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.

This is partly about mind-set. My DC have grown up in a world where many shops have a very generous returns policy, hence they buy loads of stuff and then take it back. I was brought up in a different era and therefore think hard before parting with my cash. Different times, different mind-sets.
If we have nanny-state agencies then it can stop people thinking for themselves. Perhaps it's no bad thing if people start to question what they are eating instead of relying on others to do the legwork for them.
In the internet age, where there is reams of info, there is really no excuse to be ignorant.

The main issues with labelling is accuracy and completeness. In particular, if manufacturers lie or omit information on food labels they should be severely punished.

Clarity is important, but simplicity is not. Indeed, simplicity leads to distorted programmes like 5-a-day.

Note I am not saying that labelling should be complicated. Just that silly systems like "traffic lights" and the like are a bad idea.

Put the information out there, make sure it is accurate, and let people make their own judgements.

Maybe I should be clearer. Labelling should be as simple as possible, of course - but no simpler!

Why do they plaster cigarette packets with warnings?

Claig - I'd remove them too, actually.

yes I agree with you on that BarmyArmy, it seems that they are hypocritical. Some things they warn about and others they remain quiet about?

The food industry comes in for a lot of criticism for product content. However, it's been more dangerous for the tsunami of ad campaigns that, over the last 40 or 50 years, have relentlessly pushed convenience food over traditional food. Remember the Smash ads in the seventies, where robots ridiculed consumers for actually peeling potatoes? The potato industry never stood a chance.

If you have a target market that a) thinks they don't have time to make a meal, b) is lazy and c) has no cooking skills then they're going to buy mostly convenience foods. Which means they need a shelf-life which automatically means you're in the realms of chemicals, colours, preservatives, thickeners etc. Remove them and your product simply falls apart. Incidentally, someone living on pricey M&S ready-meals is likely to be no healthier than someone living on Iceland rubbish.... 'price' is no guarantee of health. Factor in a large section of the community that doesn't care much about what they eat anyway and that's roughly where we are now.

We need a body that polices food safety and sets acceptable industry standards. However - when it comes to changing eating habits - no amount of labelling is going to convince some that a packet of instant mash, is not a superior choice to peeling a potato.

Putting ever shriller warnings on cigarette packets has done absolutely nothing in deterring smoking. Everyone - absolutely everyone - knows that smoking is bad. People smoke anyway.

Smoking is different though because it is physically addictive, and because it harms others.

I would imagine that feeding the entire population GM components without warning them and educating them is far more dangerous than smoking will ever be to the health of the nation.

I am not convinced that GM food is harmful but I do agree that it should be labelled as such with total transparency so people can make their own informed judgements.

I think if they told people how it is developed and what genes they used, then people would run a mile from some of these frankenfoods. But the two letters GM don't really convey the ingredients. Let's see if they get Jamie Oliver to run an education campaign about GM, or if they just carry on with the 5-a-day message.

There are two different issues here I think

The first is the "messages" and inititives - fags are bad for you, if you only eat cake you will get fat, beer contains alcohol type stuff and while I think that the basics about nutrition should be taught in schools and that information should be available, the messages can be a bit I mean everyone knows that lots of sugar rots your teeth etc and people who don't will usually be in contact with various services who will give them guidance anyway

The second thing is the food itself. I would completely disagree with chil that it is ready meals = shite and make it all yourself = fine. This idea about lazy dullards eating crap vs worthy clever types eating proper food. The real problem is that lots of ordinary foods bought by ordinary people contain ingredients that people don't expect at levels that people don't expect. So staples like bread, cheese, ham and so on. These products are staples, and when the manufacturers start ramming them full of sugar and salt in lieu of producing them properly so they are flavoursome, it catches everyone on the hop.

Is it a fallacy that there are two discrete groups = fat thickos gorging on crisps and ready meals and thin wonderfuls snaffling pui lentils smugly. Most people try their best, most people have a rough idea of what they are supposed to be doing. But start stuffing things like corn syrup and transfats into products that have always been staples and you are into problem territory.

I appear to feel so strongly about that second point that I have said it twice, albeit in slightly different ways

I don't think making good food choices is exclusive to 'worthy clever types'.... and all you're confirming is this odd sort of nutritional inverse-snobbery stereotyping that this argument always descends to.

Ham and cheese are 'rammed full of salt' because they are preserved foods and you'd expect to find it in there. Bread without salt lasts five minutes and tastes terrible. No-one has to be worthy or clever to make an omelette or a pan of vegetable soup.... and none of what goes into either of those will contain corn syrup.

I was going to stress the point that many of those who are glad to see the back of the FSA are also those in the Food Industry who would rather we weren't discussing what they put into food. They would prefer that we just trust them and eat up.

But now all I want to know is - what's the problem with corn syrup! I've seen this quite a lot - I just thought it was like maple but a bit different.

I agree with Chil1234, the prepackaged food ready meals contain all sorts of preservatives, colourings and flavour enhancers as well as binding agents and all sorts. There is no doubt that preparing meals from base ingredients is healthier, even though meat is stuffed with anti-biotics and vegetables are sprayed with all sorts. It is about education.

chil I'm sorry but that is incorrect

Supermarket bread contains much higher levels of sugar and yeast than you will find in your bakery. This is to make the dough rise quickly to cut production time.

Cheese contains some salt, but look at the labels and the amount will vary enormously, in many cases it is added in higher quantities than required in lieu of producing the cheese in a more traditional (time consuming) manner which produces more flavour.

Ditto bread - people's palettes have being used to the taste of salt due to the high levels in many things, and salt in bread has been increased in order to make it taste "nice" - again more than if you bought some bread from your local bakery.

Ham - same applies. In any case in most ham the main preservative used will not be salt, the salt level have gone up and up to tickle the consumers salt-deadened taste buds.

Yoghurt - sugar content gets higher and higher far more than is necessary.

With all of these products, if the manufacturer can put in the "magic combo" of salt, fat and sugar that makes our animal brains light up with joy, then most of us won't notice that the bloody stuff doesn't actually taste of anything, but will still think "mmmm nice". It is entirely cynical on the part of the food manufacturers and is designed to ilicit an enjoyment response in food which is actually substandard.

I am interested to know which suparmrket you are buying your ham from, where it is preserved solely with the use of salt, in teh traditional manner.

chil you think that salt is what keeps supermarket bread fresh? seriously?

crikey...

I find it mind-boggling that people are honestly arguing that adulterating staple foods to the point where they contain much more "bad stuff" than they did in pervious generations is fine.

And then blame people for having higher levels of salt etc in their diet than in previous generations. The problem is that even if people are eating the same foods in the same quantities, now the things that they buy contain much more shit, unless they are only buying from their local artisan hand-crafted places.

Isn't - what is the problem with corn syrup?

I buy from regular supermarkets. I get the arguments about ham (preserved with sodium nitrate as well as containing salt) and cheese but the point is that these have always been foods to eat 'in moderation'.

What is patently true is that people who stick to a traditional diet, mostly home-cooked and mostly based around veggies, grains, spuds... with some fresh meat, ham, cheese, eggs and the odd bar of chocolate or packet of crisps thrown in the mix.... are not the ones in poor health.

"what is the problem with corn syrup?"

You should Google 'high fructose corn syrup' and prepare for a lot of reading! LOL. It's basically a very cheap, (subsidised in the US) ingredient, concentrated syrup made from corn... much cheaper than cane sugar. Gets used in all kinds of packaged foods when manufactureres are trying to keep the costs down. There's an idea that the cumulative effect of eating it can lead to health problems - insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes etc. My opinion is that the foods that contain corn syrup tend to be poor quality anyway and that someone eating excessive amounts of these foods will not be in the best of health regardless.

www.earthsfriends.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-health-risks

As I understand it the corn syrup problem is 2fold

It is sweeter than "normal" sugar and so much worse for you. It also deadens a persons palette to "normal" sugar (this is also a problem with artificial sweeteners) so that you get in a viscious circle of people wanting sweeter and sweeter foods to get their taste buds to notice, and the food industry responds, and it gets worse and worse. So if you ate a corn syrup product, and then the same product with "normal" sugar, that product woudn't taste sweet IYSWIM. So people are driven to eat ever sweeter foods.

I understand that there may also be a problem with the way it is produced (to do with it being a cash crop), but will have to google that one to be sure.

the manufactrers use it beacuse it is very cheap.