DOING a littleresearch on the subject of your recent Scores on the Doors article reveals some interesting facts.

1. Significant in the rationale for such a scheme was the need to reduce costs to the NHS. No complaint there except it is well known that the vast majority of such food-borne illnesses actually arise from poor practices in thehome. Perhaps DEFRA, FSA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health need to re-focus their attention.

2. There seems to have been very little consultation with the food trade, the British Retail Association (BRA) and Which amongst them. Your article also referred to the British Hospitality Association being distinctly cool towards the scheme. Notably absent from those consulted werethoserepresenting the pub/restaurantsectors - or perhaps they were,but their response was off message. Certainly LJ Stephens'sletter from Wadworths Brewery last week implies this, as does the British Institute of Innkeepers, who were aware but seem not to have been consulted.

3. We are not USA, Canada, New Zealand or Denmark and just because polls in these countries would seem to support such a scheme, this should not make it a foregone conclusion here. Our data protection laws are different; the Environmental Information Regulations are quite specific on the exceptions to the release of information.

The licenced trade is already under severe trading pressure from off-licence sales,which with the advent of the smoking ban is not going to improve in the short-medium term. Improved food sales are potentiallyour onlyreplacement income stream. Current legislation and enforcement powers steer us to maintaining the standard and are severe enough for the transgressor.

Whatever happened to the good old word of mouth.'

P EVELEIGH, Bradford on Avon