Impossible, I hear you say, but last year the Aberdeen Consumer Group pointed out that labels on certain meat products, such as ham and bacon, said `contains not less than 100% meat', while they clearly did contain other things, such as colouring, antioxidants, dextrose, stabilisers and preservatives. They asked one of the firms how they justified the claim.
The reply was that "meat content is declared on the basis of the amount of raw meat used. Thus a cooked joint weighing 500 gms could have been made from a piece of raw meat weighing 550 gms. The meat content would be 550/500 x 100% = 110%".
The firm implied that they were obliged to calculate it in this way and to express the result as "not less than 100% meat", "to comply with the law and make declarations in the way that it requires".
This seems extraordinary. Suppose that one makes a dried meat product that greatly reduced the weight of the raw source, but then bulked it out with cereal until it returned to that original weight, could one describe the result as 100% meat? Aberdeen Group asked their Council's Consumer Protection Department.
The Department confirmed that the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products regulations of 1984 do indeed allow the meat content of products to be calculated at more than 100%. These regulations are being discussed by the Food Standards Agency - and Aberdeen Group thinks it is high time they did.
The Consumer Protection Department, however, thought that the bulked out product suggested might well fall foul of more general requirements aimed against descriptions likely to mislead the buyer.
The Government's legislation on metrication continues to confuse. Tesco received publicity a few months ago by its claims that it was 'going back to imperial', despite what the law requires. That statement was based on an interpretation of the law. If that interpretation is justified, then UK law cannot satisfy the requirements of EU law. Yet the Government has shown no enthusiasm for blocking off the loop-holes, passing the responsibility to local authorities, who do not always seem to have either the resources or the political will to follow through. As a result, the consumer is faced with a bewildering array of price indications, both between and within shops. The most horrifying example of this was posted by a contributor to my UK Metrication mailing list:
"I was in a major supermarket the other day and I heard an announcement over the speaker system, "Bananas are down from 49 pence per kilo to 23 pence per pound" (I don't know if that was the exact wording but it was something like that). My jaw almost hit the floor, it's no wonder customers are confused about measures with talk like this. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to check the bananas out because I was with somebody, and therefore I don't know if he had made a mistake. The crazy thing is 23 p/lb would equate to 50.7 p/kg."
Some of the big supermarkets seem to be doing all that they can to circumvent the law, and give themselves an unfair advantage over those who comply not just with the letter of the law, but with the spirit of the law.
NfCG is supposed to be on the side of the consumer. We should be campaigning for the law to be enforced uniformly and fairly.
Metrication information:
http://www.metric.org.uk/
Editor's note -This is Chris Keenan's opinion and not necessarily that of NfCG, but he makes an interesting point. Perhaps Consumer Groups might find it a useful project to check out supermarkets and shops to see how well they comply with metrication regulation. My impression of three major chains is that they are meticulously correct. I cannot say the same for some small shops that I occasionally use. If all Groups participate, results could be collated to provide a powerful lobby but in which direction?
back to menu
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index