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.

That food's dire ruth! It's the nursery trying to save money, the one ds used to go to had a food budget of £50 for the week for all of the children! Shocking really.

Maybe we need to get back to basics and get rid of the ready meal (as lovely as they are when you have just got in from work and are knackered)

Quite - how strange that those who profess less nanny state would prefer this to be under ministerial control

Perhaps this is daring long-term political thinking, HippyGalore?

Maybe the Conservatives hope that enough people will eat themselves to an early death (even taking into account the burden of obesity and other illnesses associated with poor diet on the NHS) and thus by reducing life-expectancy in key demographics they achieve 3 things:

• reduce costs to the NHS by dying young
• increase profits of Tory chums food industry
• kill off sections of the population who historically voted Labour.

Result!

Oh, and this is a joke.

Or is it?...

Supermarket food is often the safest as an aside... They have to declare and label products. Independent butchers for example don't.

pommedeterre - I am sure there are no figures for that sweeping generalisation.

What I find most depressing is how these measures - which favour noone but the businesses seeking to make profits from food - have been preceded by pernicious name calling of those seeking to make a difference.

Its not two weeks since the Health Minister was describing Jamie Oliver as being patronising and achieving nothing. This was despite statistical evidence that made it clear the opposite was true - more children are taking up the healthier school meals, which in turn have been shown to improve behaviour and concentration in class.

Anyone fancy a Turkey Twizzler?

I am in favour of more nanny state regulation on food, but a real nanny that cares, not a pretend nanny that only talks about sugar, fat and salt. What about aspartame, MSG and a myriad of other supposedly healthy sugar-free drinks and foods, as well as GM foods?

Many rich, educated people aren't aware of the dangers of many of these ingredients, so it is not only the poor that are at risk.

I don't have any to hand no Lady. I know the following though.
Suppliers to supermarkets have to have an incredible number of certifications, controls, checks and policies in place before they will even be considered. This costs the food production industry millions of pounds a year.
Supplying independents/wholesale markets requires having a bank account to be paid.
Sometimes the same produce will be available from both. Sometimes the produce sold in both will be widely different and the produce supplying the independents would not even warrant a prelim visit from the supermarkets.

I support compulsory transparent labelling on food.

I don't support putting value judgements on food labels like we do for cigarettes though. That is what a traffic light system would do.

We do need a strong inspection regime and lots of random site checks, but I don't particularly care whether that sits in one quango or another.

If the NHS wants to reduce obesity, then don't give the money to doctors for following centrally mandated processes. Instead fund any programme whatsoever, run by any group whatsoever, by the amount of weight its patients manage to shed. Let them figure out how to actually do it for themselves.

5-a-day and similar patronising idiocy needs to go with immediate effect.

Supermarket labelling aside, no-one's mentioned the myriad of nurseries and schools feeding the children. With no overall body to govern and regulate, ultimately it will be our children that suffer from this cutback. And many of the other cutbacks too, I'll bet...

this actually doesn't mean the end of regulation though does it?

because many of the food safety aspects are handled by environmental health, trading standards (particularly the labelling aspects) and various other bodies...

supermarkets i might add are extremely careful of their reputation for food safety as a single negative event can cost the millions in lost trade. A single lapse in food hygeine in one store i know of is still talked of twenty years later.....

aside from the annoying preachy TV ads, what are we really losing here?

I think the 5-a-day stuff and the patronising faux concern quoted by catinthehat2 is a smokescreen to pretend that nanny cares, whilst nanny conveniently turns a blind eye to serious risks

"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"

Yes - it is all about supermarket/supplier brand protection - worth more in the long run

I think it unfair to say that independents care less about production. It might be argued they come from different perspectives - quality over cost (rather than cost over bare-minimum quality) and thus their products will overall be more trustworthy.

LadyBlaBlah - I agree, brand protection etc etc is the REASON for doing it however the suppliers of the supermarkets are safer because of this. I have supplied supermarkets and other outlets (food service) for a number of years now and supplier acceptance and control is widely different. The control used by supermarkets on their suppliers is far more stringent and produces safer food. The extra cost of these controls is borne by an industry that runs on large volume at minimal gross margins but as the companies are asset (land) based this is much more sustainable in produce than other service industries. Do not assume that more expensive = better. it just means more outgoings (rent on one shop rather than the property companies of the big 4).
Quite happy to argue this all day. Supermarket produce (own label) is more controlled and safer.

Agree with edam, adyblahblah etc, completely.

The food industry will do whatever it can to squeeze the maximum profit from products. Whether this is pumping air into things, or water, or feeding animals all sorts of hormones, or mixing in totally random ingredients that no-one would ever expect to find eg large quantities of salt and sugar in bread.

While a person who is literate, and educated, and keeps up to date with the relevant articles in the paper surrounding research into food ingredients, and who has the time and inclination to read and translate the ingredients, may well be able to avoid pitfalls, people who are not in that position are not able to. Add to that extremely powerful advertising and misleading labelling "natural/fresh" type things, and labels on things which you wouldn't expect to be eg sugary but which are full of fat, boldly proclaiming "low in sugar" to give a heatlhy impression, well ordinary people can't be blamed for making teh wrong choices.

Dh works in food production too

There are lots of regulations enforced by the big grocers

Doesn't mean the independents are rubbish

Hmmm. I know what some of them are willing to accept in terms of fresh produce and assume that extends to all products they sell. Maybe I am very cynical?

The supermarkets are just as glib as anything the FSA could put out - 'Every little helps!' etc etc.

The FSA do MUCH more that just run a website, but their campaigns over the years, plus those run by Jamie Oliver etc have made such a difference.

Nine years ago, I complained to the school about the stuff they were serving up for school dinner. Its was ghastly stuff - the only thing that wasn't in breadcrumbs or batter were the pizzas. It was clear they viewed me as some sort of nutter, and I was politely told that I always had the choice of packed lunches if I was unhappy.

The culture change since that time has been enormous. Now its the school that vaunts its healthy eating policies.

And yes, Claig, it isn't enough, but these have been MASSIVE steps in the right direction. In the face of a hugely powerful food industry lobby.

It does feel like a lot of good work is going to be undone. And much of the damage is being done through pernicious sniping in the media to make anyone wanting to make a stand on the issue sound like a whinging busy body.

Fruit and veg are sprayed with all sorts to extend the shelf life, the FSA havn't done anything about this.

I think the point people are missing is most of the stuff done to look after food standards was already done by other bodies prior to the existence of the FSA!

so, in actual fact, all they're doing away with is a body whose work duplicates that of other departments.

"Add to that extremely powerful advertising and misleading labelling "natural/fresh" type things," -

this, for instance, is a trading standards or advertising standards agency issue...(depending whether labelled on pack or on content of promotional materials.)

I am a cynic too !

I just know think supermarkets are not squeaky clean and will do anything to increase their profits, including using ingredients they know are harmful yet may not be in the public sphere, while independents too may do this, it is a generalisation to say one is worse than they other. Good eggs (e.g. co-op) and bad eggs in all these things.

But to go back to the point - the fsa, an independent body, is helpful in maintaining standards in our food - supermarket and independents level

I said that up there somewhere England, environmental health do tests on food.

maria1665, you are right, on the whole the FSA has been a force for good, but has got to go much further in tackling health risks. It is a shame that they may be disbanding it, as that will be one fewer voice to stand up for peoples' health. If they were just to cut back on the pointless patronising elements of the FSA and give it extra teeth to look at other issues, then that would have been progress.

I thought food labelling was a FSA thing?

Just thought of a good example while I ate my roast pork...

I usually shop at supermarket A and sometimes buy a packet of cooked peeled prawns as a treat. Yum.

Recently went to supermarket B and bought some, popped one in mouth at home "OMG this is really salty". Check ingredients - prawns, water, salt.

So now I know.

But if I always shopped at supermarket B, I wouldn't have had a different product to compare to, their product would be what I think cooked peeled prawns taste like. And I would be getting loads of random salt in my diet.

Does anyone really expect everyone to check teh ingredients of every single thing in every shop they go into?

I just want food to be free of ingredients that people aren't expecting. Who would expect some shellfish to have a load of salt poured all over it? Random.

I wonder if the misleading labelling is to disuade people from looking at the ingredients on the back? Dunno.

Artificial sweeteners and corn syrup have been a disaster. Corn syrup doesn't sound particularly unnatural - many people I'm sure would look at it and think it sounds OK.

Oh and re transfats and hydrogenated fat - margarine is hydrogenated fat - so is that off the menu? Or not... (It's not on teh menu for me and hasn't ever been, just wondering what others do).