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.

"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. "

Sounds like a call for the food industry to be left to its own devices to me.

I have absolutely no problem with so called patronising messages from the government. I grew up with 'Stop, Look and Listen' and 'Clunk Click every trip' and many others.

I object much more to commercial advertising - 'Every Little Helps', 'Because You're Worth It'. Its on the TV when my DD2 wants to watch Peppa Pig, its at the roadside on bill boards, shop fronts, the sides of lorries.

Purits refers to 'interfering and infantalising' in terms of Government slogans - they are nothing when compared to commercial advertising campaigns.

And they spend a fortune on it - because it really works.

The fact that my older children come home talking about eating 5 a day and why McDonalds might be bad for you, is testament to the FSA's work putting this subject high on the agenda. I posted earlier about complaining nine years ago about the standard of school meals, and being politely ignored. There has been a real change in mindset, and our children are benefiting.

As Carmen says, the withdrawal of the government from the field of play, leaves us in the hands of the Food Industry - limited companies who have a duty from their shareholders to maximise profits.

Why are government campaigns interfering and nannying, while intrusive commercial advertising is absolutely fine.

"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 don't understand how people can disagree with that.

Oh hold on yes I do - people with an interest in the food industry generating as much profit as possible even if that means killing people in teh process.

I guess money has always been the root of all evil as trans fats first appeared as an offshoot (as is quite often in science through serendipity) of the search for cheaper alternatives to candlewax.

For goodness sake!
Of course there needs to be regulation. No-one disputes that, and you are trying to make others sound ridiculous by putting words in their mouths and trying to pretend that we think there should be a free-for-all.

Yes to regulation.
No to multiple bodies, all regulating the same thing.

Purits - the bodies to which you refer are reactionary and primarily local. They are fine for checking your local abattoir (although even in that regard, they are hampered by increasingly stretched resources). They are also reliant on cumbersome legal processes.

When there is a really BIG problem, eg BSE and inappropriate feeding practices in farms nationwide - animal food deemed safe by the Food Industry - this did not come under the remit of any of the existing bodies. Hence the FSA was set up, at a time of crisis when the Food Industry was on the back foot, despite efforts to defend it by the then environment secretary, John Selwyn Gummer. Remember him getting his kid to eat burgers for the cameras.

The FSA is proactive - it oversees the existing statutory bodies but it also campaigns and commissions research. It is also independent of government. In effect, it has all the tools of a private business - except it doesn't make a profit, and its mission is to endevour to maintain food standards. And despite having limited funds, it was doing a fairly good job in the face of massive opposition from the Food Industry.

Purits does have a point. Much of what these standards agencies do is patronising. This is harmful, because it harms their image and the public begin to lose faith in them. There is a danger that some of these bodies cover up a lack of action against real elephants in the room by pretending that they care and issuing patronising advice. It is often the case that these agencies are behind the curve and are Johnny come latelys. The educated, informed public are often aware of dangers way before these agencies begin to talk about them. These agencies often stick to the message of 5-a-day, sugar, fat and salt. It is educated consumers that force supermarkets to adapt their product lines and even enforce labelling because high-spending consumers start demanding it. I remember the GM labelling issue, I think it was consumers' worries that instigated change rather than the official bodies.

The patronising messages can be a cover for inaction, which is why the public become cynical. We need good regulation with teeth tackling some of the real issues, we could do with less patronising concern.

So everyone agrees that the food industry does need regulating then? To protect people from the cynical actions of the food industry?

That's not what people were saying at the top of the thread.

The FSA did this working with manufacturers to bring down salt levels in processed foods.

That was a good thing, wasn't it? that is the sort of thing they get up to. It is a National Level organisation. Local councils do stuff like checking restaurant kitchens are clean.

Who will be keeping an eye on food at a national level? Who will be recommending to govt if things need legislating on? Is there another body which does this stuff?

Ah, yes. Abbatoirs. Wasn't it Labour who introduced regulations which mean that most small, local abbatoirs have been closed down. About 1,000 abbatoirs have been closed in the last 15 years, leaving only 300 left. We are now only have mainly big-businesses who run rings around the regulators and a few smaller businesses who really struggle with the cost of regulation.
So that worked really well.

Claig - some of what they do may seem patronising (but no more so than any other advertising campaign) but these messages have succeeded in placing this issue VERY HIGH on the public agenda.

You are right about GM - the concerns about this were consumer led - I was one of them. It was a minority issue. I remember contacting Genetix Snowball - they were the only people doing anything at that time. But food safety was a minority issue then. The media in particular were only just beginning to appreciate the long term
negative effects of certain food stuffs. The system was geared up to deal with someone getting food poisoning from a dodgy restaurant.

Things are very different now. Just because your children aren't physically ill after school dinners, doesn't mean you can't complain about the food they are being fed. That is a real sea change. You might not think the FSA did enough. But who will have the will and resources to challenge the Food Industries when they are gone.

I think it is noteworthy that the Soil Association, who have clashed with them several times in the past, have been very critical of plans to axe the FSA.

If you are arguing that people have a choice in what they eat, I agree with you. But people can only choose what they can afford.

Food full of HFCS, additives and trans-fat is cheap. White sugary bread is cheap. Coca cola is cheap. Lean meat and fruit are expensive. Fish is exorbitant. Organic food is very expensive.

I'm sorry for bringing in the US food industry but I see the UK rapidly heading that way when you let big business rule unhindered. And the US is in a mess - especially for the working class and some minority populations. Obesity levels are out of control. Mexican Americans have almost five times the level of type 2 diabetes to Caucasians.

There are two reasons... certain groups of people can't afford to eat well and many lack the education to cook from scratch. Either way, they consume a lot of processed food - would it really hurt to take some of the additional junk out?

Purits - this should not be a political issue. For what its worth, I didn't vote labour. I also agree with you on the issue of the introduction of big business into the abattoir industry being a kick in the face for effective regulation.

maria1665, I agree that on the whole they have been good. They just need to be better.

The media didn't drive change, the media only picked up on readers' concerns. I remember years back when there was a real opportunity for change which was never taken. There was one week when the Daily Mail and I think the Sun as well had articles about GM and frankenfoods. The whole country was worried and the Mail kept the pressure up and day after day there were more stories about it. If the organisations which claim to fight for the public had struck while the iron was hot, if national protests had been organised, real change would have been swift. But of course nothing was done. Local ineffective marches were organised and the attention of the public was diverted to other news stories.

It was only when the media picked up on it that any real force for change started to emerge.

I started to try and raise the issue in 1997, in my case repeatedly ringing up all the baby food customer lines, asking for clarification of their policy on GM. There was no labelling requirement then. My health visitors put it down to post natal depression, and tried to get me on Prozac.

You will know that Monsanto deserve to demonised as much as BP, the banks etc. More so probably. But there is no mass media support for this. Monsanto sponsor Disneyland for goodness sake.

That's why, in my view, the colourful logos, simplistic messages etc of the FSA were starting to turn the tide. Their stance on GM was disappointing, but they were creating a political environment where issues of long term public food safety were not just the domain of the zealot.

yes you are exactly right. Remember Lord Melchett of Greenpeace
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/jan/08/gm.activists
Some of these things you couldn't make up if you tried.

You are right that the FSA's messages have been useful in spreading awareness amongst the general public. The traffic light system etc. has become common parlance and people are aware of factors that they need to consider. The public on their own have no voice, so we need the media and agencies to pick up the ball and run with it.

at that Guardian piece. I missed that one. I've just re read Orwell's 1984. If that isn't a prime example of 'Doublethink', I don't know what is. Unbelievable.

This is why we should have a Food Standards Agency quote taken from the FSA website dated 21st May 2009:

"The agency has been informed that meat from three cows reared in the same herd as one that later developed BSE has entered the human food chain. Meat from the cow that had developed BSE did not enter the food chain.

EU rules require that cattle born or reared in the same herd as a BSE case and which may have eaten the same feed as the BSE case during their first year of life (known as cohorts) should be killed and the carcass destroyed.
The rule is intended primarily to help eradicate BSE but also provides further protection to consumers to the SRM conrols and BSE testing.

Tracing carried out by the Food Standarsd Agency indicates that most of the meat is likely to have been consumed."

Without the FSA this information will most likely never be available to the general public, the FSA was set up to protect consumers from incidents like the above. Clearly from the information the FSA has provided on its website BSE is still in UK herds, why? We do not test cows under 48 months for BSE so how do we know how many are entering the food chain with BSE? I worry that information like this will be unavailable to the consumer
in future. Is this a return to the darks days of the 1980-90's fiasco on BSE? If we have'nt managed to get rid of BSE by now who in our government departments will be looking after the consumers interests and health?
WE MUST HAVE OPEN, HONEST & TRANSPARENT politics, (David Cameron's words)
abolshing the FSA is imo a backward step.

Agree entirely, Beeaware. Giving FSA responsibilities back to Defra is just going back to the bad old days of the Min of Ag that gave us BSE and then pretended nothing was wrong and refused to do anything about it.

I firmly believe that Defra will not look after the interests of the consumer, why would they want us to know if a cow has BSE? The last thing they want is for us to stop buying beef again. I for one want to know why cows are still developing BSE, we have not got to grips with this. How many more cows under 48 months are going to develop or be born with BSE? Put BSE in the FSA search engine and you will see why this website is so important.
I fear that this is a slippery slope to the old style conservative politics.

Quite, Bee. Defra serves producers, not consumers. That's what got us into the mess over BSE in the first place. (Well, part of it, another part was the Min of Ag drive to boost food production encouraging farmers to feed sheep offal to beef cattle.)

It's all very well banging on about the nanny state etc but I didn't have a clue about trans fats or anything like that. And guess what, the food industry wasn't going to inform me about it.

I'm glad the government took action. For a while.

Just caught up with this.

Seems to me that some national body will pick up the responsibility for regulating the food industry post-FSA. Not least, simply to maintain the existing regulatory framework. It will presumably be a Government Department, with a much smaller budget allocated to this than is currently funding the FSA. Although I challenge anybody to find out in a year's time how much that budget is.

So the question becomes, would you prefer this to be done by a body that holds public board meetings and publishes much of its thinking. And publishes an annual report telling you how much it all costs. Or by Government Ministers in private.

Depends how transparent you like your regulation, I guess.

Oh, and whether you think the outcomes will be the same...

IsItMeOr - the abolition of the FSA comes in the wake of other attacks on efforts to raise food standards. Health Secretary having a go at Jamie Oliver and his efforts to improve school meals. Then the decision to back down on restrictions on junk foods and trans fats in foods. Then handing over the Change 4 Life health campaign to the Food Industry.

If this was just a cost cutting measure, I would be disappointed, as I really think the FSA has and continues to make a real difference.

But with it coming on the back all the other stuff, I really do think this smacks of free market dogma ie it is not in the Food Industries financial interests to do anything bad to us, so controls are not needed. Past (recent) history demonstrates this is simply not the case.