>>Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, on what he wants to see in general election manifestos
Pundits are frequently wrong, but also right often enough for us to listen. So let us be charitable and assume that this year, possibly this summer, there will be a general election. What promises would I like to see from the politicians?
That depends on how realistic, hopeful or Utopian I’m allowed to be, and at whom we aim our wishes.
On City University’s Food Policy Masters programme, we teach that modern food policy is contested terrain between three competing forces: the state (governments), the supply chain and civil society (consumers). So I am going to offer one hope for each.
Starting with civil society, I confess I am fed up with the nonsense in labelling policy. Of course, we all want labelling schemes that are fair and consistent. But current food labelling is a mess in practice and principle. Some information is mandatory, other voluntary. Some issues are declared (eg maker, nutrients). Others are dealt with by default.
I was once told by the eminent chair of a committee, whom I won’t embarrass, that if I wanted to know about the presence of pesticide residues, I could always buy organic produce. Apart from the fact that this assumes zero residues in organics, which not even supporters can be 100% confident of, there’s the principle.
Why should I be given information that additives are present in a food but not pesticides? Market economics require a free flow of data to enable consumers to act on their preferences; efficiencies then follow.
In fact, labelling is itself contested policy space. I would like to see declarations such as high, medium and low, not only for nutrients but for all key consumer desirables: ethics, animal welfare, health, contents, sourcing, environment, labour process/fair trade, to name just some.
So I’d like a renewed commitment by consumer bodies to get back to basics on food labelling and to build a new coalition in Europe to deliver it.
Turning to the state, my big wish is for the creation of a new policy council on food and physical activity.
The 2004 Public Health White Paper was a missed opportunity. We had a consensus both in public and private that a new, independent council would be not only helpful but essential. Yet the government
ducked it. There is already good experience in Norway, Sweden and Denmark of how such bodies can help the public and industry alike by acting as a focused advisor to government.
Within the UK, we see how bodies such as the Sustainable Development Commission and the Commission for Integrated Transport have been valuable inside-track advisors - prodding, pushing and encouraging where it is appropriate.
A Policy Council would be far better than a Portman Group-style ‘Foodman’ group - the epidemic of binge drinking and alcohol-related crime is no advertisement for that kind of body. We need something that commands general respect, not a damage-limitation, buck-passing body.
My hope for the supply chain is simple, but with deep implications. It is for a massive outbreak of fruit tree planting
I despair at how we have allowed the top fruit industry to wither.
Why have we all colluded in this calamity? Consumers by eating bland, cosmetically pure globofruit; retailers and caterers for buying tasteless nonsense; advertisers for peddling cheap, sweet nothings; farmers by being so venal in taking grants to grub up trees or churn out more dairy fats or harvest grain subsidies when they should, and could, diversify and plant more fruit.
A country whose national apple collection holds around 2,000 varieties but whose shops and supermarkets display just three or four doesn’t deserve the label of Good Food Nation. Get planting, everyone.
Pundits are frequently wrong, but also right often enough for us to listen. So let us be charitable and assume that this year, possibly this summer, there will be a general election. What promises would I like to see from the politicians?
That depends on how realistic, hopeful or Utopian I’m allowed to be, and at whom we aim our wishes.
On City University’s Food Policy Masters programme, we teach that modern food policy is contested terrain between three competing forces: the state (governments), the supply chain and civil society (consumers). So I am going to offer one hope for each.
Starting with civil society, I confess I am fed up with the nonsense in labelling policy. Of course, we all want labelling schemes that are fair and consistent. But current food labelling is a mess in practice and principle. Some information is mandatory, other voluntary. Some issues are declared (eg maker, nutrients). Others are dealt with by default.
I was once told by the eminent chair of a committee, whom I won’t embarrass, that if I wanted to know about the presence of pesticide residues, I could always buy organic produce. Apart from the fact that this assumes zero residues in organics, which not even supporters can be 100% confident of, there’s the principle.
Why should I be given information that additives are present in a food but not pesticides? Market economics require a free flow of data to enable consumers to act on their preferences; efficiencies then follow.
In fact, labelling is itself contested policy space. I would like to see declarations such as high, medium and low, not only for nutrients but for all key consumer desirables: ethics, animal welfare, health, contents, sourcing, environment, labour process/fair trade, to name just some.
So I’d like a renewed commitment by consumer bodies to get back to basics on food labelling and to build a new coalition in Europe to deliver it.
Turning to the state, my big wish is for the creation of a new policy council on food and physical activity.
The 2004 Public Health White Paper was a missed opportunity. We had a consensus both in public and private that a new, independent council would be not only helpful but essential. Yet the government
ducked it. There is already good experience in Norway, Sweden and Denmark of how such bodies can help the public and industry alike by acting as a focused advisor to government.
Within the UK, we see how bodies such as the Sustainable Development Commission and the Commission for Integrated Transport have been valuable inside-track advisors - prodding, pushing and encouraging where it is appropriate.
A Policy Council would be far better than a Portman Group-style ‘Foodman’ group - the epidemic of binge drinking and alcohol-related crime is no advertisement for that kind of body. We need something that commands general respect, not a damage-limitation, buck-passing body.
My hope for the supply chain is simple, but with deep implications. It is for a massive outbreak of fruit tree planting
I despair at how we have allowed the top fruit industry to wither.
Why have we all colluded in this calamity? Consumers by eating bland, cosmetically pure globofruit; retailers and caterers for buying tasteless nonsense; advertisers for peddling cheap, sweet nothings; farmers by being so venal in taking grants to grub up trees or churn out more dairy fats or harvest grain subsidies when they should, and could, diversify and plant more fruit.
A country whose national apple collection holds around 2,000 varieties but whose shops and supermarkets display just three or four doesn’t deserve the label of Good Food Nation. Get planting, everyone.
No comments yet