Difference between revisions of "Food and Drink Federation"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Resources)
m (→‎Principals)
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The Food and Drink Federation is a lobby group in the UK for the food and drink industries. It 'promotes the industry's views and works to build consumer confidence in the food chain as a whole.' http://www.fdf.org.uk/.
+
{{Template:Foodspin badge}}
 +
 
 +
The '''Food and Drink Federation''' (FDF) is a lobby group in the UK for the food and drink industries. It 'promotes the industry's views and works to build consumer confidence in the food chain as a whole.'
  
 
==Overview==
 
==Overview==
  
−
Industry Areas: The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), through its 50 members, directly and indirectly represents approximately 95% of the UK food and drink manufacturing sector{{ref|1}}. Member organisations include the Rice Association, the Food Association, the Potato Processors Association, the British Soft Drinks Association and the Federation of Bakers{{ref|2}}.
+
Industry Areas: The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), through its 50 members, directly and indirectly represents approximately 95% of the UK food and drink manufacturing sector<ref>[http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm BSB:Members] (No lonver available 23 October 2007)</ref>. Member organisations include the Rice Association, the Food Association, the Potato Processors Association, the British Soft Drinks Association and the Federation of Bakers<ref> FDF website [http://www.fdf.org.uk/fdfmembership.html#1 FDF:Members] (Accessed: 23 October 2007)</ref>.
  
 
Overview: The FDF represents big business in the food and drink sector. Its current president is Peter Blackburn, former chair of Nestle UK, and now also chair of Northern Foods. Food and drink industries use the FDF to promote their own interests to both government and the public. Such interests typically include:
 
Overview: The FDF represents big business in the food and drink sector. Its current president is Peter Blackburn, former chair of Nestle UK, and now also chair of Northern Foods. Food and drink industries use the FDF to promote their own interests to both government and the public. Such interests typically include:
  
−
: the production of a globally competitive food production system which involves the intensification and genetic modification of agriculture, thereby minimising input costs for the food manufacturing industry;
+
* the production of a globally competitive food production system which involves the intensification and genetic modification of agriculture, thereby minimising input costs for the food manufacturing industry;
−
: the promotion and support of high profit-margin, high value-added food and drink products - in practice this tends to mean highly processed products, often unhealthy and containing many additives.
+
* the promotion and support of high profit-margin, high value-added food and drink products - in practice this tends to mean highly processed products, often unhealthy and containing many additives.
−
: Ensuring that the research agenda in the universities and research institutions match the ever-increasing need for new products in the processed foods sector.
+
* Ensuring that the research agenda in the universities and research institutions match the ever-increasing need for new products in the processed foods sector.
  
−
The FDF relays these interests throught variosu campaigns and lobbying strategies to government and the public. Within government, FDF and/or industry representatives sit on numerous government committees responsible for dealing with food issues.
+
The FDF relays these interests through various campaigns and lobbying strategies to government and the public. Within government, FDF and/or industry representatives sit on numerous government committees responsible for dealing with food issues.
  
−
Market share / Importance: The FDF is the principal trade federation representing UK food and drink producers. Through its 50 members, it represents a gross output of �65 billion, or 14% of total UK manufacturing. 500,000 people are employed within this sector: 12.7% of the UK manufacturing workforce{{ref|3}}.
+
Market share / Importance: The FDF is the principal trade federation representing UK food and drink producers. Through its 50 members, it represents a gross output of £65 billion, or 14% of total UK manufacturing. 500,000 people are employed within this sector: 12.7% of the UK manufacturing workforce<ref> UK Food and Drink Industry Statistics 2000</ref>.
  
 
The FDF therefore calls itself the:
 
The FDF therefore calls itself the:
−
:Largest packaging client
+
*Largest packaging client
−
:2nd largest advertising client
+
*2nd largest advertising client
−
:3rd largest energy client
+
*3rd largest energy client
−
:Furthermore, the FDF indirectly (through its members) buys 2/3 of all UK agricultural produce.
+
*Furthermore, the FDF indirectly (through its members) buys 2/3 of all UK agricultural produce.
  
−
==Resources==
 
  
−
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Projects]]
+
==Lobbying campaigns==
−
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Who, Where and How Much]]
+
===Working Against Junk Food Ban===
−
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Influence and lobbying]]
+
The FDF has worked against a government ban on advertising of junk food to children to fight obesity . The FDF has been a key player in a huge "lobbying campaign in Whitehall to see off growing pressure for regulation to tackle obesity and diet-related diseases". According to leaked documents, the then Director General of the FDF, Sylvia Jay went to see the Public Health Minister, Melanie Johnson. 'Minutes of the meeting show that the FDF took the opportunity to tell the minister that the industry would oppose any proposals to reduce fat and sugar in foods along the lines of the work being done to reduce salt', recorded The Guardian in 2004. 
  
−
 
+
By 2006 as the regulatory authorities began drawing consultations on a junk food advertising ban, the food industry including the FDF was being accused of "derailing" them. Documents released under FOI show that the Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, met food bosses 29 times between May 2005 and March 2006. 
  
 +
Food campaigners want all junk food advertising banned before the 9pm watershed to protect children of all ages. However, the FDF is one of the main organizations fighting to oppose this. In September 2006, when the National Heart Forum renewed call for a ban on junk food advertising pre-9pm, arguing that responses on Ofcom's website to its consultation were "100 to one" in favour of a pre-9pm ban. Those in favour include over 40 consumer and health organizations and even the government's Food Standards Agency . The FDF though argued that "A ban up to the watershed is overly restrictive and unnecessarily curbs advertising to a mostly adult audience".
  
−
4. Corporate Crimes
+
===Protecting processed and unhealthy food ===
  
−
  1. Perverting the foot and mouth vaccination plan
+
The FDF has come to the defence of companies accused of producing food high in salts, fats, sugars, additives and preservatives. After a jury of 800 parents recruited by the Food Commission targeted certain foods such as Sunny Delight for being unhealthy, Martin Paterson responded that "No one food is bad - balance is the key - and demonising individual products which are marketed as snacks or treats may be unhelpful to both parents and children ." When the think tank Demos proposed a food tax on high fat foods, Paterson called the idea "patronising" and said it would "hit lower income families" and "be a tax on choice".
−
  2. Lobbying against the labelling of GM-ingredients in food
 
−
  3. Protecting processed and unhealthy food
 
−
  4. Greenwashing the &#39;food miles&#39; argument.
 
−
  5. Corrupting Organic standards
 
−
  6. Dictating the research agenda
 
−
  7. Shamelessly defending industry representation on government committees
 
  
−
1. Perverting the foot and mouth vaccination plan {{ref|77}}
+
===Against reduction in Salt levels===
  
−
During the height of the foot and mouth crisis, in mid-April 2001, the government had seemingly decided on a limited vaccination policy for Cumbria and possibly Devon. The vaccination option could have saved tens of thousands of animals from being needlessly slaughtered, often under inhumane conditions. It could also have saved the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation, culling, and burial costs.
+
The FDF has spoken out in defence of salt in food which is linked to increased heart disease and blood pressure. In the late nineties the medical journal the Lancet published research that found that the level of salt can be significantly reduced without sacrificing taste, Martin Paterson responded by saying there was "over-excitement about the use of salt" and that "the majority of the population enjoy the use of salt and understand that it has been used for thousands of years to the benefit of the consumer ."
  
−
The major supermarkets and consumer associations had given support to the vaccination programme. However, fierce lobbying from the food industry forced a U-turn: both Peter Blackburn, the then chief executive of Nestle UK as well as president of the FDF, and Lady Sylvia Jay, a former civil servant at the Department for International Development and director general of the FDF, stubbornly resisted the government&#39;s vaccination programme.
+
In May 2003, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced guidelines on maximum recommended salt intakes for children. Food watch-dog, the Food Commission warned that with so much hidden salt in children's food, it would be hard for parents to achieve the targets without a significant reduction of salt. However, the FDF was against regulatory action. A year later, tests showed that bread, crisps, beans and soup were as salty as ever , so the FSA suggested that labelling should declare the salt content of food. The FDF continued to oppose such labelling recommendations .
  
−
In a letter written to Tony Blair, Blackburn explained that the industry opposed vaccination because &#39;we were very afraid of the consequences on all meat and dairy exports&#39;; he later added that vaccination could have could have risked its exports of powdered milk to developing countries. Yet the use of vaccinated milk in food production was not at threat, since &#39;the retailers and food manufacturers had already said they would cope&#39; (Lord Haskins).
+
===Against FSA's "Traffic Light" System===
  
−
One might expect the FDF to be retrospectively ashamed that their president, Peter Blackburn, ferociously lobbied against vaccination when he was only protecting the interests of his own company, Nestle UK, who were concerned for the exports from just one milk-producing factory. The FDF made a major contribution (along with the National Farmer&#39;s Union) in turning about the government&#39;s vaccination policy which could have saved Cumbrian farmers from the nightmare of the culling policy.
+
In 2004, a survey of shoppers by the UK Food Standards Agency found that they backed "traffic light" coding for food so they could tell what is healthy and what is not. The moves were opposed by Martin Paterson for the FDF, who said, "Simplistic schemes which categorise products into good and bad could seriously mislead consumers."
  
−
Yet rather than be ashamed of this action, Sylvia Jay of the FDF uses their involvement over the foot and mouth crisis as an example of their power within government, boasting that &#39;FDF&#39;s senior officers have frequent discussions with Ministers on a range of issues and were consulted by the Prime Minister during the height of the FMD crisis.&#39;{{ref|78}}
+
===Pro-GM and Against Labelling of GM-ingredients ===
  
 +
In the late nineties, the FDF argued to a government Select Committee that the use of genetic modification of food production can provide benefits throughout the food chain: to primary producers; food processors and consumers … we do not believe that genetic modification per se presents any food safety risk or that foods produced using GMOs represent a special class of new foods, and that we believe they should be subject to the same type of risk assessment as any other new food product and its intended use, rather than its method of development .  In 2002, the FDF also attacked moves from Brussels to tighten up GM labelling regulations as "ridiculous and unworkable " It now runs the website foodfuture, whose role is ostensibly to inform the public, but it is pro-GM.
  
−
2. Lobbying against the labelling of GM-ingredients in food
+
===Greenwashing 'food miles'===
  
−
The FDF opposes the labelling of GM-foods. In a 1998/1999 memorandum to a government Select Committee, the FDF said that &#39;we do not believe that genetic modification per se presents any food safety risk or that foods produced using GMOs represent a special class of new foods, and we believe they should be subject to the same type of risk assessment as any other new food product and its intended use, rather than its method of development.&#39;{{ref|79}}
+
Although concerns over food miles have increased in recent years as has the demand for local and seasonal food, the FDF has tried to argue that food miles are less of a problem than domestic refrigeration and cooking. The FDF has also argued that consumers would not support any moves to restrict the year-round availability of seasonal fruits and vegetables and that ready cooked meals are more ecological than home cooked food.  
  
−
Although the FDF claims that it is keen to support the consumer&#39;s wishes of having GM-free food, it is simultaneously campaigning heavily against any further &#39;tightening up&#39; of the labelling laws. As recently as September 2001, Sylvia Jay of the FDF said:
+
===Corrupting local food===
  
−
&#39;As soon as it became clear that most consumers did not want to eat food containing genetically modified ingredients,
+
The FDF sponsored a conference run by South West Food and Drink in June 2004, the organization set up to promote local and regional food from the region. The key-note speech was by Paul Freeston on 'Apetito – A South West success story'. Apetito's subsidiary, Wiltshire Foods, may South-West based, but the Apetito group is one of Europe's leading suppliers of frozen food and catering meals with its head office in Germany. One delegate noted: "When asked what percentage of ingredients used in "Wiltshire Farm" foods is actually sourced from the South West, Freeston was unable to supply a figure or even name a single supplier. 'We buy beef from South America and chicken from Thailand' he said, 'where the quality is very good'".  
−
UK food and drink manufacturers started to seek supplies of conventional crops.&#39;{{ref|80}}
 
  
−
However, the more recent proposals by the European Commission seem too much for the FDF to bear. At present, food sold in the EU must be labelled as &#39;GM&#39; if more than 1% of its ingredients are genetically modified. The European Commission has now proposed lowering this cut-off figure to 0.5%, including in the calculation ingredients that are derived from GM sources, regardless of whether they contain GM DNA or protein. For example, oil derived from GM-soya or maize (which contains no DNA at all) would now be defined and labelled as GM-oil. This move has been welcomed by those who oppose GM-food production. Peter Riley of Friends of the Earth explains that the current labelling laws are &#39;far too weak and allow the biotech industry to introduce GMOs into our food by stealth.&#39;{{ref|81}}
+
===Stopped foot and mouth vaccination plan===
  
−
However, the FDF and FSA both slammed the recent proposal, declaring it to be &#39;ridiculous&#39;, &#39;open to fraud&#39;, and having &#39;no bearing to reality&#39;{{ref|82}}. An FDF spokesperson has spoken of their intention to lobby the Council of Ministers to oppose the Commission&#39;s proposal. Neville Craddock of the FDF called it &#39;unworkable&#39;, even though the European Commission responded by saying that the proposal was &#39;far less complex than you&#39;re suggesting&#39;{{ref|83}}.
+
At the height of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, the government was considering a limited vaccination policy which would have saved tens of thousands of animals from being needlessly slaughtered. Blair had announced that vaccination was the best option, but the plan was scrapped after lobbying by the food industry, including Peter Blackburn, the then chief executive of Nestlé UK, and president of the FDF, as well as the FDF's then chief executive, Lady Sylvia Jay. "We argued against a vaccination policy" argued Blackburn. "We were very afraid of the consequences on all meat and dairy exports ."
  
−
Neville Craddock has been an industry employee most of his working life; he is presently Group Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Manager for Nestle UK, as well as Chair of the Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Committee of the FDF. Most interesting are his links to the Food Standards Agency where he sits on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP).
+
===Against FSA Nutrient Profiling===
  
−
Valerie Saint (of the FDF and of Unilever) recently sat on the government&#39;s Clear Labelling Taskforce whose remit is to &#39;review the ease with which consumers are currently able to obtain information of concern to them from food labels.&#39;{{ref|84}} The taskforce concluded that consumers would not need to know the GM-content of their food in order to make &#39;informed purchase decisions&#39;, although it also warned food manufacturers of &#39;other statutory information&#39; which would have to be given by law, which may include GM-content.
+
The FDF was disappointed with the Nutrient Profiling (NP) model which was created by the [[Food Standards Agency]] (FSA) as a tool to measure foods which were high in fats, salt and sugar (HFSS). In a response to the [http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Image:FDF_consultation_response-1.pdf NP review panel's recommendations] the FDF claimed they “remain concerned that the profiling model is selective and arbitrary and not based on clear scientific evidence” and that it “that it perpetuates the myth that individual foods can be objectively described as “healthy” or “unhealthy”.”
  
 +
In this response, they go on to say, “FDF rejects FSA’s claim that there will be no additional costs to industry with the use of this model, as we feel the claim can not be substantiated. Indeed as the purpose of its use by Ofcom appears to be to try and distort the market by discouraging sales of particular products, then it is hard to see how this can not be a contradiction. We therefore request an objective and independent impact assessment and a cost benefit analysis.”
  
−
3. Protecting processed and unhealthy food
+
==Resources==
  
−
On numerous occasions the FDF has defended companies who produce food that is high in salts, fats, sugars, additives and preservatives.
+
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Projects]]
−
 
+
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Who, Where and How Much]]
−
Unhealthy food
+
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Influence and lobbying]]
−
When a survey of 800 parents labelled foods such as Sunny Delight as &#39;vile&#39;, &#39;sugary&#39; and &#39;over-processed&#39;, Martin Paterson (Deputy Director General and Director of Communications for the FDF) retaliated by saying that &#39;No one food is bad. Balance is the key and demonising individual products which are marketed as snacks or treats may be unhelpful to both parents and children.&#39;
+
*[[Food and Drink Federation: Corporate Crimes]]
−
 
 
−
&#39;Fat-tax&#39; {{ref|85}}
 
−
When Demos, a UK think-tank, proposed that foods with a high fat and sugar content, and in particular processed and fast-foods, should be taxed to subsidise healthier foods (such as fruit and vegetables), Martin Paterson of the FDF again retaliated in defence of the food processing industry, arguing that:
 
−
&#39;A so-called &#39;fat tax&#39; would hit lower income families, be patronising to consumers, and be a tax on choice.&#39;
 
−
A tax on unhealthy food has been likened to the tax used to discourage smoking and drinking. Demos also argues that the tax would encourage low-income families to choose healthier options.
 
−
 
 
−
Premium labels {{ref|86}}
 
−
When a Which? Report criticised the quality of supermarkets&#39; premium own label ranges, saying that the extra price paid for these ranges does not guarantee better tasting food, the FDF again stepped in, arguing that:
 
−
&#39;Consumers aren&#39;t fools. They are very savvy and if a shopper feels they are being had, they won&#39;t buy that product again.&#39;
 
−
 
 
−
Salt in food {{ref|87}}
 
−
The daily requirement for salt is only about 5g a day, yet the majority of people in the UK eat twice as much. Too much salt is bad for the body and the sodium in salt has been implicated in causing high blood pressure, which is linked to coronary heart disease and strokes. Excessive salt intake is also linked to osteoporosis and stomach cancer. Recently, the pressure group Consensus Action on Salt and Health, a group of doctors and chefs, called for food manufacturers to reduce drastically the amount of &#39;hidden&#39; salt in our foods.
 
−
 
 
−
Salt is used as a preservative and flavour-enhancer in adult and children&#39;s food alike. One pack of Dairylea Lunchables contains 3g salt. A 205g tin of Tesco Spaghetti letters contains 2.5g salt. A chicken and mushroom Pot Noodle contains 4g salt. Ready-meals can contain up to 7g of salt.
 
−
 
 
−
Once again, the FDF stepped in (this time Jackie Dowthwaite), defending the industry&#39;s decision to use high amounts of salt in their food:
 
−
&#39;Do you think consumers would be fooled into thinking cheap meat was a prime cut just by adding a bit of salt?&#39;
 
−
 
 
−
Children&#39;s foods {{ref|88}}
 
−
A report carried out by Organix, a baby food company, found that 3-4 of children&#39;s foods surveyed contained artificial flavourings or flavour enhancers, such as monosodium glutamate, which are banned for use in baby food. 1/3 of foods contained colourings, including dyes banned in Scandinavia and America. Despite this startling revelation, the FDF characteristically replied that:
 
−
 
 
−
&#39;It is scaremongering nonsense to suggest that children&#39;s food is not subject to strict regulation. All food in the UK has to be safe. That&#39;s the law&#39;.
 
−
Professor Aggett of the FDF, who has had personal interests with SMA Nutrition, Kelloggs, Nestle, Unilever and many other food companies, is also Deputy-Chair of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). He has been a member of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) (see &#39;Professor Aggett&#39; in the &#39;Influence/Lobbying&#39; section).
 
−
 
 
−
Breakfast bars {{ref|89}}
 
−
Breakfast cereal bars, the fastest growing category of breakfast products, are designed for people who do not have time for breakfast and are marketed as lunch-box fillers for children. Many of these products are loaded with fat, contain more sugar than chocolate and could not be approved for healthy eating. The report by the Food Commission, which tested 18 of the breakfast bars including Frosties, Coco Pops and Trackers, says it would never recommend them due to their poor nutritional content. They added, &#39;Breakfast substitutes should offer the healthiest alternative not a worse option.&#39; The Commission are concerned that the bars are a particular danger to teeth, encouraging maximum damage.
 
−
 
 
−
Amazingly, the Food and Drink Federation disputed the suggestion that cereal bars were not nutritious. On their &#39;Foodfitness&#39; website, the FDF tells people interested in a healthy lifestyle that:
 
−
&#39;Snacks are also a useful source of carbohydrates and other nutrients ...But remember to check out food labels to keep track of the fat content.&#39;{{ref|90}}
 
−
The &#39;Foodfitness&#39; website offers no actual guidelines on &#39;fat content&#39;, making the above advice almost useless.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
4. Greenwashing the &#39;food miles&#39; argument.
 
−
 
 
−
One of many concerns raised by the current system of &#39;free trade&#39; in agriculture is the unnecessary amount of miles that food travels. See for example, the Green Party publication &#39;The Great Food Swap&#39; and the SUSTAIN publication &#39; Eating Oil&#39; Besides the general argument that transport increases energy consumption, there is a serious concern that trade related air freight is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change. There are also serious concerns about the social impact of farmers from around the world being played off against each other for the lowest price and the effects this has on labour rights and wages, let alone the environmental damage of growing monocultures of crops for export.
 
−
 
 
−
In a recent press release,{{ref|91}} the FDF claimed that concern about &#39;food miles&#39; is a red herring, and that in terms of energy consumption, domestic refrigeration and cooking is far more energy intensive. The FDF also said that consumers would not support any moves to restrict the year-round availability of seasonal fruit and vegetables, even though imports must travel thousands of miles.
 
−
 
 
−
The FDF published this claim in their &#39;blueprint for sustainability&#39;, prepared for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. They claim that the amount of energy used in transporting food and drink to shops from farms and factories was relatively small, and that the manufacture of food and drink accounted for more than 13 times as much energy. And domestic refrigeration and cooking used more than eight times as much. This of course entirely misses the point.
 
−
 
 
−
In what could be seen as a retort to food purists who criticise &#39;ready meals&#39;, the FDF also said it made environmental sense to do as much food preparation as possible in factories since industrial-scale cooking equipment was more energy efficient than the domestic equivalent. As the FDF is a trade association representing food processor&#39;s interests, it was very likely to come up with this argument.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
5. Corrupting Organic standards
 
−
 
 
−
The Organic Food Manufacturers Liaison Group represents over 50 food manufacturers. It was set up in 2001 to &#39;ensure high quality standards&#39; as well as support the future development of new certification standards, based on consumer needs. One assumes this means the additives, preservatives and colourings that are so much a part of processed food manufacturing, though not part of most people&#39;s vision of organic foods as healthy and chemical-free.
 
−
 
 
−
In a press statement, Sylvia Jay re-affirmed this differing vision for organic food between many small producers and the industry, who have spotted an emerging and fast growing market. &#39;Organic food is no longer just box schemes and health food shops. It is now a mainstream, global market&#39;. In the UK, the total organic food market is now estimated to be worth in excess of �800 million an increase of 278% since 1996. If current growth rates are maintained the market will reach �1billon by 2002 and more than 5% of the grocery market by 2005-6. Tesco and Sainsbury&#39;s have over 600 lines of organic produce in major stores.{{ref|92}} Its not surprising that the food manufacturing industry see the co-option of the organic market as a key market.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
6. Dictating the research agenda
 
−
 
 
−
The food processing and manufacturing sector developed out of a recognition that the demand for food is fairly inelastic i.e. there is only so much food we can eat, however cheap it is. However, through innovation and technological &#39;advances&#39; we can add value to food, thus always ensuring there are new products and new demand. Over the years, such innovation has taken the form of preservatives, enzymes, additives, flavourings, colourings, new processing techniques and ready meals. There have also been staggering advances in the processing of food, ensuring that it is ever more efficient, that the supply of raw materials is constant and the price of raw materials is lower - to this end GM technology appeals to the food processors as it creates oversupply. Furthermore, the promise of GM technology with processing traits, such as bread wheat with higher gluten levels so that gluten does not need to be added in the baking stage, seems very appealing to the industry.
 
−
 
 
−
Evidently, the industry invests heavily in research and development, however, it makes more financial sense to get the government to fund research. Representatives of the FDF sit, and have sat on the board of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, as well as the government Foresight committees, that are developing new visions for food technology on behalf of the government and at the Rothampsted research institute, that focuses on agronomic research, including biotechnology. Other associates of the FDF work with independent research institutes, such as the Institute of Food Research and the Institute of Food Science and Technology that are beneficiaries of government funding (See section on &#39;Influence and Lobbying&#39;).
 
−
 
 
−
With government funding so focused on research useful for industry, this narrows the amount available for independent research, for exampleon the health risks of new food technologies. This, of course, can only be viewed as a good thing by the industry.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
7. Shamelessly defending industry representation on government committees
 
−
 
 
−
In April 1998, Neville Craddock of the FDF (see above) gave evidence to the UK government&#39;s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE&#39;s overall purpose is to &#39;to ensure that risks to people&#39;s health and safety from work activities are properly controlled&#39;. This particular select committee also examined the process by which government committees, such as the Food Advisory Committee (FAC), takes advice from industry sources. Craddock felt that he, being someone who represented industry whilst sitting on government committees, was in a &#39;strong and relevant position to offer comments to the Committee&#39;s Inquiry, with particular reference to the role and position of so-called &#39;Industry Representatives&#39; on Advisory Committees.&#39;{{ref|93}}
 
−
 
 
−
The text of his memorandum contains the following quotes{{ref|94}}:
 
−
 
 
−
  1. &#39;Advice to Ministers must continue to be of the highest possible calibre, beyond question and be seen to be independent of any vested interests.
 
−
 
 
−
  2. The balance and source of Committee membership must be objectively addressed. Industry employees may not be unique in having direct or indirect financial interests in matters under discussion. [I.e. it&#39;s OK for committee members to be industry-employees, since other committee members, although not industry employees, may still have financial interests such as shares in relevant industries. This is not comforting.]
 
−
 
 
−
  3. The Terms of Reference of the FAC [Food Advisory Committee], in particular, can best and, perhaps, only be met by having amongst its membership, individuals with relevant, practical, first-hand experience [i.e. industry-employees] in appropriate areas, in order to ensure the widest possible basis for advice to Ministers.
 
−
 
 
−
For corporate lobby groups, having a representative on a government advisory committee, is exactly where they can wield their power best. Advisory committees are where legislation and regulation is debated and proposed. This is where their behaviour could be restricted and potentially, their profits curtailed.
 
−
 
 
−
For all the claims of &#39;independence from any vested interests&#39;, lobbyists can&#39;t help but work in the interests of their corporate members, since they are paid to represent them. They are hardly likely to call for tough when this is going to penalise their members, with the exception, of course, of cases in which regulation can be made to work for their interests, for example by forcing smaller producers out of the market.
 
−
 
 
−
==Officers==
 
−
President: [[John Sunderland]] - [[Cadbury's]]  
 
−
 
 
−
Deputy President: [[Gavin Neath]] - [[Unilever]]
 
−
 
 
−
Treasurer, Deputy President: [[Ross Warburton]] - Warburtons
 
−
 
 
−
Vice President: [[Iain Ferguson]] - [[Tate and Lyle]]
 
−
 
 
−
Vice President: [[Kirit Pathak]] - [[Patak Foods]]
 
−
 
 
−
==Staff==
 
−
 
 
−
Director General: [[Sylvia Jay]]
 
−
 
 
−
Communications Director: [[Martin Paterson]]  
 
  
−
Campaigns Manager: [[Karen Barber]]  
+
==Personnel==
 +
===Principals===
 +
*[[Ian Wright]] - director general appointed 2015
 +
*[[Melanie Leech]] – director general from August 2005. Joined the civil service in 1988. Worked in HM Customs and Excise, the [[Cabinet Office]] (including private secretary to [[Lord Butler]]), the [[Department for Media, Culture and Sport]] and the Office of the Rail Regulator. From 2001-2004, seconded to Executive Director of the [[Association of Police Authorities]], before returning to the [[Cabinet Office]] as Director of Communications .
  
−
Media and Parliamentary Relations Manager: [[Christine Fisk]]  
+
*[[Gavin Neath]] – president. Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, [[Unilever]].
 +
Governing Body of ICC in the UK. Leadership Team of Business in the Environment
 +
 +
*[[Iain Ferguson]], deputy president but became president of the FDF in January 2007. Ex-[[Unilever]], sat on the Government's [[Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food]] (Curry Commission). Former President of the [[Institute of Grocery Distribution]]. Honorary Vice-President of the [[British Nutrition Foundation]] . Ex-Director, [[Rothamsted Research Station]] and of the biotech company [[Sygenta]]. Ex-Member of the UK's DTI Foresight Programme Food Chain and Crops for Industry Panel
  
 +
===Officers===
 +
*President: [[John Sunderland]] - [[Cadbury's]]
 +
*Deputy President: [[Gavin Neath]] - [[Unilever]]
 +
*Treasurer, Deputy President: [[Ross Warburton]] - Warburtons
 +
*Vice President: [[Iain Ferguson]] - [[Tate and Lyle]]
 +
*Vice President: [[Kirit Pathak]] - [[Patak Foods]]
 +
===Staff===
 +
*Director General: [[Sylvia Jay]]
 +
*Communications Director: [[Martin Paterson]]
 +
*Campaigns Manager: [[Karen Barber]]
 +
*Media and Parliamentary Relations Manager: [[Christine Fisk]]
  
−
==Links==
+
==Affiliations==
 +
The [[Food and Drink Federation]] was a donor to the [[Science Media Centre]] in 2012 and 2013. <ref>SMC, [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/funding/ Funding], accessed 29 September 2013. See also [[Science Media Centre - Funding]]</ref>
  
 +
==References, Resources and Contact==
 +
===Contact===
 +
:Website: [http://www.fdf.org.uk/ www.fdf.org.uk]
 +
===Resources===
 
*The Food and Drink Federation, A Corporate Profile, By Corporate Watch UK Completed November 2002 [http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=222]
 
*The Food and Drink Federation, A Corporate Profile, By Corporate Watch UK Completed November 2002 [http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=222]
 +
*Felicity Lawrence and Rob Evans '[http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1224943,00.html Food firms go all the way to No 10 in fight over what we eat]: Letters, lunches, dinners, briefings.' The Guardian, 26 May 2004. Also here: [http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=41]<ref>File no longer available</ref>
  
−
*Felicity Lawrence and Rob Evans '[http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1224943,00.html Food firms go all the way to No 10 in fight over what we eat]: Letters, lunches, dinners, briefings.' The Guardian Wednesday May 26, 2004. Also here: [http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=41]
+
===References===
 +
<references/>
  
−
==Notes==
+
[[Category:Alcohol]][[Category:Food Industry lobby groups]][[Category:Alcohol Industry]]
−
* {{note|1}} http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
+
[[Category:Front Groups]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]][[Category:Science Media Centre]]
−
*{{note|2}} http://www.fdf.org.uk/fdfmembership.html#1
 
−
*{{note|3}} UK Food and Drink Industry Statistics 2000
 
−
*{{note|4}} http://www.fdf.org.uk/fdfmembership.html#2
 
−
*{{note|5}} http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
 
−
*{{note|6}} www.epolitix.com/data/companies/images/companies/Food-and-Drink-Federation/040501.htm
 
−
*{{note|7}} www.ciaa.be/uk/documents/press/press
 
−
*{{note|8}} www.ciaa.be/uk/documents/press/press03-09-02
 
−
*{{note|9}} The Guardian, April 21, 2001
 
−
*{{note|10}} The Guardian, April 21, 2001
 
−
*{{note|11}} M2 PRESSWIRE April 30, 1997
 
−
*{{note|12}} The Regulatory News Service, February 14, 2002
 
−
*{{note|13}} Sylvia Jay speaking, reported in &#39;New identity-preserved standard aims to make sourcing, supplying non-GM simpler and cheaper.&#39; Author: just-food.com editorial team, 11 Sep 2001 ( http://just-food.com/features_detail.asp?art=512&c=1)
 
−
*{{note|14}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/11we19.htm
 
−
*{{note|15}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|16}} See for example &#39;Seeds of Doubt&#39; report for the Soil Association compiled by Hugh Warwick. Sept 2002.
 
−
*{{note|17}} Professor Burke, writing for Foodfuture quarterly magazine and at http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/newindex.html
 
−
*{{note|18}} Peter Blackburn, FDF President, in http://www.fdf.org.uk/speeches/speech010308a.pdf
 
−
*{{note|19}} The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
 
−
*{{note|20}} The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
 
−
*{{note|21}} http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/manstructure/tstructure.html
 
−
*{{note|22}} The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
 
−
*{{note|23}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|24}} http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/manstructure/tstructure.html
 
−
*{{note|25}} www.foresight.gov.uk
 
−
*{{note|26}} http://194.200.94.127/IOP/Foresight/foodchain.html
 
−
*{{note|27}} http://www.biology4all.com/SummerSchoolupdatedforweb.doc
 
−
*{{note|28}} http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/1998/paper_417.htm
 
−
*{{note|29}} http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/STPP.nsf/web/biotech-conf
 
−
*{{note|30}} http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,629397,00.html
 
−
*{{note|31}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|32}} http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/biotech/BiosFINAL.htm
 
−
*{{note|33}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|34}} http://www.sfam.org.uk/society/corpmem.htm
 
−
*{{note|35}} http://www.henrystewart.com/journals/cb/edboard.html
 
−
*{{note|36}} http://www.biac.org/biacdir/commbiotech.htm (July 2001)
 
−
*{{note|37}} http://www.biac.org/Framepos.htm
 
−
*{{note|38}} http://www.dti.gov.uk/nms/prog/new/biotech.pdf
 
−
*{{note|39}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-03-15/Writtens-10.html
 
−
*{{note|40}} http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/biotech/BiosFINAL.htm (April 2001)
 
−
*{{note|41}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
 
−
*{{note|42}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|43}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
 
−
*{{note|44}} http://www.ifst.org/whatsnew.htm
 
−
*{{note|45}} http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-56.pdf
 
−
*{{note|46}} http://www.nfpa-food.org/News_Release/042601FoodPolicyConfnewsrelease.htm
 
−
*{{note|47}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
 
−
*{{note|48}} http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/48007
 
−
*{{note|49}} http://www.ec-farming.net/
 
−
*{{note|50}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
 
−
*{{note|51}} http://archive.food.gov.uk/maff/archive/inf/newsrel/1998/980423a.htm
 
−
*{{note|52}} http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/enforcement/role/laelg/laelgmemberstor
 
−
*{{note|53}} http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/policiesandregulations/49321/
 
−
*{{note|54}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubadm/209/9061503.htm
 
−
*{{note|55}} www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmagric/753/80519p05.htm
 
−
*{{note|56}} http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/coma97.pdf
 
−
*{{note|57}} http://archive.food.gov.uk/maff/archive/food/novel/interest.htm
 
−
*{{note|58}} http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/ouradvisors/toxicity/moreinfo/43531
 
−
*{{note|59}} http://www.wyeth.com/about/index.asp
 
−
*{{note|60}} http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/coma99.pdf
 
−
*{{note|61}} http://www.doh.gov.uk/coc/2000ar.pdf
 
−
*{{note|62}} http://www.borax.com
 
−
*{{note|63}} http://archive.food.gov.uk/dept_health/archive/cot/cot_intere2000.pdf
 
−
*{{note|64}} http://abbott.com/corporate/corporate_overview.html
 
−
*{{note|65}} http://www.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk
 
−
*{{note|66}} www.members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm
 
−
*{{note|67}} http://archive.food.gov.uk/dept_health/archive/cot/cot_intere2000.pdf
 
−
*{{note|68}} http://www.doh.gov.uk/coma/about.htm#tor
 
−
*{{note|69}}www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm"> www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm (1998)
 
−
*{{note|70}} http://www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm
 
−
*{{note|71}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfoods/276/9031006.htmv
 
−
*{{note|72}} M2 PressWIRE December 15, 2000
 
−
*{{note|73}} M2 PressWIRE March 6, 2001
 
−
*{{note|74}} M2 PRESSWIRE April 30, 1997
 
−
*{{note|75}} Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd PR Week August 4, 1995
 
−
*{{note|76}} M2 PRESSWIRE May 6, 1998
 
−
*{{note|77}} Information from the Guardian, p7., September 8, 2001
 
−
*{{note|78}} http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
 
−
*{{note|79}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8121501.htm
 
−
*{{note|80}} Sylvia Jay quoted in Belfast News Letter September 8, 2001
 
−
*{{note|81}} M2 PRESSWIRE September 7, 2001
 
−
*{{note|82}} The Grocer July 06, 2002
 
−
*{{note|83}} http://www.foodfen.org.uk/news12.asp
 
−
*{{note|84}} http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/policiesandregulations/49321/
 
−
*{{note|85}} The Independent, July 16, 2002
 
−
*{{note|86}} The Grocer, March 09, 2002
 
−
*{{note|87}} Daily Mail, February 5, 2002
 
−
*{{note|88}} The Daily Telegraph, January 24, 2002
 
−
*{{note|89}} The Express, October 23, 2001
 
−
*{{note|90}} http://www.foodfitness.org.uk/tips4assess.htm
 
−
*{{note|91}} Food transport &#39;not the worst&#39; energy culprit&#39; by Fiona Harvey and Adam Jones, Financial Times 19/8/02
 
−
*{{note|92}} www.epolitix.com/data/companies/images/companies/Food-and-Drink-Federation/040501.htm
 
−
*{{note|93}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
 
−
*{{note|94}} http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
 

Latest revision as of 02:16, 9 March 2015

Foodspin badge.png This article is part of the Foodspin project of Spinwatch.

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) is a lobby group in the UK for the food and drink industries. It 'promotes the industry's views and works to build consumer confidence in the food chain as a whole.'

Overview

Industry Areas: The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), through its 50 members, directly and indirectly represents approximately 95% of the UK food and drink manufacturing sector[1]. Member organisations include the Rice Association, the Food Association, the Potato Processors Association, the British Soft Drinks Association and the Federation of Bakers[2].

Overview: The FDF represents big business in the food and drink sector. Its current president is Peter Blackburn, former chair of Nestle UK, and now also chair of Northern Foods. Food and drink industries use the FDF to promote their own interests to both government and the public. Such interests typically include:

  • the production of a globally competitive food production system which involves the intensification and genetic modification of agriculture, thereby minimising input costs for the food manufacturing industry;
  • the promotion and support of high profit-margin, high value-added food and drink products - in practice this tends to mean highly processed products, often unhealthy and containing many additives.
  • Ensuring that the research agenda in the universities and research institutions match the ever-increasing need for new products in the processed foods sector.

The FDF relays these interests through various campaigns and lobbying strategies to government and the public. Within government, FDF and/or industry representatives sit on numerous government committees responsible for dealing with food issues.

Market share / Importance: The FDF is the principal trade federation representing UK food and drink producers. Through its 50 members, it represents a gross output of £65 billion, or 14% of total UK manufacturing. 500,000 people are employed within this sector: 12.7% of the UK manufacturing workforce[3].

The FDF therefore calls itself the:

  • Largest packaging client
  • 2nd largest advertising client
  • 3rd largest energy client
  • Furthermore, the FDF indirectly (through its members) buys 2/3 of all UK agricultural produce.


Lobbying campaigns

Working Against Junk Food Ban

The FDF has worked against a government ban on advertising of junk food to children to fight obesity . The FDF has been a key player in a huge "lobbying campaign in Whitehall to see off growing pressure for regulation to tackle obesity and diet-related diseases". According to leaked documents, the then Director General of the FDF, Sylvia Jay went to see the Public Health Minister, Melanie Johnson. 'Minutes of the meeting show that the FDF took the opportunity to tell the minister that the industry would oppose any proposals to reduce fat and sugar in foods along the lines of the work being done to reduce salt', recorded The Guardian in 2004.

By 2006 as the regulatory authorities began drawing consultations on a junk food advertising ban, the food industry including the FDF was being accused of "derailing" them. Documents released under FOI show that the Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, met food bosses 29 times between May 2005 and March 2006.

Food campaigners want all junk food advertising banned before the 9pm watershed to protect children of all ages. However, the FDF is one of the main organizations fighting to oppose this. In September 2006, when the National Heart Forum renewed call for a ban on junk food advertising pre-9pm, arguing that responses on Ofcom's website to its consultation were "100 to one" in favour of a pre-9pm ban. Those in favour include over 40 consumer and health organizations and even the government's Food Standards Agency . The FDF though argued that "A ban up to the watershed is overly restrictive and unnecessarily curbs advertising to a mostly adult audience".

Protecting processed and unhealthy food

The FDF has come to the defence of companies accused of producing food high in salts, fats, sugars, additives and preservatives. After a jury of 800 parents recruited by the Food Commission targeted certain foods such as Sunny Delight for being unhealthy, Martin Paterson responded that "No one food is bad - balance is the key - and demonising individual products which are marketed as snacks or treats may be unhelpful to both parents and children ." When the think tank Demos proposed a food tax on high fat foods, Paterson called the idea "patronising" and said it would "hit lower income families" and "be a tax on choice".

Against reduction in Salt levels

The FDF has spoken out in defence of salt in food which is linked to increased heart disease and blood pressure. In the late nineties the medical journal the Lancet published research that found that the level of salt can be significantly reduced without sacrificing taste, Martin Paterson responded by saying there was "over-excitement about the use of salt" and that "the majority of the population enjoy the use of salt and understand that it has been used for thousands of years to the benefit of the consumer ."

In May 2003, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced guidelines on maximum recommended salt intakes for children. Food watch-dog, the Food Commission warned that with so much hidden salt in children's food, it would be hard for parents to achieve the targets without a significant reduction of salt. However, the FDF was against regulatory action. A year later, tests showed that bread, crisps, beans and soup were as salty as ever , so the FSA suggested that labelling should declare the salt content of food. The FDF continued to oppose such labelling recommendations .

Against FSA's "Traffic Light" System

In 2004, a survey of shoppers by the UK Food Standards Agency found that they backed "traffic light" coding for food so they could tell what is healthy and what is not. The moves were opposed by Martin Paterson for the FDF, who said, "Simplistic schemes which categorise products into good and bad could seriously mislead consumers."

Pro-GM and Against Labelling of GM-ingredients

In the late nineties, the FDF argued to a government Select Committee that the use of genetic modification of food production can provide benefits throughout the food chain: to primary producers; food processors and consumers … we do not believe that genetic modification per se presents any food safety risk or that foods produced using GMOs represent a special class of new foods, and that we believe they should be subject to the same type of risk assessment as any other new food product and its intended use, rather than its method of development . In 2002, the FDF also attacked moves from Brussels to tighten up GM labelling regulations as "ridiculous and unworkable " It now runs the website foodfuture, whose role is ostensibly to inform the public, but it is pro-GM.

Greenwashing 'food miles'

Although concerns over food miles have increased in recent years as has the demand for local and seasonal food, the FDF has tried to argue that food miles are less of a problem than domestic refrigeration and cooking. The FDF has also argued that consumers would not support any moves to restrict the year-round availability of seasonal fruits and vegetables and that ready cooked meals are more ecological than home cooked food.

Corrupting local food

The FDF sponsored a conference run by South West Food and Drink in June 2004, the organization set up to promote local and regional food from the region. The key-note speech was by Paul Freeston on 'Apetito – A South West success story'. Apetito's subsidiary, Wiltshire Foods, may South-West based, but the Apetito group is one of Europe's leading suppliers of frozen food and catering meals with its head office in Germany. One delegate noted: "When asked what percentage of ingredients used in "Wiltshire Farm" foods is actually sourced from the South West, Freeston was unable to supply a figure or even name a single supplier. 'We buy beef from South America and chicken from Thailand' he said, 'where the quality is very good'".

Stopped foot and mouth vaccination plan

At the height of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, the government was considering a limited vaccination policy which would have saved tens of thousands of animals from being needlessly slaughtered. Blair had announced that vaccination was the best option, but the plan was scrapped after lobbying by the food industry, including Peter Blackburn, the then chief executive of Nestlé UK, and president of the FDF, as well as the FDF's then chief executive, Lady Sylvia Jay. "We argued against a vaccination policy" argued Blackburn. "We were very afraid of the consequences on all meat and dairy exports ."

Against FSA Nutrient Profiling

The FDF was disappointed with the Nutrient Profiling (NP) model which was created by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) as a tool to measure foods which were high in fats, salt and sugar (HFSS). In a response to the NP review panel's recommendations the FDF claimed they “remain concerned that the profiling model is selective and arbitrary and not based on clear scientific evidence” and that it “that it perpetuates the myth that individual foods can be objectively described as “healthy” or “unhealthy”.”

In this response, they go on to say, “FDF rejects FSA’s claim that there will be no additional costs to industry with the use of this model, as we feel the claim can not be substantiated. Indeed as the purpose of its use by Ofcom appears to be to try and distort the market by discouraging sales of particular products, then it is hard to see how this can not be a contradiction. We therefore request an objective and independent impact assessment and a cost benefit analysis.”

Resources

Personnel

Principals

Governing Body of ICC in the UK. Leadership Team of Business in the Environment

Officers

Staff

Affiliations

The Food and Drink Federation was a donor to the Science Media Centre in 2012 and 2013. [4]

References, Resources and Contact

Contact

Website: www.fdf.org.uk

Resources

References

  1. ↑ BSB:Members (No lonver available 23 October 2007)
  2. ↑ FDF website FDF:Members (Accessed: 23 October 2007)
  3. ↑ UK Food and Drink Industry Statistics 2000
  4. ↑ SMC, Funding, accessed 29 September 2013. See also Science Media Centre - Funding
  5. ↑ File no longer available
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Food_and_Drink_Federation&oldid=212458"