LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS (Hansard, 22 July 1999)

§ Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'matters', insert ', including the country of origin of all major ingredients,'.

§ Mrs. Spelman
As a relatively new Member of the House, I feel as if I have just been present at a family row, in which some family members who were drawn into the discussion were never really implicated in the first place. I want to place on the record the fact that there was never any intention on the part of members of the Standing Committee, who worked in the most constructive atmosphere with the Government on the Bill, to imply that the guillotine had anything to do with the conduct of the Committee.
I want to place on the record also a tribute to the work of the members of the Special Select Committee. It was the quality of their work that enabled our deliberations in Committee to be conducted in an extremely constructive and cordial manner.
I reiterate that I was not criticising the extent of the modification of the original draft Bill, but pointing out that, because of the extent of the modification, the Bill needed careful and considered scrutiny in the Standing Committee. I re-emphasise that that was not criticism of the modification per se.
Obviously, we are disappointed that the time for Report stage has been limited. For tactical reasons, some things are best kept to be raised on Report instead of being debated—and perhaps rejected—in Committee. The eighth group of amendments on today's selection list is just one example of something new, which has not yet been thoroughly debated, that we wanted to keep for Report. I am anxious in case, in the time available, we do not manage to reach the important subject of appeals procedure.
As we said several times in Committee, we are keen for the new Food Standards Agency to be a success. That success will be measured by the confidence that producers, retailers and, above all, consumers, have in the information and advice that emanates from it.
We have amended the original amendment that we tabled in Committee, which may have created a misapprehension that we sought to usurp local authorities' 1409 role in enforcing the present labelling rules. That was never our intent, and I hope that the new clause makes it perfectly clear that we recognise the very important role that local authorities play in enforcing labelling rules. However, our concern is about the present labelling rules. Fundamentally, the new clause would address the weakness in the present rules that govern labelling.
An important opportunity will be missed if the Food Standards Agency does not, once and for all, crack the problem of the weakness in the present arrangements for food labelling in this country. The duty of labelling, although mentioned in the explanatory notes, does not appear in the Bill. We do not intend, in this guillotined discussion of the new clause and the subject, to revisit arguments that took place in Committee. I know that hon. Members diligently read the Hansard of the proceedings of the House and of Committee.
I have tried very hard to bring some fresh points to the discussion of the very important issue of food labelling. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, an extract was printed from Sue Dibb's book, "What the label doesn't tell you", which makes cautionary reading for the consumer. It lists a series of meaningless or misleading terms that are currently used in the labelling of food. For example, what are called "low fat sausages" may contain less fat than sausages not labelled "low fat" but are not necessarily low in fat. The terms "lean" or "extra lean", often used in relation to meats, can mean whatever one wants. They are essentially meaningless.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I am spurred by the motive force of self-interest. As a keen consumer of beef, and specifically of minced beef, my ears pricked up when my hon. Friend referred to "lean" and "extra lean". That is a source of concern to me because I often buy "extra lean" minced beef, thinking that I am being thoroughly healthy in the process. Is my hon. Friend seeking to disabuse me of that hope?

§ Mrs. Spelman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, we sincerely hope that, in future, it will be the role and responsibility of the Food Standards Agency to define precisely what "lean" and "extra lean" mean. Some retailers supplement the information on the label by stating the percentage of fat, but there is no clearly defined standard for what is meant by "lean" or "extra lean". In case my hon. Friend should be tempted to try other cuts of meat, they, too, suffer from a similar problem, because I should tell him that the word "trimmed" has no specific definition either.
Another example is to be found on pre-packed, carton-packed fruit juices. The term "pure juice" is often used. In fact, that applies to concentrated fruit juice which has been shipped, diluted and heat treated. That is distinct from the term "juice drink", a product which contains as little as 5 per cent. juice. These terms are misleading, but not always after the consumer has tasted the product. At that stage some of the differences become much more apparent. At the time of purchase, however, things are a little unclear.
Another example of a misleading product might affect the consumption patterns of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The term "smoked bacon" would probably lead hon. Members to envisage a 1410 traditional smoke-house for the production of rashers of bacon to be consumed at breakfast. I regret to inform the House that in many instances the smoked flavour is an added solution in the production process.
Another misleading term is "light beer". We often think of "light" in terms of a reduced calorie product. In this instance, however, it means lighter in colour, and has nothing to do with alcohol or taste.
There is misleading labelling of fruits. For example, the term "strawberry flavour" has nothing to do with strawberries. It may be a completely artificial flavouring. However, the term "strawberry flavoured"—everything is in the "ed" at the end—makes all the difference. It means that the flavouring has come from real strawberries.

§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)
The hon. Lady is talking about misnomers, and I notice that the new clause includes the term "genetically-modified". Is that not a misnomer? We have been genetically modifying food crops for years and years. Indeed, we eat lots of foreign DNA every day. Whenever we have an apple we eat some DNA. Is there not a dreadful misnomer in the new clause?

§ Mrs. Spelman
I shall be talking at length about genetic modification and labelling. The Food Standards Agency could begin by providing a proper definition of genetic modification. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point.
I learned a thing or two from the guide to misleading labelling. New to me was the fact that bottled water that is labelled "spring water" could be tap water. Only bottles that are labelled "mineral water" strictly contain mineral water from a source as defined by the law.
I have taken some of the time of the House by reading into the record some examples of present problems with labelling. I have done so because it is my sincere wish that the FSA will get to grips with precisely these misleading terms as soon as the provisions come into force.
We might think quite lightheartedly of examples of foods and beverages that we have known and consumed, and perhaps we have learned to live with some misleading terms. However, the extent of misleading labelling may have serious consequences. I am sure that all hon. Members would join with me in extending condolences to the family of Ross Baillie. He suffered from a nut allergy and was unaware, on consuming a packet of coronation chicken sandwiches, that that product contained the very ingredient to which, regrettably, he was fatally allergic. There is a serious side to misleading labelling.
The new clause highlights the need to specify the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production used. As a result of food scares, consumers have become anxious about methods of production used. Present labelling is unhelpful in that respect. I shall cite the example of eggs, a product that has been at the centre of controversy in the past. The consumer can be easily confused. Upon entering a supermarket, he or she will find an array of egg boxes on the shelves, which can be labelled in a variety of different ways. For example, boxes may be labelled "farm fresh eggs". The consumer may be led to think that these eggs have been produced in a free-range style. However, farm fresh eggs can be laid by battery hens. The same is true of the term "country fresh 1411 eggs". Those also can be laid by battery hens. Barn eggs are laid by hens that are not caged, but may well still be enclosed in a barn. Only the term "free range eggs" provides an assurance that the hens have continuous access to outdoors.
How the chickens are kept matters to many consumers. They believe that that may affect the safety of the product and/or the welfare of the bird. Unless they go shopping with a glossary of the terms used to label food, consumers may easily think that they have bought a product from a production system that is entirely different from the reality.

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
I have seen the term "organic eggs". Can the hon. Lady help me by defining an organic egg?

§ Mrs. Spelman
The term "organic" is much more precisely defined. Organic producers in agriculture have a vested interest in making sure that the term is used strictly, only in relation to organic means of production, and as the House knows, they are extremely concerned when there is any possibility that their organic methods of production may have been contaminated. Like the term "mineral water", "organic" is one of the terms used in the labelling of food products in which the consumer has learned to have more confidence. However, that confidence can be sustained only if the organic nature of the production is truly protected.
British food producers and retailers have had to pay dearly for past food crises. The Minister said in Committee that producers in this country have had to be doubly or trebly careful about their production methods in order to restore confidence in British produce. It is not difficult to understand producers' desire for the word "British" on a food product label to be associated in the consumer's mind with a premium product, in which the consumer can have more confidence than in an imported product, whose method of production may not have been as strictly controlled as in this country.
The industry may reasonably expect careful production to be a plus point attributed to British food, yet the labelling of country of origin remains elusive. Beef labelling is a case in which some progress has been made. The beef industry particularly has had to go the extra mile to restore confidence in its product. It has done so to good effect, leading to restored levels of beef consumption.
It is permissible for the country of origin of beef to be stated on the label. It remains unclear to members of the Standing Committee why that does not apply to pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry produced in Britain. Consumers want to see the country of origin on the label of the meat that they purchase, for good reason—their confidence in the safety and public health aspects of the domestic product.
Consumers have a right to such information in order to make an informed choice. That is the essence of clause 7. Concern about the system of production has become more acute in the case of imported produce. As a result of the unfortunate British experience of food scares, we have stricter controls on our methods of production than some of the countries from which we import food.
1412 The use of prophylactic antibiotics, which has been banned in production systems in this country, is still allowed in some countries from which we import meat. Yet the consumer has no way of knowing whether a product comes from a domestic source, where the restrictions are tighter, or has been imported.
There is growing concern that antibiotic resistance in humans may be linked to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in rearing animals. That is undoubtedly why limitations have been imposed in Britain. The consumer rightly does not wish to expose himself or herself to that risk if at all possible. But under the present labelling rules it is not possible for the consumer to determine whether a product has been imported.
The strongest argument against labelling food with the country of origin is that it would lead to protectionism. But, in truth, the consumer simply wants to know where his or her food has come from to protect public health. The failure to label food by country of origin will make the agency's role of advising the public all the more difficult in the event of a foreign food scare.
Take the recent example of products from Belgium which may have been contaminated with dioxin. Initially, the Ministry advised consumers that there had been no imports of poultry and eggs from Belgium which may have been contaminated—only to be corrected, rather embarrassingly, by the supermarkets, which said that some might have come in.
That very week I showed my nanny the problem. A pack of chicken breasts that she had purchased from the local supermarket had no clue as to their origin. There might have been a label on the shelf that made it clear that they had come from British hens, but a few days on, and to me as a secondary consumer, there was no way of knowing from where the products had come. The advice at the time from the Ministry was, "When in doubt, bin it", so bin it we did.

§ Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown)
I am interested to hear an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman advocate the advance of the nanny state. That is quite unusual. Given the deficiencies that the hon. Lady is pointing out in labelling legislation, will she remind us of its history?

§ Mrs. Spelman
The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood my reference to my nanny. I was obviously talking about an employee of my own. Far from being an advocate of the nanny state, I am saying that the whole point of the clause is to provide information to ensure that the consumer can make a well-informed decision. It is not a question of taking a decision on behalf of the consumer, but allowing the consumer to decide. That is our strongest argument for ensuring that some misleading labelling terms are corrected.
With the vast growth in the range, quality and sophistication of food retail products, the need for labelling has become all the more imperative.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, where the product in question comes from outside the EU, within which we are assured that all the rules and regulations are enforced in an equal and even-handed way as compared with the United Kingdom, there is perhaps an even greater need for it to be labelled. 1413 For example, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, it is possible that the chicken that she binned came from Thailand.

§ Mrs. Spelman
I am coming to chicken from Thailand next. My hon. Friend reads my mind. But before we leave the EU, there is a problem in relation to labelling a product with its country of origin, even within the EU. For example, the term "made in Italy" can be misleading. That term means that Italy was the last place where the product underwent substantial change. For example, a jar of olives may be labelled "Made in Italy", but the olives could have been grown in north Africa and the finished product assembled in Italy.
A little closer to home, anticipating this morning that I might have to forgo a regular lunchtime refreshment because of the modernised hours during which the House sits on Thursdays, I sought a product that would be easy and convenient to eat. I purchased a Cornish pasty, but I was dismayed to find that all the label told me was that the product had been produced in the United Kingdom. I could not be sure that the beef in the product had not been imported and, as a consumer, I have concerns about the relative safety of imported beef.

§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)
The hon. Lady has introduced the magnificent Cornish pasty to the debate.

§ Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)
The oggie.

§ Mr. George
The Cornish oggie, as my hon. Friend says. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that products described as Cornish or Yorkshire should be made in or derived from that place, otherwise they would not be legitimate?

§ Mrs. Spelman
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of national and regional products.

§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Although I should hate to disagree with her and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), and although I agree entirely that there has to be food integrity, the Cornish pasty is but one example of a food that might not necessarily require a geographical description. Any piece of pastry wrapped round meat of a certain type might be described as a Cornish pasty, which is a generic rather than a geographically based food.

§ Mrs. Spelman
My right hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention. He spent many hours with us in Committee and referred to many examples of the way in which the integrity of traditional products should be preserved by accurate labelling.
Chicken Kiev is another classic example of a modern convenience food. Obviously, its main ingredient is chicken. Very often, the harassed housewife, who combines work and running her home, will aim to buy precisely such a convenience product at the local supermarket. The label may say, "Made in Britain", but she may be completely unaware that the chicken may have been imported from Thailand. Chicken production in Thailand is not subject to the same strict regulations 1414 as poultrymeat production in this country. Indeed, substances that are banned from use in poultrymeat production in this country are used in Thailand.
When such simple examples are given to ordinary consumers, they lose faith in the term "Made in Britain" because they cannot read the label with any confidence and reassure themselves that they are protected from a risk that they have read or heard about. They cannot be sure that reading the label on a product will enable them to take the preventive measures necessary to minimise the risks to themselves. The consumer can be easily misled in that way.
Numerous examples were referred to in Committee and one of the most notable was the fact that it is possible to import live animals to this country. The Minister is aware that French pigs are imported to Suffolk and turned into bacon labelled "British". The hon. Gentleman expressed his intention to clamp down on such misleading labelling, but that example shows that the food labelling regulations are seriously lacking.
5.30 pm
The concern about misleading labelling and the future role of the Foods Standards Agency reaches a topical and controversial point when we come to the labelling of genetically modified material in food. I understand that today's Food Commission report draws attention to the risk of labelling foods "GM free" while accepting a variable tolerance level for some genetically modified ingredients.
That will do nothing to help to inspire consumer confidence in foods that are produced with that new technology. It may be every bit as bad as the previous problem-now stamped on by the Government—of using the catch-all, throwaway disclaimer, "This product may contain genetically modified material" when, often, in practice, it did not. I am pleased that the Government have clamped down on the easy disclaimer route for the labelling of food, but they may run into another problem if the term "GM free" is loosely used.
The mere fact that there is discussion of what would be a tolerable level of genetically modified ingredients within any food product—it was reported in yesterday's edition of the Evening Standard—is a warning to the consumer already to have doubts about the phrase "GM free". The consumer cannot be sure that, in reality, the food is as it is described. The supermarket chain Sainsbury's says that it is working with a tolerance level for GM ingredients of 0.1 per cent., but, according to press reports, the European Union is preparing to allow food to be labelled "GM free" even if as much as 3 per cent. of its contents are GMO derived.
Some retailers claim they will require zero tolerance; others say that they will simply aim at that. The truth is that, if we want to eat GM-free food, it will be remarkably difficult to be sure. The British Retail Consortium has said that it will approach the matter on a de minimis basis, under which ingredients that are present in minute quantities—0.01 per cent. of the total—do not need to be acknowledged.
The Food Standards Agency is to be set up as a regulatory authority for GM food. There is an immediate and urgent task: to get to grips with the labelling of GM food. That is why we call for that to be made explicit in the Bill.
1415 Incidentally, where does it leave the powers and influence of the Food Standards Agency when the Welsh Assembly is already addressing the issue of the genetic modification and the necessary powers to manage its own control and labelling? We discussed at length the implications of devolution for the Food Standards Agency. I have no wish to reiterate the debate in Standing Committee, but that precise example shows that our concerns about different standards arising in the United Kingdom are at risk of becoming a reality.
We welcomed the Minister's confirmation in Committee that the Food Standards Agency would have the power to act throughout the United Kingdom, without intrusive Government intervention, or its authority being weakened by the piecemeal, devolutionist thrust of the Bill. That final practical example, however, presents a good case for coming back to the question of how to resolve the problems involving the devolved relationship and the Foods Standards Agency.
I impress on the House how great the demand is for accurate food labelling to be achieved once and for all. Consumers have a right to be accurately informed about the content, origin and method of production of the food that they eat. I draw the Minister's attention to an article on the front page of last week's edition of the Farmers Guardian, which reports that its "Let's have it labelled" campaign has won massive support throughout the farming industry, with more than 5,000 signatures collected at agricultural shows throughout the country. At one show alone, the great Yorkshire show, 500 signatures were collected. They report the demand from local and county shows that imported food should be clearly labelled so that consumers at least have the option to buy British.
In calling for food labelling to be a duty of the new Food Standards Agency explicitly set out in the Bill, our paramount aim is to protect public health. To achieve that, consumers must be able to read food labels with confidence. We therefore strongly commend the new clause.

§ Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight)
I support the spirit behind the new clause, which was moved so comprehensively and at such fascinating length. The examples used by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) demonstrate clearly that people need nutritional value advice as well as food safety advice. I welcome the conversion of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point.

§ Mr. Gill
That is not what my hon. Friend was saying. She was saying that we want information on the label so that consumers can choose. We do not want the Government or any other body to say what people should eat because of its nutritional value. That would be acting as a nanny state, and we do not agree with that.

§ Dr. Brand
That is not what I would suggest, either. Consumers need information that is scientifically well founded so that they can make up their minds about what to do. In that sense, I welcome the new clause.
I was slightly confused about the discussion on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, as it seemed to run counter to amendment No. 10, which we are unlikely to 1416 reach if we continue at this rate. That amendment would decouple the FSA from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which clearly makes no sense whatever.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
Perhaps the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will explain that.

§ Dr. Brand
Yes. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Meriden could explain that later in the debate.
We await with great interest the Minister's response to the new clause. I shall be extremely brief on all the amendments, because it is important that we have an opportunity to speak on every amendment, rather than having them rushed through at the end.

§ Mr. Maclean
I rise to support the new clause—[Interruption.] I appreciate the welcoming chorus from Labour Members. It is interesting that they make the effort to speak in this debate when they were remarkably silent in Committee.
The new clause has considerable merit. It is important that consumers can make an informed choice but, at times, it is important that they can make an ignorant choice, in the proper sense of the word. We make such choices all the time, but at least we have that choice. We often look at the labels on food and make decisions that may not be based on the best science or rationale.
Sometimes, our choice is based on the product's price. At other times, it is based on our perception of the product. We may sometimes feel that only a bottle of French wine will suffice, but on other occasions we may prefer Australian wine.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
English wine.

§ Mr. Maclean
There are some good English wines, although I have never found a good red English wine. No doubt that comment will result in more death threats next week. However, there are some quite good white English wines. I can make that choice because the country of origin is on the label.
The problem with food labelling is that the country of origin is put on the label when it suits the producer or retailer. It is included on all products where the retailer or producer thinks that it is a selling bonus. That happens in the wine business. Stilton cheese is another example—there is an added premium if the country of origin is on the label. If a producer thinks that his product will have a certain cachet because it is American or German, he adds the country of origin to the label. When the consumer does not see the country of origin on a label, he can always resort to the golden rule that the producers or manufacturers of that product are not as proud of it as they should be. There must be some good reason for the country of origin not to be specified; it is easier to persuade the consumer to purchase by making other claims on the label.
All food labels make claims of some sort. They may not make claims in the technical MAFF sense—claims, for instance, that products contain low cholesterol or low fat—but, by its very nature, labelling is intended to summarise the nature of a product for advertising purposes. It is a selling mechanism in itself. 1417 The producers of food, even more than the producers of other materials, try to convey the key messages that they consider to be the strongest selling points.
Naturally, Governments have traditionally insisted that labelling—not necessarily labelling on the front of products, but certainly labelling on the back of such products as the Cornish pasty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—should include descriptions that, at times, food manufacturers may not wish to include. I am thinking of, for instance, nutritional content, fat content, and other important information that the consumer wants.
I merely say this: why stop at the present amount of information on the label? Of course we want to know about the energy content, the fat content, the salt content and the sugar content. The labels give us the nutritional information. It is sensible to want to know whether a product is gluten free, and whether it is suitable for people with a nut allergy. We will want to know whether the product has been approved as being genuinely organic, but we can only go by some of the approved standards. If there is a symbol on the product saying that it has been approved by the Soil Association, we cannot be sure that it is "perfectly" organic—I do not think that there is any perfectly organic foodstuff in the world—but we can at least know that it has crossed a certain threshold of organic production, and has been approved by the Soil Association or some other organisation.

§ Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Maclean
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman at any time. I rather enjoy his interventions.

§ Mr. Hoyle
I am very worried by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that he is discrediting all organic farmers, and that he should withdraw his comments. He is making a very irrational point, and there is a grave danger that he could put a lot of people out of business.

§ Mr. Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly ridiculous as the day goes on. Obviously he is not deaf this time—

§ Mr. Hoyle
What?

§ Mr. Maclean
It must be the stupidity that is cutting in on this occasion.
It is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" organic, just as it is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" safe. If someone proves to me that a product is 100 per cent. organic, I shall be happy to endorse it; but does the Soil Association claim that all products featuring its logo saying that those products are organic according to its standards are 100 per cent. perfectly organically produced? Of course not. Those whose products qualify for the Soil Association logo have crossed the quality threshold, which is very high. That gives the consumer an idea of the nature of the product concerned.
We are merely suggesting an addition to existing information on labels, which many consumers find helpful, although some will find it irrelevant. Some people 1418 who want to buy a Cornish pasty will use criteria other than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging. Some will want to know the proportion of meat in relation to the proportion of pastry; some will want to know whether the pasty has actually come from Cornwall; others will not care about those things, but will want to know the country of origin. Not every consumer reads everything on the label, and makes an informed choice after taking all that information into account. If every consumer did that, the queues in supermarkets would be even longer. When the Minister studies the food surveys that MAFF has produced, he will see that consumers sometimes make irrational choices. Indeed, according to the dietary experts, they sometimes make wrong choices. Nevertheless, the choices are theirs, based on the information on the labels.
The new clause suggests the inclusion of information that most consumers will find handy and interesting: whether products are genetically modified, the country of origin, and the system of production. I think that, in regard to the system of production, the Government could be in a strong position in the future. Our production systems are one of Britain's strongest selling points, and we need to market that better on labels.
5.45 pm
I suspect that the Minister would confirm that any survey of consumers asking, "Do you prefer buying food produced in factory or less humane systems"—however those may be described; whatever may be the current politically correct term for such systems—"or those produced in totally humane systems", consumers will certainly say, "We want products from totally humane systems—the best that there are." One could have disputes on what constitutes humanity or inhumanity in food production, or on which systems are best for food safety and animal welfare, but that is not the point of my speech.
The point is that consumers say that they are interested in purchasing products from systems that are more humanely organised. At times, however, those very same consumers may not be willing to pay the premium of such systems. Nevertheless, generally—the Minister rightly boasts about this—whether in pigmeat production, free-range chicken meat or in future battery cages, Britain leads the world in systems of animal husbandry and animal welfare. I think that the Minister would also say that Britain leads the world in checks on veterinary products and on residual veterinary contaminants in meat.
Therefore, identification as "British produced" would be a very great selling point to those concerned about animal welfare, and I hope that we shall be able to take that route. I appreciate that the Minister would have enormous difficulties in persuading his European Union partners to establish such a system and in insisting that foreign food should be so labelled. However, it is certainly within his gift to encourage British producers of quality products to adopt country of origin labelling, and I urge him to do so today.

§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on Report—which I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), think is an extremely important part of a Bill's passage. Report and Third Reading provide many hon. Members—who, for one reason or another, 1419 have been unable to speak on a Bill on Second Reading, or to play their part in Committee—with an opportunity to comment both on a Bill's provisions and on amendments made in Committee.
I comment on behalf of my constituents, who consist not only of farmers and growers, but of consumers. To all those who might have criticised me in the past, saying that I was too much on the side of farmers, I point out that I have many more consumers than farmers in my constituency. Nevertheless, I believe that, on the whole, farmers work very hard to produce wholesome foods and other products. I also follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in all that he said about British produce—to which I shall return later in my speech.
One of the difficulties of a shortened Report stage is that many excellent amendments on important provisions may not be debated—and I am referring specifically to the important provision of a right of appeal. I had always believed that we in the United Kingdom believed in justice and that, if a Government agency ruled on a certain matter, producers would always have a right of appeal against that ruling. Amendment No. 1 would reintroduce such a right of appeal, but we may not be able to consider it, and that is a pity.
I acknowledge that the Government went to great trouble to introduce an innovative way of ensuring that the draft Bill was scrutinised, and that the results of that process have been widely acclaimed on both sides of the House. Moreover, proceedings on the Bill in Committee were very amicable, and that is also to be welcomed. Members of the public do not always realise that, whichever party is in government, there is often much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on matters of common sense. Therefore, I commend what has gone on.
The Government are concerned about the wholesomeness of food and the health of the nation. Perhaps it is pertinent to reflect that although the agency to be set up by the Bill will ensure that food produced in the United Kingdom is produced to the highest standards, it will omit the most important part, in that it does not relate, nor could it relate, to food produced on the continent and elsewhere, because of the rules of the EU. These rules always seem to me to be ridiculous, and I cannot understand why neither the previous Government nor this one have tackled the problem with more enthusiasm and energy.
There is no doubt that for beef, pigmeat or lamb—as well as eggs—the animals have been raised to the highest welfare standards. Farmers in my constituency are proud of the way in which they raise and care for their stock, and they send their stock to market in the best possible condition. We all know that that cannot be said of many countries in the EU. It is essential, for that reason, that British products are properly labelled—by that, I mean not labelled in a misleading way. For example, "British bacon" often comes not from pigs raised in this country, but from meat imported and processed in this country. That is dishonest, to say the least. If new clause 1 were accepted, it would be a major step forward.
We are to provide more labelling of the nutritional element of food, and other information for the consumer—such as labelling of the country of origin. We 1420 must recognise also that these provisions equate with further regulations and added costs to producers, and therefore to the consumer. Many will consider the extra cost worth while, but we must recognise that we are placing added costs on our industry which will not be placed on industries in other countries from which we import food.
Food labelling is here to stay and is welcomed by many consumers. However, much can be misleading, and the information given must be accurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden listed a range of foods and products which were not as they appeared to be. However, organic products in this country—when they are approved by the Soil Association—are recognised as being of high quality.

§ Mr. Hoyle
Hear, hear.

§ Mrs. Winterton
The often rather belligerent hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agrees with me, no doubt because he has organic producers in his constituency. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, we undertook an inquiry into these matters. With others, I visited Blagdon farms, where Yeo Valley yoghurt is produced, and we were given samples. I hasten to add that I did not feel that I had to include them in the Register of Members' Interests. Since then, I have bought nothing other than Yeo Valley organic yoghurt. It is excellent, and we ought to be promoting it throughout the EU as something that is produced in a wholesome and—I believe—old-fashioned way.
I have always sought positively to buy British in everything, but especially in food, not least because I come from a farming and country background from way, way back. I have never, never bought French apples and I have no intention of doing so. When our apples and pears are not in season, I am more than happy to buy them from Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand or South Africa, but I am damned if I will buy those ghastly things that look perfect, but taste of nothing. That brings me to another subject.

§ Mr. Luff
New Labour?

§ Mrs. Winterton
No, something much more important than that. I am talking about British produce. We need to have British produce labelled as such, because it is the best marketing tool that we have. Sadly, many consumers buy on the basis of price rather than on the basis of quality. I always try to buy the best quality, and if necessary, I will buy less. It is essential to market our quality food. I hope that that message will go home and that we will be able further to promote the excellence of our produce.

§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)
I welcome the Bill. New clause 1 would require that all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients", but that is already done. I assume that that is the law. However, ingredients are often listed in a way that is very difficult to comprehend or even to read.
I gather from the gossip in the Chamber that if we require country of origin labelling we may run up against European Union law. I hope not. Perhaps the Minister can 1421 tell us. Will he let us know whether we cannot compel people to label food as made in this country because we will run up against Brussels?

§ Mr. Rooker
I did not want to intervene, because of the time constraints, but if the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. He does not seem to want me to do that.

§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
I was making the point that labelling food as British is important as a marketing tool. We are moving towards having fewer and fewer subsidies, and we are encouraging our farmers to market quality products that should be better known by the public, such as Southdown lamb or York ham.
I am not sure whether we can implement the requirement to include the system of production on the label, but the aims of the new clause should be studied seriously.

§ Mr. Rooker
I shall do my best to respond to some of the issues raised, but I shall be brief and I apologise to the House for that.
On virtually every issue about which it has been said during the past hour that the agency should do something, I can honestly say that the agency will act. I can say that because it is being done now to a greater or lesser extent within the joint food safety and standards group under existing law. However, there is always room for improvement—I would not argue about that.
6 pm
There are good reasons for my asking the House not to accept new clause 1. The key reason is that it would make matters worse than they are now. The Bill is drafted in general terms, and the powers of existing legislation are being transferred to the Food Standards Agency. If we started listing in the Bill specific duties such as food labelling but did not list, for example, food composition, food authenticity, food additives, food hygiene and chemical contaminants, it would be argued in a court that those issues were less important than food labelling because Parliament had listed food labelling in the Bill. Yet they are all equally important. What is more, they are all covered by the agency's powers. That can be said without any qualification whatever.
Naturally, some matters can be dealt with to a greater or lesser extent. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) invited me—indeed, he almost pushed me—to intervene, but when I stood up he did not sit down. To a certain extent, we are governed by European Union laws on labelling. It is not possible for us to go off on our own and invent a labelling regime. As I said recently at Question Time, there is nothing to stop British supermarkets and food producers putting the country of origin on all their food products, so long as the labelling does not mislead the public. They do not need a law or authority from this House; they can do it. We have to ask ourselves why they do not do it more often. Perhaps they are a bit ashamed of the origin. People should assume that if a product does not say it is British, it is not British. 1422 Some smaller supermarkets are going out of their way to label products as British or Welsh, particularly in respect of lamb, and others should be encouraged to do so.

§ Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Rooker
No, I must cover various points, and time is limited.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the beef labelling scheme. It is a Europe-wide scheme which is voluntary now but which will be compulsory in due course. It is governed by a quite separate set of powerful rules and the independent audit of those who use it, even down to the method of slaughter and the sex and tag number of the animal if the person chooses to sell on that basis. That is important. In due course, that kind of scheme will undoubtedly be extended to other meat areas.
I thought that the hon. Lady would not have the brass neck to mention GM foods but she did. It is worth putting on record again the fact that the Government inherited a policy not to label GM ingredients in foods. On 7 June 1997 we announced the change.

§ Mr. Paice
May I lay to rest the absurd criticism that the Minister keeps coming up with? The previous Government voted against introducing labelling for GM foods because, as he said, at that time there was no way of testing for them, so the law could not have been enforced. As it was not possible to test for GM ingredients, it would have been a stupid law. Yes, the technology has moved on and it is now right to do that.

§ Mr. Rooker
That is not the reason. The reason for the policy not to label those foods was specifically because they were not technically or nutritionally different. The previous Government's policy was to label those foods if they were technically or nutritionally different. They were following to the letter the American system of not labelling food unless it was technically or nutritionally different. Soya and maize are not technically or nutritionally different; therefore the policy was not to label them. That is why we had to pass separate rules for labelling. The previous Government approved the EC's novel food regulations so that in future any new GM food would automatically require labelling. They approved that before we came to power, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is blown out of the water. They were content for future GM foods to be labelled. That was agreed in 1996, but the regulations did not cover maize and soya—the only such foods that were being imported other than tomato paste, which was always labelled.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned an issue that has been reported in the press in the past few days. I went to a public meeting just like anyone else. The people from Nestle told the audience that they supplied Iceland under a commercial contract ingredients that included up to 1 per cent. GM ingredients for Iceland to sell as GM-free. I have disclosed that in the past, and I have been criticised by Iceland for doing so. Nestlé did not exactly boast about it, but it was part of the commercial contract. That was a matter of public knowledge. I was a member of an audience at a public meeting.
The hon. lady also mentioned the important issue of antibiotics. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, under amendment No. 10, the 1423 Opposition do not want the Food Standards Agency to have anything to do with veterinary medicines. That does not square with what the hon. Lady said about antibiotics.
Production methods and welfare-friendly labels are also important. The Food Standards Agency will have the power to investigate claims on labels that products are welfare friendly. If people misleadingly label something as welfare friendly and the agency checks on the files and finds that it is not, it will have the power to go on to farms to ensure that welfare-friendly methods are used. The issues raised in the new clause are covered by the Bill.
My final point relates to imports. There has been a touch of xenophobia in some of the speeches, but I understand the concern. Many years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a piece in Birmingham. I had gone to buy a rotor arm for my old banger in the days when we had rotor arms. I picked up a product labelled as a Lucas rotor arm in a shop—it may have been Halfords, I do not know. It was vacuum packed and all that the label said was "Printed in the UK". I thought, "I'm an engineer. You don't print a rotor arm, you make it." It turned out that it was made in the Lucas factory in Brazil.
Labels can give a false impression by putting perhaps only the country where the packaging was printed or where the last part of the process was carried out. There is no doubt that they can be misleading. More work needs to be done and more pressure needs to be put on the suppliers. As I said, there is nothing to stop suppliers insisting that the country of origin is labelled on their produce. We ought to do more to encourage our constituents to demand that. Legislation is not necessarily required to make it effective.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned imports. We do not always know what is going on and there will not be time to discuss all the amendments, but we are able to turn back imports or check them if there is a problem because they are labelled and we can take them out of the food chain if necessary. We recently picked up some problems with imports of beef carcases from the Republic of Ireland, which had to be labelled. Specified risk materials are found in imports. I understand that one lot was found today; so the checks are going on.
Reference was made to Belgium. We were able to check pork and poultry consignments from Belgium. They were all impounded and returned to Belgium or destroyed. An enormous amount of work is therefore being done to check these things. Labelling of country of origin or code numbers is important in that connection.
To accept the new clause would be to make it more difficult for the Food Standards Agency to deal with the issues that I have raised, where problems arise. Those issues are not written into the Bill, but the agency will deal with them. They include contamination, adulteration and food composition. It is important that we leave the agency with as much general power as possible to carry on work that is already taking place. The thrust of the demands of hon. Members who have spoken are covered in the Bill and the powers that the House is giving to the agency.

§ Mrs. Spelman
I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He clearly stated, as he did in Committee, that a clear transfer of power to the agency is 1424 taking place to enable it to take over the role of enforcing labelling rules. That is what he says the agency will be doing. However, we really did want that to be included in the Bill. We are left to fall back on the explanatory notes. I am disappointed that, after we had provided so many examples of the current inadequacy of the rules, we do not seem fully to have made the point that we did not want to transfer the power under the existing set of rules. However, given the Minister's comments, we hope that the agency will take a proactive stance in addressing some of those confusing points.
I certainly want to dispel any idea that xenophobia lay behind our desire for clear labelling of the country of origin—quite the opposite. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we heard a good example of why the consumer might want to buy a foreign product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to the cachet of a foreign product; he gave as an example the contrast between Somerset and French Brie. As the two are largely indistinguishable, they would need to be labelled accurately with their country of origin in order to enable consumers to buy the foreign product if they wanted to do so. That is not xenophobia; it has a great deal to do with choice, but more important—in relation to what lies at the heart of the Bill—it would protect food safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to organic standards. If the Government are unwilling to accept the new clause, we want to press the Minister and—through him—the new agency to consider the problem posed by the fact that organic standards are not common throughout the European Union. The standard set by the Soil Association in this country is much higher. Indeed, that is why my hon. Friend has such confidence in the organic products that she buys. However, her point illustrates the weakness of the rules that the Food Standards Agency will inherit. We should like the agency to do something about that.
Somewhat reluctantly, we take the Minister at his word. He assures us that all the powers for the enforcement of food labelling will be transferred lock, stock and barrel. We urge him to ensure that the Food Standards Agency considers thoroughly the inadequacy of the set of rules with which it will have to work, but, based on what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.