Veggie labeling petition at 10 Downing street

[StevieP]

It needs your signuature:

http://www.activeg.org/news/876.html

[Jonny Nexus]

This might sound really nit-picky, but I think that petition is very badly worded:


We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that caterers and restaurateurs fully understand the meaning of the words "vegetarian" and "vegan" and provide food that fully complies with those terms as defined by the Vegetarian Society and the Vegan Society respectively.

I first came across that in an email a moment before reading your post, and I interpreted it then (after a perhaps brief skim) to mean:

We call upon the Prime Minister to ensure that caterers and restaurants provide food suitable for vegans and vegetarians.

I didn't think that was reasonable. So I didn't sign it. But now having re-read it now, following your post, I've realised that it can equally be read the following way:

We call upon the Prime Minister to ensure that where caterers and restaurants are producing food that they claim is suitable for vegans and vegetarians, it actually is, according to the definitions produced by the Vegan and Vegetarian Societies.

The latter I think is a reasonable thing to ask, and would probably only require a minor extension or even reinterpretation of existing product description laws.

The former (forcing restaurants to provide vegan food) would be a *huge* step, and one that I just don't think is feasible.

I suspect that the petition is meant to mean the latter, but I don't think you can really demand that someone do something when that person can't actually tell what it is you're demanding.

[StevieP]

Hi Jonny,

I totally agree with your misgivings over the wording but I am also totally confident what is meant by the petition is that the food caterers supply which is labelled as veggie should obey the definitions stated by the Veg*n Societies.

If it does mean the other, I support that too - nothing wrong with being ambitious!

These petitions are only there to give the powers that be a vague idea of what the general public is concerned about so any petition that shows demand for improved provision for veggies should be supported - we can leave the tight definitions for later.

[harpy]

These petitions are only there to give the powers that be a vague idea of what the general public is concerned about

Yes, that's what I was thinking - if the words "vegetarian" and "vegan" catch some mandarin's eye it will be something I suppose :rolleyes:

[Jonny Nexus]

Hi Jonny,

I totally agree with your misgivings over the wording but I am also totally confident what is meant by the petition is that the food caterers supply which is labelled as veggie should obey the definitions stated by the Veg*n Societies.

If it does mean the other, I support that too - nothing wrong with being ambitious!

These petitions are only there to give the powers that be a vague idea of what the general public is concerned about so any petition that shows demand for improved provision for veggies should be supported - we can leave the tight definitions for later.

True. But on the other hand it could be used by those who oppose us to both ridicule us...

"Now these militant veggies are saying that a law should be passed to force restaurants to provide veggie food! Are they going to have the "food police" ambushing Women's Insitute events and hauling them away to jail for only serving a Sunday roast?"

...and to "smother" the petition (Number Ten gets to email you) by deliberately "misinterpretting" it:

"Our records show that you are one of those who signed the petition asking that legislation be passed to require all caterers and restaurants to provide vegan and vegetarian food. The PM has asked me to inform you that while he sympathises with the needs of special dietary groups, he does not feel that it is appropriate or even feasible to force restaurants and caterers to provide vegan and vegetarian food."

The point that frustrates me is that it doesn't cost any extra to write a petition statement that clearly and unambiguously states what we want.

I guess the problem is that it's in the nature of a petition that you can't alter the statement once people have stared signing it. Would it be too late to start a new one?

[flying plum]

Johnny - while i agree that there is perhaps some ambiguity in the way the petition is written, i think the context of the demand (correct labelling) and the explanation at the side of the petition page, fully realise the meaning and make it clear that we are only demanding a legal footing for labelling requirements, not the provision of vegan and vegetarian meals in all eating establishments.

it's also a shame that only 68 people have signed this, considering there are more members than that on this board, and most of us whinge about labelling at some point or other.

amanda

[StevieP]

it's also a shame that only 68 people have signed this, considering there are more members than that on this board, and most of us whinge about labelling at some point or other.

amanda

That 3 times as many as yesterday.

Here's another one to sign:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/wholefood/

[StevieP]

The point that frustrates me is that it doesn't cost any extra to write a petition statement that clearly and unambiguously states what we want.



I do want all caterers to be obliged to serve vegan and veggie food. :D

But to be fair on the author, it does cost - it requires effort and understanding and not all the active veggies out there, doing their bit, can be expect to be polished with every desirable skill.

[private message also sent to you JN]

[Jonny Nexus]

I do want all caterers to be obliged to serve vegan and veggie food. :D

Personally, I'd rather start with an intemediate step, which would be to ammend the labelling legislation to force all packaged food, and perhaps restaurant menu items, to state whether or not food is vegan, vegetarian, or neither.

That wouldn't instantly create more vegan food, but it would hopefully give us a lot more choices (i.e. a load of previously "maybe" things would suddenly become "yes"). It would also raise awareness of veganism.

[Jonny Nexus]

I had a search. I think the petition is asking for something which already, possibly exists.

If you look at this:

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/vegitermsgn.pdf

...you see:


There is no definition in law of the terms ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ either at the UK or European level.


This Guidance should not be taken as an authoritative statement or interpretation of the law. The opinion of a company’s Home Authority or local enforcing authority may differ. Only the courts can decide whether, in particular circumstances, an offence has been committed.


Claims such as, 'suitable for vegetarians' or 'suitable for vegans' are subject to the general controls in sections 1 to 4 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (prohibition of false or misleading trade descriptions).

Claims such as, 'suitable for vegetarians' or 'suitable for vegans' are subject to the general controls in sections 14 and 15 of the of Food Safety Act 1990 (prohibition on selling food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded and falsely describing or presenting food). The 1990 Act extends to Great Britain. There is parallel legislation in Northern Ireland.

Article 16 of EC Regulation 178/2002 prohibits labelling or other presentation, which misleads consumers. This is enforced by means of the General Food Regulations 2004 in Great Britain and parallel legislation in Northern Ireland.


The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten. Animals means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustacea, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs and insects.

The term ‘vegan’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of animals or animal products (including products from living animals).

What does this mean? Well I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that were a restaurant were to advertise something as vegetarian (or vegan) that was not vegetarian (or vegan) then they would probably be in breach of the various trade description acts.

We can only say probably at this point, because there is no legal definition, and it would therefore be up to a court to determine.

So maybe what we need is a test case to prove that it's illegal to claim that non-vegetarian food is vegetarian. (Or perhaps someone who is a lawyer could write up a reasonably authoritative legal argument to explain how existing laws might apply).


Test Case

A legal action whose outcome is likely to set a precedent or test the constitutionality of a statute.

http://www.answers.com/topic/test-case

[StevieP]

... I would say that were a restaurant were to advertise something as vegetarian (or vegan) that was not vegetarian (or vegan) then they would probably be in breach of the various trade description acts.

My understanding is that this has always been the case, except, it is very very easy for the restaurant to plead - well that what we thought vegetarians ate! You have to prove that they intentionally gave you something that was not vegetarian (in their eyes).

What we want is for these guideline to be legal definitions and then ignorance of the law would be no excuse for the 100s of pizza adverts that come through my door claim all their meatless pizza are vegetarian. New law in this would benefit those companies who are sincere about veggie labelling.

So, these guideline are a good start, but there's still away to go.

[Jonny Nexus]

Well I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that there is not a legal definition is not in itself a let out - it just means that the court would rule using common sense and a dictionary.

Example: If you sell me a set of trousers that you say have buttons and when I get home I find they've got a zip, you've just broken the law. It doesn't matter if there is no legal definition of buttons and zips because they're words.

Although in Canada, a court was required to legally define zips: :)

"Devices consisting of two opposite series of members adapted to be attached one on each side of an aperture in some article and to interlock so as to close the aperture upon the slide being operated in one direction, or to separate so as to leave the aperture open upon the slide being operated in the opposite direction." Editor's note:we didn't make this up! It's from a 1932 trademark case of the Supreme Court of Canada called Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd. V. Canadian GoodrichCo. Ltd.

http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-uz.aspx

Presumably, someone was claiming that there product either was or was not a zip when it clearly either was or wasn't, and the court was required to rule if it was or not. They didn't have to wait for the US Congress to pass a law defining what a zip was.

We just need a court case to establish the precident, although an actual specific law would be nice.

[absentmindedfan]

Petitions don't work. If you want the goverment to change you need to change public opinion. Number 10 allows petitions to be made and signed to make the public feel like they're being listened to, but they aren't. It's a distraction tactic to make you feel better.

[StevieP]

That's the road to defeat.

A petitions does not work, sure. But petitions, forums, news stories, adverts - they all effect public opinion. Look how much publicity the road pricing petition on 10 Downing street got - we could do with some of that. When it only takes about 30 seconds to put your name on it, it is surly worth the risk of being ignored. Your posting here took longer.

[flying plum]

I had a search. I think the petition is asking for something which already, possibly exists.

If you look at this:

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/vegitermsgn.pdf

...you see:









What does this mean? Well I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that were a restaurant were to advertise something as vegetarian (or vegan) that was not vegetarian (or vegan) then they would probably be in breach of the various trade description acts.

We can only say probably at this point, because there is no legal definition, and it would therefore be up to a court to determine.

So maybe what we need is a test case to prove that it's illegal to claim that non-vegetarian food is vegetarian. (Or perhaps someone who is a lawyer could write up a reasonably authoritative legal argument to explain how existing laws might apply).

I just wrote up a really long reply to this and lost it...gutting. the summary was, i don't feel the existing legislation is sufficient. the TDA'68 has quite a large subjective element in it, i believe, which would simply require the supplier to be acting in good faith. these FSA guidelines would be strong counter-weight to any claims of ignorance, but they are not legally binding, and I'm not sure a court would find anyone guilty on simply their weight.

with regards to the FSA'90, the best provision to my mind is s.14(1). the whole text is below:


Consumer protection
Selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded.

14.—(1) Any person who sells to the purchaser's prejudice any food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) In subsection (1) above the reference to sale shall be construed as a reference to sale for human consumption; and in proceedings under that subsection it shall not be a defence that the purchaser was not prejudiced because he bought for analysis or examination.
Falsely describing or presenting food.

15.—(1) Any person who gives with any food sold by him, or displays with any food offered or exposed by him for sale or in his possession for the purpose of sale, a label, whether or not attached to or printed on the wrapper or container, which— (a) falsely describes the food; or (b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food,shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement (not being such a label given or displayed by him as mentioned in subsection (1) above) which— (a) falsely describes any food; or (b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of any food,shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Any person who sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale, any food the presentation of which is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above, the fact that a label or advertisement in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed contained an accurate statement of the composition of the food shall not preclude the court from finding that the offence was committed.

(5) In this section references to sale shall be construed as references to sale for human consumption.
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900016_en_3.htm#mdiv14)

s.14(1) suggests that the retailer must ensure what he has labelled his food as is equal to what the consumer believes it to mean. however, in Court, i think this could fall into problems in that, despite the vegetarian and vegan societies both respectively offering their strict definitions, vegetarians particularly no not necessarily adhere to these. while we find it frustrating (and more than a little hypocritical), there are people who describe themselves as vegetarian who eat fish, or dont' worry about rennet or whatever. despite such things as the FSA guidelines, it's not surprising that retailers may be unsure exactly what meets people's definitions and i think on the basis of the current legislation, this is the view a court would take as well, hence the need for this to be put on a legal standing.

not only that, but i think that the labelling legislation only may only apply to shops, not restaurants. the definition in s.2 of 'sale' suggests to me otherwise, but so many restaurants are incorrect in their labelling (i can't think of the amount of times i've pointed out that parmesan can NEVER be vegetarian) that i can't think that they are under such strict controls.

anyway, what i'm trying to say is, although there is legislation, it is very general, and i'm not convinced that it provides a huge amount of protection without a general definition added as a statutory instrument or to the schedule of the act.

amanda

[StevieP]

Here is a list of the current veggie related petitions


http://www.activeg.org/news/876.html

[pudding06]

I have just found some petitions on the downing st site which are specific to vegans and which you may or may not wish to sign.

I've already signed one and am off to look at and sign the rest.

You need to fill in your details, and give a valid email address as you have to get an email and follow link to be added.

I've done this several times, and never had any problems. This is the link they sent me.

hope its some use to you. Its the search I did for vegan petitions
http://search.number-10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/number10/search.lsim?ha=1157&sr=0&sf=&qt=vegan&nh=10&cs=iso-8859-1&sc=number10&sm=0&mt=1&to=0
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/VegFriendly/

[Risker]

The Food Standards Agency recognised a couple of years ago that the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegan' were being used in various different ways that concerned or confused consumers and published voluntary guidance in 2006. This guidance was informed by stakeholder consultation that included consumer representatives as well as the Vegetarian and Vegan Societies and was welcomed by these groups. The purpose of the guidance is to assist caterers and restaurateurs as well as others to use these terms and to apply them in a consistent way.

The Agency's guidance advises that the term 'vegetarian' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, products derived from animals that have died or have been slaughtered. The term 'vegan' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, animals or animal products (including products from living animals).

For foods to carry the logos of the UK's Vegetarian and Vegan Societies, the company must apply to the relevant society to have the specific food registered. This is voluntary and is a commercial decision for the businesses concerned.

There is no single definition in law for the use of the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegan' either at UK or European level, and any labelling of food or drink products as 'vegetarian' or 'vegan' is voluntary. However, consumers are protected by general legal provisions outlawing false or misleading labelling in UK legislation. The Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended), the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, and Article 16 of European Union Regulation 178/2002/EC must be complied with if such labelling is used.

The Agency's guidance can be found on its website (new window).

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13576.asp

[veganlinda]

I have just found some petitions on the downing st site which are specific to vegans and which you may or may not wish to sign.

......
http://search.number-10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/number10/search.lsim?ha=1157&sr=0&sf=&qt=vegan&nh=10&cs=iso-8859-1&sc=number10&sm=0&mt=1&to=0
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/VegFriendly/

Only one of these petitions left now ... not many signatures ... have added mine!

[Cumin]

Have you seen the recent reply?

The Government are aware of consumers' concern over honest labelling, particularly in regard to the use of the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegan'. After meeting with representatives of consumers, industry, enforcement, several religious groups and the Vegetarian and Vegan Societies and following a full public consultation, the Food Standards Agency published Guidance on the Use of the Terms 'Vegetarian' and 'Vegan' in Food Labelling in April 2006 (http://www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/2006/apr/vegan). The Guidance aims to assist manufacturers, retailers and caterers to use the terms in a consistent way, which in turn will make it easier for consumers to understand.
The guidance is best practice advice and it remains the decision of the manufacturer whether or not to make this declaration if their product fulfils the criteria in the guidance.
Any labelling of food or drink products as 'vegetarian' or 'vegan' is voluntary. However, consumers are protected by general legal provisions outlawing false or misleading labelling in UK legislation. The Food Safety Act 1990 (as amended), the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, and Article 16 of European Union Regulation 178/2002/EC must be complied with if such labelling is used.
It may be possible for the UK to introduce national measures regarding labelling with the terms 'vegetarian' or 'vegan', subject to the notification and acceptance procedures set out in the Technical Standards Directive 98/34/EC. However, we wish to see whether voluntary criteria as set out in the guidance published in 2006 are effective in improving labelling and increasing consumer confidence. The guidance will be subject to periodic review.


http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14431.asp