Food Glorious (Chemically Adulterated) Food
Posted on September 19, 2007
Filed Under Business, Politics, News |
Just to continue with the theme of poisonous food in Britain being given the all-clear by dodgy government agencies which clearly like taking the money, but hate doing any work if it interferes with their cosy relationship with the food industry.
The clue here is that these agencies are funded by taxpayers and are there to protect and support the case of the citizens of this country. They are not supposed to be the PR arm and mouthpiece of major companies within the food industry.
If you are alarmed that parts of your government are simply the puppets of the businesses which they are supposed to investigate and regulate, start doing something about it.
This from Dr Briffa’s blog after noting that the FSA advice to parents on dangerous food colourings and additives is a very bland:
“…if a child shows signs of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effects.”
And then, ever so helpfully, the FSA adds: “If parents are concerned about any additives they should remember that, by law, food additives must be listed on the label so they can make the choice to avoid the product if they want to.”
No talk of a ban then? Nope. Or even some restriction on the addition of these chemicals in the food supply. ‘Fraid not. No doubt the reasons for the FSA’s decision to shift the onus of responsibility away from food manufacturers and on to parents are complex. However, perhaps this tack have something to do with the seemingly cosy relationship the FSA has with the food industry.
The FSA’s statement includes this rather telling passage: “The FSA has held an initial meeting with the UK food industry to discuss the research findings and its implications. Representatives from manufacturing and retail organisations told the Agency there was already a trend within industry towards finding alternatives to the colours used in the study. Some technical challenges in developing these alternatives were also highlighted.”
How does that read to you? To me, it suggests that the food industry has spouted the usual rhetoric about taking positive steps, but that for reasons that relate primarily their bottom line (profit, not public health), nothing much is going to happen any time soon.
As I have pointed out before, those responsible for advising the FSA can have close ties with the food industry. The FSA is advised on policy by a committee called the Advisory Committee on Research (ACR). For a list of the members of this committee and their ‘interests’ click here. Many members of the committee benefit financially directly from the food industry. Note also that one member is a full time employee of the food conglomerate Unilever.
Would it be too much to ask of the body responsible for setting food policy in the UK to find advisors that are not full-time employees of food companies and are not so financially intertwined with the food industry? Apparently so. And while such a potentially unwholesome relationship exists, my belief is that the FSA has a serious credibility issue.
Feel safe about the way your government keeps your health interests protected? Think that it is good when governments are in thrall to industrial paymasters?
Feel safe when you eat that you are not going to be poisoned?
You can also go to:
the guest blogging section where you can start your own blog, just for a day or a week or ... we will see after that.
the debate section where there is further opportunity to get involved in discussions or start new debates.
Go to the campaign section to start or join a campaign.
Go to the media section to see videos and other media.
Comments
Leave a Reply. Note Creative Commons licence.