What ‘low-fat’ and ‘lite’ really mean:

Being low-fat, or even fat-free does not make food slimming. If manufacturers take fat out of a cake or a biscuit they have to put something else in to give it substance. That something is sugar.

Take no notice of ‘lite’ or ‘extra lite’ foods. These terms are used loosely and can just mean a smaller quantity of the product. Remember if something is 90% fat-free, it is still 10% fat – and that can be a lot of fat.

Unlike other labels, the term ‘low fat spread’ has a specific meaning that is legally enforceable. To be low-fat, a spread must contain less than 40g of fat per 100g.

‘No added sugar’ does not mean the food is sugar free. It simply means that sugar hasn’t been added. The product may, however, contain fruit, which gives it a naturally high sugar content.

Source: Amanda Ursell, The Sunday Times

Of course we should. Junk food is bad for us and will increase NHS costs over the coming years as we all need more medical attention.

Another ‘no brainer’!

Surely this could be a vote winner for one of the political parties and for once they would be doing the ‘right thing’.

What will be the excuse not to: “it would curb freedom of speech, we are not a nanny state”.

The real reason? The food industry spent 243450m on advertising last year so quite a few large companies would be upset by the ban. Is it the loss in tax revenues or will contributions to political parties be stopped.

For further info on this story have a look at our news page.

By Nick Higham
BBC media correspondent

Advertising to children has always been controversial. The little darlings, it’s argued, are too young to understand that advertisers may not be telling the whole truth; advertising encourages them to pester parents for expensive (and possibly harmful) toys and treats.

Couch potato lifestyles are contributing to obesity
Much of the debate centres on television advertising for junk foods.

But it is notoriously difficult to establish direct causal links between people’s behaviour and anything they see on screen – as anyone who has followed the debate about screen violence and its effects knows.

But last month the debate about advertising and children took a new and striking turn.

Research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency apparently showed that there was a direct link between TV ads for fast foods, snacks and sweets and rising levels of obesity among children.

The report was widely covered by the press. Study finds TV ad link to horror diet, reported the Daily Mirror. The Daily Telegraph thought the report was a watershed – and so important that it led the front page with it, on the day every other broadsheet led with the final day of the Hutton inquiry.

In fact the research wasn’t quite the ground-breaking work it first appeared. Professor Gerard Hastings and his team at Strathclyde University had simply reviewed the existing scientific literature on the subject, sifting through 29,000 academic papers and finding 21 which they concluded demonstrated a clear link between television viewing and diet, obesity and cholesterol levels.

The report was welcomed by healthier eating campaigners like the Food Commission, but it’s far from clear what it’s impact will be.

The FSA has sent a team to Sweden, where television advertising aimed at children is banned. The Swedes considered trying to impose such a ban Europe-wide when they held the presidency of the European Union, but nothing came of it.

The food industry – which spent 243450m on food ads last year – and the advertising industry would oppose such a ban on grounds of principle (it would curb freedom of speech; no-one is suggesting banning car ads just because car drivers kill people) and pragmatism (it wouldn’t work).

‘Excessive consumption’

An industry lobby group, the Food Advertising Unit, gave Prof Hastings’ report only a lukewarm welcome.

In a statement it said: There is a strict statutory Code of Practice on TV advertising to children, which the advertising industry supports. It states that ads should not encourage children to eat or drink frequently throughout the day, condone excessive consumption, or suggest that confectionery or snacks should replace balanced meals.

And it said the report made no mention of other factors influencing children’s eating habits and obesity, like parents, sibling and peer group pressure or the effect of reduced exercise.

But public concern about obesity may finally have reached a level that the industry cannot ignore. There may not be a ban, but further voluntary curbs on food advertising aimed at children seem inevitable.

Source BBC website

I have just been reading the new report on the environmental-impact study of genetically modified crops in the UK and despite largely negative results I am amazed the government have still not decided which way to go.

When I make a decision I tend to weigh up the pros and cons, which in some cases is difficult. In the GM debate it seems obvious. Every time I read a report on-line it is surrounded by links to further stories, in the GM case the links were:

• Most Britons ‘oppose GM crops’
• GM ‘needs long term monitoring’
• ‘Little economic benefit’ from GM
• GM: As risky as life itself

Not one pro story. ‘We’ve reached the point we’re at because the privately-owned biotech industry has spent prodigious amounts of money developing GMs, in the hope of earning still more stupendous profits.’
It’s a familiar pattern: an industry develops a product, tells us we need it, and relies on governments to overcome any initial resistance to it.
To read more on this subject have a look at our ‘news page’ and make your voice heard by voting in ‘GM; Yes or No’ poll coming soon to BigBarn.

The biggest environmental-impact study of genetically modified crops conducted anywhere in the world has produced largely mixed results.

Scientists tested three biotech crops and found the cultivation of two – an oilseed rape and a beet crop – to be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalents.

The production of a third biotech plant – a maize – was shown to be kinder to other plants and animals than the normal crop.

The results of the trials will be used by the UK Government, along with other information, to make a decision on whether or not to allow the engineered plants to be commercialised in the country.

The real comparison should be between GM and organic agriculture

Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace
The outcome of the 2436m three-year study conducted at some 60 sites across Britain was reported on Thursday in eight lengthy papers in the journal Philosophical Transactions Of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences.

The head of the research team, Dr Les Firbank, said: The results are clearly important to the debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops.

But, they also give us new insights that will help us conserve biodiversity within productive farming systems.

The so-called farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) set out to look at a narrow set of issues related to the impact on the environment of herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

Q&A: GM crop trials
Have your say. Would you buy GM?
Monsanto departure pleases greens
These plants can be sprayed with a particular weedkiller and still prosper while other pest plants in the field are killed.

The FSEs tested the idea that the alternative management practices involved in the production of these crops would make no difference to biodiversity in the field.

The scientists’ work rejects this.

They grew the GM plants and their conventional equivalents side by side, and then observed the wildlife in among the crops and at the field margins.

Birds and bees

The FSEs showed that some insect groups, such as bees (in beet crops) and butterflies (in beet and rape), were recorded more frequently in and around the conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.

There were also more weed seeds in conventional beet and rape crops than in their GM counterparts.

These studies show… GM crops are more flexible and can enhance biodiversity.

Dr Paul Rylott, ABC
Such seeds are important in the diets of some animals, particularly some birds. However some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in the GM beet and rape crops.

In contrast, growing GM maize was better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize. There were more weeds in and around the biotech maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds.

The results of these Farm-Scale Evaluations reveal significant differences in the effect on biodiversity when managing genetically herbicide-tolerant crops as compared to conventional varieties, Dr Firbank said.

One of the key points to remember is that the results are only applicable to the three crops studied, and only under the regimes of herbicide usage which were employed.

Next decision

The trials, which tested GM oilseed rape and maize produced by Bayer CropScience, the UK arm of German biotech giant Bayer BAYG.DE AG, and sugar beet made by US agrochemicals producer Monsanto, did not investigate the plants’ impact on human health.

HAVE YOUR SAY
The potential effects upon the environment are unknown and there is some evidence that entire eco-systems could be devastated.

Neither have the trials looked at how GM traits might flow into the wider environment through pollen spread – although another team will report on this at a later date.

There were protests against the FSEs, and crops in some trial fields were pulled up.

The trial results will now be assessed by Acre (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment), the agency that will advise the government on their implications.

A decision by ministers on whether to commercialise the crops could come later this year, or early in 2004.

The GM rape tested was a spring variety. A winter rape is also being investigated and the results of its evaluation will be published next year.

‘Wrong’ comparison

The environmental group Greenpeace criticised the scope of the trials and dismissed them as a political fudge. It said their outcome did prove, however, that GM corporations were wrong when they claimed herbicide-tolerant plants could have biodiversity benefits through a reduction in the use of agrochemicals.

And executive director Stephen Tindale added: The real comparison should be between GM and organic agriculture. But organic is so obviously better for the environment that the GM industry refused point blank to have this included in the trials.

The trials are simply comparing one highly damaging form of agriculture with one that’s even worse.

Dr Paul Rylott, of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), countered: These results confirm what industry has long argued. The flexibility of GM crops allows them to be grown in a way that benefits the environment.

He added: Activist groups claimed that GM crops were in effect ‘green concrete’ and would ‘wipe out’ wildlife.

These studies show that this sort of scaremongering is not supported by the evidence. On the contrary – this evidence shows that GM crops are more flexible and can enhance biodiversity.

Dr Mark Tester, a senior lecturer in plant sciences, at Cambridge University, commented: To generalise and say ‘all GM is bad’ or ‘all GM is good’ is a crude over-simplification, and these new results provide classic evidence of the complexity of the real issues.

It’s excellent to see such thorough work addressing the effects of GM crops, and this will hopefully inject some rationality into the debate.

BBC News.

It is great to see so many food related stories in the news highlighting the growing interest in food and our concern for better food in our shops. Last week we saw:

• Sainsbury’s open their version of a farmers market in Pimlico, London, ‘To meet the needs of our customers’ they say.
• BBC ‘Breakfast’ had a weeklong debate on ‘Is organic better than normal?’
• There is a new drive to improve food in schools

What frustrates me is the absence of the word ‘LOCAL’ & BigBarn in all these stories. It is great to hear Sainsburys are listening to their customers but is their new ‘farm shop’ just a small supermarket with a make over?

Organic is better than normal but local and fresh must be best. Unfortunately the BBC has so far declined my offer to give a 3-hour lecture!

Better food for schools is great news and despite the measly budget of 35p ingredients cost per meal some schools have allowed change. One school has driven lunch attendance from 25% – 85% and used BigBarn to find some local ingredients.

Have a look at our news page for further details on this story and put pressure on your local school to change. We want to help Schools & shops like Sainsbury’s really find local food and spread the word that buying direct from local suppliers is best.

In the spring of 2003, six people came together to understand the real challenge that schools face in trying to improve school meals.

On Monday October 6, 2003 Food For Life launched a comprehensive report and revealed that more money is spent on prison food than primary school lunches and have called for a major shake-up in school meal provision.

Food For Life claim that the Government is failing to ensure that children at primary schools are given healthy food in line with its own nutritional standards. The daily amount spent on each child’s school lunch can be as low as 31p per day, compared with around 60p spent on a prisoner’s lunch. As a result, low quality processed food dominates school meals which are often high in fat, sugar and salt.

There is currently no routine Government monitoring of what children actually eat in primary schools
Diet-related illness in the UK, is a greater problem than smoking, costing the NHS at least 2432.5 billion every year. Poor diet leads to diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Obesity in children used to be rare, but now nearly 10 per cent of six year olds and 15 per cent of 15 year olds are severely overweight

Lizzie Vann founder of Organix says: The declining quality of school meals is creating a public health time bomb. We need large-scale reform to change the school meals are sourced and served to ensure we give children the safest, most nutritious and sustainable food possible. The Food for Life project demonstrates that if schools, suppliers and local authorities work together, the current downward spiral can be halted and radical change can be achieved.

Food For Life launched the report during Organic Week (6-12 October). The report:

Investigates the current state of school meals and the reasons behind declining quality.
Calls for healthier meals to be served, sourced from organic and local food and for the creation of new, closely monitored standards.
Urges catering and food companies to recognise the responsibility they have to children’s health.
The Soil Association has written to 50 major food companies that supply food to schools asking them to agree to a code of conduct
It estimates that this would require at least an additional 243200 million a year

For further details see www.foodforlifeuk.org

The Soil Association’s recent report on school food provides a perfect snapshot of current attitudes to food in this country.

The report suggests that much of the food served to our children fails to meet the government’s own guidelines on nutrition and that as a nation we’re storing up all sorts of problems for the future. With one in ten six years olds already clinically obese you have to wonder how far things have to go before something happens.

How has this craziness come about? The answer lies with how we’ve swallowed the supermarkets’ obsessions with convenience and cost. Taste, nutritional value and support for local producers don’t fit the template and get thrown out the window. Instead our kids get chicken shapes and breaded fish & muck off a truck the report calls it.

About to tear my hair out, I caught a report on Five Live from a primary school kitchen. Given the freedom to order and cook their own food what have they found? If they source local and use organic its possible to produce good healthy food that the kids go mad for. What’s more it’s actually cheaper. The kids gain an appreciation of good food, learn about nutrition and learn good habits that’ll stay with them for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps the next step is to get them to do the shopping and educate their parents?