Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
100-119)
DR ALAN
KNIGHT AND
MS SUE
DIBB
12 DECEMBER 2007
Q100 Chairman: Yes.
Dr Knight: I think you almost
have to accept that maybe they are never ever going to be reached
out in the way we would like. An example is when most people go
into a shop now they do not ask if that product is safe or not
before they use it, such as with a t.v. set, "Can you just
tell me that this t.v. set won't electrocute me when I plug it
in?" They just expect that that is the case. I think what
we are beginning to see more and more with environmental and social
issues that the expectation on retailers and the brands to actually
just make these complicated decisions for them is getting higher
and higher and higher.
Q101 Chairman: Just going back to
what you were saying about customers really wanting some kind
of guaranteed goods they can buy without going into all the details
of it, what kind of label do you think is the most effective in
communicating with customers and raising awareness? In terms of
the meetings you have had or the research you have done, is there
any best way of doing that?
Dr Knight: Yes, I think what we
have seen is that the labels which talk about a particular issue
and the obvious issue associated with that product actually has
more resonance with a customer than a catch-all label actually
trying to do everything. They actually understand what the issue
is. Using the examples I have wheeled out already, energy on white
goods, a forestry label on a timber product, a fish label on a
fish product, people actually get those. The perverse consequence
of that, however, is that at face value you think customers are
seeing a lot of labels and we hear lots of debate about whether
we are giving customers too many labels and are we confusing them,
but I think it is no coincidence that the European eco label,
which is meant to tackle all issues and all products, has failed
to have any traction. I would argue quite passionately the reason
for that is that it is trying to do too much. People know that
there is not one thing called an environmental problem, there
are lots of different environmental problems and they associate
different problems with different products and they expect that
label to talk to that particular issue for that particular product.
Q102 Chairman: In that context, could
you just tell us a little bit about the issue of waste and what
consideration is being given to the disposal of goods on the point
of sale and how much that is incorporated into labelling, including
the potential for recycling as well? Is that something which is
given a huge amount of consideration?
Dr Knight: I think in a way labelling
for waste management is a good example of how perhaps labelling
is not actually going to be the best solution. Giving customers
the information about what type of plastic it is makes sense because
plastic all looks the same and it is quite complex, but just saying
on a glass bottle "Please recycle me" is almost a bit
patronising and a bit facile. People know what glass looks like.
They know they are handling a glass bottle. What they want is
to make glass recycling easy for them. They want access to the
recycling bins. They want it to be easy. So a label is not really
going to make a huge difference. I also think recycling or recyclability
has got a bit confused. Some labels are saying what the recycled
content of the actual product is, whereas other labels are saying
"This is recyclable" and I think for a lot of people
"recyclable" and "recycle contents" is just
a bit, "Oh, what's the difference?" The big issue at
the moment that everybody is talking about is food waste. I do
not really see how labelling can make a huge contribution towards
reducing food waste in the home. That is a behavioural thing.
It is about how much you buy. There are lots of other issues.
The stance we take at SDC is that there are very clear examples
where labelling has made a significant contribution towards reducing
the environmental problem and sustainability problem with the
product, but there are many examples where labelling is not a
good solution and the whole road mapping idea which we write about
is about finding the best solution, which may or may not include
a label.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q103 Mark Pritchard: On the issue
of labelling, I just wonder whether you think there should be
an examination of the current sell-by date regime and possibly
even the size of products linked to the sell-by date?
Dr Knight: We obviously need a
sell-by date on products, particularly on food. We cannot function
as retailers without that. If that sell-by date and the way it
is calculated is leading to unnecessary food waste, then I think
the methodology and the process by which the actual date is decided
certainly should be reviewed. But that is not a fundamental change
to the role of labelling or not, and anyway the sell-by date is
not an environmental label, it is a stock management health issue.
Q104 Mark Pritchard: Yes, but if
people are going to the fridge for a microwave meal and it is
one day over, or the same day, and it is being thrown away because
people are unsure, we could look at the actual ingredients within
that product, whether you increase or decrease salt—probably
decrease it is the argument today—and just whether that
needs to be looked at. How transparent is the sell-by date mechanism
we currently have? That is something which I think the Food Standards
Agency could look at in regard to sustainable issues.
Dr Knight: Yes, I agree. I do
not have deep expertise on the methodology of food labelling.
Q105 Mark Pritchard: But it is linked
to the environment and we are throwing more and more stuff away
than needs to be thrown away, and we are consuming more, which
needs to be produced and which needs to be transported. It is
a sort of pull and demand.
Dr Knight: Definitely.
Ms Dibb: I think people are confused
between the sell-by date and the use-by date. The use-by date
is clearly the one which indicates the date by which it is generally
thought you should use a product by. Sometimes that is for safety
reasons and sometimes it is just for quality reasons. I think
probably it would be helpful, if consumers are confused between
the sell-by date (which is the message for the retailer not to
have it on the shelf after that date) and the use-by date (which
is for you, the customer) then clearly there is some communication
there that it would be helpful if the Food Standards Agency and
the retailers themselves made that clear to consumers that it
is the use-by date which is the important one. But if we are talking
about food waste, I think there are a lot of other issues which
bear, as Alan has said, in relation to reasons why people put
a lot of food in the bins.
Q106 Jo Swinson: I just wanted to
touch on the issue of rationalising labels. Your memorandum suggests
that you are not, as SDC, a big fan of that and you have just
talked about the problems you get, for example, with the eco label,
but separately in your memorandum you do talk about the confusing
number of health, safety, ethical and environmental labels already
in existence or planned. There is a great proliferation, which
can be confusing for the consumer. Do you accept there is a case
for some rationalisation in some areas, even if not to the extent
of just having one eco label?
Dr Knight: I think there is a
more underlying problem and on food the tension is very much,
do I buy Fairtrade carrots from Kenya, or do I buy locally sourced
carrots from Hampshire, where I happen to live? They both seem
to be sustainable things, but they are directly opposed to each
other, so you are in your shop looking at these two labels and
you are not quite sure what to do to do the right thing. The underlying
problem is that we are creating a portfolio of labels to address
single issues, supporting local farmers, fair trade in Kenya,
and that sort of stuff, but we—and I mean retailing, Government,
everybody, a collective mass—do not have a clear consensus
or vision of what sustainable food looks like. So we have got
these issues all coming from different angles with different interest
groups: "I am interested in fair trade in Kenya. I am going
to create a label." "I am interested in supporting local
farms. I am going to create a momentum for local sourcing."
They are so focused on that one issue that none of them are actually
talking about sustainable food, they are talking about an element
of sustainability, and the confusion is where you have different
labels which all actually at face value are doing good but which
directly contradict or cause confusion with another label. I think
what the debate is lacking at the moment is, what is our vision?
What is our collective vision of sustainable food? What does it
look like? Once you have got a sense of that, you can then build
a portfolio of tools, of which labels will be one, to actually
deliver that.
Q107 Jo Swinson: If that vision could
be created, would you therefore support the more generic sustainable
food label rather than there being lots and lots of different
ones?
Dr Knight: I certainly would support
it if we are absolutely confident it will work and will not repeat
the mistakes of, say, the EU eco labelling scheme, which became
so diluted and so bland that everybody rejected it and stopped
using it. So, cliche«, cliche«, let us not throw the
baby out with the bathwater here. I think the other thing I would
want to really spend some time looking at is what evidence there
is out there that the customers are so confused they are not engaging
with this debate because of, you know, a whole spectrum of labels.
Some get this issue and are not confused, some probably are, but
what is the problem we are trying to solve here, because we have
got some very good labelling schemes here which have really driven
change?
Q108 Jo Swinson: There are some very
good labelling schemes and there is also a lot that people would
not recognise and if they were given the logo in market research
they would not necessarily be able to pick it out. I suppose it
is separating the really good, well-designed and understood labelling
schemes from the others, because when you have them all on a packet
there is not an awful lot of space. You have mentioned the MSC
and the FSC as examples of presumably what you think are successful
labels. Do you think that having a particular sort of gold standard
label in each product sector or category like that is the way
to go then?
Dr Knight: It could be. An alternative
approach is that there are certain standards and protocols which
need to be followed for a labelling scheme to exist, so it is
almost like a standard for labelling schemes. So for you to have
space in the marketplace you will have had to have done this amount
of consultation, you will have to have done this, you will have
to involve these various amounts of stakeholders. Again, the sort
of road mapping approach explores that in some detail. I think
in relation to the process by which a labelling scheme is devised
and the method by which it is agreed it is going to be used, needs
to have some consistency, but the customer might still see a tree-shaped
tick for wood and a fish-shaped tick for fish rather than just
seeing one label.
Q109 Jo Swinson: So an accreditation
scheme for labels themselves?
Dr Knight: Yes.
Q110 Jo Swinson: You set out a long
list of areas where the Government could take further action to
support change in industry and consumer behaviour through the
process of labelling. How confident are you that the Government
will actually want to do the things you are suggesting?
Dr Knight: I think mixed at the
moment. Defra have embraced the whole product road mapping in
quite a lot of detail and now when you talk to them they are a
lot more comfortable in recognising that business and retailers,
and also public policy, have a bigger role here than just devising
labelling schemes for the customer to make the choice, so that
is really encouraging. I feel at the moment there is still some
hesitancy to embrace some of the thought leadership, because some
of the work which came out of "I will if you will" and
the road mapping work is that the role of government, particularly
Defra, is shifting here. Rather than just showing leadership and
throwing out all the laws, which has been the sort of old-fashioned
cliche«d model, now it is actually convening a debate and
some of the work Defra has done on things like the food trolley
work, the evidence they have gathered on that, has been very,
very powerful work. Two years ago all the debate was about the
food miles and buying locally. The debate is now a lot more about
embedded carbon, and actually buying locally sometimes has a negative
environmental impact. A lot of that evidence, that thought leadership,
actually came from Defra and that is now shaping some retail policies.
For two years the SDC has been saying that the Government needs
to create a vision for sustainable food so that you do not have
that sort of conflict with DFID saying Fairtrade and Defra saying
low carbon, therefore you cannot buy stuff from Kenya. That debate
happened about six months ago and was quite public, but if you
had a vision for sustainable food you would have had that debate
internally and there would have been a clearer sense of what is
the right food to buy. I am still seeing a bit of, "We're
not quite sure if that's the place we want to go."
Q111 Jo Swinson: Okay, so what would
your vision of sustainable food be?
Dr Knight: A good question. I
would say it is food which clearly has a low carbon footprint,
surprise, surprise. It is making a neutral or positive contribution
towards resolving poverty, and you could argue that poverty within
this country versus overseas poverty could come under that. It
is food which clearly respects finite limits, the whole one planet
economy agenda, and food which clearly is geared up towards providing
health and wellbeing. The way you would do that with things like
chocolate—you know, people like chocolate, therefore it
is a treat, but the information on it, public education about,
"Don't eat this all the time. Don't make it your staple diet,"
works. So I think what you need to do is—and again this
is where the road mapping work comes in—if they are the
sort of defining principles, you would then have to look at different
food products to actually understand how that vision impacts on
that. So with something like palm oil the big issue is going to
be the Rainforest and Rainforest destruction, so you would have
long debates about Rainforest destruction, but with beef it is
going to be something about local versus international and the
carbon footprint with the raising of the cows and all that sort
of stuff, and should we just eat less beef to reduce our carbon
footprint, or is there some clever technology we can use to change
the biology of what happens inside cows to reduce that carbon
footprint.
Q112 Mark Pritchard: Is there a definition
of "sustainable" at the moment?
Dr Knight: No. I think you could
say there is Bruntland and there are all these sorts of definitions
you see in textbooks, but they are all sort of intellectual definitions.
A lot of the definitions of sustainability talk about the balance
between environmental, social and economic. There are thousands
of iterations, but that is what they all say.
Q113 Mark Pritchard: You mentioned
earlier about the confusion of labels and so on. Being agent
provocateur for a moment, do you think poverty should be part
of any definition? It certainly seems to be what you would like.
Is that not really going to confuse people more? Is that not just
going to add to the complexity of actually delivering a clearer,
simpler, more transparent labelling system either for the consumer
in reading it or for the producer in producing it?
Dr Knight: I think it needs to
be, because not including it creates all sorts of debate about
what matters more, people or the environment. Should I buy Fairtrade
chocolate or should I buy organic chocolate? By actually just
saying these things relate to each other -
Q114 Mark Pritchard: Can I give you
an example? Let us say you buy local, and I think the best thing
for climate change is actually to buy British. It is also the
best thing for poverty because it means higher tax revenues out
of farmers and everybody else, which means we have a higher DFID
budget rather than a smaller one, so it is swings and roundabouts.
It is very complex. It is a bit like sustainable timber procurement
and we worked on that in our committee last year. There are too
many labels and there is no real breakthrough because people are
confused about the whole sustainable issue and the labels are
not clear. I just think it is better to have small steps rather
than giant leaps and the four categories you outline there to
me are a giant leap when we have not even got to first base yet.
Dr Knight: Yes, but I was answering
the question what does sustainable food look like and I could
not give a definition which was a small leap because that is the
less bad agenda.
Q115 Chairman: I think we go back
to Jo's question.
Dr Knight: Sorry, what was your
question?
Q116 Mark Pritchard: I asked you
about poverty and linking in Jo's question of whether that should
be—and it seems to be in your view—part of any definition
of sustainable.
Dr Knight: The reason why it needs
to be is because if you look at it from the retailers' or the
manufacturers' perspective, they are judged on the contribution
or the harm they make to people as much as they are judged on
the contribution or harm they cause to the environment. What worries
me is when you try and force people into a pigeon hole and say,
"We do this because we are concerned about poverty. We do
this because we are concerned about the environment," the
two actually compete with each other. A really good example is
if you sat there and you said, "I think we should buy British
as our contribution towards these issues" -
Q117 Mark Pritchard: All things being
equal.
Dr Knight: Yes, but DFID would
say the opposite and if I am the CSI director in a made up example
of a major retailer and I want to do what is right and what reflects
the opinion of Government, I am getting two very, very different
opinions here from the leaders of my country. This is where your
statement has actually helped, where Government has not quite
gone as far as it could do, which is, can you tell me what the
right answer is because different departments give me a different
view, you know, "The Government view is X?"
Q118 Mark Pritchard: I think you
are absolutely right. Once we have a Government definition, that
is the starting point and I am glad we have had this exchange.
Terminology is important and the confusion over terminology in
government is sometimes helpful for any government not to take
action on a particular issue because everybody is into departmental
discussion about what does this term mean. I just wondered whether,
talking about poverty, perhaps two out of the four categories
you have mentioned really do not come under an environmental label
but actually come under an ethical label. So if you have, I do
not know, a numerical system of one to five on ethical which would
include poverty and would include some of the other issues you
have mentioned rather than just the environment, that might be
more attractive to the consumer, where perhaps there is a bit
of environmental fatigue at the moment. I heard the Chairman mention
the word "convert" and there is a touch of religion
about the whole environmental movement at the moment and I think
it might lose some people, but if it is a wider ethical issue
so that you know when you are buying, let us say, that chocolate
that it is number three on the ethical code of one to five, and
we know through t.v. advertising and in schools that this is the
defined Government labelling system, I know that when I buy that
chocolate I am actually helping a poor person as well as helping
the environment.
Dr Knight: I think what the road
mapping approach helps us to do and what that says is that you
actually pick what is the critical issue for that particular product.
I think it is fair to say that, with chocolate, high up on that
list of the big issues will be label standard ethical-related
issues, but for other products like fish and fisheries it actually
is an environmental issue. So what we keep saying in this sort
of work is, what is the big issue for your particular product?
I think the other issue as well is that we also have to accept
there is no clear difference between, in many cases, environmental
issues and social issues. Palm oil and the destruction of the
Rainforest, be it for garden benches at B&Q or palm oil in
soap powder, is as much an ethical and social impact as it is
an environmental impact.
Q119 Jo Swinson: It is interesting
to explore this slightly in terms that obviously you are here
from the Sustainable Development Commission and we are doing an
inquiry into environmental labelling, but actually the Sustainable
Development Commission is much wider than just the environment
and perhaps it sounds, in terms of the way this place works, as
if it is the Environmental Audit Committee, but I am actually
with you in thinking that sustainability is much wider than just
the environment. To come back to the issue of labelling, even
if there could be some vision which is created and then there
is a variety of things done to try and achieve that vision, one
of which might be labelling, what is your view of the issue that
you could have a label which might help somebody to decide within
a product category which carrots to buy, which beef to buy, which
would be the more sustainable option? Is there not also an element
of the fact that between product categories there are differences
in terms of sustainability, for example eating the amount of meat
that we currently do is probably in itself less sustainable, so
it is not just about choosing the best beef? How do we address
those issues?
Dr Knight: It is not going to
be as straightforward as a consumer-facing label and where you
are drifting to with your questioning is how do we prompt a dialogue
and debate about lifestyles and the lifestyles people choose to
lead. That is a far more complicated, bigger debate, and I think
there are some things where public policy can certainly help.
Public policy can be engineered to get people on trains more than
on domestic flights. Businesses can make it easier for you to
walk to the shops as opposed to driving to the shops. There are
lots of things we can do, but what we actually need to have is
a proper conversation with the public about their lifestyles and
the impact they have. I think where you are going to is far more
interesting territory because if we believe the narrative in what
the SDC is saying then actually retailers have a very, very big
role in offering products made in a far more sustainable way and
choice editing out (like the FSC, starting with B&Q) of unsustainable
products then this clarifies and crystallises where we have to
have a debate with consumers about the decisions they are making.
Car engine oil is a great example. There is not much you can do
to make car engine oil much greener. The real environmental impact
with that is pouring it down the drain instead of taking it to
your local proper safe disposal site. The only way we are going
to crack that, because it is a behavioural issue, is by having
a conversation. That could be a label, but it would probably be
something deeper. Then you get into the complexities about your
diet, working from home, where you choose to work, how you choose
to work. When we were writing "I will if you will" we
had a dialogue with 100 people, Ds and Cs and that horrible marketing
bracket, and we edited out of those people who said they were
"green", so we were talking to the non-converted. The
first day we just talked to them about what matters to them in
their lives, and it is no surprise, the house, the car, the family,
holidays, that sort of stuff. The next day we told them who we
were and then we did a 40 minute state of the planet sort of Al
Gore type speech, but not just climate change, everything, and
they were really, really horrified about the sorts of issues which
were unfolding in the Amazon and all that sort of stuff. They
said, "If it really is that bad, we expect business and Government
to show more leadership and make bolder decisions, make bolder
policies, and we will actually embrace them if we know that everybody
else is going to do the same thing as well," hence the title
"I will if you will." What they were saying was, "Stop
giving us all these choices. Educate us on where we have to make
the choice, but on things where it is hard for us to make the
choice we expect business and public policy to make those decisions
for us."
|
