Return to Question

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here? It is stated that allowing items to be labelled "sunflower oil" that contain no sunflower oil "[maintains] the supply of certain food products", but this is nonsensical because replacing a product with another product does not maintain its supply, regardless of whether the replacement product is labelled truthfully or falsely.)

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here? It is stated that allowing items to be labelled "sunflower oil" that contain no sunflower oil "[maintains] the supply of certain food products", but this is nonsensical because replacing a product with another product does not maintain its supply, regardless of whether the replacement product is labelled accurately or falsely. Labelling the replacement as being the product it replaced appears to maintain its supply, but it doesn't actually maintain its supply. That is fact rather than opinion.)

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here? It is stated that allowing items to be labelled "sunflower oil" that contain no sunflower oil "[maintains] the supply of certain food products", but this is nonsensical because replacing a product with another product does not maintain its supply.)

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here? It is stated that allowing items to be labelled "sunflower oil" that contain no sunflower oil "[maintains] the supply of certain food products", but this is nonsensical because replacing a product with another product does not maintain its supply, regardless of whether the replacement product is labelled truthfully or falsely.)

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here?)

Recently in Britain the Food Standards Agency issued advice that food items may be offered for sale labelled as "sunflower oil" (a product that has become scarcer owing to the Russo-Ukrainian war) which do not actually contain any sunflower oil . See for example this notice at food.gov.uk.

1. What statutory or prerogative authority is the FSA exercising when it allows such false labelling?

2. What public good is served? (I am not asking for opinions. Obviously if a statutory agency sets aside the usual labelling rules - and in particular, the requirement of truth - it must only do so in the public good. What public good is supposed to be being served here? It is stated that allowing items to be labelled "sunflower oil" that contain no sunflower oil "[maintains] the supply of certain food products", but this is nonsensical because replacing a product with another product does not maintain its supply.)