Facts on pork sales run counter to supermarket’s argument

HOW long are some supermarkets going to be able to get away with at best distorting the facts?

On Radio 4’s Farming Today (September 30), Simon Twigger, their business unit director, claimed that “one of the particular problems this year has been the demand has been particularly weak – particularly for fresh pork and pork products”.

Neither Mr Twigger nor Sainsbury’s are the first to make such a claim. It is a story that some supermarkets trot out ad nauseam. Why? To help justify paying even less to their pork supplying farmers of course so that they can sell more and make more while pig farmers are expected to sell more and lose more.

Every time such claims are made I have asked for independent figures to see just how bad the situation is. And just what catastrophic picture do the latest bang-up-to-the-minute Kantar World Panel figures show?

They show that Sainsbury’s pork volumes increased 11.7 per cent year on year. Yes, an 11.7 per cent increase in sales volume over a period when prices have actually risen. I’ll even wager that, come time for Sainsburys’ interim or full reports, the 11.7 per cent figure might even have increased.

So much for Mr Twigger’s “particularly weak demand”.

So much for Sainsbury’s looking after its suppliers.

So much for transparency and trust in the supply chain.

If you can’t trust someone with facts what can you trust them with?

From: Alison Gleadle, director of food safety, Food Standards Agency.

WE wanted to clear up a couple of points from your recent article on the European Commission’s proposals to relax the ban on including processed animal protein (PAP) in feed for chickens and pigs (Yorkshire Post, September 26).

The report states “the NFU is objecting that the FSA has given uninformed public opinion more weight than the science of the case”. This is not true.

The board recognised that the scientific evidence showed that the proposed changes would give rise to a negligible risk. It was, however, concerned that this relied on the effective enforcement of controls. The board was not confident that effective enforcement could be guaranteed.

Consumers in our engagement work were, in fact, well informed. Reasons for and against relaxing the ban were delivered in stages to gauge reactions of participants becoming better informed.

Having received detailed information about the risks and potential benefits of adopting the proposals, a majority of respondents were against changes to the present feed ban.

After considering all available scientific evidence and information from consumers and industry, the board reached a unanimous decision that any benefits of the proposed changes were not strong enough to justify exposing consumers to even the smallest additional risk.

All four chief medical officers in the UK have also written to the Food Standards Agency stating their recommendation not to adopt proposals to relax the feed ban.

Given the history of BSE in the UK, it is right we take a cautious approach when considering changes to the present measures in place.