New research shows health is the public’s number one priority in future trade deals where food is concerned. But what are the other priorities businesses should be mindful of? Nick Hughes reports.
The consumer group Which? says the success of the UK’s new trade deals will ultimately depend on the extent to which they deliver on what matters most to people in their everyday lives. As the UK government takes forward multiple negotiations with countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand, Which? asked people across the country what they believed should be in the minds of the UK’s negotiating teams.
Food, perhaps unsurprisingly, featured heavily. Here are some of the key takeaways from the research that should focus the minds of foodservice businesses.
When people think of trade they think of food. When Which? asked participants to share one thing they associated with trade almost everyone chose a food item. Food, it would seem, is the most tangible representation of trade in our everyday lives.
People care about standards. The question of standards dominated discussions. As with recent survey data Which? found most people want to maintain current UK standards across the board –and only flex them if there is evidence it won’t lead to any harm to health, animals or the environment.
Health trumps everything. Health was the most important priority for people when discussing the impact of trade on food standards. When people thought of potential harms to health from trade deals they thought of the way food is produced, such as hormone-treated beef, as well as the negative impact of cheaper, lower quality imported food on our diets, for instance cheap chicken from fast food outlets.
People want trade deals to help them minimise the environmental impacts of what they buy. Although health was the number one priority, people also believed trade deals should help the UK meet its environmental and sustainability commitments and not compromise targets such as net zero by 2050.
Animal welfare is a matter of morality. There was a widely held view that the way we keep and treat our animals in the food chain is part of an ethical duty to treat animals with care and respect. People also felt it would be wrong to lower animal welfare standards in imported food if it meant driving UK farmers out of business due to unfair competition.
People don’t speak the language of red tape. Unlike certain politicians, people rarely use terms such as “red tape” or “bureaucracy” when discussing standards. Instead, rules and regulations around products and services were more commonly seen to connect with British values around fairness and protection from harm.
Price is not the be all and end all. Although people did care about choice and price they considered these in the context of how their choices affect the environment, health, employment and fair trade. Cheaper food for UK consumers at the expense of global environmental protection was not seen as a good thing.
People don’t just think as consumers. Even when asked to consider what mattered most to them as consumers, people prioritised wider issues that affect them as citizens and the communities they live in. Greater choice wasn’t seen as beneficial if it results in lower standards and undermines local farming livelihoods.
Labels are not the answer. People want to trust that the products they buy already meet standards. They don’t have the time or energy to scrutinise everything they buy and don’t want to have to be vigilant when shopping to avoid products made to lower standards. The consensus view was that adding more layers of labelling to food products wasn’t the answer and that labelling was a “quiet way” of bringing in food produced to different standards. The fact that food in restaurants and cafés wouldn’t be labelled under existing rules was also an area of concern since the customer would have no idea if they were eating hormone-treated beef, for example.
Fairness is key in trade deals. People believed that trade deals should be beneficial for everyone involved including governments, businesses and citizens on both sides. They felt the UK has a particular duty of fairness when making trade deals with smaller, developing economies. People also felt the benefits of trade deals should be shared equally by businesses of all sizes. They felt particularly strongly about this when it came to the food industry, with many people voicing support for the protection of local food stores over supermarkets. This aligned with a broad desire to support local businesses
Covid has increased understanding of food. The pandemic has heightened awareness of how the food system works in terms of supply chains and resilience. People saw shortages of products like pasta and flour caused by high demand and panic buying and linked this to discussions around whether trade deals should prioritise diversity of supply or self-sufficiency. There was no clear consensus on this point, although there was broad support for encouraging more local production for environmental reasons.
