Question follow-through · 1660
Food: Waste
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing mandatory reporting of food waste in large retailer supply chains.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- Tabled
- 15 May 2026
- Target answer date
- 19 May 2026
- Answer
- 28 May 2026 · 13 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
15 May 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing mandatory reporting of food waste in large retailer supply chains.
19 May 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
28 May 2026
Answer published
This Government is committed to transitioning towards a circular economy where resources are kept in use for longer and waste is designed out. The Government knows action needs to be taken across the supply chain and in households to address food waste an...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.