I am off on one of my regular adventures into the world of the EU. My invite to attend a meeting where DG Sanco and DG Trade will sit alongside the WTO and discuss SPS and TBT, IPCC, Codex and OIE in the context of private agri-business standards. Everyone will have a mis spelt name badge and the organisation acronyms will be everywhere. Many of the acronyms at these occasions are in French so there no hope of a Sussex farm boy with a low grade in French working them out either.
There is always an indignant smell in the air at these events. The power of the big supermarkes and food companies to demand higher standards and conditions than are legally required to send products to an EU country hangs in the air all day like a ....well ..... you know !
Everyone can smell it, it is unpleasent and they are all pointing a finger but no one is owning up to it. It is just there polluting conversations and making people point their noses upwards like the french aristocrats of old.
Much of the debate is driven by the indignation of the technocrats themselves and the myriad of appointed committee dwelling ant like officals that serve to advise them.
The power of private enterprise to regulate and control access to majority shares of food markets is not new but the increasing scale of that corporate power is relentless.
It is OK for the free marketeers to cheer and for most of us to quietly enjoy the obvious discomfort of the Eurocrat regulators but the lack of global commercial and operational transparency is worrying. The accountability of these huge corporations with the proxy responsibility to feed the majority of us in western europe is in doubt. The dependency we all have on this closed system should raise a concern in the post banking meltdown. If the institutions that regulate our daily finances can fail what would happen if our food supply collapsed or food prices spiraled out of control because of our dependency on oil transported food goods.
The question I still think is unanswered is where do we hold this debate ?
The committees and regulators have tried in vain to summon the big food companies to meetings to account for their actions. The thinly veiled threats of sanction based on layers of international declarations have no value against companies that have the profit to go into years of expensive litigation. These corporations would be very happy to be enterprise and consumer champions in the face of Euro-Quango challenges. A public relations gift not a slap on the wrist.
Debating fairness, finance and proberty as seen by the politicians would bring ironic smiles to the faces of the shoppers and no doubt an degree of sardonic humour. It is obvious to the man in thestreet that politicians and especially MEPs would not be first choice as an independent arbitor of the public good.
So that leaves us with the NGOs to campaign, leaflet, scare, swear and lobby on our behalf. Well meaning angry woman from the home counties throwing home made rock cakes at the thick skinned corporate elephant in the room - hoping that once in a while they will get a lucky hit in the eye of the beast.
Can this random chance activity be considered a suitable regulatory methodology for our global food security system ?? - you have to decide.
In fact it is the who decides this part that is generally ignored in these committee debates. It is the current public mandate that the retailers have by default that is always overlooked.
Whether by free market mechanisms, clever corporate deception or simply indifferent, passive consumer accident the retailers in Europe have the daily, hourly vote of tens of millions of happy consumers.
Comparatively many times more transactional votes than the democratic ballot votes cast at poorly supported local, national and european elections. The elections that bring the politicians to power and ironically 100% more than invisible appointed regulators that advise them to act.
The families contnue to vote with their feet and their pockets. Trusting or sub contracting their trust to the ability of the retailer to bring them safe food. That brand trust trend continues to grow in time stretched homes in established markets but also in the new markets where lifestyle changes from EU membership are coming fast.
If an average shopper was asked if they trust Tesco or a faceless government department who would they cite ? Do you know the name of the agriculture minister or the CEO of Tesco.
If consumers were told that a small percentage of imported products would receive the legal minimum safety checks on arrival in the UK or they could choose extra ongoing checks right back through the global chain to the farm what would they prefer ?
Would consumers prefer "one up - one down" traceability as in the EU regulation or complete chain traceability right back to the field and the growing row that the crop came from.
Whether it is fair and affordable for emerging countries and small farmers is a valid point to debate and I am firmly in the sceptical camp on this one. But although often raised it is a visible symptom not the real issue.
So there we have it a traditional vegetable safety standards committee meeting glazed with a new spicy sauce of global food security and unregulated corporate power.
Like a posh restaurant platter of "locally grown mulled spiced seasonal vegetables" ..... Its still Brussels dressed up as something new.
