The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) published a report yesterday [Tuesday] attacking the myriad of food assurance schemes, claiming that they should be “radically reformed” because they often leave shoppers more confused than reassured.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
There are more than 20 food assurance schemes operating in the UK, each using different logos stamped on the packaging of products such as milk, eggs and meat. The review was commissioned by the FSA last November and included 18 schemes, which between them had about 78,000 members and covered over 85% of eggs, milk, chicken, pork and crops production, and over 65% of beef, lamb, and horticultural production.
Confusion over the different meanings of the schemes makes it hard for consumers to make choices on what to buy, said the report. It continued saying that the schemes are operated with “widely differing standards of disclosure and transparency”.
Recommendations
The report makes three recommendations. Firstly, that an independent regulatory body is established to oversee 550 goods produced under the 11 schemes that carry the Red Tractor logo, which are currently administered by Assured Food Standards.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataSecondly, it suggests establishing a list of minimum criteria for each scheme, with reference to issues such as consumer involvement and transparency, inspections and logos. Lastly, the report said that the schemes need to work together more closely.
FSA chairman Sir John Krebs commented at the annual conference of the Trading Standards Institute: “Assurance schemes are potentially a force for good, driving up production standards and expanding choice, but they need a shake-up.
“Most people are thoroughly confused about assurance schemes. The number of different schemes and their various logos adds to the confusion. For example, consumers are not sure whether the Red Tractor logo is to do with country of origin, better standards of production, or better quality food.
“Schemes need to be independent if they are to improve consumer confidence. The creation of a new, independent governing body for Red Tractor schemes, along with measures to improve transparency and consistency across the board are essential to meet the needs of the consumer.’
Findings mirror CA concerns
Peter Jenkins, senior public affairs officer at the Consumers’ Association (CA), commented: “The FSA’s findings mirror many of the concerns which have been raised by CA and Which?
“We are particularly pleased to see FSA’s recommendations that assurance schemes should deliver whole food chain coverage, so that the logo means that the standards apply at each stage of the production process. We support the call for greater transparency and more consumer involvement, however, the schemes need to offer consumers something beyond the minimum legal requirement that applies to all food.
“Our own research has shown that the two main reasons people look for assurance schemes is to get the best quality and to ensure that food is safe.”
