Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680-683)

LORD WHITTY, MR BILL SCRIVEN AND MR IAN NEWTON

20 JULY 2004

  Q680 Mr Jack: If you were pressed to try and define a traffic light system that you could endorse, what would its characteristics be?

  Lord Whitty: The problem is that traffic lights may apply to different things. You can have a traffic light system in salt content or you can have a traffic light system in fat content but it is difficult to have a traffic light system which conveys everything that we would want people to understand about a balanced diet. Therefore, if people are looking already to limit their fat content or their salt content, then a traffic light system could be very helpful but it is not going to say how much of this bit of medium salty bread should I have as compared with vegetables and as compared with roast beef a week. It is difficult to convey that through a traffic light system.

  Q681 Mr Jack: Can I just ask you about assurance schemes; you put particular weight on that. Do you think that they are a good way of communicating messages about the nature of the way that food is produced bearing in mind that many of the assurance schemes we have come across seem only to indicate an adherence to minimum statutory standards and do not in any way relate to the quality or other attributes of the food produced but sometimes the logos that are used seem to convey lots of those extra bits of information together with country of origin messages and therefore the logos go beyond a simple point of reassurance? Are you happy with that?

  Lord Whitty: Certainly the red tractor is intended to convey not only the way that the food is produced and the compliance with minimum standards but also that it has been produced from a farm which has been properly inspected and which meets those standards and, by and large, that is a standard which people are beginning to recognise. There are other series of standards, for example leaf or freedom foods, which convey other aspects of how food is produced and which probably have a more limited segment of the consumers who relate to them. One could argue that the organic label was similar but is one that is subject to a higher level of standard if you like, so there is not a single standard that is going to actually convey all the information but the comprehensiveness for fresh food of a clearer and recognisable standard for the basic level of quality and quality production is important and that is where red tractor is trying to go. The higher level standards are also, by and large, not yet sufficiently recognised by a large enough section of consumers to have achieved the ratcheting up, if you like, of quality standards, but I believe that they will be there and that, with increased consciousness, they will make a contribution. If you are asking me if assurance schemes can convey a balanced diet, then the answer is "no" anymore than a single dimensional traffic light system can.

  Q682 Joan Ruddock: I want to turn to the WTO and the negotiations that the EU is having in relation to Article 2.2 which we know is about not having barriers to trade. The argument has been put that mandatory labelling in the context of the WTO can be seen to be a barrier to trade. How successful are we being within the EU in trying to persuade other countries of our point of view which is that mandatory labelling is an important aid in itself and should not be seen as an anti-competitive measure?

  Lord Whitty: I think that, in general, we are up against a difficulty. The EU has established that they would wish to preserve their labelling system and indeed enhance some, as is currently under discussion. In the WTO's negotiations, the European Commission has actually tried to keep the concept of mandatory labelling of foods in play for the negotiations. It has to be said that almost all the other negotiating partners are in some difficulty on this and do regard it certainly beyond pure safety issues as being a form of hidden protection and that the other partners to the WTO may well see that this is an EU attempt to introduce further protection by the backdoor. The current position is that it is part of the EU's negotiating mandate. There are aspects of mandatory labelling which could lead us into protection and therefore the UK within the EU is careful to try and ensure that we do not get into that, but those negotiations still have to take place. You will probably know that the latest development is that there is a new framework which has been produced only last Friday, the full implications of which I am not in a position to tell you, but the idea is that that will go to the WTO over the next few days for the WTO General Council on I think the 29th of this month and that we would therefore have a framework for further negotiations on the agriculture chapter of the WTO. Whether that occurs before or after the American elections and various other changes is not for me to decide but there are some developments on what we are going to discuss in the WTO which will need updating within the next fortnight.

  Q683 Joan Ruddock: It does not sound all that helpful. There has seemingly been a move and this is of course again where we caught on the GM issue by the WTO arguing very narrow Sanitary and Phytosanitary regulations rather than the wider issues and there is a great concern amongst those who have given us evidence that we could see ourselves going into a position where we cannot give our consumers what they are demanding particularly, for example, on ethical issues.

  Lord Whitty: I think that is probably true. If you make the labelling mandatory, then we do run the risk of there being a WTO beyond the safety issue. The Codex Alimentarius is recognised in the WTO structure, so the safety issues—and those are increasing all the time—are protected but, if you go beyond that, then there are potential WTO cases like the GM one.

  Chairman: Lord Whitty, thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our questions this afternoon. Your evidence has, once again, been most helpful and that now concludes the meeting of the Committee this afternoon.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 30 March 2005