Say 'cheese' ...

Posted by Andrew Wadge on March 5th 2008 in Supporting consumer choice

Despite several years’ experience of Agency press coverage, it still amazes me that a piece of research that was purely to inform our thinking on how a consumer campaign might look further down the line, can lead to total fallacies about the Food Standards Agency planning to slap ‘scary’ labels and pictures on cheese sandwiches! According to The Grocer magazine, we’re asking manufacturers of high saturated fat foods to put cigarette box-style warnings on packs. Vanessa Feltz in the Daily Express takes it one step further, adding that we’ll be plastering pictures of clogged arteries on cheese sandwiches! 

To put the record completely straight – we have not, and have never, said we’d put health warnings on any food.

Yes, before creating a campaign, we set out to find out what the public will find most useful – and that means testing a range of messages and listening to what people tell us. As part of this exploration to determine what will and won’t work, an ‘enjoy responsibly’ approach was trialled and people very clearly told us they wouldn’t want to see that – we totally agree. Incidentally, it was during this research that people told us shock tactics would be effective to change their behaviour, though, from experience, we’re not convinced this will work best. In developing the best way to engage consumers, we also involved major players in the food industry and consumer organisations.

Frustratingly, that’s not what happened according to most of the papers over the past few days.

As for cheese, it does seem we have this battle too often. On our eatwell website we talk about the benefits of dairy products and recommend people should eat them – not quite the voice of an organisation that demonises cheese. But let’s face facts here – full fat cheese is high in saturated fat. Some of our previous research indicates people are not aware of that, so what’s the problem in making sure people get that message? It’s a shame some media report such unhelpful and inaccurate stories.

It’s disappointing to, yet again, have to reiterate that the Agency does not demonise foods – we never call one food ‘bad’ and another ‘good’. The eatwell plate is a tool we use to literally illustrate to people that we can enjoy a little of everything you fancy – we just need to think about which foods we enjoy as a treat.

Whether or not people want to hear this, a diet too high in saturated fat can lead to potentially fatal heart disease. That’s why we take our responsibility to give people honest information about food very seriously. We apologise if that doesn’t go down too well with some people, but it is our job and we will keep on doing it.

What's really killing us?

Posted by Naomi (not verified) on 25/04/2008 - 09:46

In your blog ‘Science or belief’, you say “It was good to see the programme [Horizon, BBC2] focusing on the science behind these claims, and interesting that in most cases the science did not appear to back them up” and yet the FSA continues to make the ‘diet-heart hypothesis’ the cornerstone of its dietary advice. The diet-heart hypothesis is aptly named because, after 50 years, it is still just that; a hypothesis. Despite billions spent on research to prove the saturated fat = heart disease claims, the evidence does not support the theory. The most disturbing aspect of this is that the meat and dairy industries, damaged for ever by this unrelenting doctrine, still passively accept it as being true and don’t seem to have impetus to fight back (it does not take very long to discover just how tenuous the diet-heart hypothesis really is).
What was once the belief of a few scientists in the 1950s has now become lore and is couched in some of the worst examples of science:

- First select only the facts that support your hypothesis

- Bury or misreport any studies that don’t support your hypothesis (even your own)

- When numbers one and two don’t work, turn your hypothesis into such a hot political and moral potato that you fellow scientists have no option but to come down on one side of the fence or the other

- Discredit anyone who disagrees with your hypothesis by claiming that they are a) incompetent b) slightly mad or c) both

The doctrine that your organisation (and others like it) has pushed for so long has changed our relationship with food for ever and led us to eat ever greater levels of rancid vegetable oils (dressed up as health-foods), trans fats, refined carbohydrates and sugar, all of which do far worse damage to our health than life-giving foods such as butter, meat and cheese. It also ignores the horrendous anxiety that people (particularly women) feel about the food they eat, leading to fad diets, more food myths, and obesity. It also ignores the appalling liberties taken by the food processing companies in their health-claims for highly refined foods because low fat = good (is it just me or does every food advert now claim to lower my cholesterol?). Can the incalculable damage done by this doctrine ever be rectified?

In now seems that the final nails are about to be hammered into the coffin with the FSA stating “The Agency has announced the first steps of its activity to help people in the UK reduce the amount of saturated fat they eat” which will clearly reinforce the doctrine and take us yet further away from real food - the FSA article states that it will be working to reduce saturated fats and sugar – what’s left to fill their place? More palm oil? More rancid vegetable oils? More chemicals? More bulking agents?.

Surely it is about time for the FSA take a balanced approach and tell us that saturated fats are essential to our health and the integrity of almost every cell in our bodies, surely it should tell us about the dangers of eating an excess of polyunsaturated fats and enlighten us about how the extraction and processing of these oils could very well cause the cancers and heart disease attributed so often to saturated fats? Surely it should be leading a campaign to work with food producers to get nutrient-dense foodstuffs back onto the shelves with the minimum of interference from the food-processing industry? Surely it should give the message that the foods that have sustained us for thousands of years are not, in fact, they killers that we are led to believe they are.

The only question that remains is why the FSA continues down this road. Could it be anything to do with its links to the food processing industries?

Say Cheese Supporting Consumer Choice

Posted by Dr Judith Bryans The Dairy Council (not verified) on 06/03/2008 - 18:05

Dear Andrew,
I’d just finished a cheese sandwich yesterday when the notification of your blog “Say Cheese” popped up in my inbox. I was struck by your surprise at how the FSA and its work is portrayed in the media, and with your “battle” over cheese.

In order to accurately reflect the contribution a food makes to the diet, both its ‘positives’ and ‘negatives’ must be taken into account. Unfortunately, the majority of the FSA’s public facing initiatives focus on single constituents in foods, and these tend to be negative. This focus on the negatives creates a good food bad food culture. Adding a link to a section of your website which talks about the benefits of dairy foods is fine, but if virtually every other message you put out is negative then you shouldn’t be surprised that the media and consumers only pick up on those. Cheese does contain saturated fat, and consumers need to know that, but that message has to be put into the context of all of the other nutrients cheese provides e.g. calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iodine, potassium, a variety of B vitamins in different proportion, and vitamin A.

There is no doubt that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major public health concern and that over consumption of saturated fat needs to be addressed, but in doing so you need to consider the following:
1. Not all saturated fatty acids raise cholesterol or impact on heart disease.
2. It is likely that saturated fats will be replaced by something else in the diet and the replacements may not be ideal e.g. diets high in refined carbohydrates can cause a pattern of blood lipids associated with increasing risk of CVD, so replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrate is not appropriate.

With regard to obesity, decreasing total energy intake and increasing energy output is important. Whilst fat contributes to energy intake, all fat whether saturated or otherwise, provides the same amount of calories.

Dairy foods come in all varieties from virtually fat free to low-fat to regular fat varieties. As an industry we offer a huge range of consumer choice. Your research suggests that shock tactics work, so why not shock us all by giving us some positive messages on cheese! Or, join me for lunch and I’ll happily discuss the realities of media perceptions with you. Cheese sandwiches of course!!

Cheese

Posted by David Goymour (not verified) on 06/03/2008 - 12:44

I don't think the problem is about high fat, or cheese, or any other foodstuff: it's more about the way the media talk about foods, confusing them with diet. "Healthy food" is a meaningless expression, since it doesn't express anything about balance. "Junk food" is equally meaningless, for the same reason. A healthy diet, on the other hand, consists of a judicious combination of foodstuffs, in the right proportions (which can even include a bag of chips from time to time). Pass the cheese board, someone - and let's have that salad bowl while we're about it, please!

Cheese Sandwiches

Posted by Clare Cheney (not verified) on 06/03/2008 - 10:05

I think it's fine to tell people about the levels of saturated fat in a cheese sandwich. Even if it is half the recommended limits for a day,those who enjoy cheese could have porridge or muesli for breakfast and still have the other 50% "allowance" left to include in the evening meal. What's wrong with that as a message? It provides advice on what people can eat, rather than what they shouldn't. Also,cheese sandwiches go very well with tomatoes, onions and other salad vegetables to contribute towards the 5 a day!

Cheese sarnie blog

Posted by Colette Burke (not verified) on 05/03/2008 - 16:38

Delighted to read that the FSA has no intention of demonising cheese, or indeed any food.
But how did the media get the story so wrong?
Have you asked the media to set the record straight on cheese?
What steps have you taken to ensure that incorrect reporting does not happen again?
Colette Burke

Cheese sandwiches

Posted by Brian Edgeler (not verified) on 05/03/2008 - 14:04

Is nothing sacred? Perhaps there's scope for the FSA to follow the HSE in publishing a "Myth of the Month" in attempt to shoot down some of the public misinformation and rubbish that abounds in the media on food safety matters.