Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
292-299)
JOAN RUDDOCK
MP, MR BOB
RYDER AND
MR DOMINIC
PATTINSON
23 JANUARY 2008
Q292 Chairman: If it is okay with you,
Minister, we will kick off straight away because there might be
a vote because the first set of business is only an hour and a
half, which would come half way through this session. I wanted
to ask you first of all what role does environmental labelling
play in meeting the Government's various environmental targets.
Is it considered a critical aspect of policy, or rather more sidelined?
Joan Ruddock: If I may, Chairman, I will
just say to you that I have Bob Ryder on my right, who is the
Deputy Head of the Sustainable Products and Materials team, and
Dominic Pattinson, on my left, a Project Leader in the Food Chain
Programme. Of course, I may ask them to assist me in replying
to your questions at any point.
Q293 Chairman: Welcome to you all.
Joan Ruddock: Thank you very much indeed.
In terms of what part does labelling play, it plays a part. We
have not got an evaluation in terms of our overall strategies
and programmes in meeting our environmental objectives but I can
say that it is an important part although it is not the whole
answer by any means. There was a time when we believed that if
only people had all the information to hand through labelling
they would make the best choices in terms of environmental impacts
and that would speed us all on the route to solving our environmental
problems. Clearly those hopes have not been realised but there
has been behaviour change as a consequence of labelling and some
of that is clearly in the direction that we would wish, which
is, of course, overall sustainability.
Q294 Chairman: Where do you think
that impact would happen as a driver in changing behaviour, with
producers, consumers and suppliers, all in equal proportion?
Joan Ruddock: I think it depends on what
the particular product or service is. In some cases the labelling
can be extremely important. I will give you some examples. If
we are looking at products which are bought occasionally, white
goods for example, fridges, freezers, that kind of thing, where
somebody is going to make a specific choice and not very often,
if they are then presented with a very clear label which tells
them something very important, not just about how that has been
rated but also how it might perform when the product is in use,
and I think of course of the EU labelling which has been applied
to electrical appliances, the A-G labelling, then we know that
has been extremely successful, so there you can see a direct result
of people making choices. Combined with the choices that people
make is the fact that the manufacturers, the supply chains and,
indeed, the retailers are all engaged in a process whereby that
research, that methodology and that measurement has got to occur.
In that process what tends to happen, and what we desire, is you
actually drive up standards so that when the consumer is making
a choice they are also having a clear choice but it is backed
up by a lot of work that is within the supply chain and all the
rest of it. In that case you can see the value of the label. In
other areas where perhaps it is much more difficult to label,
some of the work that we are doing at the moment would be in the
area of, say, consumer electronics where much of the work will
be with manufacturers and retailers and they will drive the change
but it may be too difficult, we do not know whether we can put
a new label on that is going to work. That process is actually
driving up energy efficiencies, so the consumer is presented with
a different choice and the average of the product range in that
case may be more energy efficient and, therefore, that is the
means by which we arrive at that particular point.
Q295 Chairman: During the course
of our inquiry into environmental labelling we have discovered
that there is a huge variety of labels, many in the same field.
Say in 10 years' time from now, should we be looking for a rationalisation
of all these different labels which must contribute to some extent
to consumer confusion? Is that something that Government should
involve itself in?
Joan Ruddock: First of all, we acknowledge
that there is a degree of consumer confusion and that, again,
is not equal across the board. In some areas consumers are quite
clear because, for example, if a consumer is used to shopping
within one store and that is where they are going to shop regardless,
they may not be at all bothered about what is going on in another
store so the total proliferation may not be something that comes
before them, but within the store in which they operate they might
then make choices and they get to know that particular store's
type of labelling if it is an in-house one and they may be quite
able to make choices based on that information. When it comes
to a person, or government for that matter, looking absolutely
at the proliferation overall then it is of concern because we
know that they do not all have equal value, they are not all going
to direct people appropriately, and when we do consumer surveys
what we find is people do tell us that they want clearer labelling
and to a degree they are confused. Ideally, you might suggest,
we should move to some comprehensive label that says, "this
is good for the environment", but I have to tell you that
has not been possible. The best work that we are doing that is
probably relevant to that is looking at farming practices and
we have planned, and are in the process of doing, some work to
bring some clearer, more comprehensive approach to farming practices
in terms of their environmental impacts. I think I have got a
note somewhere but I cannot put my hand on it. I will be able
to tell you in just one minute what the work we plan to undertake
is called. We said that we will look for a generic environmental
standard for food and this is a standard which could underpin
product labelling. That is being undertaken with the British Standards
Institution and would, of course, enable us to look at the current
assurance schemes to see whether something could be done which
would bring them together possibly.
Q296 Chairman: I think we will be
returning to that subject later. I have to ask you this question:
when you go shopping do you actually look out for any labels that
you think are particularly successful or meaningful, or do you
avoid others for that matter? Feel free to name them within these
four walls.
Joan Ruddock: I think Ministers have
been warned at some point in the past when I have been reading
up on this subject that we would be ill-advised to endorse any
particular form of assurance or any particular product.
Q297 Martin Horwood: Go on, be reckless!
Joan Ruddock: I shall follow the guidance
closely. What I will say is this: over a period of years I have
purchased equipment for my kitchen, in recent times I have purchased
a boiler, and certainly on the white goods the A-G labelling has
made the impact on me that we know from research it has made on
consumers. You go there, you want to buy that product, it is in
your face, it is on the white door and it makes an impact, so
of course I always choose A and now I know I would have to choose
A+ or A++. Beyond that, I will say that I choose to buy organic
food and as a consequence of buying organic food I believe that
I am choosing a quality and a certain farming practice, which
is what I want to support. That is quite an easy choice, just
to look for "organic" without having a proliferation
of labels that tells you that this does many, many things which
may be correct or not.
Q298 Chairman: Are there any areas
where you think environmental labelling might be inappropriate?
For example, we know that the Carbon Trust is working with Halifax
to develop some sort of label for a bank account. Is that really
an appropriate area?
Joan Ruddock: I certainly would not like
to second-guess any work that the Carbon Trust is doing, they
are a very reputable organisation and highly supported by Government.
I do not know the basis on which they may have undertaken such
work. If we are looking at carbon labelling then the Government's
position here is very much that we want to do the fundamental
work. We believe, and we are engaged in this work, that we need
to work out the carbon footprint throughout a whole lifecycle
and unless the carbon footprint through the whole lifecycle of
a product or a service is well understood and can be quantified
then it is impossible to produce any kind of labelling. The process
whereby the carbon footprint is determined probably is much more
important than any label that might result from it because it
is that understanding of the process that enables the supply chain,
the manufacturers and the retailers, all to adjust their behaviour
in relation to the products or services that in the end is likely
to have the biggest impact on carbon reduction for all of us.
Q299 Chairman: Are you particularly
confident that many of these labels are properly recognised and
understood by consumers or are they perhaps to a certain extent
a little bit of `greenwash' when we find that many people, supermarkets,
cannot agree amongst themselves what is the standard? There must
be a varying range of standards amongst many of the labels that
we see. Is there a danger that they are appealing only to the
converted and it is a kind of self-reinforcing form of behaviour
and the vast majority of people do not really give a damn?
Joan Ruddock: Just on your last point,
which is not directly about the labels, I can say that Defra has
very recently published a considerable piece of work on environmental
behaviours and what we see in that work, and we divided the population
into seven groups, is that we have got about 18 per cent of the
population who are thoroughly committed environmentalists and
about the same proportion at the other end of the spectrum who,
in your words, not mine, could not give a damn, and between that
there is the whole range. What has been worked through is how
people change their behaviour, what might encourage them to change
their behaviour and so on and so forth, so that we can actually
market our messages. That work clearly indicates that people have
different attitudes, they are in different places and they will
make different responses, but will they move, the answer has to
be yes otherwise we could not have got recycling, for example,
up from under ten per cent to over 30 per cent. We know people
can be influenced, environmental behaviours can be influenced,
and it is part of the job of Government to do that. I put labelling
in that context. Some of it is going to work. For example, some
of it works against other messages. Forest Stewardship, for example,
where we think because of many campaigns by NGOs there is a body
of opinion that is concerned, and it is a large body of opinion,
and knows there is some problem about forests, about logging and
all the rest of it. If you have a label that gives you some assurance
that might be dealing with the problem that you know of somewhere
in the back of your mind, then a label that relates to a wider
message may be more effective than something that just appears
that has no context. Of course, many of the labelling systems
have to be based on proper standards, international standards
indeed from ISO, so what we try to do in Defra is help people
to know that these things are appropriate and are doing what they
claim. We have got publications, and I think you were all sent
our little Shopper's Guide to Green Labels, also a great
deal of material and information is available online. We do know
that there are fewer false claims today than there were at the
start of interest in this field.
|
