Environment and Rural Development Committee, 28 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Official Report 97KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Food Chain (Supermarkets) (PE807)

Welcome to our 23rd meeting in 2006. I remind everyone to turn their phones and BlackBerries to silent mode. No apologies have been submitted this morning. I welcome members of the press and public to the meeting.

Agenda item 1 is petition PE807, which is a new petition for the committee. The petition, which was submitted by James Mackie, relates to the influence of supermarkets in the food chain. Colleagues will have received a paper from the clerk on the petition, as well as relevant correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee—the history of the petition. The petition covers much of the ground that we dealt with in our recent inquiry into the food supply chain. We need to decide today what to do with it.

We have dealt with everything relating to the food supply chain inquiry in our report. The additional elements relating to food safety and chemicals are probably less relevant to us because they are more of a health issue. The question is the extent to which members think that the Food Standards Agency Scotland has dealt with the issues. For our part, if we send our report to the petitioner, we should be able to close the petition. However, the question is whether members think that we should send the petition to the Health Committee.

We have a locus here because we passed secondary legislation about pesticide levels in crops. Chemicals and extending the life of food are related to that. If the Health Committee is considering looking at the chemicals that are used to extend the life of food on the shelves, we should say to it that those issues might be related. We do not know.

That is a moot point. There is a crossover: I would think that chemicals in food on the shelves would be a health issue, whereas pesticides in the field would be an agriculture issue.

But pesticide residues in food—

That is right.

It is one of the big issues.

I am concerned that, if we pass the petition to the Health Committee, that committee will pass it back to us and it will become a sort of football that nobody wants to deal with. It probably ought to be dealt with.

That is why I raised the FSA issue. The petition has been addressed as far as the Public Petitions Committee is concerned.

I thought that the correspondence with the FSA had answered the petitioner's concerns. However, for the sake of due form, it might be better for the Health Committee to say that than for us to say it.

I agree. We did a thorough job as far as we went in our inquiry, but issues such as this should be dealt with by the Health Committee. It should be explained to that committee that the petition is its responsibility now.

I agree. Rob Gibson's point about pesticides is right. We have talked about wider health implications. The issue of pesticides concerns us because it is about agriculture and soil issues, whereas extending the life of food on the shelf relates more to public health. Do we agree to send the petitioner our report on the food supply chain and to forward the petition to the Health Committee on the ground that lengthening the life of food on the supermarket shelf is more of a public health issue?

Members indicated agreement.