Let them eat c**p - Conservative food policy?

[maria1665]

After sniping at Jamie Oliver and his ambitions to improve school meals, then pulling back from restricting use of killer ingredients in food production, including trans fats, the government is now seeking to abolish the Food Standards Agency. This is the body that was brought it after the deregulation of the Food Industry led to BSE entering the food chain, which in turn led to a crisis of confidence in the food we eat.

Isn't it great to know that the market principles which led to the collapse of the banks, BP oil disaster (not to mention scandals in the past such as lying over the effects of tobacco, Thalidamide etc) are now going to apply, once again to the food we eat.

People should have control over what they eat. If you don't want to eat trans fat then look at the label, it's good that the nanny state is ending, all this H&S milarky, may as well have covered everyone in bubble wrap.

agree with belle.
i am happy to take responsibility for what I eat, as should everyone else be

those who don't.... natural selection

The Food Standards Agency has done nothing to stop people eating crap so far.

I agree that it's everyone's responsibility to eat reasonably sensibly, and read the labels.

The Tories have never cared for regulation or standards. They believe the market will supply and if it doesn't, the rich will be OK as they can afford to buy the best, and everyone else can suffer. They are in favour of big business so it's no surprise they gave us BSE and crappy school dinners (thanks to outsourcing catering so companies could make ££££ out of the cheapest possible mechanically recovered 'meat'. Remember John Gummer force-feeding his daughter to show us BSE was a myth?

Don't forget to add hundreds of deaths from rail crashes into your list. Privatisation caused a lack of decent controls over safety and a lack of standards. And a lack of people who had any idea how to run railways. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Quite right belle. People should have control over what they eat, which was why the FSA campaigned for better labelling on food, a measure which was opposed by the Food Industry, and many of the supermarkets (including Tescos.)

Don't be fooled by the governments 'we are doing it for you' dogma. This is about the interests of business.

This is yesterday,

That's what I thought (but was too chicken to post!)

How on earth were people supposed to know to avoid trans fats until recently? They've been in our food for years but manufacturers don't even have to mention it on the label. You have to look for hydrogenated fat and know what that means.

You sort of miss the point belle and yesterday..........the beef wasn't labelled 'contains BSE', so you may (despite your superior intelligence yesterday) unintentionally eat food that contains ingredients that shouldn't be there.

It is very much a prevention of horror entering the food chain, and should not be totally abolished IMO

This is yesterday and Mumblechum - the natural selection argument doesn't really hold in a state where you have a National Health Service, and other social support.

Ah - but if you took those away as well! Suddenly Conservative policies start to make sense.

But just because it is being axed as a separate body does not mean that its responsibilities won't be picked up elsewhere. I can't imagine that it is economical to run it as an entirely separate quango.

It is simply pathetic that you would apply natural selection to this argument. Are you seriously saying that people who are 'not bright enough' to read labels and be educated about harmful food ingredients deserve to die?

I see your point, there's been plenty of salmonella/ecoli etc scares since Labour took over though, whether the food standards people are testing or not.

Its main strength was that it was independent. The proposals are to substantially reduce its remit, and to bring the little that is left under ministerial control, and therefore vulnerable to the whims of politicians funded to a huge degree by the food industry.

Environmental health do tests on food.

I think the wheel was a good idea, however, it's fairly obvious that ice cream (for example) is full of fat, I don't need a wheel to advise me not to eat too much of it.

I love the way the Tories dress this stuff up in "no more nanny state/personal freedom/your right to choose" sort of language when what they really mean is "give our chums in business the freedom to make money hand over fist unfettered by any sort of moral code"

...I too got a mental picture of Gummer feeding his daughter a hamburger. Jeeeeeeeesus!

You paid for this particularly patronising shite with your hard earned taxes.

Gems:
"Remember that bottled beers come in different sizes, so you might be drinking more that you think"

"You could walk to the pub instead of taking the bus, or use half-time for a brisk walk and some fresh air."

"You can still make a healthier choice if you opt for a takeaway ? but remember not to eat them too often as they can be high in calories, fat, saturated fat and salt"

Well hoop di do da day, thanks for telling me that. Can you come round and pat my little head personally as well?

FGS

I totally agree about them being wusses to the fat cats. They have such bravado this lot, yet really they just do what they are told by those who fund them. It's pathetic.

I'm shocked they could get away with abolishing it. Surely most people want to know their food is manufactured in safe and healthy environments.

Food labelling is a great idea to. Especially for people who can't read and write.

but do you need to be able to read and write to know that ice cream/burgers are full of fat? Isn't it obvious?

As for the 5 a day, it's common sense that you should eat fruit and veg every day, I don't need a £££ campaign to tell me that a balanced diet is important.

I am starting to sway on needing checks on food though...

If the food industry could be trusted to label (and explain: typically it has left this more expensive part of the process to the government) its products properly, then regulation and watchdogs would be unnecessary.

From your posts, belle, thisisyesterday, mumblechum, I suppose you trust the food industry to put transparency before profit.

I've always found that big businesses naturally behave ethically, because, as they all know, it's often considerably more expensive to have the appropriate checks, etc., in place to ensure the quality of their products, and all businesses are devoted to spending their profits in this way. Thank god.

Thankfully, the BSE crisis, the behaviour of, e.g. MacDonalds, the use of trans-fats and corn syrups (nice and cheap ingredients), MSG, and so on in food quite prove your point that the food industry is an inherently trustworthy one with absolutely no record of ruthlessness or profiteering taking precedence over public health. Phew.

Have you tried to give blood in another country? You may find that you too (despite your obviously superior diet) are considered tainted goods because you ate meat between 1980 and 1990. Doesn't feel that nice.

Your point about natural selection is ugly. And where would you draw the line? Plenty of delightful middle class people drink too much red wine and wind up needing a little bit of state health support. But is that ok because it came from such a beautiful vineyard in the Médoc, rather than from a scientist's test-tube?

If healthy food was cheaper than processed crap, what do you think their line would be? I agree that it has nothing to do with personal freedom and everything to do with the bottom line. At my son's nursery the menu in recent weeks has included dairylea and crisp sandwiches, and garlic bread as a meal in its own right. It'll be bread and dripping or sugar sandwiches next. If they can afford the bread. Or sugar.

I think This Is and I were making a joke. Guess we should have posted a to make it obvious.

It's not just burgers and ice creams though is it. Plenty of ready made salads are high in fat and salt because of the dressings, things like tortellini are too. Why are the food industry so opposed to the food labelling system??

(geneticist that should be able to let things pass emoticon)...

The natural selection argument doesn't stand, especially when combined with market forces. So what if people who eat badly die sooner - they are still having children. The people making poor lifestyle choices food wise are usually associated with those having more children and children sooner in each generation - they are actually doing better according to natural selection. Just because as humans we put values on certain traits, even healthy ones, does not mean that natural selection agrees with us. Combined with market forces, the natural selection argument used properly (reproductive fitness and success) would lead to a continuous increase in demand for the worse lifestyle choices until we reached a stage where we are dying from obesity in childhood.

Back on topic, it is a hard line to walk between free choices and nanny state but I would prefer an independent body to a government one to be in charge of food safety. Much like the NHS, I don't think food production should be encouraged to cut corners to cut costs. It is a relatively safe problem politically as the repercussions of bad diet are not immediate enough to affect their votability now, so can be ignored.

Sadly I don't think Thisisyesterday was making a joke, mumble.

And you did agree with her statements "but were too chicken to write it" .

Stand by what you think !