HL Deb 08 March 1955 vol 191 cc769-93

2.36 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Your Lordships are already familiar with the objects of the Bill which I outlined a few weeks ago on Second Reading. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it not only provides an up-to-date code of law, which is designed to secure both clean and safe food for the public, but also effects the much-needed consolidation of Scottish law in this field. The Bill will make it possible to safeguard public health from the dangers which may arise at all stages of the manufacture and sale of food. It gives the Government power to check the use of harmful substances in food and to secure higher standards of cleanliness in premises of all kinds where food is handled. There are Amendments down for discussion this afternoon, and I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to take up more time now. We have already had a full discussion on the principles of the Bill, which have won the general approval of your Lordships, and I hope that you will now be willing to give the Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, we have been over this Bill before and we are in general agreement with it. As I said on the previous occasion, while the Bill itself is important the regulations that can be framed as a result of the passing of the Bill are even more important, and I hope that the utmost use will be taken of the powers that are conferred.

As the noble Earl has said, this is not merely a Bill with certain new features about it, but it consolidates the law in Scotland in relation to food and drugs, which is a most useful thing to do. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, l would make the general observation that. I believe the present day is one when there is a greater awareness of matters relating to food. To some extent the Government are responsible for that greater awareness and greater concern on the part of the public with regard to food, because their policy of lifting restrictions and taking away measures which enable food to be kept down in price has added to that awareness of the importance of food. It would not be in order for me to dwell upon that aspect to any extent in connection with this Bill, which does not deal with the monetary value of food, but there is the fact that the public do want to have the utmost care taken of food, and want to get the utmost value that can be got from the purchases of food that they make. I hope that every opportunity will be taken, within the limits of this Bill, to make sure that the purity of food and the care of its handling will be given the utmost attention. The Bill is one which, in its general lines, can be heartily commended, and I look forward with interest to seeing what attitude the noble Earl will be taking when my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch moves his Amendments, in which I consider there is a great deal of substance.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1:

Offences in connection with preparation and sale of injurious foods and adulterated drugs

1.—(1) No person shall add any substance to food, use any substance as an ingredient in the preparation of food, abstract any constituent from food, or subject food to any other process or treatment, so as (in any such case) to render the food injurious to health, with intent that the food shall be sold for human consumption in that state.

(5) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether an article of food is injurious to health, regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person consuming it, but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming such article in ordinary quantities.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), after "health" to insert: "or diminish its nutritive value." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a late stage in the progress of this Bill at which to move the Amendments, but unfortunately I was unable to be present on an earlier occasion. The Amendments which I am going to move deal with a number of points which I think it will be agreed have some importance. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will not meet them by saying that it is essential that the law in Scotland shall be identical with the law in England. That is not so in a great many cases, and it is certainly not essential that it should be so. I hope that in this matter, as in some others, Scotland may still be a pioneer.

The first two Amendments—if I may take them together, because they go hand in hand—are directed towards preventing the abstraction of valuable elements out of food. As the Bill now stands that does not appear to be an offence, but it is something which might be detrimental in many ways to the consumer. It may be that such practices would not, to quote the words used in the Bill, "render the food injurious to health" in a positive fashion, but to take out of foodstuffs items which are useful in nutrition may, in fact, diminish very considerably the value of an article of food. The classic example of this, of course, is bread, which is made from flour from which elements have been extracted, particularly the bran and the germ. We now see the paradoxical position that people are buying, in the form of various proprietary articles, preparations of bran in order to remedy one of the most common complaints to which civilised man is liable. They are also buying preparations of vitamins which are made out of the germ of the wheat which has been extracted from the flour. In the result, of course, they are paying a most exorbitant price for what they might have got a great deal more cheaply if it had been left in the flour and had been in the bread.

Take the case of the wheat germ, for example. There is now ample proof that it contains vitamins and other substances which are conducive to fertility and reproduction, and which are of value to women, both before and after childbirth. If we are concerned about the decline in the birth rate and matters of that kind, this is something which deserves some serious thought. I know it will be said that it is now impossible to insist that everybody shall eat whole meal bread, and I am certainly not going to ask for that. I have put down this Amendment rather in an exploratory way in order to find out whether it is the intention of the Government to discourage practices of this kind, because others of a similar nature will no doubt occur in the future, and if they are allowed to go too far it will then once more be said that it is quite impossible to do anything about it.

If valuable articles are to be extracted out of the food supply, let me suggest, at any rate, that some arrangement should be made by which the public are notified of what has happened to their food, so that they are not deceived into thinking, when changes of this kind are gradually and surreptitiously made in it, that it is the same as it has always been. That is the object of this Amendment—to try to find some means by which this practice, which is robbing the people of valuable elements in their food, can at any rate be curtailed, even if it cannot be completely stopped. If the Minister can hold out some hope that this matter will be dealt with in the regulations which are to be made, I shall be perfectly satisfied, because, as I have said, I think the time has gone by when one could apply compulsion in regard to matters of this kind, and certainly that is something which I have never advocated. What I have advocated and will continue to advocate is that the public should be clearly informed of the nature of their food and the treatments to which it has been subjected. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, after ("health") insert ("or diminish its nutritive value,").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

2.50 p.m.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, I beg to support my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. I know very well that the noble Earl the Minister of State has done and will do all that he can to maintain the individuality of Bills which specifically affect Scotland. The suggestions contained in the Amendments just moved by my noble friend are entirely in line with the recommendations often submitted by the Medical Research Council concerning the danger of chemical additives to our food, however they may come there. Therefore I warmly support the noble Lord's Amendments and hope the noble Earl will be able to meet them in some fashion.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Sempill, seem to be speaking to more than one Amendment at once, but I must confine myself, I think, to the Amendment which is on the Marshalled List, which is to the effect that nothing shall be done to a foodstuff which will diminish its nutritive value. That is the Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is really at the moment giving his attention. Let me say at once that I shall not claim that we cannot put something into a Scottish Bill because it is not in the English Act. Certainly we should, if we thought it worth while. But it seems to me that this suggestion is impracticable in both countries; it would work neither in Scotland nor in England. The Amendment would make it an offence to manufacture or treat food in such a way as to diminish its nutritive value. I give one or two examples. For instance, grain cannot be milled at all without reducing its nutritive value. Therefore there could be no milling of grain, and so there would be no other bread but wholemeal bread. Again, no fruit or vegetables could be canned, because in the process of canning fruit or vegetables the nutritional value is reduced. I doubt whether one could make beer, because it might be argued that the nutritional value of beer was less than the nutritional value of barley. That result might please the noble Lord, Lord Mothers. In fact, a good deal of special pleading is going on in the discussion of this particular Amendment.

But total prohibition is quite impracticable. It would produce some of these results and we could not advise it at present. I could not advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that there are adequate powers in Clause 4 to prohibit particular processes which are proved to reduce the value of food. I give the assurance that the Government will certainly make that prohibition by regulation if it is proved that through certain additives or in certain other ways the value of food is diminished. If it is proved to be in the public interest, the Government will act by regulation under Clause 4. But I could not accept the general Amendment as put forward by the noble Lord.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I accept to a considerable extent what the noble Earl has said, although I would not agree with the whole of his argument, because, when it comes to making beer for instance, a new food substance is being made. That is quite different proposition from abstracting out of a food a part of its nutritive value and not making a new substance at all. That is a clear and simple distinction. Therefore, my Amendment does not result in a reductio ad absurdum, as the noble Earl has suggested. Nevertheless, I accept the assurance which he has given that this matter will be watched, and that, where it is possible to do so, it will be made the subject of regulations. On that assurance, I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment. I shall not move the next one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (5), after "composition" to insert: "or containing similar additives." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is directed towards amplifying and strengthening, to a certain extent, a useful provision which is contained in subsection (5) of Clause 1. This subsection is directed particularly to the cumulative effect of imbibing small quantities of food additives. For example, it is very well known that certain substances, when taken in extremely small quantities over a term of years, may produce cancer. The provision in this clause as it stands relates to the cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition, and that I presume to mean articles in which the major food constituent is substantially the same. Therefore the clause as it stands would permit of the addition to a number of different articles of food of such things, for example, as aniline dyes. There would in that case be a cumulative effect, owing not merely to taking those things day after day but also to taking them in a number of different foodstuffs. That possibility does not appear to be covered by the subsection as it stands.

This is a matter of considerable importance. Take, for example, the use of colouring matters in foodstuffs. A large number of synthetic colouring matters are being used at the present day in a great variety of foods. They are used for colouring dried or smoked fish, for example, in order to make it appear that the fish has been subjected to a process of smoking or kippering. They are used to colour cakes and icings, to colour sweets, to colour soft drinks, to colour margarine, to colour jams and to colour tinned and bottled fruits which lose their colours during the processes of preservation. Therefore it is quite a possibility that the same or similar dyestuffs may be partaken of from a great many different sources. It is on that account that I am suggesting that this subsection should be strengthened by adding the words "or containing similar additives." In other words, whether the major food substance is similar or not, so long as the additives are similar the cumulative effect may be there, and, therefore it is a matter to be very carefully guarded against. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, after ("composition") insert ("or containing similar additives").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

3.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, the principle of the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Douglas of Barloch is accepted in the Bill, but it is really a matter of how far it can be carried and still effect something which is practical. We think that we have carried it as far as we can carry it in subsection (5) of the clause, where we say that regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person consuming it, but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition … Lord Douglas of Barloch wants to go a good deal further: he would put upon the manufacturers, and upon the courts, the duty to range over the whole field in which foods of this kind are manufactured. We think that that would be an impossible burden of investigation to put on the manufacturer or upon the courts.

But there is another reason why I think it is safe not to insert this Amendment. If the prosecution were to have evidence such as is indicated by the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, then there would be an obvious case for regulations to be made, either to control the use of the additives or to prohibit the use of additives under Clause 4 or Clause 5. So if there is such clear evidence as the noble Lord thinks there may be, that certain additives are being used and that the cumulative effect, taken together with other additives, is bad for the public health, then I suggest that the case for control or prohibition would be made and that we should be able to act, and the Minister would act, by regulation, either prohibiting or controlling under Clause 4 or Clause 5. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, which puts upon the manufacturer and the court a duty which I think it would be quite impossible for them to carry out.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I agree largely with the argument which the noble Earl has adduced. Nothing can be more unfortunate than to pass legislation which is not capable of adequate enforcement. I agree, too, that it would be rather difficult in cases of this kind to provide adequate proof although that would not really be to the detriment of the manufacturer but to the detriment of the consumer after all, it is the prosecution, and not the defence, who have to afford proof in the first place. Nevertheless, I accept the assurance which the noble Earl has given, that this matter will be looked at and that it may be dealt with by means of regulations. I feel that there is here a considerable danger which has not received adequate attention in the past, arising from the use (to quote the example I have given) of aniline dyes in so many different foodstuffs that there may easily be a substantial cumulative effect from the total which would not arise from the use in one single article of food. On the assurance which the noble Earl has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF HOME

Perhaps I had better say that the assurance I have given is that if the evidence were sufficient, the matter could be dealt with by regulation. I do not want to be misunderstood.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Yes, I accept that. All I would say is that I hope that the Government will keep their eyes open for, and not shut their eyes to, the evidence.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl said that in such circumstances the Government will introduce legislation. I do not know whether than was intentional or whether it was a slip of the tongue. The noble Earl said that if the evidence was sufficient they could, and they would.

THE EARL OF HOME

Perhaps I had better limit myself to "could," because no one can pledge another Government in regard to particular circumstances that one cannot foresee. But if the evidence is sufficient in any particular case, it would be open to the Minister to make a regulation either prohibiting or controlling the use of the additive. I hope that the Minister would do so where the evidence was sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2:

Fraudulent sales of food and drugs

2.—(1) If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the food or drug demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence against this Act.

3.7 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), to omit "to the prejudice of the purchaser." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I am moving is for the purpose of deleting from Clause 2 (1) the words "to the prejudice of the purchaser." It seems superfluous to impose upon the purchaser of an article the duty of proving, not only that the article which has been sold to him is different either in its nature or in its substance or quality from that for which he asked, but also that he has been prejudiced in some other fashion. That appears to be the meaning of the subsection as it now stands. It ought surely to be an offence to sell to anybody something which is different from that for which he has asked and which he has expected to get. May I point out that by means of Clause 3 the vendor who does this is, in fact, given a wide avenue of escape: he has only to label the article which he has sold in such a way as to make perfectly clear to the purchaser what its nature is, to enable himself to escape from the consequences of Clause 2. Of course, I except the case where he has sold something which is positively injurious to the purchaser.

I see no good reason why facilities should be offered to vendors of foodstuffs to sell to people things which are different from what they have required, and to impose upon the aggrieved purchaser, so to speak, a double onus of proof. It seems to me that to include that is simply to invite deceit, and in this question, in which it is so important to prevent the debasement of the food supplied, no encouragement whatsoever should be given. This deterioration and devitalisation of food has already gone an enormous distance; it has taken place by slow and stealthy stages, so that it is now most difficult to do anything to correct what has already happened. But let me take a simple illustration. About 100 years ago, when Mrs. Beeton wrote her celebrated cookery book, a cake was, I suppose, made out of flour which had not been debilitated to the extent of most types of flour sold to-day; of fresh eggs, not those which had been dried or tinned; and of cane sugar, dried fruits and other natural food substances.

Of what do they consist at present? Of flour from which much of its nutritional value has been extracted and which has been treated with agene; instead of eggs, there is merely colouring matter—probably a coal-tar dye—no doubt to give the article the appearance of having been made with eggs; instead of butter, various oils which have probably been heat-treated to make them less odorous, a process in which they have been subjected to highly detrimental chemical changes. Then there will be a number of substances described as "fat extenders," largely of the nature of detergents, intended to make the cake rise higher and to look lighter and more attractive. Finally, there will he some synthetic sweetening and flavouring agents. That is an illustration of the kind of thing that has happened, and will happen, to many foodstuffs just because the law is so lax and allows manufacturers gradually to substitute one substance for another and to sell the consumer something different from that which he has expected to get. I hope that the noble Earl will be persuaded of the value of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, leave out ("to the prejudice of the purchaser").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned Mrs. Becton's Cookery Book, for, with his catalogue of horrors, he was putting me off my food. I do not think this Amendment would achieve the noble Lord's design. He is really asking us to accept the principle that the customer should get precisely what he wants. All noble Lords would very much like that, but in an imperfect world no-one ever gets exactly what he wants. The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to make it an offence for someone to sell to a customer an article which was an improvement on what the customer wanted, and I do not believe the noble Lord would wish to achieve that result.

The real and substantial reason for resisting this Amendment, however, is that this form has been in Acts of Parliament for some eighty years and I gather that the phrase "to the prejudice of the purchaser" has been very valuable in protecting consumers' rights; and that, after all, is the objective of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. I am told that a great deal of valuable case law has been built up round this subsection. It has fulfilled its purpose, and no serious fault has been found with it. We should, therefore, want very good reasons—better reasons than have been given by the noble Lord—before we sought to disturb the present position. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, first for the reason that a large body of case law has been built up round this subsection, and secondly, because this Amendment would not achieve the noble Lord's objective, and would, in fact, make it an offence to sell an article which was better than the purchaser expected he would get.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, I venture to put a further consideration to the noble Earl. He declares that, while my noble friend seeks to provide that the customer shall get exactly what he wants, that is impossible. There is a middle course: that the purchaser be told precisely what he is getting. He can then make his choice and decide whether or not to take the article which he then knows contains the deleterious substance against which my noble friend is contending. The purchaser can make his choice and decide whether he will die by that means or by a natural death in the ordinary way. He is given an opportunity of avoiding taking an article that he does not want.

THE EARL OF HOME

We come on to that point in the next Amendment, dealing with the labelling of substances.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I am not convinced by the argument adduced by the noble Earl upon this Amendment. The suggestion that my Amendment will prevent producers of foodstuffs from improving the quality of whatever they have to sell is not convincing.

THE EARL OF HOME

The Amendment would make it an offence.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Oh, no. I explained quite clearly what is obvious upon the face of the Bill: that the vendor has an avenue of escape by means of Clause 3, which gives him the opportunity of putting upon the article which he is selling a label explaining in what way it has been treated. Where it is a genuine case of a foodstuffs' vendor having achieved an improvement in the quality or nutritive value of the product, there is a simple course open to him, quite apart from Clause 3—that is, to explain to the purchaser that he is being offered something better than he has been purchasing before. The purchaser can be invited to change the nature of his demand. Surely that is good economics, and good commercial sense. I cannot accept the argument which the noble Earl has adduced, that this Amendment will produce exactly the reverse of what I seek to achieve. That is a contention which will not, upon reflection, hold water.

THE EARL OF HOME

If we omit from the Bill the words proposed by the noble Lord, the effect will not be that which he has in mind. One way of achieving that will be discussed on the next Amendment—that is, for the label to show the consumer or the purchaser what he is in fact getting. This particular issue can better be discussed on the next Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, it may be that case law on this subject makes acceptance of the Amendment somewhat difficult. I do not want to embark upon a discussion of such a technical question, although I would venture the opinion that what case law has done has been to make the effect of this provision something approaching that which I wish to achieve by my Amendment. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to upset, without the fullest consideration, something which has been the subject of many judicial decisions. On that account, while I still believe that my Amendment is right in principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.20 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical and if no notice is given to the purchaser of the addition of such chemical specifying what it is. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is directed against the practice, which has now become extremely widespread, of adding various synthetic chemicals to foodstuffs. The number and variety of these is enormous. There are large numbers of synthetic flavouring matters, synthetic colouring matters and various other treatments to which food is subjected, such as the addition of the so-called "fat extenders" and other chemicals, the nature and the effect of which are still largely unknown and unexplored. Quite recently, we have had a Report by the Food Standards Committee of the Ministry of Food dealing with the use of colouring matters in foodstuffs, and one very significant passage which I should like to quote from that Report illustrates that the practice of using colouring matters in foodstuffs has now gone so far that the Committee consider it extremely difficult, in a number of cases, to stop it. They give this illustration—I quote from the Report: Although the dyeing of smoked fish, particularly kippers, has now become an established practice, we regard this as an instance where the use of colour could have been challenged originally. In other words, it is alleged that the consumer has now become so accustomed to having a dyed herring instead of a kipper that he is no longer deceived. I am not so sure that that is true, and I feel fairly certain that if every article of food which had been subjected to treatment of that kind were clearly labelled, the demand would fall very considerably. At any rate, let the consumer have the opportunity of knowing what has happened to his foodstuffs, particularly when they have had added to them such substances as are dealt with in this Amendment, which, quite clearly, are by no means natural articles of food and which are, by their nature, open to the gravest suspicion.

Let me refer again for a moment to the Report of the Food Standards Committee on Colouring Matters. They had proposed to them by manufacturers of foodstuffs or manufacturers of chemicals no fewer than seventy-nine coal-tar dyes, which it was alleged it was safe to use as ingredients of food. They made an inquiry into this subject upon the basis of what was already known—and that knowledge is not by any means complete—and they classified these colouring matters into three grades. Grade A contained twelve out of the seventy-nine, and the Committee approved of the use of eleven of these. Although the Committee admit that they have not complete knowledge about the effect of these things, what they say about them is that the colours in Class A would seem unlikely to be harmful when consumed in foods in the customary amounts. But they also say: We were struck at the outset by the fact that there is a serious lack of adequate experimental evidence on many dyes, including some used quite extensively. In the absence of conclusive evidence we are unable to recommend any colour unreservedly as safe. So that the eleven which they classified as the most safe are still not recommended unreservedly.

Then the Committee classified thirty-two of these substances in Grade B, of which they recommended only twenty as permissible for use. But observe what they say about the colourings in Class B: they are: Colours for which the available evidence is deficient or conflicting, although there is no apparent reason on structural"— that refers to the chemical structure— or other grounds to expect them to be harmful in the amounts ordinarily consumed. That is not very much of a recommendation for the use of these substances. The remaining thirty-five of the seventy-nine dyes which were proposed the Committee placed in a classification as being too dangerous to be used at all in foods. But observe that those thirty-five were proposed by either manufacturers of foodstuffs or manufactures of chemicals as being perfectly safe; and there are hundreds of other colouring matters which are being produced commercially at the present day for dyeing various kinds of substances, any of which might, at any moment, be proposed for use, or be used, by a manufacturer of food as a colouring matter in food.

This is really an extremely dangerous matter. Only last November, Dr. Otto Warburg, the world-famous authority on cancer, stated that the use of aniline dyes in foodstuffs ought to be prohibited completely. Their use has been condemned by Dr. Charles Cameron, Director of the Cancer Society of the United States. They have been condemned by Professor Maisin, the well-known Belgian authority upon this question. It is most important that there should be an absolute obligation upon manufacturers of foodstuffs who use synthetic chemicals of this kind to disclose the fact to the consumer. I am not going so far—though my own personal inclination is to do so, because I think it would be right and just—as to say that their use should be absolutely prohibited; but I do say that at any rate the use of synthetic chemicals ought to be clearly disclosed to the consumer, so that he knows what he is eating. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has put forward, but I hope that I can give him a certain amount of satisfaction in what I say as to why I am unable to accept it. I cannot accept it for this reason. The noble Lord's Amendment reads: A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical … I think that that just is not practical.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Would the noble Earl read on?

THE EARL OF HOME

Would the noble Lord mind if I continued with what I was saying? I think it is admitted that if food is to be made eatable some colouring and some flavourings must be used. I can tell the noble Lord the method we propose to adopt if the Bill becomes law. It is this. We are drawing up permitted lists of substances which may safely be used. This matter is already under discussion. We shall listen carefully to any views which the noble Lord and anybody else may put forward, and to any representations they may care to make. Substances outside the lists of permitted substances can be either controlled or prohibited by regulation.

So far as labelling is concerned, we should all like to see what it is we are eating, and in the great majority of cases it is perfectly reasonable to ask manufacturers to label. But let me quote one or two examples under the Labelling Regulations made in 1953, dealing with such commodities as bread, including breadcrumbs, butter, milk, fresh fruit and vegetables, liquid cows' milk, meat puddings, sugar, whole cooked beetroots and single toffee apples, which, it is thought, it is unreasonable to ask manufacturers to label. To go round labelling single toffee apples seems to be a waste of time. But, so far as it is reasonable, we are certainly going to require manufacturers to label their products to let the public know what is in them. I hope that the noble Lord will think the spirit of his Amendment is met by these two assurances: that, first, we are going to draw up permitted lists of substances which may be used, with the intention of controlling or prohibiting by regulation the use of all those outside the permitted lists; and secondly, that it is our intention that there shall be labelling on a wide scale wherever it is reasonable to ask manufacturers to label their products. We shall be glad to take the noble Lord's views into account when considering the lists of permitted substances.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question, to take us a little further? A number of other countries go strictly and minutely into the contents of goods that are sold. Not long ago I heard of a box of biscuits which was sent to this country from overseas. It turned out that the biscuits had been manufactured in this country and had been specially labelled to meet overseas requirements. The recipient said that for the first time he knew what was in those biscuits, which he had often seen in this country, and he was amazed at the number of ingredients contained in them. Would the noble Earl take into account the practice that is followed in other countries of making clear to the buyers of goods the analysis of ingredients, so that they know precisely what they are buying?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I would not commit myself on the question of biscuits, because this is the first I have heard about this product, but where it is reasonable to ask a manufacturer to label, then I think it should be done, and we shall certainly try to see that it is done. We want to exercise reasonable care by going as far as we possibly can without being too hard on the manufacturers.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, let me put it in another way: why should we not go as far as is possible and reasonable in order to protect the consumer? That is surely the primary interest in these matters, and not the interests of the manufacturers. I hope the noble Earl agrees with that proposition. I welcome the statement he has made which, I understand, is that the Government intend to consider the use of all kinds of chemicals in foodstuffs and restrict the use of them to a list which is not to be extended. If that is the intention, certainly it is a considerable step forward; but it is not an answer to the Amendment which I moved. My Amendment still applies in those circumstances. When he referred to it, the noble Earl stopped short in the middle. My Amendment does not say at all that synthetic chemicals are not to be added; what it says is that they are not to be added unless notice is given to the purchaser, and I still submit that the purchaser ought to have notice even if there is a limited list of chemicals which can be used for this purpose and no others can be used. I have no desire to consume foods which have had synthetic chemicals added to them if I can possibly avoid it, and I want to have notice of what chemicals there are in them. Surely that is not at all unfair.

The noble Earl has indicated that it is intended to extend labelling further than it extends at the present time. I do not think it is to the point to talk about cooked beetroots and toffee apples. So far as I know, these things have not had synthetic chemicals added to them. If they have, the case for this Amendment becomes stronger instead of weaker; and if they have not, the people who are selling things of this kind are not faced with the slightest difficulty, because my Amendment requires labelling only where synthetic chemicals have been added and not in cases where they have not been added. The noble Earl's arguments on that point fall to the ground. They have no relevance at all to the Amendment which is before the House and I sincerely hope that this does not disclose a reluctance to adopt the principle of compelling disclosure to the consumer when synthetic chemicals have been added to foodstuffs. This is extremely important.

I am not going to repeat the illustrations which I have already given to the House, or weary your Lordships by giving many others which I could adduce; but when it comes to a question of running the risk of consuming day after day dozens and dozens of synthetic chemicals about which nobody knows anything at all, I submit that the case for disclosure is overwhelming. I would ask the noble Earl to put his pledge in a different way and say that it is the intention of the Government to enforce labelling in every case in which there are additions of this kind made to foods. That easily cuts out the cases, which he has adduced, of selling cooked beetroots or toffee apples.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the whole object of this Bill is to protect the consumer. The Government would not have brought it before Parliament if it were not their intention to protect the consumer, and I must ask the noble Lord to believe that when we take powers we mean to use them. The reason why I cannot accept his Amendment is simply that it says: A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded if it contains any added synthetic chemical … Those are perfectly plain words. We cannot accept the Amendment, because foods must already contain colouring or flavouring. But I have already told the noble Lord that there are ways of dealing with these substances if they should prove to be obnoxious. We can prohibit the substances—and if we are convinced that any particular substance is injurious, we may take that course before we make a permitted list; or we can control the substance, or we can make lists of permitted substances and ban the rest. I do ask the noble Lord to believe that it is our intention to work this in the interests of the consumer.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, the noble Earl is not really directing his mind to the terms of the Amendment, if he will forgive me for saying so. He may or may not have good reasons for not accepting it, but the reason he has given is quite inadequate. He reads the Amendment half-way, and then says: "I stop halfway, and because of what I read I cannot accept the Amendment." This Amendment does not say that a man must not sell any food that contains any added synthetic chemical—that is not the intention: it is recognised that certain foods may require added synthetic chemical. But the Amendment goes on to say that, in cases where there is an added synthetic chemical, notice should be given to the purchaser of the addition of such synthetic chemical and that, if no such notice is given, then it is assumed that the food is not of the substance or quality demanded. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would direct himself to both phrases in the Amendment, and not assume that this Amendment intends to cut out the addition of all synthetic chemicals.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I think I do understand the Amendment. In fact, it would require notice to be given in some form of every synthetic chemical used in the manufacture of articles of food which are sold to the purchaser, however small the quantity might be. This is substantially the law in the case of pre-packed foods. It is a good deal more difficult to apply in the case of foods which are not pre-packed. Nevertheless, as I say, I think it is possible to deal with this matter administratively. While there must be foods into which synthetic substances are introduced, nevertheless, wherever it is practicable we shall try to secure that the public are shown the amount of synthetic substance put into the food.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I do not want to prolong the discussion. I think the noble Earl has now put the matter in a slightly more encouraging way. He has now made it clear, as I understand him, that if the Government do make regulations which permit only of the use of certain scheduled chemicals that will not be a reason for not labelling foodstuffs so as to show which of those chemicals have been used in them. I am willing to admit that there may conceivably be some cases in which labelling is a little difficult, but the noble Earl has not produced one single illustration this afternoon of a case in which there is any real practical difficulty. My noble friend Lord Mathers has given an illustration of a pre-packed food in which labelling is extremely easy, and in which, apparently, no endeavour has been made to secure labelling. The manufacturers of biscuits are able to label them when they export them, to tell the purchaser in foreign countries what is contained in them. Why should not the consumer in this country have the same information? As I say, I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I hope the noble Earl will take note of what has been said and devote his mind more earnestly to this problem. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

Clause 4:

Regulations as to composition of food, etc.

4.—(1) The Ministers may, so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public, make regulations for any of the following purposes:— (a) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, to food intended for sale for human consumption or any class of such food, or the use of any such substance as an ingredient in the preparation of such food, and generally for regulating the composition of such food;

3.47 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "requiring." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are directed to the same point, and with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with them simultaneously. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent "the gentlemen in Whitehall" from dictating to us what we are to eat and drink, and, in view of what has been said by a number of noble Lords on the Government Benches, I assume that they will approach it with a considerable degree of sympathy. It is one thing to enact legislation directed towards preventing people from selling as food things which are not natural articles of food at all, which have never formed any part of human dietaries, and which in many cases are the product of the ingenuity of chemists within the last century or so. That is an absolutely proper use of the regulative power of the State, in order to protect the consumer from having substances which are dangerous, or potentially dangerous, or even of quite unknown quality, put into the food supply. But when it comes to giving the Government power to require things to be added to the food supply we are upon a totally different ground. This is opening the door to compulsory mass medication, which I submit to your Lordships is an invasion of the liberty of the subject and fundamentally wrong and immoral.

We have already begun to go some distance along this extremely dangerous path. It is already made compulsory by regulation to add chalk to bread, although it is fairly certain that it is quite useless, and although there is at least a suspicion that it is positively detrimental. In any case, it is absolutely certain that not every member of the population of this country is suffering from a calcium deficiency. In that case, happily, there is one loophole, and it is that 100 per cent. wholemeal bread has been exempted from this regulation. But it is well-known that it is difficult to obtain bread of that quality, and that in many cases its price is higher than that of the ordinary white bread of commerce. Therefore, this compulsion is already being exercised upon the majority of the people of this country. It is, as I have said, an invasion of the liberty of the subject, and it is morally indefensible. It is advocated upon medical grounds, but on those grounds, too, it is entirely indefensible. People ought not to be treated in the mass. The essence of rational medical practice is examination of the condition and needs of the individual patient, and those may vary enormously as between one and another. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is possible to make a prescription for the benefit of 45 million people and say that in every individual case the right thing will be prescribed.

That is one illustration, but the Government are already going a step further in this direction, because, in a number of cases, they have agreed to the addition of poison to public water supplies. This is described as an experiment, but what kind of a medical experiment is it in which the public water supply of a whole district is to have fluoride of some kind put into it, without the consent of the inhabitants, without any regard to their individual condition or needs, and without any medical examination or any of the requisites of rational medical treatment? That kind of thing is indeed an invasion of the liberty of the subject, and something for which we ought not to give further facilities. If these words remain in the Bill, it will be open to Ministers to make regulations which can carry this as far as they like. There is no limit to the number of things which somebody will say he considers ought to be added to the food supplies and for which regulations will be made compelling that to be done.

I submit that this is the thin end of the wedge which might quite easily bring us into practices such as we and the whole civilised world only a few years ago condemned as absolutely wrong and immoral, and for which certain people were put upon trial at Nuremberg and convicted and sentenced. Compulsory mass medication or compulsory mass experimentation, without the consent of those involved in those experiments, must, by any standard, be completely immoral and completely contrary to all rational medical practice and ethics. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, leave out ("requiring,").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I know and respect the noble Lord's strong feelings on this subject, but the Government must be advised here by the best scientific advice that we can take. The best scientific advice is that there may be certain circumstances in which it is in the interests of the nation's health that certain substances should be added to foodstuffs. The obvious example is that during, and for some time after, the war there was a nation-wide calcium deficiency, and therefore calcium, in the form of highly purified chalk, was added to flour. The noble Lord thinks that that may be injurious to health, but the scientific advice available to the Government thought that it was necessary during the war and continued to be necessary for a good time after. Let me take another case, the addition of vitamins A and D to bring margarine up to the nutritive value of butter. I do not think that action of that kind can properly be designated as interfering with the national liberties or as a threat to freedom. The noble Lord does, and I think we had better agree to differ here. I am sorry that, on the best medical and scientific advice available to us, I cannot accept the proposition which he puts forward in his Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I am not altogether surprised, but at the same time I am somewhat grieved and disappointed. It is all very well to come to this House and talk about scientific advice which is available to the Government. I do not decry the value of science in its proper place, but it is not the function of science to deprive us of our liberties. Once we arrive at the position in which the advice of experts is used in this way, there is no limit to the extent to which it may be extended. This is precisely the path upon which a nation gradually descends into the abyss of totalitarianism. It is done in many cases with the best intentions; with an honest and conscientious desire to be benefactors. But I feel that liberty demands something more than that—it demands the right even to be wrong in the eyes of scientists and experts. If we are to be deprived of that liberty, then something which has been cherished and fought for over many centuries in our national life will gradually disappear. I hope that that is not really the mind of the Government in this matter. I hope the noble Earl and those associated with him will think again about this matter, because there is something here which is far more important than the general subject matter of this Bill. If this kind of thing is to be enacted here, it may be enacted in many other cases, and we shall then reach the stage, as I said, in which it will be a case of "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best"—the liberty of the subject will not matter at all. Surely, we are not going to descend to that position.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I confess that I was a little shocked at what the noble Earl, Lord Home, has just told us. Is it seriously the policy of this Government, or of any Government for that matter, to make us eat chalk whether we want to or not, because, on the best scientific advice, the Government are informed that there is generally a shortage of calcium in the diet? It may be that many of us do not need chalk at all. Are we to be forced to have it? In such cases is it the Government's policy to require that chalk shall be added to all bread and to all flour, so that everyone may have to consume a certain amount of chalk or vitamins A or D? This indeed is grandmotherly government. It is all right when you are a child of five, when "granny knows what is good for you" and makes you eat chalk; but I am rather shocked to find that that is the policy of the Government: that under this Bill they can require everybody to get a certain amount of chalk or vitamins in his food. I ask the noble Earl and the Government to think again about this, if not in this Chamber at least in another place. I am sure he is going far beyond what most of us would be prepared to support.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I have not verified this, but I think the noble Lord must have "swallowed" this in the case of the English Act.

LORD SILKIN

I may have done: it was not pointed out to me.

THE EARL OF HOME

This is a power which can be made to look alarming, I agree. I can, however, conceive of circumstances where it could be beneficial. For instance, if supplies of certain imported foodstuffs were denied entry into this country it might be a good thing that Ministers should have power, in the interests of national health, to require us to have calcium, as was the case in the last war when there was a severe calcium deficiency. Any regulations made under the Bill would have to be laid, and will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the views expressed by the noble Lords, but I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment now.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl is not in a position at this moment to accept this Amendment. If that is so, I sympathise with him; but I hope he will speak seriously to his honourable friend about this question. I want to say one more word about it. It is perfectly true that this kind of thing was introduced during the war, during a national emergency. It may conceivably have been justified under these conditions. There are a good many of us who remember the emergency legislation which was introduced, and the jealousy with which it was watched by both Houses of Parliament, upon the basis that it would be merely temporary and would not become a permanent part of our legislative system. If another emergency of that kind arises, in which it is necessary to take action of that kind, justified for the time being upon the principle of salus populi suprema lex, then I have no doubt that Parliament will grant the necessary powers; but to make this kind of thing a permanent part of the legislation of this country is a very different matter. In view of the fact that the noble Earl is going to consult his right honourable friend, I shall withdraw this Amendment, but I sincerely hope that it will be pursued in another place and that satisfaction upon this point will be obtained.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.