British farmers are accusing the bosses of the country's “big six” supermarkets of wrongly branding their own-brand food as supplied from “quaint family farms”.
According to Farmers Against Farmwashing campaign, the grocery chains are using fake farm brands and Union Jack branding to give shoppers the impression that their products come from rustic independent producers.
It claims that, in reality, much of the food is sourced from “industrial US-style mega-farms” or from overseas, masking the decline of Britain’s family farms.
The open letter has been signed by more than 100 figures from the farming and food industry as well as industry bodies such as Sustain, the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission and the Soil Association.
The campaign states on its website, "Supermarket farmwashing is masking a harsh reality – the decline of Britain’s small family farms. Walk around your local supermarket. You might notice the Union Jack proudly displayed in the fruit & veg aisle, and farm brands such as Tesco’s Redmere Farms.
"The reality? Much of the produce under those British flags will be imported, or from a mega-farm and Redmere Farm doesn't exist. This misleading marketing is called farmwashing and it needs to stop, because it undermines real British family farmers who are struggling to survive.
"We’re asking the supermarkets to show a little integrity, be transparent with their sourcing and offer real support for Britain’s family farmers, before it’s too late."
Farmers Against Farmwashing highlighted a survey it had conducted of more than 200 farmers that found nearly two thirds were concerned that they would have to give up their farms within the next 18 months.
Only one in four said that they thought claims from supermarkets of supporting British farmers were credible and backed up by their buying practices.
The poll found that two thirds felt under pressure from supermarkets’ buying practices and a similar proportion feared that they would be delisted if they complained.
Guy Singh-Watson, the founder of Riverford Organic Farmers who is leading the campaign, said: “British farming is at a breaking point. The public cares deeply about where their food comes from — the supermarkets know this and they are using that trust to steal farmer stories and to hoodwink shoppers into thinking they are buying from those small-scale, traditional British farms.
“Yet the reality is that these farms are being pushed to the brink. Is this the future we want for our food system and our countryside?
“If we want a future where our food system is resilient, our landscapes are preserved and our farmers are treated fairly, we need more honesty and decency in the supply chain.”
This comes after a recent investigation by Which? that found that some shoppers could easily be misled by supermarkets’ use of Union Jack labels. The investigation also mentioned that Union Jacks and “Made in Britain” stamps were printed on the packaging of some Aldi pork and beef products, even though they used EU meat.
It also said that shelves laden with tomatoes from Morocco, parsley from Italy and sweet mini peppers from Spain sat on a shelf under a large banner decorated with a Union Jack, The Times reported.
Commenting on the claims, Andrew Opie, of the British Retail Consortium, which represents the supermarkets, said, “Supermarkets are always keen to promote British farming and follow the strict legislation on the labelling of food, including the use of flags. In fact, they pushed the government to tighten these rules earlier this year.
“Retailers create new farm brands for some of their own-label goods in order to help consumers find the quality goods they are looking for.”
Some of the prominent food and drink wholesalers have written to the Prime Minister to express deep concern about the impact of the recent budget, which threatens the long-term sustainability of the UK’s food and drink supply chain
Coordinated by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors (FWD), the letter highlights that the National Living Wage increase will add an estimated £110 million in direct wage costs, while the increase in employer National Insurance will add additional costs of £31 million a year to an already embattled sector.
FWD warned that the budget will compound spiralling costs and undermine the wholesale sector – at a time when it should be encouraged to play a pivotal role in driving growth. The viability of regional food distributors is now also threatened, while there is additional pressure on the sector’s ability to fulfil public sector contracts to schools, care homes, prisons and hospitals with nutritious food.
The letter also highlights concerns about reforms to business rates which threaten to plunge hard-working wholesalers into paying a higher multiplier on properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above.
While the rationale behind this change may be to tax the warehouses of online giants, it is essential to ensure there is a way of differentiating them from business-to-business food and drink wholesalers who were not the intended targets of this change and play a vital role in feeding the nation.
Commenting on the letter’s publication, FWD Chief Executive James Bielby said, “Our members contribute significantly to the UK economy, with annual revenues reaching £36 billion. They also directly employ 60,000 people and add an impressive £3 billion of gross value to the UK economy each year.
"The scale of our sector’s contribution highlights its significance in powering the government’s mission to kickstart economic growth – which we wholeheartedly support.
“However, the tax increases announced in the budget will have the opposite effect, compounding spiralling costs and undermining our critical sector. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the government to discuss our concerns so that we may identify solutions to mitigate the damaging impact the budget’s measures will have on the critical supply of high-quality food and drink across our country.”
Bestway Wholesale Managing Director Dawood Pervez said, “The planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions alongside the National Living Wage increases will wipe off 10 per cent of our profitability, significantly hindering our ability to reinvest in jobs and the wider supply chain.
"At a time when many wholesalers are already faced with rising prices, these added costs will cause further inflation across the board and will not drive economic growth in our sector or country as a whole.”
Families are set to splash out on Christmas this year as expected spending hits a three year high as the cost-of-living pressure eases, according to RSM UK’s latest Consumer Outlook.
Families expect to spend an average of £760 on Christmas this year, up £158 or 26 per cent on £602 last year; and £694 in 2022. Last year consumers spent on average around a third more than expected, so 2024 average spend could break the £1,000 mark if the same overspend happens again this year.
A third of families (33%) plan on using some form of credit, including a credit card, buy now pay later arrangements, a loan or using overdraft, to fund Christmas this year. Half of all families (50%) plan on bringing forward their Christmas spending to spread the cost of purchases and take advantage of discounts such as Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
The EY Holiday Shopping Survey has also found that the consumers have started their holiday shopping earlier this year, driven by a desire to spread out their spending.
The top three categories that families plan on spending more on include Christmas presents (33%), Christmas dinner (33%) and food and drink at home (32%). Whereas the biggest cutbacks will be homeware (42%), eating and drinking out (40%) and adult fashion (37%).
“Expected Christmas spending hitting a three year high will be welcome news to retailers as families look set to splurge on Christmas presents and food and drink at home. Consumer confidence improved for the first time in three months in November, but it remains fragile and any further dips in confidence could derail expected spending,” Jacqui Baker, partner and head of retail at RSM UK, commented.
“Many retailers will be hoping that Black Friday deals can kickstart sales throughout the Golden Quarter to ensure they are in the best possible financial position going into 2025 to help offset the looming uplift in costs post-budget.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Smithfield Market (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)
The UK local authority on Tuesday (26) voted to close the city's historic wholesale meat market from 2028, ushering the ending of the trading era that started back in the 1100s.
Smithfield Market, near St Paul's Cathedral, has endured years of uncertainty and was facing an £800-million move to a new purpose-built site in the eastern suburb of Dagenham. But members of the City of London Corporation approved a decision to shelve the project, ending 900 years of history.
Smithfield Market is the largest wholesale meat market in the UK and one of the biggest in Europe. The current iteration of the market has been trading at the site since the 1860s. Prior to that it was a livestock market, which dated back to the medieval period.
Work has already begun on turning this site into a new cultural and commercial hub, which includes the new London Museum, BBC reported.
The Billingsgate fish market had also been slated to move from its home near the Canary Wharf development in east London to Dagenham.
Billingsgate is the largest inland fish market in the UK, with an average of 25,000 tonnes of fish and fish products sold there every year. The original market first traded in Lower Thames Street in the City in 1327, before moving to its current site in Poplar, east London, in 1982.
This site has now been earmarked to provide thousands of new homes.
In a statement, the corporation said traders, who work through the night to supply butchers, hotels and restaurants across the capital, could continue operations until "at least 2028".
"The decision reflects a careful balance between respecting the history of Smithfield and Billingsgate Markets and managing resources for this project responsibly," the local authority said.
"Project costs have risen due to a number of external factors, including inflation and the increasing cost of construction which have made the move unaffordable."
Speaking to BBC London before the decision was announced, one trader, whose family has sold fish at the site for 70 years, said he had been forced to take the compensation offer or "leave with nothing", adding, "For what we’ve been offered to vacate the premises, I can’t go and reinstate myself somewhere else.
The trader also warned that the decision will leave London "without a fish supplier" unless another fish market of the same scale comes up.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) today (27) declared that people who are members of a loyalty scheme can almost always make a genuine saving on the usual price by buying loyalty priced products.
Having analysed around 50,000 grocery products on a loyalty price promotion, the CMA found very little evidence of supermarkets inflating their "usual" prices to make loyalty promotions seem like a better deal.
George Lusty, Interim Executive Director of Consumer Protection, said: "We know many people don’t trust loyalty card prices, which is why we did a deep dive to get to the bottom of whether supermarkets were treating shoppers fairly. After analysing tens of thousands of products, we found that almost all the loyalty prices reviewed offered genuine savings against the usual price – a fact we hope reassures shoppers throughout the UK.
"While these discounts are legitimate, our review has shown that loyalty prices aren’t always the cheapest option, so shopping around is still key. By checking a few shops, you can continue to stretch your hard-earned cash.
As part of the CMA’s work to help people facing cost of living pressures, it conducted a rigorous investigation of loyalty pricing. This sought to get to the bottom of a number of potential concerns, including whether loyalty prices can be trusted, how they compare to prices at other supermarkets and how accessible they are.
The CMA conducted a consumer survey to understand what shoppers specifically think about loyalty pricing, for example: do they trust it, do they think it’s fair, and does it change where people choose to shop. The CMA also examined supermarkets’ behaviour – including, importantly, their use of customers’ data.
The evidence shows that almost all products scrutinised – 92 per cent of around 50,000 items – offered a genuine saving against the ‘usual’ price in the same store. While loyalty prices are generally some of the cheapest available, this wasn’t always the case meaning it’s worth shopping around.
The survey also found that people can make an average saving of 17-25 per cent buying loyalty priced products at the 5 supermarkets examined: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Co-op and Morrisons. 76 per cent of shoppers say loyalty pricing has not changed where they shop, but 24 per cent now compare prices more due to the introduction of loyalty pricing.
55 per cent of those surveyed think the price for non-members is inflated during loyalty price promotions while 43 per cent of those surveyed think it is unfair that loyalty scheme members pay lower prices for some products than those without a membership.
Another key finding of the survey was that people’s concerns about how their personal data is used is not stopping them from joining a loyalty scheme – only 7 per cent of those surveyed said they hadn’t signed up to a scheme due to personal data concerns. Some supermarkets could do more to make sure that certain shoppers – such as those without smart phones and the elderly – are able to join and make use of loyalty schemes
As part of its wide-ranging review, the CMA also looked at the way supermarkets collect and use people’s data when they sign up to a loyalty scheme. It did not see evidence of consumer law concerns in relation to this.
However, the CMA did find that there was room for improvement regarding people’s ability to access loyalty schemes.
Some supermarkets could do more to ensure people without smart phones or under 18s, for example, can access – and know how to access – loyalty prices. This could include introducing offline sign-up, in-store or via the telephone for example, and lowering the minimum age for joining a scheme.
British lawmakers on Tuesday (26) voted unanimously in favour of plans to introduce some of the world’s strictest anti-smoking rules, giving the green light to Tobacco and Vapes Bill to progress to the next parliamentary stage.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill aims to make vapes less appealing and would ensure anyone aged 15 this year, or younger would be banned from ever buying cigarettes. After a lengthy debate in the parliament’s House of Commons, a total of 415 lawmakers voted in favour of the bill while 47 voted against it.
Among the expansive changes, the bill includes plans to ban vape advertising and sponsorship, as well as restrictions on packaging and flavors. Many of these flavors, including bubble gum and cotton candy, are said to be particularly appealing to young consumers, fueling the surge of e-cigarette use within this demographic.
“The number of children vaping is growing at an alarming rate and without urgent intervention, we’re going to have a generation of children with long-term addiction,” Labour health secretary Wes Streeting said.
The push for this stringent regulation follows previous attempts by the Conservative government to implement similar measures, which had languished due to political turmoil surrounding election cycles. Caroline Johnson, the Conservative shadow health minister, expressed cautious optimism, acknowledging, "Whatever our views on this bill, it is bold legislation with good intentions. It’s not clear whether it will work, but we all hope it does."
The bill also seeks to establish licensing requirements for retailers who sell tobacco or nicotine products, which would incur fines of £200 for those caught selling to underage buyers.
The government is also contemplating extending current indoor smoking bans to certain outdoor locations like children's playgrounds and hospital grounds, though plans to restrict smoking outside pubs and cafes were previously shelved after backlash from the hospitality sector.
Despite significant backing from various political factions, the legislation has not come without criticism.
Concerns have arisen around civil liberties, with individuals like Conservative MP Robert Jenrick expressing this sentiment on social media. He argued, "Educate more, ban less. Say no to the nanny state," reflecting skepticism about the impact of prohibitive measures.
The controversy surrounding potential civil liberties impacts was not isolated to Conservative ranks. Liberal Democrats also voiced reservations, stating the bill may encroach on personal freedoms.
They were granted the option to vote freely, resulting in mixed responses from party members—some fully supporting the blow to youthful smoking habits, but others raising flags about practicality and ethical concerns.
The legislation does raise complex questions surrounding public health priorities versus individual freedom, leading to heated discussions within parliamentary debates.
Critics of the bill suggest the potential for increased government overreach and skepticism about the efficacy of bans. Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell posed pointed questions during the debates, pushing back on the logic of restricting freedoms, asking, "Why should people not be allowed to make their own responsible choices?"
Streeting countered these claims with the notion indicating future healthcare burdens and societal impacts on non-smokers as significant factors justifying the bill.
Heading to the next steps, the legislation will find its way to committee discussions where MPs can propose amendments before facing another reading before the House of Lords.
If it clears these stages and eventually receives Royal Assent, it will mark a significant evolution of public health policy centered around tobacco consumption within the UK.