In a scathing, damning report delivered to the house of commons
yesterday, a group of senior MPs described the government’s handling and
response to the horse meat scandal as ‘flat footed’.
They have called for more widespread testing of processed meat products to ensure people there is no danger to their health.
As they criticised the coalition
government yesterday, the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee argued that saying its ability to efficiently react to the
scandal had been severely hampered by staff and funding cuts to the Food
Standards Agency (FSA) in 2010, adding that the British public have
been ‘cynically and systematically duped’ for financial gain by certain
sectors of the food industry.
The report states: “It seems improbable that individuals prepared to
pass horse meat off as beef illegally are applying the high hygiene
standards rightly required in the food production industry. We recommend
that the Government and FSA undertake a broader spectrum of testing for
products found to have the highest levels of contamination…to provide
assurances that there is no other non-bovine DNA or any other substances
that could be harmful to human health present.”
Only last night EU ministers decided there will be random testing of
meat products for the horse painkiller drug Bute in addition to the
testing for horse DNA. This comes after Medical Specialists reported
last month that the anti-inflammatory drug had entered the UK food chain, and can cause cancer in humans.
The MPs were also unimpressed about the way in which the government
and FSA had acted since horsemeat was first found in the beef products
of some of the country’s largest supermarket chains.
They said: “Whilst ministers are properly responsible for policy, the
FSA’s diminished role has led to a lack of clarity about where
responsibility lies, and this has weakened the UK’s ability to identify
and respond to food standards concerns. Furthermore the current
contamination crisis has caught the FSA and government flat-footed and
unable to respond effectively within structures designed primarily to
respond to threats to human health.”
Agreeing with the senior ministers, Tim Lang, professor of food
policy at City University, London, told BBC’s Newsnight that the FSA
needed to be strengthened. He commented: “It’s not been doing its job.
We need more inspectors; they’ve been slashed and cut. We can’t have the
industry policing itself, that’s what’s gone wrong. The big food
companies didn’t actually have the control they said they had.”
All this comes in the same week that the results of two public
surveys emerged, clearly demonstrating the impact the scandal has had on
the attitude and confidence of the UK public to the meat industry.
An online survey of 1,946 people conducted for by YouGov for Sky News
found that roughly one in five have now changed the way they shop
because of the shocking horsemeat scandal and over half (58%) had
actually completely ceased buying any processed meats altogether.
Moreover, about a third of those surveyed stated they now refuse to buy
cheap ranges and instead are opting for costlier processed meat.
So who is at fault for the scandal? Nearly half (49%) of the 1,946
people questioned blamed meat processing companies, 20% blamed food
manufacturers, whilst interestingly only 10% believed the supermarkets
were culpable for the crisis. Ministers appeared to have been let off
the hook by the general public as only 3% thought the government were to
blame and 8% the FSA.
On Monday, the Kantar group who run consultancy, advisory and market
research services, conducted a poll to find out if shoppers habits had
altered as a result of the scandal. They found that 36% were less likely
to purchase processed meat, with a further 36% saying it would make no
difference. A quarter of people claimed they did not buy processed meat
anyway. It appears that men are taking the scandal less seriously than
women with almost half of men (47%) claiming that their future purchases
of processed meat would not be affected, compared to just a quarter of
women (26%).
No comments:
Post a Comment