Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Food Standards Agency
FOOD ASSURANCE
SCHEMES
How concerned are you by the National Consumer
Council's finding that food assurance schemes are likely to "confuse
and mislead consumers rather than inform them"?
The review of assurance schemes which we carried
out in 2002[1]
found that consumer involvement in schemes was patchy and that
it was difficult for consumers to find out what standards schemes
were working to. We therefore developed, in consultation with
stakeholders, including scheme operators, Agency advice to schemes
recommending improved consumer engagement and setting out the
minimum information we considered ought to be available to consumers.
Can you give us an estimate of the number
of farm assurance schemes currently operating in Britain? Would
consumer confusion be lessened if there were fewer, consolidated
schemes? If so, how could this be achieved?
The review we published in 2002 focused on the
main schemes with a consumer face, that is where there was a label
claim or logo. We looked at 18 schemes of which 11 fell under
the British Farm Standard/red tractor umbrella.
Reducing the number of schemes might help to
reduce confusion, but our view is that it is more important that
consumers should be able to find out what individual schemes offer.
For example, our advice recommends that consumers should be able
to find out easily to what extent the scheme standards exceed
the legal minimum, how instances of non-compliance are dealt with
and how any specific claim has been validated.
How can consumers best be educated about
the various farm assurance schemes and the differences between
them? Should one individual body be responsible for this?
The Agency's view is that providing clear consumer
information about the offer the scheme is making is the key to
facilitating informed choice. We will be carrying out a survey
next year to see whether consumer transparency has improved since
our review. We also plan to collate information on the different
schemes to help consumers make comparisons. The Agency believes
it would be helpful if schemes worked together to provide comparable
information for consumers across schemes.
In 2003, the National Consumer Council recommended
that the FSA should institute a code of practice for food assurance
schemes and a central register of complying schemes. What progress
have you made in implementing this recommendation?
Would you support an overarching body—industry
or government—having oversight of this area? Is the FSA
itself an appropriate body to carry out such an oversight role?
The advice on consumer involvement and consumer
transparency issued by the Agency in August 2003[2]
covers the main issues the NCC was concerned about. The planned
survey work will identify those schemes which follow the advice
and those which do not.
CONSUMERS' FOOD
SAFETY CONCERNS
The Food Standards Agency tracks the attitudes
of consumers to food safety and standards issues in an annual
survey involving interviews with over 3,000 people across the
UK.
The attached chart shows levels of concern about
specific food issues, tracked over the last four years. Respondents
were asked, "are you concerned about any of the following
issues?" and provided with a list.
Food poisoning remains at the top of the list
of concerns (60% of respondents concerned). The use of pesticides
in food is currently of second highest concern (46%). BSE has
fallen from the top issue of concern when the survey was first
conducted in 2000 to joint third concern in 2003 (falling from
61% to 42%). The same number (42%) specified the conditions in
which food animals are raised as an area of concern.
29 July 2004
1 http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/FAS_Report.PDF Back
2
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/labelregsguidance/foodassureguidance Back
| 
