Conclusions and recommendations
Responsibility for food information policy within
Government
1. We
support the existing separation within government of the producer
department—Defra—from the main regulator—the
Food Standards Agency. However, food information policy is not
simply an issue of regulation; in particular, it encompasses public
health initiatives, education within schools and advertising.
At present, the main areas of responsibility are divided between
the FSA, the Department of Health and Defra, and other responsibilities
fall to the Department for Education and Skills, the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Trade and
Industry. It is not apparent to us that there is effective co-ordination
between all these different players of government policy and initiatives
in the field of food information, both domestically and at EU
level. (Paragraph 300
2. We recommend that
the Government explicitly task one government department with
lead responsibility for co-ordinating food information policy
across both central and local government, and for representing
the position of the UK Government at EU level. We consider that
Defra would be the most suitable department to assume this role.
We also recommend that Defra assume joint responsibility for achieving
the Public Service Agreement target of "halting the year-on-year
rise in obesity among children under 11 by 2010 in the context
of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a
whole", alongside those departments already responsible for
achieving the target (the DoH, the DfES and the DCMS). (Paragraph
31
3. We recommend that
the Government investigate whether it is indeed the case that
local authorities are being deterred from taking prosecutions
for breaches of food law, particularly food labelling law, and,
if so, that it establish the reasons why. The Government must
ensure that local authorities are sufficiently well-resourced
to be able to take prosecutions against food manufacturers and
retailers, whose legal budgets are of a size that does not prevent
them from fully using the law to defend their interests. (Paragraph
32
Food safety and hygiene
4. Government
has a vital role to play in providing definitive guidance which
assists consumers to assess food safety risks. We commend the
Food Standards Agency on the work it has done, since its establishment
in 2000, towards providing clear advice to consumers about food
safety issues. We also congratulate the Agency on its initiative
in launching a website providing information about food hygiene
and preparation. (Paragraph 51)
5. We welcome recent
legislation improving allergen labelling requirements. However,
the new legislation applies only to allergens which have been
deliberately added to food: labelling of foods which may inadvertently
contain allergens remains unregulated. We recommend that the Government
move quickly to consider how this legislation can be supplemented
to regulate the defensive use of allergen warnings, so that consumers
with food allergies are provided with clear and helpful allergen
information. The Government should also ensure that proper channels
of communication are in place between the food industry and medical
scientists to allow for the effective flow of information about
the latest scientific findings on allergies. (Paragraph 52)
6. We recommend that
the Government undertake a speedy investigation into the events
which resulted in the illegal dye, Sudan 1, making its way into
the UK food chain. We are particularly concerned that the Government
should establish the length of time for which the adulteration
of chilli powder is likely to have gone undetected and why UK
authorities did not detect this adulteration in a product used
so extensively in UK food processing. The Government and the FSA
should also carry out work to determine the best way of communicating
with the public about questions relating to the degree of risk
actually associated with issues like Sudan 1. (Paragraph 53)
Food labelling: prepacked foods
7. We
support the European Commission's draft regulation on nutrition
and health claims made on foods, and trust that the UK Government
will do all it can to facilitate the speedy implementation of
the draft regulation. (Paragraph 57)
8. We consider that
provision of information about the nutrient content of food should
be mandatory on all prepacked foods. For such provision to be
mandatory, legislative change at EU level will be required. We
therefore welcome the Government's recent undertaking to press
vigorously for legislative change within the EU on this matter,
and we urge the Government to make this a high priority matter
for the UK's forthcoming presidency of the EU. We consider that
such mandatory nutrition information should be extensive and should
therefore state values for the following nutrients: energy (expressed
in both calories and kilojoules), protein, carbohydrate, including
what proportion of the carbohydrate is sugars, fat, including
what proportion of the fat is saturated fat, fibre, salt and sodium.
(Paragraph 79)
9. We consider that
nutrition information should, in so far as practicable, be presented
in a standard, tabular format, to assist consumers in identifying
the information easily and in making comparisons between products.
Exemptions from the requirements to use a standard format may
be necessary in the case of small packs, although we would then
expect nutrition information to be given in a linear format where
practicable. Information should be given in plain English, with
common names rather than (or in addition to) scientific names.
(Paragraph 80)
10. We have recommended
that values for both salt and sodium should be stated. We consider
this is the best means of addressing the current confusion amongst
consumers about the relationship between the two. We commend the
Government for the action it has taken to date to have food manufacturers
and processors cut the level of salt in processed food. As a supplement
to this action, we recommend that the Government carry out a specific,
targeted programme of public education to inform consumers of
the health implications associated with sodium intake. (Paragraph
81)
11. Although important,
mandatory provision of information about the nutrient content
of food will be of limited use to the consumer without the provision
of more general nutrition information. Such general information
needs to enable consumers to establish the relevance of nutrient
values to their own individual circumstances. We consider that
it is primarily the role of the Food Standards Agency to formulate
and promulgate this information, but we also consider that the
food manufacturing and retail industry has a role to play in promulgation.
In terms of labelling requirements, we consider that the inclusion
on labels of guideline daily amounts for energy consumption should
be mandatory, and we recommend that the Government push for the
requisite legislative change at EU level. In respect of other
key nutrients—fat, sugars, and salt—we consider that
the inclusion on labels of guideline daily amounts should be the
rule, rather than the exception. (Paragraph 82)
12. We are strongly
supportive of the introduction of a UK-wide system of front-of-label
nutrition signposting, to assist consumers in making healthier
choices 'at a glance'. The traffic light system has much to commend
it but, whatever signposting system the Government decides to
adopt, the determining factor should be clarity, rather than comprehensiveness,
although any system should, of course, be as scientifically sound
as is practicable. (Paragraph 99)
13. More broadly,
because any signposting system will necessarily oversimplify the
very complex information about what constitutes a healthy diet
for each individual, in the context of his or her lifestyle, it
is crucial that any UK-wide system be implemented in the context
of a wider education campaign providing consumers with more detailed
information about nutrition and healthy diets. For such a campaign
to be effective, the Government and the food industry will need
to work co-operatively in disseminating consistent messages.
(Paragraph 101)
14. Speedy action
by the Government is required on the introduction of a nutrition
signposting system. We would hope that the industry will, in consultation
with the FSA and government, initially introduce such a scheme
on a voluntary basis, as a mandatory system would take some time
to be put in place because of the need for legislative change
at EU level to achieve this. However, even if such a voluntary
scheme were to be achieved, we consider that a mandatory scheme,
applying at EU level, would still be necessary. We therefore recommend
that the Government pursue legislative change at EU level to ensure
that such a comprehensive and mandatory scheme of nutrition signposting
is introduced. (Paragraph 101)
15. We commend the
initiatives being used by some of the major supermarkets in introducing
their own nutrition signposting schemes. We trust that the Government
will endeavour to work with these retailers to learn from their
experiences in piloting nutrition signposting schemes, prior to
finalising its own signposting scheme. (Paragraph 102)
16. However, in order
to be successful, we consider that any nutrition signposting system
needs to be introduced across the board, so that consumers can
draw meaningful comparisons between products. We trust that, once
the Government has announced its preferred system of nutrition
signposting, the major retailers will endeavour to comply with
that system as soon as possible, to avoid consumer confusion.
(Paragraph 103)
17. In terms of achieving
improvement in nutrition labelling on a voluntary basis, we are
disappointed major supermarket chains seem to be making little
effort to influence their suppliers of non own-brand products.
It seems to us extremely unlikely that supermarket chains with
as massive a market share as Asda and Tesco enjoy have as little
influence over the practices of their branded suppliers as they
claim. We therefore urge them to enter into a dialogue with these
suppliers to encourage them to introduce improved nutrition labelling,
including nutrition signposting, in the products which they supply
where they currently do not do so. (Paragraph 104)
18. Consumers generally
have no means of independently verifying claims made on food labels,
or elsewhere, about food production methods. At the same time,
consumers are becomingly increasingly aware of, and concerned
about, many of the ethical issues associated with food production
(Paragraph 112)
19. Fundamentally,
we consider consumers should receive better information about
these ethical issues, either by way of food labelling or by other
means, such as helplines, leaflets and websites. We appreciate
that the scope of legislating for compulsory provision of such
information, on either a UK or EU basis, is limited by the WTO
Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Nevertheless, we consider
that food producers, manufacturers and processors should consider
ways in which they can provide consumers with further information
about these matters. Failure to do so could well be interpreted
by consumers as a failure to engage with the ethical implications
of the industry's activities. (Paragraph 113)
20. Currently, manufacturers
of alcoholic drinks are exempt from listing their ingredients
on the label, although ingredients may be stated on a voluntary
basis. We recommend that the Government report to us on whether
any action is currently being taken at EU level to require compulsory
labelling of ingredients on alcoholic drinks and, if not, whether
it has any plans to raise the matter at EU level itself. (Paragraph
116)
Food labelling: non-prepacked foods
21. Currently,
what requirements there are for clear and meaningful labelling
are almost entirely confined to prepacked foods. Little or no
information is offered at point-of-sale to consumers of non-prepacked
foods. The Government seems to be doing little to address this
gaping hole in food labelling requirements. (Paragraph 130)
22. We
recognise that it may not be feasible to provide the same range
of nutritional information at point of sale to purchasers of non-prepacked
foods as to those of prepacked food. Nevertheless, we believe
that the Government should be working to ensure that clear and
meaningful nutrition information is provided to the extent that
it is feasible to do so on all foods purchased by consumers, including
food purchased in the eating out sector and other food sold loose
or prepacked for direct sale. The Government should work at the
EU level to achieve policy change on these matters. In the interim,
the Government should take action to encourage increased voluntary
provision of nutrition and other information. (Parqagraph 131)
23. We
consider that those who sell or otherwise provide food in the
eating out sector must take responsibility for providing healthy
choices to their customers, and for highlighting those choices
as healthy. We recommend that the Government work with the eating
out sector to develop a 'green light only' nutrition signposting
system to highlight healthy food choices. The Government should
devise appropriate nutritional standards to underpin this model.
(Paragraph 134)
24. The challenge
for all those involved in the eating out industry is to lead its
customers towards making healthier choices. (Paragraph 135)
25. We recommend that
where it is feasible to do so, the level of nutrition information
which we have recommended be required in respect of prepacked
food should apply equally to food sold loose and food sold prepacked
for direct sale in supermarkets and other food shops. We consider
that it would be desirable for the same information about nutrient
content to be provided, in the same standard, tabular format that
we recommend above, although we do recognise that there may be
some situations where it is not practical or necessary to provide
as full a range of information as is provided on pre-packed products.
Again, this should assist consumers in identifying the information
easily and in making comparisons between products. Likewise, any
nutrition signposting system which may be adopted in respect of
prepacked foods should also apply to food prepacked for direct
sale. (Paragraph 137)
26. We received virtually
no evidence relating to catering services in institutions such
as hospitals and schools. Nevertheless, we do not see any reason
why the same principles should not apply to such institutions,
and we recommend that the Government report to us on what work
it is currently undertaking towards achieving such an outcome.
(Paragraph 138)
Verifying food information: food assurance schemes
27. It
is not at all clear that food assurance schemes are currently
providing useful and meaningful information to consumers, and
the proliferation of such schemes adds to the confusion. Few consumers
are in a position to inquire into the veracity or reliability
of the schemes' claims. Furthermore, even where schemes are sound,
they may certify nothing more than that required minimum standards
have been met—something consumers should be able to take
for granted without the need for assurance by an external, private
body. We believe that most consumers are likely to assume that
the fact that a food carries an assurance scheme mark means that
it has exceeded legal requirements in some respect. (Paragraph
155)
28. We recommend that
the Government should ensure the central registration of food
assurance schemes. All schemes should have to be registered and
approved by an identified body. The FSA would be an obvious candidate
for the task. The purpose of such schemes should be to certify
that the product carrying the mark has either been:
- produced or manufactured in
a way which exceeds minimum legal standards—for example,
in respect of the environment or animal welfare—or
- has a 'special characteristic', such as meeting
organic or vegan/vegetarian production requirements.
The registration body would have to satisfy itself
that the operators of the schemes had appropriate verification
systems in place to ensure that producers taking part in a scheme
were fully meeting its requirements. We further recommend that
the Government, in consultation with stakeholders, consider ways
in which this kind of registration could limit the numbers of
schemes in operation, and introduce some common elements in labelling,
in order to make it easier for consumers to understand the schemes.
(Paragraph 156)
Other sources of food information
29. In
order to improve consumers' knowledge and understanding of nutrition
and diet, a broader education campaign about these matters is
required, driven forward by both the Government and the food industry,
working in partnership with each other. Consumers are often faced
with a range of contradictory messages about nutrition and diet,
from a wide range of sources. Consequently, if consumers are ever
to trust messages about diet and food, such messages must be presented
in a coherent and authoritative manner. A consistent approach
between industry-run consumer awareness programmes and Government-funded
consumer education must be adopted, with a shared aim of delivering
clear and consistent messages to consumers. (Paragraph 170)
30. We are greatly
encouraged by the positive moves made by the Government in this
direction in its recently published food and health action plan.
The plan engages with many of the themes raised in the course
of our inquiry, and supports many of the conclusions we have reached
in this report. Importantly, it also specifies target dates by
which particular actions are to be achieved. We will continue
to monitor the implementation of this plan, and the coherence
of the messages delivered by it, in so far as it relates to the
way in which consumers receive information about food. (Paragraph
171)
31. We consider that
implementation of our earlier recommendation, that the Government
explicitly task one government department with lead responsibility
for co-ordinating food information policy across both central
and local government, would assist enormously in achieving this
consistent approach between the Government and the food industry.
The industry should be able to rely on a definitive position on
food information policy, issuing from a single source. The Government
needs to provide the industry with a single agenda with a clear
list of priorities that both the Government and industry can work
towards achieving. (Paragraph 172)
32. The food industry
clearly has a key role to play in raising consumer awareness about
nutrition and diet and in making healthier choices both available
and attractive. (Paragraph 175)
33. Little benefit
to consumers' diet will be gained from improving the provision
of nutrition information if such improvements do not go hand in
hand with corresponding changes in industry practice. We reiterate
the Health Committee's call for the food industry to re-examine
its practices with respect to matters such as pricing, product
placement and portion size. (Paragraph 176)
| 
