Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 111)
WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2007
MR DAVID STATHAM AND MRS SARAH APPLEBY
Q100 Lord Moynihan:
Before I come to that, my Lord Chairman, could you give us your
view on whether you feel that you are satisfactorily resourced
to undertake all these challenges? We have been talking about
scandals, alcohol strength, analysis, labelling, content. You
have outlined how many people work on the team. Do you feel comfortable
that you are able to undertake all that work with the team you
have and the resources which you have available?
Mr Statham: It is early days as far as we are
concerned because obviously we inherited the team and we are looking
at their practices and the way they work, and particularly one
of the things we want to work on is a closer working relationship
with the inspectors at the retail level within the local authorities,
because obviously if we have those into the team then we have
quite a substantial team in this area. I think the important thing
to stress here is that, when there are serious issues like the
sort of things you have described—the fraudulent practices,
the counterfeiting, then we need to get the whole team involved.
Our inspectors are really more involved—it is a difficult
concept—in non-intentional crime than in fraud, I would
say. They are more about saying, "This has slightly exceeded
the level" or "This is not quite labelled correctly"
but nobody has done it intentionally, it is just the way that
things have happened. Clearly when we get into major frauds, then
that is a system that involves a wider number of inspectors and
may of course also involve the Customs and the Police, depending
on the nature of the investigation. We feel that the team is probably
adequate at the present time but we need to check that out as
we look to the future of their business plans and the way they
intend to operate.
Q101 Lord Moynihan:
Do you feel that the local authority inspectors are satisfactorily
trained?
Mr Statham: This is an important area and we
think that they are satisfactorily trained in relation to dealing
with fraud in general. Whether they are sufficiently trained in
the wine area is something that again we would want to look at
as part of this review of the system and the process. Both Trading
Standards and Environmental Health are graduate professions and
they are both trained to a fairly high level and they are trained
in Enforcement practices. Probably what they are not necessarily
particularly focused on is the wine area in general.
Q102 Lord Moynihan:
I am very grateful to you, and I apologise for the fact that we
did not give you advance notice of those questions, but I think
it is quite an important issue for us, following what has been
exceptionally interesting evidence. Back to the subject of wine
making practices. Could you tell us something about what you call
the "novel processes" for wine making which are practised
outside the European Union and which are not permitted in the
European Union. We understand that such practices are illegal
for EU wine makers to use. How does that affect imports? Maybe
you can go into a little more detail than you have already given
us on that?
Mrs Appleby: Certainly there are a wide range
of techniques—reverse osmosis and (one that intrigues me)
the "spinning cone" technique. Perhaps I can refer to
my notes? The idea is that it allows the wine maker to harvest
grapes at full ripeness so that you get all the flavour and aroma
but obviously you get high alcohol levels and a hotness associated
with the taste of the wine. So the idea is that you use this spinning
cone, which is an alternating series of fixed and rotating inverted
stainless steel cones. You get a liquid film falling over this
and apparently you use an inert gas to strip out some of the alcohol
level and then you can add alcohol back into the wine to the level
that you might prefer. So you get the balance of the fruit and
the alcohol levels. Certainly that "spinning cone" technique
would not actually be allowed to be used in EU wine.
Q103 Lord Moynihan:
Why?
Mrs Appleby: Because that is what the wine regime
specifies.
Q104 Lord Moynihan:
That is what it says, but what is the rationale for making it
illegal?
Mr Statham: As an illustration, we used to have
a situation where you could not adjust the fat content and the
water content of milk, you had to have a specific level because
that is what naturally came from the cow, and clearly that is
as nonsensical as this. What it is talking about is saying that
we can only produce wine in the natural way as opposed to producing
wine in a way that has the alcohol level correctly worked out
and balanced. That is why it is probably done; there is only one
traditional way of doing this, in the way that there probably
was only one traditional way of milking your cow.
Chairman: If I could just say on that
that I am delighted that you use that analogy because I recognise
a number of Welsh farmers who have just joined us and they probably
understand the analogy better than we do!
Q105 Lord Moynihan:
I think you have made a very important point, but can I press
you a little further? You defined the logic as being nonsensical.
In other words, a number of these practices, the novel processes,
which are not harmful, I assume—and please correct me if
I am wrong—and your argument is that they are not a harmful
way of producing wine but they are not traditional; that many
of the processes within the European Union are there because by
definition they are traditional and are threatened by non-traditional
processes coming internationally which, as I understand it—and
please correct me if I am wrong—you would regard as a nonsensical
approach. Would you agree with that?
Mrs Appleby: I suppose the objective of the
Food Standards Agency is to ensure that consumers know what it
is that they are buying and have information to allow them to
make an informed choice. We are there to make sure that the food
they eat is fit and that they are not exposed to health hazards
or contaminants and that they are in a position to make that choice.
I do not believe it is for the Food Standards Agency to say that
one method should not be used as against another method. If they
are safe, is there no objective reason why it cannot be used to
make a safe product for a consumer, then there is no reason why
it should not go on sale.
Q106 Lord Moynihan:
I think there are about a dozen people now who are wiser as to
the "spinning cone" technique but I am not sure putting
that on the label of every bottle will overcome the problem. You
do say in your evidence that there is a case for relaxing some
of the present requirements and allowing wider use of different
methods where there is no detriment to the quality of the wine
or any disadvantage to consumers. Can you be a bit more specific
on that?
Mrs Appleby: Just to reiterate, the Agency does
aim to ensure that consumers are not misled, that they are not
exposed to health hazards. Wine historically is considered as
a safe food and that is obviously why we started drinking wine
all those years ago—it was obviously safer than water. So
the novel techniques and the way that wine is engineered need
to be shown that it is safe to consumers, that the process does
not actually contaminate the wine. There is also an issue about
when is wine a wine—what makes a wine a wine? Is it because
it has gone through a traditional process? Or is it a composite
product with the addition of alcohol to some fruit base? In that
respect the engineering needs to ensure that the wine is what
the consumer thinks of as wine—it is quite technical here.
I think we are reiterating that as long as the consumer is not
being misled, that there are no health risks, then there is no
reason why some of these novel techniques should not be allowed.
Again, it is for a producer to find a market because, if they
try something consumers do not like, they may want to go back
to the traditional methods. Limiting the methods may not necessarily
be an advantage to consumers. Perhaps more recently we have been
keener to think about reducing the alcohol levels in wine as a
safer product for consumers, and perhaps we might want to encourage
the availability of some of these wider ranges of alcohol wines,
and that could be an advantage of using something like this.
Lord Moynihan: Thank you very much.
Q107 Viscount Brookeborough:
You monitor standards. It is said by some commentators that one
bottle in 12 which uses a cork is off in one way or another. How
interested are you in that, where the consumer may be the victim
of the one bottle?
Mrs Appleby: There is a lot of debate about
corks at the moment and I am aware of the real—versus—the—plastic—corks
or the screw—caps. Again, the bottom line is that we are
there to protect the consumer, to make sure that the product they
buy is safe and in the condition that they expect. A lot of those
complaints would probably come through at the retail level to
our colleagues in Local Authorities and Trading Standards, and
every consumer has a right to expect a product that they buy meets
the standards that they expect.
Q108 Viscount Brookeborough:
But, if that figure is appropriate, that means 8% of wine may
be off. Surely that is highly significant from the FSA's point
of view. Can you back up that figure?
Mrs Appleby: I have no evidence to confirm that
figure but that is something on which our wine standards inspectors
spend a lot of time with the UK vineyards, to look at their wine-making
practices, to ensure the quality of the wine that we produce in
the UK meets those standards, and obviously a lot of effort is
increasingly going on on checks of the imports of wine. But, when
we are dealing with very difficult scales of imports in the UK,
it is a big job.
Q109 Viscount Brookeborough:
So that figure of 8% may not apply to English wines?
Mrs Appleby: I hope not.
Q110 Lord Moynihan:
Do you check on the validity of organic wines?
Mrs Appleby: Yes, checks are made on organic
wine.
Q111 Chairman:
Thank you very much. As you can imagine, evidence has been pouring
into us from many interests and I have been reading it all over
the last day or two, mainly because I am standing in for the Chairman
at the moment, and to make sure that I was doing my homework!
It was interesting that one lot of evidence we had from the World
Wildlife Fund—and I did not expect to get evidence from
them on wine—is all related to cork, and they are concerned
that the cork trees are coming down. There is a much wider interest
in this than just the manufacture of wine or the movement of wine
from one area to another. Thank you very much indeed for the way
you have answered the questions that we have posed, and thank
you for the statements and the evidence you have given. Is there
anything that you want to ask us before going, in terms of the
future? We are hoping that the report will be released in July—that
would be the earliest possible date if we can get it in before
the Summer recess. We had a discussion earlier this morning and
realised that this is very much an ongoing process and, since
we are starting to work on a "Health Check" of the CAP,
to see how that is working, I think it will be important that
after this, particularly if there is a change in the wine regime,
we do a follow-up then. So, again we should be asking you to come
forward and we would welcome your views. If there is anything
that you think of after this meeting and points that have been
raised upon which you would like to expand, we really would welcome
any further points that you wish to make.
Mr Statham: Thank you very much, and obviously
if there is anything that comes up in your deliberations where
you feel that we could add something, then please do not hesitate
to contact us and we will respond as quickly as we can.
Chairman: I was pleased that you emphasised
so much this morning the importance of simplification. The boys
who are sitting behind you will understand the importance of simplification
with some of the forms that they receive! It does seem strange
these days that we have to complicate everything and make it more
and more difficult for people to understand, who spend more time
form-filling than they do in the production of whatever they are
concerned with. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
