Government food paper provokes serious concerns

The Cabinet Office strategy unit document on food and food policy could generate a confused approach to food policy and fails to address regional sourcing concerns, according to industry representatives.

The work, Food: an analysis of the issues​, examines research on topics linked to the food and drink supply chain, from the environment to food safety and security. It is intended to be a springboard for discussion. A consultation period is now under way, with a final report and action points scheduled for the spring. The paper was commissioned by prime minister Gordon Brown as one of the priority projects for future government strategy, because of the great public interest in food topics.

A wide range of industry groups, including the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and academics helped compile the document.

With so many different groups involved, some feared a mixed up food policy was unavoidable. One consultant said: “When you’re on the outside of this, you wonder what the overall co-ordination is.”

Another source said: “I have my concerns. If different elements of government are waking up to sustainability, you could have several different approaches to tackling it. Who’s going to take the lead and pull it all together? There needs to be a clear direction and a clear idea of responsibilities.”

Others claimed that while the document was meant to be a prelude to action, it could be another example of too much discussion without firm decisions. “Redigestion of the same information by a different group of civil servants delays matters particularly if the position now reached by government is to conduct further debate rather than move directly to developing a strategy to deal with urgent problems,” said Clare Cheney, director general of the Provision Trade Federation.

One source said the uncertain future of the regional food groups after a 25% cut in funding for Food From Britain cast doubts over the profile given to sustainability in the report. “To simply walk away from regional food groups at this point is nonsense as they are contributing to the sustainability of rural economies.”

Lack of funding would also hamstring the government from implementing conclusions made after the discussion following the report, said the source. “I doubt whether there’s going to be sufficient investment available to assist the industry in all the ways it needs to be assisted. Is it simply going to fall back on industry [to come up with the cash]?”

One consultant speculated that the involvement of the Cabinet Office in food policy was a tacit admission that industry and government departments had failed to tackle issues decisively enough. “The prime minister may not think things are moving fast enough.” He said the Cabinet Office was more likely to act as a catalyst to get things moving, rather than managing the direction of food policy itself. But he did not rule out the creation of new policies or structures to take matters further.

According to the document, the food and drink industry accounts for 7% of national output. Spending on food alone is estimated to be worth £121bn per year. Other statistics claimed manufacturers generated 6.6Mt of waste per year, that food-related ill-health cost the NHS £6bn in 2002 and malnutrition cost public services £7.3bn annually.