But it was a famous victory

A quick diversion from serious matters and a reminder about the ridiculous olive oil controversy that, as every school child will know in weeks and months to come, ended with victory for Common Sense, an army led by the British negotiators (or something). Apparently not.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how United Kingdom representatives voted in the European Union Commission and COREPER on the Commission's proposal to ban the selling of olive oil in restaurants except in sealed non-refillable containers.

Ought to be an easy one: we voted against it and with our gallant allies defeated the dark monster. Errm, no. Lord De Mauley on behalf of HMG read out the reply his officials wrote for him:

During negotiations on an amendment to EU marketing standards for olive oil (Commission Regulation no. 29/2012) the Government consistently opposed a new EU requirement for bottles containing olive oil in the catering sector to be non-refillable and non-resealable from 1 January 2014. However, this only formed one element of the proposals which also included improved labelling provisions for consumers and the UK, therefore, abstained in the final vote. Given the support for the proposal from olive oil producing Member States, a vote against the proposal would have had no impact on the outcome.

Subsequent to the vote, common sense prevailed; the EU Agriculture Commissioner announced on 23 May that the proposal would be withdrawn and that he would consult further on the issue before deciding next steps. We await the outcome of those consultations.

It seems that the massed forces of Common Sense were led by someone else as the British negotiators abstained in the vote as it would have had no impact, given the support from olive oil producing countries. Yet, something must have had an impact and it was not British negotiating technique.

Why hasn't the problem been solved yet?

Tesco has agreed to have "traffic light" labelling on its food, informing idiots their customers which foods are healthier or have less salt or more of whatever happens to be the fashionably good or bad ingredient. I seem to recall this being tried in other stores in the past and then quietly dropped as being too expensive and of no use whatsoever. Apparently, my memory is slightly at fault.

The retailer has for years resisted using the colour-coded system on its products. The on-the-packet traffic light label grades food as red, amber or green depending on how nutritious it is, with red being the most unhealthy.

Instead, Tesco has since 2005 used a ‘guideline daily amounts’ (GDA) system which shows the percentage of salt, sugar and fat in a product but does not involve colours.

However the chain, which has annual sales of £47 billion in the UK, said that following new customer research it will now develop a “hybrid” labeling system incorporating traffic lights and GDA.

The move will bring it in line with rivals Sainsbury’s, Asda and Marks & Spencer who have used hybrid labeling for years.

(Incidentally, why is the Telegraph using American spelling?)

Naturally all the so-called charities, lobbying organizations and quangos who deal with health, diet, obesity and other related matters rushed in there joyfully, acclaiming this latest move against something that does not seem to go away.

Given the number of these organizations and the extent to which food manufacturers and retailers have been bullied into providing perfectly pointless information (knowing how much salt there is in something is one thing, being told how much is red, amber or green is something else) surely by now we should have no disorders, syndromes or illnesses caused by the "wrong" kind of food, let alone obesity.

Food labels again

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked HMG in a Written Question:

why there is no requirement to label halal meat in shops and restaurants; and what steps they propose to take to inform consumer choice in this area.

As we know from the Boss on EURef it is easier for supermarkets to tell slaughterhouses (of which we have far fewer because of various EU regulations severely gold-plated by successive British governments) to slaughter everything the halal way. This is, of course, outrageous as many people have no desire to eat halal meat but are given no choice and no information. (Incidentally, I have been told that numerous imams have stated that it is not against Muslim law to stun animals before they are slaughtered but there is a disagreement on the subject.)

So what can HMG, what can anybody do to ensure that information is available. Not a lot, it seems, and I am sure readers of this blog are not surprised as it has been a constant theme that food labelling is EU competence.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach or his minions at DEFRA replied:

The Government believe that people should know what they are buying in shops or when they are eating out. An amendment to require food labels to indicate whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter was proposed last year by the European Parliament in the context of proposals for an EU food information for consumers regulation. This proposal was not taken up, but in subsequent discussions a compromise agreement was reached that highlighted the importance of this issue and proposed that it should be considered by the EU Commission in a welfare context as part of the anticipated discussion on the EU welfare strategy.

The Government support this approach, as it will allow consumer information to be considered alongside measures to minimise the suffering of animals slaughtered without stunning. The Commission has recently published its proposed Welfare Strategy for 2012-15 and has confirmed it will be studying the issue of labelling as provided for in last year's agreement on the food information for consumers regulation. The Government welcome this approach and we look forward to receiving further proposals from the Commission. In the mean time we are considering how we can use domestic legislation.

So, errm, the proposal that this information should be available was thrown out and instead a "compromise" was agreed on, which said that it is very important and we are going to talk about it some more. And there is nothing we can do about it because we have to do what the Commission and the European Parliament, not to mention the Council of Ministers, decide on. But do not worry: there will be lots more discussions and HMG thinks that is a jolly good idea.

Food labelling is EU competence

A casual look at my erstwhile blogging home showed me that the Boss had picked up those idiotic comments about the Cleggeron Coalition doing away with certain food labelling regulations, in particular the one to do with "best before".

We have a thoroughly ignorant story by Patrick Hennessy, which fails to mention a crucial fact: food labelling is EU competence and the "best before" labels cannot be dropped or seriously altered by HMG or Parliament or, even, that mighty organization the Food Standards Agency, which is not being abolished. (Though, to be fair, food labelling rules will now be implemented by DEFRA rather than the FSA.)

The legislation for food labelling, however, comes from that fountain of modern British legislation, the European Union, specifically,

DIRECTIVE 2000/13/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 20 March 2000, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.

1. In accordance with Articles 4 to 17 and subject to the exceptions contained therein, indication of the following particulars alone shall be compulsory on the labelling of foodstuffs: ... (5) the date of minimum durability or, in the case of foodstuffs which, from the microbiological point of view, are highly perishable, the ‘use by’ date;

So far as anyone knows that has not been changed, altered or abolished. This paper by DEFRA gives an efficient summary of the subject, emphasises the fact that food labelling is controlled and regulated by the EU and talks of the ongoing negotiations (ongoing for some years) for reform of the system at the European level, there not being any other alternative.

As a matter of fact, we have been here before. Periodically, the subject of food labelling comes up, hacks and politicians get excited and make promises, then everything dies down as everybody realizes that this is not something our own Parliament can legislate on.

What do we see here? The same ridiculous story, this time by Louise Gray, on June 10, 2009. It looks like the Telegraph believes in recycling stories as well as everything else. That time Lord Willoughby de Broke asked a Written Question about it in the House of Lords:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposals to clarify the "best before", "sell by" and "use by" recommendations on food products in retail outlets require the permission of the European Commission.

The answer was short and to the point:

Permission of the European Commission is not required as we are working within existing European Union law.

So, that's that. Can we now leave this subject alone or start saying something sensible about it? UPDATE: There is more on the subject over on EURef.