The Real Bread Campaign, part of Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming,
is funded by the Big Lottery's Local Food programme and the Sheepdrove Trust.
What we like perhaps even less is loaf manufacturers using substances in the making of their products without even mentioning them.
Elsewhere on the Web
We believe that people have the right to make as fully-informed choices as possible about the food they eat. There are three key points of law that hinder people in Britain in obtaining full information about the loaves they buy:
Not all loaves are created equal.
Though some of the differences between and industrial loaf and Real Bread are obvious, the loopholes in legislation around unwrapped loaves (such as those sold by supermarket in-store bakeries) means that shoppers may be led to make like-for-like comparisons.
One or more of the following could apply to a supermarket in-store bakery (or should that be 'loaf shop'?) loaf:
But without the supermarket being required to say so, a shopper would be forgiven for making a like-for-like comparison with a loaf of Real Bread from a local independent bakery, which creates skilled jobs for local people making genuinely freshly baked bread without the use of artificial additives.
A survey by the Real Bread Campaign of 1300 people around the UK in October 2011 found that:
We call for an 'Honest Crust Act' that will require:
In the meantime, we call upon all bakers and retailers voluntarily to provide full information about their loaves, stop marketing to bake-off loaves as fresh, and ensure that the terms 'sourdough', 'artisan' and 'craft' are used appropriately.
On this issue let’s take inspiration from France, which on 13 September 1993 issued Décret n°93-1074 - which could easily be called The Real Bread Act.
This decree (law) states that bread may be marketed/sold as pain de tradition française, pain traditionnel français, pain traditionnel de France, or under similar names only if it is made:
Permitted optional extras (maximum in relation to flour weight) are 2% bean meal; 0.5% soybean meal; 0.3% malted wheat flour.
The decree also:
The process for the passing of a new EU regulation on food labelling is in its final stages. Once passed, EU member states (including the UK) will have to amend existing laws or pass new ones to bring them into line with the new regulation.
In September, Chris Young of the Campaign sent DEFRA the following email:
Having had chance to read through [the proposed regulation], I have a few questions to which I've been unable to find answers.
What is the EU's definition of 'technological function'? e.g with regard to bread, are any of the following considered to be 'technological functions in the end product'?
My belief is that the first definitely is, but I'm not sure about the others.
Am I correct in my reading that the new regulations would make the labelling of the following mandatory:
Closely related to the frozen bake-off question, is regarding a loaf has been part-baked, chilled (but not frozen) and then rebaked. After all, this process does have a negative impact on the shelf life of the loaf, uses twice as much energy as a once-baked loaf, and replaces the potential for a local skilled employment opportunity, with setting an oven timer. We would consider marketing this as 'freshly baked' or simply 'fresh', or failure to indicate that it has been baked twice to be misleading - would DEFRA agree?
On 6 October 2011, we received the following response from DEFRA's Food Policy Unit:
You highlight some useful points and I expect some of these will need further discussion to identify consensus as the new requirements are applied to labels. I have tried to address your questions below.
What is the EU's definition of 'technological function'?
There is no specific definition as far as we are aware of technological function for use in the context of the defrosted provisions. We anticipate the this aspect of the dossier will need some further work to establish consensus on the process that are understood to be captured, bearing in mind the need to balance the burden to businesses and consumers needs. The discussions in the negotiations focused on a limited range of circumstances e.g. meat that is frozen to be sliced and further thought will be needed to identify how this applies to specific food types. This may need input from a range of organisations to achieve a common understanding.
The presence in flour and baked goods of added powdered gluten will need to be labelled
It is likely that powered gluten would need to be labelled unless any specific exemptions apply. Any substance derived from one of the allergens e.g. cereals containing gluten would require labelling.
The presence in flour of added nutrients, including the four (calcium carbonate, iron, thiamin, nicotinic acid/nicotinamide) required by Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 will need to be labelled
It is correct that the nutrients required under the bread and flour regulations will need to be labelled once the transition period for the FIR ends in 3 years time. This reflects that there is less ability for Member States to have national rules as the European requirements are now a regulation. Given the impact on business we have investigated if there is an alternative solution and unfortunately a solution could not be found.
If dough or a part-bake loaf has been frozen before baking for sale - a process that reduces the shelf life would need to be labelled.
How the resulting product is sold is important in answering this question. Some products produced this way will be sold non prepacked or prepacked for direct sale in which case the defrosted provisions would not apply. If prepacked, whether not providing the information is considered misleading is dependent on the overall presentation of the product. It is likely that information may be required where consumers as a result of the labelling and manner in which the bread was sold would otherwise think the bread was freshly made on site. This is something to be considered as part of enforcement practice on the FIR.
The origin of the grain from which flour is milled if different from the country of milling - e.g if flour labelled as British was milled in England but from Canadian wheat would need to be labelled
The Commission are charged with developing implementing rules on the Country of Origin provision. As such we would not want to prejudge the result of those discussions as this may influence how information is presented on the label.
The country in which flour is milled, if different from the country in which a product is baked - e.g. if a loaf labelled as French was made from flour milled in France but baked in England, or vice versa would need to be labelled
Again, the Commission are charged with developing implementing rules on the Country of Origin provision. As such we would not want to prejudge the result of those discussions as this may influence how information is presented on the label.
We would consider marketing this as 'freshly baked' or simply 'fresh', or failure to indicate that it has been baked twice to be misleading - would DEFRA agree?
The term fresh in the context of bread is not defined. The Government has produced based practice advice on the criteria for using marketing terms such as fresh. In this it is suggested:
46. Terms such as “freshly baked”, “baked in store” and “oven fresh” may mislead consumers into believing that they are being offered products that have been freshly produced on site from basic raw materials. Some stores sell bread made from part-baked products that have been packed in an inert atmosphere or frozen off-site then “baked off” at in-store bakeries. Use of terms like “freshly baked”, “baked in store” and “oven fresh” on these products could potentially infringe the general legal provisions referred to in paragraph 14 above.
Point 14 refers to whether the information is misleading. Ultimately it is for enforcement authorities and the courts to decide if labels are misleading. We will be revisiting this guidance in light of the new provisions in the FIR on misleading labelling.