Hungry for Change

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the Sue Miller site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

Government must work with the food industry to ensure that the prime purpose of food labelling is to inform the customer and ensure labelling highlights foods high in ingredients identified as particularly harmful to health if consumed in excess of Recommended Daily Intake(RDI). Voluntary if possible, statutory if necessary.

Nutrition Council to work with the food industry to eliminate `invisible' ingredients to which a substantial section of the population are intolerant or allergicPlan for mothers who would breastfeed if it was made easier to do so both through the provision of suitable spaces in public buildings and spaces and through a social acceptance campaign.

The National Curriculum must include sufficient practical cookery to ensure that at sixteen a young person understands what constitutes a healthy diet and has a good knowledge of basic cooking skills.

DEFRA/ DfEs should work together expand pilots developed by individual schools or local authorities which have successfully introduced much higher standards of nutritional content and pupil uptake of meals.

Community plans in general, and regeneration projects in particular, should have food policies which takes account of food issues for all sections of the population.

Strengthened voluntary Code of Practice for supermarkets to add to the present code the following: anonymity for complainants; replacement of subjective with objective tests; remove the right of the supermarket to appoint the mediator; permit the setting of `benchmark' prices in disputed sectors.

Local Authorities should be proactive in ensuring that where allotments and community gardens exist resident growers' opinions form an active part of the community plan. Where allotments or gardens do not exist but residents express a firm desire for them this should form a high priority within the community planThe Local Government Association should continue and develop its interest in allotment provision and support for such work.

Moratorium on commercial planting which should not be lifted until the requirements for further evidence is provided and coexistence rules and liability issues are decided.

The Government should, with the industry, build on the work of the Marine Conservation Society and issue a list of fish that may be bought and a list of those stocks which are at risk of becoming overfished especially those which are listed as `vulnerable' or `endangered' by the IUCN.

The Government should regulate fish farms more closely and limit the further development of aquaculture until sustainable systems, technologies and science are available.

Examine the implementation of relevant EU Directives and national financing of the meat inspection service with a view to providing a spread of type and size of abattoir that best meets the needs of the producer and the desires of the consumer.

UK tourist organisations recognise the importance of local and regional food to the industry and work with farmers and growers to develop a strong farm to plate narrative.

Publicly available research should be undertaken into the effects on the nutritional quality of food of processes such as irradiation and chilling on fresh foods.

Liberal Democrats believe in a society which is fair and in which noone is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. One of the greatest divides in Britain today is between those who enjoy a healthy diet of mainly fresh foods eaten in a convivial social setting and those whose diet is high in carbohydrates and fats eaten as fast or convenience food. In few other societies, even in Europe, is there such a divide, food and eating is usually one of the unifying cultural experiences of societies. Food is also one of the best examples of what sustainable means -where the social, economic and environmental influences are so closely interwoven that if one of them is missing food policy will fail. This paper aims to create a balanced set of proposals for a national food policy.

This country has no coherent food policy. Although food is a central part of everyone's daily life, food issues are addressed by simply plastering over a series of problems.

Cheap food is not a bargain if it has off -loaded the costs of its production, processing and sale onto long term health issues, the environment, labour conditions or animal welfare. We simply pay the price elsewhere through our health or the cost of cleaning up our environment especially water. Or we transfer the costs to the developing world or migrant labour by tacitly accepting appalling working conditions and very poor returns for labour.

Good value food is that which is a quality product where the main product paid for is the food, not food miles, packaging or multiple middlemen mark-ups. It will have been produced respecting the environmental and social costs. Organic food tackles the environmental part of that and Fair Trade the social side. The Local Food movement addresses the issue of food miles and middleman mark up. The Slow Food Movement addresses many facets of cultural, environmental and social issues. Now is the time to bring together the thinking behind these different movements.

“Growing buying and eating the right kinds of foods can reduce the risk of disease and simultaneously promote a sustainable environment”^[1] Obesity is one obvious symptom that something has gone wrong with our attitude to food. Government reaction to the obesity epidemic fails to address the wider issue of the rightful place of food in society. In households, schools, the workplace, care homes, food and eating have become nothing more than a matter of speed and convenience. I agree with the breadth of vision in The Hungry Soul^[2] which explains the importance of food preparation, hospitality and shared mealtimes as a powerful force for friendship, family, community and society.

Modern food legislation starts from the public interest motivated Food Adulteration Act 1875, through early twentieth century acts to combat malnutrition with School Meals Act and Fortification of Foodstuffs designed to improve the nutrition of First World War conscripts.

Food policies have been developed by successive governments as reactions to a series of crises. The current reactions to threat of an obesity epidemic with all its consequences for health are the latest in a chain of very reactive policy development. It does, however, highlight the very pressing need for a proactive wide-ranging approach to food policy.

The food shortages during and just after World War 2 resulted in agricultural intensification and a guaranteed price regime; the Common Agricultural Policy developed subsidies which led to overproduction and surpluses. Intensive production coupled with a lack of regulation in the 1980s led to some serious food safety problems - the most worrying being BSE. The need to regulate resulted in the creation of a new body - the Food Standards Agency, primarily concerned with safety, risks and standards. Included in its remit, though not central to it, is nutrition.

The foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 resulted in a Government sponsored Commission led by Sir Don Curry which produced a report Sustainable Food and Farming. It brought onto the national mainstream agenda the real issues around a farm to fork approach to the food chain. This has given an essential impetus to policy development and an increased awareness of the potential of a healthy domestic food sector.

With the exception of that Commission, policy has been developed primarily by civil servants, agri-economists and scientists. Multi-national food processors and retailers have developed excessively strong lobby groups and access to policy makers. Consumers, in contrast, have had very little say. A future National Food Policy should be developed by a Commission with the relevant experience grounded in practical experience.

The responsibility for different aspects of Food Policy is scattered across of many Government departments. Below are some examples of departmental responsibilities:

There is currently no coordinating individual or body. Food Policy must be coordinated between different Government Departments so that for example the ODPM makes planning guidance that takes account of studies commissioned by the Department of Health and so DEFRA and the DFEE target policies, effort and grants effectively to encouraging food production, processing and marketing that benefits the health of the nation.

Once or twice over the last quarter of a century attempts have been made to give a more coherent approach to diet and health, notably in the Black Report Inequalities in Health 1980. It emphasised the importance of adequate nutrition on a child's development. It also made the point that, in the absence of comprehensive food policies attention should focus on school meals and school milk. The incoming Conservative Government buried the report and slashed school meals and school milk provision.

In 1998 Acheson Independent Inquiry made a number of very important observations including the fact that it costs poorer people more to shop because of the physical inaccessibility of large retail outlets and that planning authorities did not have a remit to consider the impact on low income groups when considering the development of retail food outlets.

This year the interim report by Derek Wanless reiterated the link between a poor diet and the development of chronic diseases .The report asks how individuals and communities are encouraged to think about the impact of their lifestyles on their future health and the health of their children. The Government may see food labelling as one way to address the issues raised. The danger is they will react with a series of short term high profile iniatives which change little in the long term.

£75 billion is lost by the NHS on treating preventable diet-related disease. The burden of diet-related ill-health besides the immediate health care bills includes premature deaths, individual loss and suffering, years of working life lost and social-psychological costs.

Poor diets and diet-related diseases affect the most vulnerable in society as diet-related diseases and early deaths are significantly higher in lower socio-economic groups. The diets of low income households are characterised by poorer nutrient profiles and reliance on less healthy foods.

A more up to date view “People living on low income consume an unhealthy diet not so much through ignorance or irresponsibility but in response to their social, cultural and economic circumstance” (Kennedy, 1998)

The public perception on diet and health, fuelled by media promotion of anybody's and everybody's view on diet, is that there is conflicting advice on nutritional matters. However the public health nutrition experts do agree about diet-related diseases and what contributes to them after decades of scientific epidemiological study, across many nations and cultures.

“Circulatory diseases are estimated to cost the NHS &Social Services approx £3.8 billion annually, to account for the loss of approx 35 million working days each year and to cost industry more than £3 billion a year.” (NSF on Coronary Heart Disease)

The Food Commission created in 1988 is a voluntary sector body of the sort of that could be responsible for national nutrition policy. Instead government added on responsibility for nutrition issues to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which was set up in 2000. The FSA reports to, but is independent of, the Department of Health so government evades direct responsibility for nutrition policy. In addition the FSA, set up in the wake of the BSE crisis, to distance MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries) from food safety issues is not well constituted to deal with nutrition and eating habits. Its Board does not even have one person on it whose primary background is nutrition. This paper concludes that the FSA remit should remain focused on food regulation and safety, but as the Consumers Association suggest, there should be a separate independent Nutrition Council to advise government.

In order to make an informed policy on the nations' diet and health needs any government needs sound information. The Expenditure and Food Survey does give a picture of household trends. It shows the price of food relative to income falling. It shows variations in the amounts of each food group being purchased. However it relies heavily on diaries kept by the head of household and whilst it gives an idea of the trend in the nutritional quality of the shopping basket its concentration on `household' disguises the fact that different population groups have needs that vary from each other. In theory the shopping basket purchased by a household may show a healthy balance but in practice much of the food that is high in fat and sugar content, such as ice-cream, may be eaten by the children. The approach taken by the more precise 1997 National Nutrition and Dietary Survey which looked at the diet of young people between 4 and 18 years could be applied for groups from cradle to grave.

There is a need for clearer policies on food and nutrition for different populations at different life stages. At the moment where nutrition guidelines say, for example, that a schoolchild should eat meat three times per week that can mean a sausage with minimal meat content and lots of rusk (which absorbs large amounts of cooking fat) and flavourings. Babies, toddlers, pre-school, children, teenage, adults, pregnant women, older people, people in hospital and the very elderly all have very distinct nutritional needs. We should build on the work of the Caroline Walker Trust who have prepared guidelines on nutritional requirements for different population groups

Certain additives have been linked to various problems, notably a collection of food colourings to the increase in problem behaviour in children. Amongst others the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has called^[3] for food additives to be subject to regular re-evaluation. This evaluation should consider research findings on long term health effects of consuming such additives. It also called for reduction in the use of pesticides and pharmaceutical products in the production of food and says that there should be further research into the long term health effects of such consumption.

The number of obese people has trebled over the last 20 years. Obesity leads to heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and osteoarthritis. Obesity and obesity-related diseases cost the NHS £500 million per year, 18 million sick days per year and £2 billion to the UK economy.^[4] The economic cost to the nation and the NHS confounds the often promoted argument that diet-related diseases are a matter of personal choice.

The dietary factors associated with the major preventable diseases: Excessive energy intake, saturated fats, salt, sugar and total dietary fat. Not enough dietary fibre and antioxidant vitamins from fruit and vegetables.

The Wanless report identified the true costs to the nation of mortality and morbidity due to preventable diseases. The report identified that early prevention is cheaper and more effective than treating symptoms later.

The causes of obesity are complex but commonly include the intake of more calories than are expended. This may be because of an unbalanced diet, too much food and too little exercise. In order to give people control over their intake they need to know what they are eating. So labelling of foods must be reviewed, see below.

The adult population already have set eating habits which may be changed with much effort. Children however can be encouraged to avoid the problem of obesity. Measures such as banning promotion of foods high calories (often in fat and sugar) to children, whether through advertising on TV, promotions in schools by confectionary and soft drink companies or shelves stacked with sweets at supermarket checkouts are all possibilities. A number of recommendations in this report address the points raised here.

The obesity epidemic has focussed minds on labelling. Lifestyles have changed dramatically over a generation. People work longer and longer hours with less and less time or inclination for or knowledge of cooking at home. There is a much greater reliance on ready prepared meals and fast food. The UK is now at the top of the “dining out” league tables. All this means many people get their main meals prepared by someone else with no control over the amounts of salt, sugar or fats used.

Shoppers in a rush don't have time to analyse and understand how many kilojoules there are in a yoghurt dessert. Labelling that says a meal is 85% fat free seems helpful - if it said 15% fat, would people be so keen to buy it? A simple system is needed and foods high in ingredients identified as particularly harmful to health if consumed in excess should be labelled by simple clear symbols.

Food labelling is where cigarette labelling was years ago when the link between smoking and lung cancer & heart disease was first identified. The Government has got to address food manufacturers who are arguing there is no such thing as bad food, just bad eating habits, coupled with unhealthy lifestyles.

Claims about fruit or vegetable portions, “healthy eating”, “stress busting” should be verified statutorily. Presently, someone has to challenge these claims in court.

The increased trend to eat out in restaurants, fast food outlets, cafes and pubs means that, to have control over our diet, we must know what is being served. (One-third of retail outlets are food businesses) An early job for the Nutrition Council would be to devise with the industry and local authority inspectors, a means of better informing customers about the nutritional content of their catered or take-out meal.

Only 0.05% of the total amount of money spent on food advertising in the UK is devoted to fruit and vegetables. The vast majority of advertising, amounting to £139,000,000 is spent on promoting soft drinks, confectionery, crisps and snacks. In contrast the £750,000 is available to promote healthy eating. People believe they are experiencing freedom of choice when it comes to making decisions about what to eat but the reality is that we are all influenced to a large degree by what the advertisers promote.

Recommendation: Government to work with the food industry to ensure that the prime purpose of food labelling is to inform the customer and ensure labelling highlights foods high in ingredients identified as particularly harmful to health if consumed in excess of Recommended Daily Intake (RDI). Voluntary if possible, statutory if necessary.

All food outlets should have available list of ingredients that go into prepared food. Menus should contain a guide to ingredients to which a significant percentage of the population are allergic intolerant, products such as gluten, lactose and nuts, commonly used but are often `invisible'. Notices on food that `this product may contain nuts' have proliferated as the food industry, which adds nuts as filler to a wide range of foods, seeks to avoid having to clearly label those which do.

Recommendation: Work with the food industry to eliminate `invisible' ingredients to which a substantial section of the population is intolerant or allergic

From the earliest moment diet is critical to babies' development. Indeed the diet of pregnant mothers must have particular consideration. The Department of Health now advises mothers to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months. Society still expects breastfeeding to take place in private and outside the home a toilet is still all too often the only private space to be found. This attitude has to radically change if there is to be any hope of a substantial rise in the numbers breastfeeding. Far more work is needed to promote the image of breastfeeding by every means possible. Television soaps could have a role to play here.

As soon as children reach an age where they become potential consumers they and their parents fall prey to all the marketing ploys of the food industry. The role of the food industry in relentless promotion of confectionary, fizzy drinks and foods high in sugar or fat content to children has been highlighted recently by the rise in obesity. However whether or not children suffer from obesity the issue of whether eating habits should be heavily influenced by product advertising become a very important question. There is both the role of television advertising and of product placement on screen and in schools. In schools the most striking example of the situation was when Cadbury Schweppes gave away school sports equipment in return for tokens from chocolate bars purchased.

Recommendation: Plan for mothers who would breastfeed if it was made easier to do so both through the provision of suitable spaces in public buildings and spaces and through a social acceptance campaign

Recommendation: Legislation to forbid advertising and promotions designed to appeal to children promoting food or drinks which are high in sugar, fats or salt

The relationship between food and schools has changed dramatically in just a few years. Dinner ladies cooked traditional meals on site. The only choice was either that or packed lunches. Some schools had tuck shops, open occasionally, some crisps and confectionery. The only drinks were milk at break and water from fountains.

Thanks to Thatcher, all that changed. School budgets were screwed down so tightly that most schools outsourced meals, and cafeterias with choices were brought in. To maximise income, choice meant burgers, chips, pizzas and fizzy drinks. That was fine for budgets but disastrous for children - especially children whose main meal was eaten at school.

Food education has been marginalised in schools. At primary school the curriculum provides for food preparation, cooking and hygiene. In practise children may have the opportunity to do little more than assemble a pizza. Post 11 years there is no compulsory cooking element in the curriculum. The links between food production and consumption have been lost with many children being unaware of the role a cow plays in milk production. Farm visits and gardening skills should be encouraged. The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens is a charity that facilitates such an approach (see page 22 for more on FCFCG) and working with their local Food Links some schools have piloted a `Grow it, Cook It, Eat It, approach very successfully.

Recommendation: The National Curriculum must include sufficient practical cookery to ensure that at sixteen a young person understands what constitutes a healthy diet and has a good knowledge of basic cooking skills.

Recommendation: Recognise the value of work of organisations and individual farms that make a particular effort to educate children on the agricultural/food link.

Attitudes to school meals need to change. For several decades the emphasis has been on cheap ingredients and cheap meals. Compulsory Competitive Tendering meant that local authorities had to award the contract to the lowest tenderer. Large contract caterers sourced ingredients on price alone and introduced the cook, chill re-heat, serve concept. So the ground was laid for a culture of cheap, fatty processed meals.

This is beginning to change and the place of nutritional quality has begun to be recognised. Some local authorities and individual schools have produced some spectacular results in both the uptake and quality of school meals by reverting to meals cooked freshly on site using locally sourced ingredients.

Local authorities have an important role to play developing a procurement strategy for the education authority that helps those running the school catering contracts and the farmers and growers to come together to ensure a high percentage of ingredients used in school meals are sourced locally or regionally as appropriate.

Ingredients for the average school meal costs 31p -less than half the amount spent in hospitals or on prisons. There must be a debate between parents, pupils, teachers and school governors as to what quality of meal, at what price would best suit the pupils' needs.

The needs of pupils who are entitled to free school meals must be taken into account and the local education authorities must therefore also be involved. It would not be acceptable to return to a situation where those who paid could receive hot site-cooked meals and those on free school meals got a packed lunch.

Many schools face the problems of ageing, inadequate school kitchens. School kitchens or kitchens may have been entirely got rid of. Replacements are not currently viewed as a necessary part of the school buildings budget. This needs to be addressed as now the common way to finance a new kitchen is by tying the school into a decade's long catering contract with one of the large companies leaving no room for flexibility.

The use of swipe cards instead of dinner money, where it has been tried, has been found to have some clear benefits. Schools, governors and parents can access records of what children are choosing to eat. This enables the school to have an informed dialogue with children about healthy eating. Children no longer have to carry money around. The card can only be used to buy meals - not cigarettes, games or alcohol.

Returning the responsibility to school based cooks of choosing menus, sourcing and ordering the ingredients has dramatically improved nutritional standards in some schools.

Recommendation: Local authorities' development of a local procurement strategy for sourcing much food locally, especially fresh foods, to be an Audit Commission target

Recommendation: DEFRA/ DfEs and should work together expand pilots developed by individual schools or local authorities which have successfully introduced much higher standards of nutritional content and pupil uptake of meals.

The rise in the sale of canned drinks has been fuelled by the lack of freely available drinking water in schools. Such drinks often contain sugar, artificial sweeteners, colouring and flavouring additives, the consumption of which should at least be very limited. Water can be drink of choice if it is available. Water fountains have had some problems as a focus of bullying but to remove drinking water from schools was a very poor answer. Some initiatives to introduce bottled water (such as that between Leeds schools and Yorkshire water and Harrogate Spa) may provide an answer. Research has shown that concentration improves when water is freely available.

Vending machines, unless they sell, juices or fruit other healthy snacks should have no place on school premises. Several schools have already banned unhealthy snacks and drinks. The way forward is to build on the work done by some schools who have introduced a `healthy' vending machine. These are stocked with a range of items, chosen with pupil input, that constitute healthy snacks.

The National School Fruit Scheme Support has reintroduced for the concept of fruit as a snack into the youngest age group. In order to reinforce the taste for fruit rather than sweets and ensure fruit consumption by young children the scheme should broaden beyond the current infant age groups (4-6) to include initiative for junior aged children (7-11) and secondary school aged children.

FE Colleges are not funded for work on teaching cooking skills but they have students at exactly the age where development of cooking skills should be put into practice. The defined `Key skills' are limited to IT, innumeracy and communications. The ability to give oneself basic healthy diet should be regarded as a necessary key skill especially as society has lost many cooking skills between mid twentieth century and now.

Since the beginning of the 1980s household disposable income has increased by an average of 60% ^[5]at the same time the pattern of retail shops has undergone a sea change. There are now supermarkets and hypermarkets with thousands of food items. The choice is immense. There are chilled meals, frozen meals, ready meals and all manner of fresh produce, year round exotic fruits, quails eggs to smoked ostrich, dozens of different sorts of bread, of yoghurts or oils. At the same time as choice grew in these large supermarkets the small corner shops and village shops suffered. 1986-1996 Superstores increased from 457 to 1102 and independent stores nearly halved in number^[6] Wholesalers - lifeblood of small shops - closed at the rate of six per week. In the five years to 2002 50 specialised stores - butchers, bakers, and fishmongers closed every week. The average person now travels 893 miles per year to shop for food^[7]

At the same time as small shops closed the new metro supermarkets have proliferated. In affluent areas they provide streamlined shopping for hurried urbanites and the growing number of richer single person households. On weekdays they buy ready meals, often quite expensive - and at weekends frequent the specialist shops who have found a worthwhile in affluent areas. The organic butcher, the delicatessen, green grocer or cheese shop now survive as a mark of a truly affluent area. This is not at all a criticism of such shops but their existence in areas where many civil servants, politicians and journalists live may give a false impression to opinion formers.

Because by contrast in less affluent areas independent and corner shops have closed, markets have ceased and especially those on a limited income, without a car, whether in rural areas, the suburbs or urban estates, face a real struggle to access reasonably priced fresh food .

“Cheap as Chips” is a common phrase which speaks of the links between poverty, obesity and a poor diet, strong but complicated to resolve. “Achieving a nutritious diet on a low income requires extraordinary level of persistence, flexibility and awareness”^[8]

Not everyone has the range of facilities, equipment and ingredients to undertake the sort of cooking that television food programmes often show. A reasonable aim for a national food policy would be that all households would have the wherewithal in skills and equipment to prepare at least simple meals.

Recommendation: Community plans in general, and regeneration projects in particular, should have food policies which take account of food issues for all sections of the population

80% of food purchased in UK is purchased from supermarkets. The major food retailers are undergoing a year of unprecedented consolidation. Tesco bought the One Stop chain, and Adminstore which included Cullens, Europa and Harts; Morrisons has bought Safeways; The CoOp took over Alldays Now Sainsburys and the Coop are looking at the McColls, Martins and Forbuoys chains, TM Retail - some 1200 shops. According to TNS January 2004 the supermarket share of the grocery market was:

Supermarket purchasing policies, pricing, distribution and supply chain management therefore have an enormous buying and selling power. That power must be balanced by responsibilities. Currently there is an imbalance. The effects are shown by lack of community sustainability, negative effects on producers both here in the UK and abroad, the health of the environment and animal welfare are all considerations are put second to price and the war of market share.

“This report is a timely one. Customers are asking more from supermarkets now than just pile them high and sell them cheap. We buy more than 88% of food under the 4.5 square miles of Supermarket Land, and we are entitled to want to know what is going on. These companies have massive impact, on farming, local economies and climate change but customers asking `how green is my supermarket?' might find the information hard to come by. This report tries to answer that question. “

Supermarkets relationship with farmers and producers in Britain was the subject of a substantial review that resulted in a voluntary Code of good practice. This Code is not perceived to be effective in ensuring that the enormous purchasing power of an ever more concentrated group of retailers is exerted reasonably.^[9] The present role of the Office of Fair Trade is principally to ensure the interests of consumers are protected and that there is competition.

The Office of Fair Trade should be able to ensure that it does what its name suggests. The phrase Fair Trade has come to mean that both consumers and producers get a fair deal. Produce bought at or below the cost of production is not fair trade. This applies equally to produce from overseas and the UK. This has become a crucial issue in the UK since the CAP Reform announced in February 2004 rightly breaks (incrementally over the next few years) the link between production and subsidy but this means that the importance of a fair market for farmers will become essential if there is to be a vibrant UK farming sector. Both in the UK and abroad there are concerns about labour conditions under which some products are produced or processed.

The remit of the Office of Fair Trade should be redefined to include the Fair Trade concept. This would include appointing a Fair Food Trade Inspector within the OFT with powers to be proactive, to require information on all areas covered by the Code and who could independently monitor claims about local sourcing, food miles, labelling, environmental and ethical trading objectives/targets. The Inspector would publish findings and monitor reparations and compensation

Recommendation: a strengthened voluntary Code to add to the present code the following: anonymity for complainants; replacement of subjective with objective tests; remove the right of the supermarket to appoint the mediator; permit the setting of `benchmark' prices in disputed sectors.

Because of their immense share of the market supermarkets have a huge impact on a large number of workers from many countries as well as the UK. Therefore their attitude to fair-trade issues is important.

Members of the ETI are committed to working to identify and promote good practice in the implementation of codes of labour practice. Companies have to obey a Base Code (summarised below) and must require their suppliers to meet standards within a reasonable timeframe and that it ultimately becomes a pre-condition to further business.

The two studies referred to above highlight different aspects of supermarket practice. Race to the Top was a collaborative project which looks across the range of issues at whether most supermarket chains claim to pay serious regard to sustainability is well founded. Organizations involved in the project included the New Economics Foundation, Forum for the Future, Soil Association, RSPB, English Nature and the Fairtrade Foundation and the major UK supermarkets.

Supermarket	Information Source		Fair Trade Policy	ETI* Member	Employee Policy
Asda	Email	No indication		Yes	Yes
Big Food Group (including Iceland)	Email	No, per se, but commitment to CSR		No	Yes
Co-op	Letter & Web	Yes		Yes	Yes
Lidl	Telephone	None, but are looking into it.		No	No information.
Marks & Spencers	Website	No per se, included in CSR report		Yes	No per se, included in CSR report
Morrisons	Website	No		No	No
Safeway	Telephone Web site	Yes		Yes	Yes
Sainsburys	Web site	Yes(a Socially Responsible Sourcing Programme)		Yes	Yes
Somerfield	Web site	Yes		Yes	Yes (only a staff training policy)
Tesco	Email	Yes		Yes	Yes
Waitrose	Web site	Yes (a Responsible Sourcing Programme)		No	No per se mentioned employment page