§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government which Government organisations or Government-subsidised organisations, excluding universities, colleges and other educational institutions have the responsibility of initiating research into the toxicity and acceptable daily intake of food additives and to what extent the Government are dependent on commercial/industrial initiatives.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, research into the toxicity and acceptable daily intake of food additives is carried out at certain food research associations which are supported by industry and for which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gives grants-in-aid. It is incumbent upon manufacturers and users of additives to provide evidence of their need and safety. This evidence is considered by independent expert committees, in particular the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, and the Pharmacology sub-Committee, who advise Ministers whether or not substances should be included or continue to be included on permitted lists.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the operative word in my Question is "initiating"? Is he further aware that there is a growing body of feeling in public life that too many hazards still exist and that there have been tragedies caused by the lack of such initiative being taken in these matters by the Government of the day? Will the noble Earl undertake to investigate the possibility that before any new additive is introduced into food for human consumption it will automatically be tested for toxicity and acceptable daily intake?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am aware that the operative word is "initiating". In fact, the Government take the view that where the manufacturer or the intended user wishes to use a new substance it is up to him to provide evidence 9 both of its need and of its safety in use. While I accept entirely the noble Lord's concern about additives, I could not guarantee that all new additives will be tested, because this could cost up to £30,000 for each item so tested.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, I was of course aware of the cost of investigating these additives, which is a cost I should have thought the State ought to bear. Is the noble Earl satisfied that the Government Departments concerned have a record of the maladies and diseases which have ensued because these initiatives were not taken?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am fully aware that there is concern about the additives that are used; but the noble Lord will appreciate that before they are entitled to be used they have to be put on to a permitted list drawn up by my right honourable friend, and this is done only after they have passed the supervision of both Committees to which I have referred.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, did the noble Earl not say in an earlier answer that some additives are not tested at all, or did I misunderstand him? Can he say whether these additives are at least considered and, if they are not tested, whether there is good reason for it? Are they known to be safe even though they are not tested?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, before an additive is allowed to be used it has to pass the consideration of these two Committees. It may be that the Pharmacology Sub-Committee may be dissatisfied with the evidence of safety which is produced by the manufacturers. But it is incumbent upon the manufacturers to show that their product is safe. It is only if it is considered that their product from the evidence they have provided is unsafe that the product is subjected to yet further tests.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is an offence for a manufacturer not to give this information? If it is an offence, what is the penalty?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the Food and Drugs Act 1955 says that it is an offence to add any substance to food so as to render the food injurious to health. It is up to the manufacturers to show that any new substance which they intend to use is not injurious to health and is safe in use.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I know what the penalty is if the manufacturers do not give this information?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness offhand what the penalty is, but I will inquire and let her know.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, could my noble friend say what liaison takes place with the United States and other countries on these matters?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, when considering any new product the Pharmacology Sub-Committee will take into account any evidence which is produced in another country on the new product.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, if I send the noble Earl information about a case which occurred in recent years of an additive to fruit juices for human consumption which has caused cardiac lesions will he investigate the matter and ascertain how it slipped through the net?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I will certainly look into the case to which the noble Lord referred, and I should be delighted to do so. I am wondering whether this is a particular substance which has now been removed from the list.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, might it not have been better for it never to have got on to the list if it had been tested before?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that evidence comes forward as time passes. It is only when new evidence comes to light that it is possible that substances may have to be removed from the list.