Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-280)
MR TIM
BENNETT AND
MR ROBIN
TAPPER
22 JUNE 2004
Q260 Chairman: I think you heard part
of our discussion about the question of food assurance schemes.
Could you first of all give us your estimate of the number of
such schemes that are in operation in Britain and then tell us
whether you are in favour of fewer such schemes or a consolidation
of such schemes being brought into effect? Could you perhaps say
whether you favour a consolidation or reduction in the number
of such schemes and if you would, perhaps most importantly, how
would you achieve that?
Mr Bennett: I would not know the
exact number of schemes out there but I agree that there are probably
too many. I think it depends how you determine those schemes.
Farm assurance really got going in terms of independent verification
of farm standards back in mid-1995-96, somewhere round the BSE
scare, and the schemes developed on a sector-by-sector basis.
As those schemes developed we in the NFU felt that we had got
lots of schemes, lots of inspections and we needed to consolidate
them. We have been working to try and get some consolidation in.
We have got the Assured Food Standards whose ultimate remit hopefully
will then control that. It is an independent body which as part
of it will hopefully end up consolidating a lot of the schemes.
We have had some success. At least we tend to get single inspections.
If you are a cereal and beef farmer or dairy and beef farmer,
for example, which is a scheme we are working on now, you now
get single inspections so there is some sort of integration. What
you cannot avoid is that there will be some retailers who for
competitive reasons or their own particular market-place will
want to add something to basic farm assurance schemes. Even then
there is no reason at all why that cannot be done at the same
time. So we are in favour of consolidation but we want something
like Assured Food Standards to drive it to make sure that it is
being done correctly so that it is not just a trade association
doing it. I think it is very important for the independence and
integrity of these schemes that it is done properly and not just
farmers saying that they want to make this a bit simpler. However,
we agree with the consolidation.
Q261 Chairman: Is it not a bit odd that
in a world where the food retail sector is heavily dominated by
a very few major players that no-one seems to be able to tell
us how many schemes are in operation or indeed just simply give
us a list of the fields which they cover? I am not blaming you
for that but these do purport to be national schemes in most cases,
I understand, and yet nobody seems to know what is out there.
Does that in itself not say something about the problem?
Mr Bennett: We could probably
give you a fairly comprehensive list of schemes but I would take
the point that I think we need to consolidate those schemes because
across all those sectors there tend to be different schemes and
indeed in the organic sector there are different inspection schemes
so there is an opportunity to do that and we are encouraging people
to do that, and I think we are having some success certainly in
the sector schemes.
Mr Tapper: There is a dichotomy
there as well. You have got schemes which are set up such as the
red tractor scheme which is effectively a standard, a sort of
kite mark if you like, and then you have got other schemes which
I think were mentioned by previous witnesses which may refer to
provenance or particular elements of a product. It is very difficult
to draw a line there. Certainly from the retail point of view
and from the customer point of view they would say they are too
many schemes and again we are trying to get to one standard which
forms the basis upon which other people may want to build extra
bits and pieces if they so wish. We need one standard across the
chain so the consumer knows that what they are buying is safe
and meets certain guidelines.
Mr Bennett: The rationale of the
red tractor was to try and put a logo that reflected a multitude
of schemes that were designed to give consumer reassurance. That
is what we are still trying to do.
Chairman: That leads neatly to Michael
Jack who wants to ask about the red tractor scheme.
Q262 Mr Jack: What research has the red
tractor scheme done to see what messages the consumers are actually
picking up of assurance (because this inquiry is about food information)
and to check that the scheme is designed in as simple a way as
possible to send out some indication about the way that the food
is produced to the consumer? Have you done any research to find
out what people actually believe it all means?
Mr Tapper: Yes, we have done two
pieces of research. First of all, there was some research on recognition
and the red tractor has something like 47% recognition amongst
customers. That is second only to the lion mark on eggs, so it
was a great success from that point of view. The least success
is on the understanding of what the red tractor means and there
the recognition is low. I think it is low for two reasons. First
of all, there is confusion. People see it as a nationality mark
sometimes when it is not. We would like to think that people thought
of it as British but we certainly cannot promote it as that because
of the state aid rules, amongst other things. There is also the
issue that we are very conscious of that we have not marketed
what exactly it does mean. Of course, unlike eggs where you have
got a one-product industry, the message in agriculture is much
more complicated. You might have carrots at one end of the scheme,
which is fairly straightforward, but you might have a meat product
at the other end which could be very complex, and so trying to
get a simple message across the whole of agriculture is quite
difficult, but we are trying to develop such a scheme.
Q263 Mr Jack: So you have 47% of consumers
recognising a label with a meaningless background to it? They
have not got a clue what they are recognising.
Mr Bennett: I think it is fair
to say that it signifies someone has put some assurance in there
but they would not know exactly what that is. That would be true
of most of these logos. Even the organic labels of the Soil Association
people know it is organic but not many would know the detailed
scheme standards.
Q264 Mr Jack: Do you not think in a way
if one were to do an article in some salacious newspaper and it
said "owners of red tractor scheme acknowledge that lots
of people recognise the label but the whole thing is a meaningless
myth" that the whole thing would collapse round its ears,
would it not?
Mr Bennett: I do not think that
is the case. I think the Food Standards Agency came up with that
research, they quoted something like 40% a couple of years back,
and then also stated that there was a need to increase the understanding
behind those logos, which is the same as Tim says.
Q265 Mr Jack: What are you doing to address
that?
Mr Bennett: I think that is important.
It goes along the lines in a sense we have tried to integrate
the schemes into Assured Farm Standards which the scheme is part
of and obviously there are independents on that board and that
is an independent body and they will actually market what is behind
that red tractor. We will obviously help promote that as the NFU
but it is for Assured Food Standards to get the commercial plan
about how to explain the standards. We are in discussions with
them on that at this particular time.
Mr Jack: You may be in discussions but
you have allowed this thing to promulgate that so people do, I
am afraid, think it is a country of origin marking. You have been
quite candid with the Committee in saying that as a piece of communication
you cannot market it as such, and you acknowledge the fact that
people outside the United Kingdom could come into the scheme,
but you have not at this stage said to me, "We are going
to do something comprehensive." "We are in discussion,"
is what I hear and yet people are supposed to derive a glowing
sense that if they get a product with the red tractor on, somehow
it is good, wholesome, high standard—
Joan Ruddock: Who says so?
Q266 Mr Jack: Just a minute, I have not
finished the sentence. When I was looking at a publication which
the Consumers' Association sent to the Committee they said: "The
red tractor scheme also allows birds"—this is in connection
with poultry—"to be reared in more cramped conditions
than recommended by the Government." Is that a correct statement?
Mr Bennett: I could look at the
standards of every single scheme and come back with an answer
to you on that one. It certainly would not be below the legal
standards, I can assure you of that. In fact the lion eggs scheme
is not part of the red tractor scheme.
Q267 Mr Jack: So the best you can say
to us is that this great scheme of assurance simply reassures
the public (or if they really understood—the 47%—what
was behind it) that farmers have met the basic minimum criteria?
Mr Bennett: We are saying a lot
more than that. What we are actually saying is that these are
the legal requirements (and very often the schemes go beyond that)
but on top of that these schemes have been independently verified
to make sure that this product has been independently verified,
and I think that is an important reassurance for consumers.
Q268 Mr Jack: But in terms of the many
things that you might want to get across to consumers—for
example, animal welfare, which very important, good biosecurity,
disease control, the quality of the food that is being produced
in terms of meeting specification and so on and so forth, is it
right to have a system that dilutes all of that into one label
when in actual fact the power of any one of the areas, as just
indicated, may be of greater advantage to farmers trying to sell
and differentiate product—and I will say British product—from
other people because you have diluted it all under one rather
meaningless label that people do not understand so that a lot
of very good messages are not actually getting out?
Mr Bennett: The intention of farm
assurance and the red tractor was to make sure that there was
good practice taking place on farms that was independently verified
to show that legal standards were being met, and that is what
the schemes have achieved and that fulfils our place in the market-place.
You are quite right that beyond that you can add, in terms of
eating quality and things like that, other things. Can I go back
on the British thing; because of state aid rules, whether we like
them or not, we cannot claim it as a British logo. We did not
set the rules on that, they were set by politicians, if I may
say so, whether we think them right or not. What we have got at
the moment is that it has to be licensed and what we do know is
that no product has been licensed to the red tractor other than
British product and the customers/the retailers have only brought
red tractor produce that is British because they can do it in
the market-place as customers to say it is only British with the
red tractor, but what we cannot do because of the Single Market
is state equivocally that the red tractor is British; that is
illegal.
Q269 Chairman: Just one point if I may.
You did indicate that you thought it would be relatively simple
to produce a list of the various farm assurance schemes which
as far as you knew were in existence. I am sure that it would
indeed be very helpful to the Committee if you were to provide
us with that type of arrangement. If you could do that, that would
be very helpful.
Mr Bennett: We would be delighted
to do that, Chairman.
Q270 Mr Wiggin: I am a big fan of the
red tractor scheme, as you might imagine, because I laid out an
example to the previous witnesses about how the farmer can go
to the trouble to go through all the assurance scheme and then
watch in horror as perhaps his miller will simply buy in cheaper
wheat from abroad. One of the questions I wanted to know is once
I have got my little red tractor I know that all the way through—if
it is on a loaf of bread—that the wheat will be have been
properly assured, will it not? How many people are trying to put
little red tractors on their production who should not be? I have
read about something in Spain where we suddenly saw little red
tractors appearing. How much of that goes on?
Mr Tapper: Very, very, very little.
Certainly in the two instances that I am aware of that happened
in the last six months they have been purely production errors
and in both cases the product was withdrawn from display, returned
and not put back into the food chain, and I believe that is a
responsible approach. So we are pretty certain that everything
that is assured is assured and is at the moment British.
Q271 Mr Wiggin: What about people trying
to pretend that they qualify for little red tractors when they
do not?
Mr Tapper: We are certainly not
aware of that.
Q272 Joan Ruddock: Just on this little
red tractor business, is there any evidence that people are more
likely to buy something that is labelled little red tractor than
not?
Mr Bennett: We have certainly
had support from the food chain for this little red tractor so
normally if there is support from our ultimate customers for it
then they feel that that is something that people value.
Q273 Joan Ruddock: It is not the same
as saying they choose it because it has got the little red tractor
on it when they are doing their own shopping.
Mr Bennett: There is a process
to this. First of all, we had farm assurance to reassure people
at our end of the supply chain. Having done that, we looked at
how we could develop a logo that indicated to the consumer we
have done that. We have got to that process and recognition is
reasonably good. What we have now got to do, which I think is
a much more difficult thing to do but we have to do that, as you
quite rightly indicated, is make sure that people understand what
lies behind it so that people can feel more reassured by this.
The end game to this is I want to make sure that consumers buy
my product because I have done a little bit more than my competitors
and that is what we are trying to do—to reassure and make
people feel confident in buying that product. It is not straightforward
to inform the consumer and they will know all about it; it is
quite a lengthy process.
Q274 Joan Ruddock: I think you offered
no evidence at all that it makes the slightest difference to the
consumer at the point of purchase doing the family shopping. They
may be randomly buying red tractor meat or non-red tractor meat
from everything we have heard at this Committee. I can accept
the point of sale to the retailer from the farmer of course, but
at the other end there is no evidence from what you have said.
Mr Tapper: The only thing I would
say is that the major retailers, if they are buying British meat,
to take your example, would only be selling red tractor British
meat so from that point of view—
Q275 Joan Ruddock: The consumer does
not have a choice.
Mr Tapper: The consumer does not
have a choice but is that not the right answer in that the supermarkets
are acting responsibly by supporting their own tractor which in
itself is a responsible action about food safety, provenance and
all the various agricultural—
Q276 Joan Ruddock: I think that is a
huge philosophical debate and we have not got time to get into
that.
Mr Bennett: Can I come back to
that. They do have a choice because on that shelf there are products
from other countries that have not got a red tractor on them,
so they have that choice. If the legislators pass legislation
and if we can make sure that that legislation is being enacted
and it is being independently verified and marked up as a logo,
surely, ultimately, that is for the benefit of the consumer otherwise
why pass the legislation?
Q277 Joan Ruddock: We are going to vote
in two minutes but just to take you on to something which I know
is dear to your hearts and that is country of origin; you believe,
I understand, that country of original labels can be misleading.
Just give us a word on that and what you think should be done?
Mr Bennett: I actually think labelling
is very important. It is obviously important to us as an industry
if we can get the consumer to want to buy our product, and if
the labelling is misleading then it is obviously damaging to ourselves,
but I do not think anyone has an interest in misleading the consumer.
To give you an example of country of origin, we saw one last week
and we have probably still got it in our building which we can
show you (it happened to be rib eye steak) where it had "product
of the EU" stamped all over it but then if you really looked
in the small print it said "reared and slaughtered in Brazil".
I do not think that is honest and accurate labelling. If I may
say so, recently in the United States their labelling, both nutrition
wise and on these other things, seems to be slightly better than
ours, which rather surprised me.
Q278 Joan Ruddock: That is a very good
example. If it is reared and slaughtered in Brazil, there is no
processing process, is there? A piece of meat reared and slaughtered
in Brazil.
Mr Bennett: The law allows you
to put "product of EU" on it if it is processed. I guess
what happened there is that it was reared and slaughtered in Brazil
and then was cut up and processed in the UK.
Joan Ruddock: Cut up is "processed"
by the definition of the EU? We have a few more questions but
I think the Chairman would like us to stop.
Q279 Chairman: If you want to briefly
follow up on the last point, we have one minute left before we
finish the meeting.
Mr Tapper: What we would like
is a very simple label that just says "product of . . . packed
in . . ." If it does not say "packed in" one assumes
that the products are packed in the same country. That would be
a very simple one to get across. It would certainly fulfil our
requirements and I think it would be very easy for the customer.
Some companies already do it and I think it should be standard.
Q280 Chairman: But for the food that
is being processed do you think there is a need to label ingredients
by country of origin?
Mr Tapper: Yes for the major ingredients
so if you are selling chicken tikka you can say "chicken
tikka—produced in the UK, made from chicken from wherever"
because it is chicken that you are actually selling there, and
that is the ingredient that the customers, I would assume, are
most concerned about.
Chairman: I think that division bell
brings us naturally to the end of our questions in any event.
I would like to thank you for coming along this afternoon, it
has been very helpful. If there is any written evidence you wish
to submit further to your comments today we are certainly very
happy to receive it and again we await with interest receiving
the information on farm assurance schemes which you were kind
enough to say you would provide. Thank you very much for coming
along.
| 
