B1017 – Food and Drink Packaging Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B1017 – Food and Drink Packaging Bill 2016, TSR Labour Party

Food and Drink Packaging Bill 2016
An Act to help inform consumers of the contents of what they purchase.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Definitions
(1) Packaging is defined as anything which is used to contain food or drink for the purposes of selling,
as well as labels on food and drink products.
(2) Web description is defined as the information given about the product on any site which is either selling the product
(3) Vegetarian is defined as not containing meat, fish or other animal products apart from dairy
(4) Vegan is defined as not containing animal products including diary
(5) Halal is defined as being prepared in accordance to Islamic law
(6) Kosher is defined as being prepared in accordance to Jewish Law

2: Food Packaging Regulations
(1) If the packaged food product contains meat or animal product all types of meat and animal product must be clearly labeled
a. This includes identifying the type of gelatin if gelatin is used in the product
(2) All food packaging must clearly label if the food product is Vegetarian, Vegan, Halal or Kosher
(3) All packaging must feature nutritional labels on the front of the packaging
(4) The nutritional label must show:
a. Energy
b. Fat
c. Saturates
d. Sugars
e. Salt
(5) The nutritional label will use green, amber, red colour coding
(6) 2(1), 2(1)a, 2(2), 2(3), 2(4), 2(4)a-e and 2(5) must also be cleared displayed in the web description of all food products

3: Drink Packaging Regulations
(1) If the packaged drink contains meat or animal products all types of meat and animal products must be clearly labeled
a. This includes identifying the type of gelatin if gelatin is used in the product
b. This includes alcoholic drinks even if they do not have to list all of their ingredients
(2) All drink packaging must clearly label if the food product is Vegetarian, Vegan, Halal or Kosher
a. This includes alcoholic drinks even if they do not have to list all of their ingredients
(3) All packaging must feature nutritional labels on the front of the packaging
a. The nutritional label must show the same as on the food packaging, and will also use the green, amber, red colour coding
(4) 3(1), 3(1)a-b, 3(2), 3(2)a, 3(3) and 3(3)a must also be cleared displayed in the drink description of all drink products

4: Punishment
(1) Companies who do not comply with this will be fined 5% of revenue made on each product which does not comply

5: Exception
(1) Businesses which make less than £10 Million in revenue per annum are exempt from this bill

6: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the 1st of January 2017.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Food and Drink Packaging Act 2016.


Notes:
Spoiler:
Show
NotesThis bill sets out to help better inform consumers on what exactly they are consuming, by ensuring that all food and drinks are labeled if they are suitable for different dietary/life choices and different religious requirements. This bill however also helps the average consumer who should be informed as best as possible and as easily as possible on what it is they are consuming.

This isn’t about creating a ‘Nanny state’, but about ensuring consumers know what they are buying when they look at something, and so companies can’t hide behind not telling consumers if their products are suitable for different lifestyle and religious diets.

The web description part of the bill ensures this bill is able to help both instore and online consumers, making sure the bill is suitable for the 21st Century.

The punishment is set at 5% to both be business friendly, but not too low to make avoiding this legislation something a business would be willing to pay simply not to comply. The lower 1.5% for companies which make under £10 Million is to ensure this bill does not unfairly discriminate against smaller businesses and larger ones.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Why the exception?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
No, there needs to be a clause to allow shops to sell existing products that do not comply with the bill after the implementation date because some products would have been produced for sale before this date is passed. It is unreasonable to force all companies to change the packaging of products that were produced before this bill, the bill should apply to all new products manufactured.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
And how much of this is not already the case other than the silly traffic lighting? Also if nanny stating so far why not include gluten free on the list?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Aye, but there needs to be a clause to allow shops to sell existing products that do not comply with the bill after the implementation date because some products would have been produced for sale before this date is passed. It is unreasonable to force all companies to change the packaging of products that were produced before this bill, the bill should apply to all new products manufactured.
I doubt it'd be a huge problem but that's a good point all the same. Should be sorted in the second reading.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by RayApparently)
I doubt it'd be a huge problem but that's a good point all the same. Should be sorted in the second reading.
A second problem is what the colour coding relates to, having colour coding can make things easier to read quickly but there is no explanation when manufactures should use each colour.
1
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
No, there needs to be a clause to allow shops to sell existing products that do not comply with the bill after the implementation date because some products would have been produced for sale before this date is passed. It is unreasonable to force all companies to change the packaging of products that were produced before this bill, the bill should apply to all new products manufactured.
You make a valid point and it'll be in the second reading as Ray said. It's why second/third readings are useful as sometimes something slips through the cracks

(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
A second problem is what the colour coding relates to, having colour coding can make things easier to read quickly but there is no explanation when manufactures should use each colour.
The system is already currently used, this just enforces it. If it would please you and the house I can go away from the second reading, get the information and put it in the notes to explain it.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And how much of this is not already the case other than the silly traffic lighting? Also if nanny stating so far why not include gluten free on the list?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Some food and drinks do this, but not all, this just goes a step further in the interest of consumers. Also I believe products already have to say if they are gluten free or not, if this isn't the case (and I shall go look now) it shall be added in to the second reading.

(Original post by Aph)
Why the exception?

Posted from TSR Mobile
TheDefiniteArticle is better placed to answer that than myself so I hope he doesn't mind me tagging him in here.
0
McRite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Aye.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Aye with some of the changes mentioned above
0
EricAteYou
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Kay_Winters)
You make a valid point and it'll be in the second reading as Ray said. It's why second/third readings are useful as sometimes something slips through the cracks



The system is already currently used, this just enforces it. If it would please you and the house I can go away from the second reading, get the information and put it in the notes to explain it.



Some food and drinks do this, but not all, this just goes a step further in the interest of consumers. Also I believe products already have to say if they are gluten free or not, if this isn't the case (and I shall go look now) it shall be added in to the second reading.



TheDefiniteArticle is better placed to answer that than myself so I hope he doesn't mind me tagging him in here.
If they're already required to say they are gluten free I would expect the same to hold for the things being given in the bill. I was also meaning more the dietary information because I see the traffic lights as stupid.
0
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If they're already required to say they are gluten free I would expect the same to hold for the things being given in the bill. I was also meaning more the dietary information because I see the traffic lights as stupid.
As I said I was under the impression gluten free was something which had to be specified unlike the four things mentioned in the bill. I am happy to check this for the second reading.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Aye. I think the £10 million needs to apply to either the manufacturer or the supermarket/final seller, so this applies whichever or if both apply.
0
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
As long as you're doing a second reading, there's a dairy/diary misspelling in Definitions 4.
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(1) If the packaged drink contains meat or animal products all types of meat and animal products must be clearly labeled

What drinks contain Meat ?

Nay
0
TitanCream
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Aye, sounds pretty good.
0
TitanCream
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by hazzer1998)
(1) If the packaged drink contains meat or animal products all types of meat and animal products must be clearly labeled

What drinks contain Meat ?

Nay
Does bovril count?
0
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by hazzer1998)
(1) If the packaged drink contains meat or animal products all types of meat and animal products must be clearly labeled

What drinks contain Meat ?

Nay
Well some wines use animal products in the filtering process, as does currently Guinness. Some drinks, such as strawberry milkshakes use food colourings which aren't vegetarian. I haven't come across a drink with meat in personally but it covers the grounds to be safe.

(Original post by barnetlad)
Aye. I think the £10 million needs to apply to either the manufacturer or the supermarket/final seller, so this applies whichever or if both apply.
I'll detail this further in the second reading to be clear

(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
As long as you're doing a second reading, there's a dairy/diary misspelling in Definitions 4.
Noted thanks!
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Aph, the reason for the revenue-exception (which should apply to the producer, not the supermarket), is that the lack of economies of scale makes confirmation of precise content and quantities relatively more expensive for small producers.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

It is really important for me to be involved in helping make my university better

Strongly disagree (4)
11.11%
Disagree (3)
8.33%
Neither agree or disagree (10)
27.78%
Agree (11)
30.56%
Strongly Agree (8)
22.22%

Watched Threads

View All