| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): I support the spirit behind the new clause, which was moved so comprehensively and at such fascinating length. The examples used by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) demonstrate clearly that people need nutritional value advice as well as food safety advice. I welcome the conversion of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point.
Mr. Gill: That is not what my hon. Friend was saying. She was saying that we want information on the label so that consumers can choose. We do not want the Government or any other body to say what people should eat because of its nutritional value. That would be acting as a nanny state, and we do not agree with that.
Dr. Brand: That is not what I would suggest, either. Consumers need information that is scientifically well founded so that they can make up their minds about what to do. In that sense, I welcome the new clause.
I was slightly confused about the discussion on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, as it seemed to run counter to amendment No. 10, which we are unlikely to
reach if we continue at this rate. That amendment would decouple the FSA from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which clearly makes no sense whatever.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
Perhaps the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will explain that.
Dr. Brand:
Yes. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Meriden could explain that later in the debate.
We await with great interest the Minister's response to the new clause. I shall be extremely brief on all the amendments, because it is important that we have an opportunity to speak on every amendment, rather than having them rushed through at the end.
Mr. Maclean:
I rise to support the new clause--[Interruption.] I appreciate the welcoming chorus from Labour Members. It is interesting that they make the effort to speak in this debate when they were remarkably silent in Committee.
The new clause has considerable merit. It is important that consumers can make an informed choice but, at times, it is important that they can make an ignorant choice, in the proper sense of the word. We make such choices all the time, but at least we have that choice. We often look at the labels on food and make decisions that may not be based on the best science or rationale.
Sometimes, our choice is based on the product's price. At other times, it is based on our perception of the product. We may sometimes feel that only a bottle of French wine will suffice, but on other occasions we may prefer Australian wine.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
English wine.
Mr. Maclean:
There are some good English wines, although I have never found a good red English wine. No doubt that comment will result in more death threats next week. However, there are some quite good white English wines. I can make that choice because the country of origin is on the label.
The problem with food labelling is that the country of origin is put on the label when it suits the producer or retailer. It is included on all products where the retailer or producer thinks that it is a selling bonus. That happens in the wine business. Stilton cheese is another example--there is an added premium if the country of origin is on the label. If a producer thinks that his product will have a certain cachet because it is American or German, he adds the country of origin to the label. When the consumer does not see the country of origin on a label, he can always resort to the golden rule that the producers or manufacturers of that product are not as proud of it as they should be. There must be some good reason for the country of origin not to be specified; it is easier to persuade the consumer to purchase by making other claims on the label.
All food labels make claims of some sort. They may not make claims in the technical MAFF sense--claims, for instance, that products contain low cholesterol or low fat--but, by its very nature, labelling is intended to summarise the nature of a product for advertising purposes. It is a selling mechanism in itself.
The producers of food, even more than the producers of other materials, try to convey the key messages that they consider to be the strongest selling points.
Naturally, Governments have traditionally insisted that labelling--not necessarily labelling on the front of products, but certainly labelling on the back of such products as the Cornish pasty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)--should include descriptions that, at times, food manufacturers may not wish to include. I am thinking of, for instance, nutritional content, fat content, and other important information that the consumer wants.
I merely say this: why stop at the present amount of information on the label? Of course we want to know about the energy content, the fat content, the salt content and the sugar content. The labels give us the nutritional information. It is sensible to want to know whether a product is gluten free, and whether it is suitable for people with a nut allergy. We will want to know whether the product has been approved as being genuinely organic, but we can only go by some of the approved standards. If there is a symbol on the product saying that it has been approved by the Soil Association, we cannot be sure that it is "perfectly" organic--I do not think that there is any perfectly organic foodstuff in the world--but we can at least know that it has crossed a certain threshold of organic production, and has been approved by the Soil Association or some other organisation.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclean:
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman at any time. I rather enjoy his interventions.
Mr. Hoyle:
I am very worried by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that he is discrediting all organic farmers, and that he should withdraw his comments. He is making a very irrational point, and there is a grave danger that he could put a lot of people out of business.
Mr. Maclean:
The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly ridiculous as the day goes on. Obviously he is not deaf this time--
Mr. Maclean:
It must be the stupidity that is cutting in on this occasion.
It is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" organic, just as it is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" safe. If someone proves to me that a product is 100 per cent. organic, I shall be happy to endorse it; but does the Soil Association claim that all products featuring its logo saying that those products are organic according to its standards are 100 per cent. perfectly organically produced? Of course not. Those whose products qualify for the Soil Association logo have crossed the quality threshold, which is very high. That gives the consumer an idea of the nature of the product concerned.
We are merely suggesting an addition to existing information on labels, which many consumers find helpful, although some will find it irrelevant. Some people
who want to buy a Cornish pasty will use criteria other than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging. Some will want to know the proportion of meat in relation to the proportion of pastry; some will want to know whether the pasty has actually come from Cornwall; others will not care about those things, but will want to know the country of origin. Not every consumer reads everything on the label, and makes an informed choice after taking all that information into account. If every consumer did that, the queues in supermarkets would be even longer. When the Minister studies the food surveys that MAFF has produced, he will see that consumers sometimes make irrational choices. Indeed, according to the dietary experts, they sometimes make wrong choices. Nevertheless, the choices are theirs, based on the information on the labels.
I suspect that the Minister would confirm that any survey of consumers asking, "Do you prefer buying food produced in factory or less humane systems"--however those may be described; whatever may be the current politically correct term for such systems--"or those produced in totally humane systems", consumers will certainly say, "We want products from totally humane systems--the best that there are." One could have disputes on what constitutes humanity or inhumanity in food production, or on which systems are best for food safety and animal welfare, but that is not the point of my speech.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |