Fergus O'Dowd
Question:6 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the measures she intends to take to improve the standard of food labelling; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29204/04]
View answerThursday, 18 November 2004
Questions (6)
Oral answers (10 contributions)
Most recent food labelling developments have emanated from the Food Labelling Group, which was established in June 2002. The report published by the group in December of that year contained a series of recommendations, which were accepted. As food labelling is a particularly complicated and broad-based area that involves a number of Departments and agencies, an interdepartmental agency group was established to accelerate the implementation of the report.
In December 2002, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had policy responsibility for European Council Directive 2000/13/EC, which is the main legislation relating to labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs was responsible for the enforcement of the directive. The Department of Health and Children was responsible for policy on food labelling legislation relating to matters such as nutrition claims and novel foods. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland was responsible for the enforcement of the legislation. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was responsible for policy on labelling of fish and fish products and the authority was responsible for enforcement. The Department of Agriculture and Food was responsible for policy in respect of legislation on labelling of specific products ranging from beef, poultry and sugar to spirit drinks, coffee and fruit juices. The authority was responsible for the enforcement of the beef labelling regulations. The health boards operated the controls on the other products under the general aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
Good progress has been made to date on the implementation of the labelling report's 21 recommendations, many of which are beyond the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Food and some of which were to be activated only after others had been completed. The two main issues that emanated from the recommendations were the centralisation of enforcement in one agency and the definition of origin. Enforcement of all the food labelling regulations has been centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. This will not only streamline the enforcement measures but will also provide a one-stop shop for any complaints on the mislabelling of food. Incidentally, as part of the centralisation of enforcement, the centralisation of food labelling policy, with the exception of fish, in both the Department of Health and Children and my Department achieves another recommendation of the food labelling group.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There was full agreement in the food labelling group that consumers have a right to information on the origin of the meat that they cook in their homes or eat out. While the group could not agree on how origin should be defined, there was unanimous agreement that further research was necessary to establish consumers' wishes in the area. The consumer liaison panel has carried out that research, the results of which were presented in December 2003.
At the beginning of this year, two regulations on the labelling of poultry meat were introduced. The first requires poultry meat — both loose and pre-packaged — originating in a country outside the EU to bear an indication of the country of origin when offered for sale on a retail premises. The second requires information regarding class, price per unit weight, condition and slaughterhouse details in respect of loose — that is, non-prepackaged — poultry meat to be provided to the consumer.
The principal remaining issue involves the labelling of the origin of beef in the restaurant and catering sector. It had been intended to extend the existing rules by means of a statutory instrument. The enabling national legislation under which it was planned to draw up a statutory instrument has proved inadequate for the purpose. Primary legislation is now being considered in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children, possibly involving a change to the Health Act 1947. Once that has been enacted, statutory instruments will be introduced to cater for specific labelling requirements.
On the food labelling issue in general, my primary aim is to protect the consumer interest and ensure that the consumer is properly informed. Ireland is a major exporter of food and food products, and there are also considerable imports, so it is imperative that the same standards be applied to the labelling of foods in every sector and that there be a level playing field for the food industry at all levels. I hope to achieve that through the implementation in as full a manner as possible of the recommendations of the food labelling group.
I am glad to see that something is happening, since the Minister must have mentioned seven or eight agencies.
On beef, a topical issue, there is no doubt that the domestic European product fulfils the most rigorous standards in the world. However, does the Minister not agree that those standards do not apply to imports from abroad where the rules are comparatively lax? That has been highlighted by, the EU veterinary office on several occasions when it went abroad to inspect plants.
Does the Minister not therefore agree that there is now a need for clear and concise labelling of all meat products from retail level right through to restaurants, hotels and catering outlets to specify a country of origin? The Food Safety Authority has highlighted Irish-labelled beef that came from South America. An abuse of the system is obviously happening, and I know that there is an issue regarding reprocessing. Perhaps the Minister might, given that fact, examine dual labelling, something Irish industry is considering in Italy. One would have two labels, one indicating the country of origin and the other where the product is reprocessed. In that way, consumers could make an informed decision and know that they were buying an Irish product.
It is important when we discuss labelling that we differentiate it from traceability. The traceability procedure for beef is second to none. The issue of beef labelling has exercised the minds of many of us, particularly those in the farming fraternity who feel that they are unjustly competing with beef coming in from third countries. Unquestionably, it is the view of us all on this side of the House that we should proceed with the introduction of primary legislation. That is the best advice that has been given to us, and that will be done under the Health Act 1947. We hope to have that before the House fairly quickly following consultation with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and we hope that it will address the issue.
We have had many discussions with restaurateurs and commerce and I believe that they are prepared to take on the issue. I hope that, arising from that, it will address some of the concerns expressed by the farming fraternity. I will have to consider poultry and secondary labelling, but the source concerns many of us. We will certainly take into consideration the Deputy's views. Addressing beef labelling is a priority.
I certainly subscribe to concerns on the labelling and origin of beef, but I welcome the one-stop shop concept. Perhaps I might ask a broader question on food labelling, which is what the question is really about. I do not in any way detract from the important area of meat labelling from the agricultural point of view regarding trading and so on. However, in the UK, there is now a proposal that the food industry help by putting a traffic light code system in place with red, amber and green depending on the nutritional value of food. Perhaps the Minister might investigate the possibility of talking to the food industry in Ireland to try to work out some similar system. Nutrition is becoming significant regarding obesity.
My second question is in a somewhat lighter vein. Perhaps the Department might consider supplying us all with a magnifying glass so that we can read the labels. It is virtually impossible to decipher the fine print.
We will take a brief question from Deputies Naughten and Sargent.
Is the Minister satisfied with the level of traceability for products coming from such countries as Brazil? The EU veterinary office has raised serious concerns.
Several farmers, particularly in the organic sector, have asked if I might once again advance the argument for a national organic label. They have also made the point——
The question must be very brief. We have gone over time on this question.
That was it — the national organic label. However, one must bear in mind that many food products are composed partly of an import and partly of an Irish product. There must be some kind of label to articulate a 50% or similar quota. The situation regarding Irish and imported products is not black and white. Sometimes processed foods contain a mix.
A consumer liaison panel in the Department has carried out research on labelling and made several recommendations that are now being addressed. There will be a continuum on that issue, and I know that at its meeting today, labelling was on the agenda for further discussion. The traceability of which I speak concerns our own beef cattle. We know exactly when they were born, where they were reared, where they were slaughtered and where they came from. I am not as au fait with the other issues, and I would prefer not to give the Deputies an incorrect answer. Perhaps we might discuss it further later. I am sorry that Deputy Upton cannot read the labels; I do not even have the time to do so. However, the view — which I feel is right — is that, where people are aware, they can make an informed choice. That is important, and sometimes the consumer may be discerning but is perhaps not as much in favour of local producers as he or she should be. We are great Europeans, but I am a great Irishwoman too, and that is something that we should push.
Regarding a national organic label, I am interested in such food and have noticed to my disappointment that it is in most cases expensive and often imported. Perhaps, when we speak of an opportunity for alternative farming, we might examine support for organic enterprises, thus reducing their costs. We can certainly overdo labelling and be ridiculed, but there is nothing to say that, if we have a quality mark, we cannot have an organic mark. That need not be a problem and we will have to consider it. However, if we are to support organic enterprises — which I see as alternative ones — with the single farm payment, we will have to educate people on the issue. I am not detracting from mainstream production, but the opportunity will be afforded fairly soon.