that there are extremes and you does provide small portions of healthy food.Surely, V presumably are able to o er the various dishes all these comments could be catered for by having a within that spectrum.So, something could be done kind of healthy option menu as well as the gorge but what you seem to be saying is that because the your guts menu? customers are not asking for it, you do not feel the Mr Riding: It takes us a long way there.The point I need to lead them and, to me, that is where the was going to make about the chips or rice etc is that challenge seems to lie for your industry and I would most people still plump for chips.We have had fresh say that your responsibility lies there.Of course, you fruit salad on the menu and you would be amazed at cannot have pages of labelling but there are ways of how little we actually sell of it.Until we get to a stage demonstrating that some things are more healthier where, out there, the public maybe has a deeper than others and there are ways, I would suggest, in understanding of this and is prepared to have the V terms of pricing policy, where it is possible to o er a weekly/fortnightly indulgence as part of the dish with a cream topping or without a cream balanced diet as opposed to a complete step aside topping and various moves could be made which from it, I think we are still going to have a deafening you could lead on and it seems to me that you are silence.And w have asked people what nutritional saying, “We don’t have to do this because nobody is information they want.What we are saying is that pushing us.” we are trying to move where we can and we would Mr Riding: I am sorry if we gave that impression.I need to find something that was publicly will give you an example.If you eat in a Beefeater recognisable like a traYc light that could be Restaurant now and you order the big steak, then transferred into a menu that did not make it look like V you will be o ered a choice of salad, jacket potato, war and peace and would deter people. wild rice or chips.So, we are trying to give people that option and it is within people’s comprehension that rice is going to be better for them than perhaps Q417 Mr Mitchell: Do you have a healthy options the chips. menu? Mr Riding: We have items on menus which are— Q415 Joan Ruddock: Not if they do not want to know, which is what you have said.If we are to help Q418 Mr Mitchell: Starred or asterisked? people, if we are to have labelling which is perhaps Mr Riding: No. going to prompt people to think before they actually make the order, then usually people have to see it with their own eyes, so some labelling would, I Q419 Mr Mitchell: Would it not be better to do that? suggest, make some diVerence to some people. Not to turn it into War and Peace but you just have Mr Kerr: From our perspective, the diYculty you to oVer a couple of dishes for people like Joan, not have identified is clearly, on every menu, you could like me! choose, as distinct from your choice, an obviously Ms Vennells: I do not think we are saying that we healthy starter and a fruit salad pudding.The choice would not do it, I think we are saying that, is obviously there.If you are suggesting the tra Yc genuinely, we would be very interested in finding a light kind of notion, then, as we have said, as the solution because, responsibly, we think it is a good ideas of how that might be introduced are thing to do.You heard earlier of the di Yculties if developed, we would be very interested to look at you start having traYc lights on fat and salt and that in a positive way despite the fact that a dish is sugar and it is quite how you make that work on a diVerent from a packaged product and we are going menu.We had, just a couple of years ago, an to have to be careful about how that would be done arrangement with Weight Watchers, so we had on a menu.There are other ways, for example Weight Watchers points on one of our brand menus websites that can be used for that kind of and, actually, it was singularly unhelpful. 9893012009 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 93

29 June 2004 Mr Neil Riding, Ms Paula Vennells, Mr Paul Farrow and Mr Mark Kerr

Q420 Mr Mitchell: Why? that this is an area which perhaps you should be Ms Vennells: Because the research back from the paying more attention to and looking at ways in majority of customers was that, when they come out which the customer can have that choice made for a treat, they do not want to be told that they are available to them.I notice that one of your outlets having their total calories in one particular dessert! is the Costa CoVee chain and, if you go into most of There is a very fine balance that we have to strike those, you will see a wide range of croissants, cakes, on it. biscuits and other material for sale and I am not aware of information being provided at the point of Q421 Chairman: What if your customer wanted to sale about calorie content, sugar content and have information not just about issues relating to information of that nature.Is that not something nutrition but, for example, issues such as animal that is quite easy to provide, for example? welfare considerations and the way food was Ms Vennells: That would be almost more diYcult produced and whether or not they were concerned— than providing it on a menu.We could certainly and this is back to a nutritional issue—about a make the information available if the customers product having GM ingredients? Would they be able asked about it.I have never ever heard and never to get any of that information either on the menu or come across in any research anybody in a coVee shop from the outlet or in some way easily from your asking for that because it does not even register on business? their Richter scale of what they are doing in terms of Mr Kerr: Certainly we have traceability across our the snack or croissant they have.To make it supplier base in terms of animal welfare and whether available for them at point of sale physically would our products and the specifications— be diYcult because you are dealing with a smaller space than the labels we were talking about before at Q422 Chairman: I was not so interested in the supermarkets.I think, in terms of the priority we traceability, I was asking whether the customer have been putting on the work we have been doing, would be able to get the information relatively easily it is about understanding whether we can apply a either at the point of sale or by some other means. traYc light system, once one has become available Mr Kerr: Yes, we have the ability to get the that is user friendly within our restaurants, and we information to the outlet and then we are reliant on could conceivably extend that to Costa CoVee shops the staV in the outlet answering any questions that quite easily, but it would have to be information held are fired at them from the consumer.One of the big somewhere near the till and, in terms of the priorities challenges we have is that we are trying to operate a and the number of customers, I think we would be menu perhaps over the duration of six to 12 months better oV concentrating where we are currently and therefore, to ensure continuity of supply, we which is on our restaurants, but it would not be a might be ordering from up to three or four diVerent problem to extend whatever system we developed countries.So, it again provides another challenge to for Costa. us to get consistent information through to the outlet staV. Q425 Chairman: Is there not a duty—and I was not wanting to pick out Costa to any great degree but Q423 Mr Jack: What training do the staV get to just as one example—on people like yourselves if answer all these questions? you are going to support the healthy-eating message Mr Riding: We do not want to mislead anybody.If a and support the eVorts against obesity to actually customer came in and said, “Where did that Brussels provide that information in order that people can sprout come from?” our people would not know know what they are purchasing and can then make that.The information exists within the supply chain but it does not get put on a menu in any way that the choice themselves? people would recognise that if they walked into a Ms Vennells: I think we would agree there is, yes, Brewer’s Fayre on a Saturday Night.The specific and that is why the work we are doing is in place.We training that we give people is particularly around do not have all that information available currently allergens and intolerances because that is the bit that but our biggest challenge is, when we do, the format people really do want to know there and then.If I am of how we make that available, which is why we on a gluten-free diet, what can I and what can I not would be interested, very much, in getting involved Y eat? That is what we get asked for a lot.Also, a more in debates around a tra c light system and why we very, very friendly attitude in that, if people do want involve the FSA in the work we have been doing. the dessert without the extra cream, let us take the V cream o and let us not charge them for taking the Q426 Joan Ruddock: Do you intend to import cream oV.Let us be very flexible around the V V genetically modified sweet corn now that it is legal in foodstu s that we o er.So, we are clear, if the European Union? somebody came in and asked where a particular Mr Kerr: We have a policy on GM food—the Soya piece of protein came from, they would not know. and maize issue came up some years ago where labelling was required—to not have GM in any of Y Q424 Chairman: I can see how there are di culties our products. in the catering industry in providing the kind of information we are asking about and there are the diYculties also in the kind of messages that the Q427 Joan Ruddock: So, you do not knowingly consumer wants to read, but could I suggest to you have any? 9893012009 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 94 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr Neil Riding, Ms Paula Vennells, Mr Paul Farrow and Mr Mark Kerr

Mr Kerr: That is correct.a better start point for us—and we spend some time trying to achieve this—is to educate anybody Q428 Joan Ruddock: That is held during the frankly but Government departments, FSA and moratorium but there is now a change clearly and we others about what our industry is.Everybody are beginning to see marketing consents given for experiences it but they do not understand it.So, importation into the UK; is the policy likely to some of the issues and some of the early discussions remain the same? around labelling, for example, were diYcult because, Mr Kerr: There has been no suggestion that it will be from our perspective, it is not labelling anyway, it is changed. consumer information and there was not an appreciation of that relatively simply diVerence.So, Q429 Chairman: We have been asking questions of I think that, yes, a more joined-up approach would yourselves and of the industry’s role in this area but, be helpful.I would n ot lay criticism in any particular turning now to the role of Government, can I ask direction, I am sure it is something that we are all you whether you think you are getting a clear trying to achieve but it does not look as if we are message from Government on the issue of food getting there quite yet.More fundamentally, a better information? Do you find any diVerences in understanding of our sector would be the most approaches from diVerent arms of Government and important factor. do you find that this causes confusion for the food Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for your services industry? answers to our questions this afternoon and that Mr Kerr: I think I would agree with what has been concludes the Committee’s questions to yourselves. said earlier about that particular topic in that a more We are very grateful to you for coming along and, if joined-up approach would be helpful but, from our there are any points of further elucidation which you perspective, there is a more fundamental issue in that would find it helpful to provide to us in writing there is not suYcient understanding of the diVerence following your evidence this afternoon, we would be between the food service sector and the other parts very happy to hear from you.Once again, thank you of the food chain: the producers and the retailers.So, very much for coming along.

Memorandum submitted by McDonald’s Restaurants Limited

1.I ntroduction 1.1 McDonald’s Restaurants Limited welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Select Committee’s Inquiry into Food Information.We are proud of the food that we serve in our restaurants and we aim to deliver the UK’s best quick service restaurant experience.We are committed to serving hot, fresh, great tasting, good va lue food to all our customers and providing them with the information they need to make an informed choice from our menu. 1.2 We are conscious that eating habits and lifestyles are changing, and that food choice and nutritional issues are of increasing importance to our customers.We believe that we ha ve an important role to play in informing the two and a half million customers whom we serve every day in a number of key areas: — The nutritional content of our food and drinks. — Balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. — Food safety. — Food origin and means of production (including ethical considerations). 1.3 In the pages that follow, we provide further details about what we have done in the UK in each of these important areas and what we currently have planned for the future.

2.A bout McDonald’s Restaurants Limited 2.1 McDonald’s opened its first restaurant in the UK in October 1974. We now have 1,235 restaurants in the UK, representing a total investment in property and equipment of over £1.6 billion. The Company employs over 45,000 people, with over 25,000 more employed by McDonald’s franchisees.We serve food and drinks to around two and a half million customers in the UK every day.

3.T he Nutritional Content of our Food and Drinks—General 3.1 The McDonald’s menu oVers a choice of food and drink made from basic ingredients including red and white meat, fish, eggs, milk, grain and vegetables, all of which are produced to the highest standards of quality and safety. 3.2 We are constantly looking at ways to improve the nutritional value of our food and drink, whilst maintaining the great taste that our customers enjoy.Our menu evolves ove r time, reflecting the changing tastes of our customers.Fifteen years ago, we did not have the choice of mai n meal and side salads, grilled chicken, fish, mineral water, non-meat meals, diet drinks, semi-skimmed organic milk, yoghurt and fruit that we now oVer. 9893012010 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 95

3.3 In recent years, we have made a number of nutritional changes to our menu in response to customers’ changing needs, including the following: — Lard has been replaced in buns with a smaller quantity of vegetable oil. — Mineral water, pure orange juice, diet Coke and cartons of organic semi-skimmed milk are available in all restaurants. — A low calorie sweetener is available as an alternative to sugar. — The formulation of sauces has been improved to reduce oil levels. — Cooking oil has been changed to reduce the saturated and trans-fatty acid content. — Free-range eggs are used in all our breakfast oVers. 3.4 This has continued with further innovations over the past 12 months including: — Introducing our new “Salads Plus” range, which will ensure that convenient and aVordable main meal and side salads (including a choice of two warm grilled chicken salads) will be available to more British people than ever before.The range also includes a new grilled chicken sandwich, Quorn sandwich, fruit and yoghurt dessert and apples. — Introducing organic semi-skimmed milk that can be included as a part of a Happy Meal. — Introducing fruit bags in April 2003.The 80g Happy Meal Fruit Bag is equiv alent to one of the Department of Health’s five-a-day recommended daily intake of fruit and vegetables and can be eaten as a dessert or swapped for French Fries in our Happy Meal.Since their introduction we have become the largest single retailer of pre-prepared fresh fruit in the UK and have delivered more than 10 million portions of fruit to British customers. — Introducing other new choices within the Happy Meals range such as Robinson’s Fruit Shoot (a high juice, no added sugar drink). 3.5 These changes stem from the on-going dialogue we have with our customers and ensure that McDonald’s continues to provide them with what they want—more choice and variety.

4.P roviding Clear Nutritional and Other Information to our Customers 4.1 McDonald’s supports the principle of providing clear information to customers about our food and drinks.We believe that many customers want to make informed individual ch oices about the food and drinks that they consume in the context of their whole diet and exercise regime. 4.2 The labels on all of our pre-packaged foods of course contain nutritional information.However, our eVorts in relation to most menu items have been concentrated on providing information to customers before they make their purchase.Unlike supermarkets, for example, where food it ems can be picked up and labels read before purchase, in the case of restaurants serving hot, fresh food, at times made to individual preferences, labels will not be seen until after the food has been served. 4.3 In 1984, we were the first UK quick service restaurant company to provide customers with nutritional guidance and ingredient information on all our food and drink.The current version of this “Our Food” leaflet, which is available in our restaurants.As well as nutritional info rmation, the leaflet contains full country of origin information wherever possible, and full allergen information, in addition to our policies on key food issues such as Genetic Modification. 4.4 This nutritional information is also available on the McDonald’s UK website (www.mcdonalds.co.uk), alongside an interactive menu planner, via our Customer Services Helpline and on the back of our trayliners for customers to take away with them if they wish. 4.5 Also available in our restaurants is our “five-a-day” leaflet, written by nutritionist Anita Bean BSc, R.Nutr, which provides parents with easy-to-use guidance in the form of facts and tips on ensuring that children eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. 4.6 We are also in the process of introducing nutritional training for our staV.We want to make sure that our employees have all the information they need to make the right choices for their lifestyle.Our ongoing Eat Smart, Be Active campaign, aimed at customers and staV, gives guidance on healthy eating, nutrition and physical exercise and will be incorporated into our employee training programmes over the coming months (see www.goactive.com). 4.7 We also understand the desire for, so far as practicable, a consistency of labelling applied across the European Union, and McDonald’s, as a representative of the European Modern Restaurants Association (known as “EMRA”), is an active participant in the food labelling issue, working as part of the EU Food Labelling Steering Committee.The Committee, made up of representatives from consumer organisations, industry and euro-commerce, acts as an advisory group to the Commission, looking at new approaches to food labelling. 4.8 We recognise the growing desire for more information on the food we eat and we will continue to look for new and innovative ways to communicate information to our customers so as to improve its scope, clarity and accessibility.We are currently testing a number of di Verent approaches in diVerent markets across the world, and will closely monitor the response of our customers.F or example, our colleagues in 9893012010 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 96 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

the United States are testing the provision of nutritional information on Happy Meals in parent-approved and child-friendly ways, with the objective of helping families make informed choices and learn ways to achieve a good food/energy balance.

5.F ood Safety 5.1 Food safety is of the utmost importance to McDonald’s. We serve two and a half million customers in the UK every day and they trust and expect us to serve safe food.We pride ou rselves on core values such as quality, service and cleanliness and have developed leading hygiene and food safety systems over many years. 5.2 Our commitment to food safety encompasses the entire supply chain from raw material production through to our restaurants.As customers in our own right we demand high sta ndards of our suppliers.Our food and drinks are made to exacting specifications and we work closely with our suppliers to ensure that both the highest food quality and food safety procedures are in place throughout the sourcing and production process (please see further comments in paragraphs 6 & 7 below). 5.3 At restaurant level, our comprehensive Crew Development Programme (CDP) trains our staV in food handling and hygiene procedures.Observation checklists and regular aud its are used to ensure that correct procedures are followed and to verify the eVectiveness of the hygiene and safety training.Many of our standards with regards to food safety exceed or significantly exceed legal requirements. 5.4 The Company has a Hygiene and Safety Department under the leadership of a Department Head with many years experience in this area.We also utilise the services of lea ding external consultants when required. 5.5 Lack of consumer understanding of the supply chain can result in uninformed and specious criticism of the food industry as well as confusion in the minds of the consumer over food issues.It is therefore important that we inform our customers about the safety and quality of our food in an accessible and eVective manner.We believe that such communications not only promote our ow n standards, they also reinforce the general importance of matters such as hygiene in food preparation. 5.6 In the autumn of 2003, we ran a programme called “Open Doors”, which allowed members of the public to have a behind the scenes tour of McDonald’s restaurants.One hund red and twenty restaurants opened their doors to the public to tell them more about our food, our people and to show them how their meals are prepared within our restaurants.We will be undertaking a larger “Open Doors” programme this year, to coincide with National Food Safety Week between the 14 and 20 June, and will include visits to suppliers as part of the programme. 5.7 We also ran an advertisement in the first part of 2004, featuring Chris Eubank, and focussing on the hygiene and safety procedures that exist within our restaurants.Most McD onald’s advertising is about our food, but we know that the public is also interested in clean restaurants and safe food.We plan to run similar advertisements later in the year.

6.F ood Origin &Means of Production 6.1 Consumers expect the food chain to provide diversity, choice and quality products at a reasonable price.McDonald’s serves as a conduit for the views of consumers at the reta il end of the food chain through regular consumer research and focus groups.Those views are then channell ed back so that they are taken into consideration and addressed further up the chain.Ours is, we believe , an enlightened, consumer-led approach to the management of the supply chain. 6.2 The demands we place on our supply chain are considerable. Our expectations are that the supply chain should deliver quality, safe products that meet our standards, that these are delivered reliably, eYciently and competitively priced, and in the quantities that our customers require.The need for traceability and product integrity has brought about a much closer relationship between suppliers throughout the supply chain, particularly producers. 6.3 In 2002, we launched the McDonald’s Agricultural Assurance Programme (know as “MAAP”), a pan European programme that defines the standards we expect of suppliers operating throughout our supply chain, that demands high standards and best practice from farms and suppliers.Our seven general policies determine the present and future development of our primary supply chain with regards to: — environment; — agricultural practices; — animal welfare; — animal nutrition; — animal medication; — traceability; and — genetics. 9893012011 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 97

6.4 For each product, a number of standards define details for production throughout the food chain, from pre-planting via cultivation methods, to harvest for arable crops, and from feed mill and breeder animals, via husbandry including all transport for food animals.These st andards often exceed or significantly legal requirements. 6.5 In our submission to the Curry Commission in November 2001, we pointed out that one of the diYculties which besets the food industry, at all levels of the supply chain, is a lack of consumer understanding of how food makes the journey from farm to fork, and the quality of much of the food that they consume on a daily basis. 6.6 For this reason (and the reasons stated in paragraph 5.5 above), through a number of campaigns McDonald’s has sought to inform consumers of the quality of the ingredients used in our food and drinks, and to re-connect them with the supply chain.Our quality campaign, which h as been running since 2003 across various forms of media, has focused on our main ingredients, including beef, eggs, potatoes and chicken. 6.7 In addition, our organic milk and and free-range egg campaigns, which also ran throughout 2003, have focused upon the means of production and in April 2003 we won the Good Egg Award for our use of free- range eggs.Our switch to organic semi-skimmed milk, and re-design of the p ackaging, have seen our milk sales increase by 26% reflecting the general public’s growing interest in organic produce.

7.E thical Considerations

7.1 An ethical and sustainable supply chain is of utmost importance to McDonald’s.A great deal of work is already being undertaken by the industry with a view to identifying alternative, sustainable and commercially viable farming methods.Part of our approach in this area is t hrough MAAP since the enforcement of high standards and best practice from the farm to the point of final sale by large players in the food industry, such as McDonald’s, is key to the maintenance of an ethical and sustainable supply chain. 7.2 Each of our direct suppliers, wherever they are located, is required to comply with McDonald’s strict code of conduct for suppliers that covers matters such as employment practices.Deviations from this code are not permitted. 7.3 We use our “Our Food” leaflet to inform customers about some of our sourcing policies, including those on animal welfare and Genetically Modified produce, and we are currently working with our suppliers on a supply chain charter. 7.4 We are founder partners of the Food Animal Initiative, a project founded to bring together top quality scientists with farmers and the food industry to find solutions to the issues and matters of social concern now facing the farming industry.It aims to develop and promote pra ctical and sustainable agricultural practices, which will be good for animal welfare, the environment and the public. 7.5 FAI operates on several sites across the United Kingdom, but primarily from a farm close to Oxford. FAI holds a number of open days and courses for the general public, looking at how everyday foods are produced and incorporating a tour of the working farm.In addition, there i s an education service running introductory courses on agriculture for children and providing teachers that explain production systems and the issues relating to the supply chain.

8.C onclusions

8.1 With food and nutrition issues taking on a greater importance than ever before, it is important that the consumer is able to make informed choices on all elements of their diet and that they understand how these choices fit within the context of their own lifestyle. 8.2 McDonald’s has for many years provided clear and relevant information about its food and drinks to customers and is committed to seeking ways of improving the scope, clarity and accessibility of this information. 8.3 McDonald’s, with its considerable customer base, can, and seeks to, play an important role in reconnecting the consumer with all aspects of the supply chain and in educating the consumer on issues related to food production and food preparation. 8.4 Programmes such as Open Doors and the Food Animal Initiative have provided customers with first- hand insights into our food practices and we have an ongoing programme of communication through literature available in our restaurants, advertising and promotions to ensure they are kept informed. 8.5 We are committed to working with Government to promote better understanding of food issues amongst our customers and the wider public. 19 April 2004 9893012013 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 98 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson, Vice President with responsibility for Corporate AVairs, and Mr Keith Kenny, Head of Quality Assurance and Supply Chain, McDonald’s, examined.

Q430 Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to also sold about 410,000 side salads.I think t hat the Committee.We understand that we have Julian makes us the third biggest seller of salad in the UK— Hilton-Johnson who is the Vice-President with I think that is right—after Tesco and Sainsbury and responsibility for Corporate AVairs, and Keith we went into that position overnight.Clearly, there Kenny, Head of Quality Assurance and Supply is a perception that McDonald’s is about Chain.Thank you for first of all submitting written hamburgers.We have changed our menu very evidence to us and for coming along this afternoon significantly over the 30 years that we have been in to answer our questions.Could I begin by asking this country—at one time we did not have chicken you what, in your experience, is the way consumer nuggets—and we have made all kinds of changes but attitudes towards nutrition have changed in recent there is still a perception that McDonald’s is about years and what research you are carrying out to hamburgers for some people. My own personal monitor these changes? belief is that that number will continue to rise quite Mr Hilton-Johnson: I suppose that could break significantly. down into two diVerent areas: firstly, the actual information side and, secondly, the actual product Q432 Chairman: With those millions, how much is side, and obviously they are very closely linked. that in terms of a percentage of the overall sales There clearly is a change in consumers’ attitude to during that period? Is it significant? food.There could hardly not be particularly over the Mr Hilton-Johnson: It is about 200 salads per last couple of years with everything that has gone on restaurant per week and, in terms of percentages, I in the media, Government and elsewhere and that is do not have an exact number but it is something, I why, for example, we made the biggest change to our would think, probably round about the 10% mark menu in the 30 years we have been in the UK by but I can find out exactly. introducing what we call the Salads Plus range which Mr Kenny: For the total Salads Plus programme, it includes salad and also a number of other items such is round about 10% on sales. as that.We do have quite a lot of research—and I Mr Hilton-Johnson: We have a slightly unusual way cannot think of any one particular example because of calculating percentages which I think is there are many—which does suggest that there is a misleading, but I would imagine that somewhere much greater interest in food and in food being round 10% of meals have a salad with them. freshly prepared and so on.It is a much more Mr Jack: I am rejoicing in the new McDonald’s diYcult answer in relation to nutritional maths that you have disclosed—new percentages! information because whereas, particularly with what is happening in the media and elsewhere, Q433 Chairman: It would be helpful if you could people are much more interested in not only the provide information in writing afterwards. ingredients of their food but also the nutritional side Mr Hilton-Johnson: Certainly. of it, there still is not a huge take-up of that interest. We, for example, produce a number of diVerent booklets—I will not go through all of them—and Q434 Mr Mitchell: There was an article in The this is the principal one and we have produced this Guardian which I read and I see that it is quoted in since 1984 in one shape or form and made our research notes that McDonald’s was down in the information available on our customer service help dumps a year ago, it was in deep trouble, share prices line, through the Internet and so on and so forth. had dropped steadily and its decades of remarkable There is a greater take-up but it is still not a huge growth seemed over forever yet, 16 months later, the take-up. company registered 12 continuous months of growth and an astonishing 22% increase in February and share prices doubled.Does this have anything to Q431 Chairman: On the question of take-up, that do with your attempts to change the menus and leads me quite nicely to my next question which is, provide healthy eating options? in preparation for this Committee this afternoon, I Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes, absolutely it has, but it is did some customer research in my local McDonald’s not just that.I think what we have done across the in Edinburgh at the weekend and indeed the Salads world, including in the United States which is still Plus range was very prominently advertised where half of our restaurants are located, is that we throughout the store and there is certainly no have looked very carefully at what it is our criticism of yourselves for that, but it did not seem customers want and they have told us that they want that many of the consumers were partaking of the better restaurant facilities, they want our premises to Salads Plus range.I would be interested in knowing be spick and span and more up to date and more what is the actual take-up of sales of the newer contemporary, they want us to concentrate on ranges that you have brought on to the market. serving food that is hot and fresh but they also said Mr Hilton-Johnson: Our customers told us what that that they wanted better variety in the food and that they like our hamburgers but that they want more is why this Salads Plus range was introduced.So, it choice and more variety, so that they would come in is part of the answer but by no means all of the and visit us more often or perhaps they would come answer.The other thing I would add to that is that in and visit us the same amount but have something obviously if you introduce a range such as Salads completely diVerent.We have sold 3.5million salads Plus—and we have had salads in the UK on and oV to date since they were introduced at the end of over the years but the honest truth is that they have March and those are main meal salads, and we have not always been successful—the key for us is to get 9893012013 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 99

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny the right salads, which we believe we have done, but 2.5 million customers that enable them to have then to market them in the right kind of way and we confidence that they are not buying junk from have put in a very significant proportion of our McDonald’s but that they are buying something marketing budget this year behind our Salads Plus which I presume they would see as nutritious, range, I think somewhere in the region of £15 healthy, wholesome, good to eat, etc and not junk million. which, by implication, means doing harm to them? Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think we do that in a number Q435 Mr Mitchell: Do you carry out research as to of diVerent ways.I have referred to leaflets that what customers want here or do you just take the provide information about our food— findings from the American research? Mr Hilton-Johnson: We obviously look at the Q440 Mr Jack: If I can be rude and interrupt for a American research and we look at the Australian second, you said in your introduction that you did research and we look at research from other not have an enormous uptake of that.Out of the 2.5 European countries because it was a range that was million that go in a day, how many go away with a introduced across 16 diVerent European countries at leaflet? more or less the same time.So, it is partly the UK Mr Hilton-Johnson: Not many and that is why we and partly wider afield. supplement it, for example, with quality campaigns that run in magazines and on the television: we ran Q436 Mr Mitchell: I am all in favour of healthy those earlier this year and they related, for example, options but, on the other hand, it must make the to beef quality—some people question what goes running of a very highly programmed organisation into our hamburgers and we say it is 100% beef.We like McDonald’s—I think you have eYciency down focus on other things as well such as cleanliness.You to a fine art with suppliers and the way it comes in, can take the way in which we have reacted as well to the menu and the serving—far more complicated. various food scares into consideration in Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes, it does, absolutely.We run considering how our customers react to us.I think essentially the same food across a number of we were able to secure a fairly significant amount of diVerent countries and it can be a challenge of course trust amongst our customer base, for example, at the providing people in diVerent countries with what time of the BSE crisis in 1996 where we very they want because that does vary.So, there are some regrettably took British beef oV our menu but it was local variations. because our customers told us that they had no confidence in it.We polled them pretty much on a Q437 Mr Mitchell: Is it more expensive to run it with daily basis on occasions and put British beef back on more options? to the menu just as soon as we were able to do so. Mr Hilton-Johnson: Obviously, the more options you have in a particular restaurant, it is more Q441 Mr Jack: You say that you poll your expensive and it gets more complicated but, if we are customers and that you give a lot of information. in a wider and much bigger supply chain, there are What is it that the customers perceive is okay in eYciencies that can be achieved there and there can quality terms, in recipe terms and in everything? be eYciencies in marketing and other things as well. They obviously put a lot of trust into McDonald’s Mr Kenny: There are obviously only a limited that the basic hamburger product, notwithstanding number of menu items that we can sell through our what you have been saying about salads, is good restaurants and adding the Salads Plus programme food to eat as I say against this background of a very has complicated quite significantly the amount of powerful message that you are part of the junk food products that are coming into the back door.We industry.Perhaps you do not accept that and have also had to invest in equipment to prepare challenge me if I am wrong. those salads in the restaurant.So, it has significantly Mr Hilton-Johnson: I disagree with the fundamental complicated the operation. premise of junk food because I think it is misleading. I think that most of our customers would Q438 Mr Jack: This inquiry, amongst other things, understand that a hamburger, for example, can fit in is looking at the messages that people receive and as part of a balanced diet and that what is most believe in the context of the food they eat.Let me just important to focus on would be, for example, ask first of all for a piece of information: on whether people have junk diets or not.I think that average—and this is the normal average, not the people do understand that a hamburger, for McDonald’s average!—how many customers do example, has more fat and more calories in it that an you get through your restaurants a week? or the fruit that we have introduced.They get Mr Kenny: We serve about 2.5 million customers a that fairly basic message. day in the UK. Q442 Mr Jack: You have been bold enough to Q439 Mr Jack: The reason why I ask that question provide the Committee with a document entitled is that McDonald’s as a company has, ever since it “Main Menu” which gives a very detailed has been in the United Kingdom, prided itself on the breakdown of some of the ingredients that go into quality of the ingredients that it has used but it is part your product and you have provided the leaflet that of an industry that has acquired the label “junk you have just mentioned.You seem to be willing to food”.You have prospered against a background of help your customers wher e necessary with a great “junk food”.What message have you given to your deal of information but, as you probably heard from 9893012013 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 100 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny our previous witnesses who are in the “treats” Q446 Mr Jack: Do I conclude from that that there business where people go to enjoy themselves as is a powerful interplay between the oYcial messages opposed to perhaps refuelling at McDonald’s, you which oYcial bodies, Government, the Food are willing to provide all this information because Standards Agency are putting out about what you do not think that it harms your business, in fact people ought to be eating and the perception of the you see it as an attribute to the business, yet our wider public of what that means to them and previous witnesses said that if they had indulged in somehow it gets translated into a message back to all of this, it would be a turn-oV.What is the you that we would like more choice and more salads? diVerence? Is it as chainlike as that or not? Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think we are very happy to Mr Hilton-Johnson: I have never thought about it provide this information because we do not feel that specifically in that kind of way but I understand the we have anything to lose by it.Perhaps it is not a point you are making.I think the key for me is that well-known fact that a Big Mac Meal with a diet companies such as McDonald’s that are large and Coke contains less than a third of my recommended that serve a large number of people every day can daily intake of calories.It is actually quite a powerful very much be a force for good in the whole obesity message.There are of course other products that we debate.As I have said, we have sold 3.5million sell that are higher in fat and calories.I think as well salads since we introduced the range on 29 March. there may be a diVerence between us and, say, a People come to us and, with respect to Government, company like Whitbread in their restaurant they probably trust us a lot more than they trust operations in that we have a much more Government.So, if the industry can engage properly standardised menu and it is easier for us to provide with Government, the messages will be very, very information of this sort. powerful.If the industry does not engage with Government or if Government send out confused messages, then it is going to be much more diYcult Q443 Mr Jack: You obviously feel an obligation in for people to understand messages about healthy a way or let us say a responsibility to provide this in eating.We fundamentally believe that our product the eating-out world in which you operate.You have range, our food and drinks, sits very easily within a a very positive philosophy of wanting to advise your balanced diet and a healthy active lifestyle and that customers. is why we are very, very pleased to engage and we Mr Hilton-Johnson: We do provided of course that have done a fair amount, partly through things like it does not interfere with what I might broadly call this five-a-day leaflet—I have to say that we have not “normal restaurant operations”.We are a fast been prosecuted for it yet; I did open and check it a business and we have to allow people to make few moments ago—in which we say, “Keeps kids choices very, very quickly but we do not feel that we healthy and boosts their immunity” which I think we have anything to lose in terms of talking about the can probably get away with! I forget how many of content of our food because it fits into and can be these leaflets we produced but they were in the part of a balanced diet and it is as simple as that. hundreds of thousands and, because they have been written in an engaging way and probably because they are written by McDonald’s, I think they are all Q444 Mr Jack: And you almost felt an obligation, the more powerful. I think you indicated earlier when you were talking about the introduction of salads, to move towards this diVerent oVer in terms of food as a result of the Q447 Joan Ruddock: I am a little puzzled and, as I noise from Government and customers. had to dash out, maybe it is my fault.This is a piece Mr Hilton-Johnson: The noise principally I would of information about the food that is on the main have to say or almost exclusively from customers.It menu.This is not your main menu. would be fairly pointless for us to put something on Mr Hilton-Johnson: I am sorry, what are you the menu because the Government wanted us to if no looking at? one bought it. Q448 Joan Ruddock: The one you distributed.My reason for asking, if I can just explain it, is that this Q445 Mr Jack: Do you think the very fact that does not include chips, it does not include any of the McDonald’s oVer salads in the way you are doing salads, just meat, cheese and some vegetables but not now is sending out a very powerful message to food salad dishes.As I understand it, you do main courses consumers that this is the way they ought to be which are a salad dish. going? In other words, you have reacted to the Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes. market but you could also be said by that message to be driving it. Mr Hilton-Johnson: There is a possibility that that Q449 Joan Ruddock: But it is not on this. kind of message is getting out.It is not why we have Mr Hilton-Johnson: What you have there is an done it—as I said, we have done it because our extract from a book that is 38 pages long.This book customers say they want it—but because we serve a has been in existence since about 1984 in one shape very large number of people and the fact that we are or form and Salads Plus is listed in it—we reprinted doing it, I am sure that some people will take that out it—and, at the same time that we introduced the from it, yes. Salads Plus range, we gave information separately 9893012013 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 101

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny about it and one of these was given to each person research to this eVect—that people are more likely to that bought Salads Plus for the first several weeks respond to positive messaging—“This is a good idea; that the new product range was available.this is why this is good for you”—a nd, to be fair, this is what we have tried to do in our Happy Meal than Q450 Joan Ruddock: Let me put to you what I see as to something which simply says, “No, there is a red one of the diYculties.There are two issues.One is cross here or a red traYc light” whatever it happens that some people eat most of their meals in your to be.My own view is that positive messaging about outlets or they buy them and take them away.I benefits rather than negative messaging about bad know families who collect hamburgers for their consequences is a better way to go. breakfasts or bring their children to sit in the outlet and eat their breakfast.Have you done any analysis Q456 Joan Ruddock: Obviously it was a positive of the frequency with which some people actually eat message to introduce salads. in your establishments? Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes. Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes, of course. Q457 Joan Ruddock: How do you respond to an Q451 Joan Ruddock: I would be interested to know. analysis—I think it was in The Guardian—that Mr Hilton-Johnson: I am not an expert on it but the showed that the salads with the chicken and the average people will come in of the people who do salads with the bacon, or maybe it is a combination come in will come in between two and three times a of both, actually have as many calories as your month.I think there will be extremely few people standard hamburger/beef burger? who fall into the category to which you refer, with Mr Hilton-Johnson: I am glad that you have asked respect.There may well be some but they will be me that because it gives me the opportunity to very, very few and far between. comment.Our salad range starts at a side salad which contains 13 calories.You then have a range of Q452 Joan Ruddock: But it could be that that small diVerent options that you can construct how you group of people, bearing in mind the millions you wish to.My own personal favourite is a grilled are actually serving, are being seriously adversely chicken salad that has 222 calories in it.If you aVected by taking this limited diet which does still choose to have fried chicken, obviously it goes up.If have, I believe, quite a high fat and salt content. you choose to have dressing, it goes up even further. Mr Hilton-Johnson: It would depend what they were If you choose to have croutons, it goes up further eating and it would depend what their lifestyle was still.I think it was a slightly unfair comparison like. because these meals are main menu salads and the comparison was not made against main menu, it was Q453 Joan Ruddock: Some of us know of some of compared to one hamburger only.So, I think it is a these lifestyles, I can assure you. little disingenuous to compare the two—I was going Mr Hilton-Johnson: We have never advocated a one- to say “apples and pears” but that is probably a bad dimensional lifestyle and it is slightly diYcult for us pun.The fact is that the Salads Plus range starts at to police that particular aspect of our business.We 13 calories and, for the full meal, it starts at 222 cannot stand at the front counter and tell people that calories and these are large salads.Honestly, that is they have had enough in the way that you might be my favourite salad and, because it has cheese in it, able to if you were serving someone an alcoholic my own personal view is that it does not need any drink and someone appeared to by slightly tipsy.It additional dressing or croutons. is very, very diYcult to do this. Q458 Joan Ruddock: You said that a single Big Mac Q454 Joan Ruddock: If you were to move to some and a diet Coke would only be a third of the daily kind of traYc light system such as has been calorie intake, but what is the average meal going to discussed, it would be more apparent were it to be be in terms of a daily calorie intake if people have the raised in public consciousness that they should not whole range, the chips and the sauces and the be eating all reds every single day, for example.This additions? could be helpful, could it not? Mr Hilton-Johnson: It would depend specifically on Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think most people understand what that was going to be. that they should not be eating certain types of food all day every day. Q459 Joan Ruddock: You told us where it starts; where does it end in terms of calorie content for Q455 Joan Ruddock: Some people do not. your meals? Mr Hilton-Johnson: I would suggest that those Mr Kenny: It depends what you have. people are few and far between.We are interested in Mr Hilton-Johnson: If you have an ice-cream and a the traYc light system.We do see certain issues with large milkshake— it given the fact that we are a restaurant business and the fact that people need to be able to make their Q460 Joan Ruddock: Of course, but I am not choices about what they eat very quickly.We are in suggesting that you have six Big Macs, you know the fast-food business and we have not endless but what your people eat, what is the range? a very large number of diVerent permutations in the Mr Hilton-Johnson: Most people will have food that we sell and that make up a meal something like a Big Mac Meal with either a diet combination.I also think—and I believe we have Coke or a Coke and, if it is a Coke, it goes up to 9893012013 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 102 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny about 900 calories.Increasingly, we are selling more Q466 Mr Jack: The reason I am asking the question drinks such as water, orange juice and that kind of is that you have quite rightly counselled us that thing and more diet drinks and that is across the customers make up their meals by a combination of range, not just with adult meals.Obviously, you can diVerent items and, bearing in mind that there are have whatever you want. some super energy hits like pancakes and and pancakes and sausage and, if you combine that with enough other things, you can probably knock up Q461 Joan Ruddock: Do you not feel that it would somewhere near your daily intake of calories in one be useful to people just to have that limited amount visit to McDonald’s.There are some people who of information actually put before them? might need to think, what does this all mean? I was Y Mr Hilton-Johnson: It is di cult.You could be just intrigued to know why this was not, if you like, forgiven for saying that we have bombarded people available for somebody if they wanted to have a with this, with our customer services help line and quick point of reference and look and see what their with the interactive menu. combination totalled up to because the actual display of this information is very detailed, it is very Q462 Joan Ruddock: On your menus, it is diYcult to clear, you can see protein, carbohydrate, fat, fibre, know because, if you take a salad, you can fool sodium, the lot, but because you then have to go and yourself into thinking you are doing terribly well and find a booklet, you might want to just stop for a you could have a calorific content greater than some second and say, “This is what the implication of my other product. choice is”, if you were so minded to make an inquiry like that. Mr Hilton-Johnson: Not if you were going to have a Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think if people were so minded meal.Even if you had the croutons and all the to make an inquiry, they probably would not go to dressing, it would still be less than a particular meal. the Our Food leaflet, they would ask a member of The problem with marking menus is that it becomes staV.We are this year doing nutrition training for all very confusing and it does not allow for particular 78,000 of our employers and, to be fair, it is there if menu combinations and it slows people down.That they want it.The trick is to try and get them to want is why we do not do it.People who want to know can it, not the fact that it is not there. find it, it is there, and we have done it since 1984. Some people do and some people do not.I think the real challenge—and we have not cracked this yet— Q467 Mr Jack: I suppose what I am driving at is the is to try and get more people engaged about food degree of responsibility which a company likes yours and to try to get them more engaged about the way and indeed our previous witnesses must feel towards in which information is given because, at the risk of getting the right balance between information and talking myself down, it is all very well us sitting here enjoyment.Given all that you have said and given and looking at calorie counting but what we need to that, to a degree, whilst people go for pleasure, I try and do is to move to a system where it is much think from Joan Ruddock’s question earlier, it is easily accessible to more people.We are working on also an indication that people go, if you like, to that; we have not cracked it; that does need to be a refuel as much as sit down for an experience which consideration in promoting messages about food. might be the case in the Whitbread outlet— Mr Hilton-Johnson: I am afraid I would dispute that quite significantly.Of course, there are people who Q463 Chairman: If I went into one of your go to McDonald’s as a quick pit-stop but for a restaurant today, where would I find information number of people, myself included when I take my about calorie content of diVerent meals? children, it is absolutely not that, it is a fun and Mr Hilton-Johnson: If you went into a restaurant, pleasurable family experience.Not everyone sees it there is a notice board type thing, a “Did you in that way and of course not everyone goes but I am know?” board and that is located either next to or afraid to dismiss McDonald’s as a refuelling stop is close to the front counter. something I would take issue with. Mr Jack: I was not trying to imply that everybody goes to refuel but, on the other hand, it is interesting, Q464 Chairman: Is where I could find it in one of when you look at the amount of detailed these leaflets? information, I could not see a problem in you Mr Hilton-Johnson: Yes.There are other places you putting it up for people to read.Anyway, there we could find it but, if you went into a restaurant, that are. is the principal place where you would find it. Q468 Mr Mitchell: I can see a problem.It is Q465 Mr Jack: Why could the nutritional enormously complicated.You would have to go in breakdown document which you have provided not with a pocket calculator or a computer! It baZes me be displayed in the store in its raw form? where my colleagues eat.If you come to Hull for a Mr Hilton-Johnson: It is displayed in the store in the meal and you say, “I’ll have two ounces of this and sense that it is in the Our Food leaflets and it is also so many calories ...” It is a mad house! This is far on the back of tray liners.So, if people buy a meal in too complicated for the casual eater in a restaurant the restaurant, they will get a tray liner along with that they are not going to embark on it.Is not a their tray and it is on the back of that if they care to better way than labelling, which I accept is diYcult look at it. for restaurants, to guarantee assurance as to the 9893012013 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 103

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny quality of the food? McDonald’s have their own about branding.I do think th at it is appropriate for assurance scheme which I think you introduced a McDonald’s to associate itself with events in that couple of years ago.Why did you introduce your way. own scheme rather than relying on the existing farm assurance schemes? Q472 Mr Mitchell: So that and having sports Mr Kenny: You are talking about our Agricultural personalities on site, like the Williams sisters, in Assurance Programme.We have a number of advertising attempt to gain a healthy living image for quality assurance schemes.Initially, the first part of McDonald’s? our quality assurance is with the people who Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think it is about general manufacture our food and that is where we kind of marketing but, much more than that, as I have said start our quality assurance and then we go back in as well, I do not think it is specifically about a stages.Now, we have found that there is more and healthy living image, no. more pressure and more and more reason to go back and assure the quality of the raw ingredients that we Q473 Chairman: Can I ask you for your views as a use.We do work with the National Farm Assurance major retailer on the clarity of the messages you get Schemes and the standards that we have are not from Government when it comes to communicating meant to replace those Farm Assurance Schemes. food information.Do you think there is a consistent message from diVerent government departments Q469 Mr Mitchell: Are yours higher? and agencies? Mr Kenny: It is a set of standards which, in most Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think we recognise the whole instances, is higher than our national schemes and debate in this area is exceedingly complex.The truth the approach that we have taken is to say that these is we actively want to engage, and I think we have a are the standards that we would like to see operated pretty good track record of engaging, and want to V in our agricultural supply chain across Europe and play our part in making a di erence.As I said we want to and we are engaging with the National before, our size means we are able to do that.For Farm Assurance Schemes in each country to try and example, we were I think the first major company to encourage them to adopt, where there are diVerences respond to Tessa Jowell’s call to the industry to use between the two standards, our standards where its creative ability positively by saying we would they are higher. commit over £1 million to children’s advertising which does not promote McDonald’s products but does communicate a healthy, active lifestyle message Q470 Mr Mitchell: Do other food companies do the to them.That will happen in the summer.In recent same? Are you unique in having your own weeks, there does appear to be a better joined-up assurance scheme? message from Government but clearly the more Mr Kenny: I think we are quite unique in publishing joined-up it is and the more focused it is, the more these requirements pan-European and that is a we can actually do.I would comment that north of challenge for us as well because, wherever we source the border we have also engaged and we have found our food—and the vast majority of it is sourced in there are fewer players and there is really quite good the UK—when we do source raw materials across co-ordination through the Scottish Food Tzar which Europe, we want to be sure that the raw materials has made the job a lot easier.I would also say they have come from the standards of animal welfare, of seem to be focused on the outcome rather than the transparency, traceability and so on. players, and we have certainly found we are pushing at an open door, and they have been perfectly happy apparently to give credit where credit is due. Q471 Mr Mitchell: I would like to move on to Particularly when it comes to the food industry, advertising because you sponsor various athletic giving credit where credit is due, and praising rather events including the Athens Olympics and indeed than shaming, is an extremely important part of Euro 2004 but we will not talk about that, let us talk Government and industry working together. about the referee instead! Is it really reasonable or appropriate to associate McDonald’s as a product Q474 Joan Ruddock: You say you have put £1 with a healthy sporting lifestyle? million towards this healthy campaign directed at Mr Hilton-Johnson: I think you will probably find children and you say it is not promoting that a number of the athletes who compete do eat in McDonald’s products, but surely promotion is all McDonald’s.As I said from the start, McDonald’s about name recognition? If you spend £1 million on food, be it hamburgers or be it salads, can fit in as advertising McDonald’s, then you are getting a good part of a healthy and a balanced diet.I personally return, are you not, because you are advertising the have no problem with it.It also provides us with place, the concept, you do not need to advertise Big opportunities as a company far greater than just Mac alongside fruit. branding opportunities.We associate ourselves with Mr Hilton-Johnson: The way these ads are executed it because of what it can do for us internally as well. is that they will be centred on characters called the Our employee of the year this year, Rapson Wiley Yums, which are not actually McDonald’s from Haringey, for example, was one of the people characters.They are associated with McDonald’s by who carried the Olympic flame through London and the fact they live inside Ronald McDonald’s we were able to send 30 of our staV on packages to stomach.We are quite comfortable with that matches out in Portugal as well.So, it is not just because we know that Ronald connects with 9893012013 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 104 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June 2004 Mr Julian Hilton-Johnson and Mr Keith Kenny children, and the messages will be all the more number of calories.You coul d do the arithmetic. powerful because of that.It is not that there is Everyone would know exactly what they had eaten absolutely no connection whatever, and forgive me and how many calories.I suggest to you, despite the if that is the impression I gave, but it is not overt diYculties you actually have foreseen, because of plugging of particular products, it is rather diVerent your standardised product, you would not have to from that and we are not expecting to see our sales slow anybody down but you could provide them increase as a result of it. with very important information. Mr Hilton-Johnson: There are a number of initiatives which are being looked at, and that is one Q475 Joan Ruddock: We could have a really of them, and we will be monitoring the success of interesting debate about this because I suspect you those initiatives and taking action.I understand just need to hold your customers, if not increase what you are saying but we have to evaluate the tests them, and advertising to children is very, very which are on-going. important.I think you are advertising to children, Joan Ruddock: We would love to know about those whatever the messages are.I want to go back to these tests.Thank you very much. charts because what this illustrates for us I think is Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen, how a supplier of food such as yourselves with a very for your evidence this afternoon.It has been standardised menu can indeed give very accurate extremely helpful.If there is any additional and consistent food information.Here you have information which you think would be useful for the been able to put on the calorific value of every Committee to have, please do submit it to us.You product you are selling in a McDonald’s outlet, so it have agreed to provide some information to us based would be so easy when you ring up the till and they upon some of the questions we asked earlier.Thank have all your products to put at the end of the bill the you very much.

Memorandum submitted by Dr Richard Baines

Executive Summary

This memorandum of evidence mainly focuses on the role of Private or Voluntary Assurance schemes in defining and communicating information to consumers and Government about the food produced under such protocols. The evidence provided addresses communication within the supply chain and to consumers of information in relation to food safety, systems of production and ethical considerations.It also addresses the implications of Government involvement and the implications for trade negotiations under WTO. In terms of food safety, there is significant harmonisation of approaches beyond the farm gate with the adoption of HACCP for identifying and managing food hazards.At the farm le vel food safety is passively managed through adherence to assurance protocols.We see this as a weaknes s in the supply chain.Food safety is not communicated to consumers overtly and nor should it as claims over the safety of one product implies that others are less safe.What is needed though is appropriate ris k management along the chain and eVective technical communication from primary production to retail or food service. Most farm assurance schemes claim to encourage or ensure that systems of production meet consumer (or retailer) aspirations.However, the majority merely underpin legal f arming in terms of environmental protection and animal welfare.This is why there is no premium for farm assu red.Some schemes do require additional conditions to be met by producers; however, there is no evidence of this adding value for those who deliver these enhanced conditions.This is attributed to the fact that most consumers see environment and animal welfare as public goods. There is a wide range of information attached to food products that claim additional assurances such as farm assured, free-range, local, from small farmers etc.Few of these are p art of the conditions of farm assurance and are therefore not verifiable.Where they are subject to verifi cation, the standards often relate to the organisation as opposed to the product.Exceptions to this include F air Trade products and worker welfare under the EUREP schemes.In any event, there is a need for such claim s to be independently audited and then linked to legal labelling. Finally, it is important for Government to be cautious over their direct involvement with private assurance schemes, especially where resultant standards exceed the minimum levels set by WTO or other agreements.There is an opportunity, however, for the Government to use pr ivate assurance mechanisms as a way of supporting primary production through green box payments.The mec hanism described would meet the aspirations of consumers and producers, but would require appropriate labelling and dissemination of information for it to be successful. 9893012014 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 105

1.T erms of Reference 1.1 The terms of reference of the enquiry are to look into the ways in which messages about food are communicated to consumers by the food chain, Government and others.The fo cus on food information is in relation to nutritional content, safety, means of production and any ethical considerations.The inquiry will also focus on the impact of communicating such information to consumers on the one hand and on WTO trade negotiations on the other. 1.2 In relation to these terms of reference, the author will focus on the following key issues: the role of private or so called voluntary assurance standards in communicating food safety, systems of production and any ethical considerations; and the link between such assurance schemes, Government actions and WTO issues.The authority to comment on these issues comes from over five years o f benchmarking assurance standards in the UK and Globally, from completing research and consultancy reports for a range of clients (UK and other Governments, Industry Associations etc) and from presenting papers on quality assurance at international conferences.

2.T he Evolution of Private Assurance Mechanisms

2.1 Several factors have influenced the evolution of private assurance mechanisms.These include globalisation of food supply (where more food is purchased unseen, requiring independent certification), the increase in food safety incidents and scares that have highlighted the limitations of regulatory surveillance, and the increasing dominance of “chain captains” who define market access requirements that often go beyond regulatory inspection alone. 2.2 The main driver for assurance in the UK was the introduction of the Food Safety Act in 1990 with its requirement for all those involved in food production, processing and retail to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable care to ensure food safety.The Act also introduced th e defence of “due diligence” to counter the rights of consumers, through their Environmental Health OYcers, to seek compensation for damages linked to “unsafe food”.As the Act comes into force at the consumer interface, then food retailers and food service are most exposed to this legislation. 2.3 The UK multiple retailers dominate our food supply with over 70% of the national shopping basket being purchased through their outlets—they are the chain captains.There fore it was logical that these large businesses addressed their own food safety management first.Once this was done, the main risks were perceived to come from their suppliers, so it was logical for these retailers to demand assurances from their suppliers to meet the retailers own assurance systems.One consequence of this was a common approach for all suppliers to retail (apart from those supplying M&S) known as the British Retail Consortium Standard. This is based on the adoption of HACCP (Hazard Analysis, Critical Control Point) as a food safety risk assessment and management tool plus technical specifications for product quality (that will vary from retailer to retailer).The BRC standard does not, however, include any ref erence to systems of production or any additional ethical considerations. 2.4 The main integrators who supply our retailers will be subject to regular audits by independent inspection bodies against the BRC standard or equivalent.In addition, th ey will be subject to the normal regulatory checks carried out by Government and Local Authority Agencies.It is reasonable to argue that the BRC HACCP check is considered to be the food safety firewall between retailers and the rest of the supply chain and that they require this assurance to address their potential liability in the event of a food safety breakdown or scare.Integrators, manufacturers and processors so urce their raw materials from primary producers either in the UK or from abroad.It is important to note wh at assurance they are buying into and how these relate to the stated requirements of retailers.It is int eresting to note that the main retailers claim that the producers who supply “their” integrators are farm assured, however, there is no formal audit of this in the BRC or equivalent standards.Moreover, in many of the primary product sectors, the proportion of product assured and the proportion going to multiple retailers do not equate. 2.5 Imported raw agricultural products will be subject to regulatory surveillance, however, homegrown produce is largely unregulated in terms of food hygiene! However, in response to changes in the supply chain beyond the farm gate, producers have developed their own assurance systems.In the UK this was initially in opposition to what retailers were demanding of them, but through the actions of the NFU and others a national set of farm assurance standards have evolved under Assured Food Standards and the British Farm Standard logo of the “Little Red Tractor”.Although food safety is cited in these schemes, management is merely by following scheme protocols that “should” reduce hazards.The ma in focus of these schemes is around legal farming.As such, the schemes provide the opportunity for ind ependent inspection of selected environmental attributes as defined in the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice and animal welfare legislation.Finally, these schemes do not set minimum product quality li mits even though this is a critical attribute further along the supply chain. 2.6 This brief overview of voluntary assurance systems along whole supply chains clearly demonstrates that there is not a consistent approach to food safety, product quality, systems of production and any ethical considerations of food supply.Taking each of these in turn, the following picture emerges: 9893012015 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 106 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

3.F ood Safety and Assurance 3.1 The preferred approach of Governments to managing food safety is the adoption of the 12 steps and seven principles of HACCP by industry as a tool to actively identify and safely manage food hazards.Indeed Codex HACCP provides the international foundation for Government to Government agreements on food trade and is the basis for WTO arbitration on food hygiene.Furthermore, HA CCP adoption along the whole food chain, including primary production, is advocated by the EC in the 2000 White Paper on Food Safety. 3.2 Although stated in the White Paper, it appears that the EU is moving away from the notion of HACCP at the farm level.We consider this to be a fundamental mistake that we akens whole-chain food safety management by industry.As previously stated, schemes under the Br itish Farm Standard do not require HACCP to be in place and therefore it could be argued that safety is not being actively managed at this stage, even though safe food claims are communicated to consumers through promotional materials and the “Little Red Tractor” web site.Similarly, HACCP is not part of any of the organic standards operating in the UK, so the reservations over farm level food safety management can be equally applied to organic produce. 3.3 The adoption of HACCP beyond the farm gate is the norm, including organic food businesses.This is either mandated by legislation for high-risk foods or is required as a condition of market access by the chain captains described earlier.These combined approaches result in a f ar greater emphasis on addressing food safety along supply chains along with improved technical communication of safety and quality between suppliers and buyers.This communication does not, however, extend to con sumers and nor should it! Food safety should be taken as a given by consumers, whereas active promotion of one product’s safety implies that other products are less safe! The whole industry should be working towards preventing unsafe food reaching consumers irrespective of consumers’ ability to pay.

4.S ystems of Production 4.1 Consumer interest in how food is produced has grown in the last decade or so.This is in part due to food scares linked to particular approaches to production and in part due to the intensification of agriculture as producer’s battle to overcome reducing farm margins.Such consumer con cerns have been reflected in various assurance schemes.Examples of this include the adoption of integ rated crop management in the Assured Produce scheme and the additional environmental auditing under the LEAFMarque scheme; higher (than legally mandated) animal welfare under Freedom Foods; and high environmental and animal welfare requirements under organic schemes.In addition, Tesco’s Nature s Choice and Sainsbury’s Living Landscapes schemes require direct or premium suppliers to develop nature conservation or biodiversity action plans.All other schemes claim to, and promote, systems of producti on that are environmentally and animal welfare sensitive, yet they merely require members to meet minimum legal requirements in these areas. 4.2 Overseas suppliers of primary produce have to meet the equivalent legal requirements of home production in order to gain access to the EU.This regulatory oversight mai nly focuses on food hygiene as opposed to systems of production, though the regulations on acceptable and banned medicines and pesticides do impact on how production is carried out in third countries (at least those aiming at export markets). 4.3 Like their UK counterparts, overseas producers also have to meet chain captain requirements to gain market access.This is also achieved through assurance schemes like the EU REP schemes.These schemes generally mirror UK schemes in that they define “legal farming” in relation to the environment and animal welfare (and address food safety through general advisory prescriptions). 4.4 Irrespective of the origins of primary produce, very little information is communicated to consumers over systems of production where food is produced under recognised assurance schemes.We consider there are two main reasons for this.First, although producers are required to be members of assurance schemes at their own cost, there is no audit trail to ensure only assured produce reaches and is sold by the retailers. Secondly, the main multiple retailers aim to promote their own brands of food.Any additional “assurance label” has the potential to dilute their own brand and as such retailers in our view actively discourage and prevent other labels reaching “their” consumers. 4.5 One area of concern to producers and consumers is the use of uncontrolled terms in food labelling, especially where such terms are not verified in any way.Such terms as free ra nge, barn reared, natural, or local can be misleading.Also, the use of claims linked to sustainable sour cing such as the Marine Stewardship Council is confusing mainly because of the complexity in defining and measuring sustainability. Even farm assured, when not backed up by a recognised assurance system, can mislead consumers over what they are paying for.We would argue that such terms should be subject to some form of control over their use.Similar arguments can be made for labels claiming functionality or he alth attributes of food, however, this is beyond the scope of this written evidence.Given that such attribut es of food can be defined and become part of legal labelling, then there would be benefits to consumers and producers alike. 9893012016 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 107

5.E thical Considerations 5.1 Higher environmental or animal welfare conditions could be considered as examples of ethical considerations.Others include fair trade, social accountability, work er welfare and support for overseas and small-scale producers.It could also be argued that local supply is an ethi cal consideration if the impact of food miles is considered to be a significant detrimental impact on the environment or communities. 5.2 Several of the above ethical dimensions of food supply are covered by agreed and recognised standards.Indeed some have developed audit and reporting protocols to “p rove” the ethical stance of organisations subscribing to the standard.Others are less well defined or measured. 5.3 With reference to voluntary assurance schemes, none of the UK farm level schemes include any ethical considerations, though organic standards include the notion of locally grown and consumed as a principle of organic systems.The EUREP schemes do include worker welfare conditions aimed at addressing conditions for overseas workers.More recently, UK schemes li ke Assured Produce have had to consider the implications of worker welfare in relation to some of the illegal practices associated with gang labour that is controlled from outside the business. 5.4 Where ethical considerations are included in assurance schemes, there is little communication of this to consumers through food labelling.The main exception here being fair tr ade.Moreover, many of the ethical standards relate to overall business strategies and performance as opposed to product specifications. 6.T he Role of Government and Trade Implications 6.1 Both the Government and the food industry have roles to play in ensuring the safety and quality of our food.The above evidence defines how the market place has gone beyond reg ulatory compliance in developing and implementing private assurance systems.In doing so, this poses no problems for Government in relation to WTO rules and barriers to trade.If however, Gove rnments become actively involved in the development or ownership of assurance schemes and if these schemes exceed the minimum standards defined under SPS or TBT agreements, then challenges from trade partners should be expected. 6.2 The food chain captains are defining the main market access requirements for food.Although claimed to be voluntary, the dominance of these chain captains makes these conditions eVectively mandatory.This is not a problem as long as those delivering the additional requirements are adequately rewarded.In order to realise this, labelling must diVerentiate foods with these extra assurances so those consumers interested in such foods can identify and preferentially source them.For such a syste m to work, however, consumers must be prepared to pay the added value of the product and this added value must then flow to those who provided the extra attributes.This raises a core issue for Governments an d the food industry linked to added value products and assurance systems. 6.3 As citizens we all would subscribe to higher environmental conditions and animal welfare linked to food production.Indeed many would also support higher worker welfare, th e notion of fair and ethical trade and even locally sourced foods.However, as consumers few of us are prepare d to pay a premium through food for these attributes.As such, higher standards attached to food can b e considered to be public as opposed to private goods.This raises key questions for the industry and Go vernment. 6.4 If such attributes are public goods and are beyond legal compliance, then the chain captains have no right to demand them of suppliers unless they are prepared to directly reward the suppliers themselves.This is not the case at the moment so suppliers bear the cost of these extra conditions and retailers benefit from them. 6.5 From the Government’s perspective, if we as citizens want higher standards of say production, then the Government has two options.They can either tighten legislation to ach ieve what society claims it wants, or they provide incentives to encourage suppliers to meet societies aspirations.The former option may result in disputes under WTO if legal requirements result in trade barriers for imports, while the latter would have to be funded out of government revenue. 6.6 There is a third option that should be considered. If there is a desire to support agriculture through rewarding good environmental performance (as outlined in the Curry Report), then there is a need to ensure only those who deliver environmental goods are rewarded.If auditable env ironmental (or other conditions) are developed, then the existing private inspection mechanisms could carry out the additional audit points (as is currently done for LEAF Marque).The cost of this, however, should be borne by the Government, as the additional benefit is a public good.Through such a mechanism, only pr oducers who deliver benefits would be rewarded and the audit burden would not increase significantly.As a fail safe, Government sampling of private audits could be carried out along with Government audits of non-assured producers. Given such a mechanism, appropriate labelling and communication would enable consumers to select such foods at no extra cost.The other benefit is that such a mechanism would enabl e Government to support agriculture through green box payments without undermining WTO rules.Th e Royal Agricultural College would be very interested in developing this concept further. 6.7 Irrespective of the strategies employed by the food industry or Government, there is a need for appropriate communication within the industry and to consumers.This sho uld be in the form of labelling on products, promotion at the point of sale and through public promotional and educational activities. 19 April 2004 9893012017 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 108 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witness: Dr Richard Baines, Principal Lecturer in Management Systems for Food Safety and the Environment, Royal Agricultural College, examined.

Q476 Chairman: Dr Baines, thank you for Q480 Mr Mitchell: If they are supplying a British submitting evidence in writing and for coming to the market, then they have got to be regulated? Committee this afternoon.We are bit behind our Dr Baines: No.2 schedule.Can I begin the questions by asking for your general assessment on the value of food Q481 Mr Mitchell: Are you saying the domestic assurance schemes, which is the issue you cover in market is always less well regulated? most detail in your evidence, given for example that Dr Baines: When I say “domestic market” I should the National Consumer Council suggested that food put it in the context of a domestic European market, assurance schemes are as likely to confuse and because once food is produced and goes on to the mislead consumers rather than inform them.How next stage it can move to anywhere in the European far would you agree with that type of assertion? Union, the same as imported food.The point I was Dr Baines: We try and communicate information to making is that before food can be imported, first of consumers about particular farm assurance as it all the manufacturer processor, integrator, heads up the chain, and that is probably the wrong whatever, has to go through European inspection to strategy, and that is perhaps where the confusion is ensure they meet the European regulatory coming from.I see the role of farm assurance as a standards, and that will be the standards of the best way of communicating to the next people in the of our European manufacturers, our large scale chain what eVort has been put into that food to abattoirs, pack houses and food manufacturers, not move it along, and it should be more in the form of the average, which will include small scale that may a technical communication––trying to link the goals have derogation.Often, and I have looked at these at diVerent parts of the chain.The benefits I see, schemes in Australia, for example, that will include, particularly at the farm assurance level are, if they if you are looking at meat supply, the ability of those are designed in the right way they can, first of all, European inspectors to judge the farms which are enable the producer to demonstrate due diligence in supplying [the slaughter house].By that, there is relation to food safety, and that is probably the most another tier of regulatory inspection which a important driver in all stages in the chain.Secondly, significant amount of domestic food would not be if it is developed in the correct way, it can drive subject to.That is the point I was making there. internal business eYciency to oVset the costs, and in some of the schemes I have studied from around the Q482 Mr Mitchell: Are you not satisfied with the world we can demonstrate that, there have been legal requirements in respect of food hygiene in this those eYciencies.Thirdly, assurance can be used as country and food safety? a marketing and promotion tool to those people you Dr Baines: I am comfortable with the food safety in are selling to, and farmers generally do not sell to the European food chain when things are going consumers.I think the fact we are trying to get farm okay.I have concerns when things go wrong and we assurance, the NFU in particular and the Assurance have seen evidence of that.I am comfortable, with Food Standards, to create that link right through the some reservation, over what is happening beyond chain and perhaps do not always bring the rest of the the farm gate in terms of the major messages coming chain along, this is where some of the confusion has from the drivers of food safety, which I see as being come about. the major retailers, more so than perhaps Government, and they are driving this for very good reasons.The systems of identifying and managing Q477 Mr Mitchell: Why do you say imported food safety risk are well in place, and we see from agricultural products are subject to regulatory Government and major industry leaders the surveillance but home-grown products are largely adoption of HACCP—the Hazard Analysis, Critical unregulated? I do not see that. Control Point—but we see politically an Dr Baines: First of all, if we look at agricultural unwillingness to look at this at the farm level even production in the UK or the European Union, from though there is good evidence of food risks at the a domestic production point of view, from a hygienic farm level and food safety break-downs which are perspective it is largely unregulated. accounted for at that level as well.I have experienced schemes where farms are required to do appropriate Q478 Mr Mitchell: Here and in the rest of the EU? risk assessment, and are able to do that in just as Dr Baines: Yes.As a farmer, I do not have to have a good a way and with the same sort of costs as we licence to produce food to sell into the food chain. would see with our current farm assurance scheme. As a purveyor of food, or if I was going to do on- So, yes, I would challenge whether we should be farm processing, I do have to have a hygiene licence. requiring all producers to be more active in their That is the point I was making. assessment of food risk.I think the fact we just will not seem to address this is something which has evolved politically.Often it is argued it is too di Ycult Q479 Mr Mitchell: Is that not the same in North for farmers to do, but I have seen farmers do it.It is America or New Zealand? said it is expensive; I think we can challenge that. Dr Baines: Domestically, there are significant One of the reasons is that there are some very good derogations in the food chain for small and medium- firewalls further up the chain which protect those at sized businesses which maybe cannot comply with the strict hygiene regulations we tend to impose on 2 Not in terms of regulated food hygiene.There are exceptions the larger operators. eg annual dairy plant inspections. 9893012017 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 109

29 June2004 Dr Richard Baines the end of the chain where consumer protection others in grains are about storage, salmonella and legislation comes in.I am thinking, for example, of aphlatoxins3 in grain storage through fungal the British Retail Consortium audit which most growth, and then other ones could be animal food manufacturers are going through.That is a pathogens which can largely be addressed at good firewall and you could maybe argue that safety slaughter.So there are e xamples where there are could be better managed by being strategically concerns at the farm level.Doing the pre-requisite placed at some point in the chain.programmes and lowering the risk on presc riptive management helps, but I believe we should be going Q483 Mr Mitchell: If that was installed at some a stage further, and I do not believe it is cost- earlier point in the chain? prohibitive to do that. Dr Baines: The counter-argument is that all of those in the food supply chain have a responsibility. Q488 Mr Jack: So if people are going to draw lots of positive conclusions from symbols like this, your Q484 Mr Mitchell: Yes. judgment is that if that message has been gathered by Dr Baines: I believe we should all be addressing that the consumer then it may be under a false premise at whatever level we operate at.If there is a food and it is not as thoroughly underpinned as they safety break-down, if you are not addressing it, you might assume? have not got a defence.The blame will be passed Dr Baines: I would have to check this and I am going down to you and if you have no defence, you have a on recollection, but when we first saw the website problem. and the promotion of the British Farm Standard, it was claimed as being British food, safe British food, high quality, high animal welfare and environmental Q485 Mr Mitchell: So was Mrs Curry right or responsibilities from those who produce it.In actual wrong? fact it is demonstrating for those selected areas of Dr Baines: When she told the truth? animal welfare and the environment merely legal compliance, and that is why there is no premium, but Q486 Mr Mitchell: She told the truth? there is a cost.It does not address quality, there is no Dr Baines: Yes.Politically, she was wrong, in my audit point within the British red tractor or view. anywhere which says, “This is quality or not quality”, and on safety, as I have already mentioned, Q487 Mr Jack: Can I follow Mr Mitchell’s line of it is a sector approach to safety rather than an questioning? In your evidence, at paragraph 3.2, you individual business approach.As you and I know, as draw the Committee’s attention to the line of in any food business, individual farms will have argument you have just put forward with reference better or worse records in terms of how they manage to HACCP at the farm level.It causes me to pose the safety, and we need to address those who are not so question as to whether in fact that kind of good at the job. information undermines the messages that people draw out of the little red tractor symbol that Q489 Chairman: From what you have been saying somehow this is good, wholesome, safe, everything this afternoon, is it fair to say your view is that to is okay if I buy this product.The statement you put regard farm assurance schemes as some useful form at 3.2 would suggest that it rather undermines the of food information for the consumer is really just assurance message which is embodied in the little the wrong road to go down? red tractor. Dr Baines: If you try and claim too much on what it Dr Baines: Yes, I have challenged those who support stands for, you are going to create a problem.Let me the British Farm Standard, both publicly and in just balance that up with another comment, and that terms of academic writing.As with virtually all the is the fact that if we look at British agriculture and if other farm level schemes I have seen around the we look at its overall safety record in terms of world, they are addressing food safety but they volume and the problems we have, if we look at the address it in a sector-specific way.It is a prescription environmental performance of agriculture, if we almost; “If you do this, food risk should be look at the animal welfare performance of reduced.” If you look at that from a food safety risk agriculture, generally it is very good.The fact that management perspective, what we are actually doing we value the landscape we go and see is a good is what we call the pre-requisite programmes; those example of that.So I am not trying to say that things which should lower risk, but it does not British agriculture has got problems, it has issues to actually require a producer to actively assess address as with any other sector of the industry, and whether the risk has been lowered or not.That is the it is seeking to make a margin where a margin is diVerence between active risk management on food disappearing, and in any leverage of marketing they safety and passive management.It is not a problem are trying to do that.I believe that the British Farm at this stage because the number of risks which do Standard should be trying to get its message across occur at the farm level are few, but they do occur. to those people whom the farm produce is sold to, Examples can be where we have seen human-borne who themselves are then passing a message on to the pathogens or zoonotic pathogens from animals next part of the chain, who are themselves passing it which have got into either the water or through food on to the consumer. handling, particularly in fresh produce chains.That is the most rapidly growing area of food safety 3 Aphlatoxins from aspergillus species plus other myco- concerns for the farm level at this stage.Most of the from plant pathogens. 9893012017 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 110 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June2004 Dr Richard Baines

Q490 Chairman: Can you give us an estimate of the the schemes which are operating above the farm number of farm assurance schemes currently level—there are relatively few global schemes now operating in Britain? probably only five.These are being bench-marked Dr Baines: I think it is important that you define by the CIES, which is the global retail forum, which what you mean by farm assurance.If we look at many of the retailers here are members of, and they schemes which meet the requirements of the rest of are bench-marking their schemes at least in relation the food chain in terms of assurance, in other words to food safety and how it is delivered.Does it address their independent verification to a set of agreed it in these key ways? At the moment, the CIS is standards, we are really looking at primarily the developing the mechanism to bench-mark farm level schemes under the British Farm Standard, Quality standards.So from the retail side and the food Meat Scotland, Scottish Salmon, the Northern manufacturing side, we will see a global Ireland schemes et cetera, and probably those 10 or benchmarking of schemes.I know the CIES have 12 schemes we could put in such a group are been in negotiation with Assured Food Standards, accounting for the majority of the assured produce they have been involved in talking to various scheme moving forward.Beyond that, you will get other owners around the world about this.What it does assurance claims which are perhaps better defined as not do at the moment is address the other issues of branding or promotional, which may be something farm assurance, the animal welfare, the to do with things like localness.We have to separate environment, the fair and equitable trade and so those as promotional elements from those which forth; all those other areas in which there is an have some form of audit to say what they are interest are not going to be addressed through that claiming has been assessed.We also have schemes mechanism.But they are suggesting that schemes which operate further up the chain, so they may be can co-recognise against each other where they meet led by the manufacturing level.I guess the first one similar standards.In my opinion, what they are of these which probably started it all was Bird’s Eye really saying is, they want to see all schemes bench- and their frozen peas.Perhaps a good one at the mark themselves against the EUREP Scheme which moment would be Jordan’s with their cereals.That is is a European retail alliance scheme at the farm level. sending a lot of messages back to farmers about how It (EUREP) started oV with fresh produce, we now they farm, but it is sold to the consumer as this have livestock, cereals, cut flowers, and I think they wholesome breakfast cereal, and this is nothing to are developing a fish one as well.I guess, and I would do with telling the consumer what is happening in perhaps like to check this, the McDonald’s farm farming, but the farmers who are participating are assurance scheme is probably very closely linked to contributing to a system which adds to that the EUREP Scheme as they are a member of that aggregate product which is valued by some group, but I would have to check on that.Really consumers. what they are saying is, “We, European retailers, have developed a scheme and we want it to Q491 Chairman: Is there not a case for having some dominate”, and that worries me. overarching body, be it Government or industry, which has oversight of this area and indeed could regulate a number of schemes and the verification Q492 Joan Ruddock: Does the EUREP Scheme of them? generally just guarantee that minimum standards Dr Baines: We already have elements of regulation, are being met, that the legal requirements are being first of all, for them to be claimed as assurance met? It does not actually take you beyond that? The schemes under EM45011, they go through UCAS consumer is not getting something beyond that? accreditation.That is the first level, the system of Dr Baines: There are in the new animal and cereal certification and the mechanisms are already schemes three levels.There is a basic level, which is internationally recognised and regulated.The verymuchequivalenttothe BritishFarmStandard,it problem with that is they are voluntary schemes and is about legal compliance in those key areas.Most of they [certification bodies] are there to inspect or them are around protection of soil, air and water and certify whatever the scheme owners have decided to where there is a link to human safety in terms of put into the scheme.Secondly, yes, it is important to pesticides.Generally what they are looking for in the try and get some co-recognition, some second level up is worker welfare, the correct and understanding, and that is why I started some five legal treatment of workers, which came in initially for years ago comparing schemes around the world outside-of-European supply, but now we are finding because I had heard so many times about level a significant number of fresh produce growers in the playing fields and about other people not doing what UK are saying, “I am going to convert from assured we do.Yes, I have been doing bench-marking for produce to EUREP because I have operations in several years, what has been happening is that we South Europe and elsewhere where I need it, because have the British Farm Standard and Assured Food I want to do whole-year round supply to try and keep Standards seeking to be an umbrella organisation, my share of the market.” The third level, which is an but Quality Meat Scotland do not want to be part of optional level, is about an encouragement to improve it because they believe their brand is better and they bio-diversity management at the farm level.But I have arguments for that and they see that as a havenotfoundaschemeanywhere,includingTesco’s marketing angle.We also have emerging probably Nature’s Choice and Sainsbury’s Living Landscapes, what I think is the start of this convergence of where the farmer is rewarded for going further than schemes and co-recognition, and that is that all of legal compliance. 9893012017 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 111

29 June2004 Dr Richard Baines

Q493 Joan Ruddock: It seems to me even if people retailers will protect that level because that is their were going to the second or third level, as far as the market power, that is their way of competing with consumer being presented with a message is each other. concerned, it could be the lowest level.Is that correct? Dr Baines: Yes. Q499 Chairman: So who is gaining from these schemes then? From what you are saying, the consumer is not gaining, the producers are not Q494 Joan Ruddock: They would not know any gaining, the retailer is not gaining.Why are they diVerent.So every consumer, I would have thought, there? would expect those minimum requirements and the Dr Baines: I would disagree with you.I think the top legal regulations would be met by all producers.So end of the chain does benefit from this at the expense they gain nothing really from an assurance scheme? of the lower end of the chain. Dr Baines: No.

Q500 Chairman: In what way? Q495 Joan Ruddock: Nothing. Dr Baines: If we look at some of the ones on the Dr Baines: Correct. environment side, as an example where there is some interest by some consumers to pay a premium, we Q496 Joan Ruddock: They are pointless in many have an example of retail support for the LEAF cases. Marque, which supports integrated crop Dr Baines: I would love to be able to get a group of management under the LEAF Organisation.To go producers together and say, “Shall we stop doing through that, to have the LEAF Marque on your them”, and I think I would probably get a fair degree products at the processor/packing stage, the farmer of support for that.Unfortunately, the market place has to be farm assured for the crops or produce, but is sending us messages which say, “We won’t accept in addition they have to have an additional element that.” The consumers are really getting an assurance of audit at their own cost to show they are meeting that farmers have been made aware of their legal elements of LEAF.It is an extra cost to the producer responsibility and the market place is checking this to get that label on their product, but there is no out where at the moment Government cannot aVord premium for that extra eVort.The argument is that the level of oversight it would need to have that same you will get improved market access if consumers level of confidence.Really we are seeing almost a buy more of it.But if you sell more, perhaps the privatisation of legal farming to the market place, to benefit you get is you are spreading the cost of that the chain captains. extra audit over a larger number of units, so there is not actually a benefit, you are just lowering the unit Q497 Joan Ruddock: Yes.If they are going to go cost by selling more.There is an example where it beyond legal requirements, surely the consumer has worked.I am sure you are aware of Sainsbury’s, ought to be made aware of what they have done in Budgen’s, Co-op I think and one other I cannot addition to what they are required to do? remember, who are supporting a brand of milk Dr Baines: Yes. called White and Wild, which I think is a great name. White and Wild is linked to the farmers who are committing to a higher level of biodiversity Q498 Joan Ruddock: And also, surely, there ought management, and they are rewarded in the market to be a premium? If there is not a premium being place, I think they get an extra 3p a litre because they paid, why are people opting into these assurance are committing to that.This premium is transferred schemes which do require the higher standards? into a higher price on the shelf.But I would not mind What are they getting out of that? betting that if that does not sell, the scheme will Dr Baines: They get somewhere to sell their produce, wither away and die.We saw the same when Unigate because the message coming down the chain is, “If tried to introduce one called Forage Plus, but they you do not do this, we are not going to deal with could not realise a premium themselves so they you.” I have an example on this one from abroad dropped it. where a supplier has been supplying into the UK for some 15 years under a standard scheme which has been fully accepted by one of our major retailers, Q501 Joan Ruddock: Forage Plus is a diYcult and they have just been informed by their integrator, consumer message. who acts on behalf of that retailer, unless they Dr Baines: It was the wrong name, was it not, that transfer to the EUREP Scheme they will not have was the problem with it.Most consumers do not supply.That is the message but it is not a message know what we mean by “forag e”.It was aimed at the from the retailer, it is from the integrator, who is farmers but the wrong name, I guess.Whereas White acting de facto on behalf of the messages coming and Wild is a brilliant name, it has good promotion, from that level.The other problem is, if we could it is great to see the website, it has in-store communicate that message, we would have to have promotion.However, I woul d not mind betting that the agreement that that message is going to go to the if I went and did an evaluation on the shelves, it is consumer in some way.If you add that message probably only 6 to 7% of the milk volume being sold, there, you are going to take away from the main which is about the proportion I would estimate of message in the main outlets for food, which is the people who are prepared to pay a premium for retailers’ own label.It is quite understandable that environmental benefits.Most people see improving 9893012017 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:56:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 112 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

29 June2004 Dr Richard Baines the environment as a public good, and that is why in Q502 Chairman: Dr Baines, that concludes our my evidence I did suggest possibly other questions this afternoon.Once again, thank you for mechanisms to reward farmers who are going coming along to give your evidence.If there is any further than legal compliance, without addressing additional information on the points you have put to the problems of higher legislation which might put us which you want to supply us with, please feel free the UK Government into conflict with other to do so.Thank you for coming along this European partners or indeed WTO rules over afternoon. barriers to trade. Dr Baines: Thank you very much. 9895301006 Page Type [SO] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 113

Monday 12 July 2004

Members present:

Mr Mark Lazarowicz, in the Chair

Mr David Drew Joan Ruddock

Memorandum submitted by the Food and Drink Federation

Executive Summary 1.A large amount of information is required to be given on the labels of pre- packed foods.Attention is drawn to the information load on food labels and the need to review current requirements in the light of modern technology and increasing information demands.Whilst manufactu rers give a wide range of supplementary information on packs, this is limited by available label space. 2.Such consideration is timely in the context of current European Commiss ion reviews of both general food labelling and nutrition labelling.Information about non-prepacke d foods should also be taken into account. 3.This submission addresses the topics identified in the Inquiry terms of r eference.“Organic” and GM are given as examples of providing information on means of production of foods.Ethical considerations provide an example of the need to communicate in a more explanatory manner oV-label.FDF consumer information programmes are introduced as examples of wider means of facilitating consumer understanding of specific food information and of appropriate food handling.

Introduction 4.FDF welcomes the Inquiry’s inclusion of other means of communication th an labelling.The food product label is legally required to carry substantial information and demands to include more continue. Although technology, communications and consumer awareness and demands have progressed rapidly, there has been no fundamental review of the basic EU legislation, from which UK food labelling requirements stem, since 1979.Accordingly, FDF believes that it is timel y to identify priorities for on-label information and also to identify acceptable, alternative means for making available supplementary information.This need is emphasised by the increasing need for multi-lin gual labels to facilitate the movement of goods in an expanding EU. 5.At the same time, consideration should be given to information requirem ents for non-prepacked foods and how best to communicate it to consumers. 6.The primary role of the food label is to provide key information, not to ac t as a means of education. Account should be taken of the important role of industry-run consumer awareness programmes, and Government-funded consumer education, in equipping consumers to make better use of the information available.Information should be useful, usable and used.Attention to pu blic education, as well as to the content and presentation of consumer information, are necessary to achieving this objective.

The Nutritional Content of Foods

Legislation and voluntary provision of information 7.The basic requirements for nutrition labelling are set out in Directive 90/496/EEC and implemented as part of The Food Labelling Regulations 19961.This defines certain nutrients, prescribes how nutrition information is to be derived and how it is to be displayed on food labels.Nut rition labelling is voluntary except that it must be given where a nutrition claim (also defined) is made.N onetheless, some 80% of pre- packaged, processed foodstuVs manufactured in the UK are estimated to carry on-pack nutrition labelling. Given that there are sound reasons why some packs cannot carry this information, this represents a high level of information provision. 8.In addition to the statutory information, some manufacturers chose to g ive guidance on the contribution of their products to a balanced diet by provision of information on the percentage of the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) of energy or certain nutrients provided by the product.Further information is available.Some companies advise on-pack on lifestyle inf ormation, or provide links to other sources of information by means of care lines, websites and other contact routes.

1 (SI 1996 No 1499). 9895301001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 114 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

9.DG Sanco is reviewing EU requirements and a consultation document on ame nding the Nutrition Labelling Directive is expected shortly.FDF supports up-dating of the le gislation at EU level.It is likely, however, that DG Sanco will propose making nutrition labelling mandatory.This would necessitate establishment of a number of exemptions to allow for practical problems with on-pack declaration, even if this information had to be made available by alternative means. 10.Proposals have been made by a number of bodies regarding the provision o f additional, explanatory information alongside the on-pack nutrition data.Generally, this tends to be subjective, seeking to classify individual food products in respect of their content of specific nutrients.More consideration is required to ensure such schemes are useful in terms of assisting consumers to achieve a balanced diet and do not distract from the legibility of the basic data.

Educational programmes on healthy diets and lifestyles

11.It is important that nutrition information is available to consumers t o enable them to make appropriate dietary choices.Consumer understanding of nutritional dat a is key to this process and, more fundamentally, an understanding of the importance of a balanced diet and adequate exercise is a basic contributor to maintaining good health. 12.FDF supports the enhancement of consumer understanding of nutrition, with reference to available nutrition information, whether given on-label or by other means.One of FD F’s consumer information programmes, “foodfitness”, promotes healthy diet and lifestyle through a range of resources, providing both public information and educational materials.Details can be found at htt p://www.foodfitness.org.uk 13.FDF believes that the relevant national authorities have an important role to play in educating consumers in their understanding of nutrition information and in linking nutrition information to healthy living/eating campaigns.

The Safety of Foods

14.Whatever style or “quality” of food product is chosen, consumers shoul d be able to rely upon the safety of their food supply.This is the top priority for food manufacturer s. Directly relevant to food safety, The Food Labelling Regulations require that labels carry: — The appropriate durability indication (date-mark). — Any special storage conditions or conditions of use. — Instructions for use if it would be diYcult to make appropriate use of the food in the absence of such instructions. 15.With the increasing range of manufactured foodstu Vs, particularly in terms of their content, presentation and storage, and the range of heating and cooking options available, manufacturers are giving multiple on-pack preparation instructions, the clarity of which is enhanced by the use of appropriate icons (eg cooking methods and microwave ratings). 16.To extend food safety into the home or catering establishment, it is ess ential that consumers are aware of safe food handling practices which should be applied to the various types of food, both raw and cooked. This includes appropriate storage of products and appropriate handling and preparation once they are removed from their protective packaging. 17.Safe food handling should feature in everybody’s education and food sa fety messages need to be conveyed regularly to the public to increase general awareness as well as good practice.Environmental Health OYcers have a major role in encouraging good practice and there is a substantial amount of public information on the FSA website.

FDF’s Public Information Programme on Safe Food Handling

18.FDF has a longstanding public information programme on safe food handl ing called “foodlink”. Details can be found at http://www.foodlink.org.uk. foodlink is organised by FDF in association with FSA, the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS), the Departments of Health, Food and Education, the National Farmers Union, the British Retail Consortium and the British Hospitality Association.Support is also given by several other organisations.The pr ogramme provides a focus for communicating messages on the basic precautions to reduce the risk of suVering from food poisoning. 9895301002 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 115

The Means Of Production of Foods 19.The Food Labelling Regulations require that food shall be labelled wit h information about its physical condition or treatment (eg that it has been concentrated, freeze-dried or smoked) where a purchaser could be misled by the omission of such an indication.It is taken, however, that “means of production” in the Committee’s terms of reference refers principally to primary, agricultural/horticultural production, and associated handing and storage practices, prior to final processing.Exam ples are “organic” and “GM”.

Organic Foods

How can consumers tell that food is organic? 20.It is illegal to sell any food as organic unless it has been produced in fu ll conformity with EU Organic Regulation (EC2092/91) and by registered producers.It is not possible to determine, just by looking at food, or by testing it, whether or not it is organic.Therefore, inspection durin g production is essential.By this means, the use of the word “organic” on the label is the guarantee that it has been organically produced.

Could information be better conveyed to consumers? 21.Consumers already have a good understanding of organics due to marketi ng campaigns by the major retailers and extensive media coverage.There remains some confusion amo ng consumers on the health issues surrounding organic food consumption, which FSA is seeking to address via a research project. 22.The Advertising Standards Authority has introduced a code of practice concerning the advertising of organic foods which has gained the support of the organic industry. 23.The European Commission is seeking to develop a European logo for organ ic foods as part of its European Organic Action Plan.Steps have also been taken at a European leve l to restrict the use of such terms as “Eco” and “Bio” to organic products, to avoid misleading consumers.There is need, however, to resolve conflict with the established use of the term “Bio” to refer to some fermented products such as yogurt. 24.The DEFRA Organic Action Plan aims to identify what is required to ensur e stable and strategic growth for the organic sector.It sets out a series of practical measures wh ich the Government and the food and farming industry will take to encourage a sustainable organic farming and food sector in England.It includes ensuring that consumers have access to relevant information.

GM Foods

The New EU Controls 25.The new GM labelling Regulations began to apply from 18 April and will a Vect all foods produced from or containing GMOs or GM derivatives.This marks a major shift in the GM labelling regime from a basis of detectability to a basis of traceability, ie the scope includes all foods and food ingredients derived from GMOs, not just those in which GM material is detectable.FDF has consis tently pointed out that this basis for labelling is unenforceable in practice.Such is the consumer cli mate at present, however, where understanding and acceptance of GM technology is low, that manufacturers tend to avoid those few ingredients that would be required by law to carry such labels.Thus, very f ew products are currently on the market labelled as produced from or containing GMOs.

FDF’s Information Programme on GM Food and Farming Issues 26.FDF’s foodfuture programme promotes public understanding of genetic modification and food.Its core publication, Food for Our Future, explains what GM crops and foods are and what benefits and risks might arise from their use.It examines some of the concerns most commonly r aised about the technology and reviews the regulatory controls.An accompanying glossary provides a simple explanation of the technical terms and a list of useful websites facilitates access to more detailed information on diVerent perspectives on GM.It can support classroom study and help inform consume rs more generally and it is hoped that it will make a useful contribution to a balanced debate on this important subject. Food for Our Future also forms the basis for the programme’s website http://www.foodfuture.org.uk

Ethical Considerations 27.FDF companies are committed to ensuring that relationships with suppl iers are ethically as well as commercially based.FDF works closely with UK, EU and international bodie s to promote the dissemination of best ethical trading practice to help members tackle this complex issue.FDF’s Declaration of Ethical Trading Values can be found at http://www.fdf.org.uk/about—ethical.aspx. 9895301003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 116 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

28.Labelling can be a useful means of conveying ethical information about a product to a consumer.It is not, however, the only means, nor will it be the most appropriate or eVective in all circumstances.For example, corporate values statements and traditional product information provision are other means of eVective communication.Accordingly, FDF believes that ethical labelling should remain voluntary.FDF also believes that any attempt to restrict EU imports for ethical reasons would be in conflict with WTO obligations.Furthermore, we would not support any attempt to harmonise t he ethical component of international production standards as, in our view, there can be no universally acceptable, objective level at which such standards could be set. 29.To ensure that consumers have reliable information, ethical and assoc iated logos relating to production methods should be backed by established schemes, information on which is accessible to consumers and compliance with which is independently audited. 30.FDF supports the comments (in response to this Inquiry) of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association on ethical labelling.We would emphasise the g eneral point that communication about ethical considerations requires a diVerent approach from that about analytically verifiable, compositional information or advisory information on product safety.Et hical claims cannot be verified from inspection of the products about which they are made.Accordingly, FD F supports the oV-label provision of background information which can help interested consumers to understand the context and limitations of the ethical information given on product labels.

Food Information in the Context of Trade Negotiations in WTO 31.Further trade liberalisation through the WTO can be expected to lead to an increase in the volume of UK and EU imports from developing countries.This increase will inter al ia require as full a system of traceability of ingredients as is needed to ensure that all exporters are complying with the provisions of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, other international product and production standards, and EU standards where appropriate.Labelling may well have a role to play i n this communicative process. Where, however, developing countries are supplying raw agricultural materials for further processing in the UK, documentary provision of information should be suYcient. 32.There is no mandate for labelling to be part of the current round of WTO ne gotiations and nor do we consider there should be.If a product meets all legally required specifi cations, no WTO member has any authority to restrict its trade because of the manner of its labelling.

Other Means of Communication 33.FDF believes that the essential information for food labelling concer ns what the food is and contains, with how it should be handled and prepared.Accordingly, we do not support t he principle of having to put information on food labels regarding, for example, production technologies and processes and origin of ingredients, which makes little or no diVerence to the final composition of the food (except where it would be misleading not to give such information).Increasing the information o n labels restricts the space for, and thus reduces the legibility of, the essential compositional and safety information. 34.As reflected above, given the space constraints on labels, manufacture rs are making increasing use of other means of communication, particularly customer care lines and company websites.Retailers are also providing means of access to fuller information.Such means enable provis ion of specific information on a range of topics that may be required by only a minority of consumers and which cannot be accommodated, and may not be able to be provided, in the format of pre-printed product labels.

Note on the Dg Sanco Review of EU Food Labelling Legislation 35.In mid-2002, DG Sanco contracted the European Evaluation Consortium t o undertake an evaluation of the general food labelling legislation.(DG Sanco is also reviewing nut rition labelling as a separate exercise.) The food industry made inputs into the review. The final report was given to DG Sanco in October 2003.A 19 page summary has been placed on the DG Sanco website, which can be v iewed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/labellingnutrition/foodlabelling/eZ conclu.pdf 36.The Report draws a number of conclusions about information needs and cl arity of presentation and recognises that, given the limited space available on food labels, there needs to be a re-think about the priority information which should be put on labels and alternative means which might be used to convey other information.DG Sanco comments that the report identifies “the key po ints on which the Commission will now have to focus for drawing-up a future proposal with a view to modernising the Community legislation on labelling.It is expected that such a proposal could be put f orward in 2005, following a consultation process with all interested parties.” 37.This would provide the opportunity for the Commission to prepare a Whit e Paper on labelling, an initiative which FDF would support, thus avoiding piecemeal changes being pursued for the sake of delivering short-term results. April 2004 9895301004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 117

Witnesses: Mr Martin Paterson, Deputy Director General of FDF, Ms Valerie Saint, Unilever UK Ltd and Chairman of FDF Labelling Committee, and Mr Michael Hunt, Secretary of FDF Labelling Committee, Food and Drink Federation, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.My of that from others who have given evidence.Do you apologies for the slight delay before we were able to not think that where it is possible this is a reasonable begin our proceedings this afternoon, but welcome to request that should be made? the Sub-Committee.We look forward to hearing your Ms Saint: I think, on a voluntary basis, we are all oral evidence this afternoon and I would like to invite providing a lot of additional information over and Joan Ruddock to begin our questions. above the statutory requirement, and certainly that is true of things like nutrition information.For food manufacturers, I think we estimate about 80% of our Q503 Joan Ruddock: Thank you very much, and products have nutrition information on them, and I welcome.There are quite a number of things which would say a very high percentage is the big eight you say in your evidence you do not want to see in nutrition information.That is voluntary.It is terms of food labelling, things which you reject.I necessary in a few instances if a nutrition claim is made. wonder, ideally, what information you would like to I think we are providing the information.The trouble see as required information, really what is the bottom is, with the statutory requirement it is overarching, it is line that you think should be on food labels? for everything, and then you have to start making Ms Saint: I think, as far as we are concerned, the exceptions.The current small pack exemption relates bottom line is that it should be key information which to very small packs indeed.The more information we is important for the majority of consumers.We have a V require by statute the more we ought to be thinking lot of demands from di erent groups of consumers about how those exemptions should work.It may be who want to have additional information and we can that something like a stepwise approach could be provide that in diVerent ways, sometimes on pack and V appropriate.I think, of the 20% of products which do sometimes o .With regard to the food label itself, I not contain nutrition information, a number of those think it is important that it should concentrate on the could bear a limited amount of nutrition information, identification of the product, how to use the product, but of course the big four is the minimum we can give, how to cook it, how to store it, the ingredients are if we give anything. obviously important, basically the information which currently is required as the standard information under the food labelling regulations.We feel that Q506 Joan Ruddock: If that were in statute we would additional information could be provided for those end up perhaps with 90% of products groups who need it, either on pack, if there is room and comprehensively labelled? the facility, or by other means. Ms Saint: If it were in statute, I suppose it would be 100%, in some fashion.

Q504 Joan Ruddock: Is there anything which is Q507 Joan Ruddock: Are you saying you would have required at the moment which you think should not to have exemptions? be on food and drink as a label, as a requirement? Ms Saint: Yes.I think, if you could adopt a stepwise Ms Saint: We have looked at this.It is very di Ycult approach, let us suppose that, if you take nutrition to say for all products that any particular thing is or information as an example, the very small packs would should not be required.Double-labelling of not have any, maybe the next size up could have sweeteners is always one thing we quote as being whatever was deemed to be most appropriate, maybe slightly over the top.Apart from that, it is di Ycult “fat” and “calories” or something, then above that to say that any of the legal requirements are not four or eight I think you would get a very large important for some products.It is not necessarily so proportion of products with nutrition information.Of that they are important for all products, of course.I course, there are some which do not contain it at the think what we are looking for really is some moment.It does not seem particularly relevant, maybe consideration of the quantity of information.When a packet of tea, or something, which is not terribly something new is introduced there should be some relevant to those sorts of product. prioritisation, really.Do we think that everything which goes before is just as important as the new, Q508 Mr Drew: If we can look at this particular issue because if we do not prioritise in that way there will of nutrition and what it is appropriate to inform the not be the clarity of the information on the pack.We customer about, can I start by asking what your views have to bear in mind that some packs are not very are in terms of what is containable to make it sensible big and it is quite important that the food safety on an ordinary piece of foodstuV? What sort of information, in particular, should be very clear to information would you expect to see? consumers, on storage, and so forth.Therefore, the Mr Paterson: I am not quite sure. more additional information you put on the more you could sacrifice that clarity. Q509 Mr Drew: We are looking at nutrition information on the label.What would you think was Q505 Joan Ruddock: I can see that point for the very a reasonable amount of that information to be small packages and I think everyone is bound to contained on a label, without being seen to be over concede that point, but most packaging and most the top? food and drink products are of such a size that it is Mr Paterson: I do not think it is a question of being possible to have clear information additional to seen to be over the top, it is a question of trying to what is required, and indeed we saw some examples make a judgment about at what point you give more 9895301004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 118 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr Martin Paterson, Ms Valerie Saint and Mr Michael Hunt information than is useful and what information is Mr Hunt: Also it raises the point that manufacturers useful, in the context in which that information is are prepared to tell consumers about their products, useful or not.If you are giving information which a the issue sometimes is c an you or can you not get that consumer would find diYcult to understand, we on the label? There is no question nutrition have got, and I am sure we will talk about it at some information should be available for everything but point, the conflict between salt and sodium, for can you put it on the label and can you put the example.That is an area where you have to give current requirement on the la bel? If it is not possible, careful consideration as to what information is it is possible to get that information by other means there.I think, if you are provided with information if required. about, let us say, the three main nutrients, which are Ms Saint: I think the use of free care lines has the subject of discussion at the moment, salt, sugar extended the availability of all sorts of information and fat, in the context of, say, a guideline for the about products and our consumers can ring up for amounts of those nutrients, that would be the core, additional guidance and help on products if they I would suggest, of valuable nutrition information. want to. Individual consumers then break down into any number of areas of interest.Some people are looking Q512 Chairman: What is your view on the proposals for information relating to allergies, relating to the being discussed within the European Union and the way in which they want to conduct their diets, European Parliament prior to the elections on food relating to the way in which they want to do their labelling? What is your Federation’s view on those shopping. proposals? There is ongoing discussion within the European institutions, as you know.What is your Q510 Mr Drew: Do you think it is fair that those view on the various options which have been floated products which contain a higher degree of content of certainly within the Parliament and within the salt, sugar and fat should have that clearly labelled, institutions? so that the customer is absolutely clear that if they Mr Hunt: I am still not clear what the question is. eat this they eat at their own risk? There is an overall potential review of food labelling, Mr Paterson: I think that brings us back to what I which will now wait for the next Commission to said about context.It is important that consumers come in.We were hoping that DG Sanco would look get clear, accurate information, and if there are X at the totality of food labelling in fact, including grams per hundred grams, let us say, of fat in a nutrition labelling, and stand back and look at it product then that is very useful information for again and say, “Well, what are the priority items, consumers to have.However, that has to be taken in what must go on the label, what could be provided the context of the individual consumers themselves. by other means?” Maybe there are standard ways of Consumers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.The provision by other means to enhance consumer product itself may be a product for sharing, it may comprehension.Certainly we would welcome that be a product for eating individually, it may be a general debate at this point in time.With food product which you use in cooking to make another labelling, so many bits have been added on to, what meal, so again it all comes back to context. really is rather old legislation. Mr Hunt: I think there is the context of the overall diet as well.You used the term “eating at their own Q513 Chairman: What I was trying to find out was risk” and I think we have said the industry supports your Federation’s view on whether there should be the provision of nutrition labelling, there is a large such nutrition labelling legislation adopted at the amount of it given.The first line is just the factual European level, and are you actually in favour of it statement of protein, carbohydrate, fat and other happening, not just in favour of a debate? nutrients on the label.I think we believe that the Mr Hunt: First of all, on nutrition labelling, because current requirements are not unreasonable but there we have nutrition labelling legislation, currently it is is scope in a forthcoming review of nutrition voluntary although the format is standard and that labelling, which the Commission is going to is very important to take account of so it is undertake, to consider, as Valerie has said, whether comparable between products.The view, I think, there could be a shorter list for small packs to within the Commission is towards mandatory increase the possibilities.The solid fact of nutrition labelling, our preference is to retain a information given in nutrition labelling in listing the voluntary approach.If it were made mandatory then nutrients, the understanding of that information and all sorts of considerations would have to be taken the placing of that product in the overall diet, that is into account in terms of small packs, products for another issue.Also we feel it is a Government which it is not so relevant and whether we could have responsibility to see that there is adequate advice to a shorter list of nutrients which could be applied to consumers actually to understand and use the more packs.There are all sorts of technical straightforward factual information which is given. adjustments which need to be made to the old legislation as well.Our view is preferably to retain a Q511 Mr Drew: Is there an argument that producers voluntary approach with a standard format. should not include nutrition information? Is there an argument, or is it now given that it is the quality of Q514 Chairman: How would you respond to a that information and the amount? suggestion that food and drink be required to be Mr Paterson: I think the latter.It is a matter of the labelled with its means of productio n rather than quality, the amount and the context. that information being provided on a voluntary 9895301004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 119

12 July 2004 Mr Martin Paterson, Ms Valerie Saint and Mr Michael Hunt basis, so that, for example, non-free-range eggs and into manufactured products in respect of hormone-added beef would be required to display ingredients, they tend to be there in respect of that information on the packs? primary products and very lightly processed Mr Hunt: I think that is a very good example of the products.It is only just on the edge of our direct kind of information which arguably is of interest to concern. specific groups of consumers and could be catered for very adequately by providing information by Q517 Joan Ruddock: Given that is the case, is it your other means than on the label.I do not think we view that manufacturers would be very concerned to would be in favour of a very greatly increased check the claims which had been made by those farm requirement.Of course, manufacturers can provide, assurance schemes, or do you think they would just and do provide, any information which they wish to, take it that if they are in the scheme they are in the and of course if something is being sold on that basis scheme and that is okay? then the information would be given, otherwise Ms Saint: I think, if we were making any claims in there is not the basis for the purchase.In general, I connection with any of those assurance schemes, think we would see methods of production as being clearly we would want to be reassured that the claims an area for alternative means of communication and were supported and that would be part of our due the essential role of the label being to say “What is diligence.I think it is very important to us that our the food, what is in it, how much is there, how long specifications are met and that is part of our is it going to last, how can I safely handle it and commercial relationship with our suppliers. consume it?” It is about the product and not about its history.You can go on and on painting in the Q518 Joan Ruddock: They would not have checks in history of a product and that information we would place unless, as you say, they intended to pass on the prefer not to have to put on the pack. farm assurance information? Ms Saint: It could be provided by those Ms Saint: I think that rather depends.It can be part manufacturers who are targeting that particular of our specification anyway.I do not mean farm market, because it is not all consumers who are assurance marks on packaging, but in our general interested in those kinds of issues. corporate imagery, so to speak.We might be wishing to say we will source our beef from British cattle, we Q515 Joan Ruddock: Your evidence seems to know the farms, or whatever it is, in which case, suggest that you support farm assurance schemes.clearly, that is still pa rt of what I would refer to as To what extent do manufacturers require their specifications to meet our claims.I think that is the suppliers to be members of farm assurance schemes? most important thing for us. Mr Hunt: Manufacturers do need to source, bearing in mind the vast quantities of food which are Q519 Mr Drew: Has traceability gone as far as it can produced, from wherever they are able to source to do, in terms of the labelling which retailers expect required standards of safety and quality, very from the manufacturers, who in turn want to know broadly speaking, and so there is not a fundamental where the animals come from in terms of the requirement for farm assurance produce.Individual producers? companies may well build that into their Mr Hunt: Traceability systems are a vital part of specifications, they may require that, it would be on companies’ quality assurance procedures and go a company basis.If a company were on its product way beyond the narrow issue of whether you are carrying through some kind of claim about one of its backing up an origin claim or not.The need to know ingredients which was backed up by a farm where the ingredients come from and where the assurance scheme then of course they would have to products go to obviously is very important in terms make sure that was all in place.Broadly speaking, of being able to track back a problem or recall things the issue is to source materials to the required which have gone forward.If an origin claim is made standards of safety and quality from wherever they then the traceability system should be there to happen to be available.There has to be a certain demonstrate the claim, I think that is all I can say. flexibility of supply because if one should fail then Where it is diYcult to make specific origin claims, for you can keep making the product if you can source example, in the mixing of huge quantities of bulk from an alternative place. ingredients, you can’t be very, very specific.There again you are buying to a quality and a safety Q516 Joan Ruddock: Is it a growing phenomenon, criterion and it may be much more diYcult to know manufacturers requiring produce to come from farm about specific origin.In that case you would not be assurance schemes? making a claim.I think the systems are there to Mr Hunt: I am unable to answer that, I am afraid. support the claims which are made, they have to be. On the whole farm assurance movement, one can I do not know if I have quite answered your question have great sympathy for the desire, as it were, to sort but sometimes there is confusion between the farm of badge farm assurance onto agricultural and assurance and the origin claim and the issue of horticultural produce for consumers for whom the traceability, which is altogether a much vaster whole agricultural and horticultural industry, I subject. suppose, is something of a haze and bring it nearer home and give that connection with the consumer. Q520 Mr Drew: It is, but I think the consumer would With regard to our supply of materials, we are not want to know that traceability is as good as it generally carrying through farm assurance marks suggests it is, and one would have thought that it 9895301004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 120 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr Martin Paterson, Ms Valerie Saint and Mr Michael Hunt would be an obvious area for the consumer to expect Ms Saint: I cannot answer that question. the food chain to invest time and money in, which is Mr Paterson: I am afraid I do not know the answer to look at the nutritional input right from the to that question.I am very ha ppy to go back and see producer up the line.Really I am asking you again, if we do know the answer and write to you, is traceability something which can be improved Chairman.The fact is, tha t the nutrition upon? information is there, and is available to customers. Ms Saint: I think it would be quite hard to improve on it.Certainly I think that responsible companies, Q523 Chairman: If you do have that information and hopefully our members are, find this an available it will be helpful for us to receive it in incredibly important area.I think, to be honest, the writing after the meeting.Can I turn now to the role Food Safety Act in 1990 was one of the things which which Government has to play in the issue of food stimulated a huge amount of work on traceability of information.How clear a message do you feel you ingredients from the safety perspective.That has had get, as an industry, from Government and from the a very positive impact on traceability of all kinds. diVerent departments and agencies of Government We are able to trace our supplies back.That is on what should be the priorities for communicating important to us, from the product liability point of information in the food information field? view, but also it is important because of our promise Mr Paterson: I think in the last couple of years there to our consumers. has been something of a history of a lack of clarity, a lack of joined-up government, if you like, but Q521 Chairman: Can you tell me how active a role actually that has been getting better.I think that the you play, as manufacturers, in supplying process, particularly the consultation process of the information to your customers in the food service proposed White Paper, “Choosing Health”, has sector? This is a sector where caterers, in general, are enabled an easier focus, through the Department of not required to provide their customers with Health, on what is important.The roles of the Food nutrition information, and by and large do not do Standards Agency and the Department of Health so.Are they aware themselves of the nutritional are sometimes diYcult for manufacturers, and profile of the food which they are serving, and what indeed other stakeholders up and down the food do you think is the role you have got in ensuring that chain, to unpick.In both cases we have taken the your own customers are providing information of view that both organisations are arms of that nature? Government and that we must do our very best to Ms Saint: Certainly we are required to give certain not pick a path between them but to engage fully and information to the food service sector, that is completely with both operations. absolutely important, and ingredients and general Chairman: I think Joan Ruddock wants to pursue a safety information, and so forth, about the product particular example of policy. we have to do as statute.Whilst nutrition information is voluntary we do give that Q524 Joan Ruddock: It is the initiative on cutting the information to our food service customers if they salt level.Obviously, this has proved quite require it, if they want it they can have it.I think controversial.I would be interested to know whether quite a lot of us are giving it voluntarily anyway, you felt this was an appropriate initiative by whether they want it or not, but certainly, if they do Government and how you would respond to that? require it, it will be a commercial arrangement Mr Paterson: Can I start by giving just a little bit of between us to provide it.What they do with that history.In fact, up until 2000, there was no information, of course, subsequently is slightly more nationwide, industry-wide information on the use of complex because it will depend how they are using salt or sodium in manufacturing foods.The Food our products.Where they are serving them in a and Drink Federation commissioned and produced, formulaic sort of restaurant, if you like, where for the very first time, a survey to provide us with a everything is very much the same, then it is very easy baseline for that very information.This was of for us to provide them with information and for course before the Food Standards Agency came into them just to translate that directly into consumer being and we shared that information with the information.However, if we are providing predecessor organisation. something which is to be served with other ingredients or to be dressed up by the chef to be a bit Q525 Joan Ruddock: What was the motivation for more creative then clearly they have to allow for doing that? what they are doing to our products when they are Mr Paterson: That was in the discussions leading up giving nutritional information to their consumers. to the Food Safety Bill which brought about the The answer to your question is that certainly we will Food Standards Agency, and discussions with the give them the information if they require it.Very shadow agency, which was called, I think, the Joint often we give them the information even if they do Food Safety Standards Group.Conversations were not want it. facilitated.The whole process of establishing the Foods Standards Agency was to unpick food safety Q522 Chairman: Do you find there is any substantial issues from the then MAFF.As part of that, we were number of customers who ask you for that able to engage from the very beginning in pretty information or require you to give more information fruitful dialogue, and as a result of that we than normally you would provide? Is there a demand undertook to do this piece of work, which took quite for it? a long time, I think about 18 months, and then we 9895301004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 121

12 July 2004 Mr Martin Paterson, Ms Valerie Saint and Mr Michael Hunt shared that information.As you can well imagine, a progress, made signific ant cuts and the range of lot of the information was produced on the basis that foods is pretty similar, is it not, across diVerent it was to be shared with the JFSSG and that it was companies? still commercially confidential.In fact, this was the Mr Paterson: Frankly, it was something of a basis for what you have described as a Government triumph that, as a trade association, we were able to initiative, it was pretty much a partnership between abstract the commercial and competitive elements the then Food Standards Agency predecessor and from what became known as project Neptune, which the food and drink manufacturing industry.If I can was a group of companies agreeing to take salt out leap forward in time, during the course of the year of soups and sauces.That was very diYcult to do, before last, with the results coming last year, we actually, but as part of this process, you are quite agreed sectors of processed foods to which the Food right, many companies looked perhaps at the Standards Agency felt contributed substantially, processes and realised they could do diVerent things particularly to children’s diets.Also the Food and in di Verent areas, and so forth, and they are perfectly Drink Federation set about pulling together the at liberty to do that, and that is the way that these main operators, trying to see, on an industry-wide things work.It is the ca se that they take a calculated basis, whether we could reduce salt in a way which risk—but a risk nevertheless—that their consumers would be monitored by the Food Standards Agency will not try that product once, put it back and go and in a way which would be satisfactory to them.I back to another product which perhaps has got a am quite keen to make something of that, because little more salt in it.We ma ke no bones about it. one of the reasons for a certain amount of ire, which There are many technological reasons and many you may just have detected perhaps in a letter which food safety reasons, but on the majority of occasions was published, which we sent to the Health salt is used primarily for taste. Secretary, was the suggestion that perhaps we were dragging our feet and perhaps we had to be whipped Q529 Chairman: How many of your members have along a little.We do think it is a very worthwhile subscribed to the salt reduction programme? initiative, as do the companies out there on the Mr Paterson: In terms of the areas which we agreed ground who actually have to sell these products.We with the Food Standards Agency, which was soups feel that targets cannot be plucked out of the air, that and sauces and then we went on to quantify if you take salt out of a product and it is left on the reductions which could be made in cereals and supermarket shelf, or a consumer puts salt into that reductions which could be made in bread, that was product at home, then nobody has been served, the entire sector.I do have to say though, because we potentially the product has been damaged and are coming no doubt to the same thoughts in the potentially the company and the jobs reliant on that other areas of fat and sugar, that it is a diVerent company have been damaged.This is a process kettle of fish, and those discussions no doubt will be which perhaps in some areas is reaching the edges of had.I would not be as confident, knowing that it was the technological potential of salt or sodium quite a diYcult job, as I say, to abstract the reduction.We feel that a great deal of work has been competitive element of salt reduction, when we come done and the industry has demonstrated a to sugar and fat.I think that already we are seeing a willingness to play a part. great deal of movement by individual companies who are either making changes to the composition of Q526 Joan Ruddock: Do you think you might ward individual products or they are making variants of V oV legislation? products with di erent compositions.They are Mr Paterson: The intention is not to ward oV providing choice in order that the market can work legislation, the intention is to play our part.We took in that way and consumers benefit from that.It is not a view as an industry after much hand-wringing and necessarily the case that we will be able to do the internal argument over what was correct and same thing in sugar and fat as we will be able to do appropriate and the extent to which an industry’s for salt. sense of responsibility as part of the community should override.There will be some cases with, Q530 Joan Ruddock: If you are saying, which you clearly, potentially financially diYcult and did just then I think, that consumers benefit from technically diYcult issues, and we took a view as an these reductions— industry that we would participate, that we would Mr Paterson: They benefit from choice, is what I play our part as corporate citizens and we are going said. down that road. Q531 Joan Ruddock: They benefit from choice.The Q527 Joan Ruddock: How do you explain the fact science suggests, and I think this is pretty much that some companies clearly have made good agreed, that lower levels of salt, sugar and fat than progress voluntarily and others, as the Minister has we are used to in processed foods is to the benefit of most people’s health.Given that you acknowledge said, just have not? Y Mr Paterson: In fact, of course, it is all voluntarily. the di culties which may be faced in trying to get companies to reduce in the other areas of sugar and fat and that salt itself has been diYcult, is not this a Q528 Joan Ruddock: Sure, but I am saying reason for ensuring that every product has got voluntarily without being part of an industry-wide nutrition information on it, and indeed that the shift.Some companies have gone ahead, made Government ought to legislate to make this a 9895301004 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 122 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr Martin Paterson, Ms Valerie Saint and Mr Michael Hunt requirement? The choice would still exist but at least something else.I wo uld not have had a way of everyone would have the opportunity to know finding that out easily if it had not actually been on exactly what they were eating? the bottle? Mr Paterson: I think, as my colleague has mentioned Mr Paterson: I appreciate exactly the situation you already, overwhelmingly nutrition information is found yourself in there, but for the various reasons available one way or another now. already expounded by my colleagues we do not think that a mandatory legislative route would be helpful overall because it would catch the other areas which Q532 Joan Ruddock: Not on the products.Is not this my colleagues have already spoken about. the point, that now we all have these ideas? I can take Chairman: I think that concludes our questions this my own example.I was always taking a bottle of afternoon.Thank you very much indeed for coming fruit juice, as far as I knew just fruit juice, every along to the Committee.Thank you for mentioning lunchtime, and when we began this inquiry I made a that you will supply us with some additional point of checking up—it was one of these energy- information in writing, which we look forward to dense products, unknown to me—and found that receiving in due course.Thank you very much actually I was taking far more than I needed in terms indeed for both your oral and your written evidence. of calorie intake and I could easily swap to Thank you.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Food and Drink Federation

This is to follow up the Food and Drink Federation’s (FDF) undertaking, during oral evidence to the Sub-Committee on 12 July, to respond in writing to the Chairman’s question as to whether there is any substantial number of customers who ask for nutrition information or require manufacturers to give more information than normally they would provide. A brief survey of some major FDF members supplying the foodservice industry has indicated that products supplied are routinely accompanied by Group 2 nutrition information, usually on the product and, otherwise, in documentation.Foodservice companies regularly seek a sub stantial quantity of information on products purchased, including Group 2 nutrition information.Manufac turing companies’ own standard specification documents always contain Group 2 nutrition information. It would appear to be the general case that full nutrition information is available on products sold to foodservice companies, is usually asked for and is routinely provided by means of labels or documentation. July 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Trading Standards Institute

1.N utritional Content of Food 1.1 Trading standards is becoming more proactive in publicising the nutritional content of foods, particularly school meals and meals on wheels, as part of the overall health agenda.However as Trading Standards is local authority based any publicity tends to be mainly local, often regional (through regional co-ordinating groups) or sometimes nationally through the TSI.It is an ar ea, which TSI see as an important element to help education consumers to make informed decisions on their diet, which will help to drive up the health of the nation. 1.2 The way forward must be through a medium which can be understood by all, in a format which consumer will buying in to and understand, this will require a number of diVerent formats, some people will be interested in a detailed programme looking at the nutritional content of food, others will be not so proactive in looking for the information and in many ways the information will have to come to them in bite size pieces, simple messages. 1.3 Of course the best way to communicate the nutritional content of food must be at the point at which the consumer makes the choice to buy the food, for prepacked foods the nutritional content should be prominently displayed of the pack, not hidden away and it should be on all foods, not just those making a claim about being low in fat for example. 1.4 As regards food sold at catering establishments or food sold loose, there is currently no requirement to display the nutritional content of the food, however the consumer must be empowered to know what is the nutritional content of foods.To that end the nutritional content must be displayed for all foods no matter how they are sold. 9895301006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 123

2.S afety of Foods 2.1 Consumers do not really need to know that food is safe to eat, as all food should be safe to eat, they need confidence that food is safe to eat.They do, however, need to know the cu mulative eVects of eating a food or a particular ingredient, which may be in a number of diVerent foods, eg artificial colours.RDA’s may help here.

3.M eans of Production 3.1 The means of production with the except of fish and eggs is not communicated to consumers, there should be no reason for this not to be indicated to the consumer, however the consumer must be able to understand what each method really means and the eVects of that method of production. 3.2 Communicating the means of production is relatively straight forward, however, educating consumers about the implications of these methods is some what harder. 3.3 Approval schemes and logos can be useful but have an unfortunate history as regards their credibility. If such a scheme is to be used the rules must be transparent and have consumer backing.

4.E thnical Considerations In this mutli-cultural society consumers will have ethnical considerations about the foods they eat, the method of slaughter etc, most of this information could be and often is either labelled on the food or made know at catering outlets, it is, however, a positive indication, only food purporting to be Halah is labelled, consumers are often confronted by food with no indication for which they must assume is not ethnical.This is not particularly helpful, also, consumer who eat out may want information on ethnic considerations before they book a table, it is part of their considerations for choosing a restaurant for example.May be caterers could be encouraged through a code of practice to indicated particular ethnical concerns in any advertisement and/or menus. 20 April 2004

Witnesses: Mr David Pickering, Joint Food Lead OYcer, and Mr Phil Thomas, Joint Food Lead OYcer, Trading Standards Institute, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to the Mr Pickering: I think we have been enforcing Committee.Thank you for submitting written nutrition information requirements for the period evidence and we look forward to your oral evidence since they came into legislation anyway, so whilst this afternoon.Could I invite David Drew to begin there is always scope for improvement I think that our questions. there is a wealth of experience there already.

Q533 Mr Drew: Good afternoon.I saw your report, Q535 Mr Drew: What would be useful is for you to which has got the benefit of brevity, which we always like in this Committee, but it does sound as though give us a feel for where the existing rules are woefully you are a bit underpowered in this area, that is my inadequate if you want to see this area developed observation, given that I imagine your members properly, and where currently the anomalies exist so have a great wealth of anecdotal evidence, to call it there is confusion, certainly in the mind of the that, where you might want to go further.I wonder, consumer, who comes to you and says “I thought I as an association, how much you feel this is an area was buying something that was going to be a which is important to your members and really you relatively low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar content and would want to see some improvements which then now I find it’s just the opposite of that”? you could police? Mr Thomas: Wherewefeelthereareanomalies Mr Thomas: In terms of nutrition labelling, yes, we with the legislation is that, obviously, as do feel that we are underpowered, in that the mentioned previously, it is not a compulsory thing requirements to mark food with its nutrition on all foods to have nutrition information.Most information is limited to either where a claim is made ofthefoodswhichtendtobehighinsugar, or it is a voluntary declaration by the manufacturer. particularly, and also fat, unless they make a There is lack of consistency in terms of providing the claim, do not tend to declare the nutrition content information to the consumer. or any nutrition information.Also products which are sold at catering establishments, the consumer Q534 Mr Drew: Do you feel that you have got the has no idea of what the nutrition element of that expertise amongst your members? If there was a would be.For example, if you take a typical statutory enforcement of nutrition information, sandwich, I think a lot of consumers would maybe backed up with some ethical considerations, anticipate a sandwich being fairly low in fat, but if do you feel that without a great deal of training, they have used mayonnaise and butter then the fat retraining, this would be impossible? content will be fairly high. 9895301007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 124 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr David Pickering and Mr Phil Thomas

Q536 Chairman: Where there are food labelling or compliance without the need to go through a lengthy food safety laws, how many prosecutions actually formal criminal prosecution, which at the end of the take place? How many do you estimate there have day is what we want to achieve.What we want to do been, say, in the past 12 months, or breaches in is ensure that the food which is being sold complies this area? with the law in terms of its composition Mr Pickering: The figures for the last 12 months are requirements and also its labelling requirements. not available as yet. Q540 Joan Ruddock: You said an average of four per Q537 Chairman: For the last period you know authority, have you looked at those statistics by about? authority? Is it a case that there are some Mr Pickering: For the last period that we have got, enthusiastic oYcers and a few authorities have done on average, it was four per authority per year.lots and lots and lots and mos t authorities do not do Because the Food Standards Agency collate figures any at all? from each authority, and having looked at the last Mr Pickering: I think it varies by authority.I think report which was issued by them, it came out at it is not as polarised as that.Most authorities do take about that, and that was purely on food standards.their obligations under the Food Safety Act seriously and most authorities, maybe not in that Q538 Chairman: We might pursue that point with particular year, will take action, they will not take the Food Standards Agency later.In your view, how prosecutions but will take some form of action. adequate are the penalties where prosecutions are Again, the Food Standards Agency will be able to successful? Are the fines high enough to act as a give you figures probably better than we can, but deterrent, or are they somewhat small, given the certainly there has been an increase, I think, in the turnover of the companies involved? use of formal Home OYce cautions as an alternative Mr Pickering: I think there are a number of issues to prosecution.That fits in with the idea that, if a there.One of the things which we were going to company will agree to accept it, for an authority that mention was not so much the penalties, because the is a far cheaper and easier route to achieve penalties are pretty much in line with other compliance than trying to take that company to consumer protection pieces of legislation, there are court.I think written warnings will happen, but in other issues relating perhaps to time limits, certainly terms of consistency throughout the country there is for food labelling oVences.Also the fact that when not any.Probably that is because there may be local you are investigating an oVence you have to go issues which will mean one authority will be more through the legal process, quite rightly, but that active than another. places a number of obstacles in the way, especially with criminal oVences, which we have to take to Q541 Joan Ruddock: Do they tend to be proactive as prosecute a company.We have to prove it beyond all opposed to consumers coming to the authority with reasonable doubt in a court.One of the a complaint; it is going out and makin g developments in other areas of trading standards observations? legislation is the use of the Enterprise Act.That is a Mr Pickering: There are complaints we deal with but route via the civil law format whereby an injunction also each authority will have a food standards plan can be taken out against the company or the in which normally they set out the number of oVender if they are trading in such a way that is not inspections and sampling projects they are going to compliant with the law.Although penalties are an carry out.Itis not just a case that authorities sit back issue, we thought about it and felt that really, in a and wait for complaints, there is normally an active way, it was the whole method of having to go inspection regime, plus, coupled with that, a through the criminal law system which probably sampling regime.I do not know what the figures are inhibits authorities from taking cases, because but there are formal actions resulting from companies, for whatever reason, quite rightly, do complaints and the inspections and sampling which tend to use legal process to put their case, but it does have been carried out. take a lot of time.The time limit for food labelling oVences is six months and, although that may seem Q542 Joan Ruddock: Are most local authorities like a long time, as is the case now quite often, larger resourced suYciently to do that and follow it companies tend to want to be interviewed formally through with prosecutions, if that is the only way to by letter, which can eat quickly into that six months’ deal with a persistent oVender, for example? time limit.In a way, probably the process is not Mr Thomas: It depends very much on the amount of served particularly well by having to go through the complaints and the depth of detail of the criminal law side. investigation but on the whole trading standards are equipped to carry out investigations.We investigate Q539 Chairman: You mentioned the Enterprise Act complaints and criminal activity in all the consumer as a possible means of addressing this issue.Have I protection legislatio n with which we deal.To focus understood you correctly in that and has that been in on one as opposed to the rest of them, I think a of any use to you so far? general picture would be that we are able to cope. Mr Thomas: The problem with the Enterprise Act is Mr Pickering: I think it would be fair to say that that one of the specified acts which it covers is not occasionally authorities do try to go for the non- food and so we have not been able to use it, but we formal route rather than the formal.Certainly in the foresee it being a way in which we can achieve quick authority I have worked in it has got to a situation 9895301007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 125

12 July 2004 Mr David Pickering and Mr Phil Thomas where, because of the process, we have decided to again, obviously, the FSA would be able to abandon a prosecution because we did not feel we comment on it, the audit programme which the FSA were in a position to gain enough evidence within the have carried out has shown that within trading time limit which we had. standards, within the Service, that is the case. Mr Thomas: Because we are based at local Q543 Joan Ruddock: That is quite important, if you government level, you will find that we respond to are saying you abandoned it not because of lack of local needs.In certain authorities they may have a resources but because you could not get the evidence higher profile of food manufacture because of their in time.You are saying that the process is wrong, are general location, and so it is right that they would you, or inadequate? deem food to be a higher profile in those areas than Mr Pickering: The process does not help but in terms in one perhaps where there was not any of resources there is an issue, because if you have the manufacturing taking place.As a whole, I think it is resources probably you could throw the resources at one of the core functions. it to get it within the time limit.Given the resources Y which we have got, it can be quite di cult when a Q546 Joan Ruddock: Are there any other bodies company which you are investigating comes up with which can enforce, not just local authorities? evidence which you feel you have got to counter to Mr Thomas: The FSA can enforce. win the case, but you do not have the resources to Mr Pickering: We had a think about this and we throw at it but the major companies do.It could be could not think of any other organisations which a small unitary authority, a London borough, or would enforce food legislation. whatever, with a small budget, trying to take a case against one of the major corporates, and it is diYcult. Q547 Mr Drew: If we can talk about the infamous, notorious, whatever you want to call it, case of Tesco Q544 Joan Ruddock: It is not so much the Eddie and Asda, can I be clear which trading standards Grundys—I do not know if you are aware of the department is taking action? Archers case and his meat—it can be major Mr Thomas: Shropshire are taking the case against companies which are not complying and local Tesco and the authority for which I work, Swindon, authorities are pitted against major companies? are taking action against Asda. Mr Thomas: To be fair, yes.As an enforcement body what we try to do is seek compliance, so we will try to get compliance first before we prosecute.Although Q548 Mr Drew: You received a complaint, if you are prosecution is principally the only tool which we wearing your Swindon hat, and you are acting on have got to ensure compliance, it is seen very much that complaint? as a last resort and we will use a number of diVerent Mr Thomas: No.The information was picked up by Y V methods which we have got open to us, advising the an o cer who was shopping there o duty and he V trader and using the home authority principle which saw the sign and realised that it o ended the we have which works very well.In general terms, the regulations. people who push the boundaries and cause the more complex investigations tend to be the major Q549 Mr Drew: Do you not need this like a hole in manufacturers and retailers because of the technical the head? I can think of plenty of actions you might abilities they have to push the legislation as far as want to take, like Tesco and Asda, but without they can make it go. prejudging the legal outcome this is a big case and, Mr Pickering: I think they accept that part of that in a sense, it is carelessness on their part rather than process is the fact that they are trying to establish a deliberately trying to mislead? bigger market share than their competitors.They are Mr Thomas: It is diYcult to comment on the case the people who will be pushing the legislation to its because it is still going on.Definitely you are right limits and normally that is where we end up in court that if they had been more careful the claim would if maybe we cannot agree on that interpretation. not have been made.If we were given the choice between having to prosecute and not having to Q545 Joan Ruddock: It is very interesting.Is it a prosecute then we would pick not having to diYculty for local authorities, we were talking about prosecute.Nevertheless, we are forced into a resources but just in terms of the number of statutes situation where we have to, to ensure compliance. which you have to enforce? Where does looking after food labelling and safety laws sit in relation to all the many duties which trading standards oYcers have? Q550 Mr Drew: In a sense, if we get further along the Mr Pickering: It is part of the core function of most statutory line, with regard to food labelling, trading standards departments and it is treated as inevitably this is going to lead to many more that.Some authorities will have dedicated food and, prosecutions? these days, farming teams because of the food chain Mr Thomas: Yes, although, interestingly, with this issue, but even where they have dedicated teams now particular claim, if the new health claims Directive it will mean that most authorities will have oYcers ever becomes law and pre-approval was required who can enforce food legislation.I think that the then obviously that would have negated this vast majority of authorities take it as being a core particular action because they would not have been function of what they do.Certainly I think that, and able to make that claim with the pre-approval. 9895301007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 126 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr David Pickering and Mr Phil Thomas

Q551 Chairman: On that general point, what is your perspective, we would see it as an important thing view of the debate which is taking place within that, by whatever means, that information is given, Europe about the additional labelling and health particularly in terms of fat, sugar and salt and also claims? What is your Institute’s position on what the calorific value, because obviously they are the should be coming out of Europe? four in which consumers are most interested,in Mr Thomas: We support fully the proposals that terms of their health and well-being. health claims should be regulated and that there should be pre-approval for all health claims which Q554 Joan Ruddock: Do you think it would be are made, even ones which relate to generic ones. possible for your members to police a traYc lights For example, not picking them for any particular system which made it easier? reason but health claims such as the branding like Mr Thomas: It would depend on how the traYc “too good to be true” or “be good to yourself”, those lights system was to work.I think the hardest part of particular pseudo health claims, which do not a traYc lights system is getting the information to actually make a health claim but give the impression the consumer so that the consumer understands to the consumer that the food has a health benefit what is meant by the traYc lights system.If to them. something is high in sugar but low in fat, is that a green traYc light, an amber traYc light or a red Q552 Chairman: What implications would that type traYc light, and how many amber traYc lights foods of legislation have for enforcement, your ability to can a consumer eat before they do themselves some enforce the rules? nutritional harm? Mr Pickering: It depends how the legislation is worded, of course, but in theory it should make our Q555 Joan Ruddock: Clearly, that would all have to lives easier because we will not necessarily have to be worked out and agreed across industry to make it take a company to court in relation to a health claim work at all? type scenario.The health claims area probably is the Mr Thomas: Indeed. one which is causing a lot of issues at the moment because of the growth of the types of foods which are Q556 Joan Ruddock: Supposing all that work had coming onto the market at the moment.At the been done then how would you view that, as moment it seems that every food which comes onto something which your oYcers would have to police? the market has got some benefit for us, and Mr Thomas: It would be just another add-on to the inevitably this leads to more claims in terms of work they do within the food area.We take people’s health and it makes our job quite diYcult. thousands of samples of food per year.We take them We were going to mention the work of the Joint to look at the labelling, the compositional Health Claims Initiative, which is helping to a requirements and against any nutrition claims which certain extent in terms of verifying claims.That is the are made.Obviously, that would be another thing other issue.It is not just whether or not the claim can that we would analyse for, to make sure that it be made, if it can be made it is how then can it be conformed to whatever light there was in the traYc verified, which, as you can imagine, is quite a diYcult lights system. one to verify from our point of view, it is a lengthy investigation.Hopefully, if it can be worded in such Q557 Joan Ruddock: How do you think they will a way that will work, it should make our life a bit enforce it? You say they would have to take it on, but easier in that area. spot checks, or what? Mr Thomas: Probably we would do it as part of a Q553 Joan Ruddock: We have heard a lot about sampling programme. nutrition requirements being displayed, labelled, on Mr Pickering: I think it would be just part of the processed food and food in supermarkets, but it is normal work really.I think the key to it is, as Phil much more diYcult when it comes to catering outlets said, if we did try to take action against a product and food which is sold loose.Have you any ideas you which seemed to be oVending, would the criteria be can share with us as to how it might be possible to suYciently precise for us to take it? To be honest, if it signal nutrition requirements in these outlets? is another scheme which comes in which is not well- Mr Thomas: There is a proposal to have traYc worded probably it will do more harm than good. lights.I am not entirely sure how that system will Then, for us as enforcers, eVectively it becomes work and how the message will be conveyed to the another claim which manufacturers can use to sell consumer as to what foods are good to eat and what their products in a way in which perhaps we would are not.We appreciate that it is very di Ycult for think, “Well, really should that be sold in that way?” catering establishments, particularly if they are making the products from raw materials, to work Q558 Joan Ruddock: Another meal for the lawyers, out what the nutrition content of the food is.We see is that what you mean? it as a vital thing that they do, because obviously so Mr Pickering: You mentioned farm assurance much food is eaten from catering establishments schemes earlier on.There are sorts of things like the these days that whilst consumers might be very red tractor logo and again that is something we saw particular about the foods they eat which are pre- as perhaps a good idea but there are problems with packed, where they are given the information, all it. that good work can be undone by eating the wrong Chairman: That is a point I think David wanted to sorts of foods at catering establishments.From that pursue. 9895301007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 127

12 July 2004 Mr David Pickering and Mr Phil Thomas

Q559 Mr Drew: Yes.This issue of relationships with Q562 Mr Drew: Can I be clear where the dividing central government, I am interested to know what lines are between trading standards and information you receive from central government on environmental health where you have got two-tier two aspects of this evolving area.Firstly, are they authorities? proactive with you in encouraging you to take more Mr Pickering: In two-tier authorities, I work for interest, including prosecutions? Secondly, what Buckinghamshire, so in Buckinghamshire there are level of information have you got with regard to four or five local district councils where their progress in Europe as a whole to see if it is possible environmental health oYcers sit.They deal with to get a common system? For example, do you meet food hygiene matters primarily.We will deal with with your colleagues in diVerent countries to see food standards.There is liaison between both levels what sorts of things they are doing and to see if there of government and we have regular bi-monthly is some commonality of approach which may be meetings of the food authorised oYcers from each possible? local authority. Mr Pickering: I think, generally speaking, the relationship with central government in terms of individual agencies is quite good and, on the whole, Q563 Mr Drew: Can I be clear.If a member of the we feel involved in the process of putting together public was to go to either trading standards or legislation.Certainly the FSA does involve us in environmental health and really it impinged upon the other area, you would be able to point them in consultations on a regular basis, so we do not have Y any real issues about that in terms of the FSA.I the right direction? There must be some di culties, think perhaps where the issue comes is in terms of in the sense that hygiene is an area where labelling interaction between the diVerent central government could imply one thing but clearly the actual quality, bodies, Defra, FSA, the DTI even. the word “fresh”, for example, is an interesting one to try to define as well, so really what I am saying is, is there going to be a drawing together? You have Q560 Mr Drew: The ODPM? answered previously that there are going to be Mr Pickering: Yes.We have got quite a few masters specialists but will there be a drawing together at central government level and I think sometimes between the field of environmental health in this there is confusion and maybe there is not the joined- particular domain and trading standards? up element which we would like.The production of Mr Pickering: I think probably it would stay the service plans perhaps is an example, where one same, to be honest.There is an understanding of central government body will require it and that may where our responsibility ends and that of well cross over into other areas which another environmental health oYcers begins and vice versa. central body deals with but they do not require a I think anything to do with labelling they are more plan.As local authorities we are producing these than happy to give to us, because by the nature of it plans, which are fine in themselves, but I do think they are not involved in it on a day-to-day basis. that perhaps there is an area of overlap.In terms of They know enough to think “That’s wrong but the relationships, certainly I think that the FSA perhaps I’m not quite sure what advice I should value what we do and, on the whole, we have found give,” just as if we saw a potential hygiene issue we the FSA to be a good thing really.would contact them and say “I’ve just seen something that doesn’t look particularly good; is it of interest to you?” On a day-to-basis there are quite Q561 Mr Drew: If there was a statutory good contacts, and certainly, as an example, with underwriting of food information, in terms of the Y food hazard warnings, these are issued by the FSA if labelling, would this be an area in which o cers there is a particular problem with a foodstuV and we within trading standards would have to specialise co-ordinate on them to take appropriate action. because of the level of knowledge which would be Y Certainly at the two-tier level, I am not speaking on required? Presumably, your o cers are mainly behalf of environmental health oYcers but they generic at the moment, they are not necessarily seem quite pleased to be able to give the food specialising in the food area, but if there was a labelling to us because they do not deal with it.I proper statutory code they would need to know think they would say they do not necessarily have what they were doing to the nth degree? the skills or the time to deal with it.In unitary Mr Pickering: It tends to vary from authority to authorities sometimes it is dealt with by authority.I think that the way in which the training environmental health oYcers. of trading standards oYcers is moving now is towards an idea of a person with certain skills and knowledge rather than a person who knows Q564 Joan Ruddock: On a completely diVerent tack everything about a particular piece of law.I think altogether, when the Government is looking at what you will find is that those sorts of people who devising food policy, to what extent might they ask are going out there doing it will have a suYciently you about how you think “healthy eating” messages, good base knowledge to enforce the everyday for example, can be communicated? Is that information, but in terms of maybe the more something with which you get involved? specialised stuV normally there will be an expert in Mr Thomas: We get consultations through from the each department.Certainly there is a Food Safety Food Standards Agency and I suppose, in many Act oYcer nominated by each authority.respects, the Food Standards Agency is th e link 9895301007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 128 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr David Pickering and Mr Phil Thomas between Government and local government in food Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for the enforcement.We will comment and consult on issues evidence you have given us this afternoon.I think which the Food Standards Agency brings to us.that concludes our questions .It has been very helpful, as indeed was your written evidence. Thank you.

Memorandum submitted by the Food Standards Agency

Executive Summary One of the Food Standards Agency (FSA’s) key objectives is to promote informed consumer choice by improving consumers’ access to information about individual foods and food safety and standards issues. Its consumer information strategy recognises that consumers obtain this information through a number of diVerent routes.The FSA recognises the key importance for informed consumer choice of clear, informative food labels and has developed an active programme of work, based on consumer research, to improve food labelling.The FSA also aims to provide balanced information for consumer s about food risks, increase consumer awareness of key hygiene messages and improve consumer understanding of what constitutes a balanced diet.

Introduction 1.This paper describes the FSA’s strategy for promoting informed choice b y improving consumers’ access to information about food and food-related issues.It sets out the F SA’s policy on food labelling and its approach to providing consumer information and advice.It then addres ses in turn the four issues identified in the terms of reference of the inquiry, outlining the information provided on food labels and any information disseminated by the FSA.Finally, it considers the impact of W TO trade negotiations on food information.

The FSA’s Consumer Information Strategy 2.Since most consumers read food labels at least occasionally (in a 2003 su rvey2 31% of consumers said they always read food labels, 26% usually and 21% occasionally) clear, informative labels are key tools in promoting informed consumer choice.Consumers also say they get informat ion about food issues from newspapers and magazines, television, supermarkets and friends and family.3 The FSA’s consumer information strategy therefore has two principal threads: encouraging improved food labelling and provision of consumer information and advice, both directly and via the media and other channels. 3.The FSA also aims to enable consumers who wish to do so to see how its polici es are developed and contribute their views.The FSA’s Board takes all its policy decisions in o pen sessions, and Board meetings are webcast live.The FSA’s Consumer Committee 4 provides an opportunity for consumer organisations and representatives to contribute to the development from an early stage.

Food Labelling 4.Food labelling rules are harmonised at EU level; the main provisions are set out in the Annex.The Food Safety Act 1990 and Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (and parallel legislation in Northern Ireland) provide the legal framework for food labelling in the UK.EU and UK labellin g rules closely parallel Codex5 standards and guidelines, which have wider international application.T here are few restrictions on voluntary provision of labelling information which is not required to be given by law, other than that this information must not be false or misleading.Research 6 shows that 74% of those who use labels look for “general” information (such as name of the food, country of origin, use by and best before dates), 64% for nutritional information (such as salt, fat or sugar content, calories), 58% for information about ingredients, and 14% for “ethical” information.

2 2003 Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards, published by Food Standards Agency, 28 January 2004 http://www.food.gov.uk/ multimedia/pdfs/cas2003.pdf 3 2003 Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards, published by Food Standards Agency, 28 January 2004 http://www.food.gov.uk/ multimedia/pdfs/cas2003.pdf 4 The Committee comprises six members from national consumer organisations and six individual members appointed in accordance with the procedures of the OYce of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. 5 see paragraph 37. 6 2003 Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards, published by Food Standards Agency, 28 January 2004 http://www.food.gov.uk/ multimedia/pdfs/cas2003.pdf 9895301008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 129

5.The FSA has a wide-ranging Action Plan aimed at improving food labelling , comprising a mixture of regulatory and voluntary initiatives.This work programme is based on p riorities identified by consumer research and public consultations and progress on implementation is discussed regularly at open meetings. The objectives of the FSA’s labelling Action Plan are to deliver consumer facing legislation and to promote best labelling practice. 6.Key outcomes since 2001 include: — improved EU rules on declaration of allergenic ingredients; and — publication of best practice advice on: — clear labelling; — the use of terms like “fresh”, and “traditional”; — country of origin labelling; and — assurance schemes.7 In all cases publication of advice has followed public consultation.The F SA has recently published a survey on use of terms like “fresh” and “traditional” to help assess the impact of its advice on consumer choice.Further surveys on clear labelling and country of origin labellin g are planned.

Consumer Information and Advice 7.Because research identifies the media as key vehicles for consumer infor mation the FSA places a high priority on providing accurate, timely media briefing and proactive media activity.Agency advice receives extensive unpaid media coverage reaching millions of people every year.P aid-for advertising campaigns are also important; see paragraphs 15 and 21 for examples. 8.The FSA is becoming an increasingly important source of information abo ut food.It is now cited by consumers as the top spontaneous source of information about food standards and safety, increasing from 8% (2000) to 20% (2003).Most consumers receive information from the FSA th rough third parties including the media, local authorities, health services, supermarkets and schools. 9. In addition, the Agency’s website (www.food.gov.uk) provides comprehensive information and currently receives more than 160,000 visits each week and sends out 50,000 emails to subscribers every week. Special interactive sites to encourage consumer participation have been set up covering GM, food and farming, and food hygiene. 10.The FSA carefully targets its communications towards key issues and au diences.For example, a number of initiatives aim to inform children.These include a Bad Food Live!8 Video and supporting teachers’ notes on food hygiene which has had more than 5,000 requests from schools and the Cooking Bus9 which teaches more than 6,000 children every year how to cook (and teachers how to run cooking lessons) and covers nutrition, diet, safety and hygiene as well as the cultural significance of food. 11.A new advice and information site on nutrition and diet for the use of con sumers will be launched during 2004; this follows focus group research and will enable consumers to navigate their way around the website more easily. 12.Local dissemination of consumer information is achieved through loca l authorities, who place information from the FSA and links to the FSA’s website on their own websites, for example providing photographs of products being withdrawn, and tailor FSA press releases for issue locally.

Nutritional Content of Foods 13.Since many consumers use the nutrition information on food labels to he lp them make choices between food products it is important that this information is clear and informative.The FSA aims to supplement this label information with nutrition advice which helps consumers to choose a balanced diet.

Labelling 14.The Annex sets out the legislative position and changes in the pipeline on health claims and nutrition labelling.Nutrition information is provided, in many cases voluntarily , on most (industry figures suggest 80%) pre-packed foods sold on the UK market.However, research funded by th e FSA10 has shown that many consumers find the current format diYcult to use, would like the panel to give levels of the key nutrients—fat, sugar and salt—in words (high, medium or low) as well as numbers, and would find

7 See paragraph 24. 8 A spoof show demonstrating how not to cook. 9 Developed in partnership with the Royal Society for Arts’ Focus on Food Campaign as a state-of-the-art mobile kitchen classroom, which visits communities and schools to communicate healthy eating messages.Priority is given to schools in low income areas. 10 Nutrition Label Testing 2003 www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutritionlabelreport.pdf 9895301008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 130 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

information on salt levels more helpful than sodium declarations.The FSA ’s research shows that an improved compulsory format incorporating these changes would help inform purchasing decisions.The FSA is currently considering whether voluntary additional front-of-label signposting, perhaps using a traYc light-based approach, would help consumers to make healthier choices.Si gnposting could also, in principle, be used on menus in catering establishments to highlight choices high in fat, sugar or salt, and healthier options.

Consumer Information and Advice 15.The FSA uses a variety of methods to help consumers choose a balanced die t, including articles and information on the FSA’s web-site, a leaflet-series on diVerent life-stages and specific topics, media columns, educational and other activity in schools, and use of the media to deliver key specific messages.Specific examples include: — use of the media to publicise results of surveys of levels of salt in processed foods, which draw attention to the dangers of high-salt diet; — a supporting high profile advertising campaign, planned for later in the year, which aims to help to reduce salt intake by increasing awareness of the health consequences of high salt diets, will use television and other advertising; — an initiative promoting features in magazines for young women highlighting the importance of iron to teenage diets; and — a comprehensive range of information and advice on the FSA’s website, including an online expert who fields consumer queries.This advice is syndicated to regional newspap ers, reaching millions of readers each year. 16.The FSA has a wide-ranging programme of surveys to provide consumers wi th independent information on nutritional content.Surveys covering ready meals and sau sages have already been published, and work covering pizzas, baked beans and canned pasta is underway. 17.It is particularly important that children should receive clear advic e about healthy eating.The FSA works closely with other Government Departments, Healthy Schools Programme co-ordinators and non- governmental organisations on school-based initiatives which promote healthy eating to children inside and outside the classroom (the “whole school approach”).FSA initiatives inc lude, for example: — Five a Day the Bash Street Way, which encourages children to eat more fruit and vegetables; — Dish it Up! an interactive CD-Rom for 11/12 year olds; and — a toolkit for setting up a fruit tuck shop.

Safety of Foods 18.Although most food safety risks should be controlled during food produ ction inappropriate preparation and storage practice in the home can introduce significant risks; it is therefore important that food labels carry the information consumers need to use foods safely and that key food handling messages are communicated eVectively.The FSA also aims to provide consumers with access to honest, bal anced information about the full range of food risks.

Labelling 19.To enable consumers to reduce food poisoning risks pre-packed perisha ble foods must carry a “use by” date and any special storage conditions or conditions of use.In additi on, best practice guidance for the industry issued by the FSA includes advice on the provision of appropriate cooking instructions for high risk foods such as raw beef and poultry products.

Consumer Information and Advice 20.Media briefing is particularly important to disseminate FSA advice on f ood risks.The FSA monitors media reports carefully, and generally finds that its advice is accurately reflected.Targeting of key audiences is important; for example, Asian media outlets have been used to alert the Asian community to the illegal use of a carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1, in curry powders. 21.Imaginative and targeted advertising is an e Vective means of publicising safe handling advice.The FSA has developed and run seasonal safe cooking advertising campaigns directed at consumers11 during the barbecue and Christmas seasons—two “high risk” times for food poisoning.

11 These campaigns contributed to the FSA’s wider strategy to reduce foodborne illness, involving action throughout the food chain and including a campaign targeted at people working in the catering sector. 9895301008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 131

22.Consumer information on a wide range of food safety issues is available on the FSA’s website.This advice is often used by other organisations, for example Sainsbury’s uses our salad washing advice in their stores.Where appropriate consumer advice on the website is supplemented by targeting of vulnerable population subgroups.For example, when the results of an FSA survey condu cted in 2001 showed high levels of the potentially cancer causing chemical 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) in soy sauce, information published on the FSA website was accompanied by advice to consumers on the significance of the results for food safety.The FSA worked with the Chinese community by pr oviding leaflets in Chinese for distribution through their own networks. 23.The Agency sets up telephone helplines in the case of potentially serio us or high profile food safety issues, for example when experts identified a potential problem of contamination of milk sold at the farm gate from pyres during the foot and mouth crisis, and when a potential problem was identified in relation to the lids on jars of bottled baby foods.In both cases there was very widesp read media coverage but fewer than 100 telephone calls for further information in each case.

Means of Production of Food 24.Some food labels carry claims about the food production method used.Th e FSA has issued best practice advice which aims to encourage provision of clear consumer information to underpin these claims, and encourages the food industry to provide information for all products, for example via their websites or helplines.In addition, the FSA’s website provides information on produc tion methods which are of particular interest to consumers. 25.Food assurance schemes which set production standards, generally cov ering food safety and traceability, animal welfare and environmental protection, and allow members to use the scheme’s logo and/ or a specific claim on their produce can contribute to the range of consumer choice. 26.In June 2002, the FSA published an independent review into the main assu rance schemes aVecting products on the UK market; advice to scheme operators based on this review was published in August 2003. The advice, which aims to promote informed choice, recommends that the following information should be easily accessible and clearly communicated to consumers: — What the scheme seeks to achieve and what advantages it oVers consumers. — In what ways, if any, the scheme standards exceed the legal minimum. — How the scheme ensures that its standards are being met by member producers. — The scheme’s arrangements for monitoring delivery of standards, for example through analysis of scheme produce. — How instances of non-compliance are dealt with. — The evidence base for any specific claim, for example on food safety or quality. The FSA plans to carry out a survey of the consumer information available from scheme operators and to publish a collation of this information to help inform consumer choice. 27.The FSA’s website provides consumer information on organic food, GM fo od, and use of pesticides and veterinary medicines in food production.

Ethical Considerations 28.A number of claims relating to other ethical considerations, such as us e of good labour practices, feature in the UK market.The FSA is not aware of any studies which have surve yed these claims or researched consumer attitudes to them.

Food Information in the Context of WTO Trade Negotiations 29.The WTO is concerned with the rules of trade between nations and does not deal with food information as such.The main international forum that has relevance to in ternational food trade is the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) which was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice.Codex h as produced a wide range of food standards; there are a number of committees/task forces considering issues from GM labelling to hygiene. The UK continues to support and encourage the development of labelling standards that provide improved consumer information. 19 April 2004 9895301008 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 132 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Annex

Food Labelling Rules 1.The FSA has lead responsibility in Government for general food labellin g rules and for product- specific legislation on a number of specific foods.The Department of Enviro nment Food and Rural AVairs and the relevant devolved Departments lead on marketing standards, which often contain labelling measures, as well as on rules on country of origin labelling for beef.The De partment for Trade and Industry is the lead Department for labelling rules on net quantity of prepacked foods.

General Labelling 2.The labelling Directive 2000/13/EC defines core information that must b e given on food labels.This comprises: — name of the food; — list of ingredients; — quantity of certain ingredients; — durability date (“use by” or “best before”); — any special storage conditions or conditions of use; — name and address of the manufacturer, packer or seller; — place of origin if otherwise purchasers might be misled; — net quantity of prepacked foods; — alcoholic strength by volume of alcoholic drink (if more than 1.2%); and — where necessary, instructions for use.

Non-prepacked Foods 3.Labelling rules in 2000/13/EC apply to both pre-packed and non-prepack ed food.Member States may, however, decide not to require all or any of the labelling particulars in the case of non-prepacked food, provided that the purchaser receives suYcient information.UK implementing legislation requires information on additives to be given on non-prepacked foods other than those sold in catering establishments, and the use of irradiation to be declared on foods sold non-prepacked, including in catering establishments.

GM Labelling 4.The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or of ingredients deriv ed from GMOs must be declared and no GM food can be marketed in the EU without a thorough safety assessment and approval under the relevant legislation (these rules are set out in Directives 1829/2003/EC and 1830/2003/EC).The rules also require labelling of all GM food and feed products derived from GMOs, regardless of the presence or absence of GM material in the final food or feed product.Foods produced us ing processing aids which have been obtained with the help of GM technology (eg the enzyme chymosin, derived from a GM micro- organism, which is used extensively to make hard cheeses) and products from animals fed GM animal feed are exempt from the labelling requirements.Information on GM content mus t also be provided for non- prepacked foods, including in catering establishments.

Nutrition Labelling 5.The nutrition labelling Directive, 90/496/EC, specifies nutrition inf ormation which must be given when a nutrition claim, such as “low fat”, is made.The manner of presenting nutr ition information, whether voluntary or mandatory, is defined in Directive 90/496/EC.There are two po ssible formats producing either: information on energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat content per 100g/ml product; or information on energy, protein, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, saturated fat, fibre and sodium content.In both cases information on the amounts of these nutrients per serving may also be given.Informatio n on certain additional nutrients should also be given where a claim is made.

Likely Changes to Legislation 6.A proposal to harmonise EU legislation on nutrition and health claims (f or example, claims such as “low fat” and “good for your heart”) is currently under negotiation in Brussels.The proposal would establish a list of permitted nutrition claims and would provide an authorisation procedure for health claims involving assessments by the European Food Safety Authority.The Commiss ion is currently reviewing both 9895301008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 133

the labelling Directives 2000/13/EC and 90/496/EC; a proposal to amend the latter is expected later this year. The most recent discussion paper circulated by the Commission suggests that it will propose compulsory nutrition labelling on all pre-packed foods. 19 April 2004

Witnesses: Mr Neil Martinson, Director of Communications, and Ms Rosemary Hignett, Head of Food Labelling and Standards Division, Food Standards Agency, examined.

Chairman: Welcome to the Committee this the relevant minister from Defra who would be afternoon.Thank you for your written evidence, and involved but the briefing would be provided by the we look forward to hearing what you have to say Food Standards Agency. today in this oral session.I would like to invite David Drew to being the questions on our behalf. Q568 Mr Drew: Presumably there are some fairly strong opponents of these moves within the larger Q565 Mr Drew: Good afternoon.Can I ask you for companies in the food industry? an overview of the situation.What are the areas? Ms Hignett: I would not say that quite categorically, Certainly we have seen this to some extent this actually.In relation to nutrition labelling, I think, as afternoon, and last week as well, the need for clarity we have heard, there is the desire to keep the in this area; obviously, there is you, the FSA, there arrangements voluntary.There is not a very strong are the various central government departments and resistance to provision of information and I think there are diVerent parts of local government.Do you perhaps there is an acceptance on the part of find that this is an area which needs clarification if it industry that compulsory nutrition labelling of some is to be more eVective, in terms of really being able form is on its way.In relation to health claims I think to guarantee to the consumer that what they are there are mixed views, because of course industry purchasing is what they think it is as labelled and has the opportunity, through a single European therefore what they will be eating? approval system, of gaining access to the whole Ms Hignett: In terms of the current food labelling European market through a single approval.If you legislation, particularly the areas of nutrition like, there is resistance to legislation but also an labelling and health claims, which you have been acceptance that there is an opportunity there.I talking about earlier this afternoon, I think it is very would say that broadly, and there are mixed views, clear that the legislation itself is imperfect, there are the industry view is in favour of the type of some changes which need to be made to it.I think it regulation which is being proposed in Brussels. is clear that we need to have nutrition information on all foods, not just the majority of foods and not Q569 Chairman: What is the nature of your just on a voluntary basis.I think it is clear that we relationship with Defra and how closely do you find need improved legislation in relation to health yourselves working with it, given that of course your claims so that consumers can trust the information accountability is not through Defra? which they see on labels.We need to have a change Mr Martinson: With Defra and indeed with all of the in those two aspects of the legislation, certainly. government departments that we work with closely we have concordats which spell out in a fair degree Q566 Mr Drew: If we were to look at your role, of detail what the nature of the relationship is.Also notwithstanding at the moment there is no statutory the Chairman of the Agency meets on a regular basis underwriting, either nationally or through the EU, with Defra ministers and, as you would expect, what additional powers would you want at the oYcials meet with Defra oYcials on a regular basis moment, but if there was to be a statutory as well.I think I would say also that we work on a underpinning would you need? very practical level on a whole range of issues, and I Ms Hignett: Both of those areas, health claims and would say very constructively if we take issues like nutrition labelling, fall within EU competence, so BSE controls, where there are shared responsibilities those rules need to be changed at EU level.The in diVerent parts of the food chain, there is very, very Agency is actively promulgating, if you like, in close working indeed and I think very constructive Brussels ideas for changes to the legislation and working. supporting the proposal for changes in health claims legislation, which is under negotiation at the Q570 Joan Ruddock: On communicating messages moment.I think that the Agency has within its remit about food information, obviously the public being responsibility for negotiating on those two issues in on the end of it, who do you see as communicating Brussels and we are positively arguing for change. those messages at the moment and what sorts of messages are people receiving and what value is Q567 Mr Drew: Who takes the lead within Europe there in the messages, do you imagine? at the level of these negotiations? Mr Martinson: In terms of who has responsibility for Ms Hignett: When they are being taken forward at communicating messages, clearly the food industry oYcial level the Food Standards Agency leads for has a significant responsibility because every day the UK Government and the UK Government line millions of products of food are bought and what is is agreed across Whitehall in the usual way.When on the label is incredibly important in helping decisions are taken at the Council of Ministers it is consumers to choose.Also, we as the FSA have a usually at the Agriculture Council and it would be role along with the Department of Health in terms 9895301009 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 134 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett of trying to influence the balance of the diet.We have has increased and trus t in the Agency has increased. taken up particular initiatives, for example, salt, We are not complacent about the kinds of challenges which was mentioned earlier.Also I think it is which remain.We are also very conscious, in terms important to recognise the role of people like the of food safety, that we cannot get it wrong at all, NGOs and public health charities, because often there is no room for manoeuvre there at all, we have they are able to raise issues which might have to keep it right all of the time.That is a very escaped our attention.I think one of the things considerable pressure. which we have been keen to do at the FSA is encourage a much wider debate around food-related issues which recognises there is a wide range of Q574 Joan Ruddock: Have you done any research to voices involved.As far as the messages which are establish what use the public makes of the communicated, one of the things which is information once they have received it? interesting, in terms of looking at the evidence in Mr Martinson: It depends on partly from whom they terms of consumer understanding, is actually there is receive it but also their own personal circumstances. a fairly high degree of awareness among many Food is an incredibly personal issue.What we try to consumers of what kinds of foods they should be do, in terms of the information which we have eating, foods which contain less fat, less salt, and so provided, which is fairly consistent now in terms of on, more fruit and vegetables.As I am sure you are good practice, is target the information towards life aware, there is also a huge variance between what stages.For example, we know that when women are people know and what people do, and I think for pregnant they are much more receptive to, and many of us in government that is one of the key indeed want, more information about food, in the issues, how we try to turn that kind of knowledge same way as when women are breast-feeding.We into some kind of behavioural change.It is a very, have an enormous amount of information targeted very big challenge. at particular life stages, and it may be pregnant woman or indeed it may be people as they grow Q571 Joan Ruddock: There is also an interesting older.In those kinds of situations the evidence we example, is there not, about what you said, that have is that there is a fairly high use of information. people think they know what they should be eating, I think also it is important to say that, in a sense, it is and the messages which you give on the GM issue, quite fragmented and it is very clear that the poorer where the public have said, “No, no, no, we’re people are the less use they make of information and absolutely not going to eat it,” and eVectively you the less access they have to information.Conversely, have said “There’s no reason why you shouldn’t”? the better oV people are the more information they Mr Martinson: What we have said is that, in terms have, and in a sense they are information-rich. of food safety, the GM foods which have been approved are as safe as their conventional counterparts.In our submission to Government last Q575 Joan Ruddock: How do you account for the year we said there were lots of reasons why fact that most mothers now wish to feed their consumers probably did not want to eat them, which children with organic products, despite the fact that were much broader than the food safety issues alone you say there is no nutritional gain in having organic although they are still very significant, also it products? included environmental issues.I think we have tried Mr Martinson: I think that mothers will make to acknowledge a wide range of consumer concern. decisions for a whole range of reasons.We are not here to tell them what they should or should not do. Q572 Joan Ruddock: I do not want to go too far on In terms of nutritional benefit, certainly there is no the GM issue, but, I must say, when you say that reason to consider that organic baby food is any “they are as safe as,” I think many people would say worse than conventional baby food.We have never they are as safe as, as far as we know? claimed that, ever. Mr Martinson: That is true of many things which we eat. Q576 Joan Ruddock: No, you have been neutral, but Q573 Joan Ruddock: In terms of the overall clearly they are not taking your advice, are they? messages, how much authority, notwithstanding They are specifically rejecting that advice and going what I have just said, do you think the FSA has? We for something which they believe does make a V know that there is a growing acceptance, or more di erence? people believing that the FSA is the place to get their Ms Hignett: I think we have not advised people information.Do you believe that you have good either to use or not use organic food.What we have credibility with the public? done is analyse the available evidence and we have Mr Martinson: No.We have worked very hard to try said that, on the basis of the available evidence, there to establish our credibility and we set ourselves a is no diVerence in nutritional or safety terms fairly ambitious aspiration to be the most trusted between food produced organically or source of advice on food safety standards and conventionally.We have said also that we consider nutrition in the United Kingdom.The way we organic food to be a helpful addition to the range of measure progress is by doing a lot of consumer choice available to consumers, and we are quite surveys, a lot of consumer research, and on a neutral as to whether people choose to buy organic number of key indicators confidence in the Agency on that basis or not. 9895301009 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 135

12 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett

Q577 Joan Ruddock: It would suggest that people instance, when they are making “two for the price of are giving a diVerent weight perhaps to diVerent one” type oVers, to take into account the nutritional sources of information; do you think that? quality of the food which they are encouraging Mr Martinson: I am not sure we have a huge amount people to buy more of, if you like, as part of of information or evidence in relation to mothers corporate social responsibility.We do think that choosing baby food in that kind of sense.Certainly it there is more which could be done in that area to is something which it would be worth understanding encourage healthier choices. better, in terms of motivation. Joan Ruddock: It is a very significant consumer Q581 Chairman: How are supermarkets and the phenomenon.Thank you. catering outlets of the food and drink industry responding to your concerns? Are they moving in Q578 Chairman: One of the issues which we have your direction and how quickly? been looking at in this investigation has been the Ms Hignett: I think it is fair to say that it is very early food information, or the lack of it, which is provided days, and I think it is fair to say that there are some at catering outlets, restaurants and pubs, this kind of encouraging noises, but I do not think I would want area.What is the Agency’s view on how food to go any further than that at the moment. information issues should be addressed in that sector of industry? Q582 Mr Drew: Could I ask you to paraphrase this Ms Hignett: I think it is particularly important in issue of where we are at the moment with the relation to healthy eating choices, because people satisfaction with food labelling and what would you are eating out more frequently, and because we are want to see to improve it further, with also in mind trying to encourage particular choices in this case so how the EU is going about doing this? we do mind what choices people make in relation to Ms Hignett: I think all the consumer research that nutrition content.It does seem to us that we must we have done indicates that people are becoming look at ways of making it easier for people to make increasingly interested in healthier choices and they healthier choices when they are eating in catering are looking for an easier format to use for nutrition establishments.I think that is particularly the case information on labels.That is the priority.I think when we are talking about the sort of routine eating our feeling, as far as the way things are going in the out, so the lunchtime, daily eating out occurrence, EU is concerned, is that there are some promising maybe not necessarily as much the celebratory, signs. restaurant occasion.Certainly there does seem to be interest both amongst consumers and, to some degree, from the food service sector in using Q583 Mr Drew: What is the timescale? We hear signposting of healthier options to help consumers about the next 18 months, but is that feasible, is that make healthier choices when eating out. deliverable? Ms Hignett: The expectation is that there will be a proposal on nutrition labelling by the end of this Q579 Chairman: What are you doing about that? year, which would mean probably, if all went well, it Ms Hignett: We are looking at sign-posting would be coming to a climax during our Presidency generally, so both in food service and in the retail at the end of next year, and if all went well perhaps situation, and really there are two things which we it would be agreed by the end of next year. have to do.The first is consumer research to find out what consumers want and we have plans to do that shortly.The second is to look at criteria for Q584 Mr Drew: One thing which has surprised me diVerentiating between healthier and less healthy about this inquiry is the degree to which people do choices, and we have a project underway at the read labels.It would be interesting to know that as moment to work up those criteria. many people read the political manifestos.The figures are surprisingly high, and do you think that Q580 Chairman: What about advice and the general public will feel that they have been short- information on things like portions and on repeat changed if they get a fairly rapid response from oVers? Most members of this Committee, since we Europe which says, basically, “Carry on as you are. started the work, have begun to see things anew Voluntary controls are as good as we’re going to wherever we go.I was visiting a multiplex cinema at get”? That is not going to wash, is it? the weekend, and once you get past the bowls of Ms Hignett: I think, if we do not see an improvement pop-corn, which appear to be available in only ten in the usability of the nutrition information, and that kilograms or upwards, there are big food oVers with does not necessarily have to be done by statute, it which you get oVers to buy more things on top of could be done voluntarily, so we could have a that.Does that have to be addressed as well, because response from the industry which was helpful in that information takes you only so far if you are fighting regard.If we do not see an improvement then, yes, I against these kinds of factors? think consumers will be very concerned. Ms Hignett: Certainly we think so.We think that whole area of promotional activity is one which Q585 Mr Drew: Is that something which you think needs to be looked at and we have been looking at it the industry has understood? Part of the problem is particularly in relation to choices for children, surely, when you are talking about the industry, commercial activity aimed at children.We want there is no industry.There is a series of highly particularly to encourage supermarkets, for diVerentiated elements, from the larger companies, 9895301009 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:58:55 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 136 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett which presumably would not want to upset their Q587 Chairman: Have you been involved in any customer base, to those which are “fly by night” and discussions within the EU on the introduction of a it is not their problem? traYc lights system? Does it exist in any other EU Ms Hignett: I think, on the whole, I would not say Member State and what is your own view, as an that industry is resisting placing nutrition Agency, on such a system? information on packs.I think the issue is to get Ms Hignett: What does exist in other Member States agreement on a simplified sign-posting system which is a green light only system.In Sweden and in is helpful to consumers, because when you start Finland we have a symbol which indicates a talking about simplification then, of course, there healthier choice, and I guess we have that already in are always risks of oversimplification, so we have a our own supermarkets with the “healthy option” challenge to get people to agree to a simple way type ranges.There have not b een any substantive forward, I think. discussions at EU level on a sign-posting system which would work right across the EU.When we are Q586 Mr Drew: In terms of food safety, presumably thinking about sign-posting actually we are thinking this is very much at the back of the consumer’s mind, about something front of pack which would be in if nothing else.I do not know whether the figures are addition to the full nutrition information on the higher in this country than they are elsewhere in back of the pack.Otherwis e I think you do run into Europe but one would have thought that BSE, foot great diYculties in terms of oversimplification and mouth and various other interesting diseases because there are so many individuals and groups of which we have managed to visit on ourselves must individuals who have particular needs, so you need have pushed up people’s interest in knowing what is quite a decent amount of information on a pack in on the label and interpreting whether in fact it is order to serve those diVerent needs. true? Mr Martinson: I am not sure that is the case.One of Q588 Chairman: Could a traYc lights system be the trends in the last four years is that consumer introduced into the UK by legislation without concern in the UK over BSE has decreased European legislation, in your view? dramatically.When we measured it in 2000, 61% Ms Hignett: No, because it is an area of EU said they were concerned about BSE, now it is down competence.Certainly a v oluntary scheme could be to 42%.There was a recent study by the European introduced and that is what we are working towards Commission across six European countries and, I at the moment. think probably you will find this surprising, it found Chairman: As you will have gathered, we have some that consumer trust in the United Kingdom in terms diYculties with the timescale this afternoon.We are of food was the highest among the six countries.I expecting a vote very shortly and I do not want to think what is happening and what appears to be start a new line of questioning and be interrupted for picked up by our work is that there is an increasing an adjournment.What I would like to do, with consumer concern around personal health and Members’ agreement, is draw the Committee to a personal nutritional issues.That is reflected in the close at this stage and our Clerk could discuss with market.TSI were talking about the increase in the you perhaps how we can pur sue at a later stage the number of foods coming onto the market making other points with which we wish to deal.I apologise health claims.That is happening partly because for that but I think it is be tter to break at this stage consumers are saying, “Actually, we’re concerned rather than have a break at a later point.I would like about our personal health, we want to improve our to thank you for coming along this afternoon and own health outcomes.” In a sense, there is a trend perhaps we will be seeing you or hearing from you there on which we are very keen to try to capitalise.again shortly.Thankyo u very much indeed. 9906191005 Page Type [SO] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 137

Tuesday 20 July 2004

Members present:

Mr Mark Lazarowicz, in the Chair

Mr David Drew Mr Austin Mitchell Mr Michael Jack Joan Ruddock

Witnesses: Mr Neil Martinson, Director of Communications, and Ms Rosemary Hignett, Head of Food Labelling and Standards Division, Food Standards Agency, examined.

Q589 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and survey,whichisquiteoftenbasedonmarketshare, gentlemen.Welcome back to Rosemary Hignett retailers will appear fairly high up, but certainly we and Neil Martinson from the Food Standards would say that we deal with it in a fair and Agency.Thank you very much indeed for returning consistent way. to our evidence session this afternoon.My apologies once again for the way we had to end the Q592 Mr Mitchell: Yes, but things like labelling go sessionlastweekandwearegratefulthatyouhave right back down the food chain, do they not? How returned today.Could I begin by asking for your do you ensure that your message is going to reach views as to how clear it is who and which the key players before the supermarkets? departments within government have responsibility Mr Martinson: We also have a relationship with the for food policy? It has been suggested in some major manufacturers through organisations like quarters that it is fragmented in certain ways.How the Food and Drink Federation, and clearly in far do you find the diVerent parts of government terms of any of our major surveys major branded work together and relate to what you do as an products appear in them as well, so I do not think agency? we quite accept that particular line of argument. Mr Martinson: The Agency has concordats in place with both Defra and the Department of Health. Q593 Mr Mitchell: That is surveys that you are They spell out the principles and in some cases some talking about, but when it comes to labelling and degree of detail as to what the division of instructions it is easiest for you, is it not, to work responsibilities is.In relation to the Food Standards through the supermarkets and tell them they must Agency, it is fairly clear that we are responsible for do so-and-so? My impression is that that is what issues in relation to food safety, food standards and you do because it is an easy way out. enforcement, and also in providing primarily the Ms Hignett: When we are developing labelling evidence and the advice in relation to nutrition policy we always discuss our ideas and the issues policy. with all stakeholders and that will always include the retailers.We also always include manufacturers Q590 Chairman: Are you aware of any cross- and it will also include enforcers and the catering departmental working bodies being set up, for sector where that is relevant.We are always careful example, in which you have an involvement? to involve everybody in those discussions. Mr Martinson: There are a considerable number of Certainly, as Mr Martinson has said, retailers are cross-departmental working bodies on anything major players so they must expect to be involved. from BSE to contributions to the Food and Health Action Plan.I cannot list them all but there is a very Q594 Mr Mitchell: You referred to a proportionate significant number, and, of course, oYcials work response.What is a proportionate response? When on a daily basis across departments on particular you get these food panics developing and the Daily issues. Mail highlights something as dangerous, children are dying and shock, horror, how do you respond Q591 Mr Mitchell: I got the impression from the because they are going to blame you, are they not? retailers that you focus heavily and heavy-handedly Mr Martinson: If we could just deal with the issue on them primarily so that as soon as a food scare of what have been called food scares, over the last hits the headlines, now almost weekly, you come four years what we have been doing is dealing with down heavily on the retailers because that is the food safety issues in a much more transparent way, most convenient point of access for you.Do you and when there is an issue all the major players accept that charge that you are working most involved are aware in advance of what the assiduously on the retailers rather than any other particular issue is.Th ey are informed in advance of section of the food chain? the action that the Agency is taking.If I could just Mr Martinson: What we try to do is deal with the quote from our annual consumer survey about the issues as they arise in a fair and consistent and issues around food scares, when we have asked proportionate way.Clearly, in terms of the people, “How concerned are you about diVerent retailers, they do represent a very significant part of issues?”, in the year 2001 around 11% said they were the market.Some 90-odd per cent of consumers buy concerned about food scar es.In a later survey, their food from the major supermarket retail 2003, around 2% of consumers said it was an issue chains, so inevitably if, for example, we are doing a for them.What we think is that in the way that we 9906191001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 138 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett manage food safety now, both by informing and Mr Martinson: We did not make the comment in involving stakeholders across the spectrum (and we terms of organic baby food.I think that was made also involve consumer groups) but also by being by a Scottish newspaper.We do a wide-ranging transparent, it has helped to improve confidence in number of surveys where we try to benchmark the food safety in the United Kingdom. level of contaminants that may be in a range of foods and in that way we are able to use it partly in terms of dietary information so it is possible to find Q595 Mr Mitchell: That is interesting; that is a out if in fact the picture is getting better or worse. cheering statistic.Does that mean you have In terms of most environmental contaminants the anticipated most of the food scares in advance so picture is getting much better.There is a reduction. you have got them on your agenda? When we published that, which we published on Mr Martinson: I do not think we can always our website, we made it very clear that on the basis anticipate any food scare that is going to come up, of expert advice there was no reason to be but what it does demonstrate is that it pays to be concerned about the level of contaminants because transparent, that in terms of some of the headlines they were all well below any levels that would give that you might see in some newspapers it does not any reason for any parent to be concerned across necessarily translate that all consumers are taking both organic and conventional baby foods. that message away with them.They will base it on their own experiences as well. Q598 Joan Ruddock: Does that not pose a problem though, because this could amount to a food scare Q596 Chairman: Can I follow up Mr Mitchell’s for parents who have very specifically chosen point regarding the impression that it is the organic baby foods because they want their babies supermarkets which perhaps get the focus of to be safe? Here is a suggestion that dioxins, which attention? We had questions last week, as you will most people believe are very unsafe, are more recall, on the catering sector and the type of present and yet we all know that they were well information that this sector provides to its within the safety limits.What do you feel about the customers.What you told us last week was that this message that you have communicated and your was an area in which there were encouraging noises responsibilities for that? that more needed to be done.It did not strike me Mr Martinson: I do not think we communicated that this was an area which at present was being that particular message.In terms of the work that regarded as a priority by yourselves and yet it is one we do in relation to surveys, we find what we find which is obviously important to many consumers in and we have an obligation to report that and make terms of the information they get about the choices it accessible, not least because it is used by scientists they make.Does that not perhaps back up the kind all over the world in terms of collecting data.I think of suggestion that Mr Mitchell was making about it is regrettable that it was reported in that way, and the emphasis of your work? obviously what we do is seek to avoid that, but we cannot control such reporting. Ms Hignett: I do not see us as giving priority to any particular sector.I think there is a distinction between pre-packed foods where inevitably the Q599 Mr Jack: You have made some important discussions focus on manufacturers and retailers points about what consumers should know about and non-pre-packed foods where the food service the food that they are eating.Is it important for sector is more important and the issues become consumers to have some benchmark by which to more diYcult and more challenging in the food judge, for example, messages about salt, sugar, fibre service sector because it is diYcult to think in terms and other nutritious intakes on a daily basis? of a one-size-fits-all solution because the range of Ms Hignett: Yes.I think the major problem with operations is so wide.Whilst for pre-packed foods the nutrition information as we have it at the moment on foods is that it is just a number given in the discussions tend to focus on legislation at EU isolation, so it depends if you like either on the level and then voluntary action in the UK, in manufacturer voluntarily giving some contextual relation to the food service sector the starting point information or on the consumer bringing a rule of is slightly diVerent.The starting point is one which thumb of some sort to the party.Consumers may is very much focused on what it is practical to not in fact have the ability to do that. achieve rather than a legislative starting point. Q600 Mr Jack: Where would a consumer go Q597 Joan Ruddock: I do not know whether the to acquaint themselves with this important FSA did the research or whether it published the benchmarking information? Do you provide it? research, but it is the issue of organic baby food Ms Hignett: We do have consumer advice on what recently in which it was stated that there were more constitutes a lot or a little of fat, for instance, and organic baby foods containing higher levels of we disseminate that through leaflet material and dioxins than non-organic baby foods.I wondered through our website. what the FSA thought it was doing in terms of communicating to the public when all of the Q601 Mr Jack: Your website, for example, does not products surveyed had dioxins that were very well have a separate page summarising the average daily within the safety levels? What was it you were trying intake of a variety of nutritious ingredients.It does to achieve in commenting on that research? not have anything on the same page summarising 9906191001 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 139

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett what the daily intake of salt and sugar is.That people form such a judgment w hen a large chunk of information is scattered about.Do you not think what people do buy contains no factual that in terms of informing people there should be a information whatsoever? starting point from which they could then relate to Ms Hignett: That is right and that is one of the all the other information that you provide? reasons why we are in discussion with the food Ms Hignett: There is certainly advice on the website service sector about what can be done to provide around what constitutes a lot and a little of fat, salt, more nutrition information in catering sugar, etc.I am certain that it is possible for that to establishments.The concept of signposting, which be improved so that it is more accessible and we are is being talked about a lot at the moment and which looking at how to do that at the moment.We are is giving relatively simple nutrition information in also very aware that the website is probably not the an easy to use manner, could in principle be applied best place to be providing that information. consistently across pre-packed and non-pre-packed foods, which would give consumers the opportunity to look at their whole diet and take those decisions Q602 Mr Jack: You put a lot of emphasis in terms rather more easily than is the case at the moment. of the role of the FSA as a communicator of food information on the role of your website.Your Q605 Mr Jack: In paragraph 4 of your evidence you evidence says so. indicate that 58% of people look for information Ms Hignett: Yes, our website is extremely about ingredients.Some may argue that things like important.What I wanted to say was that we think oranges have been around since whenever and you in relation to nutrition information that that do not need to tell them what is in an orange, but contextual information should be present on the if you take a banana, which contains fibre, natural label so that it is present at the time of use. sugars, potassium, all kinds of things, how do people know in that sector, in relation to their Q603 Mr Jack: Let me move on to paragraph 2 of benchmark, whether they are getting the right your evidence in which you say, “Since most balance or not, because the whole emphasis of the consumers read food labels at least evidence we have had so far has been on things that occasionally ...”—and you put down some survey are in packages? You mentioned the food service results.Let me ask you whether you have done any sector, which takes us slightly beyond the retail follow-up information as to what they are reading environment in buying food into the area where we these labels for and do they find what they are sub-contract our food purchases in restaurants and looking for? so forth.We come back to the retail sector.Is there Ms Hignett: That information is broken down in a need in your judgment to help people put together that survey in terms of what information people this overview by providing at the point of sale look for, so, for instance, the highest figure is for information of a nutritional content nature about general information such as, what is the food, can I non-packaged foods? put it in the freezer, that sort of thing.The headline Ms Hignett: I think I would give the same answer figure in there is that 64% of them are looking for for non-pre-packs in retail and in catering nutrition information, for instance, and there is establishments, that yes, if we are trying to encourage people to select a balanced diet then we other information in the survey about what the cannot expect them to do that unless we make other key information is for consumers.We also ask arrangements for them to have the information on in the survey whether they find the information easy whichtodoso. to understand and a figure of something like 25% find that the nutrition information, for instance, is fairly or very diYcult to use. Q606 Mr Jack: What has the FSA done to move that agenda forward? Ms Hignett: At the moment we are in discussion Q604 Mr Jack: Given that at the moment under with stakeholders across the board, as I discussed labelling, and again your evidence draws our earlier, about what is being called signposting, so attention to (and in fact your own comments earlier ways of providing nutrition information on pre- referred to) the fact that in non-packaged lines there packs and non-pre-packs in catering establishments is eVectively no information.Coming back to the and elsewhere in a consistent way that enables point I was asking about how does a consumer consumers to look at their whole diet and make establish a mental benchmark about what they those choices more easily.We have not found a ought to be eating each day, is there not a yawning solution but we are in discussion about that at the gap in the information provided to the consumer so moment. that if they buy any unpackaged item of a given size and quantity they have got no real idea how that fits Q607 Mr Mitchell: Iwanttocomebackonthis in with their overall dietary intake during the week? because I see you are doing information promotion The reason I ask that question is that some things for kids in schools, which is marvellous, although I we eat are labelled as bad, but if you balance it up wish you had the hero of my generation, who was with an awful lot of the things that we label as good Popeye, who always ate his spinach before he then you might have what some describe as a fought to a finish.All you have got is the Bash Street balanced and proper diet, but I cannot see with the Kids who are not examples of good dietary array of information that is presently available how behaviour in my book.I went to my grandchildren’s 9906191001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 140 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett sports day yesterday.They all sat down and stu Ved particular nutritional profile and we are looking at themselves with ice cream and crisps (very salty developing guidance on nutrition profiles which crisps because I ate some of them myself) and pop.could be used by character licensers.In e Vect the If you are venturing down the labelling path is there aim there is to reduce the amount of fat, sugar and a case for kids’ labelling to make all this salt in foods which are aimed directly at children. comprehensible to kids and warn them oV certain things? Q611 Mr Jack: What kinds of inquiries do you get Ms Hignett: There is a case for two things.There is on food safety issues? Can you give us the top three a case for looking at labelling for kids who are things the public ask you about? buying things from their own money, if you like, Mr Martinson: In terms of the issues of concern andyou have to face the factthat most of thethings almost always the top level of concern is around that are bought for kids are bought by their parents food poisoning.This is not necessarily what they rather than by the children.There is a case for ask us about but this is what is picked up in our looking at whether the information on foods that surveys.Four years ago the top level of concern was children are buying themselves could be better around BSE and concern about that has continued presented but there is also an issue around to decline.In terms of the third issue, I would have commercial activity aimed at children with a view to to look it up.Can I come back to you on that? aVecting their food choices and looking, particularly in the school environment, at whether Q612 Mr Jack: The reason I am asking the question that is appropriate and whether there are things by reverse is to say, in terms of information given by which could be done to make it easier for children the sectors of the food industry which promote the and for parents buying for children to make question, how could they be improving on dealing healthier choices. with consumers’ concerns about food safety issues? Perhaps once you have got the three you might like Q608 Mr Mitchell: But that is indirect, is it not? to give us some commentary about how the What could make an impression on kids would be industry communicates better to its customers on a label on the product like “Better unsalted”. food safety issues.We tend to concentrate on Ms Hignett: One thing that is very clear is that information on labels but that is not always the children are very much attracted by things like role place that you can deal with some of these food model endorsements, like cartoon characters on the safety issues. packaging.That sort of thing provides an incentive Mr Martinson: Just on the food safety issues, if we and motivation for a child to want a particular look at food poisoning the Agency set itself a target product, so to look at the factual information when it was established of reducing food poisoning content without looking at that overall picture by 20% over— misses a very important part of the jigsaw. Q613 Mr Jack: From what to what? Q609 Mr Mitchell: But that is an excuse for not Mr Martinson: This was from the reported figures. putting warning information on the label for kids. Have you considered having any special system of Q614 Mr Jack: Which were? children’s labelling? Mr Martinson: Which were around 70,000 a year, Ms Hignett: We are looking at signposting, as I reported to what was then the PHLS, and so it was a said, across the board and within that we are 20% reduction on that headline figure.Clearly that looking at signposting in relation to children, which represents a much larger figure that goes gets a bit more complicated because you have got unreported which is estimated at around a million a the issues of diVerent age groups to worry about, year.To date the figure has declined by about 18%, but we are looking at it and seeing whether there is so we have almost hit the target, but the main point something that can be done. here is about how that has been achieved through working with industry across the board to look at Q610 Chairman: You mentioned features such as ways of improving practices.That could be the importance of role models in advertising and anything from, for example, bio-security on farms packaging aimed at children.Are you doing in relation to chicken and the spread of anything in this area? Is anyone addressing these campylobacter to working with the catering issues and, if so, what are they? industry to improve practices there also in order to Ms Hignett: The Agency’s board has recently reduce the issues of food poisoning.In ter ms of agreed a whole work programme aimed at food information, by and large there is quite a lot of promotions aimed at children which focuses on a information out there already including that on number of things which could be done to make the labels, particularly in relation to preparation and environment more friendly for children wanting to cooking of food and particularly in terms of those make healthier choices, if you like.One of the foods which could present a slightly higher risk in elements of that is that we would encourage role terms of uncooked meat. models to promote healthier options rather than Mr Jack: If we are talking about the myriad ways high fat, high salt, high sugar foods.We have also, in which people can purc hase their food outside the for instance, looked at the initiative which BBC home, do you believe there is any need for some Worldwide has announced, which is to only license kind of nationally communicable standard by the characters which they own on foods with a which people can be assured that when they go to a 9906191001 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 141

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett restaurant or a major food chain or buy their food consumer’s mind.How do yo u argue about the out anywhere that establishment is in accord with balance between transparency and not worrying the best practice, because the last thing you people unnecessarily? normally ask about when you go to a restaurant is, Mr Martinson: The key issue is how you establish a “What is going on behind the scenes where I cannot relationship of trust with consumers and indeed see it?”.I recently watched one of these celebrity wider stakeholders.In relation to the risk of BSE in chef programmes where he had been advising this sheep, this was not something that came out of thin guy who ran some place in Yorkshire, I think it air.Scientists had been looking into this for some was— time and the Agency was very clear that consumers Mr Mitchell: It went bankrupt. had a right to know that there was a possible risk. Mr Jack:— and it was an unmitigated disaster, We were not saying to anyone that they should what was shown on the television, and I am change their diet or indeed avoid eating sheep. assuming that it was an honest representation of Certainly in terms of the research we did in relation what was going on. to understanding of that, that message did seem to Mr Mitchell: Not in Yorkshire. be communicated.As always with those kinds of Mr Jack: It was in Yorkshire. issues, you need to turn it on its head and we know Mr Mitchell: Not an honest representation of what from previous food safety issues that it has been disastrous when information has been withheld goes on in Yorkshire. from the public.On the oily fish one, I am not sure what particular issue you are referring to. Q615 Mr Jack: The point I am getting at is that clearly the public could have been exposed in those Q617 Mr Jack: If my memory is correct, the first circumstances to an enormous risk and the idea of announcement was two portions of oily fish a week food safety in running that particular establishment and only one if you were a pregnant woman, and seemed miles away, as with most things in food then you issued subsequent guidance which preparation in this particular instance, from what indicated that a greater number of servings was the restaurant should have been about.I question okay, and you then said that the balance of risk is from that standpoint how it was they deviated so far to eat the oily fish because the Omega 3 fat does you but the people up front did not know about it. more good than the potential risks you are coming Mr Martinson: There will be a requirement from up against.One minute you can be running to the January 2006 for all catering establishments to raise fishmonger saying, “Here, you can have this lousy their game with the introduction of new rules which fish back”, and the next minute you are going and will require them to document in a proportionate saying, “I will have four portions a week”. way the measures that they are taking within their Mr Martinson: If I can put that into some kind of restaurant in relation to food standard.It is called context it may help.It has been longstanding HACCP.Please do not ask me what it stands for advice, not just in this country but also in many because I always forget.That is about critical other countries, to eat two portions of fish a week, control points in the food chain, and certainly the one of which should be oily.A question to which Agency sees that as a good step in relation to nobody knew the answer was how many portions of addressing those particular kinds of concerns.In oily fish, given the contaminants that might be in addition, to state the obvious, consumers also have them.We could not answer that question because a role because I have to say that what I think is we did not have the scientific base on which to do paradoxical is the level of complaints and reports that.About 18 months ago we commissioned that consumers make compared to what they say independent experts in this country to look at the their experience is.The level of complaints is very research, to look at the evidence and provide us low.Certainly if consumers were more able to with advice.They did that around six weeks ago complain to the local environmental health oYcer and what we then did was try to present it in a way to investigate and then take appropriate action, that we felt was understandable for most consumers that would help. with a number of caveats in relation to vulnerable groups.It is di Ycult to see what else we could have done because there was no evidence before we asked Q616 Mr Jack: Let me conclude by asking a the question.We have now got the evidence.No question about your own role in communicating other agency in the world has been able to provide food safety issues.You were, like the proverbial that advice, so we think in a sense this is a step greyhound, out of the stocks over the question of forward.We are able to provide it with a greater oily fish, only on mature reflection to have to revise degree of certainty.Two years ago we could not that information.Do you not think, following Ms have given the answer. Ruddock’s observations, that you had not quite got the balance right in terms of waiting and assessing Q618 Joan Ruddock: It occurred to me that before you said something? I recall that equally you perhaps—and I have no idea whether this is right or were very quick in commenting on some very early not—people should be advised to take some oily research about the possible relationship between capsule as a supplement to their diet and avoid the sheep meat and I think New Variant CJD but fish altogether.Is that something you can do or can without all of the substance of science having been you only advise about the content and nutrition and completed, and therefore a worry was raised in the all the rest of it and the dangers of food? 9906191001 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 142 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett

Mr Martinson: Theadvice that we have provided is label things with some information beingrequired that you can get the benefits in relation to oily fish and the other European countries being far less from eating oily fish, but if people choose to take it concerned about that? from somewhere else that is their choice. Ms Hignett: I think that the task we have then is to persuade other Member States, and we are quite Q619 Joan Ruddock: But that advice is something familiar with being in that position of trying to youcouldordogive,isit? persuade other Member States.If there is a safety Mr Martinson: Generally speaking our advice is in concern, then whether or not a product is an terms of dietary intake from food as opposed to established product on the market we would be in supplements, but if people have specific dietary and favour of appropriate action being taken to protect indeed medical needs often that advice is from consumers from that safety risk.On the other side their doctor. of the coin we very much oppose any moves which Mr Mitchell: A doctor telling you to take pills would have the eVect of taking products oV the instead of eating fish would be barmy. market if there were not a safety concern, so we would not want to see any unnecessary reduction in consumer choice. Q620 Joan Ruddock: If the FSA thinks there is some risk, albeit that risk is low, and you are saying the only reason for taking that risk is because of another benefit and the other benefit could be Q623 Mr Mitchell: I wanted to follow up something provided by an alternative source, is it not you said in answer to Mr Jack.I think it is totally reasonable for you to advise that that is so? unrealistic to place the emphasis on consumers to Mr Martinson: Not in this particular case. invigilate conditions in restaurants.That is barmy. Chairman: Let us not pursue this line in too much That is your job.When I go to a restaurant I do not detail. want to inspect the kitchen—if I get food poisoning I will sue—but it is not my responsibility to inspect the safety of conditions, it is your responsibility, Q621 Mr Drew: One of the real issues about food and I think it is unreasonable to try and shift it on safety nowadays is the degree to which we have lost to consumers.That is just by way of an observation. national control of food safety issues because it is The point is you said you were having some kind of invested in the EU.To what extent does the work of certifying scheme from January 2006, I think you the FSA and now in the European Food Standards said.I was just interested in how that works, Agency mean that you are always subject to because you indicated it would be a hazard intensive lobbying pressure at a level in Europe assessment thing done by the proprietor.They are where the big food manufacturers will literally throw money at an issue if there appears to be a risk going to lie, are they not? They are going to fill in a of them losing their potential market? form and say “Mine is the best possible kitchen”.If Ms Hignett: As far as food law is concerned most of you are going to have that you have got to have an it is made at EU level, which of course, since much inspection system to make sure they are telling the of our food is imported from other EU Member truth and you have got to have some system of States, is a plus as well as a minus, if you like. certification that you can put up above the door Whether that subjects us to a greater level of “This has been certified as good, clean, nutritious— lobbying than would otherwise be the case I am not whatever it is—by the Food Standards Agency”. sure.Whenever an important issue is tackled, Mr Martinson: Just to pick up on that, I do not whether it is at national level or at EU level, there think I said consumers had a role in terms of will be lobbying. inspecting or invigilation.What I said was that about 2% of consumers who say they had food poisoning in restaurants actually make a complaint Q622 Mr Drew: We all know because we have had about it.My point was that that would actually conversations about a particular case, which I am assist in terms of trying to find out where the not going to go into at this stage, but it is just my experience when I have looked at the operation of problems are.There are something like 350,000 this area in particular, and this is real big bucks at catering establishments in the UK.In relation to European level because obviously it is the entry into your suggestion, that is being piloted at the moment world markets.To what extent do you think you in Northern Ireland and in Wales by the FSA with would be somewhat hidebound by the fact that local authorities.Local authorities are responsible there would be a natural assumption that if a for the inspection of premises rather than the product has become an established national Agency, and one of the issues that we are looking product it would inevitably therefore be accepted at into is whether it is going to be feasible when the EU level and then there would be very little you new regulations come in to introduce precisely the could do even if there was some concern over it? I kind of proposals that you have just suggested. am talking about manufactured products here; I am There are a number of diYculties with it, partly in not talking about fresh products.We are talking relation to how often a premises may be inspected about the big scale of the market place.I wonder because, clearly, once you have got it up on the wall what your worries would be if there genuinely were you have got no guarantees about what happens concerns being expressed here, particularly if it between that and the next inspection, necessarily.I came down to the issue of how we might want to think the other thing to say is that for most people 9906191001 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 143

20 July 2004 Mr Neil Martinson and Ms Rosemary Hignett in catering, clearly, they do not want to their Mr Martinson: We certainly are looking actively customers; it is not good for their business.So we into greater transparency for consumers in relation hope that is a good incentive.to standards in restaurants. Chairman: Thank you.We had intended to ask Q624 Mr Mitchell: That is inspection by some questions about the Farm Assurance Environmental Health, presumably.At the end of Schemes, but in view of pre ssures of time, if my the day, if they pass the inspection it is not just colleagues agree, I will pursue that in writing with testified to by the fact that the restaurant remains in the Agency and conclude the questions at this stage. existence and not closed, it needs something to Thank you very much indeed for coming along to display on the doorway.give us evidence you. this afternoon.Thank

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Food Standards Agency

Food Assurance Schemes How concerned are you by the National Consumer Council’s finding that food assurance schemes are likely to “confuse and mislead consumers rather than inform them”? The review of assurance schemes which we carried out in 20021 found that consumer involvement in schemes was patchy and that it was diYcult for consumers to find out what standards schemes were working to.We therefore developed, in consultation with stakeholders, includin g scheme operators, Agency advice to schemes recommending improved consumer engagement and setting out the minimum information we considered ought to be available to consumers. Can you give us an estimate of the number of farm assurance schemes currently operating in Britain? Would consumer confusion be lessened if there were fewer, consolidated schemes? If so, how could this be achieved? The review we published in 2002 focused on the main schemes with a consumer face, that is where there was a label claim or logo.We looked at 18 schemes of which 11 fell under the Br itish Farm Standard/red tractor umbrella. Reducing the number of schemes might help to reduce confusion, but our view is that it is more important that consumers should be able to find out what individual schemes oVer.For example, our advice recommends that consumers should be able to find out easily to what extent the scheme standards exceed the legal minimum, how instances of non-compliance are dealt with and how any specific claim has been validated. How can consumers best be educated about the various farm assurance schemes and the diVerences between them? Should one individual body be responsible for this? The Agency’s view is that providing clear consumer information about the oVer the scheme is making is the key to facilitating informed choice.We will be carrying out a survey ne xt year to see whether consumer transparency has improved since our review.We also plan to collate inform ation on the diVerent schemes to help consumers make comparisons.The Agency believes it would be helpfu l if schemes worked together to provide comparable information for consumers across schemes. In 2003, the National Consumer Council recommended that the FSA should institute a code of practice for food assurance schemes and a central register of complying schemes.Wh at progress have you made in implementing this recommendation? Would you support an overarching body—industry or government—having oversight of this area? Is the FSA itself an appropriate body to carry out such an oversight role? The advice on consumer involvement and consumer transparency issued by the Agency in August 20032 covers the main issues the NCC was concerned about.The planned survey work will identify those schemes which follow the advice and those which do not.

Consumers’Food Safety Concerns The Food Standards Agency tracks the attitudes of consumers to food safety and standards issues in an annual survey involving interviews with over 3,000 people across the UK. The attached chart shows levels of concern about specific food issues, tracked over the last four years. Respondents were asked, “are you concerned about any of the following issues?” and provided with a list.

1 http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/FAS Report.PDF 2 http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/labelregsguidance/foodassureguidance 9906191002 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 144 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Food poisoning remains at the top of the list of concerns (60% of respondents concerned).The use of pesticides in food is currently of second highest concern (46%).BSE has fa llen from the top issue of concern when the survey was first conducted in 2000 to joint third concern in 2003 (falling from 61% to 42%).The same number (42%) specified the conditions in which food animals are raised as an area of concern.

Concerns about specific food issues (prompted) Codes with biggest changes year on year shown

% 60 59 Food poisoning (eg Salmonella) 59 63 46 44 The use of pesticides to grow food 50 46 42 39 Conditions in which food animals are raised 43 41 42 45 2003 BSE 55 61 2002 39 41 The feed given to livestock 50 46 2001 38 36 2000 GM foods 38 43 21 27 Healthy eating 25 0 19 20 Irradiated food 20 24 18 22 Food allergies 22 25

Base : All respondents -2003 (3121), 2002 (3173), 2001 (3120), 2000 (3152) Q30 Are you concerned about any of the following issues?

29 July 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs

Introduction Information about food is relayed to consumers by many means covering many aspects of the quality and provenance of food.The Government’s overriding objective is to ensure th at consumers are able to make well informed choices. Within Government, responsibility for matters relating to food safety and standards rests mainly with the Food Standards Agency (FSA).The FSA also leads on the labelling of food.Ho wever, Defra has an interest in these areas and works closely with the FSA and other Government Departments on them and related matters.Defra also has policy responsibility for a number of other areas t hat have a bearing on the information and messages that consumers receive about food.This memoran dum concentrates on Defra’s role and follows the structure of the sub-committee’s terms of reference.

Information on the Nutritional Content of Food Improving consumer information will be a key focus of the Food and Health Action Plan (FAHAP) on which the Department of Health (DH) is about to go to consultation.The deve lopment of this plan is a commitment in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy.When implemente d, it will shape, co-ordinate and drive action to improve, through nutrition and diet, the health of the people of England, at all stages of life. The plan will be focussed on the nutritional priorities of: — increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables; 9906191003 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 145

— increasing fibre in the diet; and — reducing the intake of salt, fat and sugar. Defra has worked with DH, the FSA, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and others to develop the FAHAP proposals.The consultation will be a strand of the wider “Choosing Health?” consultation on improving public health which DH launched in March 2004.B oth consultations will inform the production of a White Paper on public health in summer 2004. The proposals will include bringing key stakeholders together to agree basic messages about nutrition and health and developing and implementing a communications strategy to ensure that consumers get the balanced information they need to make choices about what they eat.

Food Safety

In the area of pesticide and veterinary medicine residues in food, Defra’s responsibilities complement FSA’s wide ranging role on food safety.Defra’s role on pesticides encompa sses the assessment of risks to workers, the environment and consumers.On the latter aspect we work close ly with the FSA. The Government currently spends £2.2 million per year on a nationwide programme of pesticide residues surveillance in food and drink.Such a programme has been in existence sinc e the 1970s and forms part of the statutory controls relating to the approval of pesticides. In 2000 an independent non departmental government body, the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC), was established to oversee the surveillance programme.In part this was to ensure that the findings were made available to consumers and the food and farming industries in a way which is comprehensive, understandable and timely. Since the establishment of the PRC there have been many improvements in the way that information on pesticide residues is made available to consumers.Instead of one annual l engthy technical report, reports are now made available quarterly on the PRC web-site.In addition a more use r friendly summary of the information is published as an annual report of key findings and the PRC hold a public meeting each year. More recently, the PRC website has been re-designed and a new web-site can be found at prc-uk.org. A new leaflet specifically for consumers called “Pesticide residues in food—facts not fiction” will be launched in May. Defra’s role on veterinary medicines encompasses the assessment of risks to the target species, the person administering the medicine, the environment and consumers.On the latter aspect we work closely with the FSA. Veterinary medicines residues surveillance is carried out under two programmes.The larger statutory programme meets the requirements of EU legislation.The annual costs of £3 .7m are met by industry. The Government spends £1.1m on a complementary programme looking principally at imported produce. In 2001 an independent advisory committee, the Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC), was established to advise the Chief Executives of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) and FSA on the surveillance programmes. Information on veterinary residues, including all test results and follow-up actions, is published on the VMD website and in the VMD’s quarterly newsletter.The VRC publishes its pa pers and minutes on its own website and produces an annual report explaining the process and commenting on the positive results found, in a user friendly way.The VRC will hold its first public meeting later this y ear. In the animal health area, Defra works closely with the FSA and with other interested departments and organisations on animal diseases such as BSE which have implications for food safety.Defra is responsible for the animal health aspects of these diseases, and the FSA is responsible for the food safety aspects.

Means of Production and Production Standards

Eggs and poultry

EU egg and poultrymeat marketing legislation sets down optional indications of certain alternative farming methods, referred to as Special Marketing Terms.These specify cr iteria such as stocking densities, etc which must be met before claims about certain types of farming, eg “free range”, can be made.The Government supports the operation of these standards as they protect the consumer by setting high uniform standards and provide informative labelling. 9906191003 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 146 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Beef EU rules on origin labelling for fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal were introduced in 1996 during the BSE crisis with a view to ensuring public health and increasing consumer confidence in beef.Regulations 1760/2000 and 1825/2000 require beef to be labelled with a traceability reference code, the countries in which the animal was born, raised and slaughtered, and in which the meat was cut.T he label must also show the approval numbers of abattoirs and cutting plants.There is a limited derog ation for minced beef. The regulations require operators in the beef supply chain to maintain traceability systems to support their labelling claims.They also provide for operators to make voluntary labelling claims; these require prior approval by the Competent Authority and are subject to independent third party verification.In the UK voluntary claims are administered under the Beef Labelling Scheme.

EU marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables EU marketing standards exist for a wide range of fresh produce.Their objec tives are to keep products of unsatisfactory quality oV the market; to ensure that produce is accurately labelled; to guide production to meet consumer requirements and to facilitate fair trade under fair conditions.The standards also provide consumer protection in a sector where many products are highly perishable and serious defects can develop rapidly. EU marketing standards generally apply at all stages of the distribution chain, including retail, and at all such stages there must be clearly visible information about the produce.A t the retail stage this must include the nature of produce, its quality (eg class I or II), its country of origin and, where applicable, the variety name.At point of sale, this information can be given in a number of di Verent ways: for example, as a printed label on pre-packed produce, or a shelf label or display card for loose produce.(Further information on the standards and their enforcement is available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/ hmi.htm)

GM Foods Defra and the FSA have been working together on the development of the EU Regulations on the traceability and labelling of GM food and animal feed.These rules require labelling of all GM food and feed products, including those derived from GM organisms.They aim to impr ove consumer information by extending labelling requirements, lowering thresholds and heightening requirements on the retention of records throughout the supply chain.Defra and the FSA held joint stakehol der meetings on the implementation of these new regulations last autumn and launched a joint consultation exercise on guidance in March.

Organic Food Organic standards in the UK are based on the EC standards set out under Council Regulation 2092/91 (as amended).The UK standards di Ver slightly in that they are stricter in some areas, mainly in relation to livestock standards, in which member states have discretion. The use of the term “organic” on food is strictly controlled.Anyone wantin g to produce, prepare, import and, from 1 July 2005, store organic food will need to be registered by an approved Certification Body and subject to an annual inspection by them.The licensee must demonstrate tha t the produce has been produced to at least the UK national standards, or if it is an import from outside the EC, to at least to the EC standards. Defra publishes on its website a large amount of information on organic food and farming, including standards and the environmental and other sustainability benefits of organic production methods.We and the other UK rural aVairs departments have each published Action Plans to develop organic food and farming.At EU level a European Action Plan is under development to complem ent national initiatives with particular emphasis on improving distribution networks and information for consumers.

Assured produce Assurance schemes provide consumers with information about the way that food is produced, as well as a reassurance that certain standards have been met.The main baseline sche mes use the Red Tractor logo which is administered by Assured Food Standards (AFS), though some also have their own logos, as do the higher tier schemes such as Freedom Food and LEAF.Most schemes also have we bsites which give details of the standards that their members have to observe. The Government believes that assurance schemes have helped to re-establish consumer confidence in the safety of British food and can help to distinguish products on the market place.Although the schemes are privately owned and operated Defra has actively encouraged their development, including the introduction of new governance arrangements for AFS and support to help it rationalise schemes and develop a marketing and communications strategy. 9906191004 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 147

If assurance is to continue to be relevant to consumers it is important that scheme standards are both credible and realistic, and that the way that they are set and monitored is transparent.We therefore support the guidance on assurance that the FSA issued following its review of assurance schemes.

EU protected food names scheme EU legislation provides for a system for the protection of food names that have an established link to a geographical area or are based on traditional recipes.Names that have n granted protection can only be used within the Community for products that have been produced within a defined area to an agreed specification.Producers of such foods are subject to regular inspection b y accredited certification bodies to ensure conformity with the registered specification.Registered product s are entitled to carry an EU symbol that can help consumers recognise the product as traditional and authentic. Thirty five UK products have been registered under the scheme including Cornish Clotted Cream, Stilton Cheese and Arbroath Smokies.

Local food There is an increasing interest among consumers and retailers in local foods.In developing our policy on local foods we found that there are diVering views on how the term “local” should be defined.We have discussed this with the FSA who are considering the possibility of producing guidelines on the use of the term. Farm shops and farmers’ markets represent an important outlet for locally produced food.They also enable consumers to deal directly with producers and, in doing so, provide an opportunity to learn more about the way that food is produced.Defra sees the growth of the farmers mar ket movement as a positive development.We have been actively supporting the work of the National Ass ociation of Farmers’ Markets and its successor, the National Farmers’ Retail and Markets Association.

Ethical considerations Ethical considerations concerning issues such animal welfare, the environment and labour standards underlie a range of products and schemes.Defra has been working with DFID, which provides financial support to the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), and the DTI to encourage food and drink companies to observe ethical standards in international supply chains such as coVee. We have also been working with a broad group of businesses and organisations in the food supply chain, brought together by the ETI, to trial a Code of Practice for labour providers in the fresh produce sector. The Code sets a standard for how professional labour provider businesses can operate within the law. Retailers, who have an important role to play in promoting ethical practices at all stages in the food chain, have been closely involved with the preparation of this code. The Government is supporting Jim Sheridan MP’s Gangmaster (Licensing) Private Members Bill.This Bill will require all agricultural labour providers to be licensed.The re tailers support this initiative and will be able to reinforce its provisions through their involvement with the food chain. Information about the systems used to raise animals for food is widely used and some descriptions, such as those on eggs and poultry that are referred to earlier in this memorandum, have a legal base.The best known example is probably free range egg production.Such information can be used by consumers as a basis for their buying decisions.But the production system alone is not a r eliable indicator of animal welfare. Welfare also depends crucially on the way in which the animals are managed and that cannot readily be described on a label.

WTO The WTO trade round negotiations (the “Doha Development Agenda”) primarily concern trade liberalisation, with a special emphasis on development issues.Neverthe less, in the context of negotiating a new Agreement on Agriculture (an essential part of the round), the European Commission has sought to introduce the concept of mandatory labelling of food products by proposing the inclusion of an authoritative interpretation of Article 2.2 to the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.This Article concerns the mis-use of technical regulations as an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. The proposed interpretation would grant WTO members the right to choose the level of consumer information and protection they deem appropriate with regard to the characteristics, production and processing methods of agricultural products.In pursuance of this, the ma ndatory labelling schemes would be presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. So far the proposal has been met with almost unanimous rejection by other WTO members, who see it as an attempt by the EU to introduce further protectionism through the back-door. 9906191005 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 148 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Support for the Promotion of Information about Food

EU regulations for the promotion of agricultural products Defra administers EU Commission Regulation 2826/2000 which provides for the joint funding of generic information campaigns for certain agricultural products and food quality schemes.The qualifying themes include information about protected food names, organic farming, agricultural production systems that guarantee product traceability, the quality and safety of food and its nutritional and health benefits, and the EU code printed on eggs. Proposals should normally be tri-partite funded by the Commission, the organisation running the campaign and the Member State in whose territory the campaign is taking place.The most recent UK campaigns approved by the Commission focus on the promotion of organic produce, milk in schools and information about meat.

Rural enterprise scheme Among other things, the Rural Enterprise Scheme can help provide support towards projects that involve the marketing of quality agricultural products.This can include start-u p costs for projects that promote to customers the benefits of particular production processes, eg organic, and the development of regional or local branding.

Educating the Public about Food and Agriculture

Farming and countryside education Defra works closely with Farming and Countryside Education (FACE).FACE w as set up by the National Farmers’ Union and the Royal Agricultural Society (RASE) in 2001 with the aim to increase the number of school children who visit farms.It helps teachers and school children u nderstand food, farming and the countryside through the use of class visits to farms and horticultural nurseries and through farmer visits to schools. More information on FACE can be accessed at www.face-online.org.uk As part of its work, FACE commissioned jointly with the DfES and the Countryside Agency research on young people’s views on and understanding of food, farming and land management.The research was undertaken by King’s College, London and the National Federation for Education and Research.A copy of its report “Improving the Understanding of Food, Farming and Land-Management Amongst School- age Children: A Literature Review” can be found on the DfES research website at www.dfes.gov/research. FACE has also produced, in partnership with the Environment Agency, a video and DVD “Questioning the food you eat” to support the teaching of geography, science and citizenship at Key Stages 2 and 3.The video and DVD consists of short clips featuring experts who have diverse opinions about food and farming issues.These can be used individually or together to stimulate discussio n within the classroom.“Questioning the Food you Eat”, which is free, is proving to be very popular with schools and more copies are having to be produced in order to meet demand.

National advisory group for growing schools Defra is also represented on the National Advisory Group for Growing Schools, a Government initiative funded by DfES.Among other things, Growing Schools aims to raise awarenes s of the rural sector, of food and where it comes from, of farming and agriculture, of countryside issues and healthy lifestyles, and about increasing understanding and responsibility for the environment.The pr ogramme has been running since September 2001 and Defra have been actively involved in its development from the beginning.The new Growing Schools website, due to be launched imminently on Teachernet (www.teachernet.gov.uk/ growingschools), will provide access for teachers and providers to the vast education resource that exists in this sector.The Countryside Stewardship educational access site detail s (see below) will be incorporated into this new website.

Countryside stewardship educational access Countryside Stewardship is a Defra scheme which oVers payments to farmers and other land managers to enhance and conserve English landscapes, their wildlife and history, and to help people to enjoy them. The educational access option promotes the use, enjoyment and study of the countryside by schools, colleges, and groups for life-long learning.Stewardship agreement hold ers with educational access make arrangements with local schools or groups to visit the farm for learning purposes. There are currently over 800 sites available to visit throughout England, details of which are available on the educational opportunities section of the Stewardship access website at http:// countrywalks.defra.gov.uk. Each site oVering school visits has a teacher’s information pack which explains what is available on the farm, the facilities available, and suggests activities and educational opportunities. 9906191005 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 149

The pack was updated in 2003, with a new version being produced in association with FACE.This shows how farm visits can link to a range of national curriculum subjects, and how farming links to a range of services, including food production.

Access to farms partnership Countryside Stewardship is represented on the Access to Farms (ATF) Partnership which brings together various organisations (including Countryside Agency, DfES, FACE, Groundwork, NFU, Countryside Foundation for Education etc) that provide farm visits for schools.ATF me ets several times a year to discuss various initiatives, and to co-ordinate promotion of school visits.A num ber of agreement holders are also currently involved in a pilot for a voluntary accreditation scheme for farmers providing school visits being run by the Countryside Agency.If successful, we are likely to recommend ac creditation to our agreement holders.

Role of the levy boards The statutory agriculture and horticulture levy boards also produce information about the food produced by the sectors they cover.This can range from the general to the specific dep ending on the foodstuV in question, and the specific approaches taken by the diVerent Boards to meet identified needs. 28 April 2004

Witnesses: Lord Whitty, a Member of the House of Lords, Minister for Food, Farming and Sustainable Energy, Mr Bill Scriven, Head of Food Chain Marketing and Competitiveness Division and Mr Ian Newton, Head of Trade Policy Unit, European Union International Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs, examined.

Chairman: Good afternoon, Lord Whitty.Thank Q626 Mr Jack: That is a good answer from the you for coming to give us your evidence this regulatory side but that was not the question I asked. afternoon, and we are sorry we are running a little bit The question I asked was about food information. behind schedule.I see you are joined by two The Government has had presented to it the Health members of your department this afternoon.Could I Committee report on obe sity, and the antidote for begin by inviting Michael Jack to open our questions that—or part of it—is good advice and information this afternoon? to the consumer.The Government, by definition, when it responds to that report, will have to have a view about these matters.So I ask again, in putting Q625 Mr Jack: Thank you very much, Chairman. together views on issues like that and bearing in Lord Whitty, you are no stranger to our method of mind your department’s key sponsorship role for the inquiry.I read your evidence with keen interest and food industry, who is in charge within government, without doubt you have summarised in four pages on the question of food information for, from the an awful lot of activity that is going on in various Government’s standpoint, transmitting messages ways in which information is being transmitted to about food or deciding what messages the various consumers, young and old, in the field of Government would like to transmit about food? food, but nowhere in the document could I find a Who is in charge? statement about, for example, who in government is Lord Whitty: The response to the report will be a responsible for policy on food information.In the cross-government report but the FSA are the lead context of labels, for example, there is no statement department. in your evidence saying what is Defra’s view about labels, their contents and their future development. Could you enlighten me on, first of all—you are the Q627 Mr Jack: So you are saying that your sponsor ministry for a £55–60 billion industry, the department has no view on this matter? food and drink industry—who is responsible for Lord Whitty: No, I just said we have a view on a policy within government for food information? number of matters and we, clearly, have a view in Lord Whitty: If you are talking about mandatory relation to what information should go in, but if you information provided by regulation in relation to the are asking who is in charge, who is the lead food safety or nutritional content, then the FSA is. department in relation to food information, and on The FSA, as you know, is an independent agency— the regulatory and educational side, if you like, it is you have just been talking to them—and they come the FSA. under the aegis of the Department of Health.There are, of course, other methods of information about Q628 Mr Jack: The FSA told us there were lots of food including assurance standards, retailers’ cross-government committees that meet on this information and other forms of information in subject to decide policy. which we, as sponsor ministry, encourage the Lord Whitty: Indeed. industry to provide as accurate and as detailed information as they can in various ways, but the Q629 Mr Jack: Could you give us a flavour of what actual regulatory dimension of it is the FSA. your input to any of those is? 9906191006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 150 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton

Lord Whitty: At the moment, the dynamics of it are Q633 Mr Jack: You said your oYcials were involved largely being led on the health side by the in the working up of this Food and Health Action preparation for the Food and Health Action Plan. Programme and the Public Health White Paper. Lord Whitty: Yes. That is the main, active co-ordination at oYcial level that operates in that area.There have been Q634 Mr Jack: What is the message? What are you previous bodies— telling your oYcials (I presume they report back to you on what goes on in this body) they ought to be doing from the Defra standpoint to ensure, as your Q630 Mr Jack: So Defra is involved in that? note says, “Improving consumer information will be Lord Whitty: Defra is involved in that. a key focus of the Food and Health Action Plan.” What is Defra’s contribution to that? What do you Q631 Mr Jack: What kind of input do you have to think this Food and Health Action Plan should be that? What is your role in that? What kind of things doing? Therefore, what are you telling your do you put on the table for others to digest? representatives on this cross-government body to Lord Whitty: We are responsible for the do? What is the Defra message? sustainability of the British food sector.That Lord Whitty: We should seek to ensure that the includes concern about the economics of it, the information provided to consumers who will sustain environmental impact of it and the social, which the future health of the British food industry is includes the nutritional, aspect of it.So we therefore understandable, is accurate and is able to be have a view on all of those, but it may be that other delivered by the industry itself.To do that there is agencies are the main bodies.For example, we the question of its form, both its regulatory form and are the co-ordinating department for public its form over and above regulation, and there is a procurement of food.We do not actually have a big question of how we engage the various parts of the public procurement programme ourselves but we industry in delivering that information.So whether are the co-ordinating department encouraging the we are talking about retailers or restaurateurs or the Department for Education, the Prison Service, the manufacturers, we want to see that process of the Armed Forces and the NHS and so forth to improve Food and Health Action Plan and the broader the quality of their public procurement of food, both strategy for public health to engage positively the in terms of the amount that is sourced both locally food industry in delivering the message and making and from British sources and the nutritional quality sure that the message is something which the food of it.So we have that role, for example. industry can or ought to be able to deliver.

Q635 Mr Jack: Are you, in any way, instructing Q632 Mr Jack: Let me just stop you.I went and your oYcials about the balance that should be struck looked at your website today, and on food it covers in terms of the messages that this Food and Health food manufacturing, importing, exporting, and Action Plan puts out between, for example, fresh general information on regulation, and it touches on and manufactured foods, bearing in mind your eggs, poultry and milk products, beef labelling, sponsorship of both sides of the industry? There are competition, food chain, and organic production. some who may have a very distinct view about what However, as the department, for example, that is is good versus bad, from the health standpoint.You, responsible for the production side, if you like, of all on the other hand, represent producer interests— of the fresh food in the country; there is no Lord Whitty: I do not represent producer interests; I information to relate that area of your responsibility represent the public’s interests in the success of the to food information.So, in other words, if a member British food industry. of the public thought “Defra: food.I will go there for information”, they are going to be left sort of feeling Q636 Mr Jack: You make it clear that you are around.I just wondered why this lack of engagement unique in government, in that you have the in having— responsibility for this great food and drink industry; Lord Whitty: There is no lack of engagement; it is a you are the sponsoring body of it and you are there daily engagement between my oYcials and the FSA to champion— and other agencies.You will know, in terms of the Lord Whitty: But I do not represent them. machinery of government, that it was a deliberate decision of government to remove the regulatory Q637 Mr Jack: You represent their views.I am sure and informational side—consumer-oriented side— if the food— from the production side.So what became the FSA Lord Whitty: They may well want me to represent was removed from MAFF by a deliberate decision their views a little bit more explicitly and precisely, and placed under the aegis of health ministers.You but I represent what I think is their long-term can argue whether that was wrong or right but it was interest, which is a diVerent thing from representing a deliberate separation.We have maintained a very their views.Their long-term interest is in ensuring high level of continuous engagement with the FSA they have got informed, healthy, long-lived and and with the Department of Health on all of these understanding customers. issues but our role is not the provision of Chairman: I think there was an issue Austin was information except in a few limited areas, like going to take at this stage, and then you can follow veterinary medicine— your point further. 9906191006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 151

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton

Q638 Mr Mitchell: I was as delighted as Michael matter for health ministers and, to some extent, the clearly is to hear that you are the sponsor of the food FSA.We want to ensure that the British industry can industry because, Britain being the largest supply the healthy elements— concentration of food production (?) as Europe’s food town, it is nice to have such a benign and Q643 Mr Jack: I know that, but if you take, for amiable sponsor, I must say.Like him, I want to ask example, lettuce, which is high in folic acid and good what it involves.You are saying that what you are for pregnant mothers I understand, I would have doing is ensuring they have long-lived, healthy thought Defra might have had a view as to whether customers.How far are you also promoting the that piece of information ought to be given by industry’s economic interests and its development? retailers, for example, to customers in addition to Lord Whitty: We are clearly promoting the the fact of describing whether it is a Class 1 or 2 industry’s economic interests in the sense that we are lettuce or what its weight was.Yet you do not seem looking to them to raise their game, in terms of their to have a view. technology, their taking on board the demands of Lord Whitty: I think you are mixing up the issue of the consumers and of the environment and their what is regulated and what is not. trade issues—whether they are issues of import or export—and so forth.Then, within the Government Q644 Mr Jack: Do you want to go beyond machine, we are acting, if you like, as their critical regulation then? friend. Lord Whitty: Yes.

Q639 Mr Mitchell: Whitbread told us you were not Q645 Mr Jack: How? spreading enough information about; you did not Lord Whitty: There are bits of regulation which after know enough about the food industry to tell other the removal of the FSA from the old MAFF stayed departments what is involved there. with what is now Defra.One of those bits is the bit Lord Whitty: I would be surprised at that, but I think you picked up here under marketing standards for they have enough engagement in various parts of fresh fruit and vegetables.That has remained, Defra to know what we do and what we do not do. perhaps slightly anomalously but it has remained, There will be some criticism but, in general, I think with Defra.We are therefore responsible for the food industry is pretty clear on who its sponsor carrying out the EU regulations in that area. is, what we are prepared to do for them and what our However, over and above that, as part of our overall relationship is with the other key departments who food policy in the Sustainable Food and Farming interface with them. Strategy adopted following the Curry report, we are party to cross-government commitments on diet and Q640 Mr Mitchell: So you are sponsoring both the a balanced diet, which includes, for example, the producers and the manufacturers? Five-a-day, the fresh fruit in schools and various Lord Whitty: Yes. elements which promote fresh produce.If you are saying do I want to go beyond that and persuade Q641 Mr Mitchell: The food service sector as well as retailers and others to advertise the specific benefits the food chain? The whole lot? of specific fresh products then that is probably going Lord Whitty: Yes. a bit far, but the general message that fresh food, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables—which includes Q642 Mr Jack: Can I just tell you why I have been lettuces and salads—are of benefit, then, yes, we pursuing my line of inquiry about what your would wish to encourage those who purvey them department’s actual views are on some of this? For whether they are restaurants or retailers, so to do. example, in your evidence under the paragraph that That should benefit elements of the primary talks about EU marketing standards, you quite producers as well. rightly describe at the retail stage: “This information must include the nature of produce, its quality and Q646 Mr Jack: We have talked about health and we whether it is Class 1 or 2”.However, part of this have talked about your position.North of the great plan for Food and Health Action will, no border there is a Scottish Food and Health Co- doubt, deal with nutrition and ingredient contents.I ordinator who manages to bridge these gaps.Have would have thought that you might have had a view, you given any thought to the appointment of such a for example, with the marketing of fresh produce, as person south of the border? to whether it would enhance the sales of those items Lord Whitty: My understanding of the Scottish in the context of this plan if consumers were better position is that there is somebody within the Scottish informed about, for example, what the nutritional Executive who is, if you like, the point of contact so content of the banana, the apple, the beef, the pork, that there is a one-stop-shop for food policy issues, etc, was, but you are neutral in your views about but she is not, as I understand it, the executive these issues in your evidence.Why? responsible in all the areas of the Scottish Executive; Lord Whitty: I do not think we are neutral about the health department, the agriculture department, them in our evidence or in practice.We are clear that the education department—they have a similar part of the responsibility of the food industry in all structure to us.Of co urse, the FSA, which is the its manifestations is to deliver a wide range of choice, main regulator in the industry, is a national, UK certainly, and the option of pursuing a healthy diet, body; therefore, it is not an analogous position.It is but the balance of that healthy diet is primarily a certainly not a co-ordinator in the sense of a 9906191006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 152 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton superstructure over all the departments and agencies Q650 Joan Ruddock: Given that we have had a lot of which have bits of responsibility for food.If you are evidence that suggests that the voluntary initiative is saying should there be more of a one-stop-shop for somewhat faltering, do you think the Government information, well, that is something that we could ought to take a stronger line and, possibly, ought to certainly look at.At the moment we are focusing legislate in this field? strongly on the health element and there may be Lord Whitty: In which field? recommendations in relation to how you get information on food health coming out of the Public Q651 Joan Ruddock: In terms of quantities. Health White Paper.I think it is wrong to say (as I Lord Whitty: We are still on salt? have seen this position in Scotland described) it is a Food Tsar; it is nothing of the sort, it is a co- Q652 Joan Ruddock: We all know that sugar and fat ordicator of information—or least a focal point for is the same issue, really, but it is about the levels that information—not an executive job. are healthy or unhealthy and about the information Chairman: There was a particular issue regarding the that ought to be given to people to try to make an industry/government interface that I think Joan assessment to do what is best for them diet-wise. Ruddock wanted to pursue. Lord Whitty: I think there are two separate issues. On the question of whether, in eVect, some heavily- Q647 Joan Ruddock: I think the Minister is saying salted products should be eliminated from the that there is going to be a White Paper, that there are market by regulation if the voluntary system does clearly discussions going on and we will know in due not do it, the voluntary system has eliminated quite course, but some things have already come to our a lot of heavily-salted food but some other, attention, namely the initiative on salt and the way particularly highly-processed, products have come in, so that there is a highly-salted processed thing in which the Minister for Health has named where bread has reduced its salt content.So if the companies and said that there would be a need to direction was faltering entirely then I think the take some stronger action.To what extent has Defra option of looking at regulation in these and other been in discussions with the Department of Health fields might be appropriate.The issue of information over that particular initiative, which is on-going at is, of course, one which is under active the moment? consideration, principally with the FSA and the Lord Whitty: The issue of salt in food is quite a long- Department of Health, but I suspect that the issue of running one in which MAFF, and then Defra, have information on salt, fat and sugar will form part of been involved with the Department of Health for the consideration of the Public Health White Paper, some time.The particular initiative on naming the and maybe regulation on what information should companies we are not directly involved in but, be given.There is, of course, some dispute as to what clearly, that was an initiative in which the information is useful and what is not, which may Department of Health were trying to ratchet up the make actual regulation more diYcult, but we are still pressure on some of the manufacturers they felt were generally at the point where, product-by-product, not delivering enough on that front.However, the salt is being reduced by, largely, voluntary action. basic policy we have been involved in. We need to take that faster.If it fails to speed up then I suppose there may become a case for actual bans, Q648 Joan Ruddock: Given that that has been but I think we are not at that point at this point. publicly stated, is Defra then working with the industry in any sense to reinforce those messages? Or Q653 Joan Ruddock: Might not regulation of that do you say “That’s them, and they did that and it is kind, that could ultimately be a ban, create a level nothing to do with us, really”? playing field? Some of the evidence given to us has Lord Whitty: No, we are not; we are keeping in close been suggesting that people like the taste of salty touch with the Department of Health on all these food and, therefore, those who continue to market things, but it is their initiative to actually pick out salty foods could gain market advantage over others salt as one of the principal areas.We have had a salt who have been more responsible? reduction policy which is a Defra, and before that Lord Whitty: Yes, although that has not been the V MAFF, policy as well as a Department of Health economic e ect of the reduction in salt in bread. policy for some considerable time, and certainly quite a lot has been achieved on the bakery side, Q654 Joan Ruddock: It has not? for example. Lord Whitty: It has not, in that it has not been the saltier breads which have prevailed.Certainly, to some extent, the less-salty breads have had a bigger Q649 Joan Ruddock: Should it not be a joint policy? market share.However, that could happen; I Should you not be jointly tackling this issue? appreciate it could happen.One of the problems in Lord Whitty: We are a joint party to it but the setters all this—and I am not saying anything diVerent, I do of the targets are those who are responsible for not think, from what the Department of Health or health, in eVect, and that is why the Department of the FSA would say—is that if you focus on one Health set the targets and monitors against those aspect of unhealthy food then, clearly, if you have a targets.So they are, therefore, best placed to say if couple of bags of crisps a week, however salty they companies and products are falling below those are, if you also eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables targets. and have a reasonably healthy lifestyle it is not going 9906191006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 153

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton to do you much harm, but if you only eat highly- it does seem to me you do have to separate the two salted food and sit in front of the television all the somehow.It was not considered, historically, that time, then, by and large, you are going to end up in MAFF did separate them suYciently. a pretty poor condition by the time you are my age— if you should get that far.So there is this question of Q657 Mr Drew: I wonder if the Treasury has quite whether banning particular foods is the appropriate the same qualms about having that degree of response except in extreme circumstances or whether accountability through some of its agencies.I just the overall message, which I think does need to be think— the overall message, of a more balanced diet is the Lord Whitty: I am not answering for the Treasury. more appropriate way forward. Q658 Mr Drew: I am not going to ask you to speak for the Treasury, I am just posing that as a dilemma. Q655 Mr Drew: In terms of the relationship with the I am just thinking that, really, the Government FSA, I do not want to keep going over old ground actually, as I said, it is very radical—it actually gave but in a sense, in setting up Defra—which was quite food its own ministry.It may be seen as a producer a radical thing to do and to actually give food its own oriented agency of government initially but it could ministry—it does seem rather bizarre that the key have, obviously, then been able to do some of the agency that reports through to government is things that, if you like, many of us would want to see actually reporting to another department.Is it not happen, which is make these connections.There is a about time that the Government actually did what it danger that we have now ended up with a bit of a said it was going to do, which is treat food as an hotch-potch which means that an area like labelling, important issue and not relegate it to health, which which we obviously cannot take today, falls down clearly it has to be in terms of all the other panoply between a numbers of diVerent stools. of things that health does? Lord Whitty: I do not think it falls down.There is a Lord Whitty: I do not think the term “relegation” is separation and there is a separation of the consumer the appropriate one.Food is, clearly, a huge aspect information responsibility and the sponsorship of of health and one that is most appropriately dealt the industry.Part of the sponsorship of the industry with in the health context. is to ensure that the industry at all levels from primary agriculture right through to the retailers is upping the quality of its product.That is consistent Q656 Mr Drew: Why? with ensuring that the best information goes to the Lord Whitty: Because the public interest in what consumer.There is no falling between two stools; food you eat is how healthy it is.There are other there are diVerent departments responsible for public interests, like does it cause environmental diVerent sides of the same coin. damage in its production or how much does it Chairman: Can we now turn to the question of produce into the balance of payments, which may be European food legislation issues and related issues? more appropriate for departments dealing with Mr Jack: I was just going to say to my colleague, Mr economics—as sponsors for the environment as we Drew, with a reshuZe coming up, so I am told, do through environmental legislation.The health perhaps you will be the Secretary of State for the and diet elements seem to be the most important balanced diet in future administrations. public concern about food, and it was felt at the Mr Drew: They would not be eating much, though, time—and I think I would agree with this—that would there? Certainly not fish. having the department which was basically a production department, which was even more a Q659 Mr Jack: Minister, as far as Europe is production-focused department when it was concerned, Europe dictates the terms of much of our MAFF, also responsible for the regulation at the food labelling policy.The emphasis seems, at the consumer end was a conflict of interest.In a sense, present time, to be on a labelling regime which is that is no diVerent from saying that the DTI is the about what is in food in terms of ingredients, but sponsor for the chemicals industry but the there are signs that they are moving away from that Department for the Environment regulates its towards recognising the importance of nutritional environmental eVect.That is probably beneficial. information.If that is the way things are going, who There are indeed problems, as you know, in the within the United Kingdom Government is transport sector, which I used to be familiar with, determining our policy towards this particular where if you have, within the Department of matter? Who speaks for Britain on these issues? Transport, also the responsibility for health and Lord Whitty: The department that is primarily safety in transport then there are potential conflicts responsible for this is still the FSA. of interest.Now, you cannot resolve all these conflicts of interest by drawing diVerent lines across Q660 Mr Jack: They do not go to the Council of government, but it seems to me quite a consistent Ministers, do they? line that the producer department and the main Lord Whitty: If you will allow me, the issue in regulator ought probably to be separated.Whether Europe is that they are dealt with largely on the you just do that by hiving it oV into an agency or Agriculture Council. whether you do it by having an agency which is responsible to another ministry is a matter of the Q661 Mr Jack: Ah, so you are responsible for Prime Minister of the day’s decision, in a sense, but labelling? 9906191006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 154 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton

Lord Whitty: Our ministers are responsible for position? The FSA gather the information, you have negotiating in Europe but we are responsible on the just indicated that on health claims the Department basis of briefs from the FSA. of Health has a view and then you have a view on the sort of measurability side of these matters.The Food Q662 Mr Jack: That sort of brings us round full Standards Agency’s reporting line is to health circle from my first line of questioning.When you ministers (that is who they are answerable to) and yet are deciding policy, give us a flavour as to how the you are leading, as a department, on the Council on policy responsibility in government is lined up to all of these issues. decide what the Defra line to take will be in the Lord Whitty: By the time it reaches the Council there discussions in the Council of Minister on these will be a cross-government position which will have labelling issues.Who are the people who input to taken into account our views on the practicality.It you? Who is in charge of policy in this area? is not just the measurability it is also how you label Lord Whitty: If there is a proposition for a new things—whether it is a reasonable burden on the directive, for example, from Europe, which there is industry to provide that degree of information, currently, as you rightly say, in relation to labelling, whether it is comprehensible to consumers and then the FSA are the lead department to gain the whether it actually conveys the information that it is cross-departmental view within Whitehall.So they intended to convey—and we will have views on all of would lead the consultation with other government those things.There will be a cross-departmental departments in Whitehall on the proposition coming view on that informing the position that we take from the Commission or being proposed by the when the issue comes to Council, which is pretty far Commission.That would be agreed.We would feed down the process. into that, as would other departments, but we would feed into that in the light of our sponsorship and our view on where the industry should be going and the Q665 Mr Jack: Do you have any specialists with impact, detrimental or positive, this might have on Defra who guide you? Are you the minister that goes the industry.So we would feed into that.There to the Council? would then be the normal Cabinet OYce write- Lord Whitty: Not generally, the Secretary of State round and we would hopefully reach a consensus normally goes. position which would then be taken away in detail by the FSA who would be producing a brief so that when it actually arose it would be FSA oYcials who Q666 Mr Jack: So within Defra does she have a would be in contact with the Commission oYcials group of people who are providing her with a and by the time it reached the Council the FSA co- uniquely Defra-based perspective? If she has to go ordinated brief would be the basis on which the and discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the Secretary of State, or I, or whoever is representing us evidence that comes from the Food Standards at the Council, would deal with it. Agency, I presume she must have some advice that comes from somewhere within Defra.Is there a Q663 Mr Jack: Given that the process on the new group which works on these matters? labelling regime has begun, what in summary is the Lord Whitty: Not in that sense.The implication of Defra input to the FSA voices-gathering exercise in such proposals coming from other government government? What is your department’s view on the departments or indeed from Europe for the industry, current line of thinking in the Commission? clearly, there are experts within the department who Lord Whitty: There are two or three diVerent can advise on it.There are some areas where we are dimensions to what the Commission is currently the experts.There are some areas, like, in fact, in proposing.There is the issue of nutrition and health veterinary medicines, plant health and animal health claims.Obviously, the Department of Health has to related issues, and some other things like quality of make a decision on whether it is desirable to have fresh fruit, where we actually also are the experts, nutritional aspects labelled in this way, but we would but in general it is our view on the impact of these then qualify that by saying: “Is it possible, with this proposals on the industry, which includes the impact product, to identify quite so clearly the nutritional on the industry’s consumers. value or otherwise? Is it detectable? What is the science of the issue”—because we are, by and large, responsible for the scientific basis of not all such Q667 Chairman: How do you avoid any claims but of how we produce the food.I suppose, discontinuity between what is being said at oYcial summed-up, it is the practicality of propositions in level by an independent agency and then by terms of how all levels of the industry should display ministers politically at the Council level? It is quite the information.Our view is really on that an unusual situation, is it not, compared to other dimension rather than do we second-guess the areas of government responsibility, if it is an Department of Health on whether milk is good for independent agency, eVectively, representing the you or not? UK at oYcial level? Lord Whitty: The independent agency may or may Q664 Mr Jack: What I am just ever so slightly not be accompanied by Department of Health struggling with, because the input of the United people.I do not think it is particularly unusual.The Kingdom is very important on this, is who has got Environment Agency are quite often in the same the ultimate, if you like, veto on the Government’s position, as are the HSE. 9906191006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 155

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton

Q668 Joan Ruddock: I am interested to know if the then there is a sanction and the sanction can only pathway by which the UK Government decided to really apply if you have proof and, in general, the support 0.9% contamination for GM labelling was technical advice to us would be that you could not the same.Did that begin with the technical advice of get proof much below 0.9%. the FSA? Lord Whitty: The advice of the FSA in that respect Q671 Mr Drew: What consultation did the FSA was two-fold.One: is there a safety issue involved undertake before it came up with the advice that it here and, two, is there a consumer issue involved gave to both yourselves and the Department of here? The FSA view is that provided the GM Health? Did they undertake a major consultation products have gone through the process it is unlikely exercise? there is a food safety issue.Nevertheless, on the Lord Whitty: Are we talking about on the GM? consumer issue it is very clear that consumers want to know whether the products contain GM or not. Q672 Mr Drew: Yes, on the GM. Our position on this was (a) we are responsible for Lord Whitty: Yes, certainly, quite a number of times V looking at the environmental e ects of GM in in the period up to 2003 when the regulations were relation to crops and (b) we are responsible for adopted, certainly in the previous two years. seeing whether any standards which are set are actually enforceable.So our view was that when Q673 Mr Drew: I think it is a fair presumption from people were calling for a 0.1% rate, that would not all the evidence that I have seen in terms of opinion actually be enforceable because at those kinds of polling that the public would have wanted the lower levels it would be pretty diYcult to detect whether it threshold rather than the higher threshold. was 0.1 or 0.2, whereas at 1% or thereabouts this was Therefore, on what grounds did the FSA decide that eminently detectable on current technology.So our it was satisfactory to go for a higher threshold? I view was, again, in relation to the practicality of the understand that they may have actually given the regulations and how they would be enforced in the advice to say, “Ministers, there are two thresholds industry or in the enforcers. and here are the reasons for both of these”, but they actually came down in favour of the 0.9% threshold. Q669 Joan Ruddock: I apologise for contradicting Lord Whitty: The FSA are working on the same the Minister but, of course, 0.1% is the detectable basis as us, that regulations have to be enforceable. level and it is the one that most supermarkets adopt. I have no doubt that you are right, that consumers So as far as I understand it, the practicality is in no would by and large like to know, “Is this GM or is it way in dispute; 0.1% can be policed, and that would not?” but, when you are making a regulation, you be the desire of consumers.It was a very strange have to ensure that any breach of that regulation can decision for many consumers that the Government be proved and that the sanction is therefore did go to 0.9%. not challengeable.Some of these were joint Lord Whitty: There are diVerent stages of being able consultations between ourselves and the FSA, but to detect it.Clearly, if you have a boat-load of soya both of us would say that good regulation requires landing from, say (let us not say the United States), any breach to be detectable or indeed compliance to Brazil, which may or may not contain it, then the be detectable and, if it is not, then it is not good actual sample you take is unlikely to be able to detect regulation. 0.1% with any degree of accuracy. If you are talking about in single products then it is likely to be higher, Q674 Joan Ruddock: Is there not a proposal for 0.5% if you are talking about highly processed goods then for seeds? How is that going to be policed if it is it is probably not detectable at all.There are V not possible? di erent levels of detectability, but 0.9% is not a Lord Whitty: Seeds are a single product.None of this particularly totally robust figure, in that you are is 100% statistically accurate but it is easier to detect saying 0.8% is not detectable and 1% is, but it is out of a bag of seeds whether there is 0.5% when they roughly the area where for most products you could, are an homogenous product than when it is a whole under existing technology, find whether there was boatload of soya which may well have come from GM presence or not. several diVerent sources or a processed product which will include ingredients which are from several Q670 Joan Ruddock: Is it not a fact that when diVerent sources and probably from several diVerent supermarkets claim for their own products that they countries.I may be wrong and I will check on this are “GM-free” they are actually saying that this is a but I think that 0.5% is a figure which has been product that does not have more than 0.1% GM in included for other things/seeds regulations. it? Q675 Chairman: I think this last exchange illustrates Lord Whitty: That is what they claim to say, yes, and one of the issues which has come up a number of they do that by ensuring they know the sources and times in our inquiry which is the wide range of that therefore they know that their soya milk, for messages that consumers get about food and from a example, is produced by non-GM soya farmers and range of sources leading to the question of, who they would say that the chances of contamination should consumers trust when they are trying to reach are pretty unlikely.However, when you are coming conclusions about what w e should be eating? One of to regulate, you have to have a higher degree of the witnesses has said that they did not trust accuracy there because, if you breach the regulation, Government and that they were not too keen on a 9906191006 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 156 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton number of other possible sources of advice as well.anything else, which ap ply across large parts of the What is your view as to how this issue should be sector.Is that not one where there is a role for addressed and, more specifically, how far should Government? Government be taking the lead in trying to bring Lord Whitty: I would agree with you but there are about reasonably clear and consistent messages to admissions against this.Even on five a day, the consumers? supermarkets have tended to try and present it in Lord Whitty: It is pretty clear that they do not trust slightly diVerent ways in their own slogans.Now, Government, they do not trust scientists and they do that is the market.As long as broadly speaking they not trust the agriculture sector, they do not trust the are doing the same message, then it is not too bad food manufacturers and they do not even trust but, if we were to introduce an across-the-board the newspapers.They trust slightly more the tra Yc light system, it would be necessary that all supermarkets and that is because they think that retailers had pretty much the same kind of concept they oVer eVective assurance schemes and that, by of what the traYc lights meant and, if you try and do and large, those respectable purveyors of food—it is that without regulation, it is actually quite diYcult not a particularly logical position—have a standard because one can get it at Tesco at the moment and themselves that they enforce for their own presumably one can see a competitive advantage in commercial interests and because they want to serve them being the traYc light merchants for the their consumer interest well.That is why it is so moment.If we were to regulate on it, we would have important that messages are not just regulatory to be much more specific.Th e other way of getting messages, that they are well beyond regulation, and it across the board, particularly in relation to fresh that there is a degree of consensus about what kind produce, is assurance schemes where there is some of messages you hope to put across because most of progress made in terms of the red tractor and other the messages that impact on people would not be the indications of assurance.At the moment, the minutia of the EU labelling standards or even the assurance that the consumers by and large trust most actual labels themselves, they will be the advertising, is the very fact that it is on the big supermarket the way things are presented in the shops, the way shelves because they think that actually of itself they are presented on menus and the way they are conveys assurance, but there are substantial areas presented in other literature which the industry where assurance schemes could play a bigger role in create and that does mean that you have to have raising public awareness about the safety of food, established probably a greater degree of consensus particularly maybe in the dietary eVect of it. on these things than yet exists and part of the process of the Public Health White Paper in food dimensions Q678 Chairman: Whether it is a traYc light system is hopefully going to create a greater consensus or another form of labelling standard or whether it around, broadly speaking, the balanced diet is assurance schemes, should there not be a role for approach and the information that is needed for that Government to be taking the lead in trying to bring can then be followed through.You are certainly about those standards, be it by a regulatory— right that if you rely on the Government giving the Lord Whitty: If it is regulatory, it would have to be information, then that is not necessarily the most an EU body and of course one of the options under trusted form of information to the consumers. the current EU discussions is whether there should be an EU traYc light scheme or at least an EU green Q676 Chairman: To take one example of how light system.In terms of providing information, information can be presented to consumers, we have clearly the FSA would be in the lead here but the heard a great deal of discussion, of which you will FSA are in a position and it is part of their mandate obviously be aware also, on the possible to produce information and guidance to everybody introduction of a traYc light system of labelling. in the food trade as to how they should convey What is the view within Defra on this at the moment? information about their food, so there is a Lord Whitty: There are some diYculties about the Government educative and advisory role, if you like. traYc light system.Tesco have adopted it; I think it is a useful initiative and we ought to see how well it Q679 Mr Jack: Does Defra think that traYc lights works in both senses as to how much information are good or bad? they can convey through it and what the actual Lord Whitty: There is not an answer to that.We consumer behaviour in response to that is.So, whilst think that greater clarity of message would be we are not sponsoring what Tesco are doing, we do helpful.If the tra Yc light system can convey that think it is a very useful attempt to try and convey accurately and people respond to it, then they are information in a way which is more understandable good. than perhaps historically we have managed. Q680 Mr Jack: If you were pressed to try and define Q677 Chairman: How far can this be done on a a traYc light system that you could endorse, what consensus basis and a voluntary basis amongst the would its characteristics be? retailers for example because again one of the pieces Lord Whitty: The problem is that traYc lights may of evidence that we have had has pointed out that, if apply to diVerent things.You can have a tra Yc light there was an inconsistency in message, then system in salt content or you can have a traYc light consumers would not understand the message when system in fat content but itisdiYcult to have a traYc it came from diVerent quarters? So, if it is going to light system which conveys everything that we would work, there have to be schemes, be it traYc light or want people to understand about a balanced diet. 9906191006 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:52:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 157

20 July 2004 Lord Whitty, Mr Bill Scriven and Mr Ian Newton

Therefore, if people are looking already to limit their countries of our point of view which is that fat content or their salt content, then a traYc light mandatory labelling is an important aid in itself and system could be very helpful but it is not going to say should not be seen as an anti-competitive measure? how much of this bit of medium salty bread should Lord Whitty: I think that, in general, we are up I have as compared with vegetables and as compared against a diYculty.The EU has established that they with roast beef a week.It is di Ycult to convey that would wish to preserve their labelling system and through a traYc light system. indeed enhance some, as is currently under discussion.In the WTO’s negotiations, the European Commission has actually tried to keep the Q681 Mr Jack: Can I just ask you about assurance concept of mandatory labelling of foods in play for schemes; you put particular weight on that.Do you the negotiations.It has to be said that almost all the think that they are a good way of communicating other negotiating partners are in some diYculty on messages about the nature of the way that food is this and do regard it certainly beyond pure safety produced bearing in mind that many of the issues as being a form of hidden protection and that assurance schemes we have come across seem only to the other partners to the WTO may well see that this indicate an adherence to minimum statutory is an EU attempt to introduce further protection by standards and do not in any way relate to the quality the backdoor.The current position is that it is part or other attributes of the food produced but of the EU’s negotiating mandate.There are aspects sometimes the logos that are used seem to convey of mandatory labelling which could lead us into lots of those extra bits of information together with protection and therefore the UK within the EU is country of origin messages and therefore the logos careful to try and ensure that we do not get into that, go beyond a simple point of reassurance? Are you but those negotiations still have to take place.You happy with that? will probably know that the latest development is Lord Whitty: Certainly the red tractor is intended to that there is a new framework which has been convey not only the way that the food is produced produced only last Friday, the full implications of and the compliance with minimum standards but which I am not in a position to tell you, but the idea also that it has been produced from a farm which has is that that will go to the WTO over the next few days been properly inspected and which meets those for the WTO General Council on I think the 29th of standards and, by and large, that is a standard which this month and that we would therefore have a people are beginning to recognise.There are other framework for further negotiations on the series of standards, for example leaf or freedom agriculture chapter of the WTO.Whether that foods, which convey other aspects of how food is occurs before or after the American elections and produced and which probably have a more limited various other changes is not for me to decide but segment of the consumers who relate to them.One there are some developments on what we are going could argue that the organic label was similar but is to discuss in the WTO which will need updating one that is subject to a higher level of standard if you within the next fortnight. like, so there is not a single standard that is going to actually convey all the information but the Q683 Joan Ruddock: It does not sound all that comprehensiveness for fresh food of a clearer and helpful.There has seemingly been a move and this is recognisable standard for the basic level of quality of course again where we caught on the GM issue by and quality production is important and that is the WTO arguing very narrow Sanitary and where red tractor is trying to go.The higher level Phytosanitary regulations rather than the wider standards are also, by and large, not yet suYciently issues and there is a great concern amongst those recognised by a large enough section of consumers who have given us evidence that we could see to have achieved the ratcheting up, if you like, of ourselves going into a position where we cannot give quality standards, but I believe that they will be there our consumers what they are demanding and that, with increased consciousness, they will particularly, for example, on ethical issues. make a contribution.If you are asking me if Lord Whitty: I think that is probably true.If you assurance schemes can convey a balanced diet, then make the labelling mandatory, then we do run the the answer is “no” anymore than a single risk of there being a WTO beyond the safety issue. dimensional traYc light system can. The Codex Alimentarius is recognised in the WTO structure, so the safety issues—and those are increasing all the time—are protected but, if you go Q682 Joan Ruddock: I want to turn to the WTO and beyond that, then there are potential WTO cases like the negotiations that the EU is having in relation to the GM one. Article 2.2 which we know is about not having Chairman: Lord Whitty, thank you very much.That barriers to trade.The argument has been put that brings us to the end of our questions this afternoon. mandatory labelling in the context of the WTO can Your evidence has, once again, been most helpful be seen to be a barrier to trade.How successful are and that now concludes the meeting of the we being within the EU in trying to persuade other Committee this afternoon. 9906191017 Page Type [SE] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 158 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by the British Soft Drinks Association Ltd (BSDA) BSDA represents the collective interests of UK manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks, including carbonates, still drinks, dilutables, fruit juices, juice drinks and bottled .The total sales value of the market in 2003 was worth £11 billion and the industry directly employs about 19,000 people.The industry is dedicated to providing a wide range of choice so that individuals can construct a balanced diet which includes adequate fluid intake.

1.I ntroduction 1.1 BSDA fully supports the provision of clear information to consumers so that they are in a position to make informed choices. 1.2 Information may be supplied through a variety of means: — pack labelling; — advertising; — promotional activity; — other information sources, such as customer care lines and websites. 1.3 On-pack labelling: this is the foremost means of supplying consumers with full information about products.It is a highly regulated area to ensure that consumers are not mis led; that they understand the true nature of the product; and can store, prepare and consume the product safely by the “use by” or “best before” date.The label also carries important information in relation to the manufacturer and batch numbers so that any post-sales problems or complaints can be eVectively addressed. 1.4 Advertising and Promotion: are designed to inform consumers of the availability of a brand on a highly competitive market place.They do not necessarily have to carry all the statutory information required on food labels but must nonetheless conform with the Codes of Practice relating to advertising and the relevant provisions of legislation relating to the labelling, promotion and advertising of food.Advertising and promotion assist market competition and the launch of new products.Th ey contribute to competitive pricing, the development and maintenance of high standards, the development of new products: all these are of benefit to consumers. 1.5 Other Information Sources: customer care lines and websites are other key sources of information for consumers. 1.6 BSDA oVers primary and secondary schools an educational resource pack, Liquids Mean Life, which is designed to inform children about the production and marketing of soft drinks, including fruit juices and bottled waters, environmental considerations and the importance of fluid intake

2.E fra Questions

2.1 Information on the nutritional content of foods 2.1.1 BSDA supports the provision of clear and meaningful on-pack nutrition information so that consumers can choose products suitable for their needs and tastes.It beli eves that the current legislation is not necessarily appropriate for drinks, particularly when these contain only certain nutrients.The result is that nutrition panels can be cluttered with zeros which confuse rather than inform.The industry also believes that it is more helpful to provide nutrient information per serving, ie in the quantity the consumer is likely to consume, rather than per 100g/ml which might not be a standard portion size particularly where fluids are concerned. 2.1.2 DiVerences in normal serving sizes between solid and liquid foodstuVs must also be taken into account when requirements are set for the addition of vitamins and minerals.The definition of “significant amount” should be appropriate to a realistic quantity consumed and, again, not fixed per 100g/ml. 2.1.3 The Food Standards Agency has been reviewing appropriate criteria for nutrition labelling and BSDA recommends that it bases its review on clarity and key information.FS A has considered “signposting” foods but it remains essential that information is suYciently factual and placed within the context of a balanced diet if nutrition messages are not to be over-simplified to the point of confusion.If FSA wishes to influence people’s dietary choices then this is most eVectively achieved through public education and not by manipulating choice through food labels. 2.1.4 Consumers are becoming increasingly interested in the functionality of foodstuVs and the soft drinks industry wishes to label products so that specific nutrient or health benefits can be communicated. The industry has no intention to mislead or misrepresent products and believes that all claims must be substantiated.Nonetheless, providing essential safety and labelling p rovisions are respected, it believes that all foods should be permitted to carry justified nutrition or health claims. 9906191007 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 159

2.1.5 Soft drinks in the UK have been fortified for more than one hundred years and have been appreciated by generations of consumers.They enable people, particular ly certain segments of the population, to enhance nutrient intake through the foods which they normally eat and enjoy.BSDA is concerned that, should restrictions be placed on the ability to make nutrition or health claims, that fortified products might be curtailed to the detriment of consumers.

2.2 The Safety of foods 2.2.1 Food safety should be every manufacturer’s foremost priority. It is the producer’s responsibility to produce safe food with the label providing information to the consumer so that it can be consumed safely. It is very important that the consumer understands the importance of storing, preparing and consuming food safely and, in addition to providing the legal framework for production standards and enforcement, Government needs to ensure that consumers receive adequate advice and education. 2.2.2 It is also crucial that Government support the regulatory framework for food safety and inspire public confidence in this framework in its communications.For example, wh en questions arise about the safety of additives which have been authorised for use in food, it would be judicious for the Food Standards Agency to confirm their safety in use.This would help to educate consumers a nd allay fears which often arise from ignorance.The lack of clarity in o Ycial statements—or the absence of any statement—allows concerns to proliferate without justification. 2.2.3 Risk communication is another area where Government should review its approach.There is little point in public pronouncements which are meant ostensibly to allay concerns about risk and then suggest that consumers might choose not to consume the food in question.This is gra tuitous, ambiguous and raises doubts that food is safe.Food choices are always up to the consumer and ther e is no need to state the obvious: it is Government’s role to assess and manage risk.

2.3 The means of production 2.3.1 Providing information on means of production can be useful to consumers in making food choices. However, it is crucial that there are agreed uniform and meaningful definitions for these terms and that these are understood by consumers.Where use of the term “organic” is concerned, BSDA believes that the setting of standards and certification procedures should be harmonised and delegated to a single, impartial entity. As things stand, diVerent certification bodies set diVerent standards which means that the term “organic” has no uniform meaning.

2.4 Ethical considerations 2.4.1 BSDA has participated in the development of a Code of Practice in relation to Ethical Trade in fruit juice which is now being piloted by the European fruit juice industry’s raw material assurance scheme.This is designed to demonstrate the industry’s commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility and to promoting good labour practices in countries which provide raw materials.Such sche mes are not easy to implement or enforce and have to take account of the prevailing economic conditions in the country concerned. Nonetheless, is it the intention to address consumer concerns in the EU about labour standards and, importantly, contribute to the improvement of standards.

2.5 Trade in food 2.5.1 As far as possible, BSDA wishes to have internationally harmonised rules for food labelling so that foods can be traded without hindrance.It is nonetheless recognised that f oodstuVs and their denominations can vary from country to country and that international uniformity is neither possible nor necessarily desirable.Supplementary labelling should be considered acceptable in o rder to provide consumers with appropriate information to make purchasing choices.This could avoid bar riers to trade caused, for example, by national compositional standards. 2.5.2 One area of particular concern to BSDA is the language of labelling and the consumers’ ability to make purchasing choices if a food is not labelled in a language which they understand easily (as specified in UK and EU labelling law).This is particularly important for consumers who wish or need to avoid certain ingredients and for them to understand important information such as best before dates, conditions for storage and safe consumption and contact details for the person responsible for putting the product onto the market.UK Courts have ruled that products sold in the UK should be label led in English and BSDA would like UK regulators and enforcement agencies to take stronger action against imports which are not labelled correctly.Whereas UK manufacturers are subject to strict contr ol and expected to withdraw products which are improperly labelled, the same standard is very seldom applied to imports.Crucially, the Food Standards Agency needs to explain how it would deal with the recall of products in the event of a safety issue when the name of the distributor is not known and brands have been imported without the consent of the brand-owner. 9906191007 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 160 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

3.F inal Comments 3.1 The labelling, advertising and promotion of foods are highly regulated and subject to frequent amendment.Often manufacturers are criticised for the way food is labelle d when they are actually complying with what has been prescribed by the regulator.It is therefore i mportant that the regulator: — educates consumers so that they can understand food labels and use the information to make informed choices; — recognises that the amount of information which can be included on a label is finite and that information can be provided by other means; — takes account of consumer requirements and understanding when devising new rules; — seeks to enforce existing rules rather than introduce yet more rules to compensate for inadequate enforcement; — has an adequate evidence base to justify proposed measures; — ensures that labelling rules are coherent and meaningful to consumers; — subjects proposed labelling changes to a cost-benefit analysis. On a practical note, industry would urge Government to synchronise labelling changes so that these can be introduced rationally, cost-eVectively and with adequate lead-time. 2 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the British Medical Association We have been concerned for some time about the need to clarify and regulate health claims made by food manufacturers throughout Europe, in order to increase consumer protection and choice. The BMA strongly advises that accurate food labelling and clear information is imperative so that the public can make informed choices about their diet.Both nutritional and co ntent claims on labels, and functional claims on packaging and in advertising, need to be addressed.A ll claims need to be assessed from both the generic food category level and the specific product level.Claims must be clear and unambiguous, specific rather than generalised, and accurate and verifiable. Accurate and clear information must not be limited to the labelling of products.Information can be presented in many formats, including leaflets and posters, newspaper, television and radio advertisements and information on the internet.Complete information on advertised prod ucts should be made available, for example the full nutritional facts regarding convenience foods should be communicated to consumers. The BMA believes that regulations must apply to all traders, suppliers, manufacturers, caterers, agencies, retailers and importers of foods.They must be adequately policed and moni tored by a regulatory board such as the Joint Health Claims Initiative.Manufacturers should submit scien tific evidence to support their claim and Europe-wide guidelines should be set on what constitutes acceptable evidence.For example, the scientific evidence should be independent and peer reviewed by a panel of experts.The involvement of health professionals, including nutrition experts and physicians in various relevant specialities, is vital to assess evidence and provide advice.Claims should be assessed on a case-by-case b asis and extrapolations to similar claims should be avoided. 6 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the National Youth Agency

Executive Summary The National Youth Agency supports those involved in young people’s personal and social development and works to enable all young people to fulfill their potential within a just society.The Agency welcomes the Committee’s inquiry into many aspects of food production and labelling and education on nutrition, particularly with regard to the needs of young people.Our submission refle cts our concern about the growing problems of poor nutrition, the issue of industry regulation and the long-term health and societal implications of obesity and limited exercise. Our response focuses on three main areas: 1.The need to involve young people from the outset in devising approaches a nd educational programmes which will help frame the issues in contexts which have meaning for their daily lives.In rural areas, some young people will be able to contribute their personal experiences of modern farming practices and the implications for health and the economy. 2.The importance of seeing the food and nutrition issues as components in t he larger health and well- being agenda.Much evidence points to the ine Vectiveness of isolated interventions which do not take account of wider issues such as food poverty (the cheapest and most filling foods are often those made of poor raw materials, high in sugar, fat and salt), poor education in nutrition and poor examples of food provision in the public sector (eg schools, leisure centres), and lack of opportunities for young people to buy, prepare, cook and eat nutritious meals.In addition, there are fewer and fe wer places and spaces for children 9906191008 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 161

and young people to play and take exercise, yet evidence indicates that the rising tide of obesity requires action both on consumption and physical activity.Recent medical and othe r research indicates the huge benefits of young people drinking more water on their health and educational achievements.We urge the provision of water coolers and dispensers in public buildings and spaces. 3.A more robust approach from government on meaningful food labelling whi ch puts ingredients in the context of recommended daily allowances (eg “This pasty contains 90% of your daily salt requirement and exceeds the RDA for fat”) and clarification of what labels like “low fat” and “low salt” mean for a healthy diet, coupled with hard-hitting public education campaigns akin to those for smoking cessation.Education about ethical issues in food production, food miles, genetic modification of crops etc should be included in the school curriculum and clear labelling with generic symbols should inform the consumer about the provenance, growing and manufacturing processes of the food.Such inform ation should be included on wrappings for fast food in an easily accessible format. 15 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association (BCCCA) Summary — Owing to space constraints on labels, and varying levels of interest among consumers in complex information, food labelling cannot be clear and comprehensible if at the same time one attempts to make it comprehensive. — Food packs are already legally required to carry a great deal of information.This, together with brand names, promotional information and non-statutory warnings, puts great pressure on space. — Forthcoming changes in EU requirements will increase this pressure. — Over 80% of this industry’s products carry nutrition labelling.The BCCC A has recommended to members that all products should carry at least the “Big 4”: energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat. Some manufacturers provide more than this. — If the EU decides to introduce mandatory nutrition labelling it should limit the list of nutrients (to perhaps six) and should permit amounts per serving or per pack—instead of per 100g—on smaller products. — Many other proposals for information to be included on packs are impracticable and should be resisted. — Providing information in respect of ethical concerns requires a diVerent approach. — Labelling requirements impose costs which ultimately tend to be passed to consumers, especially on low-margin products. — Labelling requirements should not act as a barrier to free trade. — Pressure on space will make multi-lingual labelling very diYcult, potentially harming British exports.

Introduction 1.The Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association (BCCCA) we lcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Committee’s Inquiry into Food Information.Altho ugh the Committee’s terms of reference are broad, the BCCCA has confined its evidence to matters of particular concern to its members: food labelling; other means of informing consumers; information about sourcing of raw materials; and (briefly) the impact on WTO negotiations.

What Should Food Labelling be Seeking to Achieve? 2.The argument is sometimes heard that food labelling should be “clear, co mprehensible and comprehensive”.In fact, those are incompatible criteria.Space on label s is limited, especially on labels for small products like standard size bars of chocolate, or roll packs of sweets.It would be impossible to provide comprehensive labelling in such a small space.Even where space is less of a problem, many consumers would be unlikely to want or to read, or take in, large amounts of information.

Information Already Provided on Labels 3.It is already a legal requirement that all labels should carry the follow ing information: — The name of the food. — A list of ingredients, including additives. — The quantity of certain ingredients or categories of ingredients (the so called QUID rules). — The appropriate durability indication (eg “best before ...”). 9906191009 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 162 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

— Any special storage conditions or conditions of use. — The name, or business name, and an address or registered oYce of either, or both of, the manufacturer or packer, or of a seller established in the EC. — Lot marking to enable recall in the event of accident or contamination. — Specific requirements for particular products—eg the Chocolate Directive requires a declaration of cocoa solids and a statement alerting consumers when chocolate contains other vegetable fats in addition to cocoa butter.Products containing certain sweeteners must carry statements “with sweeteners” or “with sugars and sweeteners”.Food containing aspartame m ust additionally carry the words “contains a source of phenylalanine” and food containing more than 10% of added polyols must be labelled “excessive consumption may produce laxative eVects”. — A weight statement for packs above 50g. 4.For a small pack, that is already a lot of information to provide in the ava ilable space.Additionally, there is key information that the manufacturer needs to get onto the product and space must be found for that.This includes: — The brand name—research has demonstrated that this is usually the first thing that consumers look for.Most food products are bought as repeat purchases by consumers wh o use the brand name as an indication of the product’s quality and value for money. — Claims—for example if a product is reduced fat or sugar-free it is important to alert consumers. Where claims are made, nutrition labelling is mandatory.Forthcoming EU r egulation of claims makes it likely that claims statements will become wordier in order to be compliant.The current EU proposals would restrict manufacturers’ ability to provide truthful information about products deemed to have an unsatisfactory “nutrition profile”—although how that would be established remains obscure.(The EU proposal would also restrict endors ements from third parties such as medical bodies.) — Warnings that the product may contain traces of nuts—essential where a factory produces products that contain nuts and it cannot guarantee that minute traces of nuts may not be present in other products. — Details of promotions—for example if a competition is involved there are detailed legal requirements for the information that must be provided.

Additional Labelling Requirements Which the Law will Soon Require 5.As if the above was not enough of a challenge both to the label designer and to the consumer confronted by a mass of data, developments at EU level are set to increase the amount of information to be placed on the already overcrowded label: — Amendments to the Labelling Directive will remove the current “compound ingredient derogation”.This currently means that the manufacturer does not have to l ist the components (other than additives which still function in the finished product) of a compound ingredient if that ingredient makes up less than 25% of the total product.The amendments will also require that certain allergens and their derivatives must be mentioned (unless EFSA have been convinced by detailed case-by-case dossiers that the derivatives are non-allergenic).For example, if glucose syrup is used that has been derived from wheat, the ingredient list would have to say “glucose syrup (from wheat)”.Moreover, it will be necessary to include on the label proce ssing aids where these contain or are derived from allergenic material. — In general BCCCA members do not use GM ingredients, but new rules on GM labelling will make it more expensive for companies to keep track of where their ingredient supplies come from, so that they can be sure that no GM material has been included—other than tiny amounts caused by adventitious cross-contact. — Strong liquorice products will have to carry a warning against excessive consumption. — The Commission is developing a regulation on which will require them to be declared on the label.At present enzymes used as processing aids do not have to be decla red provided they have no function in the finished product. — The Commission is developing a proposal on mandatory nutrition labelling.At present such labelling is voluntary.

BCCCA Companies and Nutrition Labelling 6.Most BCCCA companies already provide nutrition information and it is es timated that over 80% of the industry’s products carry such labelling.Providing this informatio n is voluntary, except where a claim is made, but there are legal requirements for its content and format where it is provided.The law requires that companies choose to list either “the Big 4” (energy—calories and kilojoules, protein, carbohydrate and 9906191009 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 163

fat), or “the Big 8” (the Big 4 plus sugars, saturated fat, fibre and sodium1).For larger products, such as packs of biscuits or cakes, the Big 8 is normally provided.The listing must be per 100 grams, although there is also an option to give additionally a “per serving” value.For products u nder 100 grams it would be more helpful if the law permitted a per serving value only to be given.A consumer is unlikely to welcome the information that his 45 gram product contains 345 calories per 100 grams—he would sooner be told that the product itself contains 155 calories.Including both the per 100 grams and per serving versions takes up too much space on small labels and is a contributory factor to such information sometimes being omitted from labels.Nutrition labelling is usually presented in tabular form, bu t the option to present it in linear format is important to producers of small packs and must be retained in the current review of labelling requirements. 7.In order to encourage wider provision of nutrition information on the in dustry’s products, the BCCCA last year agreed a recommendation to all member companies that they provide at least the Big 4 nutrition information for all products.Where possible this should be on the label, b ut where space does not permit this the information should be available from customer care phone lines and from company websites. 8.If the EU does decide to have mandatory nutrition labelling it will be imp ortant to ensure that the list of nutrients to be declared is not too long—six have been suggested—and that both tabular and linear formats are retained.An option to declare only per pack or per serving on pr oducts smaller than 100 grams would also be valuable.

Additional Information Sometimes Proposed for Inclusion on Labels 9.The following additional categories of information are sometimes prop osed: — Food safety—there are strict regulations on safe maximum levels of contaminants, whether natural or man-made, and the legally prescribed limits have “safety margins” built into them. Some campaigners have demanded that labels carry details of contaminants present.This is unnecessary on safety grounds and impractical because the presence of contaminants can be very variable even within the same batch of ingredients. — Means of production and/or origin labelling—whilst this might be feasible for single component foods such as meat, it would be impractical for multi-component foods.Man y of the ingredients are bought on commodity markets where product is blended from the numerous points of supply. Many of the ingredients are seasonal in nature and are bought from diVerent origins at diVerent times of year.So even if the information on origin were available it would m ean labels constantly changing. — There have been suggestions that products should carry “traYc lights”, with green being for products that could be consumed freely and red for those which should be consumed in moderation.Such proposals ignore the fact that di Verent consumers with diVerent life-styles have diVerent dietary needs.They also ignore portion size.For example a 50 gram ba r of chocolate confectionery that was 50% sugar would contain only 25 grams of sugar, whereas another food with perhaps only 20% sugar could easily have larger absolute amounts if the portion size was greater than 125 grams.The aim instead should be to encourage variety and c hoice, not to create a spurious concept of “good” and “bad” foods. — FSA have suggested that the industry could put healthy eating and lifestyle messages on packs. One biscuit manufacturer is already planning to do so—but of course the pack size is significantly larger than most confectionery packs.Other BCCCA members are considerin g whether they could do this, subject to space constraints.

Labelling in Relation to Ethical Concerns 10.Communication about ethical considerations requires a di Verent approach from communication about the nutritional content.Nutritional claims are subject to objecti ve standards.Robust examination of the credibility of ethical statements, such as whether good labour practices were used in the manufacture of a product or growing of a raw material, or whether a fair price has been paid at each stage of the supply chain, is far more diYcult.Instead, such judgements require in-depth and culturally-sensiti ve examination of the entire supply chain and even then may contain a subjective element.N o doubt these considerations influenced EU legislators when they excluded such information from the Labelling Directive’s list of points which member states can make compulsory for food labels.

1 FSA has proposed that sodium should be labelled as “salt”.Industry’s view is that this would be unscientific and misleading since not all the sodium comes from salt.For example, it would be confusing to consumers to put salt labelling on a biscuit that does not contain salt but does have sodium bicarbonate as a raising agent.We propose that companies should continue to label as sodium but could voluntarily show in addition how much salt that sodium represents.The additional labelling would of course add to pressures on space. 9906191010 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 164 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

11.Where the supply chain is complex and involves many smallholders in rem ote areas, as with cocoa growing, there is, regrettably, no simple, credible and robust way of certifying that good labour practices have been used.Nevertheless, in 2001 the chocolate industry worldwide si gned a Protocol which agreed to establish by July 2005 a process of certification that cocoa was being grown without the involvement of abusive child or forced labour.Work is continuing to achieve this goal. 12.Appropriate certification and communication requires a long-term, pa rtnership approach involving the entire supply chain.This is not always straightforward to achieve: re gulatory standards and law enforcement, for example, vary throughout the countries through which the supply chain passes. 13.It follows that there is no simple, accurate and reliable way of informi ng consumers about the circumstances which have obtained in respect of the particular product (whether it be a banana, a jar of coVee or a bar of chocolate) at each stage of its production.The chocolate indu stry has accordingly chosen to communicate with consumers in ways which allow a thorough explanation of the various working environments and industry activity.Information on the industry’s work ( including the Protocol) is communicated through letters, briefings, presentations, newsletters and websites, including www.fhidc.com/ cocoa; www.cocoatree.org and www.bccca.org.uk. This enables concerned consumers to inform themselves about the industry’s overall approach, while acknowledging that specific claims about a particular bar of chocolate would, at present, be hard to substantiate.

Other Ways of Providing Information 14.The average consumer will either ignore or be confused by overcrowded l abels and there is a risk that important information will not be taken on board.Given this risk and the sp ace constraints on labels, manufacturers are making increasing use of customer care lines and company websites.These are helpful for conveying information in greater detail, particularly where that may be required by only a minority of consumers. 15.However, there are some limitations on their use.Suchsources of infor mation relate to the product as it is now, but a consumer may have purchased a product made up to a year ago. In the meantime there could have been recipe changes, and almost inevitably there will have been changes in sources of at least one of the ingredients.Where safety is concerned, for example where a cons umer has a serious allergy, the ingredients list on the food label should be taken as the definitive source of information on what the product contains. 16.The most high-profile means of communicating information about produc ts is advertising—on television, in newspapers and magazines, on posters and in point-of-sale displays and literature.Advertising exists to support brands, which, as noted above, act as a guarantee to consumers of quality and value-for- money.While the purpose of advertising is not to convey detailed informat ion about a product’s ingredients, it does underpin consumer awareness of a product’s general qualities and enables manufacturers to draw attention to specific attributes of a product—such as being low calorie or low fat.

Costs and Who Pays Them 17.Costs are of two kinds: — There are one-oV costs for changing the design of labels and for reprinting them.If the new l abels have to be used before the old supply is exhausted, the old ones must be scrapped.That incurs costs and has undesirable environmental consequences.Despite frequent pleas by the industry, the regulatory authorities often fail to ensure that changes in labelling law all come into eVect at the same time.They have also frequently failed to provide adequate time for th e transition from old to new, thereby making it impossible for companies to use up old stocks, particularly where the products are seasonal or are slow sellers.This bears especially hard on SM Es, who often have wide ranges of products, each of which is sold in relatively small quantities.F or them an economic print run might produce several years’ stock of labels. — There are ongoing costs to ensure compliance with the law.For example, if a company chooses to provide nutrition information it may need to commission periodic analyses of the product to ensure that the data provided is up to date.It is important to retain the cur rent option for such analyses to be based on calculation from published data about ingredients, rather than established by laboratory analysis which would be far more costly. 18.In the first instance these costs are met by companies, but margins in the industry are small so the costs cannot be absorbed for long.In the medium to longer term cost increas es inevitably get passed on to consumers. 19.A further consequence of over-prescription on labels would be that mul ti-lingual labelling becomes diYcult or impossible.That could lead to some products being withdrawn from s mall markets—such as some of the EU accession states—for which it would be uneconomic to print special labels.If that were to happen the value of UK food exports, which are already in decline, would fall further. 9906191010 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 165

Implications for WTO Negotiations 20.All countries claim that food safety is a major priority, but there is a r isk that alleged food safety concerns may provide countries with the opportunity to create non-tariV barriers on somewhat spurious health grounds.For example, the UK and other EU member states have been kep t out of export markets such as Saudi Arabia and other countries for many years on the grounds that food products containing milk ingredients could be a risk because of BSE or foot and mouth disease.The UK G overnment and health authorities struggled for years to convince the Saudi authorities that products such as UK milk chocolate and biscuits containing milk ingredients were safe and posed no risk to consumers. 21.While we have contended that such barriers have been raised under the pr etext of food safety concerns, but are really motivated by other interests, we are often confronted by similar allegations from other WTO members.Many developing and least developed countries contend that developed countries impose food standards requirements that are too high to be met by the former and hence, either deliberately or inadvertently, create barriers to imports. 15 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Waitrose Waitrose has 143 food shops as part of the John Lewis Partnership.Branches are based in the South of England, Anglia, The Midlands and Wales and are dedicated to oVering quality, value and customer service. Waitrose customer profile is ABC 1 and share of grocery trade is 3.69% (AC Nielson–Dec 2003).

Nutrition Content of Food The vast majority of Waitrose prepacked products carry an eight point nutrition panel based on values per 100g or 100ml, supplemented where appropriate with information per serving.Most packs also carry an additional panel showing, for easy reference, the calorie count and quantity of fat and salt.Products such as breakfast cereals which contain folic acid and are fortified with vitamins and iron carry front of pack logos to highlight these characteristics and will also show in the nutrition panel quantities of the respective nutrients both by weight and as a percentage of the recommended daily allowance.Most recent packs show the guideline daily amounts of calories, fat and salt for men and women. We have a range of recipe leaflets designed to assist customers to prepare dishes from the best raw ingredients.On each of these leaflets there is indication of calories, fat , saturated fat and salt per serving. Our free recipe magazine “Waitrose Seasons” also indicates nutrition information for the recipes. Should customers require detailed nutrition and special dietary information about Waitrose products our branches hold a reference book which is regularly updated.We have a range o f fact sheets on nutrition and dietary issues.

Food Safety Food safety is a fundamental consideration of our business across all areas of production, distribution and branch operations.As far as customers are concerned all our prepacked products which require temperature controlled storage are marked with the maximum recommended storage temperature and the date up to which they will remain in perfect condition.Where appropriate, detailed cooking instructions are provided.If preparation in the home is a key safety consideration additio nal information is provided either on pack or by way of a leaflet (such as the one relating to the barbecue season).

Means of Production A great deal of information about the provenance of food is provided to customers by way of our publications and leaflets.I enclose a copy of the autumn edition of Seasons which includes on page 8 an article about our own farm and on page 12 an interesting piece by Henrietta Green on our support for local producers [Not Printed].Waitrose Seasons includes an article about our s upplier of goats milk. For customers who require more detailed information our branches hold a copy of our livestock manual which covers provenance and food production systems and much of this information is also available from our web site.

Ethical Considerations Each year we ask our suppliers to complete, for each of the sites at which Waitrose products are prepared, a questionnaire covering ethical considerations such as employment of young people, working conditions, health and safety, freedom of association and collective bargaining, equality of treatment, wages, welfare and facilities.The responses are analysed and reported to us by specialis t consultants, and where appropriate audits are carried out on site and an action plan agreed.This programme is i ntended to identify any issues of concern and work towards continuing improvements. 19 April 2004 9906191012 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 166 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Agriculture Biotechnology Council (abc) As you may be aware, abc was set up in 2002 to provide a forum for debate and education surrounding GM technology in the United Kingdom.The members of abc are BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syungenta. In relation to the inquiry on Food Information, on 18 April 2004, the most comprehensive labelling and traceability system for GM products in the world comes into eVect.The EU Commission, Parliament and Council established these rules after extensive consultation over a number of years with consumer and environmental groups, as well as industry.In respect of food information regarding GM ingredients, we feel that these new regulations give consumers the most information practically possible about the origin of their food. As an industry group, abc believes that real consumer choice means being free to choose between diVerent foods and products.This is why we support the labeling regulations and cle ar product information to promote informed consumer choice. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Clive Dibben

Introduction 1.The Committee has requested evidence on the way in which information abo ut food is provided to consumers in the UK in the context of international trade obligations and reforms.This memorandum focuses on the way in which information about diVerent production systems is provided to consumers through food certification schemes (often called “assurance schemes”).A lthough this memorandum does not consider information on diet and health, some of the principles discussed may be equally valid in that context. 2.The memorandum outlines the challenges facing food producers and consu mers and the role that food certification schemes can play in addressing the needs of both.It also expl ains the purpose of certification schemes and outlines the international rules under which they operate.In doing so, the memorandum challenges some of the “lore” that has developed around elements of the farm assurance sector and suggests that some policy and strategy developments have been ill-conceived and are unlikely to deliver the outcomes all wish to see. 3.Finally the memorandum, briefly, outlines an alternative strategy whic h, it is proposed, would be more likely to result in a system of information and labelling about production methods which would work as a harmonious whole, rather than the present disjointed, dysfunctional and industry-focused mechanism.

Background 4.Rules on international trade are increasingly agreed by consensus, whe ther through the European Union (EU), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or through organisations like Codex Alimentarius. Through these international forums rules are established on trade, competition, food safety and animal and plant health.2 In combination with Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms, which will help remove barriers and distortions to international trade in food, this ongoing trend will mean that EU countries will have diminishing powers to prevent access to their markets if foods meet international rules but fall short of national expectations.This will place greater competitive pressures on producers and a greater responsibility on consumers. 5.Even if Governments choose to impose higher statutory requirements on t heir own producers, there is often little that can be done to stop imports of (often cheaper) food with the danger (at least for the domestic producer) that market share migrates to lower cost producers in other countries.This may benefit consumers through reduced food prices, but a further consequence can be that production methods deemed unacceptable in the importing country are simply “exported” to other parts of the world.Meanwhile, domestic consumers unwittingly continue to buy foods produced in a way that, through their own legislative process, they have sought to end. 6.In this trading environment reliable information about the way in which food has been produced is important for two simple reasons: — It is the only way that consumers can satisfy their collective or individual requirements for food in a manner which reflects their own views, values and aspirations with respect to food quality, production, provenance and farming practice; — It is the only way that producers can recoup any additional costs incurred through operating to higher standards than required by law in a market increasingly driven by price and governed by international rules (whether in respect of food quality, character, provenance, safety, environmental protection, animal welfare, ethics etc.).

2 Sanitary and phyotsanitary rules (SPS). 9906191013 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 167

7.The problem for consumers is that they have no way of knowing whether a pro duct is more competitively priced because it has been produced in a way that they might not approve of, or simply because it has cost less to produce.3 Similarly, without clear and accurate labelling, consumers have no way of supporting production systems that are more expensive but which they do approve of (for example, ethical trading schemes, high welfare, Organic foods, products from particular regions, landscapes etc.)

“Reconnection” 8.The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food talked about the concept of “reconnection”. Farmers need to reacquaint themselves with the needs of “real” markets after several decades of servicing markets distorted, as a matter of public policy, to maximise production almost regardless cost. 9.Reconnection also addresses the physical separation of consumers from producers caused by modern systems of food production, processing, distribution and retailing. 10.In this context, the way in which information is conveyed to consumers a bout how food is produced will, arguably, be the single most important factor in delivering a sustainable future for farming and food. Unless consumers are aware of what they are buying they will be unable to exercise the “informed choice” on which will hang not only the future shape of our diet and health, but also the future shape of our countryside, rural communities, animal welfare, farming systems and much more.Without proper and reliable systems for labelling products produced in diVerent ways, consumers are likely to buy on price, which implies significant changes to the UK countryside and farming structures as well as changes in trade flows.All of which will impact on both producers and consumers. 11.The exercise of informed choice is dependent on consumers being aware o f the food and non-food consequences of their purchasing decisions and then being able to act according to their own preferences, needs or principles.In so doing they will help mould the future shape of the entire food supply chain. 12.In this respect it is essential that consumers can believe, trust and un derstand whatever they are told by food labelling and information systems.This is not yet the case.

Product Certification 13.Product certification schemes (sometimes called “assurance schemes” ) are simply a means of ensuring that any given product is produced to a particular standard.4 The internationally recognised rules for the operation of product certification systems are set out in the International Standards Organisation (ISO) Guide 65, which is analogous to a European standard, EN 45011.Product Cert ification schemes are voluntary initiatives, although for some schemes, compliance with EN 45011/ISO 65 is a statutory requirement. 14.ISO 65 states that: “Certification of a product (a term used to include a process or service) is a means of providing assurance that it complies with specified standards and other normative documents.”5 15.ISO 65/EN 45011 applies to the operation of certification schemes cover ing any type of product, not just those in the food and farming sectors.Nonetheless, the ISO definition of an assurance scheme seems to have been accepted by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) which recently published guidance on food assurance schemes, which states: “Although they diVer in one important respect—the minimum standards they work to are set out in legislation—organic schemes fulfil the same purpose as other assurance schemes, that is they oVer foods linked to specific production standards.”6 16.The FSA has advised that all UK food assurance schemes should be accredi ted to EN 45011 by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).7 UKAS is the UK’s national body for ensuring that EN 45011 is properly applied and that product certification schemes work properly in all sectors of activity (ie not just food and farming). 17.ISO Guide 65 states its purpose as being to specify the requirements for operating certification systems consistently and reliably “thereby facilitating their acceptance on a national and international basis and so facilitating international trade.”8

3 It should be noted that this is frequently not a factor of lower standards of operation.Lower costs of production may simply reflect greater eYciency, economies of scale, climatic advantages or lower costs in other factors of production (such as land or labour). 4 ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 (E) p 4. 5 ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 (E) p 4. 6 Food Assurance Scheme Guidance, FSA, 2003 p 2. 7 Food Assurance Scheme Guidance, FSA, 2003 p 2. 8 ISO/IEC Guide 65, ISO 1996 p iv. 9906191014 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 168 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

18.ISO 65 and EN 45011 do not specify what standards for individual certific ation schemes should be, but, by specific reference to another ISO Guide,9 they do specify how those standards should be produced. “Standards should always be written in such a way that they facilitate and do not retard the development of technology.Usually, this is accomplished by specifying p erformance requirements rather than product design requirements ... It is often necessary to allow for more than one category, type or grade of a product within the same standard (or in separate standards, if necessary). Designers, users and consumers often need such variants for specific purposes or for economic reasons. Standards should therefore be written in such a way that these needs can be met.”10 19.It should be noted that certification systems for organic produce and fo ods produced under the European Protected Food Name Schemes are all required by law to comply with EN 45011.11 All the other main assurance schemes concerned with food and farm production have now, voluntarily, committed themselves to achieving EN 45011 accreditation, although progress in this respect has been mixed.

Farm Assurance 19.From the information provided above, is clear that a “farm assurance sc heme” is simply a product certification scheme that includes elements of on-farm practice.As speci fically accepted by the FSA12 this definition would therefore include organic farming systems and, by implication, some systems covered by the European Protected Food Name Schemes and various other certification schemes such as the RSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme and LEAF. 20.It is also clear, that far from being a UK phenomenon, there are “farm ass urance schemes” operating in mainland Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and many other parts of the world.Some schemes are operated by industry bodies, whilst others are run by individual businesses (eg processors and retailers). 21.Some studies of farm assurance in the UK have arrived at a di Verent conclusion and definition of schemes.For example the Review of Food Assurance Schemes commissioned by the FSA in 200213 suggested that “assurance schemes have developed in the UK during the past decade”14 and that one of the main drivers had been the Food Safety Act 1990 and the “due diligence” defence15 it created.16 Whilst it is true that the due diligence defence resulted in an increase in the number of schemes and those who were participating, this is an over simplification.An analysis of the dates tha t assurance schemes in the UK farm sector started17 suggests a rather weaker correlation with the 1990 Act than the review proposes. 22.A possible explanation for this may be the degree to which this study, an d others, adopted a methodology in which they asked UK farm assurance schemes what assurance schemes did.This may have resulted in a focus on the development and activity of a handful of large, influential and comparatively new schemes, rather than looking at assurance in any wider context either nationally or internationally.The result is a “model” of assurance which under-estimates the value and importance of some assurance schemes while overstating the worth of others.That this “model” has been adopted b y UK policy makers and industry strategists means there is a risk that the UK food and farming industry is about to achieve the equivalent of arriving at a tennis match with a cricket bat.Consequent dam age to the interests of both producers and consumers may result.

Discussion 23.In theory, certification schemes are an ideal mechanism to achieve the r econnection that the Policy Commission identified as being so important to the development of a sustainable food and farming sector and thus the national interest.Unfortunately, in practice, the assuranc e sector in the UK has been accused of adding to consumers’ confusion rather than reducing it.Both the FSA 18 and the Policy Commission19 have suggested that consumers are confused by assurance.Both have assume d that this is a consequence of the number of schemes and marks in the market. 24.This conclusion would seem to be at odds with normal consumer behaviour , even in the food sector, where shoppers seem to cope with, and even relish, a diversity of products, marks, brands and logos— provided they readily understand and value the attributes that those marks and brands represent.

9 ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 (E) p 2 paragraph 4.1.2. 10 ISO/IEC Guide 7: 1994, ISO, p 2. 11 Organic Certification is covered by Regulations 2092/91 and 1084/99 and the Protected Food Name scheme by EC Regulations 2081/92 and 2082/92. 12 Food Assurance Scheme Guidance, FSA, 2003 p 2. 13 Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the Food Standards Agency by Ruth Kirk-Wilson, June 2002. 14 Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the Food Standards Agency by Ruth Kirk-Wilson, June 2002 paragraph 4. 15 Anyone found to have supplied unfit food may not be liable if they can demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that it should have been safe. 16 Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the Food Standards Agency by Ruth Kirk-Wilson, June 2002 paragraph 5. 17 See Appendix 2. 18 FSA Press Notice 9 July 2002 Ref: 2002/2035. 19 Farming and Food a Sustainable Future, Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, January 2002, p 40. 9906191014 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 169

25.It seems probable that it is not the number of assurance schemes that lea ds consumers to be confused, but the fact that schemes are unable, or unwilling, to convey what they mean with clarity and accuracy.The NFU’s Red Tractor logo, was, for example, launched with the claim that it would “guarantee that food has been produced to the highest standards in terms of the environment, animal welfare and safety”.20 Both the Policy Commission and the FSA found that this was not so. 26.The Commission recommended that Red Tractor Schemes (also known as the British Farm Standard) should be considered a baseline and that they should “position themselves at least at the level of the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice”.21 Given that this is what the schemes had always claimed to do, this suggests that, in the Commission’s view, that claim was not justified. 27.The FSA was also critical. “Research shows that people wrongly assume the red tractor logo indicates a British product, but the logo can also be used on produce sourced from outside the UK.”22 28.That such confusion exists is not surprising given that this is the very impression given by the NFU to the public.As recently as August 2003 the NFU issued a press statement wh ich clearly implied “quality” and country of origin attributes to the Red Tractor.23 This is inaccurate, as noted by the FSA, as certification schemes must permit access to all who are able to comply with their standards.It is also questionable whether the use of a mark as a de facto country of origin label is consistent with the objectives of the EU single market or ISO Guide 65 with regard to the facilitation of trade. 29.The assurance schemes which the Policy Commission has defined as “baseline” or “foundation” schemes24 set out their stall on issues of food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare.In this respect it should be noted that it is already a legal obligation that any food sold in the UK must be safe.Any supplier of food produced under the auspices of an assurance scheme in the UK that isn’t safe would be open to prosecution. 30.The foundation schemes also claim to have been developed around the “pr inciples” of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points.25 This is, for the most part, true only in the sense that schemes have addressed hazards already identified by legislation and guidance on compliance with legislation (eg statutory codes of practice), which apply to all UK producers and on which all foundation schemes have been based. 31.It is widely recognised, even by the schemes themselves, that they seek to mirror legal requirements rather than exceed them.The whole purpose of HACCP and other risk-based sy stems is that they should be specific to the unit or system being assessed.As such, one might expect as surance schemes based on “HACCP principles” to lead and exceed legislative change rather than be reactive to it. 32.It would seem likely that the best way to alleviate consumer-confusion about assurance is not to expect all food production systems to comply with a single standard, but to develop a system which celebrates and explains the diversity of foods and the ways in which they have been produced.This is not to say that there should not be a baseline standard with regard to outcomes. Clearly there needs to be a minimum specification of performance requirements, but there is a distinctdiVerence between a system that purports to ensure that all food is produced in the same way and a system that seeks to ensure that any food production system achieves specified outcomes.The latter would seem to be : — more in line with the aspirations of ISO Guide 65 in relation to the setting of standards (see paragraph 18); — more in line with the European systems of food labelling based on local, regional (but not national) geography; — better aligned to the aspirations of the Fischler reforms with regard to quality products; — likely deliver more of what consumers want in terms of value, quality and choice; and — more in line with the Policy Commission’s suggestion that the national baseline scheme would need to be “inclusive” (which it currently is not).26 33.The Policy Commission also expressed the aspiration that all food prod uced in the UK should comply with the baseline standard.This clearly places huge national (and even in ternational) importance on the content and delivery of the baseline standard far beyond other product certification systems.That the industry should have “ownership” of the standard, literally and metaphorically, may make sense given that participation in schemes is voluntary.But for the industry to have respon sibility for delivery of the standard and assessment of the veracity of claims made for it would seem most unwise.

20 NFU/AFS Press Notice 30 March 2000. 21 Farming and Food a Sustainable Future, Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, TSO, January 2002 p 40. 22 FSA Press Notice 9 July 2002 Ref: 2002/2035. 23 NFU Press Notice 18 August 2003. 24 Farming and Food a Sustainable Future, Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, January 2002, p 40. 25 Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the FSA, June 2002: Ruth Kirk-Wilson para 57. 26 Farming and Food a Sustainable Future, Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, TSO, January 2002 p 41. 9906191015 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 170 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

34.Various attempts have already been made to develop an overarching body to explain the merits of assurance schemes to UK consumers and to act as an authority on all UK assurance matters.As yet none has succeeded, either failing to garner support from the industry or assurance schemes or to establish external credibility (or, indeed, all three).

35.In 1996, at the height of the BSE crisis, the MLC produced a study which hi ghlighted the need for an independent, consumer-facing body to “challenge the industry to perform at its best”.The MLC committed itself, as a prerequisite to a £1.8 million grant award from MAFF, to deliver a constitutionally independent organisation controlled by a board with a majority of independent directors—the MLC itself having been criticised for failing to address the needs of consumers by the BSE Inquiry.This structure, called Assured British Meat (ABM) and intended to deliver an integrated assurance chain in the red meat industry, was subsequently returned to the control of a board of industry directors by the MLC and other industry bodies. Instead, the industry promised to develop, with further grant assistance, a new independent body called Assured Food Standards (AFS).This was to act as the overarching body for as surance schemes in all sectors of farming and food, not just meat, and to act as the licensing authority for the NFU’s Red Tractor logo.

36.AFS did not retain or replicate the independent structure that had been promised for the ABM initiative.In July 2002 its lack of independence was criticised by the FSA along with other aspects of foundation assurance27.

37.The latest iteration is “AFS 2003”.Thistoo does not have a constitutio nally independent structure, and retains strong links with the industry.28 It seems likely that AFS 2003 will continue to insist that foods accepted as qualifying under the British Farm Standard mark are produced according to the requirements of a handful of “founder”, mainly industry-controlled, and in some cases very new, schemes rather than adopting a more inclusive approach.As such any assurance scheme wishing t o use the British Farm Standard mark will be required to operate in the same way as AFS’s own schemes, rather than ensuring that any scheme delivers the equivalent outcome (essentially compliance with UK legislation).This is despite the fact that there is already considerable variation in how AFS founder schemes in diVerent sectors address the same issues.It is also true that some non-founder and non-qualifying sche mes have a much longer pedigree than those included in the AFS structure.At best, this approach seems inco nsistent with the development of the British Farm Standard as a “kite mark” for food.In this respect, it is noticeable that the Red Tractor logo, supposedly the mark of the British Farm Standard, is frequently described as a “brand”.

38.The real merit of a foundation level for assurance should be that it acts as a platform on which all else can be built.Currently the UK foundation level seeks to be the structu re in its entirety and to exclude those who choose to build to more grand designs.The most likely outcome of t his approach will be that innovation will be stifled, both in the delivery of foundation level assurance and the development of so-called “higher tier” schemes in the UK, such as those based on regional and local characteristics and landscapes. The latter being possible candidates for the EU Protected Food Name Schemes.

39.Furthermore, should the AFS and Red Tractor system be challenged by ove rseas suppliers, the fact that standards are based on legal minima and inspection regimes that are undemanding, could mean that non-UK schemes could quite easily demonstrate equivalence.(The AFS inte rpretation of equivalence [same system, same standard] would seem to be at odds with some international agreements, which are predicated on accepting as equivalent controls, inspections and approvals which achieve the same level of protection.29) If that were to happen the British Farm Standard mark could prove to be an “import superhighway” for foods from foreign certification schemes.

40.UK producers and consumers would be left with the worst-case scenario: foundation assurance schemes incapable of diVerentiating foods from diVerent origins and a poorly developed system of “higher tier” schemes from UK sources.In this context it is interesting to note the huge disparity between Protected Food Name products registered in the UK and other EU member states, especially France and Italy, for example.It is also noteworthy that there is already a pan-European founda tion assurance scheme.(Thus while the UK may be ill-prepared for a tennis match [see paragraph 22], others, who are already skilled at tennis, are now gearing themselves up for a game of cricket!)

41.A further challenge to the UK foundation scheme may be presented by the r equirements of cross- compliance under the reformed CAP which will require all Member States to develop and implement codes of practice which may not be dissimilar to those on which foundation schemes are modelled.The recently published consultation on cross-compliance in England would seem to propose some measures which go beyond current requirements of UK foundation schemes.

27 FSA Press Notice 9 July 2002 Ref: 2002/2035. 28 It is believed that the AFS 2003 Board retains a majority in favour of industry directors. 29 Article 4 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures. 9906191015 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 171

Conclusion 42.A desperate need remains for an independent and consumer facing body wh ose role is to inform consumers about the diVerent ways in which food is produced and to act as a truly independent arbiter between food producers and food consumers.Any such body would need to oper ate over and above the Certification Bodies responsible for product certification schemes and be entirely independent of the industry (this would preclude AFS 2003 unless radically remodelled).It i s possible that such a body could be housed in either the FSA or UKAS, but the FSA has no remit to cover issues of farm production, save where they impact on human health.Meanwhile for UKAS to perform this funct ion, a more consumer- facing approach and a much broader and deeper specialisation in matters food and farming would be needed. 43.Perhaps the ideal solution would be a free-standing and truly independ ent, expert “Food Mark Assessment Panel” (Food MAP?) whose role would be to ensure that: — all food assurance schemes achieve the specified outcomes of the agreed national baseline regardless of their chosen means of achieving them; — any other claims made by schemes were justified and verifiable.(In other wo rds does it do what it says on the label?); and — the merits of assurance in all its forms are promoted to consumers along with the independent and impartial values for which the panel would stand. 44.Such a body would be free from links to industry, assurance schemes and c ertifiers, and would act as an impartial and independent referee.Fulfilling this role would be a benefi t to the UK farming and food industry, consumers and the nation as a whole.A body of this type and statur e will be essential to the delivery of the harmonious and integrated system of assurance across the whole spectrum of food production that consumers need, and from which producers and the food industry would benefit.

APPENDIX 2

A PARTIAL CHRONOLOGY OF “ASSURANCE” SCHEMES IN THE UK

Scheme Year Started Comments Soil Association 1973 Organisation founded 1946 Guild of Conservation Grade 1989 Producers Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb 1990 (SQBLA) Northern Irish Beef and Lamb 1991 LEAF 1991 Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb 1992 (FABBL) Farm Assured Welsh Livestock 1992 (FAWL) Lion Quality Eggs 1993 Freedom Food 1994 FABpigs 1996 A pre-cursor to Assured British Pigs but founded on a MAFF “pig health” scheme developed in the 1980s Assured Produce 1997 Previously operated as a retailer/grower partnership developed in 1987 Assured Combinable Crops 1998 National Dairy Farm Assurance 1999 Genesis Quality Assurance 1999 Assured Chicken Production 2000 Assured Turkey production Under development

Source: Review of Food Assurance Schemes for the FSA, June 2002: Ruth Kirk-Wilson and information from assurance scheme web sites 19 April 2004 9906191017 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 172 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Clive Dibben 1.Further to the Committee’s oral evidence hearings of 22 and 29 June 2004, I would like to clarify and add to some of the points raised in connection with my earlier submission to the Committee. 2.During the hearing on 22 June, Mr Jack stated that I had submitted evidenc e suggesting that assurance scheme standards were no more than legal compliance.I think it is importan t to point out that my memorandum makes clear that these comments were in connection with what the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food described as “baseline schemes”, subsequently known as “foundation schemes”. 3.There are, as Linda Campbell of PAI pointed out in her evidence, schemes t hat exceed legal minima to varying degrees.For the most part this is not true of the foundation sche mes, which are based primarily on legal compliance and compliance with Codes of Practice.Most of the Code s of Practice have been produced and published by Government and its agencies and are themselves guidance on how best to achieve legal obligations. 4.As my written evidence stated, this is not solely my conclusion.It was th e view of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, the Food Standards Agency and others who have investigated the schemes. 5.The Committee also raised the issue of the integrity of the supply chain. Mr Wiggin suggested that purchasers were inclined to specify assured supplies unless commercial considerations meant it was more advantageous to buy from non-assured sources.In fact this tendency appli es equally well to foundation assurance schemes themselves. 6.The assurance “chains” underpinning the Red Tractor logo are, in places , less complete than the Committee and others might have been led to believe.For example under the r ules of the Red Tractor scheme (as at March 2004), beef and sheep destined for the food chain need not have been on an “assured” farm from birth.Beef cattle need only have been resident on “assured premi ses” for 90 days and lambs for 60 days (of a life span that may last from nine to 30 months for beef and up to a year for lamb).This residency period may also be “shared” between farms.It is quite possible therefore t hat a significant proportion of the early stages an animal’s life may not be covered by assurance standards at all. 7.It is also the case that whilst animal feeds from commercial manufacture rs must be purchased from businesses certified by the feed industry’s recognised assurance system, farmers may buy feeding-stuVs from other sources based only on self-certification that it is free from contamination and fit for use as animal feed. 8.This is not to suggest that food resulting from foundation schemes is any thing other than that which it has always been, but it does illustrate the fact that assurance schemes merely deliver food produced to a particular standard.Unless you know what the standard is and how it is enfo rced the mark is meaningless. This problem is exacerbated because, for those promoting the marks, it is tempting to overstate their benefits. 9.In this respect, I believe there is considerable overlap between eviden ce the Committee has received on the issue of diet and health and evidence on systems of production.Both inv olve highly complex systems and interactions that are seldom readily or meaningfully translated into a simple, single label.What would be of greater merit, in my view, is a system that ensures that if a food product makes a claim (whether about nutrition, system of production or provenance) that claim is clear, justified and verifiable.I believe an independent and impartially awarded mark showing that a label can be trusted to do what is says would be welcomed by all, especially if supported by a wider campaign of information about food and its provenance. 10.A further point was raised during the session about who pays for assuran ce.Mr Wiggin suggested that it was always the farmer. 11.For baseline or foundation schemes this is almost invariably true.In s ome cases there is a small premium paid for products from foundation assured sources, but both the cost of compliance with assurance scheme standards and the cost of inspection fall on the farmer who has little power to pass on those extra costs to purchasers. 12.However, given the widespread uptake of foundation schemes it would, p erhaps, be odd for a premium to be paid for a non-premium attribute.Indeed an economist might o bserve that if purchasers and the end consumer are unwilling to pay a premium for products achieving foundation level assurance, perhaps they attach no additional value to it. 13.This may be either because they believe that what foundation assurance delivers is a basic requirement of the food they buy (ie a standard feature rather than an optional extra), in which case why would they pay more? Or it may be that the foundation schemes have failed to communicate what “added value” their schemes oVer to purchasers.In which case consumers don’t understand why they should pay more. 14.It is probable that both are true to some degree, but given that other typ es of assurance scheme seem to be able to attract premium prices (eg Organics, high welfare systems, EU protected food name products etc) it may be more of the former than the latter.It is also the case that some purchasers (eg manufacturers of baby foods) are prepared to pay a premium to foundation scheme producers willing to comply with additional obligations as part of their supply contract. 9906191017 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 173

15.Purchasers may, in fact, see foundation assurance simply as a means of e nsuring producers’ legal obligations are adhered to in a climate where doubt has been cast on the ability of industry and enforcement bodies to deliver that legal base.E Vectively the “assured” status of the farmer then becomes the key that allows access to major markets. 16.Taken in this context, it is perhaps more understandable why producers find it diYcult to pass the cost either of inspection or compliance (mostly with legal obligations) further down the supply chain.An economist might suggest that this only becomes a realistic proposition where purchasers or consumers are convinced that a mark delivers additional value for which they are prepared to pay.This would imply that those whose involvement in assurance schemes is driven by a desire to achieve a price premium will need to think both about exceeding the foundation level and considering consumers’ wishes and expectations— which are diverse. 17.In this context, it should be noted that the Strategy for Sustainable Fa rming and Food agreed with the Policy Commission’s suggestion that “all food should attain” the baseline assurance standard.As such, the strategy document and the Policy Commission have eVectively sought to peg all food production systems (whether organic, high-welfare, integrated farming, foods of specified provenance etc) to the Red Tractor system. 18.Both the Strategy document and the Policy Commission also stated that t he baseline standard and the Red Tractor mark should be controlled by Assured Food Standards (AFS). 19.As a recent Parliamentary Question confirmed (Hansard 17 May 2004: Colu mn 655W), AFS is a private company, running a private scheme(s).It may therefore seem a litt le strange that AFS has, eVectively, been given dominion (seemingly as part of Government policy through the strategy document) over other private companies and charities operating other private schemes. 20.As “gate keeper” to the national baseline farming standard, if all food is to be covered by the baseline scheme (the Red Tractor) all those other schemes and bodies will have to comply with AFS rules and standards, which may be less demanding or less appropriate in some circumstances. 21.This “one-size-fits-all” approach is potentially damaging to all as it threatens to erode existing standards, market diVerentiation and price premiums for those who have achieved them.It may als o diminish the incentive for others to move away from the lowest common denominator. 22.I would reiterate that, in my view, it is of greater importance to show th at any food production system delivers common outcomes, than to pretend all food is produced to a common system.Quite clearly, it is not. 23.With reference to the Committee’s hearing on 29 June, whilst there is mu ch of Dr Baines’ evidence with which I would concur, I do not share his narrow definition of an assurance scheme.As stated in my previous evidence, by reference both to the Food Standards Agency and International Standards Organisation, it is evident that any certification scheme which involves elements of farming practice is de facto a farm assurance scheme—hence the inclusion of Organic schemes within the FSA definition of assurance.As such, his estimate of the number of schemes focuses on a handf ul of mostly large and mainly farmer-controlled schemes.There are others and, as Linda Campbell noted in her evidence of 22 June, the number of schemes is likely to keep rising.Indeed, it is arguable that the f ocus of the Fischler reforms on quality products and improving standards rather dictates that, at least on a European scale, it is desirable that this should be so. 24.Nor should the definition of an assurance scheme be restricted to whethe r or not a scheme has EN 45011 accreditation.The FSA has advised that all schemes should have such accreditation, but that does not suggest that prior to accreditation it is not a scheme—the issue is one of credibility through EN 45011 (the accreditation process itself requires that schemes have a track record before seeking EN 45011). 25.Finally, despite my view that there is much that can be improved in the as surance sector, whether within the so-called foundation level schemes or others, I do not share Dr Baines’ view that they are without merit.Even the foundation schemes provide an additional tier of inspecti on, at the cost of farmers, that would not otherwise exist across a large proportion of farm output in the UK.They also have the potential to be an invaluable tool in helping to change the culture of an entire industry in a way that regulation alone never could. 26.Unlike Dr Baines I do not, and would not, advocate that farmers withdraw from assurance.To do so would be to withdraw from the one mechanism that could deliver many, if not all, of the things Dr Baines and others wish to see for the food and farming industry of the future—including a hazard/risk based approach to farming practice.It would also be a withdrawal from the only me chanism that will allow farmers to recoup the cost of operating to higher standards than required by law, whether viewed in an international or domestic context. 27.My concern is not that assurance, in all its diverse forms, should be dis mantled, but that the systems of delivery and labelling are improved in a way that delivers a better degree of assurance to consumers and allows schemes with diVering objectives, standards and markets to work together more harmoniously. Unless this happens it is diYcult to see how the full potential of the Fischler reforms and the Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming can be realised in the UK. 9906191017 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 174 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

28.If this is to happen, those who control assurance at the foundation leve l should, perhaps, do more listening before they start communicating.They must ensure that when the y communicate with others they have a verifiable message that others want to hear.The current situation se ems to be predicated on telling people what you want them to believe, and if they don’t, saying it louder. 29.The NFU’s evidence revealing the disparity between consumers’ recogn ition of the Red Tractor logo and their understanding of it, is a case in point.Not unlike the caricature of the English abroad, the assumption seems to be that if the message is loud enough (or in this case suYciently ubiquitous) this will, of itself, lead to understanding.A better approach might be to ask whether the right things are being said, in the right way and whether the systems are there to support it. 30.For a policy of “reconnection” to be e Vective, there must first be a dialogue in language that all understand. July 2004

Memorandum submitted by the British Retail Consortium The British Retail Consortium (BRC) represents the whole range of retailers including large multiples, department stores and independent shops, selling a wide selection of products through centre of town, out of town, rural and virtual stores.In June 2003, the retail sector employed some 2.7 million people (11% of the workforce) and retail sales were £230 billion in 2002.Grocery retaili ng is significant in macro economic terms and was valued in 2002 at £111.3 billion. 1.The British Retail Consortium (BRC) welcomes the Environment Food and R ural AVairs Select Committee inquiry into issues related to food information, which we understand will examine the ways in which messages about food are communicated to consumers by food producers and retailers, and by Government and others. 2.This paper outlines how food retailers provide information on food to th eir customers and considers how consumers needs for information are best met.

Executive Summary — The modern British food economy is one of the most competitive in the world, with consumers having a greater variety of food choices and at all price points. — Eating out now accounts for around one-third of all our spending on food and drink and is continuing to grow. — The British Retail Consortium (BRC) supports the honest and open provision of information, including labelling to provide customers with the meaningful and clear information they are seeking. — The food chain diVerentiates foodstuVs across a wide variety of product characteristics including taste, nutritional content, cultivation techniques and origin. — Characteristics that are not easily distinguishable involve “credence characteristics.” These are attributes that consumers cannot discern even after consumption of the product, and can be split into content attributes and process attributes. — The development of a product with a credence characteristic requires there to be a concise system of traceability in place to monitor that specific characteristic.It is not enough to rely on a system that has been designed to ensure food safety. — Traceability systems are used to separate and identify foods with diVerent characteristics.There are two primary approaches to separating characteristics: Segregation systems and Identity Preservation (IP) systems. — All food marketed in the UK that is properly processed, stored, and prepared is safe for general consumption.Labelling is therefore not used as a standard tool to alert co nsumers about inherently unsafe foods. — Retailers believe it is vital that consumer preferences and how changes to price can influence real purchases are fully understood and appreciated.This applies as much to th e information consumers’ use as to the flavour characteristics.To ignore consumer requi rements, or to think for consumers risks adding cost, instead of adding value. — Research in the United States showed that where consumers were unwilling to meet the costs of additional labelling on pork, the demand for pork fell by up to 7% and the prices paid to farmers declined by up to 10%. — We believe that the current regulations, properly applied, are suYcient to avoid customers being misled.Additional compulsory information requirements would undoubte dly lead to increased packaging and systems costs, if sourcing flexibility were to be maintained. — Food retailers have led the way in providing clear and helpful nutrition information and by labelling foods well in excess of legal requirements. 9906191018 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 175

— The suggestion that so called “traYc light” system of nutrition labelling will do nothing to improve the health of the nation, and may even lead to a less healthy overall diet.Th is is because simplistic nutritional profiles ignore the total nutritional content of particular foods.

Introduction 3.By way of background it will be useful for the Committee to consider how th e modern British food chain operates and how food retailers source own-brand food products. 4.It is self-evident that British consumers have better access to a greate r variety of food choices than ever before.Gone are the days of geographic or seasonal rationing.With over 60 ,000 food-retailing businesses and over 35,000 businesses running restaurants, bars and cafes, the modern British food economy is one of the most competitive in the world. 5.Eating out, now accounting for around one-third of all our spending on fo od and drink, is continuing to grow.The largest eight multiple food retailers account for 43% of food s pending, co-operatives around 4%, and convenience stores 12%.The remainder covers discounters, specia list shops and smaller supermarkets.The huge range of food outlets again underlines the need for policy makers to consider the total food chain and not focus on specific segments. 6.Retailers will only source own-brand food products that meet their own s pecifications and requirements.These requirements include food safety, due diligence pro cedures, ethical trading standards, animal welfare standards, product assurance and specific procedural matters. 7.Retailers use independent auditors in addition to their own technical t eams to inspect and approve farms and processors to ensure that their own individual specifications are met.This means that own brand food products sourced from either inside or outside the European Union are produced under equivalent conditions to those required of UK producers. 8.We do caution that the food chains own auditing systems should not be seen as a way to check on the compliance with all legislation by all parts of the food chain.This must be the responsibility of government.

Information Provision

9.The BRC’s members support the provision of honest and open labelling to a Vord customers with the meaningful and clear information they are seeking.Part of the food retail sector’s success can be attributed to its willingness to respond quickly and accurately to changing consumer demands.Britain’s food retailers are constantly seeking to meet these changing needs by developing own-brand products across a range of prices and across a variety of characteristics, including taste, quality, visual appeal and convenience. 10.Successful New Product Development (NPD) requires the retailer to rec ognise that consumers want diVerent things.While the majority might be interested in price, taste and qu ality30, there are others who do not share this view.The growth of the organic sector, the introduction of “ local foods”, and the development of healthy eating alternatives all provide testimony to the wide range of products available today in food retailers and to the flexibility of the market to serve the needs of all customers.Given that NPD involves the eVective capture of characteristics, it is explicitly recognised that the process will involve communication of those characteristics.In some cases the characteristics sought by sho ppers may be will be nutritional, production-related or ethical.By engaging in NPD, food retailers are inc reasing the choices available to consumers and assisting in the more eYcient allocation of resources within the market economy.Informed choice is therefore a major business driver across the sector and is provided in two broad ways—labelling and oV-label information: 11.Labelling—Food retailers have led the way in providing clear and helpf ul information on food labels. These often go far in excess of legal requirements and are introduced to meet the requirements of their customers and to signpost product characteristics.For example, food ret ailers’ customer research led them to introduce nutrition labelling in formats that were of use to real people.This included the Institute of Grocery Distribution’s development of the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) concept. 12.O V-Label Information—Food retailers are expert communicators, in touch with millions of consumers everyday through point of sale information, in-house magazines, leaflets and websites.In addition, retailers communicate with their customers through a variety of non-traditional channels, which may include roadshows, customer care helplines and educational packs for schools.Developments in technology may increase the ability of retailers to provide oV-label information, although there are quite clearly cost implications.

30 FOOD CONCERNS OMNIBUS SURVEY Prepared for Food Standards Agency by COI Communications, 27 September 2001. 9906191019 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 176 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Information Systems 13.When information about a particular characteristic of a food product n eeds to be transmitted through the food chain then a system of traceability will need to be established.In theory information on an unlimited number of product characteristics can be recorded and passed along the food chain.However, the greater the number of characteristics that need to be collected and transmitted the greater the resource required to do the job. 14.In practice, traceability systems are used to separate and identify fo ods with diVerent characteristics. There are two primary approaches to separating characteristics: (a) A segregation system separates one crop or batch from another.Though s egregation may suggest that specific foods are kept apart, such systems do not necessarily entail a high level of precision and do not necessarily require traceability. (b) An identity preservation (IP) system identifies the source and characteristic of the product. IP systems are stricter than segregation systems and require traceability to guarantee that specific characteristics are maintained. 15.Food retailers have three motives for establishing traceability syst ems for their own-brand products: to diVerentiate food products with undetectable quality attributes (eg organic); to facilitate traceback for food safety or quality reasons; and to improve supply-side management.

Credence Characteristics 16.The food chain di Verentiates foodstuVs across a wide variety of product characteristics including taste, nutritional content, cultivation techniques and origin.While so me characteristics are easily distinguishable (eg a red onion), others diVerences involve “credence characteristics.” These are attributes that consumers cannot discern even after consumption of the product, and can be split into content attributes and process attributes. 17.Content attributes a Vect the actual physical properties of a product, although consumers may find the diVerence hard to detect.Nutritional fortification (eg folic acid) would be a n example of this. 18.Process attributes do not a Vect the final product content, but refer to characteristics of the production process.These characteristics often refer to issues of concern to partic ular groups of consumers, including animal welfare, employment conditions and environmental stewardship.S pecific examples include organic, free-range and fair trade. 19.The development of a product with a credence characteristic requires t here to be a concise system of traceability in place to monitor that specific characteristic.It is not en ough to rely on a system that has been designed to ensure food safety to deliver the transfer of information on whether a crop has been grown with manure from Angora goats rather than Jersey cattle.Information must be tr ansferred at each part of the identity preserved chain and that information must be robust. 20.The robustness of providing credence information can be ensured in two ways.Companies can establish a reputation for delivering the information they provide.In th e past, this was often done where a local supplier of meat will base provenance claims on his reputation.Toda y the retail sector typically utilises companies that provide objective validation of quality attributes.Such services are provided by a wide variety of entities, including consumer groups, producer organisations, private companies and international bodies.Governments may also provide verification services.

Food Safety 21.UK legislation is quite clear—all marketed food that is properly proce ssed, stored, and prepared is safe for general consumption.Labelling is therefore not used as a standar d tool to alert consumers about inherently unsafe foods. 22.However, traceability systems are used to help the food chain reduce th e time to identify and remove foodstuVs, which have problems with either safety or quality.Food suppliers have a strong economic interest to ensure that such products are isolated and removed before such an item reaches the consumer.All companies want to avoid the association of their brands with either safety issues or reduced quality.Coded information is typically used to identify product batches, with the food chain using “one-up, one down” systems to trace ingredients in complex foodstuVs. 23.Some products are manufactured to enhanced safety standards above and beyond legislative requirements.For example may retailers require food suppliers for their own-brand products to be certified to the BRC Global Food Standard, while others have their own requirements. The British Farm Standard has integrated the BRC Standard into its requirements.One of the main driv ers behind the creation of such assurance schemes was the Food Safety Act (1990) which required food retailers to establish “due diligence” on their supply chains. 9906191020 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 177

Adding Value

24.Retailers believe it is vital that consumer preferences and how change s to price can influence real purchases are fully understood and appreciated.This applies as much to th e information consumers’ use as to the flavour characteristics.To ignore consumer requirements, or to thi nk for consumers risks adding cost, instead of adding value. 25.Extending the EU country of origin labelling regulations on beef is an i nteresting case study.At first sight, an extension of compulsory labelling might seem an attractive proposition for the British food chain. However, the reality is somewhat diVerent. 26.Where retailers’ customers want to know country of origin information on beef products then retailers provide it—voluntarily.Customers are happy and are willing to pay the premium.This is adding value. 27.Retailers know their customers and therefore know that most have littl e interest in seeing the beef labelling regulations extended.To do so would simply add to the costs face d by the beef industry through greater bureaucracy.With no beneficial e Vect on consumer safety or perceived quality, the end result is simply added cost devoid of real benefit to anyone in food chain. 28.The Food Standards Agency found that price was the number one factor in p urchasing decisions for 46% of the population, taste was the number one priority for 18% and quality the number one priority for 17%.Country of origin labelling came near the bottom at 3%. 29.Recent research 31 in the United States showed that where consumers were unwilling to meet the costs of additional labelling on pork, the demand for pork fell by up to 7% and the prices paid to farmers declined by up to 10%. 30.The extension of compulsory labelling would also dilute the position o f existing beef brands that have been developed to provide added value to producers.This is because produc tdiVerentiation is more diYcult to achieve in an inflexible market where government regulates for marketing initiatives.The BRC believes such creeping commoditisation would only add costs to the food chain.

Nutrition Labelling

31.British food retailers have long been committed to playing their part i n providing a balanced and varied diet for their customers.This has involved implementing innovati ve strategies designed to overcome the barriers that discourage people from choosing a healthy diet. 32.Food retailers have led the way in providing clear and helpful nutritio n information and by labelling foods well in excess of legal requirements.According to FSA research 60% o f consumers found information on food labelling easy to understand, but 20% found some food labels “fairlydiYcult” to understand.This suggests that greater emphasis needs to be given to targeting the remaining population, and improve their awareness of health and well-being.Currently the law requires labellers to provide information on pre- packed foods only where a claim is made.The BRC believes that the EU reviews of nutritional labelling regulations need to recognise that consumer interests and market developments have changed. 33.Research 32 has identified that consumers perceive a number of barriers to healthy eating.In response, Britain’s food retailers have made significant investments in producing convenient healthy eating products that meet the needs of consumers.(There are currently over 4,250 such reta iler branded products—with sales exceeding £1 billion).The development of ranges of healthy eating produc ts fits into modern lifestyles, with brand identities allowing healthier options to be easily distinguished from standard options. 34.Healthy option branding has itself acted as a spur to innovation in this area as the use of brand identity acts as a “signpost” for consumers; making products more easily identifiable and therefore facilitating purchases given many consumers’ lack of time.All food retai lers’ healthy option brands include specific statements on why the product is healthier. 35.A recent ICM Survey 33 found that 50% of consumers considered that “healthy eating” brands help them find products with lower levels of salt, fat or sugar. 36.However, the BRC is deeply concerned that overly prescriptive approac hes could give rise to unintended consequences, including discouraging product innovation by the food industry.Such outcomes would clearly be undesirable as they would be detrimental to consumers.

31 Dermot J Hayes and Steve R Meyer, Pioneer Chair in Agribusiness, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa and President, Paragon Economics, Inc, Adel, Iowa, respectively.Published by the Natio nal Pork Producers Council, 2003. 32 Institute of Grocery Distribution, various publications. 33 ICM Omnibus Survey conducted 20–21 August 2003, surveying 1,014 respondents. 9906191021 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 178 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

37.For example, we continue to caution against any artificial segregation of foods into “good” or “bad”. This ignores the overall nutrient profile of foods, including important micronutrients such as calcium, iron and vitamin B12.Such wrong thinking has no scientific underpinning and could lead, for exa mple, to a further fall in iron or calcium intake if meat or cheese were targeted.Inde ed, the Codex draft guidelines34 for use of nutrition and health claims state “food should not be described as healthy”. 38.The majority of food retailers believe the use of high, medium and low de scriptors for fat, sugar and salt on foods is potentially confusing.Retailers support the use of label ling to provide informed choice and often go beyond legal requirements to provide their customers with relevant, useful information.There may be conflicts between the absolute amounts of fat and sugar and how these nutrient might be described in terms of calorific intake for example, lettuce is high fat, “low fat” yoghurt is medium fat. 39.We believe that the suggestion that so called “tra Yc light” systems of labelling will do nothing to improve the health of the nation, and may even lead to a less healthy overall diet.This is because simplistic nutritional profiles ignore the total nutritional content of particular foods.It would also fall foul of the EU’s proposal on Nutrition and Health Claims. 40.Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that this policy will prom ote healthier eating.A similar nutritional key system in Sweden led to older people and children not getting their correct nutritional balance as they were attracted to “low” foods.There is therefore a danger w ith the traYc light system that consumers will not eat a balanced diet.We reiterate our call for all policy proposals to fully conform to government’s principles of good regulation and to be evidence based. 41.The BRC considers that the mixture of existing labelling regulations a nd retailers’ voluntary initiatives provide suYcient information to allow all consumers to make informed choices and to benefit from the eYciencies delivered by a competitive market for food. 42.We repeat our call for the Government to develop a consumer education ca mpaign with clear, consistent messages in order to promote weight management as part of a healthy lifestyle.

Conclusions 43.The British Retail Consortium (BRC) supports the honest and open provi sion of information, including labelling to provide customers with the meaningful and clear information they are seeking. However, we are opposed to the development of additional compulsory information provision, and believe that the current regulations, properly applied, are suYcient to avoid customers being misled.Additional compulsory information requirements would undoubtedly lead to increased packaging and systems costs, if sourcing flexibility were to be maintained. 44.Given that any requirement to increase the compulsory provision of inf ormation may increase food prices it is important for Government to undertake a full impact assessment before these plans are further advanced at a UK, EU or International level.In addition, the Food Standard s Act introduced a requirement35 for the Food Standards Agency to take account in its decision-making process of the likely costs and benefits associated with any particular course of action.The BRC believes that such an assessment should include an in-depth analysis of the increased costs on consumers. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd

1.S ummary — No special foods are required to follow the Weight Watchers programme—the Weight Watchers programme is based on a portion-controlled, flexible, healthy eating plan. — To assist our Members to keep track of and manage what they eat, we have devised the POINTSTM value programme. — To complement the Weight Watchers programme, we produce a range of healthy eating products which are available through all major food retailers in the UK. — Weight Watchers believes that consumers should receive as much accurate and helpful information as possible about the foods they are buying, to assist them in making informed decisions. — Food Safety is of the utmost importance to Weight Watchers UK Ltd, and to assist in ensuring all licensed products are produced to a high standard, requirements for all licensees are documented and vigorously enforced. — Licensed products can only be produced at approved sites.

34 Report of the 31st session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, ALINORM 03/22A, May 2003. 35 Explanatory Notes to Food Standards Act 1999, Section 23. 9906191022 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 179

2.F ood Information

2.1 The Weight Watchers Programme No special foods are required to follow the Weight Watchers programme: we help our Members to eat a healthy, low fat, balanced diet consisting of controlled portions of whatever food they like to eat.Exercise is an integral part of the plan.There is scientific evidence that the Weight Watchers approach is eVective in helping people lose weight and maintain their weight loss. To assist our Members to keep track of and manage what they eat, we have devised the POINTSTM value programme.Each food has a certain number of POINTS values allocated to it, depending on its calorie and saturated fat content.Some foods, such as vegetables, are POINTS value-free, and some, such as fruit, are very low in POINTS values. Depending on their starting weight, Members are allocated a certain numberofPOINTS values per day. Within that total, they can eat what they like but are encouraged to control portions and track/monitor what they eat.The POINTS value allocation is designed to stimulate a gradual, healthy weight loss in the region of 2 lbs per week.

2.2 Weight Watchers Healthy Eating Products To complement the Weight Watchers programme, we produce a range of healthy eating products which are available through all major food retailers in the UK with the aim of providing tasty, low POINTS value foods to support the Weight Watchers programme.The Weight Watchers food r ange is produced under licence by reputable and experienced food manufacturers. These products are designed to enable our Members to follow our POINTS value programme accurately and easily and give the health conscious consumer quality low fat food products from a trusted name.The POINTS values allocated to each product are displayed on the packaging.

2.3 Nutritional content of foods Weight Watchers believes that consumers should receive as much accurate and helpful information as possible about the foods they are buying, to assist them in making informed decisions.Our products display information about the nutritional contents which, in addition to the POINTS value information, gives our Members and others guidance and choice.We look forward to making a positiv e input to the forthcoming European regulations on nutritional labelling. All our licensed products are developed with the aim of producing a balanced food with as low or lower POINTS value than a similar food currently on the market, without any compromise in taste and realistic portion sizes. This has been achieved by much of our licensed product range showing lower fat levels than traditionally prepared similar foods.Fibre technology has been successfully used in ou r cake range to reduce fat levels while our sandwich range uses carefully selected low fat foods for the fillings. The ongoing development requirement of our licensees is to further reduce calories by lowering sugar levels, either by reducing sugar levels as an ingredient, or by replacing with accepted sweeteners, such as intense sweeteners as in our fat free yogurts, or with polyols where a bulk matrix is still required as in the manufacture of cakes. Salt levels in line with the Food Standards Agency recommendations are currently under review.The sandwich range is made from reduced salt bread and our range of breads will shortly be re-launched with at least 15% less salt. Such development is ongoing and all new products must satisfy our requirements to target lower fat, sugar and salt levels.We aim to continually improve the nutritional profile of ou r products as we believe that all consumers should be given all the nutritional information they require.

2.4 Food safety Food Safety is of the utmost importance to Weight Watchers UK Ltd, and to assist in ensuring all licensed products are produced to a high standard, requirements for all licensees are documented and vigorously enforced. A Licensed System Quality Manual has been developed based on Good Manufacturing procedures, Quality Assurance principles, HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) requirements and Crisis Management.The Manual gives the minimum standards required for any manuf acturing unit preparing Weight Watchers UK Ltd licensed products, and before any products can be produced, the site is audited to the standards of the Manual by a qualified person who has the authority to grade the unit as to its acceptance as an approved site.Once approved the site is checked annually to the same standard by independent qualified auditors. 9906191022 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 180 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

New products must undergo a documented new product development procedure which involves at least three trial production runs, nutritional analysis, shelf life testing, taste panels, compliance with food safety requirements and microbiological testing at all stages of development, and only if a product is successful at all stages will it be released for retail sale. Specifications for each product are set during the development stage and these are used as a reference for production.Changes are only allowed by agreement following supportive e vidence. Product ingredients must come from reputable audited suppliers with agreed specifications.Additives are allowed in our products provided the additive is permitted and that the amounts used comply with food safety requirements. Genetically modified ingredients are not currently permitted. To further support our due diligence on food safety we have an independent regulatory company monitoring all our procedures and to independently analyse Weight Watchers UK Ltd at point of sale.

2.5 Food production Licensed products can only be produced at approved sites using equipment that is functional for the purpose, included in a cleaning schedule and regularly maintained. Specifications agreed during the development stage are adhered to during production runs which specify online checks and final product checks before release for distribution. The Licensed System Quality Manual controls the requirement of the production site, quality of ingredients, traceability of ingredients and finished products, and the ability of the site to respond to any recall procedures that may be necessary. The production site must also have a customer care operation to deal with all customer complaints and to be able to interpret the significance of such complaints with regard to the safety of Weight Watchers UK Ltd products.

2.6 Ethical considerations The Licensed Systems Quality Manual specifies adequate facilities for all employees and for all ingredients to be purchased from reputable suppliers, with traceability in place to ensure ingredients are genuine and from an acceptable source. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the RSPCA

Executive Summary Consumers consistently state that the method of production of food is an important consideration for their buying behaviour.However this intention does not always translate into buying patterns.Clear accurate labelling makes it possible for consumers to be informed about methods of production.Although the relationship between labelling and trade is covered by the WTO’s TBT Agreement, no definitive position has yet been taken on the issue of animal welfare labels.Voluntary labels c ome outside the remit of the TBTA and so would not cause any conflict with the WTO.However, they have limi tations with respect to informing consumers, as the history of egg labelling in the EU shows.Some m andatory non-product related PPM schemes are now operational and have been notified to the WTO without challenge.The RSPCA believes that mandatory schemes on animal welfare do improve consumer awareness and are compatible with the WTO regimes. 1.The RSPCA welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee on the issues related to food information.The Society feels tha t food information is a key tool to improve consumer awareness of animal welfare issues and improve standards for farm animals.The RSPCA has experience of improving labelling through legislative means, looking at labelling in the context of WTO negotiations and, via the Society’s Freedom food scheme, in the operation of a labelling system for higher welfare standards. 2.The right of consumers to be fully informed is now widely recognised.Lab elling makes it possible for consumers to make an informed choice about the products that they are buying.Labelling also makes it possible for producers of farm animals reared to higher welfare standards to recover some of their increased production costs in the market place.Labelling can be one of the least trad e restrictive measures, in the WTO context.Although labelling does not provide a complete answer to ensurin g that higher animal welfare standards are not compromised, it is one of a range of measures that can be used. 3.The market for ethically sourced foods is increasing rapidly.Themarke t grew by 41% between 2000 and 2002 to just over £1.5 billion (Mintel Attitudes towards ethical foods February 2004).Animal welfare as a driver for consumer motivation is increasing in importance.Animal issu es are viewed as the second most important ethical issue after the environment.The percentage of people s aying that they buy free range is 9906191023 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 181

also increasing (56% in the 2003 survey).In the UK egg sector, free range eg gs comprise 25% of the market, of which most are produced under the Freedom Food scheme.Consumers say tha t they want high welfare products and are concerned about the welfare of farm animals.For instance animal welfare friendly was the fourth most important issue for consumers when looking for chicken (after price, preparation and presentation) in a MORI survey done for the RSPCA in November 2003. 4.Higher welfare food products are often visually di Ycult or impossible to distinguish from lower welfare alternatives, so clear labelling is required as a mechanism to diVerentiate the products on the basis of animal welfare criteria.At present there is no European standard for welfare ass essment, although there have been calls for one.So the legislation stating what labelling can be used di Vers.The Regulation on Organics sets out certain standards that have to be applied if the European organics label is to be used and some of these refer to animal welfare.The regulation on beef labelling (Regulation 820 /97) allows countries to put country of origin on the label but does not designate set levels for animal welfare. At present there is only one sector where there is a European harmonised labelling standard that sets standards on welfare that are used on the label.This is in the eggs sector.The history of this and its relationship t o the WTO’s regimes is given below. There have been calls for a European standard. 5.Because there may sometimes be increased costs associated with some hig her welfare systems it is usually in the interests of producers of higher welfare products to voluntarily label their products to indicate the welfare element.Voluntary schemes though have their limitations.A v oluntary labelling scheme for shell eggs existed for over 10 years in the European Union but research conducted in 1998, after the scheme had been running for eight years, found that consumers were still confused about the provenance of eggs on sale. Polls in France and Germany undertaken on behalf of the RSPCA found that 77% of French consumers and 63% of German consumers confused intensive battery eggs with alternate extensive systems (MORI survey undertaken for the RSPCA 1998).The problem was that there was no incentive for lower welfare eggs to list their method of production as this would reduce consumer demand.Use o f labels with phrases such as “farm” or “country fresh” were allowed on the egg boxes and increased consumer confusion.A mandatory scheme was introduced (Regulation 2001/02) for domestically produced eggs, so that all eggs sold have to list the production method.This came into e Vect on 1 January 2004.Although it is a mandatory scheme for imported as well as domestically produced eggs it does not require imported eggs to be labelled with the method of production.They could merely be listed with the country of origi n.So a consumer, if they were buying on animal welfare preferences, would have to know the animal welfare policy of the country on the label, clearly an almost impossible task.But one country, Switzerland, h as introduced a clear mandatory labelling system for eggs based on non-product related PPMs. 6.Switzerland introduced its mandatory labelling scheme for imported as well as domestically produced eggs on 1 January 2000.The labelling scheme states on imported eggs “eggs p roduced in battery cages, which are not permitted in Switzerland” and was put in place to keep consumers aware of the diVerence between Swiss produced non-caged eggs and eggs imported from other countries which have been intensively reared. Since 1992 Swiss eggs have increased their market share of table eggs from 62% to 74% of the market, in the face of competition from cheaper imported battery eggs.This market share can be related to the mandatory labelling scheme.Consumers in Switzerland indicate a preference for Swi ss eggs and many retailers now do not oVer imported caged eggs.However this is not reflected in the processed food m arket, where clear labelling is more diYcult to achieve; most of these eggs in this sector are from imported caged hens.The Swiss scheme has been notified to the WTO and no objections have been made. 7.The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBTA) establishes the frame work under which labelling schemes can operate.These must not create unnecessary obstacles to inter national trade or be more trade restrictive than is necessary.Labelling schemes must also fulfill a legit imate objective, included in which are measures to protect animal life or health or the environment.So the TBTA re cognises the right of governments to impose voluntary standards or technical regulations to meet “legitimate objectives”. Although the TBTA does not explicitly mention animal welfare it could be taken as a legitimate government objective. 8.Voluntary schemes are defined as standards under the TBTA.Voluntary lab elling schemes do not conflict with existing multilateral rules.As they are not mandatory they d o not conflict with products which are not labelled.No obstacle to trade is created.This view was confirmed in the unadopted GATT panel ruling on tuna/dolphin in 1991 (United States—restrictions on imports of tuna.BISD 39S/155) which looked at the legitimacy of a voluntary labelling scheme based on a non-product related PPM measure.The panel found that as there was no legal discrimination between voluntarily labelled and unlabelled products in the market (in this case tuna), the labelling scheme did not restrict the sale of the product and so did not represent an unnecessary obstacle to trade.It is recognised that, althou gh falling outside the competence of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBTA), any government funded voluntary schemes should be made as transparent as possible.Other voluntary schemes should remain ou tside the scope of the TBTA. 9.There are divergent views on the applicability of mandatory animal welf are schemes under the TBTA, as there has been no agreement on non-product related PPMs.The WTO’s Commi ttee on Trade and Environment has been considering the applicability of non-product related PPMs under the TBTA but has not progressed in its discussion since it adopted its report in 1996, which acknowledged and summarised the major diVerences between the WTO Members on non-product related PPMs. 9906191023 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 182 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

10.As all animal welfare labelling schemes would involve non-product rel ated PPMs, as final characteristics of the product are not aVected by the production method, there is uncertainty about the relationship between mandatory labelling schemes covering animal welfare issues and the WTO’s regimes. 11.There is some WTO juris prudence on the issue.There have been no test cas es under the TBTA of animal welfare mandatory labelling measures to date.Any such case would d efine the relationship between non-product PPMs and the WTO regimes and in particular the role that consumer preference holds. However, there is some history on the relevance of consumer tastes to non-product related PPMs.In 2001 the Appellate Body in its report on the EC—measures aVecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products (WT/DS135/AB/R) did state that consumer tastes and preferences was a criterion for determining the likeness of a product.It upheld the right of members, in this case the EU, to prohibit a substance based on consumer tastes.However, crucially it did not test this rule under the TBT A. 12.The EC in its position on labelling to the WTO in 2001 confirmed that it wis hed to see TBT rules clarified to include mandatory labelling of animal welfare products.It se es it as the right of WTO members to chose its level of consumer information, that mandatory labelling could be the least trade restrictive of methods used and that schemes, providing they are transparent and open to all, could improve market access. 13.Although no substantive discussion has occurred on mandatory labelli ng under the WTO’s agricultural negotiations, both the Swiss and EU’s mandatory egg labelling schemes have been notified to the TBT and have attracted no challenge from other WTO members.Article 2.9 of the TBTA refers to international standards.One of the problems from an animal welfare stanc e, is that there are no internationally agreed standards to date, although discussion has started on this under the International Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).The Codex Alimentarius standards a re accepted as benchmarks to measure against national regulations, but there are only principles for organic standards not for animal welfare ones under Codex.However this does help to an extent as there are st andards for laying hens and labelling of eggs, supporting the notion that labelling of animal welfare friendly products is a legitimate objective for governments to pursue. 14.The RSPCA believes that animal welfare based mandatory labelling sche mes do not conflict with the TBTA, and, providing they are undertaken in a transparent manner, can be the least trade restrictive route. The history of egg labelling in the EU shows the limitations of voluntary labelling in achieving the aim of improving consumer awareness on an issue.It also confirms that mandatory s chemes that have been notified to the WTO have not attracted challenge.Finally it underlines that until t he situation is clarified, governments may be reticent in introducing mandatory schemes that cover production methods in third countries. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Genesis Quality Assurance Limited

Executive Summary 1.Genesis Quality Assurance Ltd.is a business dedicated to the provision of information about food production systems through assurance schemes. 2.Despite being recognised by independent third parties as operating sch emes at least as good as those operated by industry bodies and being able to do so more eYciently, the Genesis QA scheme has faced anti- competitive practices from industry controlled schemes.This has been da maging to the interests of producers, consumers and the development of the whole-farm approach to assurance which promises to deliver assurance in a manner which is better aligned to consumers’ expectations. 3.It is proposed that interests outside of the sphere of assurance and food labelling have driven industry organisations to act in the way they have and that this has been detrimental to the assurance sector and the interests of individual producers and consumers. 4.Despite access to significant public funding industry bodies have faile d to deliver a credible and workable assurance authority, despite more than seven years of trying.It is suggests that new and truly independent approach is now justified.

Introduction 5.Since its establishment in 1999, Genesis Quality Assurance Ltd.hasbee n at the forefront of eVorts to deliver better and more cost-eVective methods of providing the food industry and consumers with information about food production systems.Even before the National Farm ers’ Union announced its plans to develop the Little Red Tractor logo, Genesis QA had announced its intention to develop a logo to appear on all foods that had been produced according to its own assurance scheme.T his is based on a more comprehensive system than schemes operated by industry bodies and is more cost-eVective without loss of credibility.Indeed, in some cases the Genesis QA system has achieved UKAS accreditation to EN 45011 when industry operated systems have not. 9906191024 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 183

Genesis QA 6.Genesis QA was the first assurance scheme in the farming mainstream to dev elop and implement a whole-farm approach to assurance.Instead of requiring farms with more th an one enterprise to sign up to, pay for and be inspected by a plethora of schemes operated by individual sectors of the food and farming industry, our system is based on a single scheme.It has a primary module cov ering “whole-farm issues” such as management plans for farm waste and risk assessments for health and safety, animal welfare and environmental protection.This is complemented by a suite of additional m odules containing the specialist criteria for individual enterprises such as pigs, beef, sheep, dairy production and combinable crops. 7.We have good reason to believe that our scheme is at least as robust as thos e operated by industry bodies such as the NFU and in some cases more so.For example our module in the dairy sector has already achieved EN 45011 accreditation whilst the main industry operated scheme has yet to do so.This despite the fact that the National Dairy Farm Assurance Scheme (NADFAS) is a “founder member” of Assured Food Standards, which since its inception in 2000 proclaimed that all its schemes would be EN 45011 accredited within a specific timescale the deadline of which seems to keep slipping.More than this, AFS refuses to accept schemes from outside the “founding” group as “equivalent” unless they are already EN 45011 accredited.It is also the case, that whilst the Genesis QA scheme doe s not permit a Certificate of Conformity to be awarded until all non-conformances have been rectified, the industry controlled schemes allow certification of farms with non-conformances still to be addressed. 8.With some industry standards being barely the minimal legal requiremen t the acceptance of up to 15 non-conformances could result in a farm which does not achieve the legal minimum standards achieving certification. 9.Because our scheme is specifically designed for farms with more than one e nterprise, we are able to oVer single inspections and a single point of contact for scheme administration.This alone represents a saving in time to producers and allows us to oVer inspection and certification at a lower overall cost than if producers had to go to several individual industry-run schemes.Our schemes are reco gnised and valued by processors and retailers (including some of the nation’s best known and respected names) and yet we have suVered outrageous diYculty in obtaining recognition from industry bodies like Assured Food Standards and the NFU’s “British Farm Standard” mark, the Little Red Tractor. 10.We find this hard to understand and to accept, particularly as we worked c losely with Assured British Meat (ABM)—the industry and Government-funded assurance initiative—to help it develop a whole farm system (which was never implemented even after a joint agreement was signed between ABM and Genesis QA on the 23 December 1999).It is also the case that since the control of ABM w as returned to an industry- controlled Board of Directors and AFS was established with further public funds, the industry-owned schemes have tried to mimic the whole-farm approach we pioneered through a complex and nepotistic series of cross-licensing and cross-recognition agreements.This has been a tim e consuming and costly business for all concerned, and has yet to produce the same smoothly integrated system Genesis QA can already oVer. 11.It is a strange coincidence that individual modules of the Genesis QA sc heme were not recognised by AFS until after any cross-license between the AFS competing schemes were agreed. 12.A further benefit of the Genesis QA approach is that risk assessment is a f undamental part of its structure and operation.In conjunction with the assurance inspections w e are able to oVer an insurance risk assessment to producers which is much valued by insurers, who are then able to tailor insurance premiums to the level of risk posed by an individual farm.This enables producers, wh o have undertaken our inspection and assessment procedures (especially those with a good risk rating) to benefit from significantly reduced insurance costs.It is not uncommon for the savings to outweigh the cost of G enesis QA Certification and inspection charges leaving the farmer with a net financial gain. 13.We believe that this may have contributed to the unwillingness of the in dustry schemes to accept Genesis QA.Not only do we o Ver a commercially more competitive system (which is in direct competition to the industry’s own inspection and certification businesses), but, we may also be perceived as a threat to the NFU’s interests in the insurance market—even though we have oVered to undertake risk assessments on NFU Mutual’s behalf. 14.As a consequence we have a litany of complaints against industry-contr olled schemes and organisations which have sought to prevent us from trading on equal terms. Despite seeking amicable resolutions to each of these problems as they have arisen we have, on almost every occasion, had to resort to legal proceedings before organisations involved have accepted our position as being correct.Thus far we have taken action against three industry organisations and have been successful on all occasions with yet another case still unresolved.

The Need for Change 15.It is our firm belief that the approach of industry bodies to Genesis QA an d others operating in the assurance market (whether schemes, certification bodies or others) has been detrimental to the assurance sector, producers and consumers.It has certainly hampered the ability of the industry to provide information about food production systems to consumers in the most cost-eVective way, thus adding cost 9906191024 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 184 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

(or at least preventing cost-savings) to the assurance chain/food supply chain.It has also ensured that the development of a whole-farm approach to assurance has been considerably slower than it might otherwise be. 16.The merit of the whole-farm approach is now very widely recognised in ot her spheres of activity, indeed Defra, in response to the findings of the Curry Commission is seeking to adopt a whole-farm approach to its own activities in enforcement and other areas.Whole-farm is a driving principle behind cross-compliance and we believe that the Genesis QA experience and approach could be modified to help Government and its agencies to deliver their obligations in various areas more eYciently. 17.In the context of assurance and the provision of information to consume rs, the main benefit of whole- farm assurance is that it actually delivers a more sensible assurance about the nature of the farm and farming system.Under most other systems, it is only individual enterprises that a re inspected.However, it seems likely that if you tell a consumer that a product comes from an “assured farm” or an “assured farmer”, they would expect that standards of operation are of the same standard across the whole farm, regardless of the enterprise.This is something with which schemes under the Red Tractor log o have struggled, because, despite being promoted as a single entity, the “British Farm Standard” is in fact a loose amalgam of schemes developed for individual sectors of the industry, at diVerent times, by diVerent groups and each has dealt with the same issues in diVerent ways. 18.We believe that consumers and taxpayers have a right to expect more from an assurance system in which they have a significant financial and moral stake.Assurance schemes a re one of the main mechanisms by which information about food production systems is provided to consumers.Through the Curry Commission, the Food Standards Agency and other bodies assurance has been recognised as being of national importance.Millions of pounds of taxpayers money has already be en devoted to developing an assurance system that will work better for the public.But the industry has still failed to deliver a system which works coherently either in the context of the industry’s own schemes or the way in which its schemes interface with schemes operating in what the Curry Commission described as higher tiers (ie Organic, high welfare, regional or local provenance etc.)

Conclusion 19.It is Genesis QA’s belief that one reason for the repeated failure of the industry to deliver a workable “umbrella body” for assurance—something it has been trying to do since 1997—is that the interests of individual producers and consumers are weakly promoted and play second fiddle to the interests of industry bodies and industry controlled schemes.Each time a “new” umbrella struct ure has been proposed the existing schemes have not surprisingly viewed it as a threat to their own operations.Consequently, whilst they may have been cajoled into co-operating with each successive initiative, internecine rivalries remain making it diYcult to achieve a solution that is workable.The history of assurance umbre lla bodies has therefore been characterised by back sliding on commitments and reneging on agreements made. 20.Had no assurance schemes already been in existence then a single body co ntrolling, owning and running food and farm assurance schemes in all sectors in the UK would have been the logical approach. As it was, when the first attempt at an umbrella body for assurance was made there were already numerous schemes (owned by industry bodies, commercial organisations and charities) in operation.As such the umbrella bodies could only ever hope to achieve their objectives either through co-operation with businesses which, as has already been noted, had their own objectives to pursue, or through behaving in an anti- competitive way to coerce.It is on issues of competition that Genesis QA ha s had most frequent and most successful recourse to law in order to open up the market to trade and to recover its legal costs. 21.Given that there was and is a multitude of assurance schemes in operatio n, it is our belief that an alternative approach to the umbrella body issue needs to be employed.We wo uld like to see a totally independent body which is free from the control and influence of industry organisations and whose job is simply to say whether or not any given assurance scheme delivers an outcome which is equivalent to the outcomes of the national baseline standard.If a scheme makes any further c laim—whether it be welfare, environment, ethics etc—the umbrella body would also check that such claims are true. 22.We believe this system would be more useful to consumers and producers a s it would allow competition in schemes, standards (at least above the national baseline), inspection and certification.Those schemes and standards that provided something consumers were prepared to buy would thrive and survive others would not.Similarly, producers would be able to choose the assuran ce system that provided their needs in the most cost-eVective way.As previously stated we believe that Genesis QA has much to o Ver in that respect if it is permitted to trade on equal terms with schemes whose standards it has shown itself able to match or better. 23.Genesis QA has pioneered the use of information technology with the col lection of information whilst on farm.Extension to the range of information collected could be agreed (e asily) with the various Government and non government agencies (within the remit of the Data Protection Act) and supplied to interested parties accordingly. 24.Whilst AFS and other industry bodies have been provided with in excess o f £2 million of public funds to deliver commitments that they have failed to achieve, Genesis QA has received none. 9906191024 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 185

25.Genesis QA has always sought to deliver that which is in the best interes ts of consumers and farmers. In pursuit of that objective, we would be delighted to oVer any further information or assistance to the Committee that we can, whether by further written evidence or by appearing to provide oral evidence. 26.Genesis QA prefers the “Ronseal” approach to farm assurance “It does what it says on the tin” 19 April 2004

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Genesis Quality Assurance 1.Further to Genesis QA’s previous submission to the Committee’s inquiry into Information on Food, we were concerned to read in the uncorrected transcripts of oral evidence that the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) had described Assured Food Standards (AFS) as an independent organisation and that this statement had not been challenged. 2.The NFU has claimed the Red Tractor logo (of which the NFU steadfastly ret ains ownership) is administered by an independent body on previous occasions, but on no sound basis. 3.The Committee may be aware that the current version of AFS (Assured Food S tandards 2003) replaced the company originally given responsibility for the logo (Assured Food Standards Ltd.) because of criticism of the earlier company’s lack of independence.This criticis m came from various quarters, but most notably from the Government-appointed Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, chaired by Sir Don Curry36 and also Sir John Krebs, Chairman of the Food Standards Agency.37 4.Whilst there has been some change to the structure of AFS Ltd.inits trans ition to AFS 2003 it is not immediately apparent why the new body should be considered any more independent or impartial than the old. (We would point out that impartiality is of equal, perhaps greater, importance to independence in a body seeking to fulfil the functions ascribed to AFS 2003.) 5.There are at least three substantive challenges to the validity of any cl aim to independence for AFS 2003: It lacks structural and constitutional independence and retains a predomination of industry interests; Despite requiring sector schemes to be accredited to EN 45011, AFS 2003 is not itself accredited to EN 45011 or subject to the same tight scrutiny; Most of the personnel have simply switched from AFS Ltd.to AFS 2003. 6.To elaborate briefly on each of these points.

Structural and Constitutional Independence 6.1 AFS 2003 is a Private Limited Company owned, according to papers filed with Companies House, by two industry organisations, the National Farmers’ Union and the British Retail Consortium. 6.2 The National Farmers’ Union itself retains ownership of the Red Tractor logo and has only granted a five year licence to AFS 2003.There is no understanding to what happens aft er the five year period in terms of what costs are involved in future licensing or purchase of the logo.The l ogo is currently being promoted with the use of public grant monies and membership fees but is not owned by AFS 2003.Why do the National Farmers Union who are a private commercial membership company still retain commercial control over this logo if they have no intention of exploiting financial gains from the logo in the future ? This is wrong when others are paying of the promotion. 6.3 The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended that: “The Red Tractor and the standards underpinning it need to be owned by the whole food chain, and managed by Assured Food Standards on their behalf.” As already stated the Policy Commission envisaged that AFS would be an independent organisation—it is hard to see how AFS 2003’s current ownership is consistent with that aspiration.It would appear that the balance of power still rests heavily w ith industry bodies. 6.4 The Articles of Association for AFS 2003 do allow for independent representation on the Board of Directors, but only up to a maximum of six “Independent” Directors38 on a possible Board of 1839.Even then, the first of the Independents is to be appointed by the owners of the company40 (see paragraph 6.1 above).A quorum may include just one Independent Director, provided a thi rd of the total Board is present.41

36 Farming and Food a Sustainable Future page 40. 37 Statement by Sir John Krebs July 2002, FSA Press Notice 2002/2035. 38 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 14.1. 39 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 7. 40 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 14.2. 41 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 21.2. 9906191025 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 186 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

6.5 It is also the case that those with industry interests eVectively have a veto over the main Board.Among the “Industry” Directors, as of right, sit the six Chairmen of individual “Sector Boards” (eVectively assurance schemes in their own right and owned, almost exclusively, by industry bodies).In the event that the Sector Boards—which are responsible for setting standards within each sector—are in disagreement with the main Board, there must be a meeting between the Sector Board and the Directors of AFS 2003 to seek to resolve the issue.If they are unable to reach agreement the Sector Board can require the Directors to call a general meeting42, thus handing control of the dispute back to the company’s owners (see 6.1 above), thus, potentially, nullifying any scrutiny from Independent Directors. 6.6 The Articles of Association specify that, in total, there may be up to 10 Industry Directors43.In conjunction with the six permitted Independent Directors that would give a maximum Board of 16, plus the Chairman and the Chief Executive (eVectively Managing Director) making 18.It is believed that the current Board consists of 13 Members of whom five would be defined as independent under AFS 2003’s own criteria. 6.7 There is no requirement in the Articles of Association for the Chief Executive OYcer to be Independent and the Board has the exclusive right to appoint any person it wishes.44 6.8 Responsibility for the appointment of the Chairman rests with the owners of the Company45 and although precluded from employment within the food industry or food assurance sector during his/her tenure, Genesis QA believes that this is a less stringent requirement than would be needed to comply with EN45011.As drafted, the Articles of Association would not preclude a Chai rman of AFS 2003 having interests in the food and farming sector nor would they require any “hygiene period” between leaving a position in the industry and taking up the Chairmanship.

Adherence to EN 45011 6.9 As the preceding point illustrates (see 6.7), although AFS 2003 requires other assurance schemes to be accredited to EN 45011, it is not itself subject or accredited to the same standard.As AFS is itself neither a Scheme or a Certification Body, it has no requirement to be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).This places Schemes and Certification Bodi es in a diYcult position.They are required to comply with EN 45011 themselves and are therefore inspected by and subject to the requirements of UKAS, but they are also subject to the requirements, rules and whims of AFS 2003.Because of the recommendations of the Policy Commission AFS 2003 has taken unto itself significant and dominant powers despite being merely a Private Company—as Ministers have recognised—and one that is owned and controlled by industry bodies. 6.10 There is a danger that this situation, of itself, places considerable stresses on schemes and bodies that are accredited to EN 45011.They have little or no control over the, sometim es extravagant, claims made for the Red Tractor by AFS 2003 and those responsible for the Red Tractor’s promotion, but they do provide the mechanism which allows the Red Tractor mark to be used on the end product.UKAS inspections for EN 45011 focus on the mechanisms for delivering the standards within the individual schemes and food sectors, but not the use of the Red Tractor, the claims made for it and the way it is promoted.Those equally, if not more, important issues are covered by AFS 2 003 as the licensing authority for the NFU’s logo.

Personnel 6.11 Even if the changes made to AFS Ltd. in developing the new AFS 2003 had been suYcient to deliver an independent and impartial organisation for the assurance sector, it would require a considerable leap of faith to believe that the AFS leopard had changed its spots.Most of the pers onnel, particularly those in key positions, have simply transferred across from the old organisation to the new.These were the same people who, as part of the old structure, made repeated public pronouncements about the independence of AFS Ltd.and who allowed statements and claims that were disproportionate to w hat the Red Tractor actually delivered to be widely disseminated.The FSA and the Policy Commission fou nd that such high praise could not be justified and that its real benefits were rather more modest.

Conclusions 7.Genesis QA believes that our analysis, above, demonstrates that person nel from AFS Ltd, and AFS 2003 have simply sought to perpetuate a system dominated by industry interests.Some progress has been made.The AFS 2003 structure does at least now recognise that the Chairmen o f Sector Boards, regardless of their individual stature, cannot be deemed Independent Directors of AFS 2003 given that they owe their positions on the AFS Board to their appointment as Chairmen of individual schemes owned by industry bodies.AFS personnel had previously argued against this case—indeed it h ad been one of the cornerstones

42 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 10.7. 43 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraphs 13.1-13.2. 44 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 15.1. 45 Articles of Association AFS 2003 paragraph 11. 9906191025 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 187

on which they had based their claim for the independence of AFS Ltd.They, th emselves, now seem to recognise that this was an untenable position, but seemingly only because others have repeatedly challenged the claimed independence of the organisation they built. 8.Changing the name of an organisation is remarkably easy: changing the cu lture within it remarkably hard.If key personnel believed and stated publicly that AFS Ltd.was indep endent, what should we believe now when they tell us that AFS 2003 is independent too? Independence and impartiality are essential to the role picked out for AFS 2003.If the culture within the organisation could n ot recognise their absence then, can we have any more confidence now? July 2004

Memorandum submitted by Freedom Food Limited 1.E xecutive Summary 1.1 It is quite apparent that industry has largely paid lip-service to providing suYcient information on food products to enable consumers to make informed choices.Hence this inq uiry is to be welcomed, but only if evidence is widely sought, a broad base of opinion obtained and that this is then acted upon. 1.2 In addition, to Government becoming more proactive itself in ensuring consumers are provided with expansive and balanced information—and quite frankly this is questionable if judged by recent events such as the dismissal of FAWC’s recommendation on religious slaughter—Government must also actively encourage industry to be more responsible with regard to genuine and honest communication with consumers on all aspects of food. 1.3 In our opinion only the Co-op truly attempts to advertise, promote and label products with full information for consumers on health, safety and animal welfare.Retailer s in general do not wish to interrupt the process of shopping by encouraging consumers to find out more about the products, and usually only attempt to motivate purchase with the most basic information, usually a price reduction. 1.4 Therefore there is a huge job to do to promote the adoption of a completelydiVerent attitude of responsibility towards providing consumers with adequate information.

2.I ntroduction 2.1 Although there has been much discussion and some publicity over various aspects of food labelling, this often relates only to one specific issue, and so it is not before time that Government now seeks to embrace all relevant areas of interest and concern to consumers and the means by which these are communicated to them.

3.I nternational Perspective 3.1 While food labelling will need to comply with EC legislation and meet the needs of Government in its negotiations with WTO, it is important that specific aspects of particular concern to UK consumers (but which may not be prevalent or of interest to other countries) are properly considered.

4.H uman Rights 4.1 It is the right of every consumer to know how their food is made, under what conditions, where it comes from and what it contains, in order that they can choose whether or not to purchase any particular product. 4.2 There are three clear points for consideration: (a) Important information should never be omitted or withheld from consumers. (b) Factually correct information must always be given. (c) Information given on food labels, and other point of sale material, should be legible and understandable, with further guidance provided as to where to obtain other information relevant to the product. In other words, everything possible should be done to inform consumers about any concern or issue they may have.

5.T erms Of Reference (as written) 5.1 We would suggest that certain amendments/additions are made to the Terms of Reference, as follows: 5.2 The inquiry should carefully consider the motives that lie behind any communication of messages about food.Absence of information is as harmful, and potentially more so, than providing incorrect information.Emphasis on only certain aspects of the food, to the exclusio n or diminution of others, may not be in the best interests of all consumers, but serves (only) to sell more products.This is clearly wrong. 9906191026 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 188 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

5.3 Messages about food can be conveyed in many ways through many channels and to all or only to selected audiences.Therefore it is just as important to ensure that messa ges are equally accessible to everyone and not just a few. 5.4 Provision of the nutritional content of foods should not be at the expense or exclusion of the actual ingredients, or the source of these ingredients (whether they be from a diVerent country, which may have very diVerent health, safety and welfare practices, or from a diVerent crop/herd which has been produced in a significantly diVerent way, eg GM produce) 5.5 It would be helpful and reassuring for consumers to be appraised of what assurance process has been carried out for all products sold in the UK market, not just those produced in the UK.It could be argued that a great deal of production has been lost from the UK to other countries by virtue of the fact that UK producers are now well policed, while importers may not be.Consumers just don’t know, but are easily persuaded by lower prices combined with the lack of supportive or comparative information from suppliers whose only motive is to sell more, cheap products. 5.6 Regarding means of production—it should not be assumed that consumers truly understand the meaning or implications of certain terminology.Even terms such as free ra nge do not tell the whole story of animal welfare, for instance.Therefore the inquiry should also consid er what consumer education may also be required.

6.T he Role of Producers and Suppliers 6.1 One of the key aspects of this inquiry should be to seek ways in which attitudes and behaviour of suppliers and producers should be changed.It is a false premise to believe the myth that retailers listen to their customers and provide them with what they ask for.This is entirely di Verent from not providing information which they need, but may not necessarily ask for.Retailers on ly provide information so far as it suits their own sales and marketing aspirations.Where there is risk, th ere is much evidence of retailers avoiding or even hiding issues that may be contentious and once known would risk sales. 6.2 We believe that industry has to play a much more responsible role in both informing and educating consumers.It is often hard enough to identify that products are made overs eas, let alone be given any information relating to issues of animal welfare, food safety, food assurance etc.This is further confused when the final product is manufactured in UK from ingredients imported from elsewhere. 6.3 Hence industry should provide: 6.3.1 Clear labelling—with key points highlighted and in the primary field of vision (eg any GM ingredient).Too often messages such as “eggs from hens reared in battery c ages” are tucked away in small print and/or out of the primary field of vision. 6.3.2. It is recommended that all foods should be classified in some simple way to warn/advise/educate consumers, using a simple mechanism of symbols and ratings (similar to that used for washing instructions on clothes). Eg issue—animal welfare, symbol—AW rating—1 for free range eggs 2 for barn eggs 3 for battery eggs A similar system could be employed for health or weight issues Eg issue—human health, symbol—H rating—1 for natural orange juice 2 for orange containing added sugar 3 for orange containing other additives 6.3.3 Point of sale material—should contain clear, succinct information and only be located adjacent to relevant products.Indiscipline and even misrepresentation in store is c ommon place. 6.3.4 Information points—should be situated in as many locations as possible in store, such as leaflet dispenser boards, trolley adverts, car park posters, posters in store entrances, on till rolls, posters on back walls behind deli/meat/fish counters etc etc.It would be far more helpful t o have information available at the till queue for consumers to read rather than have a till display of sweets! However, the vast majority of communications in store only relate to price.The retail trade has a lot to a nswer for in driving consumers to look for price above all other information. 6.3.5 Promotions—if these do not involve price, then currently there is usually only some “gimmick” targeted at attracting kids who are easily influenced and therefore vulnerable.When this encourages them to purchase the wrong kind of foods (unhealthy or fattening) then such promotions should be banned.There is rarely any positive or educational message given as part of promotions. 9906191027 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 189

6.3.6 Advertising—too few suppliers employ the use of advertorials to convey information about products to consumers and traditional advertising usually only features price or some attractive gimmick. Freedom Food has long employed the use of advertorials, with the objective of helping consumers understand issues about animal welfare and encouraging them to purchase welfare friendly products. 6.3.7 Exhibitions and displays—in store should be used more often to demonstrate product properties to consumers.Occasionally producer groups have sought to demonstrate to consumers exactly what “free range” means by setting up exhibitions in retail car parks.These also give descriptions of all the various types of egg production supported by video displays.Far more of this type o f education should be done. Such exhibitions should challenge and educate the public on areas such as organic, GM, animal welfare, food safety etc. 6.3.8 Websites—could provide plenty of opportunities for consumers to search and read at leisure about health, safety and welfare aspects of all foods carried by retailers. 6.3.9 Assurance—of food products should be much more prevalent. Too often it is assumed that consumers can take it for granted that a product has been audited and that animal welfare has been safeguarded, despite there being no quality mark present.It is falsely as sumed that industry safeguards the public, but this is not necessarily the case.It would therefore be appropr iate for all products to carry some indication of what assurance/auditing has been carried out.

7.R ole of Government 7.1 Government has become too “politically correct” and often takes action too late or only when forced to do so.The recent decision to disregard FAWC’s recommendation to ban sla ughter without pre-stunning is plainly wrong—both in terms of the ethics of allowing this practice, but also in terms of not giving other consumers (ie not followers of the Jewish or Moslem faiths) the opportunity to choose meat products made from animals that have been slaughtered thus.There should at least be a dem and for clear labelling to go hand in hand with this absurd decision.While Government is willing to take such decisions, then we must question the eYcacy of this inquiry. 7.2 There is an apparent absence of “joined up thinking” by Government and a great need for a combined strategic plan to embrace not just the issues referred to in the terms of reference, but also how these link in with their impact on the NHS, British farming, etc and hence on the overall costs to the nation. It is quite clear that drinking, smoking, drug taking and now obesity are having the greatest impact on NHS resources, with the majority of the public having to fund these problems.Far more preferable would be for Government to educate, inform and prevent or minimise such problems for the greater good of the population as a whole.In terms of animal welfare, it would also be to the ben efit of the many millions of animals farmed each year to produce our food. 7.3 Therefore Government needs to play a pro-active role in persuading industry to be more responsible in its communications, but also to take an active role in educating the public in as many forms and through as many channels as possible.At present the actions of Government can be co mpared to those of a pea shooter against the machine gun of industry communication.

8.N utritional Content 8.1 A bland statement or list of nutritional content is unhelpful and uninformative for most consumers. More direction is needed to highlight the important key features of the nutritional data. 8.2 Nutritional data is usually provided only on labels and in miniscule print.This is patently insu Ycient and more opportunities should be given to consumers to read, understand nutritional values of products and thereby be in a position to make informed choices.

9.F ood Safety 9.1 Food safety has only recently, and this only in the most basic terms, been included in assurance auditing.It should therefore come as no surprise that there are still nume rous concerns over various aspects of food safety or why else do we have BSE, Salmonella in poultry, mixing of fresh and cooked produce, sloppy handling and serving of food in store etc. 9.2 Regrettably the public are falsely assured that food safety is protected and dealt with by industry, but this is a false premise.But this is further exacerbated by the prevalence o f industry to avoid and even cover up deficiencies rather than openly deal with them. 9.3 There are two separate issues on food safety ie: (a) The safety of a particular food or ingredient for consumers with specific allergies. (b) Aspects related to hygiene and the way that food is manufactured prepared and handled. Both the above should be addressed and covered under the terms of reference. 9906191028 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 190 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

10.T he Means of Production of Foods 10.1 There are presently no precise comparisons of diVerent production processes which give consumers the ability to make informed choices.We would contend, for example, that t he understanding of organic is very simplistic and that particular aspects of organic standards would, if appreciated, not be acceptable to most consumers (eg non application of medication for animals in order to protect organic status).Equally some people may be led to believe that battery eggs are better and safer for you because the hens have not been allowed out into the field. 10.2 It should be possible to produce a comparison of foods manufactured to diVerent systems or processes and to use this as the basis for a grading system to be used on product labels—see 6.3.2. 10.3 Care should be taken, however, of not just comparing written product specifications, but in judging audited outputs to ensure that these are real, delivered outcomes rather than mere paper comparisons.

11.E thical Considerations 11.1 Ethical issues are becoming increasingly more important to consumers and can no longer be ignored in product information.The growing success of Fair Trade products illust rates that once aware of the issues involved, more consumers are choosing to buy them, but it should not be just down to the producers themselves to generate a fair comparison of their product with other similar products in the market place and a more independent, informative and equitable process is required to enable consumers to fairly judge all products.

12.O rigin and Traceability 12.1 We would argue that any and all information communicated on the above areas must be considered as unsafe unless there are foolproof processes for ensuring traceability of foods back to origin (of animal, of producer, of manufacturer, of retailer, of country).Papers recently p roduced by the Food Standards Agency are a start, but until there is a legal responsibility for suppliers to maintain and communicate traceability, then industry will continue to make errors and may even actively manipulate information and mislead consumers to avoid financial loss. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted the Federation of Bakers and the National Association of British and Irish Millers The Federation of Bakers represents the interests of the UK’s bakers of sliced and wrapped bread, rolls and bakery snacks.It is a £3 billion industry at retail sales value and empl oys 20,000 people.nabim represents UK flour millers, using some 5.5 million tonnes of wheat each year to produce about 4.5 million tonnes of flour. The terms of reference of the Efra inquiry state that it “will inquire into the ways in which messages about food are communicated to consumers by food producers ...” This submission briefly summarises the role the trade associations in the milling and baking sectors play in communicating messages about food to consumers. The role of trade associations should not be underestimated.They deliver generic messages to the consumers via the media in a way unattainable by individual companies and therefore have an important input into shaping opinion.Despite these messages often being portrayed as parochial and biased, they nevertheless establish, in conjunction with other interested parties, the ground upon which policy debate takes place.The current discussion of obesity and healthy eating is perha ps the most egregious example.

Trade associations also have a role communicating directly with consumers through a variety of other means.Website activity is very important.Good examples of the very posit ive and important messages that can be conveyed through this media are contained in the Food and Drink Federation suite of consumer websites, which they will no doubt discuss in their submission to you. Other mechanisms include direct mail; the use of respected third parties to endorse and promote responsible messages; school based activity, and promotional events from trade shows to media opportunities. The milling and baking industries are in a very strong position because nutritionists, dieticians, scientists and Government all say that on a population basis we should eat more starchy carbohydrates such as bread. Around a half of our energy should be coming from this source.Neither, as th e latest National and Diet Nutrition Survey shows, does the population achieve national targets for fibre consumption.And specific population groups have lower average intakes of certain nutrients.Calci um intake among teenage girls and young women is of particular concern. Bread and other starchy carbohydrates are a great source of fibre, particularly wholemeal products.And white flour is fortified by law with calcium as well as niacin, thiamine and iron.It makes bread one of the best, most nutritionally dense products we can eat.The industry messages about the nutritional benefits of 9906191029 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 191

bread and starchy carbohydrates already resonate with a host of messages disseminated by many third parties and therefore have more chance of being absorbed by consumers.The biggest challenge to this healthy eating message, promulgated by government, nutritionists and industry alike, is the widespread obsession with faddy dieting.Research shows that the way to lose weight an d maintain that loss, is through a balanced diet.I enclose a research paper from Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical R esearch Council which clearly demonstrates the point [Not Printed]. In this context, the baking and milling industries have worked very closely to find eVective ways of communicating the balanced diet message to consumers.Alongside our day t o day communication work we have initiated a number of specific programmes which include: — The Flour and Grain Education Programme—a web-based educational tool that matches the requirements of the curriculum to information about farming, milling and baking for Key Stages 1–4 and which includes lesson plans and teaching notes.It is approved by th e government’s National Grid for Learning. — Direct Communication with health care professionals (HCPs).Both on a re gular and informal basis and through a twice yearly newsletter we are able to keep HCPs briefed on the nutritional issues around starchy carbohydrates which they can use in their work with patients. — Research.There is often a lot of misinformation about nutritional messa ges and faddy dieting.We have done work which looks at consumers’ health perceptions of bread; analysed the issues of wheat intolerance and the Glycaemic Index to put scientific fact into the public domain to challenge misperceptions. — We are also soon to heavily promote the message about healthy eating through the Vitality Eating System.This will build upon the Health of the Nation report by promoting th e benefits of an orthodox diet low in fat and higher in complex carbohydrate.It will be unbr anded and targeted at younger consumers.The Vitality eating System will be fronted by Cat Dee ley.Given her high profile and position as an aspirational role model we expect the VES to be very successful.It also answers the call made recently by the Food Standards Agency for celebrities to endorse healthy eating messages. — Promotional activity.This would include attendance at consumer based e xhibitions, recipe features for magazines or promotional activity around British Bread Month in October.All activities carry the healthy eating message. 19 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 1.The terms of reference of the enquiry are not explicit in recognising tha t the animal welfare standards associated with livestock products are an integral component of the food information that consumers may seek (it is not clear whether the example of “battery or free range” given in relation to information on the means of production indicates a specific interest in animal welfare considerations, or simply acknowledges that consumers may be aware of the distinctly diVerent production systems for some animal products). However, issues of animal welfare do clearly fall under the heading of “ethical considerations”, and so their inclusion is taken to be a topic of concern to the Committee’s enquiry. 2.The UK is now largely a food-secure society where food purchases are no lo nger the dominant element in the average household’s expenditures; furthermore, much of that food expenditure is directed towards the value-added element rather than the core physical “food” element of purchases.In these circumstances consumer interest turns increasingly towards the qualitative aspects of the commodities bought.Consumers begin to perceive the farm level conditions faced by food animals as a relevant characteristic of the final products they yield—as witness the designation of “free range” chicken, “barn” eggs, “grass-fed” beef, etc. Though understanding of practical farming processes may not be high, nevertheless consumers are increasingly interested to know of the provenance of the food they eat.In t his respect the standards of welfare under which farm animals are produced are an integral element in the acceptability of livestock products.In addition to the farm level production unit, livestock are sub ject to additional processes which have significant welfare impact throughout the production chain (transport, marketing, slaughter, etc). When considering welfare characteristics of livestock products, whether from the UK or overseas, it is important to look at the entire lifetime of processes to which the animals are exposed. 3.Farm animal welfare can be safe-guarded as long as minimum acceptable we lfare standards are set, adequately monitored and rigorously enforced, and information confirming this is suYciently available to satisfy the purchaser’s wish to know.Absolute compliance with legislati on and regulations relating to farm animal welfare (eg 1911 Act; Agriculture [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act 1968, Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations) is a fundamental public requirement and must be enforced.Ho wever, since the Welfare Codes of Recommendations for Farmed Livestock are designed to reflect the standards considered acceptable to a welfare conscious and civilised society, there is a public expectation that the provisions within the Codes are, in practice, the minimum standards to which the livestock industry should adhere. 9906191030 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 192 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

4.In addition to this, an increasing sector of the public wishes to have the choice to consume products deriving from systems with enhanced animal welfare standards.Claims mad e about such products must be transparent, honest, auditable and enforced.E Vective labelling, with full traceability linked to quality assurance schemes, will be an essential forthese developments in demand to take place. 5.Those addressing the welfare of farm animals must consider the process a s a whole, from the place(s) of birth and rearing, through transport, marketing and slaughter.The sum of welfare conditions to which each animal is exposed throughout its life is an explicit and distinctive element of that animal and is thus a quality characteristic of its provenance as food. 6.An e Vective labelling system should be developed to identify food produced in compliance with the Welfare Codes (and the absence of such labelling on some imported goods may be taken to indicate non- compliance with these codes or their equivalent), and to additionally recognise food produced to enhanced welfare standards, in an honest, transparent and reliable way. 7.FAWC is currently considering the issue of how and to what extent informa tion on welfare standards can be conveyed to the interested consumer—perhaps by a (necessarily simple) label attached to a product, along with additional supporting/explanatory information if required. That problem is but one dimension of the overall question of conveying information about food products—whether fresh, processed, in retail food stores or in catering establishments—appropriate to the consumers’ needs to enable rational purchasing decisions. 8.Even in relation to the animal welfare dimension, however, the informat ion issues are complex.There is a diversity of farm level production systems and conditions for each of the food-producing animal species, the welfare outcomes are not easily reflected simply by indicating the production system, and consumers are not necessarily suYciently knowledgeable about livestock agriculture to be able to determine whether products meet their welfare preferences.In addition it is not only the ima ges of the farm-level processes that contain the information about welfare.Animals are transported from one l ocation to another, move through markets, and are finally subjected to slaughter—all of which contribute to the overall welfare status that animals experience and which aVect consumer concerns about the products they consume.For example, there is a particular issue relating to the labelling of meat from animals intended for the Kosher or Halal markets (and which are therefore slaughtered without pre-stunning), but which finds its way unidentified onto the ordinary meat market instead. 9.FAWC will be considering these and other aspects of the food labelling qu estion in its own specific enquiry over the coming months. 20 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland is a statutory body set up in 1985 with the general duty to promote and protect the interests of consumers.In addition to this general remit the Council has specific responsibilities in relation to food. We welcome this Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee inquiry into issues related to food information.We strongly support the principle that consumers have a righ t to information.Food information is an important issue because it informs choice and without information choice has no value. “Choice” is one of the consumer principles and has been defined as “the most precious of all consumer rights” [Lawlor, 198946] and the “engine of consumer power” [NCC, 199247].Ultimately, consumers should be free to choose and it is a matter for individual consumers what they buy.

1.T he Nutritional Content of Foods

Food labeling Consumers are more inquisitive and cautious about the food they eat and how their food may have an impact on their health and, as a result, are demanding full information about their food in light of recent food scares and animal welfare issues.For many consumers the principal so urce of information about nutrition, source and production methods is the food label.EU legislatio n prohibits mislabelling of products.All ingredients present in a product should be accurately and ho nestly declared.There is much small print on food labels and yet consumers remain uninformed.Consumers want more information but need to be able to trust that information so they can then use it as a shortcut in their decision-making process. The Council believes that food listings should be exhaustive, irrespective of length, in the interests of providing consumers with all the information necessary to make an informed purchasing decision. The Council recommends that nutrition information should always be given, and not just in instances where nutritional claims are made.In the interests of assisting informed choice, there should be complete, meaningful and honest labelling from source and all labels should be accurate and consistent and must not

46 Lawlor, (1989) in National Consumer Council.(1992) Your Food, Whose Choice? HMSO, London. 47 National Consumer Council (1992) Your Food, Whose Choice? HMSO, London. 9906191031 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 193

confuse the consumer.We support the minimal use of signposting and believ e that signposted material should be located in the same place on the pack for consumers’ ease of reference.We have in the past called for proper, meaningful labels and appropriate sanctions for oVenders. It is well documented that consumers have diYculty understanding food labels.The most recent Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards survey by the Food Standards Agency48 showed that while the majority (64%) of Northern Ireland respondents in the survey continued to think that food labels were easy to understand, comprehension of some types of label information remained poor.For example, only 27% of Northern Ireland consumers could correctly identify the main ingredient when shown a typical food label. Understanding of “best before” date information was also at a low level; however there was a significant increase in the correct interpretation of the “use-by” date.Importantly , from the point of view of this inquiry, almost two-thirds (58%) of consumers claimed to look for nutrition information on food labels and the general trend would seem to be of increasing interest in this issue.How ever, there was concern about the accuracy of food labelling among 40% of respondents to this survey. We recommend alerting retailers to the diYculties consumers experience in reading and understanding food labels.We have previously recommended a Trader Training Initiative , which could usefully be employed to provide sales floor advice and assistance to consumers experiencing diYculty in extracting the information they need to make an informed choice.We strongly support the r ecommendation giving consumer advice and education on food labelling a high priority.

Allergens We have previously recommended that the listing of major food allergens should be exhaustive and there should be no exemptions for compound ingredients.We also support the use o f simple language rather than scientific names when referring to allergens. We support the use of highlighting to draw attention to the presence of allergens.This can be done on the ingredient list (by using bold type of appropriate colour contrasting) and/or by using separate allergy information/alert panels.We consider that separate provision of allerg y information (in the form of a “contains” box) is clearer for consumers and should be used whenever possible.Ultimately, we support a consistent approach to devices that draw attention to allergens. The practice of adding non-chicken to chicken for the sole purpose of retaining water is a particularly important issue for consumers who are allergic or who, for religious, ethical or other reasons, wish to abstain from eating beef or pork.For this reason, such practices sh ould be aVorded a zero tolerance policy or at the very least be appropriately labelled.

Food assurance schemes All food producers, processors and manufacturers must already conform to minimum statutory requirements.Therefore, we believe that food assurance schemes must o Ver benefits in addition to the minimum legal requirement.This is an existing consumer expectation.We b elieve that the principal purpose of assurance schemes must be to raise standards generally and further extend consumer choice.For this reason, we strongly recommend that food assurance schemes must not be used solely as a marketing tool. Furthermore, we believe that consumers must also be assured that such assurance schemes have eVective monitoring schemes coupled with stringent enforcement and robust penalties for non-compliance in order to ensure that the credibility of schemes is maintained.

2.S afety of Food Consumers have a right to expect food to be safe when they buy it.Food safety must be a future priority for the agri-food industry.There is no market for unsafe food.Responsibi lity for producing safe food rests firmly and squarely with the agri-food industries themselves from primary producer through to retailer. In recent years food safety and standards have been compromised and the health of the public exposed to risk.The BSE crisis, E-Coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and other food hazards have undermined public confidence in the safety of food.The Council’s report “Fit to Eat? Consumer Views on Food Safety” found consumers’ confidence to be lowest for those products that have been associated with food scares in recent years for example, eggs, poultry and meat.Looking ahead there are concern s over the prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and the development and application of new food technologies such as genetic modification. The industry must be more open and transparent with its customers.In the pa st it has been too secretive and has tended to react reluctantly and defensively in the wake of a food scare or bad publicity.Consumers have been shocked when they have become aware of some aspects of modern farming.

48 Food Standards Agency.(2004) Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards (wave 4).Food Standards Agency, London. 9906191032 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 194 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

It is not in the interests of food and farming that such concerns exist.Rath er than being dismissive it is important that the industry learns from the past.Perceptions are importa nt and above all consumers want food production, distribution and retail systems that they can trust.The food and farming industries must be more pro-active in future in demonstrating to consumers that its processes and products are safe.To reassure consumers will require concerted action by the food and farming industries themselves, the enforcement authorities and Government.Strict product liability shoul d include primary agricultural produce in order to raise standards.The food and farming industries must t ake responsibility and accept liability for the safety of what it produces.In the interests of achieving this modern agricultural practices should be comprehensively reviewed including intensive animal husbandry, animal feeding and other practices.Where there is doubt about the safety of an agricultural proces s or practice the “precautionary principle” should be applied at all times.Full traceability should be pro gressively extended to include all agriculture produce.Quality and food safety standards should be progres sively harmonised within the UK and at EU level.

3.T he Means of Production of Foods The Council believes that the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the biggest barriers to a move towards more sustainable agriculture in the UK.Incentives for intensified farmin g practices must be removed because they cause considerable damage to the environment, the costs of which are often externalised onto the consumer.Therefore, we believe there should be research into alterna tive extensification systems of production and farm management to reduce the use of pesticides, fertilisers and antibiotics about which consumers are becoming increasingly concerned.This could be incentivis ed through grants to encourage farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable farming practices. Food that has been categorised as “free range” or “organic” or that has been produced using genetically modified (GM) ingredients must be accurately labelled.GM-free food shoul d not carry a price premium. Otherwise, a two-tiered system of product pricing may develop since there is often an associated price diVerential attached to these products.This would disproportionately a Vect lower-income consumers who spend more of their household income on food and would represent a barrier to food choice.This is a particularly relevant issue for Northern Ireland families where those in the lowest income decile spend 30% of their income on food compared to 16% by the highest decile. The 2001–18 EC Directive requires GM products to be labelled “This product contains genetically modified organisms”.We support this positive labelling initiative over n egative labelling (ie) the presence of GMOs in a product rather than GM-free labelling.Therefore, in order to f acilitate informed choice GM labelling rules should become meaningful to the extent that GM-free rules would become less important. Ultimately, the Council believes that consumers should have a meaningful choice between GM foods and foods produced using conventional methods.Organic products should not b e the only alternative to GM foods.

4.E thical Considerations We strongly support the attachment of “environmental conditions” to future direct support payments as outlined in the most recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.The d elivery of environmentally friendly farming practices is indicative of what consumers both want and expect. Consumers are still motivated to purchase based on the criteria of price, quality and service but increasingly there are other factors behind consumer purchasing decisions.Our 1999 Report “What’s in Store? Consumer Views on Grocery Shopping” concluded that the most important factors for consumers when shopping for food are quality; price; in-store hygiene and cleanliness; variety and choice; presentation and appearance; in-store standards of service; environment (how products are grown); animal welfare (how food animals are treated); and, lastly, country of origin.This clear ly shows that consumers are motivated by ethical considerations relating to the environment and animal welfare. April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Countryside Agency

Summary The Countryside Agency is the Government’s statutory agency working to make life better for people in the countryside and to improve the quality of the countryside for everyone.Current work, of relevance to this consultation, includes our “Eat the View” programme, engagement with the development of environmental standards in food production, and our education programme. Evidence suggests consumers often lack information about food, are confused or misled by the information they are given, and can have expectations which do not encourage a sustainable food and farming sector.Furthermore, school-age children and young people’s kno wledge and understanding about 9906191033 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 195

food and farming appears to be poor.There is also evidence which suggests t hat food information can be eVected by legislation and agreements of the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To improve the information, education and awareness about food and farming, we recommend that: — greater eVorts are made to reconnect consumers with food, farming, and the countryside; — consumer expectations are changed to support a more sustainable food and farming system; — clarity, consistency, and transparency of food information and labelling is improved; — education and learning about food, farming and land management is improved; — EU rules governing Country of Origin labelling are amended; and — WTO rules governing labelling and production and process methods are amended.

1.I ntroduction 1.1 The Countryside Agency welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee’s consultation on food information. 1.2 We have a strong interest in increasing people’s awareness, knowledge, and education about food and farming, including the production methods used to produce food and other products from land management systems, and related food education, labelling, and marketing issues.We have not made comments in this response on how consumers can be made better informed about the nutritional content of food or the safety of foods, as these aspects are outside of our remit and other organisations are better placed to provide evidence in these areas.

2.C urrent Work Relevant to this Consultation

Eat the view

2.1 Consumer support for England’s farmers and land managers is important to the future of our countryside.It is crucial that people make the link between the goods they buy and the countryside they cherish and that they understand that through their purchases they can exert a positive eVect on the way the countryside is managed.The Countryside Agency’s Eat the View programme i s working to make these links and to help develop the market for products which support a more sustainable approach to farming and land management. 2.2 The programme is focused on: — raising consumer awareness of the links between the products they buy and the countryside they value; — helping increase demand for locally and regionally distinctive products that help reinforce the character of the countryside; and — working to enhance market opportunities for producers and growers as a result of product identity with land management systems that promote the character, diversity and environmental value of the landscape. 2.3 The programme is running two pilot Environmental Quality Mark schemes in the Peak District and Cotswolds which aim to develop brands for products from these areas of nationally protected countryside. During 2004–05 the programme will also compare, contrast and evaluate the environmental performance of existing and emerging national, regional and area-based Product Marketing, Labelling and Accreditation (PMLA) schemes (including our own pilot projects).

Food production and environmental standards

2.4 We are engaged with the development of baseline assurance standards. In 2002, the Agency, with Defra, English Nature and the Environment Agency, commissioned work to develop credible baseline environmental standards for the Red Tractor scheme, with consistency in approach across all schemes.49 We are also working with the Linking Environment And Farming (LEAF) scheme, through the participation on its technical committee, and we support organic farming, as a form of sustainable land management.

49 Environmental Standards in Farm Assurance Schemes, Land Use Consultants and Dr Mark Redman. 9906191033 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 196 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Food and farming education 2.5 The Countryside Agency wants to encourage a vibrant and sustainable food and farming industry and culture.As tomorrow’s consumers it is important to ensure a balanced a ppreciation of food, farming and land management amongst school-age children and young people.The aim of our education work is to encourage quality educational opportunities and resources so that children can make informed choices in the future. 2.6 We work in partnership with many organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors.We are working Defra, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), Farms for Schools and the Access to Farms consortium to develop a training programme which will support an independently accredited scheme for farms that open for educational visits.We have also delivered a pilot work shop in partnership with Whizz Kids in Shropshire looking at issues of nutrition, health and well-being with an emphasis on local and regional food production.

3.A nalysis and Recommendation

Consumer knowledge and expectations

Consumers’ lack of knowledge 3.1 Knowledge about farming and food has declined as society has become increasingly urbanised and as the agricultural industry has become less significant.Research in 2003 for c/o British Farming found that only 8% of people know how much of the food we eat is grown in the UK and 27% of people thought margarine is produced from milk.50 In addition, consumers have become accustomed to all year round supplies of fruit, vegetables, and other products which once would have only been available in certain seasons.A survey of shoppers in the UK in July 2002 found that 96% of the publ ic do not know when are in season.51

Consumers expect cheap food 3.2 Policy since the end of World War Two has encouraged farmers to produce much more food, initially because of concerns about low self-suYciency, but subsequently by the CAP’s production subsidies.This has led to an increase in the amount of food we produce in the UK, but also a growing expectation that food should be cheap.Purchasing practices, price wars and “value” lines by foo d retailers have further reinforced this expectation.

Consumers don’t expect to pay for public goods 3.3 Research52 for the Countryside Agency by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) found that many consumers, even those living in rural areas, appear to take the countryside and associated benefits for granted.Few of the respondents in the survey made the link between the f ood they ate and the English countryside and rural communities.Furthermore, there was little eviden ce that consumers directly associate farming with the countryside.This lack of connection highlights a need to close the gap between producers and consumers.

Recommendations 3.4 Consumers are not a homogenous group and, as such, there is a diverse range of channels and methods which could be used to improve the communication, information and education about food, farming and the countryside.The most appropriate messages and communica tion strategies should be both general and specific, and particularly relate to individual needs, interests, and circumstances. 3.5 People’s confidence, knowledge and understanding could be developed by making greater eVorts to reconnect the consumer with food, farming, and the countryside by, for example: — development of PMLA schemes that are awarded by independent certification bodies who inspect producers and manufacturers and audit supply chains against defined standards; — development of strong sustainable local food economies, through initiatives such as farmers’ markets, Pick-Your-Own, farm shops, and box schemes.At farmers’ markets , consumers have the opportunity to talk directly with farmers who have produced the food;

50 c/o British Farming, Survey of the public’s understanding of food and the countryside, April 2003. 51 ICM Research, Seasonality and Shopping, Safeway’s, July 2002. 52 IGD, Consumer Attitudes to Eat the View, Institute of Grocery Distribution, May 2002. 9906191034 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 197

— encouragement of retailers to improve information and display materials, such as highlighting which produce is in season or locally produced, introducing information technology that maps the routes which the products or ingredients have taken, or including a map on labels of where products have been produced (as wine labels often have); — improvement of access to farming and the countryside through mechanisms such as demonstration farms, school visits (see below), and farm open days; and, — celebrations of food and farming through means such as agricultural shows, fairs, exhibitions, and other cultural events. 3.6 Consumers’ expectations could be developed to support a more sustainable food and farming system by: — greater illustration and communication of the reasons for higher costs of producing quality food from sustainable land management systems, to higher animal welfare standards, or which has been fairly traded; —eVective communication of the message that the public needs to pay for public “goods” if it wants to enjoy the benefits; and — internalisation of the external economic costs of food production and distribution, such as those created by diVuse pollution, through fiscal and other mechanisms.Food prices would then better reflect the “real” cost of production in the market.

Labelling,Assurance Schemes, and Use of Terms

Labelling confusion amongst consumers 3.7 A study53 in 2000 found that 68% of consumers seek information from labels when making food purchase choices.As the National Consumer Council (NCC) research 54 on labelling for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) found, food labels are currently more likely to confuse and mislead consumers than inform them.However, if used properly, credible labelling schemes have the pote ntial to inform consumers and diVerentiate products.We do not see that the problem of confusion is necessar ily one of proliferation, with the need for a rationlisation of voluntary labelling schemes, although we do advocate that voluntary labelling schemes need to be consistent and transparent with credible rules and standards.

Red Tractor 3.8 The Red Tractor logo has become more recognizable by consumers in recent years, although many consumers are still confused as to whether it is an indication of British produce or not, and what the associated animal welfare and environmental standards are.55 The nine schemes that make up the Red Tractor logo have come under considerable criticism for overstating claims about environmental standards.

Use of terms 3.9 An FSA survey56 into the use of terms such as “natural”, “homemade”, “traditional”, and “pure”, indicated that such terms continue to be used in a way that is potentially misleading to consumers.The terms are not covered by European legislation on production methods in the same way as “free-range” and “organic”.They do however, like every food product, come under the Food Sa fety Act (1990) and the Trades Descriptions Act (1968).57

Recommendations 3.10 We would support eVorts to improve the clarity, consistency, and transparency of food information and labelling.We support the recommendations made by the National Consum er Council (NCC) in its report for the FSA, that: — a code of practice for good governance of food assurance schemes that includes a commitment to involve consumers in the design of schemes and to communicate the benefits of schemes to consumers in plain English; and

53 MAFF, Consumers Attitudes to Food Labelling, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, 2000. 54 NCC, Bambozzled, BaZed, and Bombarded, National Consumer Council, 2003. 55 Kirk-Wilson R, Review of Food Assurance Schemes, Food Standards Agency, June 2002. 56 FSA, Criteria for the Use of the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural etc in Food Labelling, Food Standards Agency, July 2002. 57 The Food Safety Act 1990 makes it an oVence to describe, present or advertise a food in a way that is likely to mislead the consumer to a material degree.The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an o Vence to apply a false trade description to any product. 9906191034 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 198 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

— a labelling guide for food manufacturers and retailers which would encourage transparency and provide practical suggestions for how to promote consumer education and information about food labels. 3.11 We would also advocate: — an online register and consumer guide (with the URL given on food labels) which shows and describes food assurance logos, summaries the schemes’ aims and standards, states whether they are independently verified or not, and provides contact details for further enquiries; — the adoption of credible baseline environmental standards across all assurance schemes using the Red Tractor logo and development of a consistent approach to reduce confusion amongst consumers; — compulsory labelling of the country of origin of the main ingredients of composite or processed food products (see also Rules and Regulations below).And, as above, encou ragement of food manufacturers and retailers to use maps on packaging to indicate the place or region of origin for single ingredient products. 3.12 We support the FSA’s guidance on the use of terms such as natural, traditional, home-made, etc which sets out the criteria under which the use of such terms may be helpful to the consumer, and instances in which their use may mislead consumers.We would also support further inv estigation as to whether there is a need for certain terms to have a European-wide legal basis or guidance.

Food Education in Schools 3.13 Research in 2001 found that nearly a third of eight to 11 year olds believed oranges are grown in Britain, and six in 10 did not know spinach is grown in Britain58.Our research 59, commissioned with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and Farming and Countryside Education (FACE), also found school-age students’ knowledge and understanding about various aspects of food and farming appears to be poor.The research suggests that there is a strong case for improving tea ching and learning about food, farming and land management.This would complement a national drive to dev elop a range of knowledge skills and attributes amongst young people that enable them to contribute as active citizens.

Recommendations 3.14 We believe that eVective, cognitive, and social learning can be greatly enhanced by undertaking activity in an external classroom environment.We regard experiential le arning as an integral part of personalised learning.There is a growing body of evidence to demonstrate the positive impact on behaviour, motivation and life skills development when using the natural world as a resource for learning. Opportunities and resources to learn about food, farming and the countryside are key components in understanding the natural world.In this specific area we therefore recomm end: — the use of food growing and cookery to deliver the national curriculum; — professional development to support teachers in delivering food, farming and countryside issues as a context within the national curriculum; — incorporation of other special food educational activities into school activities, including farm visits, tastings, and talks and debates; — widespread adoption of a national accreditation scheme for farms that open for school visits; and — work in schools to create a whole-school approach encompassing learning about where food comes from, how it is produced, and its importance.

Rules and Regulations

EU rules governing Country of Origin labelling 3.15 Research has shown that improved Country of Origin labelling is high on the list of consumers’ demands for better information60.EU rules governing Country of Origin labelling are not su Yciently strict to ensure consumers are well informed and are not misled.For example, pork which has come from pigs born, reared and slaughtered outside the UK, can currently be described as “British Bacon” if it has been cured in the UK.Similarly, orange juice labels are not required to give inf ormation about the origin of the oranges.

58 NFU, Ham from Deer, and Margarine from Cows? National Farmers Union, 1999. 59 Dillon, J et al, Improving the understanding of food, farming and land management amongst school age children, National Foundation for Educational Research/Kings College London.April 2003. 60 FSA, Food Labelling: Country of Origin, Food Standards Agency, October 2002. 9906191035 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 199

WTO rules governing production and process methods and associated labelling WTO rules are often interpreted as preventing members from introducing marketing or import regulations which distinguish between products on the basis production and process methods, if that distinction applies to imported as well as domestic products.For example , a WTO member can prohibit the marketing of domestically produced battery eggs, but cannot extend that marketing ban to imported battery eggs which, under General Agreement on TariVs and Trade (GATT) rules, are seen as being no diVerent from free-range eggs. Even the ability of countries to require products (imported as well as domestic) to be labelled as to production method is unclear.Indeed, it is not clear whether the validity of compulsory labelling would be decided under the main GATT rules or under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Even Country of Origin labelling has been challenged in the WTO as it could enable consumers to discriminate against countries.

Recommendations 3.16 We would advocate that the EU rules governing Country of Origin labelling should be amended so that processed or composite products are required to state the origins of the main ingredients, if diVerent from the country of manufacture.For example: Bacon made in Britain using D anish pork should not be described as “British bacon”, rather as “Made in the UK using Danish pork”. Similarly, orange juice made in the UK with oranges grown in Florida should state “Made in the UK from oranges grown in the United States”. 3.17 The EU and UK government should press for reform of WTO rules to allow distinctions to food products to be made and to enable consumers to choose between food products based on production and process methods and country of origin.This reform should include: — recognition that it is proper for WTO members to distinguish between products on the basis of process and production methods in their import and marketing regulations; — revision of GATT rules and the TBT to put the legitimacy of mandatory production and process labelling schemes beyond doubt.If schemes are to enable consumer choice t hey must be applicable to imported as well as domestic products.For example, new EU labelling reg ulations for egg production methods will come into force in the near future, requiring eggs produced in the EU to be labelled as “free range”, “barn”, or “cage”.Trade rules should clearly allow this rule to be extended to imported eggs; — enshrining the rights of countries to require the mandatory labelling of the country of origin of food and agricultural products, and to protect the names of foods with cultural, historical, and social significance; and — including an exemption in the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) from the “necessity test” for measures relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, as is included in the GATT agreements. April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Advertising Association and Food Advertising Unit

1.T he Advertising Association and Food Advertising Unit 1.1 The Advertising Association (AA) is a federation of 25 trade bodies representing the advertising and promotional marketing industries including advertisers, agencies, media and support services.It is the only body that speaks for all sides of an industry that was worth over £17.2 billion in 2003.Further information about the AA, its membership and remit is available on our website at www.adassoc.org.uk 1.2 In 1995, the AA set up the Food Advertising Unit (FAU) as a centre for information, communication and research on food advertising, particularly television advertising to children.Further information about the FAU, recent research, positions and briefs is available on our website at www.fau.org.uk

2.S cope of the Submission 2.1 The FAU welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry. There has been a growing interest in food and the provision of information about it in recent months.Advertising and commercial communications form part of this “information environment”. 2.2 The FAU’s remit is restricted to the role of advertising and this will form the focal point of this submission.Other areas covered in the Committee’s Terms of Reference for the Inquiry will not be discussed. 9906191036 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 200 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

3.T he Role of Commercial Communications 3.1 Brand advertising is above all a competitive tool. Advertising and commercial communications are of vital importance for brands to diVerentiate themselves in their product oVering, whilst continuing to meet the demands of the consumer. 3.2 The ability to advertise in a suitably regulated environment provides an incentive for business to provide information to consumers about their product.It also provides th e means by which companies can communicate new product development and improvements to diVerentiate further their products and to meet consumer demand.Without the ability to communicate with consumers, this incentive would be lost. For example, in markets where advertising was once prohibited (such as for sanitary products), new product development was stagnant and only flourished once advertising regulations were liberalised.61 3.3 The advertising industry currently spends around £513 million advertising food and soft drinks.62 Contrary to public opinion, the total amount of money spent on advertising food has consistently fallen over the last 15 years, from around 15% of all advertising in 1986 to around 9% in 2002.

4.T he Role of the Media in Communicating with the Public 4.1 Advertising also funds independent media, thereby subsidising the cost of information more generally to the public.For example, advertising provides 65% of the revenue to dail y broadsheet newspapers and some 36% to consumer magazines with the cover price providing the remainder.63 Free-to-air commercial broadcasters could not exist without the revenues generated from advertising.Furthermore, the media in general, through a number of specialist programmes and publications, provide an important reservoir of information about food to a wide range of consumers. 4.2 The media is a trusted source of information and its coverage is widespread.For example in a recent survey of parental attitudes to food commissioned by the FAU and carried out by the parenting website Raisingkids.co.uk,64 43% of the 1,500 parents questioned said that their main sources of information about children’s diets and nutrition were books and magazines.

5.T he Role of Public Education Campaigns 5.1 Governments across the world have used the creativity and expertise of the advertising industry to communicate eVectively with consumers.Successful examples in the UK include public inf ormation campaigns on drink-driving, anti-smoking and sexual health.65 5.2 In the USA, Canada and Australia, government health education campaigns have been extended to promote healthy living/eating messages more generally.This has not been the case to date in the UK, but in the context of growing obesity levels, this option is now being explored.Derek Wanless’s report Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, commissioned by HM Treasury,66, calls for the Health Education Authority to be re-established in order to facilitate such activity.The a dvertising industry would support such a move.

6.R egulations Governing Food Advertising 6.1 European regulations covering advertising include the Misleading Advertising Directive, E-commerce Directive, Distance Selling Directive, Food Labelling Directive and Television Without Frontiers Directive.These Directives provide a certain level of harmoni sation across borders and protection against misleading communications in general for the benefit of consumers across the European Union (EU).If adopted, the proposal for a Regulation on Nutrition and Health Cla ims, originally proposed in 2003, will impact on the way that food is marketed and promoted across the EU. 6.2 The UK codes on advertising, which include many provisions relating to food, are amongst the strictest in Europe.The Confe´de´ration de Industries Agro-Alimentaires de l’Union Europe´enne (CIAA), the body which represents the European Food Industry, has recently finalised voluntary guidelines on food advertising and marketing.The “Principles of food and beverage product a dvertising” are intended as recommendations for drafting and updating individual company guidelines as well as the codes of national self-regulatory organisations.Although they are significantly more res trictive than current practices in some countries, these guidelines do not add a significant level of protection to consumers here than is already provided by the UK codes.

61 Boyfield Keith, The EVects of Advertising on Innovation, Quality and Consumer Choice.The Advertising Association Economics Committee. 62 Nielsen Media Research Digest, 4th Quarter 2003.This figures includes: fo od, and fast food retail but excludes supermarket and other retail advertising for food. 63 Advertising Statistics Yearbook 2003.The Advertising Association. 64 Family Food Survey, carried out by Raisingkids.co.uk for the Food Advertising Unit, August 2003. 65 Gallichan, Charles. Public Policy Advertising Campaigns: What Works and what doesn’t.The Food Advertising Unit.2003. 66 Wanless, Derek. Securing Good Health for the Whole Population.February 2004. 9906191036 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 201

6.3 The food advertising industry recognises the need for responsible commercial communications. Levels of adherence to the codes are exemplary and complaints to regulators, whether statutory or self- regulatory, are low. 6.4 Table 1 below summarises the regulatory framework within which advertising operates here in the UK.

Table 1

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR ADVERTISING IN THE UK

Television Radio Non-Broadcast

Code Independent Television Radio Authority (RA) Committee of Advertising Commission (ITC) Advertising and Sponsorship Practice’s (CAP) The British Advertising Standards Code Code Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing Code Type Statutory Statutory Self-Regulatory Backed by OYce of Fair Trading, Compulsory Subject to Yes, by the Broadcast Yes, by the Radio Advertising Cinema: Yes, by an Pre-vetting? Advertising Clearance Centre Clearance Centre independent copy panel, (BACC) which has its own prior to exhibition. detailed guidelines All other non-broadcast media: No, but advertisers are strongly encouraged to consult CAP’s free and confidential Copy Advice Service Adjudication OYce of Communications (Ofcom) Advertising Standards body (Took over regulatory responsibilities of ITC and RA on Authority 29 December 2003) Regulatory Codes subject to regular review/public consultation processes and Codes informed by research into societal attitudes powers Rulings and upheld complaints publicised Adjudicatory bodies can apply sanctions Web reference http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ http://www.cap.org.uk/ to codes (links): http://www.asa.org.uk/

6.5 Further to an instruction from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced on 2 December 2003, Ofcom is currently carrying out a review of the existing ITC code as it relates to children in particular.The advertising industry is co-operating with this review.

7.F uture Initiatives—How the Advertising Industry Can Play a Role in Food Information 7.1 The advertising business wishes to continue communicating responsibly with consumers and in the context of rising obesity levels, wants to play its role in contributing to the solution.In supporting and abiding by strict codes and seeking to improve the quality of commercial communications to consumers throughout Europe and beyond, it has already made much progress in this area.Other future initiatives, f or example campaigns to help inform and educate consumers who may not otherwise have the information they need, could be explored by the UK Government in partnership with industry. April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Biosciences Federation

Introduction 1.The Biosciences Federation (BSF) was founded in December 2002 in order t o create a single authority within the life sciences that decision-makers can consult for opinion and information to assist the formulation of public policy.It brings together the strengths of 31 membe r organisations, including the Institute of Biology, which represents 46 additional aYliated societies.The organisations that have already joined the Biosciences Federation represent a cumulative membership of some 60,000 bioscientists and cover the whole spectrum from physiology and neuroscience, biochemistry and microbiology to ecology and agriculture. 9906191038 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 202 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Summary 2.This response’s principal points include: (i) A wide range of information needs to be available to enable consumers to make informed choices about the food they eat (paragraph 3). (ii) Food standards and information are regulated at many levels but problems still exist (paragraphs 4–5). (ii) The regulation of nutrition and health claims on food labelling is complicated, varies from product to product and is confusing for the consumer.The BSF welcomes the European Commission’s July 2003 Regulation on nutrition and health claims (paragraphs 6–9). (iv) Many food health problems can be prevented through good cooking and hygiene practices in the home.Packaged food should provide clear storage and usage instructions ( paragraph 10–11). (v) Information about production means must be indicated on some foods, such as fish and foods containing GMOs.However, the health and environmental implications of t he production means may not always be clear (paragraphs 12–13). (vi) If “active packaging” were to be approved, labelling would need to inform users about the nature of the packaging (paragraph 15). (vii) With limited space, it will become increasingly diYcult to communicate the rapidly expanding range of information required by law or desired by consumers on a simple food label (paragraph 16). (viii) Large retail outlets already provide a lot of information about the food they sell on their websites. This isn’t feasible for smaller retailers.It may be helpful for all retail outlets to display posters with clear definitions and explanations of the terms and logos used on foods labels (paragraphs 17-18). (ix) If approved, new “intelligent packaging” will be a useful way of communicating safety information about food to consumers (paragraph 19). (x) Education on food and nutrition is a standard part of both formal and informal learning in the UK.Although the promotion of healthy eating among the general population seems to be working, there continues to be confusion over claims made about food on labels (paragraphs 20-21). (xi) The provision of information in catering outlets and for foods sold loose should be improved, but any regulation in this area should not be overly restrictive (paragraphs 22–24).

General Points 3.The BSF welcomes the Select Committee’s inquiry into how messages about food are communicated to consumers.Today people are more aware than ever of the health implicati ons of consuming diVerent types of food, the safety issues surrounding the storage and usage of food, and the social and ethical implications of diVerent food production methods in the UK and abroad.The UK also has a particu larly high level of cultural and religious diversity with correspondingly diverse food requirements.A wide range of information therefore needs to be available to enable consumers to make informed choices about the food they eat. 4.Food standards and information are regulated at many levels.TheFood St andards Agency regulates labelling and descriptions of foods and carries out ad hoc checks on the authenticity of foods in the UK. UK food law is complex but is thought to cover everything one way or another. The European Commission sets regulations for claims made about food distributed at the EU level.Th e Codex Alimentarius (www.codexalimentarius.net) is the international code for consumer health protection and food standards, which aims to harmonise food laws and adopt internationally agreed standards to facilitate free trade between countries. 5.However, problems exist.Manyof the terms used to describe food are ambi guous and confusing, and food labels are generally small and cannot contain much detailed information.This inquiry should consider how to improve the communication of clear, consistent messages about food to consumers and who should be responsible for ensuring this happens.

Types of Food Information

Nutrition 6.The regulation of nutrition and health claims on food labelling is compl icated, varies from product to product and is confusing for the consumer. 7.Some nutrition claims are regulated by law but others are not.Forexampl e, there are no rules about what the terms “low fat”, “bio”, “fresh”, “pure” and “natural” indicate when used on food packaging. “Organic”, on the other hand, may only be used on food that has been produced according to European 9906191038 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 203

laws on organic production.“Reduced-sodium” and “high-fibre” cannot be m isleading by law, but there are no legal definitions for quantities, except for butter, margarine and other spreadable fats.And consumers have diYculty interpreting salt content when labels only refer to “sodium” anyway.67 8.Health claims on food, which imply a benefit to health (for example, “help s maintain a healthy heart” or “helps aid digestion”), can also be misleading.According to the FSA, co nsumers’ understanding of them is “often more partial and confused than they believe it to be”.68 The Code of Practice on Health Claims, developed by the Joint Health Claims Initiative (JHCI), sets out rules about how claims should be made and a way of checking to see if they are true, so they do not mislead consumers.It is currently voluntary whether manufacturers follow the code. 9.The BSF welcomes the European Commission’s adoption of a draft proposal for a Regulation on nutrition and health claims in July 2003.69 This proposal covers “nutrition and health claims used in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods.Only nutrition and hea lth claims that are in conformity with the provisions of this Regulation will be allowed on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods placed on the market within the Community and delivered as such to the final consumer.” The Regulation will require that all health claims on foods be scientifically substantiated and authorised at EU Level before they are released onto the market.

Safety 10.With no way of checking, consumers generally have to trust that food ret ail outlets have good hygiene practices, comply with health and safety regulations, and that, at the time of purchase, the food they sell is safe to eat.Any problems that arise due to incorrect storage and usage of fo od commonly occur after purchase in the home.Thorough cooking and food hygiene practices may have curtailed a number of food problems that have occurred in the past, for example, E.coli 0157 poisoning.On packaged food, consumers should be provided with clear storage and usage instructions, for example, “use before” dates, defrosting and cooking times, and preparation instructions. 11.Information about allergens (for example, peanuts, tree nuts and seed s) is vital for a small subset of the population due to the potential seriousness of a reaction.Foods shoul d clearly indicate whether they contain allergens.However, to cover themselves, manufacturers use the w ords “may contain nut traces” on a wide range of foods.The FSA website says, “We are looking for ways of stopp ing the unnecessary use of these warnings.We are also considering what we can do to help allergy su Verers understand what they mean and why they are sometimes necessary.”

Production means 12.Some consumers require information about the means of production of fo ods, for example, whether it was produced by intensive, organic or free range farming methods, or whether the food contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).Labels often indicate this.New European rules will require, from 18 April 2004, all ingredients that contain or consist of GMOs, or contain ingredients produced from GMOs, to be labelled and traceable.The label on fish must show how it has been produced, for example, “farmed”, “cultivated”, “caught” or “caught in fresh water”.There may be some confu sion among consumers over what terms about production means actually indicate, and what the health or environmental implications are.Defra has produced “A shoppers guide to green labels” to help clarify t he meaning of terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “kind to nature”.70 13.In order for accurate information about food to be communicated to cons umers, the production and distribution chain must be traceable.EU legislation is in place to ensure this occurs.For example, EC Regulation No 1830/2003 came into force in November 2003 and provides a framework for the traceability of products consisting of or containing GMOs, and food and feed produced from GMOs.Products containing GMOs will always have to be labelled as such and when operators throughout the production and distribution chains are handling products that contain GMOs they will have to provide this information to the next operator in the chain to ensure traceability.

Ethical issues 14.Consumers’ interest in production means is often related to ethical is sues such as farm animal welfare and the preservation of farmland biodiversity.Many are also interested i n the country of origin of food due to the ethical issues surrounding the political situation, human rights practices and farming methods of the country in question.

67 COI Communications on behalf of the Food Standards Agency.Nutrition Labe l Testing.Sept 2003.Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutritionlabelreport.pdf 68 Food Standards Agency.Health Claims on Food Packaging: Consumer-Relate d Qualitative Research.Sept 2002.Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/healtclaims.pdf 69 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods.July 2003. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003 0424en01.pdf 70 Defra.A shoppers guide to green labels.Available at: http://www.pitchi ng-green.gov.uk/pdfs/Green%20Guide%20Web.pdf 9906191039 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 204 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Active packaging 15.“Active packaging” is being developed that can prolong food quality an d shelf life by interacting with food to reduce oxygen levels or add flavourings or .Existing EU legislation does not allow this type of packaging, but a recent amendment has been proposed to change this.71 Labelling would have to inform users about the nature of the active packaging.

Communication Methods

Labels 16.Consumers should be provided with clear, consistent messages about fo od that are based on robust scientific evidence, when required (frequently, at the time of purchase). Food labels are currently the main providers of this information.The FSA website explains the meaning of the most common claims and symbols found on labels.72 However, recent research by the FSA found that “consumers are in general agreement that it is important to have nutrition information on food products, but as many as one in four admit to finding it diYcult to obtain information from the current nutrition label”.73 In addition, logos on food labels have been found to be “more likely to confuse and mislead consumers than inform them”.74 Workshops commissioned by the National Consumer Council found that low-income consumers wanted a simple logo scheme to boost their trust in the food they buy and clear labelling of GM foods.75 However, with limited space, it will become increasingly diYcult to communicate the rapidly expanding range of information, either that which is required by law or desired by consumers, on a simple food label.

Internet 17.There is a wealth of information about food available on the Internet.L arge supermarkets often provide general information about the food they sell on their websites.Fo r example, Tesco has published policies on suppliers, fair trade, use of GMOs, animal testing, and organic, free range and vegetarian products.This is readily available to any interested consumer.However, smaller retailers do not have the resources to provide this kind of information.

Information in Retail Outlets 18.Due to limited space on labels, it may be helpful for consumers if retail outlets displayed posters giving clear definitions and explanations of the terms and logos used on the foods they sell.

Intelligent Packaging 19.“Intelligent packaging” is being developed that can monitor food and t ransmit information on its quality.For example, packaging can change colour to let the consumer know how fresh the food is and show if the food has been spoiled because of a change in temperature during storage or a leak in the packaging. Existing EU legislation does not allow this type of packaging, but a recent amendment has been proposed to change this.76 As long as the new materials pass safety tests, this could be an extremely useful way of clearly communicating safety information about food to consumers.

Education 20.Food and nutrition is a statutory component of the school curriculum ac ross the UK.For example, in England, Design and Technology, Home Economics and Personal, Social and Health Education include aspects of nutrition and practical work with food.Many organisations pro vide resources for schools to aid education about food, for example, the Foodforum (www.foodforum.org.uk) is an independent food education service for teachers, children and parents.The British Nu trition Foundation (www.nutrition.org.uk) has produced information for use by teachers specifically on food labelling. Informal learning about food and nutrition occurs through interactions with parents, teachers, other pupils and school lunches and should reinforce concepts learnt in lessons.Gover nment initiatives, such as the Healthy Schools Programme, have been set up to support this.

71 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. November 2003. Available at: http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/pdf/com2003 0689.pdf 72 http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/claimsonlabels/ 73 Nutrition Label Testing.COI Communications on behalf of the Food Standar ds Agency.Sept 2003.Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutritionlabelreport.pdf 74 National Consumer Council. Bamboozled, BaZed and Bombarded: consumers’ views on voluntary food labelling. July 2003. Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/bamboozled.pdf 75 National Consumer Council. Feeding in to food policy: submission to the Farming and Food Policy Commission on the views of low-income consumers. November 2001. Available at: http://www.ncc.org.uk/pubs/feeding—in.htm 76 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. November 2003. Available at: http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/pdf/com2003—0689.pdf 9906191040 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 205

21.Although the promotion of healthy eating among the general population seems to be working,77 there continues to be confusion over claims made about food on labels (see paragraph 15).Either the education system is failing in this area or labels need to made simpler and clearer.

Unlabelled Food 22.Food served up in a restaurant or catering establishment does not carry a label.As the consumption of this type of food becomes more common in the UK, communicating information about it is a growing issue.The FSA has published guidelines on what to look out for when eating o ut in terms of safety and hygiene practices of catering establishments.78 Obtaining information about the nutritional content of catered food is more diYcult, but sometimes vital, for example, if the consumer has a nut allergy.H owever, above this, providing nutritional information would cause a considerable amount of extra work for catering outlets and any regulation in this area could be restrictive.Plus, there i s not a clear demand from consumers for this kind of information to be provided on menus. 23.There are similar issues with communicating information about food so ld loose, for example, meat from a butcher or vegetables from a greengrocer.Consumers should be able t o obtain information about the production means, country of origin, and storage and cooking instructions, as with any other food. However, any regulation of foods sold loose should not discourage the growing trend for farmers markets, which give access to high quality, locally grown foods. 24.In 2001, the British Nutrition Foundation made recommendations to the FSA on how it could improve information in catering outlets and for foods sold loose.79 These included: — develop guidelines for defining “healthy eating” options in catering establishments; — actively encourage the provision of information by retailers on cooking method, storage and durability, and country of origin; — develop an agreed list of common definitions for terms such as vegetarian and vegan; and — develop an agreed list of common allergen-containing foods or food groups. Education in general on nutrition and healthy eating also provides guidelines for consumers when making choices about catered or loose food. 20 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by the Meat & Livestock Commission About MLC 1.The Meat & Livestock Commission was established in 1967 to improve the pe rformance of the British red meat industry, whilst having regard to the interests of the consumer.

Nutritional Content of Food 2.MLC supports objective and factual information and advice about food, c onsistently applied across all communication channels where government departments have influence.Thi s should include information provided through schools, healthcare professionals and agencies.The cr ucial role of labelling in future years in this area means that any new legislation should be based on sound consumer research, which has not always been the case in the past.A common standard should also be reflected i n any regulations applied to food retailer and foodservice outlets. 3.Our preference is for readily understandable concepts to be used in comm unication about nutrition, for example, the food selection guide “Getting the Balance Right”, the “Balanced Plate” model, which recognises the role played by all five key food groups in balanced diets.Thi s should emphasise the benefits of a balanced diet. 4.Beef, pork and lamb has fundamentally changed over the last 20 years.It i s now principally a lean protein, thanks to improvements in rearing and production techniques.Ad ditionally, nutritional research has provided cumulative evidence of the dietary benefits of lean red meat, especially as a source of iron and protein. 5.Increasingly, meat is seen as a source of a complex bundle of nutrients es sential to growth and development, especially in young people, and should form part of a balanced diet.Far from contributing to obesity, lean red meat should be promoted as a positive element of a healthy balanced diet.Lean beef, lamb and pork have been found to have a positive role in maintaining a healthy weight because they provide

77 Health Development Agency. Health promotion interventions to promote healthy eating in the general population—a review. 1997. Available at: http://www.hda-online.org.uk/html/research/eVectivenessreviews/ereview6.html

Ev 206 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

valuable nutrients and protein, without the burden of too much fat or energy.Due to the filling e Vects of the protein in red meat, people who incorporate meat into their meals are more able to keep to and maintain their weight reduction diet. 6.The Meat & Livestock Commission with its federated bodies has pursued a n umber of independently supervised initiatives to ensure that vital dietary messages about the role of red meat in the diet can reach healthcare professionals and teachers. 7.Tackling health inequalities has been identified as a key priority by the FSA.Government research continues to highlight the nutritional challenges this poses.Yet little recognition is given to the need to target specific advice, on for example iron intake, to at risk groups of people.53% of women on benefit are known to have iron intakes below the Lower Reference Nutrient Intake (LRNI).In a ddition, it is well documented that pregnant women and nursing mothers, young children, teenage girls and young women are all at risk of iron deficiency.A reduced intake of red meat and meat products is known to increase the risk of poor iron status. 8.Regarding overweight and obese people, the MLC supports the view that nu trition education coupled with behavioral and lifestyle advice has a key role to play in the overall management of the obese and this is reflected in our work with healthcare professionals and teachers. 9.The DoH and FSA has currently challenged the food industry to reduce the s alt content of processed food to help achieve their target population reduction of three gram per day.Salt is an important ingredient in an extensive range of meat products often performing an indispensable function.The MLC has conducted an extensive review in this regards and is currently working with the BMPA and the UKFFA to develop a workable and realistic strategy with industries agreement to set upper target salt limits for key groups of products.

Food Production Methods,Ethical Considerations and Food Safety 10.MLC has for some time recognised the growing interest among a small but i mportant segment of consumers in the methods of production of animals destined for the food chain.Of particular concern are husbandry and rearing conditions, the appropriate use of veterinary medicines, origin, transport and slaughter.Assurance schemes can also be an important means of communicat ion—note the case study below from the pig sector. Case study: The Quality Standard Mark (QSM) for pork is about diVerentiating quality pork from its competitors.There are many points of di Verentiation.Standards of animal welfare and independent auditing of the supply chain are perhaps the most relevant to interested consumers and opinion formers. Animal Welfare—Rearing pigs with the use of Stalls and Tethers is banned in this country. Independent Auditing—The whole supply chain from farm to fork is audited by independent inspectors. In the past five years the fresh pork market in Britain has slipped from being approximately 95% home- produced to 85% home-produced.The increasing penetration of imported pr oduct is a cause for concern. This product is sold to the supermarkets at a lower cost, and as such the retailer benefits from higher margins, making it very diYcult to win back any lost business for British producers. Our overseas competitors are able to sell at a reduced cost as they are not producing pork to the standard required by the QSM and many operate methods of production, which would be illegal in Britain.In fact at least 70% of imported pigmeat is produced to standards that would be illegal in Britain. MLC is re-launching the QSM this spring in order to improve the standard of communication to consumers about the production methods employed in the UK, against third country competitors, where standards or welfare are poor. The QSM is underpinned by detailed specifications of production.These inc lude standards for salmonella control in primary pig production.This is being undertaken in partnershi p with the FSA, Defra, MLC and BPEX 11.MLC would encourage Government departments to include production met hods and appropriate quality assurance schemes as criteria food procurement tenders in the public sector, further to Defra’s sustainable food procurement initiative. 12.MLC also suggests that food retailers and catering chains should provi de as much information as possible in a transparent way so that interested consumers can access such information to enable them to exercise choice.It is in everyone’s interest that the market is allowed to work.Indeed we see provision of such information as not just an obligation but a potential route to competitive advantage for food businesses. 13.We particularly encourage more extensive country of origin labelling , as is already the case elsewhere in Europe, for example, France.We see such information already in the reta il environment, but it is less common for meat and poultry in the catering and foodservice sectors. 14.There is clear research evidence that consumers want access to such inf ormation, and that, in the absence of transparent information, consumers assume that unlabelled meat is home-produced.There is potential for them to be misled through the absence of information.Workin g with the Food Standards 9906191042 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 207

Agency, the Consumers’ Association and the National Consumer Council, MLC has developed best practice guidelines for the foodservice industry on how to declare the country of origin of the meat served in restaurants and canteens.

WTO Developments 15.In March this year, the WTO secretariat published an update on trade neg otiations regarding agriculture.This includes proposals and issues for discussion at WTO tal ks set to take place later this year. The papers feature measures for dealing with individual country concerns that trade liberalisation will compromise food safety and security.WTO has also posted consumer concern s over GMOs, diseases like BSE and toxins in food, as requiring discussion.WTO says it is concerned to protect consumers, while avoiding what it calls “protectionism in disguise”. 16.WTO members are divided as to how to address this, with views ranging fro m the need for a voluntary or mandatory labelling (including geographical indications and food quality) schemes, through to negotiated agreements as to how secure food safety in a free trade environment.There is also disagreement as to whether this should be dealt with as an agricultural rather than a trade barriers issue. 17.Given the particularly traumatic experiences for consumers and lives tock producers over recent years, MLC believes that WTO members should retain the right to take appropriate steps to protect consumers and to prevent the spread of animal disease.MLC would also support moves to embed country of origin labelling and to sanction forms of quality labelling under WTO rules, provided that there is reasonable latitude to ensure that the method of presentation is meaningful to consumers, and reflects their concerns and needs, validated through research. 22 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by English Farming and Food Partnerships

1.Thank you for inviting the English Farming and Food Partnerships (EFFP) to comment on issues relating to food information being investigated by the Efra Sub-Committee. 2.The EFFP is a new organisation set up following a recommendation of the Cu rry Commission.The organisation’s mission is to strengthen the profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of England’s farming, food and related farm-based industries.It aims to achieve this t hrough growth of market focused farmer controlled businesses (FCBs) and by developing co-operation and partnership activities not only between farmers but also between farmers and the food chain. 3.The EFFP also works closely with other partners in the food chain from gov ernment and trade bodies to private companies, the aim being to encourage eYcient use of resource and to minimise duplication. 4.The Sub-Committee’s terms of reference cover a very broad range of food c hain issues.Some of these fall within our areas of expertise whilst others remain more relevant to our industry partners.Whilst we recognise the importance of issues such as nutrition, food safety, production methods and ethical production systems we believe that the comments contained within the joint response from the NFU, FDF, BRC and BHA are relevant and we would support this submission. 5.In addition to this response, the EFFP would like to add the following poi nts. 6.Food safety is paramount to everyone involved in food production.Lesso ns have been learnt from recent food scares and the vast majority of customers are now unwilling to trade with anyone who cannot demonstrate the highest level of food safety procedures. 7.In response to this the English food industry has made great strides in de veloping a whole range of world class production assurance schemes and as an industry we should not be shy in promoting this achievement to customers. 8.Similarly, in the Curry Commission report, much was made of reconnectin g farmers with the marketplace as well as improving consumer knowledge of the means of production of foods. 9.The EFFP believes that there is an opportunity for improved communicati on in these areas and that FCBs have a role to play in helping achieve this goal. 10.With their expert knowledge of farming as well as their interaction wit h customers within the food chain, FCBs are in an ideal position to provide a link between farmers, growers and the rest of the food chain. 11.In the majority of cases, FCBs already have experience in this area.Man y employ specialist marketers with expertise in promoting their own specific selling points which diVerentiate their products from competitors.This is a challenge which for individual farm business could be daunting but for FCBs it is part of business operations. April 2004 9906191044 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 208 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the National Consumer Council

The National Consumer Council (NCC) is an independent consumer expert, championing the consumer interest to bring about change for the benefit of all consumers.We do this by working with people and organisations that can make change happen—governments, regulators, business and people and organisations who speak on behalf of consumers. We are independent of government and all other interests.We conduct rigor ous research and policy analysis and draw on the experiences of consumers and other consumer organisations.We have linked organisations in England Scotland and Wales, and a close relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland. And we work with consumer organisations in Europe and worldwide to influence governments and institutions. We are a non-departmental body, limited by guarantee, and funded mostly by the Department of Trade and Industry. The NCC’s forthcoming work in relation to food information is particularly focused on public health and the particular need to talk about the obesity crisis and other related ill health with particular emphasis on children.

Food Labelling Food information, including labeling is very important as it allows consumers to make informed choices. This is imperative for public health policy so that healthier choices can be made. The food we consume is costing us dearly.The health of the population is su Vering and healthcare costs are increasing—currently around £10 billion each year in the UK.Obesity i s now three times more prevalent than 20 years ago, particularly for children, and is the main cause of a range of health problems.Consumers are more aware of the link between diet and health, and schemes such as the Five-a-day fruit and vegetable target are raising awareness.However, the proliferation of promotional labels is making it diYcult for consumers to make informed choices. This year the National Consumer Council (NCC) will use opportunities oVered by the Government Health White Paper consultation and the development of a Food and Health Action Plan, UK regulation (the Advertising Code), as well as changes in EU legislation (on nutrient claims and labelling) to focus on practical solutions for industry to help consumers take up more healthy diets, including more transparent and informative labelling and better industry regulation. In February 2003 the NCC published Bamboozled, BaZed and Bombarded: consumers views on voluntary food labelling.This publication reports on research carried o ut for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to develop recommendations on a proposed code of practice for food assurance schemes. Voluntary food labels have the potential to deliver real benefits for consumers in terms of choice.And, as they are often the sole source of information available to consumers at the point of sale, it is important that they communicate clear and honest messages to consumers to help them make informed choices. However NCC research confirms that, in the UK, voluntary food labelling claims, including food assurance schemes, are more likely to confuse and mislead consumers rather than inform them. Food labelling law has evolved into a complex and technical area governed by both statutory and voluntary rules.Many of the logos and claims that now appear on foods fall i nto the “voluntary labelling” category.This means they are generally not subject to specific regulation under food law.Our research highlighted how this fragmented approach to food labelling has led to more confusion amongst consumers. And, as food businesses are increasingly driven to add value and diVerentiate their products from the competition, the number of voluntary food labels continues to grow.This p roliferation of labels and logos has caused confusion and information-overload among consumers.It is cle ar from our research that consumers do not understand what the majority of the labels and logos mean. Also, food assurance schemes are most often used as a marketing tool rather than a way of informing consumers and oVering real choice. Consumer confidence has been undermined and our research showed that feelings of unease and vulnerability were prevalent, fuelled by recent scares in the food chain and negative reports in the media. The majority of consumers we surveyed felt that they could not rely on many food labels to act as a safety net.They felt they had to take personal responsibility for understanding the true worth of each food or to accept the risks. Low income consumers in particular were cynical about whether labelling could be trusted and thought that manufacturers make any claim they can “if they think they could get away with it”.They saw the food industry as being motivated purely by profit, with manufacturers and retailers prepared to do anything to gain a competitive advantage and increase sales. Ultimately, tackling these problems and oVering better food labelling will benefit both consumers and industry.Adopting good labelling practice and better governance arrang ements, should increase consumer confidence and trust in voluntary labels and lead to improved sales. 9906191044 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 209

NC Report Recommendations Included — A good labelling guide: developed by the FSA in partnership with its key stakeholders.This includes better co-ordination and communication of current labelling initiatives, agreeing and sharing best practice, and ensuring uniform application of labelling schemes—both statutory and voluntary—through better education of consumers and businesses, enforcement and monitoring mechanisms.The guide should incorporate cross-cutting issues on logos, claims and endorsements, their application, understanding and credibility which would not be covered in a code of practice. — A code of practice for food assurance schemes: developed and championed by the FSA.In the absence of statutory legislation, the FSA should encourage maximum take-up across the food industry, and ensure that credible monitoring and enforcement systems are set up.The code of practice and the good labelling guide must be developed jointly so that there are no gaps.The NCC would support enforceable codes of practice. — Consistent definitions for food claims: the FSA should work closely with its stakeholders to develop and agree definitions which are consistent, both in meaning and application, for widely used claims such as “vegetarian” and “healthy eating”.It must also encour age maximum take-up and use of the agreed definitions by the industry. — Clear criteria for the use of endorsements: the FSA should set criteria that promote a particular attribute of a product to ensure that consumers are given information about the basis of any endorsement, for example, any existing financial arrangements.

Nutritional Information On 2 April 2004 the NCC, working with members of the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group at the University of Oxford, took a major step forward in getting agreement on a way to define whether some foods are unhealthy at our seminar, Can we define unhealthy food? A full report of this seminar will be published in mid-May.The report will be used to feed into th e Public Health White Paper and also as part of the NCC’s response to Ofcom’s consultation on advertising to children. Although some nutritionists say there are no good or bad (“junk”) foods, only good and bad diets, it is widely agreed that there are some foods that we shouldn’t eat often.The deb ate on how to define foods has also been held at a stalemate for some time with some participants refusing to see a way forward.The challenge is to break the stalemate and to agree a way to identify these foods.This is vital because it could change how food is labelled, for example, making it easier to see if a ready meal is full of fat, or whether snacks in school vending machines are unhealthy ones. The NCC believes that there needs to be more transparency in the identification of such foods in order that consumers are equally well informed when making choices that aVect the overall balance of their diet. We want the healthy choice to be the easy choice, and for the unhealthy choice to be equally transparent. We do not want to dictate but we do more transparency to enable consumers to be better informed. The NCC supports mandatory nutritional labeling but this must be user friendly to be eVective.

Food Advertising and Promotion There is an imbalance in the messages that get into food advertising in terms of information for children. Foods with high sugar, fat and salt are promoted to excess.The NCC supports measures to help redress this balance. The NCC will be responding to the Ofcom consultation on UK regulation (the Advertising Code).

Recommendations The NCC has several recommendations for the Food Standards Authority (FSA).The FSA should: — in conjunction with the Department of Health, provide a lead on this and prioritise the nutrients that should be looked at; — in consultation with stakeholders, set criteria on what is high/medium/low levels of prioritised nutrients; — revisit “Guideline Daily Amounts” (GDA’s) and re-launch; and — explore labelling options, including a traYc light banding system. 9906191045 Page Type [E] 22-03-05 00:54:39 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Ev 210 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence

GM Food The outcome of the 2003 GM Nation? public debate into the commercial growing of GM crops showed general public unease about GM crops and food, and little support for early commercialisation of GM crops.Despite this, in March 2004, the UK government gave the go-ahead to t he commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize.In an open letter to Tony Blair, a few days pri or to the government’s announcement, the NCC and eight other national organisations stated that the evidence available did not support current commercialisation of GM food and crops.Furthemore, they called upon the government to address the legitimate concerns that the public has about the technology and to incorporate these into its decision-making.The NCC remains unconvinced that current policy will gu arantee consumers the right to choose on GM. Although new EU rules mean that consumers will now have more information about the use of GM, there are still some loopholes.Meat, milk and egg from animals and poultry reare d on GM feed don’t require labelling—even though NCC research shows that consumers place a high priority on knowing whether food is from animals that have been fed GM. Research amongst consumers has shown that: — 60% of consumers have concerns about the use of GM in food production.Top c oncerns are: a lack of information and research; and fears that GM is “tampering with nature”.80 — Consumers want the “right to know” whether food is made from GM crops—64%—or the product of animals fed with GM feed—79%.81 — Only 31% say they trust the government to tell the truth about GM food.82 — Consumers see GM companies, food manufacturers and farmers as the potential beneficiaries of GM technology.Only 5% see benefits for consumers. 83

Recommendations — We would like to see more retailers, food manufacturers and caterers voluntarily declare whether products are from animals fed GM. — There must be monitoring for long-term environmental or health impacts of GM. — Consumers’ concerns and values must be taken into account in decision-making on GM issues. — Biotech companies must accept liability for any environmental or economic damage. 23 April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Pippa Woods

Labelling A reasonable amount of useful information is now given on labels, with the following caveats on the nutrition information: it is confusing having kJ and kcal.kJ may be a EU req uirement, but if so there should be a derogation for labels printed in English.Calories are what interest p eople.I am told that many people do not understand this information, so more education on this is needed. The ingredients section is straightforward until the “Es”.These must be t otally pointless to most people, except that they may consider the fewer the better, and favour products with none, which is fine.Some “Fs” may be dubious substances and others are well known and presumed harmless ones.No doubt they save space and conform to legal requirements but they are not helpful. As regards labelling, hopefully, you are consulting all possible consumer organisations, including WIs and Towns Women’s Guilds to find out what they want on labels. All fresh produce, especially meat, should have “country of origin”—not where it is packed or processed. The inconspicuous little white, oval label often says “UK”, but it is not known if that means grown or merely processed in the UK.Likewise, “assured” is on foreign meat as well as prope rly inspected British farm assured.Indeed, no one now knows if the Little Red Tractor signifies home pr oduced. As regards that symbol, it started as a bright idea to assist marketing and has ended up as a pointless exercise costing farmers time and money.Studies have shown that few custo mers recognise it or know what it means.For farmers it is just another regulation.From experience of the monitoring I would say that the determined rogue with malpractices could easily evade detection.Wherea s the normal farmer is fulfilling all the requirements (except perhaps some of the paperwork) in the course of normal husbandry.

80 National Consumer Council, Running Risks: summary of research into consumers views on risk, October 2002. 81 National Consumer Council, GM labelling and traceability: the consumer view, March 2002. 82 Poortinga W and Pidgeon NF, UEA Centre for Environmental Risk, Public perceptions of risk, science and governance, (main findings of a British survey on five risk cases) 2003. 83 National Consumer Council, GM labelling and traceability: the consumer view, March 2002. 9906191046 Page Type [O] 22-03-05 00:54:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG2

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 211

It is hard to see how labelling could indicate that food is safe.If it is not s afe it should not be for sale. Likewise, whether it was produced by ethical methods, such considerations as fair trade, organic etc, are usually indicated in the hope of attracting buyers. Mrs Pippa Woods Chairman, The Family Farmers’ Association April 2004

Memorandum submitted by Assured Food Standards We have been following the proceedings of the Committee’s inquiry into Food Information as posted on the website and it has come to our attention that a number of submissions to the committee have touched on the industry “assurance schemes”.This organisation, Assured Food Sta ndards, manages the great majority of the schemes operating in the UK including schemes in the following sectors of production: — Chicken; — Beef/Lamb; — Horticulture; — Dairy; — Pigs; — Cereals and similar crops. We are slightly disturbed by the quality and accuracy of some of the information concerning our systems that has been submitted to the Committee.Indeed we note the Committee requ esting information from the Consumers’ Association on how the Red Tractor scheme operates, which, with all due respect to the Consumers’ Association, is not information that they will have.We would m ake a few broad comments viz: — Assured Food Standards has consolidated many diVerent schemes and logos into a single organisation to ensure common standards and more coherent communication.It is outdated to perceive many of the industry schemes as in conflict or competition, they are now closely integrated. — Our scheme standards are robust.They are developed with the participati on of all sectors of the industry (buyers as well as producers) and include inputs from independent experts. — It is not true to say that our standards are merely based on legislation. — Even if they were, there is substantial merit in ensuring compliance with legislation. — The inspection process is rigorous; follows international standard ISO 65 and is accredited by the UK Accreditation Service. — The suggestion that schemes have no measures of outcomes is wrong. — The use of the Red Tractor logo is controlled by a system of licensing.The s uggestion that there is no validation of its proper use is wrong. — The licensing criteria have very specific rules on the marking of country of origin of food carrying the Red Tractor logo.Their can be no doubt as to the origin of food labelled w ith the Red Tractor logo which in the four years since its launch has been invariably British by which we mean farmed or grown in the UK — A private label is not at the mercy of the general labelling rules and the normal enforcement process.We can set our own criteria and enforce them.We certainly do not al low food packed or processed in the UK from imported ingredients to be labelled as “British”. — The question of consumer communication is complex.We have been research ing this topic in recent weeks and intend to take forward a new communications strategy in the coming months. — Most major UK retailers actively support the Red Tractor logo.The logo ap pears on approximately £5 billion product annually, almost all of this is retailer own label products. 21 July 2004

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 3/2005 990619 19585