On 17 March 2009, I introduced a Bill into the House of Commons to change the law on food labelling. The aim is to give consumers more information about where the food they buy comes from

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 to provide for information about the country of origin of food to be made available to consumers; and for connected purposes.

Mr Speaker, many Members from across the House have attempted to improve the law on food labelling, including my honourable friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Brentwood and Ongar and the honourable lady the Member for Warrington South. This is my own third attempt and I keep going because there is widespread support for the idea that consumers should have clearer, more accurate and more honest information about the food they buy.

My Bill has the support of Members across the House and is intended to deal with one particularly pernicious problem in relation to food labelling, which is that consumers buying meat and meat products are routinely being misled as to the country of origin due to inadequate and even deceptive labelling.

The European Directive 2000/13/EC relating to the labelling of food makes it very clear that:

The prime consideration for any rules on the labelling of foodstuffs should be the need to inform and protect the consumer.

It goes on to state that:

Detailed labelling….is the most appropriate since it creates fewest obstacles to free trade.

And also that:

The rules on labelling should also prohibit the use of information that would mislead the purchaser.

The British rules on food labelling are contained in Regulation 5 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, introduced prior to the European Directive but covering much the same ground. This states that all food to which the Regulations apply:

“…shall be marked or labelled with particulars of the place of origin or provenance of the food if failure to give such particulars might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the food.”

So one could be forgiven for thinking that the law was already quite clear and sufficient. Unfortunately, this is not the case and consumers are continuing to be misled.

On some foodstuffs no indication will be given at all that the product is made with imported meat, such as with a Tesco Chicken Dinner in a range of children’s meals that simply states “Produced in the UK” when the chicken actually comes from Thailand.

Sometimes, a phrase will be used to imply country of origin, for example the Birds Eye “Great British menu” range, which on closer examination turns out to be made with imported meat.

Sometimes the label will be deliberately vague, as with Sainsbury’s Roast Chicken Slices, which the label describes as “Produced from Brazilian or British Chicken”.

At present, producers of imported meat can lawfully use the Union flag on packaging to imply that the product is British when it is not – and they do so. Marks and Spencer have been selling a corned beef sandwich as part of its ‘nation’s favourites’ range with a Union Flag that dominates the whole of the front of the label. In small letters on the back is the information that the beef comes from Brazil.

To their credit Marks and Spencer have now recognised that customers may have been misled and are taking steps to repackage this product, although it still begs the question: why did Marks & Spencer use the Union Flag in the first place?

There is a widespread problem. Consumers are being misled.

The aim of the European Directive – to ensure that the rules prohibit the use of information that would mislead the purchaser – is not being met.

The aim of the UK’s own Food Labelling Regulations – which call for place of origin labelling if failure to do this might mislead a purchaser – is not being met.

There is clear evidence that consumers want more information – and quite frankly, consumers have a right to know.

An ICM poll for the Honest Food Campaign showed that 87 per cent of consumers in the survey believe the government should ensure the country of origin is clearly shown on food products.

89 per cent believed that a product such as sausages or bacon labelled as “British” or “Produced in the UK” should mean that the sausages or bacon are from an animal reared in Britain.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs himself said in January that:

“A pork pie made in Britain from Danish pork can legitimately be labelled as a British pork pie.”

And he added:

“That’s a nonsense, and it needs to change.”

I agree. So does the Farming Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Liverpool Wavertree, who recently appeared on the excellent programme on Channel 4, ‘Jamie Saves our Bacon’, and told Jamie Oliver that misleading labelling was - and I quote – “a disgrace”. Again, I agree.

The Right Honourable member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, when he was an Agriculture Minister, told the House ten years ago, in 1999:

“I want to give clear unambiguous information on the real place of origin, not place of processing or place of slicing; I want to clamp down on misleading place of origin descriptions; and I want to make further progress by lobbying the European Commission and other member states for a system of clear country of origin labelling.” (Hansard, 28 October 1999 at column 1126)

On 31st October last year, two days after my last Food Labelling Bill, the Food Standards Agency updated its food labelling guidance to include advice on country of origin labelling, which is welcome. The FSA acknowledges that:

“many consumers see the place of origin as an important contributor to a product’s identity, particularly for meat”.

However, this FSA best practice guidance is not mandatory and the FSA merely describes its guidance as:

“some suggestions that businesses may wish to consider” .

Well, they may. They may not. But what is clear is that this new guidance has not prevented the abuses which I described a moment ago and which were found in the shops just last month.

The FSA guidance recommends that Norwegian salmon smoked in Scotland should not be called “Scottish” smoked salmon but this isn’t compulsory and the danger remains that consumers will be misled.

Country of origin labelling will also benefit food safety.

Retailers did their best to withdraw Irish pork products during December’s Dioxin scare, but Irish pork processed anywhere in the UK does not have to state ‘Made with Irish pork’ and could still have been bought by unwary shoppers.

Clear country-of-origin food labelling would have stopped that from happening.

There is no shortage of agreement that there is a problem. The question is what we do about it. My conclusion is that the time has come for honest food labelling to be made compulsory.

Some people say that legislation on country of origin would amount to a restriction on free trade. I think this is simply to misunderstand what consumer choice is all about. It is very hard to see how providing consumers with clear and unambiguous information about where their food comes from could possibly be construed as ‘protectionist’.

More fully informed consumers do not protect particular market participants or hinder the operation of a marketplace – they make it work better.

Some consumers wish precisely to make choices based on the origins of food.

During the Apartheid era many people, finding Apartheid abhorrent, quite understandably wished to avoid buying fruit from South Africa.

Nowadays, people wish to know the origins of food to support by their spending choices high animal welfare standards, for example, or low food miles.

There is widespread support for better country of origin labelling, from farmers to chefs to animal welfare bodies.

Compassion in World Farming believes that meat and products containing meat should only be permitted to be labelled as “British” if the animal from which the meat was derived was born, reared and slaughtered in Britain.

The RSPCA has said transparent labelling is vital in assisting the consumer to make informed choices.

The Honest Food campaign is supported by leading chefs, such as Clarissa Dickson Wright, Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall, and Prue Leith.

My Bill focuses on meat and meat products because it is here where the biggest problem lies with consumers being misled. The British Pig Executive has described country of origin labelling as “a key area for improvement”.

There is some compulsory origin labelling already. A note from Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, an international organisation representing some 80 consumer bodies, made the argument for my Bill rather well when it stated:

“The EU has no mandatory country of origin labelling except for fruit, vegetables, beef, fish, eggs and wine” – and it could have added: honey, and olive oil.

It is time to have clear country of origin labelling for all meat.

It is simplistic to suggest that consumers will automatically buy British. The key point is that consumers should be able to make an informed choice. Some consumers may want to buy authentic Spanish Chorizo or German wurst because they like the taste. That is their choice.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, we have been waiting for years for a workable voluntary scheme for country of origin food labelling.

The time has come to accept that honest food labelling requires the force of law.

That is what consumers have the right to expect.

That is what my Bill provides.

I commend it to the House.