Food: Chicken and Beef
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they give to British travellers to the United States of America on the risks of eating (1) chicken which has been subject to a pathogen reduction treatment, and (2) hormone-fed beef.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government do not offer advice on this specific matter to British travellers. The Foreign Office keeps our travel advice under constant review and ensures that it reflects the most relevant risks to British nationals travelling overseas. All travel advice pages signpost to expert travel health advice from UK health bodies.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
Is not the real reason for not issuing a health warning that American chicken and beef pose no health risks? Indeed, there are fewer salmonella and campylobacter cases in America than in Europe. Has this scare not been concocted by anti-Americans who want to sabotage a potential UK-US trade deal? They will not succeed because 90% of US chicken is not washed with chlorine, which anyway poses no health risks, and American animal welfare standards are no lower than in eastern Europe, Thailand and Brazil, from which we currently import chicken and beef. Should we not focus on the opportunities a US deal could offer British farmers, manufacturers and financial services?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
Each country must make its own decision on a range of issues based on its own individual circumstances and attitude to risk. As my noble friend will know, we have legislated by the withdrawal Act 2018 against the use of artificial growth hormones in domestic production and imported meat products. Our legislation also prohibits the use of anything other than potable water to decontaminate poultry carcasses. Any changes would require new legislation. It is important to note that the approach we follow in this country, which I believe consumers want, is one where animals are reared in a way that does not necessitate chlorine treatment to be made safe.
Jobs and Growth in a Low-carbon Economy
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
Mr Lilley
As one of the five people who opposed the 2008 Act, I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend’s premise, but I will for the purposes of debate, and if we are going to meet those targets we should do so as efficiently as possible. Nuclear is one of the best ways, but the cheapest of all is gas turbines, and gas might become cheaper in this country if we exploit the potential for shale gas, which has halved the cost of gas in the United States.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
On subsidies, can my right hon. Friend name a single nuclear power plant in the history of the sector that has not existed on the back of vast public subsidies? Has there ever been an unsubsidised nuclear power plant?
Mr Lilley
I am not sure whether some of the early ones were subsidised, but nuclear power is more attractive economically—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made—than some of the very high-cost renewables.
As Harold Macmillan remarked, when both sides of the House are agreed, they are usually wrong. They are wrong on this occasion, they invariably end up scratching each other’s backs and intellectual rigour goes out of the window. It is time that we looked rigorously at what is involved. It may be necessary to do what is under discussion, but we should not kid ourselves that it is going to create an industrial revolution, green growth or green jobs. It is going to cost a lot of money, and we are going to be worse off so that future generations can have a better climate.