Food Labelling

HL Deb 08 January 2003 vol 642 cc1079-100

7.6 p.m.

Lord Morris of Manchester

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to combat misleading food labelling.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, misleading food labelling has increased, is increasing and must be diminished. That undoubted truth prompted my Question and will inform my speech in opening this debate.

The House knows of my interest in chronic illness and disability both as the first Minister for Disabled People and before then, as a Private Member, author and promoter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This interest alone makes the health effects of misleading food labeling—not least the avoidable chronic illnesses and preventable disabilities they inflict on children—an issue of deep concern to me.

That the Government share that concern is made clear by the welcome presence here this evening of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I know that he and the Government also share my concern about the daunting difficulties—and indeed dangers—that more than 2 million visually impaired people face in trying to cope with widely practised dishonesties still permitted by labelling legislation.

Of course, the DTI has a major interest in food labelling; but it is plainly of compelling importance also to the Department of Health and merits the participation of a Health Minister in this debate. Certainly no one sees more vividly than my noble friend why prevention was prioritised in the founding principles of the National Health Service. I acknowledge as well this evening the genuine concern my friend Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has about this policy area.

A further interest I have in this debate is that of lifelong membership of the Co-operative movement, in which I have held the highest elective office as President of the Co-operative Congress. I declare that interest with pride and do so in the presence of two other Congress Presidents: my good and noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe. They will be as mindful as I am this evening that many of our predecessors in that distinguished office also served in your Lordships' House. One of the earliest of them, perhaps to the surprise of some noble Lords, was the Earl of Roseberry who—four years before becoming Liberal Prime Minister—presided over the Co-operative Congress held in Glasgow in 1890.

I know that my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe share my delight in the leadership our movement has been giving in campaigning for better protection of shoppers against unscrupulous food labelling. Its reports on abuses permitted under current legislation—Lie of the Label and Lie of the Label2—reflect its core principles and a tradition of ethical trading that goes all the way back to its birth in Rochdale in 1844.

The two reports won support from the Consumers Association in Food Labels, the hidden truth and the Food Standards Agency's Consumer attitudes to food standards. Their impact was further increased by extensive NOP research and a survey of the marketplace by Sustain, the report of which quotes a label bearing the "pork pie" of a legend: 80 per cent fat free crisps". When shown the label, 61 per cent of NOP's respondents said they thought it was a low-fat product. In fact it was almost all fat and, when told the truth, over 80 per cent said such claims should be unlawful.

Inventive marketing is not, of course, confined to food labelling. We live at an exciting juncture in marketing techniques, with drug companies under heavy fire for trying to invent a new disease, female sexual dysfunction, to generate Viagra-sized profits from curing it. As my noble friend Lord Hunt may have seen, the current issue of the British Medical Journal states editorially that "female sexual dysfunction" is the clearest case yet of a, corporate-sponsored invention of a disease". Yet drug companies have nothing to teach unscrupulous food labellers. For they create, not imaginary disease, but the real thing.

Lie of the Label, published in 1997, was an exposé of those who, in food retailing and manufacturing alike, market their products with no regard for ethical values. "Seven deadly sins" aimed at hoodwinking customers were identified, as were the limitations of current legislation for tackling them.

The second report, Lie of the Label 2, published in mid-2002, highlights a worrying lack of progress in addressing serious health concerns. Thus the prevalence of obesity in England has trebled over the last 20 years and continues to rise. In 1980, 8 per cent of women were classified as obese and 6 per cent of men. By 1998 the prevalence had risen to 21 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men. Over half of all women and two-thirds of men are now either overweight or obese.

With their weakness for the stars of TV and cinema and for computer screens, children are shown to be particularly vulnerable to the heavy marketing of food products. Quick-fix convenience foods and a constant barrage of advertising of fatty and sugary foods are important factors in the upward trend of child obesity and the health problems involved.

For the good of child health it is crucially important for food labelling to be clear, readily understandable and governed by effective legislation. But that is not happening now. The provision of nutritional information is merely voluntary and only legally required where a nutrition claim is made. How then do shoppers know how much fat, sugar and salt are in the products they eat and give their children? All too often manufacturers hide the truth, including many household names among the producers of chocolate, sweets and soft drinks, making any meaningful attempt to balance our diets impossible.

In hard summary, the seven deadly sins identified and documented in Lie of the Label were:

The Illusion—hiding information such as the fact that mechanically recovered chicken was the main ingredient of a product sold as 'mince and onion'.

Weasel Words—meaningless terms to enhance a product name such as 'wholesome' and 'natural'.

Rose Tinted Spectacles—clever photography or the use of small plates, making the portion shown in the picture bigger than the actual contents.

The Bluff—overclaims such as dried pasta that is 'free from preservatives' when it is not allowed to contain preservatives by law.

The Hidden Truth—for instance the actual meat content in a 'meat pie'.

The Half Truth—details of what is not in the product instead of what is: for example, the 80% fat-free crisps sounded healthy; but the 20% fat that remained was still very high.

The Small Print—the 'hard sell' is made clear enough but poor contrast and small fonts make important ingredient information difficult to find, even for people with 20:20 vision, and mock the plight of the visually impaired.

Taken together this catalogue of economies with the truth today involve millions of British consumers in about the biggest stitch-up since the Bayeux Tapestry.

Before saying any more about sinning I turn briefly, however, to a striking example of virtue. It concerns a world "first" recently achieved in Britain by creating the technology to braille the packaging of retail goods. While as I have shown some strive to hide vital information, even from sighted people, that achievement by the Co-operative movement is now making it clearly available to people who are blind. And I pay special tribute this evening to the constancy and commitment of Terry Hudghton, of the Co-operative Group, in having pioneered this humane advance in labelling which, by example, will benefit blind people worldwide.

It took two years of painstaking work to develop the technology needed to start brailling and it was first used on own brand medicines including analgesics and vitamins. They were chosen for priority because serious safety issues arise for blind people. To give but one example, without Braille it is impossible for them to distinguish between cartons of paracetamol and aspirin.

I had the pleasure with David Blunkett, Colin Low of the RNIB and Peter White of the BBC, of launching the project in the East End of London. Wide media coverage significantly raised public awareness of all the difficulties and dangers faced by visually impaired consumers. The new technology has since been shared with the industry as a whole to facilitate the application of Braille to an ever-increasing range of consumer goods. This demonstrated that, while the development process had been long and time-consuming, it was not undertaken for commercial gain but rather as an expression of social responsibility and human concern.

Five years after the challenge to the industry posed by Lie of the Label to adopt ethical labelling policies and procedures, the follow-up Lie of the Label 2 report reveals only slow progress. There have been three significant changes in legislation: a requirement to declare the percentage of principal ingredients; the inclusion of genetically modified ingredients and additives; and the identification of country of birth, rearing and slaughter of cattle in beef products And while the Food Standards Agency continues to produce guidelines and codes of practice, they are difficult to enforce and frequently ignored.

It is against this backdrop that Lie of the Label 2 stresses the urgent need for more effective legislation. Since 1990 there have been two options available: the so-called "Big Four"—energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat; and the "Full Eight"—these same four plus sugars, saturates, fibre and sodium. But since both options are legally required only when a nutrition claim is made, producers of fatty, sugary and salty foods often choose not to list nutrition on the pack. While that is bad enough, NOP's extensive consumer research on the two available nutrition information formats shows them to be confusing to shoppers and of little value in making informed purchasing decisions.

The reality, then. is that manufacturers can still choose not to declare nutrition information and that, even when they do, consumers often find it meaningless. The effect of this on the prevalence of obesity alone strongly emphasises the vitally important need for clear nutrition information on packs if consumers are to understand the value of a product and balance their diets in full awareness of the health risks involved.

In assessing health risks, fat is one of the main concerns. Most of us recognise the importance of controlling the fat we eat. Eighty-six per cent of NOP's respondents said clear labelling would reduce obesity and the health risks it creates. Even so traders persist in throwing dust in the eyes of consumers by implying that their products are low in fat when they are not or fail to give due prominence to fat content.

For good measure they also act in contempt of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group's guidance that: Since x per cent fat free claims can be misunderstood, they should not be made".

Where products are mainly fat in nature, such as butter or margarine, good practice is to declare the fat content on a main selling face; but on too many packs it is consigned to the bottom face. This is all the more disturbing since they could be termed "low" or "reduced" fat but still contain a significant amount. Unsurprisingly, 78 per cent of people polled by NOP believe a spread labelled "low fat" to be just that, while in truth over a third of the product is fat. This is typical of the willingness of many people to accept a company's claims at face value—but have they not a right to this trust?

I turn now to sugar, the "arch criminal of dental decay". Sugars have no nutritional value. They displace nutritious foods from our diets and there are many good reasons for consuming less. Only one in four of us knows they are carbohydrates and companies dodge the nutrition labelling rules by hiding the amount of sugar in processed foods in their carbohydrate content declaration.

While starchy carbohydrates are an important part of a healthy diet, sugar is bad for teeth and contains only calories which, in excess, contribute to obesity. Sixty-three per cent of consumers recognise the need to control sugars to maintain a healthy diet, but the food industry is not allowing them to use the knowledge. Sustain's marketplace survey found many examples of sugary foods with no nutrition information. They include leading brands of biscuits, confectionery, soft drinks and frozen desserts, which fail to declare or list only partial information.

Most people know that too many sweets, high in sugar, are "bad" for us. But what of products we do not associate with high sugar? As manufacturers do not have to specify the sugar content, people unwittingly buy products they would studiedly avoid if they knew how much sugar they contain. With three in four consumers confusing sugar and carbohydrate and 46 per cent not knowing the relationship, it is highly irresponsible for nutrition panels not to list sugar separately.

Salt too is a major concern. It is easily controlled at the table, but 80 per cent of the salt we consume is in processed foods, making it inexcusable that we are not told how much salt is in the products we buy. And why can sodium be declared when salt cannot? After all there are two important problems with listing sodium. The first is that consumers do not relate to sodium the many health warnings about excess salt. Sixty per cent of people say that salt information is essential to healthy eating, while only 20 per cent say the same about sodium. The second problem, no less important, is that very few of us know the relationship between salt and sodium. Twenty-eight per cent think they are the same, but in fact sodium content usually has to be multiplied by 2.5 to reveal the salt content. So the 28 per cent who think salt and sodium are the same consume around two and a half times more salt than they think they are.

Again, it is harmful to consumers for information about sodium—but not salt—to be given on high salt foods. Without knowing the salt content the consumer cannot make an informed assessment of the food's safety. A glaring example is that of a leading brand of baked beans in tomato sauce. The sodium content is listed as 0.5 grams per 100 grams. On the surface that is a very small quantity, but it equates to 5 grams of salt per tin. This compares to a 6 gram maximum daily recommendation. So salt, like fat and sugar, can hide itself, due to the lack of mandatory legislation to vouchsafe the giving of clear information.

The case for such legislation applies all the more urgently when labelling "tricks of the trade" are used to make questionable health claims. Supermarket shelves are an arena where products jostle for position, each striving for the shopper's favour; and companies seeking a competitive edge increasingly claim that their product contributes to a healthy diet. Of course, every trader has the right to present a product in the best possible light. But this should not be allowed to conflict with the consumer's right to make an informed choice.

Take, however, a market-leading chocolate spread that claims to be rich in calcium, magnesium and vitamins. In fact it contains 33.5 per cent fat and an unspecified—but certainly high—amount of sugar. Its claim is blatantly calculated to lead parents buying it for their children to make a healthy eating association with the minerals and vitamins. Why else promote them on the front of the pack? Yet in truth the product is positively harmful when consumed as part of a diet already high in fat and sugar. Nevertheless 80 per cent of consumers shown the pack by NOP believed it to be healthy. In the same poll, half the respondents wanted an outright ban on such misleading claims.

The Joint Health Claims Initiative, made up of consumer organisations, enforcement authorities and industry bodies, was set up in 1997 to establish a code of practice on health claims on foods. Companies are not required to produce independent validation of health claims prior to marketing—only to defend a claim if challenged.

A further example of health risks from misleading labelling concerns the exploitation of consumer fear. Cholesterol in our blood is linked to a high risk of heart attack and strokes; but the amount of cholesterol in food has only a small effect on the cholesterol in our blood. The amount of fat, particularly saturated fat, has a much bigger effect on blood cholesterol. And the linkage can be positively dangerous when high-fat products make a cholesterol-free claim on the label.

The Joint Food Safety and Standards Group states: Since dietary cholesterol is not a major factor in coronary heart disease and there is a danger of confusion with blood cholesterol level, Ion' cholesterol claims should not be made".

That advice has been reiterated by the Food Standards Agency; but many such claims are still made in marketing high-fat products such as margarine and frying oils, rendering ludicrous the argument that stronger legislation is not required. To argue that now is to bark not just up the wrong tree but in the wrong forest.

The European Union has issued a working document which, if adopted, will put both nutrition and health claims on a legal footing but will not end all lying on food labels. Nor would the document allow claims to be linked with diseases, even where such links are well established, are based on official advice and could be helpful to consumers. For example, the link between folic acid consumption and the reduced risk of babies born with spina bifida. Surely here a message on the labelling of foods containing high levels of folic acid would be helpful for women intending pregnancy?

As a longstanding co-operator himself, I am sure my noble friend Lord Hunt will welcome the impact the movement's two reports Lie of the Label and Lie of the Label 2 have made in exposing the extent and seriousness of misleading food labelling; and that he will see the urgency of the case for stronger legislation to protect consumers. I know too that he will be as pleased as I am that since 1997—matching practice with precept—the Co-op has strictly applied its own code of practice for ethical standards in labelling. But exhortation and good example alone cannot solve the increasingly serious problem of misleading labelling without legislative change.

It may have been Mark Twain—if not it ought to have been—who said that, a lie can be half way round the world before truth has got his boots on".

What stronger legislation can do is to reduce the advantage lying so often enjoys over truth in the retailing of goods. Like misleading food labelling itself that advantage has increased, is increasing and must be diminished. This debate is about challenging that advantage and I much look forward to my noble friend's response.

Lord Fyfe of Fairfield

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising the matter of misleading food labelling. I am particularly pleased as I was a director of the Cooperative Group, the CWS, for 20 years, and its chairman for 11 years and was involved in many instances in the initiatives that led to more responsible food labelling.

I also have a personal interest. Throughout my adult life I have had periods of dietary problems. But my interest is not just business or personal; it is based upon my concern for the health of the population at large and the long-term consequences of unhealthy eating in terms of avoidable illness.

I shall focus on three items raised by my noble friend Lord Morris: first, Braille; secondly, the "Fairtrade" endorsement; and, finally, marketing to children. On Braille. difficulty understanding information is one thing, but not being able to see it is entirely another. In 2001 my noble friend Lord Morris helped the Co-op launch its Braille on product packaging initiative as part of its access-for-all policy. The Co-op continues to apply Braille to packaging wherever it can and it is working with the packaging industry to overcome specific technical issues and help other retailers to provide this important information.

To my knowledge no other retailer has followed the Co-op's lead. I believe that the Government should intervene to accelerate the process of providing Braille on packaging, in particular on medicinal products where grave dangers are caused by potential misidentification.

On "Fairtrade", there appears to be a growing number of endorsements appearing on the front of packaging these days—whatever those endorsements happen to mean—to the point that what are designed to be key selling points are competing with each other and being overlooked by highly confused customers. The endorsements include organic certification. farm assurance schemes and environmental issues, "eat five" and "animal friendly". The list goes on. It is not surprising therefore that many of those marks are not, according to the IGD, easily recognised or understood.

One such endorsement is the "Fairtrade" mark. This simple logo makes a difference to millions of people in developing countries who would otherwise toil in poverty to satisfy the western demand for products such as coffee, bananas and chocolate. Building awareness of this critical mark and sales of these products on which it is founded should be at the top of the agenda of any retailer who considers himself to be socially responsible.

The Co-op has recently taken a huge step in its market leading drive to bring Fairtrade into the mainstream, by converting all its own brand chocolate bars to Fairtrade sourcing. At the same time it has produced a report that investigates the cocoa market in terms of supply and inequality of trade and examines just what difference Fairtrade can make. The report challenges other retailers and the manufacturers of leading chocolate brands to develop Fairtrade products of their own.

I pick up on the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morris earlier relating to the very worrying trend of obesity in children, and raise the issue of the lack of government action in banning advertising during children's television hours. It is well documented that advertisers explicitly target children. The Co-op's report Blackmail of July 2000 revealed that of all the food products advertised during children's TV hours, 95 per cent were high in fat or sugar.

There seems little point in the Government investing in free fruit for primary school children if and when they sit down in front of the television after a hard day's study, they are brainwashed into pestering parents for all manner of sugary and fatty foods. Recently 130 MPs signed an Early Day Motion asking the Government to ban advertising to pre-school children.

Last year more than £161 million was spent on advertising chocolate and confectionery; a further £34 million was spent on advertising crisps and snacks. Much of that will have been targeted directly at children. But advertisers claim that parents also watch those adverts and so do not produce figures for specific child marketing. Those huge advertising spends compare to just £5 million spent on advertising fruit in the same period. It really is quite staggering.

I do not suggest for a moment that fruit or vegetables are completely free of danger. One of the deadliest vegetables I am acquainted with—to my cost—is cucumber, which really can have devastating effects upon one's digestive system. Those of us who have enjoyed the hospitality of Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace may find that that portion of the food available is highly inedible. Certainly, I would caution great care when dealing with cucumber. But. like so many other foods, of course it is subject to trial and error. One does not know that one is allergic to it until one has suffered the consequences of it. After that brief criticism of cucumber no doubt I shall be railed at by the cucumber growing association—if there is such a body—if they hear of that comment in the House.

The food industry denies that it is responsible for growing levels of obesity, blaming instead cultural shifts and lack of physical activity. Part of that may be true. But the simple question is: if advertising of fatty and sugary foods does not encourage purchase, why is so much spent on marketing?

As part of its Blackmail campaign two years ago, the Co-op committed itself to a voluntary ban on advertising high fat, sugar and salt products during children's TV hours and called on the Independent Television Commission and other parties in the food industry to do the same. The Co-op has gone further still, banning the use of child oriented marketing on such products in stores, such as in leaflet promotions, including free gifts and using cartoon characters on packs as part of the store environment. Where is the progress elsewhere in the industry and what is the motivation for such progress when the Government apparently will not take a strong stance on the way in which the food industry is damaging our children's health?

I say that because although self-regulation by manufacturers and retailers is highly desirable, it is I regret to say also highly unlikely. That is why I believe that the Government must take a strong line.

Perhaps we could spare a thought once in a while for the working mother with limited time and a modest budget. Her priority, quite understandably, is to fill her children's stomachs. She may not have the time or the inclination to analyse food labelling or the knowledge to discard misleading information. That is why labelling must be clear and easily understood. That is a matter, frankly, of education.

The costs to the NHS arising from misleading and inaccurate labelling must be enormous. I would not care to hazard a guess, and I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to do so. However, he may care to give the matter some consideration and, perhaps, reply in writing. The cost must be enormous.

A great deal has been done to improve dietary information. Much remains to be done. I know that my noble friend the Minister shares the concern expressed on these Benches. I look forward to his response.

7.40 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords. I begin by declaring my interest as a consultant to the Cooperative Group, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on his excellent overview of the situation. He sought not only to highlight the contribution of the Co-operative Group but, I hope, to alert us to what was known in the Co-op movement as "consumer education". That was the fashionable phrase then.

I remember Caspar Brook helping to create the Consumers' Association 50 years ago. I remember how the movement was created. Although there are blemishes, pitfalls and disappointments, when I look back over the advances made in consumer education over the past 50 years, I find it remarkable. Of course, one of the original principles of the Rochdale pioneers, more than 150 years ago, was to educate the consumer. Ordinary people could neither read nor write, and they certainly required some uplift, which they got.

I remember a remarkable coincidence. When I entered the House, I met the former Labour Chief Whip, Lady Pat Llewelyn-Davies. She was a great lady and a great Chief Whip. I said to her that the only other Llewelyn-Davies that I had come across was Margaret Llewelyn-Davies, the first national secretary of the Women's Co-operative Guild. The guild's motto was "The woman with the basket". It made no pretence: it was interested in the lot of the ordinary working woman. Lady Llewelyn-Davies said that her husband, Dick, was the grandchild of Margaret LlewelynDavies. That was a remarkable link, and it was humbling to realise that there was such continuity.

It is not just the Co-op movement. One of the things that I have acknowledged is the fact that most large supermarket organisations—whether through Cooperative initiatives or not—long ago recognised that they ignored the interests of the consumer at their peril. There was a commercial benefit as well as a social benefit. Speaking corporatively, I might call it a dividend, which accrued to business. As a student. I learnt the phrase "Caveat emptor"—"Let the buyer beware". That tag, which explains it all, says, "You know what you're buying, or you ought to. If you decide to buy it and pay for it and it turns out to be a dud, that's your fault". That is a point of view, and I have bought as many things as anybody in the House, only to get home and realise that I had not wanted to buy what I had, in fact, bought.

My twopennyworth about the subject of labelling is the extent to which it has crept into our lives. It is remarkable. I went to see a lovely lady who is a dietician in my local GP practice—a lady called Linda—and what she drummed into me was that I should read the label and understand what it tells me. She told me the guidelines for fat, sugar and calorific intake. It was good common sense.

It is not a party issue and never has been. The first lady to be chairman of the National Consumer Council was Lady Elliot of Harwood, a great lady, who was in the House when I came here, in the 1980s, and had a first-class record. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is not unfamiliar with her role and work. Lady Macleod and Naomi McIntosh, wife of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, were also chairmen of national bodies. There has been a growth in protection for the consumer, and the Minister will not take it amiss if we prod him, when he discusses with his colleagues how to do things better.

One of the things that I found out when I listened to my dietician and read the label was the extent to which cholesterol played an important part for someone such as myself—not obese, but fatter than he would like to be and recognising the danger of having too high a level of cholesterol. Everyone in the House will know that that level should be down between five and seven, for a man. I have managed to get between five and seven, but I have heard of people who have gone to the doctor with a problem and have been told that their cholesterol level was 15 or 16 and had to be brought down. It can be brought down, provided that we follow the advice.

One piece of advice that I picked up was that it is possible for someone who has a liking for a certain thing—marmalade, for instance—to find a substitute. I suffer from diabetes, so I follow a little regime and look after myself in that way. My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester swept up everything in his tour de force and did not leave the rest of us much to get our teeth into. He dealt with the problem of cholesterol and the manner in which the unscrupulous—or careless—producer and labeller tries to sell his products and says to himself that it is up to the buyer to know what the label says.

On the basis of experience in the Co-op movement and elsewhere, we can say that we are in an age in which ordinary people—families, young mothers, wives—lead not one life but two or, sometimes, three. I remember how my mother looked after a family of five, with my dad on the dole. She made everything—the bread, the puddings, everything. I used to go down to the Grainger Market in Newcastle and buy the products as cheaply as I could. I bought the sheep's head; she made the soup. I bought the rabbit; she made the rabbit pie. I have pleasant memories of the quality of the food. Those days are gone, except for those on the lowest income, people on a tiny budget, as my noble friend Lord Fyfe of Fairfield said in his excellent speech. He missed out the fact that, for many years, he was the chief officer of a Co-operative Society and had to put his reputation on the line every week about quality.

I hope that the Government will apply themselves to the question of whether it is right that women should go to work. Is it right that people use a car to go shopping? Is it right that the big supermarkets get bigger and the number of competitors smaller? That is not the object of today's debate. The object is to say to the Minister that there is a job of work to be done. That job does not rely just on the Government, or retailers, or producers, or suppliers, or wholesalers; it depends on the concerted effort of everyone. I am sure that the Minister will tell us of the various initiatives which he and his colleagues are taking in an attempt to try to obtain a consensus of how we should be approaching the issue. It will not be easy because if it costs money to either the Government or the producer, there will be resistance.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Fyfe made one of the most valuable contributions today. Ultimately, if we eat badly or poorly, the consequence is that we shall become ill more quickly than we might otherwise. The costs fall on the consumers because the National Health Service picks up the bill. When I see illustrations in the newspapers about people who are obese or who abuse themselves with drink, drugs or in any other way, I become as boiling mad as anyone because they have done it to themselves.

However, the Government with their resources, their research and their dedication, have the opportunity to deal with the problem far better than any retailer or group. Reflecting on the advances that have been made by ordinary people in so many ways, it would be 1,000 pities if, in the next decade or two, we find that people's greed. ignorance or pure cussedness lead us into the state that I believe we are in danger of becoming.

One might say as I say, "If they cannot look after themselves why should anybody else look after them?". But that ought not to be the spirit in this country. I do not believe that it is. I look forward to the Minister giving us hope that the matters highlighted are not only well known, but are also understood by him and his colleagues, and that they have some solutions to the problems.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is, of course, correct. The mislabelling of food is wrong. There is no party political divide on that. If there is a mislabelling, the Government would be right to crack down on it as hard and vigorously as they could.

I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in introducing this brief debate. I did not intend to contribute because the debate seemed to be a proposition so worthy in its objective that it would be something that would enjoy universal approval in this House. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, cannot be allowed to get away with his brutal attack on the dumb but humble cucumber.

It is a wonderful plant and I believe that someone must speak up for it. That is my only purpose in contributing to this brief debate today. I agree that some modern cucumbers are so bland, awful and unacceptable, that no one should eat them. However, I hope that I might persuade the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, on one occasion at least to come with me to the land that the Ancient Greeks once described as Arcadia—the modern republic of Georgia. The Georgians have as a starting dish the simplest food which must be entirely acceptable to everyone. It is a simple dish of ugly tomatoes—certainly not grown for their external beauty, but wonderful in their taste—and cucumbers—certainly not prepared or grown for their external beauty but, again, wonderful in their taste. Combine the two together, sliced, covered with walnut oil and walnut flour, eat with rough bread and a glass of wine, and I ask anyone to find me a simpler, more beautiful dish in the world.

If the noble Lord objects to cucumbers, I hope that he will come at least on one occasion to Tbilisi to appreciate that it is not some dumb, stupid, clumsy vegetable, but really something of great beauty and taste.

Lord Fyfe of Fairfield

My Lords, perhaps I may make a confession. My consumption of cucumber is probably limited to the domestic variety. However, I should be very happy to accept the noble and learned Lord's invitation.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord, speaking of cucumbers, care to repeat that?

7.56 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, someone has just said, "Follow that"! I expect most noble Lords are merely wanting to get away for dinner now that that exquisite description of food has taken place.

The debate, which was well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has highlighted a very important area of everyday life. People should be able to trust the food that they buy and that it is what it says it is. At the moment, the most certain thing for most people is simply the price. They are not certain what they are getting for that price.

Food bought falls into two main categories—food that is bought to eat or cook at home and food bought when eating out. I believe that misleading labelling in canteens or restaurants is equally worthy of further government attention. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that issue.

In both those areas consumers are rightly demanding more information about what they put in their bodies as well as on other issues such as animal welfare and food miles. Those are the types of issues, together with the desire to ascertain what is not in their food, that have made the organic movement so singularly successful. Bearing in mind the Question asked earlier today about the Food Standards Agency, I believe that it is deliberately myopic of the Food Standards Agency to concentrate on whether organic food is more nutritious or not.

That is only a small part of the question. People are reassured by the fact that organic food does not contain pesticides or antibiotics. The Soil Association aims for its members to produce food of as high a standard as possible. Its label has become one of great reassurance.

There is, too, real interest from shoppers in local and regional labelling. People want their local produce to be more clearly labelled. Here, I must declare an interest as chairman of Somerset Food Links and as a Somerset county councillor. Both those bodies have been working on developing a form of labelling that is suitable for local producers to use. It may sound simple to print labels saying "Produce of Somerset" and slap it on food or other products. Actually, it is far more complicated than that. To produce a scheme that can be verified properly by Trading Standards, who will have to police it, has proved difficult.

However, we are having some success. We shall see a label during this year. I know that several other counties, too, have embarked on this work. During the next couple of years, the ease with which people will be able to identify what is their local or regional food will improve greatly. Part of the difficulty that the public have had is that they simply have not known where the food originates.

Many retailers, especially in the independent sector—delicatessens and butchers—and the Co-op, which has been mentioned many times today, have made significant voluntary efforts to provide customers with very good, accurate descriptions of their produce. That is perhaps true of butchers in particular.

Therefore, it was a great surprise to me, and very disappointing, that Food from Britain this year—far from recognising these efforts from a sector that has kept the concept of British food alive during the past couple of decades—should see fit to award their Retailer of the Year Award to the American giant Wal-Mart. I believe that someone from the independent sector might have merited that award. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that having heard at great length of the work of the Co-op—both on fair trade and labelling issues—they, too, had a claim for that award. I do not expect the Minister to deal with that point in his reply, but I merely want to register my disappointment with that outcome.

There are many ways in which the public can be misled by the various adjectives. They include traditional, farm fresh, country style, tasty, mature, classic, finest and gourmet. I went through them at the weekend while conducting a small survey in preparation for the debate. I could probably have taken up two minutes reading out the list of adjectives I found on the cheese counter alone. However, I believe that on the whole consumers understand that those are marketing devices and I do not find their use too difficult a concept. I believe that they are not so much a deliberate attempt to mislead as a reasonable attempt to create an image.

Far more serious is a matter which was well picked up by the Consumers' Association in December 2002 in its report on misleading descriptions of processed food, The Ready Meals Market. That is a salutary survey of the current position. Ready meals list the ingredients in the order of the quantities in which they appear in the meals. However, that is useful only if one can read well, if one can read at all and if one is not long-sighted. When I was looking at the packaging, I found that in many instances I needed a magnifying glass—and my sight is not that bad! Otherwise, one will rely on the name of the product.

As regards the name of the product, one would imagine that an "Ocean Pie" was mainly fish or products of the ocean. But the one I examined contained 80 per cent ingredients other than fish. A Birds Eye chicken pie contained only 18 per cent chicken, 2 per cent peas and 2 per cent carrots. I had to ask myself why they bothered with the vegetables which amounted to such a small portion of the ingredients.

A large part of many ready meals is made up of bulkers; tapioca, starch and potato and wheat derivatives. That is the worst kind of misdescription. Dolmio creamy mushroom sauce contained 11 per cent mushrooms, but my winner in the survey was a Heinz chicken in a creamy mushroom sauce with new potatoes. I would have assumed that it contained mostly chicken—perhaps at least 30 per cent chicken—but no, it contained only 11 per cent.

Noble Lords have highlighted the results of eating a diet of such ready meals which are high in starch, sugar and salt and low in vegetables, meat or fish. At first glance, such meals may look good value, but I believe that at £1.50 or more for a dollop of wheat, tapioca and potato, with some flavourings and a smattering of protein, it is not good value and work needs to be done in this area.

No doubt your Lordships will recall the Sunny Delight debate when a drink purporting to be a fruit product had to withdraw its claim to be an orange juice. The product now makes no claim to be orange juice. However, on the shelf below the stack of Sunny Delight in my local Tesco in huge letters was a shelf-screamer which claimed "orange outburst". That was clearly designed to mislead. I therefore believe that together with food manufacturers the supermarkets should take responsibility for trying hard to describe the product. Perhaps my winner in this area was the new Disney range "Roo Juice". Noble Lords might assume that it is squashed kangaroo, but actually it is apple and strawberry juice and a lot of sweeteners.

Finally on fruit juices, often they are labelled as being sugar free. They are sugar-free but they contain a great deal of artificial sweetener such as aspartame about which many health doubts have been raised. I must at this point mention the best among the fruit juices for accurate labelling. It was Copella, with its apple and elderflower, which was 99 per cent apple juice and 1 per cent elderflower.

The Food Standards Agency has come up with some useful guidance on clear labelling but it has yet to tackle misleading labelling. As the debate shows, that issue is of fundamental importance. It is no use being able to read the labels if still they are misleading. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government believe it to be their ultimate responsibility to ensure that people have protection from being exploited either by canteens, restaurants, pubs or supermarkets.

8.5 p.m.

Baroness Wilcox

My Lords, I, too, want to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing to the attention of the House the issue of misleading food labelling. I congratulate him on a most informative but deeply worrying and detailed account of the situation as he sees it. I believe that the debate will contribute to the ongoing progress towards clearer food labelling which is allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the purchases they make.

Here I must declare my interest. I have been in the food industry for 25 years. I come from a family of fish processors and suppliers of supermarkets nationally for many years, including Co-op Wholesale and Co-op Retail—companies we were delighted to work with. I come from the days when fish was wrapped in newspaper or in a brown bag. How times have changed! We have even heard about the possibility of a Braille label.

I must also declare that I am on the hoard of Cadbury Schweppes PLC, where I chair the main board committee on human rights, ethics and social responsibility and where we endeavour to trade fairly. I was also the chairman of the National Consumer Council for six years. I am president of the National Consumer Federation of the Consumer Policy Institute. I am also president of the Trading Standards Association.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, described most eloquently the progress which has been made thus far in consumer education. It was lovely to hear him talk about that great consumer champion, Lady Elliot. I have therefore had a lovely time of reminiscence. I hope that in listing my interests I have indicated that I can see the problem from both sides. I see it from the point of view of a manufacturer, where there is an understandable reluctance to cover every inch of the product with labels containing complex information, origins, ingredients and processes, let alone the dreaded special offer stickers which the supermarkets usually want putting on at the last minute when one has to try to find a space.

Sometimes the label is as large as the product itself, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, noted, the print on the label is reduced beyond legibility. All of this adds great costs to the products. Over the years, I have watched and I have seen how manufacturers—particularly the ones which were supplying supermarkets—have struggled to try to sell their product in an attractive packaging while at the same time trying to set out on their product all the information that is constantly required.

On the other hand, the needs and rights of the consumer to be easily able to gather relevant information about products they wish to buy must be paramount. We are not talking only about someone who checks a label for a few calories but about those for whom food labelling is extremely important: those who have allergies and for whom avoiding certain ingredients is a question of life and death; and those with health concerns or moral and religious beliefs which dictate the choices they make as consumers.

I would like to think that the needs and wants of the manufacturer and of the consumer are not irreconcilable. That may be a job for the Minister when he replies to the debate. Standardisation is needed. Let us have enforceable guidelines from the Food Standards Agency for manufacturers so that all concerned know what are the expectations. Consumers can then make direct comparisons between products with the confidence that they are not being misled, and the manufacturers themselves will have an even playing field, safe in the knowledge that their competitors face identical requirements.

The food labelling regulations of 1996 took us some of the way, but clearly more needs to be done. Accurate information on the country of origin must be standard. Part of this must involve closing the unhelpful loophole which allows meat reared and slaughtered abroad to be labelled as British as long as it undergoes some minor further processing in the United Kingdom. To this end, I fully support the Private Member's Bill in another place which makes a good start at tackling the problem.

More work must be done to protect certain groups of consumers. For those with allergies and those with religious or moral beliefs about what they eat, there should be the removal of the rule whereby ingredients do not have to be included on the label if they make up less than 25 per cent of the overall product; and more must be done to protect those with safety concerns over GM foods and those with, as I have learnt today, health concerns and disabilities that need consideration—even difficulties with cucumbers.

This should all be relatively straightforward, but there is another aspect to the debate that must be, and has been, addressed. By far the most widespread misleading food labelling—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, explained this so clearly with his seven deadly sins—involves more subtle marketing strategies: words, pictures and symbols that are implicitly used to mislead consumers by drawing them to make false conclusions about the products that they buy.

Presently there are no obligatory guidelines for the use of words that can be used to mislead consumers such as "Light", "Low Fat", "Traditional" and "Pure". Moreover, frequently pictures on labels are designed to bring about a belief that what is on the label is featured highly in the ingredients. This can be extremely misleading—for example, Knorr Tastebreaks creamy chicken pasta, which has pictures of succulent chickens featuring significantly on the label but contains only minute traces of chicken in the product.

To clarify this muddle of misleading labelling, criteria for claims—whether explicit or implicit—need to be clearly defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, said, matters need to be clear and easily understood. We need a list of approved words and symbols and a minimum standard must be met in order to make certain claims. Thus confusing labelling could be replaced by a clear system of coding which the consumer is able to trust.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate, to this further call for action—from all sides of your Lordships' House, I am glad to say—on misleading labelling.

8.12 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

My Lords, it has been an excellent and informative debate. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for his excellent introductory speech. He was absolutely right to make the connection between the speech he gave today and his tremendous work in bringing forward the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill so many years ago.

As he rightly said, the debate today focuses on the experience of individuals in this country. People who are chronically sick and disabled need to have confidence that, on the issue of food labelling, they ultimately understand what they are buying and that they can rely on the system to ensure that they know what it is they are being asked to purchase.

My noble friend is a past distinguished president of the Co-operative Congress. My noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Fyfe also undertook such senior office in the Co-operative movement. I bring no great qualification in terms of seniority in the Co-operative movement, although I am a member of the Cooperative Party and of the Midlands Co-operative Society, and my children have been active in the Woodcraft Folk movement, which is closely associated with the Co-operative movement. I believe that we should be very proud of what the Co-operative movement has achieved over the years. When we come to debate the issue of foundation trusts in the reasonably near future, it will become apparent that many of our proposals for the future organisation of the NHS rest on the philosophy and values of the Cooperative movement. Indeed, we have received a great deal of advice from the Co-operative movement on how we should take forward the organisation of the NHS at local level.

My noble friend Lord Graham referred to the historic links between Members of this House and members of the Co-operative movement. He mentioned in particular Margaret Llewelyn-Davies and Pat Llewelyn-Davies. Hattie Llewelyn-Davies continues this work through the generations and is currently chair of an NHS organisation in Hertfordshire.

The question of Braille is very interesting. While it is very valuable that the Co-op has introduced Braille on many products, as a health Minister I am particularly interested in the introduction of Braille on many over-the-counter medicines, and I pay tribute to the society. I agree with my noble friend Lord Fyfe that we should encourage other retailers to do likewise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, legibility is of crucial importance to many people, whether in regard to food, medicines or other retail products.

As a health Minister, I am greatly concerned about the question of obesity. My noble friend Lord Fyfe asked about the impact of obesity on the National Health Service. We reckon that 21 per cent of adults in England are obese. A further 34 per cent of women and 45 per cent of men are over weight. The prevalence of obesity in England has trebled since the 1980s.

My noble friend asked about the cost. I cannot give him precise figures, but a report by the National Audit Office highlighted the substantial burden of obesity on our society. Taking health, social and financial costs together, the NAO estimated that obesity costs the economy in excess of £2.5 billion each year.

Our action in relation to the food industry has an important role to play in tackling obesity. But I believe that the question goes wider. The national school fruit scheme, the efforts that we are making to improve health programmes generally, and the encouragement particularly of young people but of all people to take part in exercise programmes are of equal importance.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Fyfe that the whole issue of the promotion of food to children is very important. The Food Standards Agency is considering a number of programmes to tackle these issues. It has established an independent expert review of the available evidence. That will pick up some of the issues that my noble friend has raised about the role of TV advertising in food choice. It will also examine surveys of the nutritional content of some foods promoted to children. I hope that that work will give rise to more concerted action in relation to the promotion of food to children. All of us who are parents know that this is not by any means an easy issue to tackle; nor is it easy for schools. Schools which have made brave attempts to promote healthy eating have often been knocked back because there has been a consumer reaction and they have lost money. We need to do a great deal of work in health and in education to try to move forward in a way that takes children with us, which is what we must do.

I come now to cucumbers! The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, invites my noble friend to accompany him to Tbilisi. Other speakers too would be very willing to do so. I think that my noble friend risks a transition from eating cucumbers with Her Majesty to eating cucumbers at Her Majesty's pleasure if cucumber lovers have their way! The substantive point is that food is a great thing, but it also carries its risks. We seek to provide informed information to enable individual consumers to make up their own mind. I am sure we all agree with that.

We are all consumers. As consumers we have a right to expect clear, honest and accurate food labels so that we can make properly informed choices. My noble friend Lord Morris made a powerful and persuasive speech to that end. My noble friend Lord Graham said, "Let the buyer beware". The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave some excellent examples of why the buyer has to beware. There is no doubt that the importance of food labels is increasing as consumers become more discerning and the food industry introduces new products, new technologies and new ways of processing food.

I agree that consumers have a number of concerns about the way food is labelled. Can they believe what they are being told? Are they able to understand the information they are given? Is that information clear? Is it relevant? Is it easy to find and to read? Consumers want information on labels for a number of reasons. Not everyone necessarily wants the same information. People with allergies need very specific information to avoid substances to which they may have an allergy. For them, that information can be a matter of life and death.

As my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, suggested, others look for specific health benefits. They may be attracted to food making claims such as "low fat", "reduced salt", or "helps maintain a healthy heart". There are those consumers who just want to know that they are getting value for money and are not being taken for a ride when they make a purchase, as my noble friend Lord Graham suggested.

Whatever our personal attitudes to the many concerns consumers may have, there is surely one thing about which we are all agreed: that there should be clear, accurate and honest information so that the consumer can make properly and fully informed choices. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Government believe that it is crucial to make sure that we can combat misleading food labelling. For that we undoubtedly need proper regulatory tools and effective enforcement of those rules.

We know that consumers are not satisfied with the current regulatory position. We know that they are concerned that some claims, particularly those made on foods which may contain lots of fat, sugar or salt may not be reliable or simply fail to tell the whole story. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave us some excellent examples. There is also evidence to suggest that, despite there being regulations to protect consumers, there may still be products on the shelves which are mislabelled or labelled in ways that they feel are misleading. That is an enforcement issue.

Clearly, we have regulations. We have laws which provide certain safeguards although, I readily accept, not all the safeguards that noble Lords would wish for. But as a first step to improving the current situation, it is important that enforcement of the current law is as adequate as possible. I believe that there is some good news here. I pay tribute to the work of law enforcement officers. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has a particular relationship now with trading standards officers. I pay tribute to them and the environmental health services provided.

When the Food Standards Agency was created, one of its responsibilities was to ensure the effectiveness of enforcement across the UK. A framework agreement on local food law enforcement was fully implemented in April 2001. Importantly, that gives the FSA a clear role and remit to monitor, set standards and audit the performance of the individual local authorities. That is an important step to encouraging consistency—we all want consistency; industry needs consistency—and a vigorous but proportionate approach. Ultimately, if an audit identifies real failure by a local authority to discharge its functions adequately, the agency has powers of direction and report. It has not used them yet; but they are powerful ammunition to encourage local authorities to take the matters seriously.

Noble Lords commented on the Food Standards Agency's guidelines. They are not statutory but are valuable in giving enforcers and the industry a clear framework within which to encourage and adopt consistent, appropriate labelling practices. Many retailers, including butchers. as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, and the Co-operative movement, as several others said, have played their part in constructive dialogue. Although I fully accept that we need to look at the statutory framework under which we operate, there is much room to work constructively with industry to ensure that good practice is adopted. Retailers will benefit if they develop good practice, because more consumers will use their products. We wish to emphasise the need for good practice alongside statutory regulation.

The FSA has emphasised several points in its guidance. First, in the ticklish area of places of origin, it makes clear that origin labels on food must be unambiguous. It stresses the importance of clear labelling and, in particular, the need to consider how consumers will interpret labels and store displays. I readily accept the problem. Bacon or ham, for instance, processed in Britain using Danish pork should not be described or presented as British. The agency has recently published guidance on the terms "fresh", "pure" and "natural", which I hope will be extremely helpful. It has also published advice aimed at improving the clarity of food labels. That was another concern highlighted in the Co-op's excellent reports.

I readily accept that guidance can take us only so far and that we need to look at the legislation. Much of it is harmonised at EU level. The Government undoubtedly welcome the recent Commission initiative to review EU labelling legislation. Commissioner David Byrne recently announced a comprehensive review of that legislation. The Commission has made clear that it places labelling clarity and country of origin labelling high on its list of priorities. It is employing consultants to carry out the review and has set up a steering group to oversee the work. It is anticipated that it will report towards the end of 2003. Industry and consumer interests are represented on the steering group.

The Government will take a pro-active role in arguing our cause within Europe. The Food Standards Agency has a critical role to play in European discussions. Among the things we want are a full declaration of specified food allergens in ingredient lists and more comprehensive ingredient lists to help those who want to avoid certain foods. Proposals aimed at achieving that have already reached common position stage in Brussels and are likely to be finally adopted later this year.

I note what my noble friend Lord Morris said about the need to see links between certain foods and diseases. I understand that consumers want easy-to-use nutrition labelling on all foods and agreed criteria for making health and nutrition claims such as "low fat", "high fibre", "good for the heart", "lowers cholesterol", et cetera. The Commission is drawing up proposals to address those issues. We will seek to ensure during negotiations that proposals are as comprehensive and as consumer-focused as possible. We have also been successful as the UK Government in persuading the Commission, with the support of other member states, to look at the rules on origin labelling.

I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about catering outlets. I know that research has indicated a number of different information issues with regard to non-pre-packed foods and foods sold in catering establishments. I believe that there is a balance to be drawn in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about the degree of information that needs to be available, but the agency is to hold a stakeholder meeting in late January 2003 to establish the way forward. I hope that that move will be seen as a constructive response.

In conclusion, I should stress that I am by no means complacent about the current position. I take the strictures of my noble friend Lord Graham to heart. There cannot be any room for complacency. We must be ever vigilant. However, at the same time, short of the legislative changes that we shall undoubtedly see in the next few years, there remains much to be done in partnership with the responsible end of the industry. I commend the Food Standards Agency for its approach. We have had an extremely constructive debate this evening. I end my remarks by thanking my noble friend Lord Morris for his quite excellent opening speech.

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.