Farming Policy Update April 2023

We met Defra officials and the Assured Food Standards (AFS) CEO to catch up on current agricultural policy issues. In the meeting we covered gene editing, new animal welfare labelling and AFS (Red Tractor) developments. Details below

• Act now passed permitting gene edited food in England, subject to technical regulations which are being drafted
• Act only applies in England but food can be sold in other UK countries provided it is not processed there. Wales still considering its position on GE
• Defra/FSA now developing detailed regulations on plant products to cover authorisation and sale on the market. Likely to take at least 18 months
• For animals, more work ongoing on the process of authorisation, unlikely to see progress towards market authorisation for 4-5 years
• Defra keen to ensure opportunities for GE to avoid consumer backlash and will be convening groups of producers, manufacturers and retailers to understand how best to present GE to the market.
• BRC will continue to work with Defra/FSA on the detailed regulations as well as helping co-ordinate retail input to the consumer discussions

• Defra confirmed priority is to complete consultation on and implementation of tiered labelling on pork, chicken and eggs. Proposed work under the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP) which would have considered information to consumers where labelling is not mandatory (catering, food to go etc) on hold indefinitely.
• Defra said intention is to continue with 5 tiered labelling and the response to their consultation would be published shortly. Further discussion unlikely to be on principle of tiers rather terminology to support them
• Further discussion after response published will last 3 months to finalise proposals with the intention to agree legislation before the end of this Parliament. Allowing for 18 month introduction period, there will be no changes to labelling before 2025/26
• Members voiced opposition to the proposals. They pointed out they are not based on welfare outcomes, the vast majority of UK production (under AFS) will score poorly and there is a risk of confusion should the Government adopt new environmental labelling policies (eg intensive chicken would have a low score for welfare but higher for environmental impact)
• Members said they didn’t understand the concept; there wasn’t the money in the market to shift the bulk of production to higher tier welfare, it risked damaging UK production and wouldn’t improve animal welfare.
• Defra was not responsive to significant changes based on member comments, and suggested the proposals had full Ministerial support. In response to points about labelling changes it said it was working across Government to co-ordinate changes to ease the burden where possible on industry
• BRC will continue to push against the principles and attempt to shape the legislation working through our Labelling and Agricultural Working Groups

• AFS updated members on the recent allegations that AFS were more responsible for river pollution. This had been highlighted by River Action based on an EA report. AFS has spoken to EA and believe they will amend their report to correct the incorrect assumption, non assured farms are actually more likely to pollute than assured ones. They are hoping a statement from the EA correcting the report will end any challenge by River Action on inaccurate marketing of AFS
• AFS are set to launch the environmental module in the next few months. They are discussing it with WWF to see if it could link to requirements on farming in their commitment. They believe getting their endorsement will encourage uptake
• AFS raised concerns about recent cases of mislabelled products carrying AFS logo incorrectly. They believe mistakes could be avoided by retailers rechecking their supply chains and ensuring production is from AFS licenced premises