Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Failing to take back control on food standards
In one of those parallel universes where government ministers can be forced to keep their word, the then environment minister, Michael Gove, speaking on behalf of the government, stood up in front of the National Farmers’ Union annual conference and promised British food standards will not be lowered “in pursuit of trade deals”.
That was in February 2019, when Gove also vowed to minimise the risk that food producers will be left at “competitive disadvantage” in the face of cheaper imports that are below EU standards He was seeking to quell fears that the UK will allow the importation of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, to facilitate a trade deal with the USA. A year truly is a long time in politics.
Yesterday, MPs voted yet again to make sure Parliament remains powerless to stop chlorine chicken, hormone fed beef and other crap food imports from swamping the UK. As the Guardian reports, the House of Lords put forward amendments to the trade bill that would have required future trade agreements to be scrutinised by parliament, with a view to ensuring standards are retained, but the key amendment fell on Tuesday night by 353 votes to 277:
Campaigners said the new post-Brexit arrangements for food imports and food production standards in the UK would allow ministers to make sweeping changes to existing food safety regulations without consultation.
Many products could be affected. For instance, while the government has said it will not allow chlorinated chicken, meat can be washed in a variety of other substances that have similar effects: peracetic acid, cetylpyridinium chloride, acidified sodium chlorite, or organic acid rinses.
Chicken treated with bleach and similar substances can retain some pathogens, according to research, and campaigners also fear that such treatment is used to disguise infections caused by animals being kept in poor conditions that would be illegal in this country.
In the debate, the government sought to reassure MPs that there were sufficient safeguards to ensure the UK’s standards were kept high.
However, there was disagreement. Jonathan Djanogly, one of a small number of Conservative MPs who voted against the government, said: “Ministers suggest that a pre-signature vote [on a trade deal] would make them look less decisive and weaken their hand, but I would suggest that the opposite is actually the case. In the US, negotiations are often strengthened by the executive suggesting that Congress won’t accept such-and-such a proposal.”
He added: “The power of approval that was given to MEPs now needs to come back here to parliament, not to be forgotten by ministers. Having proper scrutiny votes will go towards establishing the UK as a modern, democratic, confident, international trading nation, and we should be embracing that.”
Campaigners pointed to loopholes in the government’s regulations that mean food standards can be altered without consultation or fanfare. They said the rules would make it difficult to even find out whether standards had been lowered.
For instance, the list of approved antibiotics for livestock – a vital issue, because the overuse of antibiotics on livestock is a key driver of the growth of antibiotic resistance that threatens human medicine – can be changed without notice, and only close retrospective scrutiny would reveal the changes.
So much for Parliament taking back control.
That was in February 2019, when Gove also vowed to minimise the risk that food producers will be left at “competitive disadvantage” in the face of cheaper imports that are below EU standards He was seeking to quell fears that the UK will allow the importation of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, to facilitate a trade deal with the USA. A year truly is a long time in politics.
Yesterday, MPs voted yet again to make sure Parliament remains powerless to stop chlorine chicken, hormone fed beef and other crap food imports from swamping the UK. As the Guardian reports, the House of Lords put forward amendments to the trade bill that would have required future trade agreements to be scrutinised by parliament, with a view to ensuring standards are retained, but the key amendment fell on Tuesday night by 353 votes to 277:
Campaigners said the new post-Brexit arrangements for food imports and food production standards in the UK would allow ministers to make sweeping changes to existing food safety regulations without consultation.
Many products could be affected. For instance, while the government has said it will not allow chlorinated chicken, meat can be washed in a variety of other substances that have similar effects: peracetic acid, cetylpyridinium chloride, acidified sodium chlorite, or organic acid rinses.
Chicken treated with bleach and similar substances can retain some pathogens, according to research, and campaigners also fear that such treatment is used to disguise infections caused by animals being kept in poor conditions that would be illegal in this country.
In the debate, the government sought to reassure MPs that there were sufficient safeguards to ensure the UK’s standards were kept high.
However, there was disagreement. Jonathan Djanogly, one of a small number of Conservative MPs who voted against the government, said: “Ministers suggest that a pre-signature vote [on a trade deal] would make them look less decisive and weaken their hand, but I would suggest that the opposite is actually the case. In the US, negotiations are often strengthened by the executive suggesting that Congress won’t accept such-and-such a proposal.”
He added: “The power of approval that was given to MEPs now needs to come back here to parliament, not to be forgotten by ministers. Having proper scrutiny votes will go towards establishing the UK as a modern, democratic, confident, international trading nation, and we should be embracing that.”
Campaigners pointed to loopholes in the government’s regulations that mean food standards can be altered without consultation or fanfare. They said the rules would make it difficult to even find out whether standards had been lowered.
For instance, the list of approved antibiotics for livestock – a vital issue, because the overuse of antibiotics on livestock is a key driver of the growth of antibiotic resistance that threatens human medicine – can be changed without notice, and only close retrospective scrutiny would reveal the changes.
So much for Parliament taking back control.
