Don't junk the science

With respect I am some what surprised by the remark made by ‘Perpetuating the mantra’ regarding your statement ‘people in white coats dreaming up new ways…etc’ specially coming from the food industry, scientist or not. The discussion here avoids the serious question and put the culprit as the parents or the general public at large, this in the main is not the problem, the problem comes about by how the food industry through governments of the day have allowed this serious problem to occur. It is interesting to see the statement that ‘ a huge funding has gone into investigating ways to make our food healthier [then say] without losing the consumer to poor taste.’ One could argue that this funding could have put to better use; the food industry really knows what a ‘health diet’ is, and what can be done. I certainly believe, respectfully, that it is on the other foot you should have a reality check.
The only two point I disagree respectfully is the term ‘over-nutrition’ and the term ‘popping pills’ because this is not the case it is opposite, as for the question ‘the wider sociological and cultural issues that are influencing our choices.’ Then one only has to look at the history, as you are ‘possible’ aware – the answer lies there.
In general, extremely pleased to see your comments, even though I do not agree with it all, as briefly discussed above.
Kind regards

I am somewhat surprised that a 'chief scientist' of the governments food agency should be so out of touch with the discipline fo food science. 'people in white coats dreaming up new ways to deliver fat, sugar and salt to our children ?'. You need a reality check, I chair a food industry science group and can assure you that most of the activities and huge funding has gone into investigating ways to make our food healthier, without losing the consumer to poor taste. Your own diet survey data indicates energy levels are falling, so it is not gluttony at the root cause.

One must question a society driving so little time for parent interaction with children, time to prepare meals and the use of treat foods to salve the guilt of parents. Our work has become so sedentary we now need to actively search out physical activity in our leisure time, starve ourselves or become obese. We have evolved a system that incorporiates calorie intake breaks (lunch, coffee) but not to expend energy.

I entirely agree with Andrew and Michael in in the sense we just need to eat more sensibly and of course science helps us understand the impact of our diet. I think what Michael Pollan was getting at when he said "junk the science" was that there is such a wealth of data and so many guidelines now being issued by worthy sources like the FSA and others that we are losing sight of common sense. Andrews blog is however a beacon of light in this respect, concise practical and informed. Keep it up Andrew.

Dear Andrew;
As a scientist yourself , it's no surprise to anyone that you'll defend your profession and the believing that what you call "better science" can make a difference.
For myself; as a food consumer already overweight, the view of the situation is more simplistic because to me is quite clear that the food industry use science and scientists to ensure that we eat as much of their produce as we possibly can.The main aim is to make it attractive and not nutritious.
That make them very profitable businessess and get a lot of money on the pockets of their scientists.That's why food like crisps or cereals manufacturers are still so reluctant to decrease their levels of salt on their produce as they simply believe that it will make them less attractive and people will not buy them so much.
You can have a very romantic concept of the word scientist , but we both know that they are far from independent and motivated mainly to satisfy the aims of their employers, as that is what keep their income coming in every month.
I do not believe that to the general public science is getting through very clear messages on nutrition and is really quite a shame that chefs like Jamie Oliver are perfectly able to do a much better job than the scientific community on that sense. But that is no surprise when the regulator in this country seem to believe that it is more important to discuss the nutritional value of organic food than a clear labelling system for the food sold on the supermarket. Thank god that we still have the TV to enlighten us on the subject.