The horse meat scandal has dominated the media in recent weeks. From sensationalist tabloid headlines to Twitter gags, discussion on the topic has been widespread. It all started in January after traces of horse meat were found in beefburgers sold in supermarkets including Tesco, Iceland and Aldi.
Since then the crisis has escalated across the food sector and retailers were summoned by the Environment Secretary to explain the situation.
While horse meat is not illegal in the UK, the public is understandably concerned that they could be consuming something in a food product that's not included in the printed ingredients. This has prompted some politicians to describe the scandal as a "labelling issue".
Contentious as that may be, there's no doubt that packaging is close to the centre of the scandal, even if it's not in any way culpable. But how has this scandal affected the industry and could it have a knock-on effect for food packaging in the future?
"From a shoppers' perspective it will have a little bit of a kickback. But is that going to affect the packaging industry? Probably not," explains a spokesman for Benson Group, the carton printer that operates in the food sector.
Mislabelling issue?
That may be so but the finger has been pointed at labelling over the last few weeks. From MEPs to Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, a view has taken hold in political circles that mislabelling lies at the heart of the horse meat scandal.
"Labelling is only an issue due to the content and not because of the way labels are produced," says the Benson Group spokesperson. "Labels are produced to excellent standards but you can't have any governance over the contents."
That opinion is echoed throughout the packaging industry with others pointing the finger at different links in the chain. "It's about fraud, not labelling. The supply chain is so long and convoluted now," adds Benjamin Punchard, Mintel's senior global packaging analyst. "I'll be surprised if we don't come out of it with some serious fraud cases."
Should that transpire, the guilty parties might be those operating at manufacturing level. Phil Dalton, head of regulatory at Legal Impackt, is convinced that's where the wrongdoing occurred.
"Fundamentally the accuracy of labelling depends upon food manufacturers using the ingredients they say they intend to use," he says. "To blame labelling when food manufacturers deliberately or negligently substitute other ingredients is disingenuous. It is very clear that in the horse meat scandal, the manufacturers in question knew that the labels stated 'beef'.
"If they did not deliberately substitute horse, they at least did not have processes in place that ensured the packaging actually contained beef. Either way this is clearly a manufacturing issue rather than mislabelling."
Blame aside, labelling might still provide? a solution to such problems going forward. "One way that labelling could help in potentially alleviating consumer concerns is by displaying more information on the ways in which products have been sourced and processed and making this clear to customers," said Nick Martin, SVP Northern Europe at Trace One .
But what impact will the scandal have on the ready meal market? While the likes of Delia Smith are campaigning for more home cooking, 'time poverty' is clearly an issue for many people, hence the increased demand for ready meals over the years. While some might be speculating how much horse meat they have unwittingly consumed, the scandal won't necessarily result in people rushing home after work to season meat and chop onions.
"No question it will affect the ready meal market but it's not going to be long lasting," says Simon Balderson, managing director of packaging manufacturer Sirane. "The tide is flowing very strongly in one direction. You can hold it back for maybe an hour or two but it will overwhelm you in the end. The tide is moving so strongly towards ready meals that I don't think there's going to be any long-lasting damage."
He adds: "However, people will be concerned and I think there will be benefits for what you might call fresh ready meals. We do a lot of products which could be described as such, cook-in-a-bag or cook-in-a-pack type products. They're not overly processed. There's less scope for adulteration."
In addition to culinary solutions, technology could possibly play a part in the prevention of any similar mishap in the future. "There is technology available, such as RFID (radio-frequency identification) used on high value products," says Punchard.
"Whether that's affordable and available at individual pack level is unlikely. It could perhaps be used at pallet level. So you could follow fish produce packs with unique codes so consumers can find out the origin of the product," he says. "FTrace use scannable code on processed meat products whereby you can trace where the animals were farmed and slaughtered. It is information we may have been too squeamish about in the past but consumers might want to be more knowledgeable in light of recent events."
Complacency fears
However, some are of the opinion that the industry should be cautious about relying on technology as it could lead to complacency.
"We do have technology that will tell you things about the food, for example, whether it contains bacterial growth or salmonella," adds Balderson. "They can tell you about the pack atmosphere, whether it's been tampered with, that kind of thing. What I found in the market is that they don't seem to want that kind of safety net. If they had it, then it means the people in the supply chain could kind of rely on it ."
Balderson concludes: "They want the guys down the supply chain to have their systems and procedures in place. That's really where the problem lies and where the solution should also lie. "
