Seanad debates

Wednesday, 3 July 2013

Food Provenance Bill 2013: Second Stage

 

3:50 pm

Photo of Catherine NooneCatherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment which, as previous speakers remarked, is well-deserved. We look forward to welcoming him in this House many times, at least as long as we are here.

I commend Senator Quinn for his hard work in bringing this sensible Bill to the House. It is a bid to provide an enhanced level of information regarding food, whether fresh or pre-packaged, to introduce a new, more stringent level of requirements for food labelling and signage, and to amend the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 in light of these matters. These amendments come against the backdrop of the recent horsemeat scandal and highlight how legislation might be strengthened as a consequence of these recent issues. I may be on the other side in that I am now somewhat paranoid about what I eat. I worry about everything, even where fish oils come from, and will not buy chicken or any meat in supermarkets. I have become quite a vegetarian because I am almost paranoid about what I eat. The other thing that really gets my goat is the sugar aspect. When one sees something labelled as "low fat", the label might as well read "full of toxins, full of sugar". If one eats it one might blow up.

Children suffer in many circumstances from the lack of labelling. Brands such as Actimel contain five, six or seven spoonfuls of sugar. It is fascinating how producers manage to label things so that they appear to be really good for one's health. They may not damage one but one certainly is not eating what one intends to eat. There is a particular yogurt that is labelled low-fat and organic, which it is, but it also has a great deal of sugar in it, some 12 spoonfuls. In that sense, I may be coming from another side of the argument in that I am nearly demented thinking about what I am eating.

I agree, however, with Senator Crown and other speakers in regard to comments about Europe. This Bill represents an opportunity for us to lead the way on this issue. I hope the Minister will go to Europe taking this Bill as a proposal and to show them how things can be done. We have a really proud tradition in this country of food production and are very lucky to have such fine produce to export. We need to think about a unified EU approach, which is necessary. If nothing else, the horsemeat issue has highlighted this. We should lead the charge on this because we are eminently qualified to do so.

In regard to recent problems like horsemeat, the other thing this or any future Bills can do is to prevent food growers and manufacturers from misleading people by using Irish brands or, as other speakers mentioned, using branding to masquerade their real origins. We see this every day in a number of brands and products, many of which trade with green packaging or the word "Irish" in their title, which is misleading. As long as they are produced - tampered is the wrong word - or have something done to them in this country they can be called Irish. With clear labelling that shows where a given product comes from the impact of such misleading packaging could be minimised or possibly nullified, thus helping Irish manufacturers and producers. The proposed labels, as outlined, are very clear and perfectly easy to understand and it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into them. On sizing, however, it is my view that a proportional approach would be best, whereby the label would be in a prominent place on the front of a given package, where it would have to occupy a certain percentage of the surface area label. This is as important, as on bigger items the importance and relevance of the information could easily be lost.

This Bill is thoughtful, highlights a number of serious issues and seeks to ensure a legislative solution to them but there are a few aspects that concern me. One issue to be considered is simplicity of labelling. I have got to the point of reading labels, wishing almost to see behind them or to ring up the producer to find out things, but most people are not at all interested. Senator O'Keeffe mentioned the traffic light system. Something like this must be considered within this whole context. While most of us present are very interested, the vast majority of people just want to eat, be fed, move on and do what they are doing. There is a fine line to be drawn concerning over-complication which, by trying to give people more information, may bamboozle the consumer and end up achieving the opposite to what was hoped.

Although it is laudable to have as much information as possible, I wonder whether the provisions of section 7, laying out as separate and distinct the places where the animal was farmed and slaughtered, might lead to some confusion. Similarly, in section 9, on seafood, the required names of the seas in question would seem bound to cause confusion among consumers who might, regrettably, begin to ignore labelling altogether. I have praise for one practical element in section 12 which I believe must be incorporated in any given solution, namely, where the provision of the Act is specifically not applied to restaurants and cafés.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.