Food and Drink Federation

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/.

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 Nestlé 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 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.

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.

Projects

The FDF has its own well-kept website with reports, news, documents and information concerning the food and drink industry at www.fdf.org.uk. It also runs tangential websites aimed at getting ‘science-based information’ over to the public: http://www.foodfuture.org.uk looks at biotechnology and food; http://www.foodfitness.org.uk encourages healthy eating combined with exercise; http://www.foodlink.org.uk promotes good hygiene practices.

The FDF’s more important job is to act as the ‘voice of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry’, in which role it aims to ‘improve the environment in which the UK food and drink manufacturing industry must operate: be it legislative, economic, social or political. It aims to safeguard the commercial interests of the industry and maximise its international competitiveness’.

To this end, it is an active lobbying group; the website boasts that in 2001 it had ‘over 1,000 contacts with Ministers [and] Members of Parliaments at UK and EU level’ and had ‘hundreds of consultations with EU, Government and others’[4]. Lady Jay, Director General of the FDF, explains that ‘FDF co-ordinated and represented industry in more than one hundred formal and informal consultation exercises’ [5].

Lady Jay also explains that the FDF has helped create ‘an important forum which brings together the Presidents and Directors General of the four key groupings along the food chain - FDF, the NFU National Farmer’s Union, the British Retail Consortium and the Institute of Grocery Distribution.’ She believes that this ‘ “joined-up� approach, this Whole Food Chain approach, is and will continue to be, a major element of our lobbying strategy.’

This is largely due to the fact that all four stakeholders hold a similar future vision for agriculture in the UK, one that revolves around global competitiveness, greater intensification of agriculture, and the widespread growth and use of GMOs. This lobbying forum also excludes some of the other interests in the food chain - namely small and family farmers, small organic producers, people working on local food economies, farm-workers and to a large extent consumers.

2. Who, where, how much?

1. Company structure/ownership
2. FDF Policy formulation
3. A few key people

WHO, WHERE, HOW MUCH?

Food and Drink Federation 6 Catherine Street London WC2B 5JJ 020 7836 2460

Company structure/ownership

The FDF is funded principally by member’s fees. In 2003, company membership was £200 per £1m turnover, plus VAT, capped at £1bn. There are extra charges to be an associate or affiliate member.

It costs between £1000 to £3000 per year to access committee papers so unfortunately Corporate Watch cannot spill the beans on their internal workings.

FDF Policy formulation

FDF policies are developed through industry-wide consultation, channelled through its governing Council, and advised by specialist committees. The committees are:

Communications Committee. This promotes industry messages to decision-makers and opinion formers including Parliament, central and local government, the media, health professionals and academics.

The key task of the UK Communications Committee is ‘to devise programmes to develop the image and influence of the British food and drink manufacturing industry by widening public knowledge and recognition of its products and heightening consumer confidence in the quality and safety of the food supply.’

Food Policy and Resources Committee consists of industry leaders who meet quarterly to discuss trade, supply, resource, research and other major issues of concern to the industry. It has a number of sub-committees and working parties.

Out of Home Group (formerly Food Service Committee) consists of senior company representatives. The committee works on policy resulting from manufacturer/distributor and end operator relationships.

Grocery Trade Liaison Committee consists of senior company representatives. It works on policy resulting from manufacturer/retailer relationships and, interestingly in recognition of the unprecedented concentration in the industry, focuses on Competition Policy developments. To support its work there are two sub-committees, one dealing with supply chain and the other with sales promotion issues.

Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Committee seeks to monitor, evaluate and influence both UK and EU scientific and regulatory affairs that affect the commercial interests of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry. Its wide-ranging responsibilities include good manufacturing practice, identity-preserved ingredient supply, food chain technical data transfer and the maintenance of liaison with other major food chain interests such as the Food Standards Agency and the UK research associations. Sub-committees include: Agricultural Practices, Food Contact Materials, Food Hygiene, Food Ingredients, Food Law, Labelling, Nutrition and Residues and Contaminants.

Environment Committee Reviews environmental issues and developments that affect, or have the potential to affect, the interests of the food and drink industry and ensures that the scientific, technical or other relevant aspects are being adequately dealt with by FDF. Current issues are environmental management, integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), packaging, sustainability and waste. There are currently five issue-led topic groups under the Environment Committee to facilitate more detailed discussions of specific issues, namely: Air Emissions, IPPC, Packaging, Transport and Water.

Food and Drink National Training Organisation (Food and Drink NTO) Represents the strategic training and development interests of the industry at national level.

The Organic Food Manufacturers Liaison Group. This group of over 50 manufacturers was set up in 2001 to among other worthy causes ‘ensure high quality standards’ as well as support the future development of new certification standards, based on consumer needs. (See Corporate Crimes section).[6]

CIAA Delegation The Confederation des Industries Agro-Alimentaires (CIAA), based in Brussels, is the food and drink industry’s European trade association. It represents the industry on regulatory issues at an EU and international level. Its objective is explicitly to increase free trade within the European Union. As well as representing national trade federations, it also represents the interests of large transnationals operating in Europe such as Cargill, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods and Unilever.

The CIAA took an active part in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, August 2002, hosting a side event and publishing a UNEP sponsored report entitled ‘Continuous Improvement Towards Sustainability’ which ‘offers testimony to the determination of the food and drink industry to understand and integrate sustainability into its business culture and processes.’[7]

Their evident commitment to sustainability is reflected in their recent press statement resisting European recycling targets of 65% by 2006:

‘Today’s vote in the European Parliament did not take into account the considerable efforts that the food and drink industry has already made regarding the prevention and recycling of packaging. A recycling target of 65 % would lead to costs for the industry that are disproportionate to the benefits for the environment’, argues Raymond Destin, Director General of the CIAA, the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU.[8]

A few key people:

Peter Blackburn - President of the FDF - Non-executive director of Compass Group plc., the world’s largest foodservice company with annual revenues in excess of nine billion pounds. - Non-Executive Director and Chair designate of Northern Food plc (as of November 2001), succeeding Lord Haskins.

Previous industry positions: - Chair and Chief Executive of Nestlé UK. See Corporate Watch’s profile of Nestlé.

Other information: He is a practising Catholic, and sees Easter as a ‘gifting’ festival which, he believes, is a positive thing since it helps bring families together[9] (in 2000, Nestlé sold 20 million eggs for £88 million). He has come more under attack for his role in marketing baby milk formula in the developing world. He admits ‘There is no doubt that the marketing of formulas was excessive in the 1970s’ [10] but insists that since the early 1980s Nestlé has complied with the World Health Organisation Code on Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. See www.babymilkaction.org for contradictory evidence.

Peter Blackburn has also come under fire for his role in the 2001 foot and mouth crisis. Working with the NFU, he helped to turn around the government’s proposed and almost-cemented vaccination policy for Cumbria and possibly part of Devon. Blackburn ‘fiercely’ lobbied against the vaccination programme, concerned that it may dent Nestlé export profits (see ‘Foot and Mouth crisis’ in ‘Corporate Crimes’ section).

Lady Sylvia Jay - Director General of FDF (from January 2001). - Previously, career in British civil service, including secondments to the French Ministre de la Cooperation and the Tresor, and to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Also former civil servant at the Department for International Development. - Wife of the former British Ambassador to Paris and current Foreign Office permanent undersecretary, Sir Michael Jay.

Guy Walker CBE MA [11] (Previously-held positions) - President of the Food and Drink Federation - Chair of Van den Bergh Foods Ltd

Bill Ronald - Deputy President of the Food & Drink Federation.[12] - Chief Executive Officer of Uniq plc. as of February 2002. Uniq is a leading European convenience foods business with a turnover in excess of £1bn. Principal brand names in the UK include St Ivel.

3. Influence and lobbying

  1. Influencing the public
  2. Lobbying Government
  3. Influence through the Industry/Government partnership
  4. Summary

The FDF is a corporate-controlled lobby group which promotes corporate interests in three ways:

  1. Producing biased information for the public domain
  2. Lobbying government for corporate-friendly legislation and regulation.
  3. Placing industry people on relevant government panels to ensure that industry itself decides how or if it should be regulated.

There is ample evidence for all three of these processes. A more subtle current running through the promotion of corporate interests, is the placing of industry representatives on research funding councils and in supposedly independent research institutions.

1. Influencing the public

The Foodfuture programme and the debate on genetically modified crops (www.foodfuture.org.uk)

The FDF claims to provide ‘transparent and objective dialogue’ to improve public understanding of biotechnology. Lady Sylvia Jay, Director General of the FDF, claims that the FDF is ‘neither for, nor against, genetic modification in food production’[13]. However, whilst posing as an impartial body, the FDF is by no means undecided as to the benefits of biotechnology for its members. As far back as 1998/1999, an FDF memorandum to a government Select Committee stated: ‘FDF believes 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’[14]

When asked how the FDF is helping to ‘improve the whole question of public acceptance of this technology [biotechnology]’[15], Iain Ferguson, who holds several positions in the FDF (see below), replied that it could be achieved by providing ‘unbiased, transparent information available to people’. The Foodfuture programme ‘is also about making available material for journalists to incorporate in their articles giving an unbiased source of information and running a whole series of exhibitions and roadshows.’

But is this information unbiased or independent? What does ‘transparent information’ mean? If anything, it suggests that we should know who wrote Foodfuture publications. In reality, we don’t know who has written the Foodfuture publications, only that they are published by the FDF, one of them with the support of the NFU. Neither of these groups is a scientific organisation; instead, both represent corporate interests intent on the intensification of agriculture. The analysis below should expose how far the FDF falls short of being an unbiased or transparent source of information.

An analysis of FDF publication ‘GM Crops and the Environment: Benefits and Risks’ (2000) (FDF publication, with the support of the NFU; available on request from the FDF).

Introduction ‘Growing crops is not a natural process’; therefore we need to ask ‘how the benefits and risks of GM crops compare with existing farming practices’.

Organic farming Organic farming has ‘decided not to adopt the [GM] technology’; we are told organic methods can have ‘negative effects on the environment …: organic pesticides … require careful handling to avoid killing insects and birds. On the farm, mechanical methods of weed control (ploughing and tilling) can be more harmful than pesticides…; copper sulphate [an organic pesticide] is toxic’.

None of these statements is dirctly untrue but they neglect to look at the reality of organic practices or to compare that to practices using conventional pesticide use, which is generally much more harmful to the environment.

Benefits of GM-agriculture ‘[M]any people want farmers … to use fewer chemicals’. GM crops fulfil the role by requiring fewer applications of chemicals which the crop is designed to be resistant to; as an added bonus, ‘the use of tractor diesel is reduced as fewer sprayings means fewer trips across the fields’.

True, if you believe industry propaganda. The experience of farmers in the USA, tells another story. Increasing resistance to glyphosate, the main herbicide used the growing of GM crops has led to a need for more applications both of glyphosate and other pesticides such as atrazine.[16]

Feeding the world with GM crops Professor Burke, writing in the Food Futures quarterly journal claims that it is ‘perverse, even criminal, to walk away from an increased source of food when we need it desperately’[17] He states ‘100 million people starving and 800 million people hungry in the world today’. Their presumption is that starvation results from a shortage of food, which only GM crops can solve through higher yields. This argument has been categorically denounced by social scientists working in the field. Starvation is in most cases caused by lack of access to food, not a food shortage globally. Foodfuture’s obvious conclusion is to use GM-technology to grow more food, whilst actually contributing to the problem by making larger areas of the world dependent on low farm-wages, possible unemployment, and subsequent starvation.

The Foodfuture publication goes on to claim that the major criticism of GM technology is that not all the world will have access to it. The challenge becomes one of spreading the technology around the world. We are then assured that ‘Some of the large corporations who own the technology have freely donated certain applications to developing countries.’ This is in the long term interests of the biotechnology corporations, who are keen to see their practices spread worldwide. Note that they only donate ‘certain applications’, i.e. the farmer still has to buy the seeds and/or the chemicals and/or the machinery.

The dangers of cross pollination One of the problems of GM-technology is the possible cross-pollination of GM-crops to non-GM crops, and wild relatives of GM crops. This can lead to, for example, herbicide-resistant weeds and volunteers. Rather than refute this widely-accepted possibility, Foodfuture tries to play down the importance of the cross-pollination of GM and non-GM crops: ‘In the UK we already fight with Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and other weeds accidentally introduced from other countries - these may be more of a problem than weeds derived from cross-pollination with GM plants.’

Risk of intensive agriculture to biodiversity The FDF admits that intensive, monocultural agriculture reduces biodiversity levels in rural regions. Therefore they argue that ‘the more efficient we make agriculture the less pressure there will be on ‘wild habitats’, neglecting the possiblity that maintaining biodiversity can be an integral and useful part of farming techniques.

These documents are available on the Foodfuture website or in their free publication (just e-mail and ask). The FDF also takes their views around the country at exhibitions and roadshows.

Back to top 2. Lobbying Government

Examples of how the FDF has distorted the political process are found in the ‘Corporate crimes’ section. Here is just one example of how the FDF have exerted their influence in their own interest rather than in the interest of the long term health of the planet.

The Climate Change Levy The FDF has recently secured an agreement with the government such that its members avoid paying 80% of the climate change levy (CCL). The UK government introduced the CCL in April 2001, aiming it at non-domestic energy-users and encouraging them to be more energy efficient. The FDF ‘lobbied hard’ to achieve dramatic levy-reductions in exchange for rather more modest energy-reductions over 10 years (11.4% reduction by 2010)[18]. This skilful piece of lobbying saved the industry approximately £250 million per year.

Back to top 3. Influence through the Industry/Government partnership

Below is a list of FDF people (past and present) who have represented industry whilst also sitting on government committees. The list is by no means exhaustive. For one, the FDF is not obliged to publish details of all the people it employs; rather, it chooses which names to post on its website, although this selection misses out the most ‘interconnected’ people. This information was mainly sourced from government websites (Parliament Committee Reports ) and the Regulatory News Service (which provides information on industry job positions).

Iain Ferguson The FDF website does not mention Iain Ferguson, even though he is Honorary Treasurer and Chair of the Finance Committee of the FDF[19]. Further research shows that Iain Ferguson is a key industry pro-GM supporter, responsible for developing companies’ future directions, representing those directions to government, and listening to those directions whilst sitting on government committees.

Industry positions: - Senior Vice-President, Corporate Development, of Unilever plc, where he is responsible for ‘corporate strategy and new business development throughout Unilever’ [20]. This puts him in a key decision-making position for the future direction of Unilever. - Over the last 15 years with Unilever he has held various senior positions, including Chair of Birds Eye Wall’s, Chair of Unilever Plantations and Plant Science Group, and Technical Director of BOCM Silcock. During his time as Chair of the Unilever Plantations Group, ‘he was responsible for 90,000 employees living and working in oil palm, tea, coffee, and flower plantations in 12 countries around the world’[21]. - Non-executive director of Syngen International plc, a global company which applies genomics and biotechnology to animal breeding[22]. It previously specialised in pigs but is now moving into poultry, beef and fish markets.

Industry-representative positions: - Honorary Treasurer and Chair of the Finance Committee of the Food and Drink Federation - Chair of the Food Policy and Resources Committee of the Food and Drink Federation. This is a significant committee, composed of 15 chief executives of the major food companies, which examines food regulations and policies[23]. - Fellow of the Institute of Grocery Distribution (the UK food retailing trade body). - Vice-President of the Institute of Grocery Distribution (from January 2003 he will be President). - Non-executive director of the British Nutrition Foundation. - Non-executive director of Rothamsted Experimental Station Limited. Rothamsted is the main site of the Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR); it is the largest agricultural research centre in the UK and is possibly the oldest research station in the world. Rothampsted and the IACR have researched and promoted intensive agricultural production from the post-War development of chemical pesticides to the use of biotechnology. Their partners include Aventis, DuPont, Novartis and Syngenta. The IACR promotes biotechnology, arguing that ‘New [crop] varieties and products will ultimately benefit consumers and maintain a competitive advantage for UK agriculture and associated industries.’[24]

Government-related positions: - Commissioner on the UK Government’s Policy on the Future of Farming and Food, resulting in the Curry Report. - Member of the UK’s DTI Foresight Group This programme is managed by the Office of Science and Technology; it ‘brings together key people, knowledge and ideas to look beyond normal commercial time horizons to identify potential opportunities from new science and technologies and actions to help realise those potentials.’[25] Although it is meant to be an independent government body, it is infiltrated with industry GM-promoters and has heavily supported biotechnology and other novel food that will provide new avenues for food manufacturers. - In particular, Iain Ferguson sits on the ‘Institute of Physics: Industry and Business Foresight: Food Chain and Crops for Industry’ Panel, where he joins Professor Janet Bainbridge, a well-known GM-supporter.[26] This panel forms one of the many panels in the Foresight programme which develops ‘visions of the future to guide people who make today’s decisions in business, academia and government.’

Back to top

Dr Geraldine Schofield Dr Schofield, a microbiologist, is involved in industry research and industry representation at national and international level, as well as sitting on government committees that are meant to regulate exactly the things that she lobbies for. She is active nationally and internationally, promoting biotechnology to academia, industry, and governing bodies.

A keen GM supporter, her publications include: ‘Challenges in Marketing Novel Products’ [27]; ‘Why Biotechnology?’[28]; and ‘Corporate Perspectives on Uncertainty’[29].

In 2002 she was awarded an MBE for her services to ‘biotechnology transfer’[30]. She is a key figure in the biotechnology regulatory and lobbying scene.

Industry positions: - Head of Regulatory Affairs at Unilever Research UK. [31] - Academic and public health positions in microbial ecology and taxonomy, biotechnology, biosafety and risk assessment[32].

Industry-representative positions: - Chair of the Novel Foods and Biotechnology Sub-Committee of the Food and Drink Federation[33]. - Honorary Treasurer and Trustee of the Society for Applied Microbiology (SFAM). This charity works to ‘advance the study of microbiology, particularly in its application to the environment, agriculture and industry’[34]. It is of little surprise that its research interests include bioengineering; and food safety and technology. In 1999, the SFAM accepted corporate membership. - Editor of Journal of Commercial Biotechnology[35]. - Member of the steering group on behalf of Unilever for the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Bangkok Meeting on ‘New Biotechnology Foods and Crops: Science, Safety and Society’ (July 2001). - Vice-Chair of BIAC (Business and Industry Advisory Committee) expert group on Biotechnology[36]. BIAC describes itself as ‘The voice of the business community at the OECD’.[37]

Government-related positions - Panel member of the Measurement Advisory Committee Working Group for the DTI’s NMS’s (National Measurement System) Science and Technology Programme: Biotechnology. This panel was set up to help UK biotechnology industries maintain their lead over European competitors by introducing comparative measurement which ‘balances and harmonises’ regulation between countries (i.e. ensuring the minimum legislation for the UK such that biotechnology firms located in the UK may benefit from looser GM-laws). Another explicit aim of this panel is to try to ‘help improve public confidence, particularly in the agro-food applications of biotechnology.’[38] - Member of the Health & Safety Commission[39] (there is no information on her role in this Commission). - According to one source[40], she is or has been a Member of the UK Government’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification and a member of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

Neville Craddock Another key individual involved in GM-regulatory issues. Like Dr Schofield, he easily straddles the industry and government divide. In his own words, he represents ‘industry sectors and my company at both national and EU level in discussions with Government, the Commission, Parliaments and other interest parties.’ [41] As part of his industry role, he lectures internationally on GM-labelling issues to businesses implementing labelling legislation ‘in the most cost-efficient manner’. He has spoken out against EU attempts to enforce stricter labelling laws on GM ingredients (see ‘Corporate Crimes’ section).

Industry positions: - Group Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Manager for Nestlé UK (see Corporate Watch’s profile on Nestlé) where he is responsible for the legal compliance of Nestlé’s United Kingdom Business, and for external representation of the company in respect of environmental and regulatory developments (including GM-food issues)[42] - Previously, he has held ‘a series of increasingly senior, technical and management positions with British Petroleum (agricultural, fermentation and animal feed projects), Dalgety-Spillers (foods, food ingredients and petfoods) and Bowyers/Northern Foods (meat products) before joining Nestlé UK Ltd in August 1986’.

Industry-representative positions: - Chair of the Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Committee for the Food and Drink Federation. This is the principal technical, scientific and regulatory committee of the FDF made up of the chairs of the FDF’s specialist sub-committees (such as the Novel Foods and Biotechnology Sub-Committee)[43]. - Gave evidence defending industry representation on government panels to the UK government’s Health and Safety Executive (see ‘Corporate Crimes’ section). This amounts to defending the vested interests of certain government committee members. - Member of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST). This is ‘the independent incorporated professional qualifying body for food scientists and technologists’; its objectives include ‘to serve the public interest by furthering the application of science and technology to all aspects of the supply of safe, wholesome, nutritious and attractive food, nationally and internationally’; and ‘to assist members in their career and personal development within the profession’[44]. - Contributor of the UK Royal Society’s paper entitled ‘Genetically Modified Plants for food use’ (September 1998), which is exceedingly supportive of biotechnology[45]. - Author of ‘Risk, Precaution and the Food Business’, in Governing Food: Science, Safety and Trade (2002; Phillips and Wolfe Eds.) - FDF-representative to the American National Food Processors Association[46].

Government-related positions: - Member of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC), November 1995 (when it was with MAFF[47]) to December 2001 (when it was abolished). - Member of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). This committee forms part of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), a government agency which claims to work at ‘arm’s length’ from government so as to be an independent food safety watchdog which can publish any advice it issues. However, it is widely suspected of being over-involvd with industry. Craddock was one of six new members to be appointed to ACNFP in February 2002 (the new contracts last until December 2004), accompanied by loud FSA claims to be increasing ‘lay representation on this advisory committee’, ‘putting the consumer first’, and being ‘independent’[48]. Craddock was publicised as ‘an expert in food technology and quality assurance’; his industry positions were mot mentioned. - Group Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Manager of the Agricultural and Countermeasures Working Group. This is one stakeholder group of five national stakeholder groups that form part of the European Atomic Energy Community Programme called ‘FARMING’. This stands for ‘Food and Agriculture Restoration Management Involving Networked Groups’. Its main objective is to ‘create a European network of stakeholder groups....to assist in the development of robust and practicable strategies for restoring and managing rural areas contaminated by radioactivity’[49]. - Participator in the EU Commission Working Groups on Food Additives and in the EU Advisory Veterinary Committee examining Food Hygiene legislation [50].

Back to top

Valerie Saint

Industry positions: - Legal Adviser to Unilever UK.

Industry-representative positions: - Chair of the Labelling Sub-Committee of the Food and Drink Federation. - Chair of the Legislation and Technical Committee of the Ice Cream Federation[51].

Government-related positions: - Member of the Enforcement Liaison Group (ELG). The ELG works with local authority food law enforcement on issues such as: food hygiene; food standards; feeding stuffs enforcement officials[52]. - Member of the ‘ad hoc’ Clear Labelling Taskforce created in January 2001 to ‘review the ease with which consumers are currently able to obtain information of concern to them from food labels.’[53] Surprisingly (!), the taskforce, made up of people with a ‘wide range of expertise, experience and interests’, decided that being informed of any GM-ingredients in food was not one of the pieces of information that ‘consumers need to make informed purchase decisions’.

Professor Peter John Aggett MSc, MB,ChB, FRCP(L)(E)(G), DCH Professor Aggett, head of Lancashire Postgraduate School of Medicine and Health, has accumulated an enormous list of work he has done for companies with an interest in biotechnology. He is a member of the FDF, and also sits on the government panels where he lobbies from his industry position. The commercial interests listed below are by no means complete - they just give a glimpse of the industry-paid work that he and his department have carried out over the last few years. Professor Aggett’s research interests include ‘human nutrition and metabolism and food-related activities’[54].

Industry related Positions N.B. The sources of information for each of his commercial interests have been listed for accuracy’s sake, although they may not be of relevance to many readers. Listed are the years that the commercial interest were recorded (usually in the annual report), then the committee with which the interest was recorded, and finally the type of interest. A ‘Personal Company Interest’ is one which involves payment to the member personally. A ‘Non-Personal Company Interest’ involves payment which benefits a department for which a member is responsible (such as Aggett’s Lancashire Postgraduate School of Medicine and Health). N.B. From the 2000 ‘COT’ register of Commercial Interests, no differentiation was made between Personal and Non-Personal Interests. For an explanation of the acronyms (‘COT’ etc), see under Professor Aggett’s Government-related positions.

- SMA Nutrition (1996/Select Committee on Agriculture/ Non-Personal Company Interest[55]) - Nestec (1997/COMA/Personal Company Interest[56] and 2000/ACNFP/Personal Company Interest[57] and 2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest[58]) - Wyeth (1997/COMA/Personal Company Interest and 2000/ ACNFP/Personal Company Interest). Wyeth is a global pharmaceutical company and one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world[59]. - Kelloggs (1997/COMA/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Milupa (1997/COMA/Non-Personal Company Interest and 2000/ACNFP/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Nutricia (1997/COMA/Non-Personal Company Interest and 2000/ACNFP/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Ajinomoto (1997/COMA/Non-Personal Company Interest and 2000/ACNFP/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Unilever (1997/COMA/Non-Personal Company Interest and 1999/COMA/Personal Company Interest[60]) - Nestlé (1999/COMA/Personal Company Interest) - Borax (2000/COT/Personal Company Interest)[61]. Borax, a member of the Rio Tinto group, is the ‘acknowledged world leader in borate technology, research and development’. Borax mines boron for use in polymer additives, agriculture, and timber preservation. According to Borax, ‘boron is an essential micronutrient for plants, vital to their growth and development. Without sufficient boron, plant fertilization, seeding and fruiting are not possible… In areas of acute deficiency, borates can increase crop yields by 30 to 40 percent.’[62] - Unilever (2000/COT) [63] - Abbott (2000/COT). Abbott is a health care company, employing more than 5,000 scientists around the world and investing $1bn each year into R&D to develop ‘new, innovative health care technologies’ in their key therapeutic areas (diabetes, pain management, respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, men’s and women’s health, paediatrics and animal health). Abbott is involved in biotechnological research[64]. - Abbott EU (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Astra-Zeneca (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Smith Nephew (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - ILSI (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Welcome (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - Yakult (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest) - ‘Many other food, pharmaceutical and chemical companies’ (2002/COT/Non-Personal Company Interest)

Industry-representative positions - Member of the FDF (2000/COT), although his position and job description is unknown. - Member of Institute of Food Research (IFR). The IFR (‘Science you can trust’) is a company with charitable status, sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, that carries out research into food safety, diet and health, and food materials and ingredients, as well as GMOs. They are focused towards the application of their work in industry: ‘to exploit and/or apply the output of our research for the benefit of our stakeholders.’[65] as their mision statement says. To emphasise the IFR’s interest in biotechnology, the Director of the John Innes Centre (the UK’s leading plant biotech institute) said that the IFR would suffer badly from a moratorium on GM[66]. - Member of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Government-related positions - Deputy-Chair (2002) of Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT)[67] - Member of Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) from 1997[68]. - Member of Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) from August 1998.

Back to top

John (Graham) Wood OBE Wood seems to have no direct industry connections. However, this does not stop him actively promoting biotechnology. He believes that ‘modern biotechnology offers many potential benefits and will be a key factor in improving the quality and quantity of the food supply. It has the capacity to make a positive impact on many aspects of life - on food, health and the environment.’ [69] For views such as these, in 2002 he received an OBE for services to the FDF and to food safety.

Industry-representative position: - Employed by FDF since 1985 (when it was founded), where he has been involved in a wide range of scientific and technical issues, particularly relating to UK and European Union (EU) food law. He may also have worked for other food trade associations ([70]). - He is presently Head of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Division for the Food and Drink Federation, where his responsibilities embrace technical food legislation, research and development, environmental issues and consumer issues with a technical or scientific content. - Member of Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST). - Represented the FDF to the Food Standards Select Committee, which created the Food Standards Agency (1998-1999). The minutes show that the FDF lobbied hard for an FSA that focused on dealing with consumer concern over contentious issues: ‘listeria, salmonella, e.coli, BSE, and perhaps the introduction of novel foods… We do feel that this is the area, rather than nutritional adequacy of the diet or the nutrient value of individual food products, that is the issue.’[71] Once the FSA was stuffed full of industry-representatives (as it is), the FSA could become a powerful corporate-controlled government organisation which gave advice to the public and regulated biotechnology.

Bobby Lawes[72]

Industry positions - Deputy Chair of Pritchett Foods.

Industry-representative positions: - Chair of the Milk Working Party for the Food and Drink Federation.

Government-related positions: - Member of UK Government Milk Task Force (December 2000)

David Lattimore[73]

Industry positions: - Director of Milk and Trade Relations at Unigate European Foods Limited.

Industry-representative positions: - Member of CAP Working Group for the Food and Drink Federation. - Chair of the Liquid Milk Committee of the European Dairy Association

Government-related position: - Member of Milk Development Council of Great Britain (as of February 2001). - Member of the DIF Council

Guy Walker CBE MA [74] (These positions are probably all past positions)

Industry positions: - Chair of Van den Bergh Foods Ltd

Industry-representaive positions: - President of the Food and Drink Federation - Member of Advisory Board of the Institute of Food Research.

Government-related positions: - Member of DTI’s (Department of Trade and Industry) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000.

Helen Messenger [75]

Industry positions: - Head of Corporate Affairs for Milupa, one of the two top companies in the baby food market (2000 - ?). She was employed to help counter public concerns about dried milk and processed baby foods and to fight demands for tighter controls on the marketing and contents of baby foods. Milupa is also one of the four leading suppliers of powdered baby milk in the UK, a market worth around £170 million a year with over a third of UK mothers using baby milk formulas from birth

Industry-representative positions: - Chair of the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, a unit of the Food and Drink Federation, funded by major baby milk and food manufacturers (1997 - 2000). While there, she played a leading role in defending baby food and drinks manufacturers from claims that some products contain excessive sugar and starches, offer poor nutritional value and carry inadequate label information.

Mike Warrander [76] (Probably all previous positions).

Industry positions - Retired Utilities Co-ordination Executive, Allied Domecq plc

Industry-representastive positions - Member of Food and Drink Federation and Energy and Water Panel - Acting Chair for Water Forum of Utilities Buyers’ Forum - Member CBI Energy Policy Committee

Government-related positions - Member of OFWAT local water watchdog committee (1998 - ?) - Member of OFGAS Metering Steering Group

Other: - Chair, Four Oaks Branch Sutton Coldfield Conservative Association; (West Midlands) (first appointed 8/8/96).

Summary

This section has brought to light many ‘behind-the-scene’ players who do not appear on the FDF or other industry websites, but who have to be listed when sitting on government committees. These people play an important role in bring corporate interests and control into the heart of the political process. A position in the FDF provides easy entry into government, both at the lobbying level and for direct representation.

What is also amply clear from this list is the linkages between industry and the scientific research, thus ensuring the research agenda closely matches the needs of industry.

4. Corporate Crimes

  1. Perverting the foot and mouth vaccination plan
  2. Lobbying against the labelling of GM-ingredients in food
  3. Protecting processed and unhealthy food
  4. Greenwashing the ‘food miles’ 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 [77]

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 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 Nestlé 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’s vaccination programme.

In a letter written to Tony Blair, Blackburn explained that the industry opposed vaccination because ‘we were very afraid of the consequences on all meat and dairy exports’; 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 ‘the retailers and food manufacturers had already said they would cope’ (Lord Haskins).

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, Nestlé UK, who were concerned for the exports from just one milk-producing factory. The FDF made a major contribution (along with the National Farmer’s Union) in turning about the government’s vaccination policy which could have saved Cumbrian farmers from the nightmare of the culling policy.

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 ‘FDF’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.’[78]

Back to top 2. Lobbying against the labelling of GM-ingredients in food

The FDF opposes the labelling of GM-foods. In a 1998/1999 memorandum to a government Select Committee, the FDF said that ‘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.’[79]

Although the FDF claims that it is keen to support the consumer’s wishes of having GM-free food, it is simultaneously campaigning heavily against any further ‘tightening up’ of the labelling laws. As recently as September 2001, Sylvia Jay of the FDF said:

‘As soon as it became clear that most consumers did not want to eat food containing genetically modified ingredients, UK food and drink manufacturers started to seek supplies of conventional crops.’[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 ‘GM’ 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 ‘far too weak and allow the biotech industry to introduce GMOs into our food by stealth.’[81]

However, the FDF and FSA both slammed the recent proposal, declaring it to be ‘ridiculous’, ‘open to fraud’, and having ‘no bearing to reality’[82]. An FDF spokesperson has spoken of their intention to lobby the Council of Ministers to oppose the Commission’s proposal. Neville Craddock of the FDF called it ‘unworkable’, even though the European Commission responded by saying that the proposal was ‘far less complex than you’re suggesting’[83].

Neville Craddock has been an industry employee most of his working life; he is presently Group Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Manager for Nestlé 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).

Valerie Saint (of the FDF and of Unilever) recently sat on the government’s Clear Labelling Taskforce whose remit is to ‘review the ease with which consumers are currently able to obtain information of concern to them from food labels.’[84] The taskforce concluded that consumers would not need to know the GM-content of their food in order to make ‘informed purchase decisions’, although it also warned food manufacturers of ‘other statutory information’ which would have to be given by law, which may include GM-content.

Back to top 3. Protecting processed and unhealthy food

On numerous occasions the FDF has defended companies who produce food that is high in salts, fats, sugars, additives and preservatives.

Unhealthy food When a survey of 800 parents labelled foods such as Sunny Delight as ‘vile’, ‘sugary’ and ‘over-processed’, Martin Paterson (Deputy Director General and Director of Communications for the FDF) retaliated by saying 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.’

‘Fat-tax’ [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: ‘A so-called ‘fat tax’ would hit lower income families, be patronising to consumers, and be a tax on choice.’ 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 [86] When a Which? Report criticised the quality of supermarkets’ 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: ‘Consumers aren’t fools. They are very savvy and if a shopper feels they are being had, they won’t buy that product again.’

Salt in food [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 ‘hidden’ salt in our foods.

Salt is used as a preservative and flavour-enhancer in adult and children’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’s decision to use high amounts of salt in their food: ‘Do you think consumers would be fooled into thinking cheap meat was a prime cut just by adding a bit of salt?’

Children’s foods [88] A report carried out by Organix, a baby food company, found that ¾ of children’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:

‘It is scaremongering nonsense to suggest that children’s food is not subject to strict regulation. All food in the UK has to be safe. That’s the law’. Professor Aggett of the FDF, who has had personal interests with SMA Nutrition, Kelloggs, Nestlé, 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 ‘Professor Aggett’ in the ‘Influence/Lobbying’ section).

Breakfast bars [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, ‘Breakfast substitutes should offer the healthiest alternative not a worse option.’ 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 ‘Foodfitness’ website, the FDF tells people interested in a healthy lifestyle that: ‘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.’[90] The ‘Foodfitness’ website offers no actual guidelines on ‘fat content’, making the above advice almost useless.

Back to top 4. Greenwashing the ‘food miles’ argument.

One of many concerns raised by the current system of ‘free trade’ in agriculture is the unnecessary amount of miles that food travels. See for example, the Green Party publication ‘The Great Food Swap’ and the SUSTAIN publication ‘ Eating Oil’ 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,[91] the FDF claimed that concern about ‘food miles’ 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 ‘blueprint for sustainability’, 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 ‘ready meals’, 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’s interests, it was very likely to come up with this argument.

Back to top 5. Corrupting Organic standards

The Organic Food Manufacturers Liaison Group represents over 50 food manufacturers. It was set up in 2001 to ‘ensure high quality standards’ 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’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. ‘Organic food is no longer just box schemes and health food shops. It is now a mainstream, global market’. 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’s have over 600 lines of organic produce in major stores.[92] Its not surprising that the food manufacturing industry see the co-option of the organic market as a key market.

Back to top 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 ‘advances’ 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 ‘Influence and Lobbying’).

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.

Back to top 7. Shamelessly defending industry representation on government committees

In April 1998, Neville Craddock of the FDF (see above) gave evidence to the UK government’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE’s overall purpose is to ‘to ensure that risks to people’s health and safety from work activities are properly controlled’. 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 ‘strong and relevant position to offer comments to the Committee’s Inquiry, with particular reference to the role and position of so-called ‘Industry Representatives’ on Advisory Committees.’[93]

The text of his memorandum contains the following quotes[94]:

  1. ‘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’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 ‘independence from any vested interests’, lobbyists can’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

Media and Parliamentary Relations Manager: Christine Fisk

Links

• The Food and Drink Federation, A Corporate Profile, By Corporate Watch UK Completed November 2002 [1]

• Felicity Lawrence and Rob Evans '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: [2]

Notes

• [[#ref_[1]|^]] http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
• [[#ref_[2]|^]] http://www.fdf.org.uk/fdfmembership.html#1
• [[#ref_[3]|^]] UK Food and Drink Industry Statistics 2000
• [[#ref_[4]|^]] http://www.fdf.org.uk/fdfmembership.html#2
• [[#ref_[5]|^]] http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
• [[#ref_[6]|^]] www.epolitix.com/data/companies/images/companies/Food-and-Drink-Federation/040501.htm
• [[#ref_[7]|^]] www.ciaa.be/uk/documents/press/press
• [[#ref_[8]|^]] www.ciaa.be/uk/documents/press/press03-09-02
• [[#ref_[9]|^]] The Guardian, April 21, 2001
• [[#ref_[10]|^]] The Guardian, April 21, 2001
• [[#ref_[11]|^]] M2 PRESSWIRE April 30, 1997
• [[#ref_[12]|^]] The Regulatory News Service, February 14, 2002
• [[#ref_[13]|^]] Sylvia Jay speaking, reported in ‘New identity-preserved standard aims to make sourcing, supplying non-GM simpler and cheaper.’ Author: just-food.com editorial team, 11 Sep 2001 ( http://just-food.com/features_detail.asp?art=512&c=1)
• [[#ref_[14]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/11we19.htm
• [[#ref_[15]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[16]|^]] See for example ‘Seeds of Doubt’ report for the Soil Association compiled by Hugh Warwick. Sept 2002.
• [[#ref_[17]|^]] Professor Burke, writing for Foodfuture quarterly magazine and at http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/newindex.html
• [[#ref_[18]|^]] Peter Blackburn, FDF President, in http://www.fdf.org.uk/speeches/speech010308a.pdf
• [[#ref_[19]|^]] The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
• [[#ref_[20]|^]] The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
• [[#ref_[21]|^]] http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/manstructure/tstructure.html
• [[#ref_[22]|^]] The Regulatory News Service; June 18, 2002
• [[#ref_[23]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[24]|^]] http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/manstructure/tstructure.html
• [[#ref_[25]|^]] www.foresight.gov.uk
• [[#ref_[26]|^]] http://194.200.94.127/IOP/Foresight/foodchain.html
• [[#ref_[27]|^]] http://www.biology4all.com/SummerSchoolupdatedforweb.doc
• [[#ref_[28]|^]] http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/1998/paper_417.htm
• [[#ref_[29]|^]] http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/STPP.nsf/web/biotech-conf
• [[#ref_[30]|^]] http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,629397,00.html
• [[#ref_[31]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[32]|^]] http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/biotech/BiosFINAL.htm
• [[#ref_[33]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[34]|^]] http://www.sfam.org.uk/society/corpmem.htm
• [[#ref_[35]|^]] http://www.henrystewart.com/journals/cb/edboard.html
• [[#ref_[36]|^]] http://www.biac.org/biacdir/commbiotech.htm (July 2001)
• [[#ref_[37]|^]] http://www.biac.org/Framepos.htm
• [[#ref_[38]|^]] http://www.dti.gov.uk/nms/prog/new/biotech.pdf
• [[#ref_[39]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-03-15/Writtens-10.html
• [[#ref_[40]|^]] http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/biotech/BiosFINAL.htm (April 2001)
• [[#ref_[41]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
• [[#ref_[42]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[43]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8101402.htm
• [[#ref_[44]|^]] http://www.ifst.org/whatsnew.htm
• [[#ref_[45]|^]] http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-56.pdf
• [[#ref_[46]|^]] http://www.nfpa-food.org/News_Release/042601FoodPolicyConfnewsrelease.htm
• [[#ref_[47]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
• [[#ref_[48]|^]] http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/48007
• [[#ref_[49]|^]] http://www.ec-farming.net/
• [[#ref_[50]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
• [[#ref_[51]|^]] http://archive.food.gov.uk/maff/archive/inf/newsrel/1998/980423a.htm
• [[#ref_[52]|^]] http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/enforcement/role/laelg/laelgmemberstor
• [[#ref_[53]|^]] http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/policiesandregulations/49321/
• [[#ref_[54]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubadm/209/9061503.htm
• [[#ref_[55]|^]] www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmagric/753/80519p05.htm
• [[#ref_[56]|^]] http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/coma97.pdf
• [[#ref_[57]|^]] http://archive.food.gov.uk/maff/archive/food/novel/interest.htm
• [[#ref_[58]|^]] http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/ouradvisors/toxicity/moreinfo/43531
• [[#ref_[59]|^]] http://www.wyeth.com/about/index.asp
• [[#ref_[60]|^]] http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/coma99.pdf
• [[#ref_[61]|^]] http://www.doh.gov.uk/coc/2000ar.pdf
• [[#ref_[62]|^]] http://www.borax.com
• [[#ref_[63]|^]] http://archive.food.gov.uk/dept_health/archive/cot/cot_intere2000.pdf
• [[#ref_[64]|^]] http://abbott.com/corporate/corporate_overview.html
• [[#ref_[65]|^]] http://www.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk
• [[#ref_[66]|^]] www.members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm
• [[#ref_[67]|^]] http://archive.food.gov.uk/dept_health/archive/cot/cot_intere2000.pdf
• [[#ref_[68]|^]] http://www.doh.gov.uk/coma/about.htm#tor
• [[#ref_[69]|^]]www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm"> www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm (1998)
• [[#ref_[70]|^]] http://www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/exhibitions/bio-future/wood.htm
• [[#ref_[71]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfoods/276/9031006.htmv
• [[#ref_[72]|^]] M2 PressWIRE December 15, 2000
• [[#ref_[73]|^]] M2 PressWIRE March 6, 2001
• [[#ref_[74]|^]] M2 PRESSWIRE April 30, 1997
• [[#ref_[75]|^]] Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd PR Week August 4, 1995
• [[#ref_[76]|^]] M2 PRESSWIRE May 6, 1998
• [[#ref_[77]|^]] Information from the Guardian, p7., September 8, 2001
• [[#ref_[78]|^]] http://www.bsb.org.uk/members/library/conferences/2001autumn/paper_460.htm
• [[#ref_[79]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8121501.htm
• [[#ref_[80]|^]] Sylvia Jay quoted in Belfast News Letter September 8, 2001
• [[#ref_[81]|^]] M2 PRESSWIRE September 7, 2001
• [[#ref_[82]|^]] The Grocer July 06, 2002
• [[#ref_[83]|^]] http://www.foodfen.org.uk/news12.asp
• [[#ref_[84]|^]] http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/policiesandregulations/49321/
• [[#ref_[85]|^]] The Independent, July 16, 2002
• [[#ref_[86]|^]] The Grocer, March 09, 2002
• [[#ref_[87]|^]] Daily Mail, February 5, 2002
• [[#ref_[88]|^]] The Daily Telegraph, January 24, 2002
• [[#ref_[89]|^]] The Express, October 23, 2001
• [[#ref_[90]|^]] http://www.foodfitness.org.uk/tips4assess.htm
• [[#ref_[91]|^]] Food transport ‘not the worst’ energy culprit’ by Fiona Harvey and Adam Jones, Financial Times 19/8/02
• [[#ref_[92]|^]] www.epolitix.com/data/companies/images/companies/Food-and-Drink-Federation/040501.htm
• [[#ref_[93]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm
• [[#ref_[94]|^]] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsctech/465/465m04.htm