| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should stop food products coming in if they comply only with EU standards. The point that he is making so effectively is that we are entitled to have higher standards in this country. Under EU law, a member state is always so entitled. All that his Bill asks is that consumers should know whether the product that they are choosing complies only with EU standards, or also with the higher UK standards.
Mr. O'Brien: That is exactly right. The terms of the Bill have been deliberately designed, in my best attempt to keep them simple, clear and honest, to give information. The Bill is not prescriptive or penal. I find it baffling that the Government might not allow the Bill and clause 3 to progress. It is critical that our consumers are aware of products whose production and processing has been inferior to the standards applied in this country.
Existing EU law is flexible in its interpretation--a point that has been touched on. For instance, as part of the Agriculture Minister's doomed attempt to appease the French Government over the illegal ban on British beef, the Government acceded to French demands that British beef should be labelled with its country of origin. The European Commission ruled that that was legal under EU law.
We are not alone in wanting the Government to stand up for our national interests within the EU. I shall not take up the time of the House with the Swiss example of negative labelling as Switzerland is outside the EU and the measure would indeed contravene EU law, which my Bill avoids, but I shall highlight the example of Sweden--an EU member state, that has not been taken to the European court.
Swedish Farm Assured--SFA--announced on 28 October last year that all meat products bearing the new SFA logo would be traceable by consumers with internet access. An individual code on each packet would allow a consumer to visit the SFA site, www.healthy-tasty.com, trace the product back to the specific Swedish farm on which it was produced, and find out
Clause 4 covers the method of marketing or labelling foods. It provides that food for sale should show the information that the Bill requires
Clause 4(1)(d) covers foods that are not pre-packed or packaged. It would require a shelf marker or show card in a clearly visible location. The provision relates to loose goods such as fruit, vegetables, and jointed and cut meats in butchers' shops.
To ensure accurate, reliable and therefore honest information at the point of sale to the "ultimate customer"--the defined term in the food labelling regulations of 1996--clause 4(2) covers circumstances in which food is sold on in the wholesale chain. It provides that the information required by the Bill appears on the "outermost packaging" of the wholesale pack of food. It encourages, but does not make mandatory, the provision of that information in commercial documents, which relate to the food. That information is currently known and, in today's commercial world, it is often held electronically by individuals and enterprises in the supply chain. Clause 4(2) tries to ensure that the information is simply captured and passed along the chain in a clear, reliable and honest manner.
Some retailers have expressed the anxiety that the Bill would mean extra cost. I do not believe that, because the information is factual and has to be known by all parts of the supply chain. Ensuring that the information is captured, collated and printed on labels throughout the supply process is simply an administrative matter. There are examples that show that such labelling is easily possible. Ten days ago, the Tesco chain, which has launched a scheme to help British farmers to sell more produce in the 650 Tesco stores, agreed to label clearly the country of origin under the Tesco farming initiative 2000.
Extending such a scheme countrywide will require the force of law, and I am in discussion with a company that has compiled a database of all ingredients of all foods. It tells me that data on country of origin and methods of production are readily available. In today's information technology world, it is economic and reliable to access, use and display the information.
The Bill intends to achieve simple and clear, as well as honest, labelling. Consumers do not want to be faced with a mass of information that is difficult to interpret or requires too much time to assimilate. Although this is best left to detailed consideration in Committee, discussions that I have held with all sections of the food industry and, above all, with consumers, suggest that accreditation through, for example, a kitemark, may be the best way in which to proceed.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
Would not a Union jack be enough?
Mr. O'Brien:
A Union jack is always a welcome sign to--I hope--all hon. Members. However, it has been abused in recent times. Examples of that have already been given. We need to think of something new that would engender absolute confidence. That is the point of the Bill, welcome though I always find the Union jack.
A kitemark that can be protected, policed and not abused may be the best way to proceed. In addition, quality could be certified by labels such as ENG for England and WAL for Wales or, in due time, SCO for Scotland and NI for Northern Ireland. They could provide
accreditation and certification that the food came from a particular country or region of origin and had been produced according to its production standards--that is, the minimum legal requirements applicable to that food in that country.
There has been considerable discussion and that has led to the National Farmers Union, Tesco and others taking action to develop a British farm assurance mark--a kitemark aimed at informing shoppers which food products are reared or grown nationally. That approach would also help to cover the other example addressed by clause 4: food sold to consumers by catering establishments.
Subsection (3) would ensure that consumers being served food in catering establishments would have the opportunity to inform themselves of country of origin and standards of production either before or when that food was presented. Restaurant menus would not be required to carry a food label for country of origin and standards of production for every item, but they would be have to carry--as is already the case for genetically modified foods--a statement, kitemark or other emblem stating the country or countries of origin of the major ingredients of all items and whether production standards inferior to this country's might have been involved.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for a little while and I am puzzled by clause 4(3). Is he saying that menus would have to say whether an item contained monosodium glutamate, E numbers and everything else? That would run to pages before a customer got to the list of food.
about the method of its production and transportation to the shop of purchase.
Announcing the scheme, SFA stated:
We believe that to be competitive in this market we have to provide something extra--to us that means consumer confidence. SFA can provide detailed information on where food comes from and how it is produced.
Perhaps the most telling example is the latest French one. Mr. Jacques Lemaitre, president of the National Pork Federation in France, and Mr. Jerome Bedier, president of the French Federation of Commerce and Distribution, signed an agreement of intent on 9 February to allow the identification of the origin of pork sold throughout retail outlets in France. The arrangements will initially apply only to fresh pork, but it is intended that they will be extended to processed products in due course. Under the scheme, traceability is assured throughout the stages of production, slaughtering and processing, and retail outlets will provide the information. That is expected to be possible for approximately 85 per cent. of the pigmeat that is currently produced in France. Mr. Bedier said:
This is a natural development stemming from what has been put into place for fruit and vegetables and--
pitifully, as we know--
for beef. Consumers want to know more and more about the origin of the products they buy.
Mr. Lemaitre said:
Meat producers are quite happy for the customers to know where their animals come from; it is an important factor in gaining confidence in our products.
There is also the amazingly termed "swine stamp" in Brazil. That is relevant because of the World Trade Organisation for the global marketplace in which pigmeat competes. The Swedish and French examples also state that they believe that their new provisions conform to WTO requirements. Unlike France and Sweden, will the United Kingdom, under this Government, impede our producers' competitiveness while the next trade round grinds on? If so, liberalisation without better food labelling will mean that any producer who does not produce to the lowest cost will be lost in the price-driven global marketplace.
on the food's packaging; on a label attached to the food's packaging; on a label that is clearly visible through the food's packaging.
That is straightforward. As we know from the plethora of labels that bombard consumers about other matters on foods, and in the instances of good practice under voluntary arrangements, information about country of origin and standards of production is sometimes seen.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |