| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker: No, I must cover various points, and time is limited.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the beef labelling scheme. It is a Europe-wide scheme which is voluntary now but which will be compulsory in due course. It is governed by a quite separate set of powerful rules and the independent audit of those who use it, even down to the method of slaughter and the sex and tag number of the animal if the person chooses to sell on that basis. That is important. In due course, that kind of scheme will undoubtedly be extended to other meat areas.
I thought that the hon. Lady would not have the brass neck to mention GM foods but she did. It is worth putting on record again the fact that the Government inherited a policy not to label GM ingredients in foods. On 7 June 1997 we announced the change.
Mr. Paice:
May I lay to rest the absurd criticism that the Minister keeps coming up with? The previous Government voted against introducing labelling for GM foods because, as he said, at that time there was no way of testing for them, so the law could not have been enforced. As it was not possible to test for GM ingredients, it would have been a stupid law. Yes, the technology has moved on and it is now right to do that.
Mr. Rooker:
That is not the reason. The reason for the policy not to label those foods was specifically because they were not technically or nutritionally different. The previous Government's policy was to label those foods if they were technically or nutritionally different. They were following to the letter the American system of not labelling food unless it was technically or nutritionally different. Soya and maize are not technically or nutritionally different; therefore the policy was not to label them. That is why we had to pass separate rules for labelling. The previous Government approved the EC's novel food regulations so that in future any new GM food would automatically require labelling. They approved that before we came to power, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is blown out of the water. They were content for future GM foods to be labelled. That was agreed in 1996, but the regulations did not cover maize and soya--the only such foods that were being imported other than tomato paste, which was always labelled.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned an issue that has been reported in the press in the past few days. I went to a public meeting just like anyone else. The people from Nestle told the audience that they supplied Iceland under a commercial contract ingredients that included up to 1 per cent. GM ingredients for Iceland to sell as GM-free. I have disclosed that in the past, and I have been criticised by Iceland for doing so. Nestle did not exactly boast about it, but it was part of the commercial contract. That was a matter of public knowledge. I was a member of an audience at a public meeting.
The hon. lady also mentioned the important issue of antibiotics. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, under amendment No. 10, the
Opposition do not want the Food Standards Agency to have anything to do with veterinary medicines. That does not square with what the hon. Lady said about antibiotics.
Production methods and welfare-friendly labels are also important. The Food Standards Agency will have the power to investigate claims on labels that products are welfare friendly. If people misleadingly label something as welfare friendly and the agency checks on the files and finds that it is not, it will have the power to go on to farms to ensure that welfare-friendly methods are used. The issues raised in the new clause are covered by the Bill.
My final point relates to imports. There has been a touch of xenophobia in some of the speeches, but I understand the concern. Many years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a piece in Birmingham. I had gone to buy a rotor arm for my old banger in the days when we had rotor arms. I picked up a product labelled as a Lucas rotor arm in a shop--it may have been Halfords, I do not know. It was vacuum packed and all that the label said was "Printed in the UK". I thought, "I'm an engineer. You don't print a rotor arm, you make it." It turned out that it was made in the Lucas factory in Brazil.
Labels can give a false impression by putting perhaps only the country where the packaging was printed or where the last part of the process was carried out. There is no doubt that they can be misleading. More work needs to be done and more pressure needs to be put on the suppliers. As I said, there is nothing to stop suppliers insisting that the country of origin is labelled on their produce. We ought to do more to encourage our constituents to demand that. Legislation is not necessarily required to make it effective.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned imports. We do not always know what is going on and there will not be time to discuss all the amendments, but we are able to turn back imports or check them if there is a problem because they are labelled and we can take them out of the food chain if necessary. We recently picked up some problems with imports of beef carcases from the Republic of Ireland, which had to be labelled. Specified risk materials are found in imports. I understand that one lot was found today; so the checks are going on.
Reference was made to Belgium. We were able to check pork and poultry consignments from Belgium. They were all impounded and returned to Belgium or destroyed. An enormous amount of work is therefore being done to check these things. Labelling of country of origin or code numbers is important in that connection.
To accept the new clause would be to make it more difficult for the Food Standards Agency to deal with the issues that I have raised, where problems arise. Those issues are not written into the Bill, but the agency will deal with them. They include contamination, adulteration and food composition. It is important that we leave the agency with as much general power as possible to carry on work that is already taking place. The thrust of the demands of hon. Members who have spoken are covered in the Bill and the powers that the House is giving to the agency.
Mrs. Spelman:
I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He clearly stated, as he did in Committee, that a clear transfer of power to the agency is
I certainly want to dispel any idea that xenophobia lay behind our desire for clear labelling of the country of origin--quite the opposite. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we heard a good example of why the consumer might want to buy a foreign product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to the cachet of a foreign product; he gave as an example the contrast between Somerset and French Brie. As the two are largely indistinguishable, they would need to be labelled accurately with their country of origin in order to enable consumers to buy the foreign product if they wanted to do so. That is not xenophobia; it has a great deal to do with choice, but more important--in relation to what lies at the heart of the Bill--it would protect food safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to organic standards. If the Government are unwilling to accept the new clause, we want to press the Minister and--through him--the new agency to consider the problem posed by the fact that organic standards are not common throughout the European Union. The standard set by the Soil Association in this country is much higher. Indeed, that is why my hon. Friend has such confidence in the organic products that she buys. However, her point illustrates the weakness of the rules that the Food Standards Agency will inherit. We should like the agency to do something about that.
Somewhat reluctantly, we take the Minister at his word. He assures us that all the powers for the enforcement of food labelling will be transferred lock, stock and barrel. We urge him to ensure that the Food Standards Agency considers thoroughly the inadequacy of the set of rules with which it will have to work, but, based on what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |