Shoppers 'confused' by food quality logos
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Food logos designed to reassure people about what they eat are confusing consumers, who are unsure what the plethora of different schemes signify, a report published yesterday said.
More than 20 "food assurance" signs operate in Britain, using a range of different logos on packaging for products from milk and eggs to beef and lamb.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) found producers failed to explain why their goods had been approved, and it identified wide differences in standards between different schemes.
Thousands of products in Britain are allowed to use the stamps of approval, even though they adhere only to minimum legal standards.
The FSA said that the confusion left customers unable to make proper decisions over what they should buy, and could push up prices.
It called for reforms to make the schemes work better, including an independent regulatory body to oversee those carrying the red tractor logo.
It is the biggest scheme of its kind, but is recognised by only 30 per cent of people; and even they are confused by what it means.
Products can carry the mark only after inspectors have checked all aspects of the production process, including how animals are kept and fed and the way producers care for the countryside.
Sir John Krebs, chairman of the FSA, said: "Assurance schemes such as the Red Tractor 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 add 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 of food."
The FSA's review looked at 18 schemes with about 78,000 members between them, covering more than 85 per cent of production in eggs, milk, chicken, pork and crops, and more than 65 per cent of beef, lamb and horticultural produce. It wants minimum standards, more involvement from customers, and better co-operation between the schemes.
The red tractor appears on more than 550 items, produced under 11 different schemes, which fall under the umbrella of Assured Food Standards, an independent body that oversees how they operate. Although it is described as the British Farm Standard, European competition rules mean that the red tractor cannot be restricted to domestic produce.
Another of the schemes, Lion Quality, covers eggs. Its logo appears on eggshells and boxes. The qualification requirements for that scheme include compulsory vaccination against salmonella, improved traceability of eggs and a "best before" date stamped on the shell.
Freedom Food is the RSPCA's farm assurance and food labelling scheme. Its aim is to improve the lives of as many farm animals as possible.
There are a number of schemes covering organic food, of which the Soil Association's is the biggest.
Peter Jenkins, senior public affairs officer at the Consumers' Association, said: "All too often these schemes offer little more than producers are supposed to be doing anyway, but they can be more expensive, suggesting to consumers that they are receiving something extra."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments