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.

Re corn syrup - I'm sure I've bought something with it in, even though I try really hard to avoid the spooky stuff. I agree with the arguments above - its the fillers and additives that mess with our appetites and bodies.

But it SOUNDS so wholesome, something that Laura from Little House on the Prairie would eat.

here's something about producing corn syrup

I know it's not the sort of name to set alarm bells ringing is it!

What chil says is correct that usually it will be the cheaper products that contain the corn syrup. It is present in an awful lot of products though.

Which brings us back to the original problem - that people with money can afford the more expensive more wholesome options, while the poorer people are going to choose the ones with the crap in.

Which is why I say the food production industry needs to be carefully regulated so that they don't put too much crap in - they're never going to regulate themselves and someone has to protect the consumer.

You're back to your rich vs poor argument again... There is a huge array of good foods that don't contain corn syrup, salt, additives etc.... and they tend to be the cheapest things on the shelf as well.

Somewhere we've got the whole thing twisted because we've been led to believe that we need ready-made foods. (Back to my point about decades of convenience food advertising) The argument gets down to 'expensive potato waffles are healthier than cheap potato waffles and therefore poor people need protecting from the crap in cheap potato waffles'.... when actually the advice to 'cut up a potato and boil it'... is cheaper & healthier than either option.

That don't make anyone any money though chil

Exactly.... the Potato Marketing Board has an annual budget to promote healthy ways to enjoy potatoes that is probably one thousandth the amount McCain spends on promoting oven chips. McCain can reformulate their product to be lower in fat, lower in salt, etc., etc. and their packaging will be labelled up beautifully and their adverts proclaiming the change will be even more extravagant. The humble spud sitting quietly on the next shelf, costing next to nothing with some sparkling nutritional stats on the packet and not an HFCS in sight has no chance. "They peel them with their little knives (ha ha ha ha)..."

And I again counter your potato waffles with an ordinary cheese sandwich.

The thing is that if we do leave the food industry to do whatever it likes, the supermarkets will be packed to the rafters with food little better than salted fatted cardboard. When left to their own devices we end up with cows being ground up and fed to cows, diseased suffering chickens being fed hormones, chicken being injected with a protein slop made from other animals to bulk it out, fruit and veg which is all looks and no taste and so on and so on. It's just not good enough.

I see that we are coming at this from opposite sides though and so will likely never agree.

Just saw an ad on the TV for ready meals "in the chiller cabinet" for babies FGS.

When 25% of the population are obese, costing the NHS £4.2 billion and the economy £16 billion per year, then I'm sorry but the government has a duty to intervene. That's my taxes paying for the consequences of other peoples' unhealthy choices! It's just like smoking. We all accept 'nannying' govt controls over smoking because we all understand the costs of smoking to society.

I think Lansley's plans stink. They will wipe out all the gains we have made in public health and put us back 20 years. There is no justification on efficiency, cost or health grounds. And generally, the scale of the Tories plans for the NHS are truly disturbing, given they did not win an outright majority and have no democratic mandate for such a fundamental restructuring.

Very cross

"That's my taxes paying for the consequences of other peoples' unhealthy choices"

But which unhealthy choice would you like the government to intervene on that makes people so fat...? Should the government send speaker cars down every street hollering "Get off your backsides and go for a run?" Should the government issue ration books for chocolate and crisps?... Slap a SuperTax on indian takeaways? Or should we simply refuse to treat obese people when they arrive puffing and wheezing at Casualty?

"ready meals "in the chiller cabinet" for babies FGS"

... see it really is all down to the advertising. I expect you could examine the ingredients of those baby TV dinners and they would score a big fat tick against all the nutritional boxes/traffic light/GDA/whatever... because any manufacturer worth a candle can reformulate their food to hit any set of standards you give them.

Ideally, for each and every advert for a packaged food/drink product I would like to see it matched with an advert for broccoli, brown rice or a public information film on how to stew an apple for your baby...

That's a good idea chil.

I wonder what the combined advertising budget is for the entire Uk food and drink industry, and how it compares with teh amoutn spent by FSA/NHS on initiatives etc. Would be interesting.

I also agree though that the current initiatives are not working and its hard to think what the solution is.

Get em young probably - bring back compulsory home ec, make sure people are confident at preparing the basics and explain to them how to see through the advertising on food.

Lifestyles are a problem too. I am a right slob since I had the kids.

I have always thought it would be great to do what they do in japanese factories - start the working day with physical jerks Not sure how popular that would be...

What silly arguments, Chil. According to you we're all doomed, nothing can or should be done. Nonsense.

Take the Food Standards Agency's highly successful actions against hidden salt in food - a classic example of a regulator acting as it should, to protect ordinary people without any of the silly tactics that the PC-gone-mad brigade so like to imagine.

Most of us are not food scientists, we don't have the knowledge, skills or time to test every item of food for potential health issues that we have never even heard of. That is the job of our public health scientists, who happen to reside at the Food Standards Agency.

I think Chil1234 has made some very good points. Chil1234 is in favour of regulation
"We need a body that polices food safety and sets acceptable industry standards." But Chil1243 recognises that the big food companies know how to comply with the latest rules. Chil12324 is right that people need to be educated on what they are consuming. Chil1234 said "Ideally, for each and every advert for a packaged food/drink product I would like to see it matched with an advert for broccoli, brown rice or a public information film on how to stew an apple for your baby..." Advertising and big business won't go away, people need education on food, ingredients and health. This should be carried out in schools so that young people learn and can pass it on to their children. Caring about what we eat should become part of our culture. There have been TV programmes about the working class in industrial Turin and Glasgow and the difference in the quality of the food they prepare and eat is astounding. We need to be educated so that quality food becomes part of our culture.

ISNT - apparently the food industry spent £180m lobbying against clear food labelling in Europe recently. Oddly enough, they were successful.

"According to you we're all doomed, nothing can or should be done. Nonsense."

I did not say that 'nothing could be done'. I said that we needed standards and regulation to make sure food is safe and I support clear labelling. For what it's worth, I even support reducing the salt content of prepared foods and the upgrading of school dinners. However, to translate those initiatives into 'behavioural change' sufficient to improve health prospects will take something much more persuasive than anything we've tried at present. And my money is on education... how to interpret food labels and ingredients lists, emphasis on cooking skills, direct experience of agriculture and the food industry... both for children and adults.

There is an example of success in changing eating habits in our not-so-distant history. As a nation we were never healthier than during WWII. People like Maguerite Patten working for the Ministry of Food showed housewives how to make the most of the limited food available with leaflets and radio broadcasts. Rationing restricted things like confectionery, cheese, eggs and meat. Rationing would clearly never be tolerated today but there is plenty of scope for a latterday Patten (rather than millionaire celebrity chefs) to inspire a return to plain home cooking

I think this move by the Tories just shows once more how much disregard, no, contempt they have for the British people.

They really couldn't care less.

It's not up to the government to carefully select what you put in your trolley.

You're grown-ups - and before you start wailing "won't somebody think of the children" - it doesn't matter how well you educate the children - do they do the Tesco shop? Nope, the parents do.

Most of us here can read labels and decide what we buy, the problem is that many people cannot do this. I liked having The Food Standards Agence - an independant body out there to educate, monitor and act when needed. I would much prefer that than a Gov't department in the pay of the food giants.

Walk around an American supermarket. Every product that isn't a straightforward meat or vegetable is laden with shit. MSG, tartrazine, brilliant blue, quinoline yellow, aspartame, sorbitol and gallons and gallons of HFCS. Actually, even most of the meat and vegetables are soused in antibiotics, hormones and pesticides.

It becomes really hard to buy anything else because manufacturers are just using the cheapest ingredients possible, even though there are known health risks of many of them. I shop at smaller or health food shops because I don't consider 'twinkies' or 'hamburger helper' to be food.

It's unintuitive, but actually I believe that regulation gives you more and better choices. Get rid of the ingredients that are known to have health risks and that are just trashy, mass manufactured substitutes for real ingredients.

If you do away with government regulation (who at least have a stake in the population being healthy), you'll still be in a nanny state - it'll just be controlled by people who most definitely do NOT have your best interests at heart. People who basically want to mass manufacture food as cheaply as possible and sell it for as much profit as possible, whilst hiding the health effects of their ingredients.

"I think this move by the Tories just shows once more how much disregard, no, contempt they have for the British people.
They really couldn't care less."

Well, how you see this depends on your political viewpoint. I think patronising 5-a-day types messages, paid for out of my taxes, show contempt. And the opposite of "couldn't care less" is not well-intentioned paternalism; it's interfering, infantalising nanny-state.

However, I doubt that you will be persuaded of my view, just as I am not persuaded by yours.

So allow the food manufacturers to put whatever they fancy into the food (as long as its not banned) and if people are thick enough to buy it / are unaware of what is happening as the producer does not have to declare it, then that's their problem?

As was said earlier, we already have bodies who do that work. We don't need multiple, overlapping bodies.

Their own website says that they work with "local authorities and other food law enforcement bodies to help them take proportionate, timely and resolute action" [my italics] That sounds like they don't actually regulate themselves, they are just an additional layer of bureaucracy.

Oh so you do think that the food industry needs to be kept in line