This is the conclusion of a new study carried out by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) to assess the level of industry compliance with its food standards guidelines.
Food assurance schemes are mostly voluntary arrangements managed by the food industry. Each scheme sets certain standards for food production and aims to give consumers greater confidence about the food they buy.
The report looked at the 17 main UK schemes to see whether they were following the best practice guidance published by the FSA in 2003.
These schemes include 10 schemes for meat and produce grouped loosely together under the name Assured Food Standards and carrying the Red Tractor mark, as well as the Lion quality scheme for eggs, feed schemes and a Scottish crops scheme, plus 'niche' schemes such as Freedom Food (with high animal welfare standards), the LEAF Marque (which links environment and farming), and the Soil Association's organic food scheme.
The FSA found that there had been a marked improvement across all schemes in the setting and delivery of production standards, with most schemes setting up independent standard-setting boards, adopting a hazard-based approach to standard setting and ensuring standards that cover the entire food chain.
But, the report noted, the various schemes still had some work to do on ensuring that consumers - the very people that the schemes are meant to assist - are also involved in helping to set the standards by which the food is produced.
This, the report stated, could be done by including a consumer representative on their main boards.
Other areas for possible improvement include ensuring that the standards also meet increased consumer demand for progress in food safety issues such as veterinary health plans and pesticide residues, as well ensure improved animal welfare and environmental standards.
The FSA found that the standards schemes were being better monitored than in the past, but stressed that the schemes should now concentrate more on compiling data to prove "substantiate scheme benefits" - since consumers are often asked to pay more for these quality-assured foods, the increased cost needs to be justified, and this can be best achieved through better information.
Scheme managers must also, under the FSA guidance, provide data on food safety or quality claims - but this is still not happening, according to the report, again because of the slow development of databases containing the necessary information.
"Many mainstream schemes now have standards that are significantly above the legal minimum. The collection and publication of relevant data will help to substantiate their quality claims," the report noted.
Getting a clear message across to consumers is also hard for some schemes, the report noted.
"Single commodity sectors or single theme schemes such as Lion Eggs, the Soil Association, Freedom Food and LEAF Marque have a relatively easy task," as they focus on specific products and issues, the report noted.
"This is not easy to formulate for a product aimed at most producers and most consumers" such as the Red Tractor scheme, the report noted, without offering much in the way of a solution other than to ensure that standards across all the sub-sections within the scheme are "comparable".
Finally, the report questions whether there is more to be done to improve transparency of the schemes with consumers.
"There is a consumer and retailer perception that there are too many logos," the FSA said, suggesting that the number could be slimmed down - not least through a closer alignment of the 10 AFS (Red Tractor) schemes.
AFS also needed to increase its marketing budget to improve consumer awareness of the Red Tractor standards, the report said.
