Trade Talk

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) recently announced that it would go for the most sustainable policy development option unless there was a good reason why not.

Most people might support this objective in principle but start to harbour doubts upon reading the example in the FSA news item. It read: 'attempts to slow climate change by trying to reduce meat and dairy production, and which would have implications for the economic viability of farming and for our diet, would need to be considered across departments and agencies'.

It is difficult to understand the rationale behind this peculiar example because climate change is not within the FSA's remit. It raises serious concerns that if such a unilateral policy did curb UK production, it would not address growing demand for meat and dairy products from emerging economies. Animal protein producers in other countries, less likely to care for the environment than us, would be bound to take up the slack. This might lead to greater total production around the world and possibly even suck in imports if UK demand outstripped national supply. Thus, the problem would be exported.

Surely the FSA isn't contemplating meat and dairy production control to reduce saturated fat in the diet as part of the government's healthy diet campaign? If so, it would conflict with existing government and EU policy to reduce red tape and its associated costs to help the food and farming industry. It would be like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Whatever the motive for reducing consumption of animal products, the outcome would depend on whether global populations can be motivated to demand less. It's time to recognise that the nanny state mentality cannot succeed while there's demand for what the government may deem 'forbidden fruit'.

A better example of an FSA policy area that should be reviewed in the light of sustainability is the voluntary salt reduction programme. Following adjustments already made, the food industry has received complaints about the lack of flavour of some foods, which has encouraged people to add salt.

Far from educating palates to tolerate less, salt intake might increase because a shaker dispenses uncontrolled amounts.

If consumers don't enjoy food with edited salt contents, the sustainability of this approach as a viable strategy is questionable.

Clare Cheney

Director General

Provision Trade Federation

clare.cheney@provtrade.co.uk