WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO HIDE?
The US argues that British shoppers can decide for themselves if they want to buy cheap food imports. But they also want LESS information on labels
SHOPPERS in Britain could be left in the dark over imported US ‘Frankenfoods’ such as cattle fed with growth hormones or chlorinated chicken, MPs have warned.
Currently these products are banned in the UK, but a new trade deal with America would almost certainly see that change, with US negotiators in the ongoing talks pushing for only limited information to be declared on food packaging.
MP Anthony Browne, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Environment, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘We cannot allow Britain’s high food standards to be undermined by lax labelling.
‘Consumer choice and animal welfare must be upheld in any trade deal with America as UK food producers should not be forced into a race to the bottom.’
Avoiding chlorinated chicken could prove difficult because labels on imported poultry do not have to show the meat has been chemically washed.
This is because using such disinfectants is deemed a ‘process’ rather than an ingredient, meaning it does not have to be listed on the label – unless the rules are changed.
The US has no system like the British ‘ traffic- light’ nutritional labels, showing levels of fat and salt, with Americans regarding such labelling as a barrier to trade.
Robert Lighthizer, President Donald Trump’s chief negotiator, who is dealing with International Trade Secretary Liz Truss, left no one in any doubt last week about his intransigence.
Possibly referring to The Mail on Sunday’s Save Our Family Farms campaign, he even threatened to postpone a free trade deal if any such barriers were imposed on US farmers.
Mr Lighthizer told Congress: ‘I read their [ the UK] press, as I know you do, and the agriculture issues are heating up over there as are a lot of other issues that the United States Congress would not accept in a trade deal.’
Mindful of Mr Trump’s need for the support of Midwestern farmers for his November re-election bid, he added: ‘I haven’t got to the point where I’d say this issue is gonna blow things up but we all know we have certain defensive interests and certain offensive interests.
‘And one thing is for sure, we are not going to be in a position where our farmers are treated unfairly.’
This transatlantic wrangling comes as farming and countryside campaigners in the UK fight to prevent sub-standard food imports.
The Johnson Government is split on the issue amid fears that Ms Truss could ditch UK welfare standards in order to strike an agreement with Mr Trump. Ms Truss denies this.
To test if fears about lax labelling are justified, The Mail on Sunday asked reporters in several countries that consume US meat to see if the packaging gives any details about the way the animals have been reared. The answer is ‘no’.
Critics of American food labels have described them as manipulative and confusing.
They give no hint that more than 90 per cent of beef cattle has been fed with growth hormones, and nearly all chickens have been washed in chlorinate to make up for poor welfare standards.
The use of antibiotics is commonplace, and many animals are fed genetically modified crops.
None of this is mentioned on labels. Juicy- looking steaks in a Los Angeles store simply stated ‘Prime Beef ’ and ‘Private Selection’. A pack of filet mignon tenderloin steak sold by the Ralphs supermarket chain had no hint that it came from cattle raised using growth hormones, which may also have been treated with antibiotics, according to the store’s parent company, Kroger.
Packaging on a rib- eye steak did not mention the use of growth hormones or antibiotics, but again, the company confirmed hormones were used, and possibly antibiotics. A spokesman for the company said that unless its beef is labelled ‘hormone-free’, its cattle are given natural hormones for growth.
He said: ‘This is USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] sanctioned and tested.’
American- produced beef and chicken we found in a Shop ’n’ Save store in Hong Kong and a Costco in Mexico City also carried scant information on the labels, and nothing about growth hormones, antibiotics or chlorinate.
A pack of ground beef for sale in Seoul, South Korea, gave no information other than a ‘USDA choice’ sticker.
Erin Sutherland, of the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington DC, said US meat labelling only emphasises when it is free of hormones or antibiotics.
‘Label claims are quite focused on what is not in the product, or what wh is not used in raising an animal,’ she said.
An Animal Welfare Institute study last year found that 57 per cent of American meat labels failed to substantiate their claims of ‘humane’ animal treatment or ‘sustainability’.
The USDA was found awarding i ‘ humanely raised’ labels to products that, for example, were not fed antibiotics to stimulate l growth but which ignored other o welfare considerations such s as the size of the animal’s living li space, bedding, lighting, handling h methods, access to range ra and pasture.
Chickens C might be confined to 0.6 0. square feet with only four hours of darkness daily, yet qualify for the label ‘Humanely Raised’, the report revealed.
Andrea Freeman, a law professor at the University of Hawaii, who has extensively studied US meat production, says American meat labelling ‘seems designed… not to remind [consumers] what is in their food’. She adds: ‘ It is psychologically manipulative rather than informative.’
‘Psychologically manipulative rather than informative’