| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Food Safety
6. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): What assessment he has made of food safety standards across the European Union. [58046]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government are anxious to promote common high food safety standards throughout the European Union. Monitoring in this area is the responsibility of the Commission, and we continue to press almost daily for the maintenance of high and consistent standards.
Dr. Lewis: What does it tell us about food safety standards in the European Union that, of the 1,700 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to have been expected on the continent as a result of our exports of beef to the continent between 1985 and 1990, only 30 cases were reported? Does it mean that the pure air of the continent miraculously cures cattle of BSE when they breathe it, or does it mean that some of our partners in the European Union are less honest than we are in reporting BSE outbreaks?
Mr. Rooker: I do not think that it tells us what the hon. Gentleman implies. In this country, in respect of EU directives in meat hygiene, we have under-regulated and under-enforced the regulations, which was a matter of deliberate policy by the previous Government. [Interruption.] The Conservatives may not like it, but it is a fact, so it is nonsense to suggest that we are the only ones obeying the rules. In some respects, regulations in the meat hygiene sector in other parts of the European Union are better enforced than in this country. We are seeking to raise standards of meat hygiene in this country, and to enforce regulations and directives rigorously.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington): I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government must urgently take steps to improve regulation and its
enforcement. Will he acknowledge that there is sustained and, if anything, growing public concern about the need for independent and consistent advice throughout the area of food safety? What steps does he propose to take, not simply to follow what is going on in the rest of the European Union, but to set an example?
Mr. Rooker: The greatest example that Europe will have is the Food Standards Agency, when we set it up. That was one of the most popular proposals in the manifesto. The idea that we shall share with Europe in due course will concern separation of responsibility for food safety standards from the Ministry responsible for sponsoring the food industry and food producers. That is why we have already taken steps to lock all key food standards policy decisions into the joint food standards and safety group with the Department of Health, so that no key decisions on food safety will be taken by MAFF alone. That is a lesson and a practice which we can sell to the rest of Europe.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Returning to the Minister's opening response to the question, and given the near daily contact that he and his colleagues have with the European Commission to encourage and maintain food safety standards across the European Union, and the impact of imports to this country, does he agree that our hand would be immeasurably strengthened in making those proper representations if there were no remaining ambiguity about the progress and process of food standards legislation in this country? Will he clear up the ambiguity that remains, particularly as we want to maintain our leverage on Europe, as well as improve our standards at home?
Mr. Rooker: I do not believe that there is ambiguity. The measures that have been taken in the past 18 months in setting up the joint food standards and safety group--a discrete group operating across two Government Departments in a way that is almost unique in government--are a major step. We are considering further ways to raise the profile of the group and its work. We published the White Paper. We distributed 3 million leaflets through a supermarket chain earlier in the year, telling people why we need an independent Food Standards Agency. Those reasons are as relevant today as when we made the proposal. The fact that, over the past 18 months, we have been able to deal with food crises without closing down sectors of the food industry is a measure of our success in co-operating. The principal instrument is the fact that no key food safety standards decisions are made exclusively in MAFF any longer--they are made in total co-operation and agreement with the Department of Health.
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the progress of the Food Standards Agency. Will he take this opportunity to deny press speculation that the Government have abandoned that project because of pressure from food manufacturers?
Mr. Rooker: I have no better way to give the lie to that than to recall the words of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box about two weeks ago. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency remains Government policy.
There has been no pressure. No one in the food industry has said to MAFF during our consultations on the White Paper, when we received more than 1,100 responses, and at conferences throughout the country since then, that he does not want the Food Standards Agency. The entire food industry, to a greater or lesser degree, sees merit in introducing an independent element into the way in which we make decisions. There has been no back-door pressure whatever.
What is more, there is no turf war between Ministries in Whitehall. MAFF will give up the regulation of food standards and safety. That is part of Government policy and of the manifesto on which we were elected. It cannot be done overnight, and it must be done while maintaining existing standards and strengthening the processes, until the legislation is passed.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
Many people will be surprised at the Minister's last remark. Perhaps he will explain to the House why the draft Bill promised months ago has not yet appeared.
Food can come into this country from any European country without any checks being made. Why are the standards for poultrymeat that comes in from third countries less rigorous than those for home-produced chicken? Why does the Minister intend to put even more vets into our slaughterhouses and to charge the slaughterhouse owners, while allowing imports from Thailand and Brazil, which do have such rigorous standards applied to them? I understand that he does not even know what tests are made on such imports, or what the results of those tests are.
Mr. Rooker:
The short answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we are in the single market, which we were taken into by the Conservative Government, and within which there is free trade. Within the EU, products can be freely transferred between countries. On occasion, especially in the meat sector, spot checks are made at the border points of entry and consignments turned back.
In relation to food coming into Britain, we take into account the evidence obtained through checks around the world. We wish to make standards higher than they have been hitherto and we shall continue to do that.
7. Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge):
What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58047]
12. Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford):
What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58053]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
The Government have widely publicised the EC regulations which require all foods containing GM materials to be clearly labelled and have made it clear that they expect those to be effectively enforced.
Ms Shipley:
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for his extensive written replies to my constituents, many of whom, along with many organisations in Stourbridge, have written to me on the subject.
Is there not a problem, in that the EU thresholds for GM ingredients have not yet been agreed, and the labelling regulations that came into force on 1 September do not include ingredients which are part of the manufacturing and refining processes?
Mr. Rooker:
I agree with my hon. Friend. The rules that came into force on 1 September apply to the ingredients in the food purchased by the consumer; they do not affect the manufacturing process where GM materials may have been used but are no longer part of the ingredients.
We are negotiating on the important issue of tolerance levels. The new rules do not apply to additives and flavourings. We think that they should and we are pursuing that in Brussels. It is important to have tolerance levels for GM produce. At a public meeting recently, I learned that some manufacturers have commercial contracts for buying and selling foods to each other where tolerance levels of 0.1 to 1 per cent. are allowed for GM produce in allegedly non-GM foods.
Mrs. Gordon:
Will my hon. Friend emphasise the Government's view and intention that consumers should be told exactly what is in their food so that they can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it? Does he intend to take further measures to increase consumer confidence and is he planning any sanctions or actions against food producers and retailers that do not comply with clear-labelling regulations?
Mr. Rooker:
Abuse or breach of the labelling regulations will result in prosecution by the regulatory authorities. That is important. Only four foods have been approved for sale in Britain--maize, soya, vegetarian cheese and GM tomato paste. All are required to be effectively labelled so that consumers have a choice. MAFF has produced a list of 59 non-GM soya producers in the United States and Canada, so that people in Britain can source that material and declare that it is not genetically modified. We have taken steps in that respect.
A sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes will shortly be holding a further open meeting to discuss the post-marketing and monitoring of those foods. It is not sufficient for them to be regulated and approved as rigorously as they are, and then for the Government and the regulatory authorities to walk away. We shall monitor the foods and their use throughout the food chain, both for human and animal health, and we shall set up procedures for that.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes):
Are the Government planning to give farmers some protection against any legal liability which might arise as a result of damage to the health of consumers who eat GM crops and food? Has the Minister been told that planeloads of GM food are coming in by the day from the United States, where GM and non-GM foods are grown, processed and sold together? That makes a bit of a nonsense of the labelling that we are talking about with regard to Europe.
Mr. Rooker:
I must make it clear that when those foods end up on the supermarket shelves, their labels must state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. That is a requirement. If GM and non-GM ingredients are mixed in the manufacturing process, the made-up food,
Under the Food Safety Act 1990, liability rests on the seller and the producer of the food. No one needs immunities in that respect. There is a requirement on producers and sellers to ensure that the food that they sell is safe.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West):
The Minister will be aware that no test can say whether milk has been produced with the addition of synthetic or recombinant bovine somatotropin in the production process. As there can therefore be no viable labelling regime, will he reassure the House and consumers that the Government will campaign in Brussels for an extension of the moratorium on the use of BST?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |