Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40 - 59)
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER 1997
MR JOHN
LLOYD JONES,
MR HUGH
RICHARDS, MR
MALCOLM THOMAS,
MR ROBERT
GRIFFITHS PARRY
and MRS MARY
JAMES
40. No, it just talks about cull cow meat.
(Mr Jones) It could be cull cow meats from other European
Union States.
41. Just to get back to my point: do you think supervision
at the docks is adequate? We all believe in a free market, we
want to have a level free market.
(Mr Jones) As I say the legislation is so vague and
in fact the onus is on the exporting country and importers are
advised to include that in the specifications. It does seems to
be extremely loosely worded.
(Mrs James) I think the problem is that the regulations
are such that there is a prohibition on inspection at ports. It
is at the importing company that the Meat and Hygiene Service
and the Environmental Health Inspectors can actually examine the
supply. It would be contrary to EU regulations as they stand currently
to examine cargo as it is going between Member States in the context
of the Single Market.
Mr Paterson: What would you recommend should be done? You
have a chance to talk to the House of Commons Select Committee
where we can make some concrete recommendations. This problem
I have had anecdotally told to me numerous times over the last
few weeks.
Chairman: On a point of order, I do not wish to spoil the
gentlemen's flow but we cannot make recommendations on this issue
because this is an evidence session unless we decide to have a
full report. This is an evidence session.
Mr Paterson
42. Right. It does move on to my next question. Both your
organisations have welcomed Dr Cunningham's statement that he
would ban beef imports which do not meet British standards. How
far will this ban help solve the current problems?
(Mrs James) The problem is that the two major importing
countries that we have are both Ireland and the Netherlands and
both these Member States in addition to Portugal and France conform
to our SRM Regulations. In practical terms the two major importing
countries are up to our SRM standards.
(Mr Jones) I think the important part of that statement
is the message that it gives to the other European Union countries,
that is the important part of that statement.
Mr Thomas
43. I did not quite understand that answer.
(Mr Jones) Dr Cunningham is making a strong declaration
that any meat that is being imported into this country should
be the same standard as that produced in this country.
Mr Paterson
44. We are only talking about beef. Mrs James, you mentioned
already other types of meat and I have heard on numerous occasions
in recent weeks that there are chickens and pigs being fed on
the Continent meat and bone meal which, according to our British
standards, is not satisfactory and would not be regarded as sound.
That meat is coming into this country and it is in competition
with all British meat, whether it is pork or chicken or beef.
Do you think it is a weakness of the Government just to focus
on beef, they should have looked at all meat coming in, again
so we have a proper level playing field of healthy meat?
(Mr Jones) That question should be aimed towards the
scientists. I am not trying to dodge the question but it is a
very good example of the difficulty that we are up against. The
livestock farmers within the European Union do not have our disposal
costs simply because those parts of the carcasses that are not
fit for human consumption can be turned into and are being turned
into poultry and pig meat as a protein supplement. So they have
a market for it. If what you are saying is that pork and poultry
is being imported into this country quite legally, but if you
are asking me is there a danger then I am sorry I am not competent
as a farmer to answer that.
45. I did not say is there a danger I said do you think it
is fair competition?
(Mr Jones) Of course it is not fair competition.
46. Good. We agree. Can I move on, also while we are on health,
do you think that the recent announcements on beef on the bone
and the removal of the spinal material from sheep over 12 months
has all gone far too far? The public has blown a huge raspberry
at beef on the bone by mass buying in the shops.
(Mr Jones) When the announcement on beef on the bone
came out we were very careful to make a statement that we would
go along with anything that helped to maintain consumer confidence.
When the matter went out to consultation the overwhelming response
that we had from the consumer was that not only did they vote
by saying they wanted to buy it but actually they went out in
droves and bought it which meant that we could quite legitimately
say: "Look this is a minuscule risk let the consumer decide
for themselves what they want to buy".
(Mrs James) If I might just comment for the FUW, as
far as we were concerned we looked at SEAC's recommendations to
Government and one of those recommendations was that they should
put into the public domain the minuscule risk that was prevalent
and that it should be left to the discretion of individual consumers
as to whether they wished to purchase beef or not. Certainly we
are very much in favour of letting individual consumers make up
their own mind on the basis of the scientific evidence available
as to whether they should be allowed to purchase or not purchase.
47. Have either of your organisations had any representations
from the public on this?
(Mr Jones) Yes.
(Mr Parry) Yes.
(Mr Jones) I hope those recommendations were made
to the Government as well.
48. In favour of what?
(Mr Jones) In favour of being given the choice.
(Mr Parry) It should be a free choice.
Ms Lawrence
49. On that point can I bring you back to the supermarkets.
We have already heard the issue about the pricing but traceability,
one of the things that has been stressed to me is it is incumbent
upon the farmers that the supermarkets are stressing traceability
of the meat. Once it gets to the supermarket then they are transmitting
that information on to the purchaser and that farmers feel is
one of the major problems. Again I have an example which I hope
is 100 per cent correct this time from my constituency where someone
bought beef and was asked for a considerable amount of money to
have the information provided to them about the traceability of
that meat. Does that not then place a greater responsibility on
the supermarkets to declare their role in all this in regaining
public confidence on the meat that is being bought? I use as an
example again the issue of what is being quoted to me "British
minced beef" and "minced British beef".
(Mr Jones) Yes.
50. Again it is incumbent upon the supermarkets to make absolutely
100 per cent clear from their point of view what people are buying.
(Mr Jones) Absolutely. We had a package which came
through our post and it was that. One of our members sent the
information to us, it was "British beef", and underneath,
in very small letters, it said "minced in Britain".
What we have been telling our farmers "Look if anybody wants
to do that next time, can they please take the mince out before
sending it to us. It will be cheaper for them and considerably
less messy for us".
(Mr Parry) That is why labelling should be brought
in because the country of origin should be one thing but maybe
it is not only supermarkets as well because when you go to restaurants
or places like that you still do not know where the beef is coming
from. When you do ask the question very often they do not know.
All beef should be clearly labelled with the country of origin.
We have gone a long way as producers now with farm assurance schemes
which gives traceability and I believe that it should be carried
on along the chain.
(Mr Jones) As a matter of record, we are talking to
the major supermarkets at this moment.
51. That brings me back to the point again that Mrs James
made about the importation of over 30 month old meat. It is not
an offence to import it only to sell it. Are there not significant
concerns amongst farmers that that goes for processing and nobody
really knows where that processed meat then goes? Again there
is a reflection on the role and responsibility of the retailers
for making sure that is known.
(Mr Thomas) I think probably it goes further than
retailers. It is now an issue of public confidence, as more and
more people are asking where the meat comes from and we have had
the example that you just highlighted, it only raises more questions
in people's minds and that is why we are firmly behind clear labelling
that shows precisely where it has come from, which country it
has come from and then the consumer can make her own mind up.
Obviously we hope she will buy British but to have a properly
enforced and clear labelling system then that is a vital first
step in ensuring that all the problems we talked about in terms
of meat coming from here, there or anywhere else disappear.
Mr Thomas
52. If I could take you back to your comments which were
disapproving, as I understand it, of the Government's position
on de-boning of beef products, the ban on the sale of beef on
the bone, in other words. Why do you say it is right and proper
simply to put the information in the public domain and leave it
up to the consumer?
(Mr Jones) Simply because they are having to eat it
not the Government. It is their choice.
53. Do you not accept that Government has a responsibility?
(Mr Jones) Yes, they do.
54. In this context?
(Mr Jones) Their responsibility was to put the facts
in front of the public and that is what happened. The public decided
that the risk was so minuscule that they wanted the opportunity
to buy beef on the bone. I do not have any difficulty with that.
(Mr Richards) They have not banned cigarettes, the
warning is there.
55. It is an important point because the Government will
say that one of the problems underlying the BSE crisis was that
there was insufficient disclosure to the public of information
which should have been disclosed.
(Mr Jones) Absolutely. Nobody is saying that the Government
are guilty this time around. They had the scientific evidence,
they put the scientific evidence in the public domain as quickly
as possible and they should be praised for that—quite rightly—but
the public appears to be saying: "Look, the risk is so minuscule,
let us decide for ourselves". I find no difficulty in that
both from the consumer's point of view or from the Government's
point of view.
56. How do you put the information in the public domain?
Are you suggesting there should be labels? It is a serious point.
(Mr Jones) Yes.
57. Are you suggesting there ought to be labels on those
meats saying "Yes, there is a small—very small—risk
with regard to the infectivity of bones"? Are you saying
that or are you simply suggesting it should be released?
(Mr Jones) If you were doing that you would have to
put warning labels on food of all kinds. I would have thought
that beef on the bone is easily identified by any consumer by
the fact it has bone in it. That is almost a case of the labelling
speaking for itself. You do not need the labelling, you have the
meat and the bone.
58. So you take the view that so long as it is disclosed
somehow or other to the press or media that is sufficient?
(Mr Parry) It has been disclosed. Let us be honest
about it, we have had four or five days continuous in the media
and also we have had four or five days of the British public buying
more beef with the bone in. I think they made their own choice
in that respect, they showed which way they wanted to go. It is
a completely free choice to the consumer whether he buys it or
not.
Chairman
59. There is another aspect to this, that is getting the
beef export ban lifted by the European Union. Would you not expect
the Minister of State for Agriculture to do his best to make sure
that every piece of advice was followed to the letter in order
to get that ban lifted?
(Mr Jones) Absolutely, but I believe the Minister
was given three choices by SEAC. As far as exports were concerned,
we would think automatically that the exports would be boneless
beef.
(Mr Parry) That comes from the certification scheme
because all beef under the certification scheme would have to
be de-boned and it is that scheme that would be used to start
the lifting of the ban.
(Mrs James) I think, Chairman, that there has been
some concern at an EU level that we have taken unilateral action
on this issue before the evidence was placed before the European
committees in Europe. Certainly as far as the sheep issue is concerned,
I know that they are now reviewing the evidence that was put before
SEAC to look at the implications for the sheep sector, for example,
and from which they will be commenting on the research findings
by the end of January. I do not think necessarily that the EU
are entirely happy with the approach that we have adopted on this
occasion in any case.
| 
