My Lords, I think it would be helpful for me to introduce my Amendment 62 at this point. We know that the Bill is going to create a new type of food product on supermarket shelves, the precision-bred organism, and is also clear that there is a trend among consumers to want more information about their food, what it contains, where it comes from and its environmental impact. All these things are important, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about traceability as well, so it is important that
we have a discussion about how we achieve this, what we label, how it needs to be labelled and the impact of precision-bred organisms on future labelling.
Our Amendment 62—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support—would require the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that precision-bred food and feed is labelled to provide sufficient information in certain areas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has already said, that includes nutritional content, the potential presence of allergens and the environmental impact of the product, but it would also require the Secretary of State to consult stakeholder groups before pursuing that and to seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency. The Government have already said that they support nutritional labelling to inform consumers of any allergens or if the nutritional content of the food has been changed from its natural state. This is something we need to address in the Bill.
We are aware of the issues of coexistence with other production systems, supply chain tracing and how the legislation might have an impact on the organic sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has talked about the organic sector, and I am not sure we have had sufficient discussion in Committee so far about the potential impacts on that sector.
We also believe it important to consult on this issue, so that whatever labelling regime the Government decide to introduce allows for different types of food production to coexist. In the impact assessment the Government state that they oppose labelling in this instance, based particularly, I think, on the costs it would incur for businesses. I am sure the Minister can confirm those points. The impact assessment has not calculated the costs or benefits of labelling, so it would be helpful if the Minister could let your Lordships know how that judgment was reached.
I would like to draw attention to a couple of points in the impact assessment. In paragraph 114, the Government note that
“maintaining a labelling and tracing system could also have wider benefits, most notably, improved consumer confidence in food products potentially adding value across the food supply chain.”
We spoke at Second Reading and earlier in Committee about the importance of consumer confidence. The impact assessment also states:
“Given uncertainties … we have not monetised the estimated annual cost of a labelling and tracing system to business.”
This was also identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which stated in its report:
“The traceability and labelling costs, the primary benefit for the preferred option and which differentiates the two regulatory options considered, is not quantified. As this is the main difference between the two regulatory options, the Department needs to provide some quantification of the scale of the potential impact from this change.”
I would be very grateful if the Minister could comment on this assessment. Further to that, in its written evidence to the committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted that the Government’s present stance on labelling
“runs contrary to the findings of many public engagement initiatives that have broached this question ... in this context, not labelling amounts to the withholding of information about consumer preferences”.
The question I would ask the Minister and the Committee more broadly is: where do we go with this? How do we best provide the information consumers want in order to produce confidence in the system? It is not an easy question; there are no easy answers. But I do think we need to make progress.
8.45 pm