Defending food on Newsnight

Posted by Andrew Wadge on January 31st 2008 in Science, safety and health

I enjoyed taking part in a fairly good-humoured knockabout with Michael Pollan, Julian Hunt (from the Food and Drink Federation), and Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on Tuesday to discuss Michael's book In Defence of Food.  As I mentioned earlier, I have a lot of sympathy with Michael's views that we should all eat a mostly plant-based diet and not too much of it. The Agency's eatwell plate shows how this can be put into practice. But I do think that telling people to eat what their grandmothers ate both misses the point that the world has changed (rightly or wrongly, people don't have the time to cook in the way that they used to) and, more importantly, unnecessarily restricts the range of foods from which they can choose.  That's not to say that everything's OK. Far from it.  The problem of obesity and 'overnutrition' is the defining public health issue facing this and future generations.  But the answer is not to look backwards, but for government, the food industry and consumers to face up to the challenges by looking forwards.  For our part, the FSA needs to continue to raise awareness of what constitutes a healthy diet and draw upon good science to help bring about changes in dietary habits and monitor progress towards dietary targets. 

The food industry needs to step up to the challenge of re-formulating products to reduce fat and energy content in the way that they have started to do for salt, labelling food contents more clearly (the  EU has just published its proposals yesterday, including on front-of-pack labelling), by using the traffic light colour code, and giving much more consistent messages on healthy eating ('additive-free' won't help the obesity issue, I'm afraid). 

And, of course, we all need to put some effort into making healthier choices about our food and lifestyles.  It's not going to be easy, but harking back to a mythological Arcadia is not going to help. Got any comments? Have your say on the blog.

add new comment

Choice v Price

Posted by David (not verified) on 04/04/2008 - 21:33

I don't know where you have got your facts from but the most subsidised part of the food chain has always been the farmer, the person growing the 'healthy' foods you refer to. Manufacturers of processed foods have never received the level of subsidy that growers do so how you attribute the growth in processed food to subsidy is beyond me.
Also your second point about advertising does not recognise the work that both the FSA and industry have done in restricting the advertising of foods. The most common advertisements you see these days are those extolling the healthy properties of foods or adverts from the Food Standards Agency concerning 5 a day or healthy eating.
I really think it is about time that the anti-food industry lobby actually looked around themselves and stopped dealing in out of date stereotypes.

Choice vs. Price

Posted by Albionwood (not verified) on 02/04/2008 - 19:26

"we all need to put some effort into making healthier choices about our food and lifestyles."

Certainly. Yet most people will have great difficulty doing this when faced with the following:

1. The cheapest foods are often the unhealthiest, a condition exacerbated if not created outright by government subsidy programs;

2. Marketing directed toward increasing consumption of the least-healthy foods. Where are the billboards and TV adverts for fresh produce, as compared to the nonstop barrage of them for fast food?

Blame the victims all you want, but governments have (1) contributed to the problem and (2) stood by and watched it happen.

With the greatest respect I

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 21/03/2008 - 00:13

With the greatest respect I certainly do not take the Daily Mail on face value this was flaged up has I writing the article,it was an after thought which I now regret in mentioning and I sincerely applogise and did not mean for it to seriouly distract you from our intresting discussion. I have certainly no desire or intentions to try to construct a conspiracy theory from this.

Kind regards

Role of the Food Industry

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 19/03/2008 - 11:02

I am sorry if you are not aware of it but the e number system was developed so that manufacturers and the public would know what was safe to use in food and at what levels. It was a measure designed to increase public confidence in the food they were eating but has been perverted because of some incidents related to a few additives where the science has moved on since the original judgements were made and their safety had to be re-evaluated. It was always understood that the science was not static and that there must be constant review when new evidence emerges.
Related to this perhaps it would have been better if you had read the evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority rather than the Daily Mail, not the most accurate of scientific journals.
The reason that EFSA have not taken action in respect of the colours you mention is that they found the study to be flawed in its methods of study and in its statistical evaluation of the significance of the results obtained. The conclusion of the independent evaluation by EFSA was that there was no significant addition to the knowledge concerning these colours and preservatives as a result of the FSA commissioned Southampton study.
I am sure you want to try to construct a conspiracy theory from this but the truth of the matter was that the study itself was flawed in its design and that the conclusions drawn by those who conducted and commissioned the study overstated its signifcance

Defending Food Night

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 17/03/2008 - 18:15

With respect to ‘Response to anonymous’ the discussion with regards to the ‘food industry does not make legislation it adheres to it’ is a very simplistic view.
The food industry has very powerful lobbyists, the panels alone formed to advise government of the day, generally have industrial links; they are called upon to make a judgement on the very companies that are making the products they are. Food is politics – governments of the day and food industries have agreed polices that have degraded the British food supply.
With respect regarding to artificial colours, flavouring and preservatives are ‘no go’ areas (the present) the answers were down to the public concern but it took many years for this to happen. The initial question was ‘don’t you think the history of Food and Production tells us some truths where we went wrong’.
As for the question asked, respectfully, no, I have not been in that position, only for very short periods and that was extremely hard on my family and myself.
To answer ‘Role of Food Industry’ respectfully yes to be blunt it is a biased view, but what was said in ‘general terms’ is true. With respect, your emphasis on e-numbers does have a history, some with a more chequered history than we like.
With respect, here are brief comments to your statements? Your idea that the e-numbers are there to gain public confidence then why when faced with evidence of the ill effects of food additives, the Commission of the European Communities issued a directive in 1978 requiring member states to list additives. Britain rejected this, and insisted on derogation for five years why? As for the statement, ‘being tested independently and scientifically’ is a serious question, which unfortunately is causing problems/debate across the scientific board.
As for the final paragraph with regard to Britain low wage economy etc then I would seriously agree, that we have a very serious problem. Which with respect will not be solved by highly marketing processed food full of e-numbers and others, and I would not suggest it is the public’s fault, with respect it is the quite the reveres, and comes under social and political concern and should be placed firmly in the political arena.
We arrive back to the historical role of the food industry; you only have to start say from the 1950 through to the present, you can observe the weave made by government(s) and the food industry.
Whilst writing this, have you read the article Daily Mail web site http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=536276&in_page_id=1770>Title ‘EU rejects plea to outlaw ‘dangerous’ food colours that lead to hyperactive children’. Which I must say is sorry state of affairs, no doubt there be many serious comments about this, let us hope so- and get these banned from our food.

Kind regards

Response to anonymous

Posted by Anita (not verified) on 14/03/2008 - 15:31

I would be interested to know if “anonymous” has ever tried to feed a family of 4 on £20 a week from “local” producers.

I think perhaps rather than arguing who is to blame for the nation’s health; diet choices etc, we need to look forward at what we can do to change. The food industry; as every industry is evolving to survive. Artificial colours; flavourings and preservatives are now "no go" areas as far as most manufacturers are concerned. The majority of product development technicians were raised on a diet of blue smarties and processed foods that were introduced way before today’s food industry professionals could walk; as opposed to being your so called "villains" they are in fact; "victims". Obesity is not just about the food industry; it is about society; the role of parents in the way we raise our children and low income households. The food industry does not make legislation it adheres to it.

Role of Food Industry

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 13/03/2008 - 20:29

Sorry anonymous but you seem to have a very biased view of the historical role of the food industry. The food industry grew as a result of the industrialisation of society and its increasing mobility. This has continued as our lifestyles get busier and our demands for convenience foods has increased. The lack of consistent access to fresh food meant that various methods of preservation had to be developed. The consumer did not however want significant changes to the colour, flavour and texture of the foods they were being sold hence the rise in the use of additives.
Because it was necessary to establish which additives were safe a system known as the e numbering system was developed. The idea was that public confidence would be increased because all additives would be tested independently and scientifically.
As in all other fields of science, scientific knowledge is not static but is dynamic and some things that we believe to be true will later be disproved. Because there are a few occasions where this has happened some people have exploited this to try to undermine the whole e number system.
You place great store by the fact that there is considerable emphasis on price in food advertising. This could have something to do with the fact that Britain is a low wage economy for a large industrial country with a large sink of unemployed and a large section of the employed working in low skilled and service sector jobs that are poorly paid. The growth in small food suppliers is generally limited to the relatively small group who can afford these products

Defending food on newsnight

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 01/03/2008 - 23:49

With respect, to the comments made by expert opinion, one has to remember, initially we did not make the choices the food industry in general did this, with help of government and industrial representatives that all permitted additives which are agreed to be safe. It can be said that certain vitamins and minerals have been kept from us or are destroyed in the manufacture of highly processed food.
The British value food less than people on the Continent do, because we have been trained to think that food is good just because it is cheap. This nonsensical attitude has been reinforced by industry: food is now the only major commodity usually advertised in terms of its cheapness.
As a result, only the food giants can survive and prosper. In Europe, small farmers, manufactures and retailers still thrive whilst in Britain; they have all been driven out of business. Having said that, one could argue that since BSE that slowly we are seeing small companies offering a serious choice in, what you consume and with the sense at last we have control of the type of food eaten and how it is grown and processed, this is making a serious impact mainly due to consumer pressure.
It can be said, the above is only a very small part of the story there is much, much more, which reminds me read Cannon G., (1987) ‘The Politics of Food’ Century Hutchinson, London, ISBN 0712617175.
It is not in the main the consumer’s fault, the choices are made for them. History tells a story whether we like it or not.

Expert Opinion

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 27/02/2008 - 20:57

I suppose it is no more naive than so called experts trying to undermine the principle that our life outcomes are about the choices we make. Yes the food industry has a responsibility to make healthy options available but cannot force the consumer to purchase these healthy options. The main barrier is often price as the ingredients used to replace salt, fat and other flavourings are almost universally more expensive leading inevitably to a more expensive product. So whilst our naive expert may have the choice to pay for the more expensive healthy option very often low income families do not.
Quite often 'experts' like to have a pantomime villain they can throw their custard pies at but unless we can convince people of their personal responsibility then there is no solution to the obesity problem. Continually trying to paint the food industry as this pantomime villain only provides people with a scapegoat and an excuse for not making the necessary choices

Defending food on newsnight

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 24/02/2008 - 11:53

What is your view on the statement 'It is naive of ill-informed politicians and food industry executives to place the onus on individuals to make healthier choices' James P.,2008 'Soundbites from the AAAS' New Scientist page8 23 Feb.
This is an good point and one can relate to a statement in that the food industry has a responbility to society.

Regards

Food our grandmothers ate

Posted by C Harris (not verified) on 11/02/2008 - 13:21

It would be ridiculous to go back to the food that 'grandmothers ate' - misleading phrase anyway - but the point needs to be made, I think, that advice on a healthy diet has changed little between the early days of the Basal Diet, put together by the pioneer food scientists of Dr Widdowson's time and today, despite popularly held view that food advice is routinely contradictory.

Rationing in the Second World War gives tons of data on a unique social experiment and although the lack of variety was a crucial point then, people's diets were essentially much better - even though the fat they ate was almost always saturated. Although the Basal Diet was never formally adopted, its principles informed the typical diet of 50-60 years ago. I think though that rationing was in part to blame for the current obesity problem: then, people could not choose to eat ice cream or not - it was just not available - so when food was available and on demand, people tended to choose the foods they had missed.

Of course, you have to factor in the rampant marketing of takeaways such as pizzas and burgers to children, the abolition of nutritional standards in school catering, the school chocolate machines providing an alternative to the traditional lunch, plus local councils who saw no problem allowing chip shops etc. to open near to schools - frankly it's surprising we are not all obese. Not forgetting the food industry...

Defending Food on Newsnight

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 08/02/2008 - 00:34

With respect, consider the following point raised ‘where did we go wrong with our food’ if the food production at an industrial level is not about nutritional value or balance, but only about cost then we as a society have important questions to ask.

I would consider that society is advanced citizenship (right from the start when people moved from a farming community to the cities, as the industrialization made advances from 1700’s). We then had to rely on (totally) other people to have certain responsibilities (what I would call ‘consent’ to carry out certain operations for the common good of all), within that framework we expect goods to be at a certain standard.

It has been known sadly in the past that certain organisations have taken society for a miserable ride. Therefore, certain individual(s) can make more profit at the expense of other peoples misery. History is full of examples, smoking took 50 years to find out for certain, but these companies knew of the misery and suffering cigarettes caused.

Modern day society suffers from obesity at the same time malnutrition and other aliments; salt and sugar are hidden quantities and there are others, hence the need for some system and some independent organization (FSA) (who have no vested interest in farming or food production), but to help to protect and advise society.

For a large number of years (post war years) we had no choice, we knew very little, what went into processed foods I believe that in general people, certainly for the food industry took it on ‘trust’ what the food industry delivered.

Possibly in the early 1970’s people slowly became aware of problems with food, from farming to processing, but government organizations were of very little help, finally the public probably realised the truth when BSE raised its head.
What was being done in their name was not for the good of society, but only for the good of the food industries. The people, who realised this first, were probably the ‘hippy movement’ who started what we now call the ‘organic movement’. This slowly started to have what I call a serious choice for citizens of this country, as more problems became apparent; hence, why we have serious disagreements with what is now considered conventional farming and food versus organic farming and food, even within organizations such as FSA.

Exercise is I agree extremely important, but, exercise without a nutritional value or balance is of very little value. It may allow individuals for a while to avoid certain aliments, but it does catch up (what I am saying is nutritional is not a panacea, but a serious requirement whether or not it is a sedentary lifestyle).

History plays such an important part it gives uses a base line to work from we are here with serious problems set firmly in the past, possibly corrected either by this generation or by future generations.

Kind regards

Traffic Lights

Posted by David McGinlay (not verified) on 06/02/2008 - 15:43

Dear Andrew

I don't see how you fail to recognise as everyone else did that traffic lights are now dead. I suppose it must be difficult to give up on something you have loved and cherished but let us face the facts. The proposed EC reg calls for front of pack nutrition labelling, either per 100g/ml or per serving and expressed as a percentage of the recommended daily intake, which are the same values as the GDA system. Whilst the proposal allows for national schemes it clearly states that these must not undermine the usage by the consumer of the mandatory information. Colour coding can only lead the consumer to make simplistic judgements about the food and detract from the detailed information being provided. The Commission recognised this in not recommending the traffic light system when it was presented to them. Can I suggest that it would be better for you and your organisation to support a system that truly informs the consumer and direct your efforts to consumer education in the use of GDAs rather than clinging to a system that has been rejected.

where did we go wrong with our food?

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 05/02/2008 - 23:20

To answer this question will be as difficult as to answer why we are the way we are. We have to understand that when we are talking about food production at an industrial level, the main drive is not the nutritional value or balance for our diet but the costings involved in production and the profit margins of selling that product. It is a matter of fact that making it attractive by adding chemicals like salt, sugar and a lot of E listed ingerdients also help to sell more food.
The fact also of a sedentary lifestyle also has the effect of potentially worsen the effect of industrialised food has in our body.It is a matter of fact that in many parts of the country kids do not have parks to play and where they are available parents are scared of letting them go unsupervised... that does not help and have little to do with the food that we eat.
There are nowadays thankfully, plenty of people that realizes of the effect that our diet and lifestyle has on our body. There are many people that like to drink orange juice with fruit bits, milk that taste good and enjoy the simplicity of the food produced for people that do care of anything more than a healthy profit.
It is a matter of fact, that the regulatory environment need to have a balanced approach to achieve the main goal which is to promote a better healthy habbits within the population without overwhelming the industry with uncalled for burdens. But some of us think that we are far from there and we will see what the future will bring...

Mortally flattened traffic lights

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 05/02/2008 - 16:44

Dear Slightly Confused,

Not too confused at this end, but you're right, there was some coverage last week suggesting that traffic light labelling is no more.

Basically, the Commission issued a press release on Wednesday 30 January about new proposal for EU rules on labelling. It described what would be required on front of pack - levels of key nutrients in 100g of food - and described new arrangements which aim to encourage schemes which help consumers to use this information. So traffic lights are alive and well and set to continue helping people to make healthier choices to help them stay alive and well too.

By the way, the actual proposals are now live, so it might be worth checking them out.

Also, hello Anonymous, You talk of us 'going wrong with our food.' I'd like to throw that open to debate as I've blogged on this issue a couple of times now. What do others think?

Defending food on Newsnight

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 01/02/2008 - 22:41

A brief comment, we do look back and wonder. I wonder where we went wrong with our food. You could say the 'Food Industry' a starting point, then the 'Supermarkets' then fill in the gaps. Playing the devils advocate honest. A serious question though don't you think the history of Food and Production tells use some truths where we went wrong??

Are traffic lights green?

Posted by Slightly confused (not verified) on 01/02/2008 - 13:56

I seem to remember my Grandmother making excellent dumplings and sponge cakes, is that what Mr. Pollan would have us eat?

However,the real point of my note is that I am getting confused about traffic lights. Above you seem to imply that the EU has sanctioned traffic lights, but this is clearly at odds with everyone elses' take out. For example I read on the BBC's website on Wed. that traffic lights have been mortally flattened - EU backs rival food label scheme Are you confused too?