Examination of Witnesses (Questions 533-539)
MR DAVID
PICKERING AND
MR PHIL
THOMAS
12 JULY 2004
Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome
to the Committee. Thank you for submitting written evidence and
we look forward to your oral evidence this afternoon. Could I
invite David Drew to begin our questions.
Q533 Mr Drew: Good afternoon. I saw your
report, which has got the benefit of brevity, which we always
like in this Committee, but it does sound as though you are a
bit underpowered in this area, that is my observation, given that
I imagine your members have a great wealth of anecdotal evidence,
to call it that, where you might want to go further. I wonder,
as an association, how much you feel this is an area which is
important to your members and really you would want to see some
improvements which then you could police?
Mr Thomas: In terms of nutrition
labelling, yes, we do feel that we are underpowered, in that the
requirements to mark food with its nutrition information is limited
to either where a claim is made or it is a voluntary declaration
by the manufacturer. There is lack of consistency in terms of
providing the information to the consumer.
Q534 Mr Drew: Do you feel that you have
got the expertise amongst your members? If there was a statutory
enforcement of nutrition information, maybe backed up with some
ethical considerations, do you feel that without a great deal
of training, retraining, this would be impossible?
Mr Pickering: I think we have
been enforcing nutrition information requirements for the period
since they came into legislation anyway, so whilst there is always
scope for improvement I think that there is a wealth of experience
there already.
Q535 Mr Drew: What would be useful is
for you to give us a feel for where the existing rules are woefully
inadequate if you want to see this area developed properly, and
where currently the anomalies exist so there is confusion, certainly
in the mind of the consumer, who comes to you and says "I
thought I was buying something that was going to be a relatively
low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar content and now I find it's just
the opposite of that"?
Mr Thomas: Where we feel there
are anomalies with the legislation is that, obviously, as mentioned
previously, it is not a compulsory thing on all foods to have
nutrition information. Most of the foods which tend to be high
in sugar, particularly, and also fat, unless they make a claim,
do not tend to declare the nutrition content or any nutrition
information. Also products which are sold at catering establishments,
the consumer has no idea of what the nutrition element of that
would be. For example, if you take a typical sandwich, I think
a lot of consumers would anticipate a sandwich being fairly low
in fat, but if they have used mayonnaise and butter then the fat
content will be fairly high.
Q536 Chairman: Where there are food labelling
or food safety laws, how many prosecutions actually take place?
How many do you estimate there have been, say, in the past 12
months, or breaches in this area?
Mr Pickering: The figures for
the last 12 months are not available as yet.
Q537 Chairman: For the last period you
know about?
Mr Pickering: For the last period
that we have got, on average, it was four per authority per year.
Because the Food Standards Agency collate figures from each authority,
and having looked at the last report which was issued by them,
it came out at about that, and that was purely on food standards.
Q538 Chairman: We might pursue that point
with the Food Standards Agency later. In your view, how adequate
are the penalties where prosecutions are successful? Are the fines
high enough to act as a deterrent, or are they somewhat small,
given the turnover of the companies involved?
Mr Pickering: I think there are
a number of issues there. One of the things which we were going
to mention was not so much the penalties, because the penalties
are pretty much in line with other consumer protection pieces
of legislation, there are other issues relating perhaps to time
limits, certainly for food labelling offences. Also the fact that
when you are investigating an offence you have to go through the
legal process, quite rightly, but that places a number of obstacles
in the way, especially with criminal offences, which we have to
take to prosecute a company. We have to prove it beyond all reasonable
doubt in a court. One of the developments in other areas of trading
standards legislation is the use of the Enterprise Act. That is
a route via the civil law format whereby an injunction can be
taken out against the company or the offender if they are trading
in such a way that is not compliant with the law. Although penalties
are an issue, we thought about it and felt that really, in a way,
it was the whole method of having to go through the criminal law
system which probably inhibits authorities from taking cases,
because companies, for whatever reason, quite rightly, do tend
to use legal process to put their case, but it does take a lot
of time. The time limit for food labelling offences is six months
and, although that may seem like a long time, as is the case now
quite often, larger companies tend to want to be interviewed formally
by letter, which can eat quickly into that six months' time limit.
In a way, probably the process is not served particularly well
by having to go through the criminal law side.
Q539 Chairman: You mentioned the Enterprise
Act as a possible means of addressing this issue. Have I understood
you correctly in that and has that been of any use to you so far?
Mr Thomas: The problem with the
Enterprise Act is that one of the specified acts which it covers
is not food and so we have not been able to use it, but we foresee
it being a way in which we can achieve quick compliance without
the need to go through a lengthy formal criminal prosecution,
which at the end of the day is what we want to achieve. What we
want to do is ensure that the food which is being sold complies
with the law in terms of its composition requirements and also
its labelling requirements.
|
