Food Glorious (Chemically Adulterated) Food
Posted on September 19, 2007
Filed Under Business, Politics, News | Leave a Comment
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 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.
You Are What You Eat: FSA Advice Questioned
Posted on September 19, 2007
Filed Under Business, News | 2 Comments
It is always good to see the old adage ‘If you want something done properly, do it yourself’ applied to modern living. Clearly, if you want your food to be safe to eat, it is better to vote with your money to bring about change, rather than wait for food retailers or government agencies to act.
Times Online:
David Jago, [of consumer analysts] Mintel spokesman, said: “Manufacturers are tapping into the nation’s growing desire for a more natural lifestyle, as consumers take greater interest in what really goes into their food.”
The findings are released on the eve of a board meeting of the Food Standards Agency which is to discuss a recent study showing the potential links between food colourants and hyperactivity in children. The agency has already changed its advice to parents and said that youngsters showing signs of hyperactive behaviour should avoid seven additives found in some sweets, drinks, desserts, cakes and biscuits. These are: E102 tartrazine; E104 quinoline yellow; E110 sunset yellow; E122 carmoisine; ponceau 4R; E129 allura red and E211 sodium benzoate.
Food campaigners believe the FSA should have banned the additives outright from British food and have urged parents to keep products with these additives away from their children.
However, if you really do not want your children to fluoresce green in the dark or suffer permanent brain damage for the sake of drinking something enticingly neon blue in colour and containing nothing but the products of a vat of chemicals, read this from the Guardian:
Comment
Inactivity disorder
Additives fingered as bad for children have also had an alarming effect on regulators’ behaviour
Felicity Lawrence
Wednesday September 19, 2007
The GuardianTomorrow when the Food Standards Agency board meets, it will ask itself if it should have done more about an inconvenient piece of research published this month. The research showed that certain artificial colourings and a preservative, widely used in food and under suspicion for decades, did in fact make children behave poorly. In rigorously conducted tests, the cocktail of additives induced precisely the sort of problem behaviour schools complain is on the rise and disrupts education. The effect was seen in ordinary children, not just those already suffering from hyperactivity.Ever since Sir John Krebs, with his impeccable scientific credentials, stepped down as chair of the FSA and his role at the top was filled by non-scientists, the agency has been at pains to stress that its decisions are still based on sound science. Its new advice is simply that parents who think children are suffering from hyperactivity might consider avoiding these additives by reading food labels: no advice to the general population; no mention of what to do about all the foods that have these ingredients but do not carry labels; no advice to schools on whether to remove them - only advice so impractical that Gordon Brown was moved to say that parents should not have to root round supermarket shelves reading all the small print to check if food is going to harm their children.
How on earth did the FSA get itself into such an untenable position? No doubt the Sudan 1 crisis two years ago remains sharp in officials’ minds. Tony Blair castigated the FSA for causing “disproportionate” losses to businesses by insisting that foods containing the Sudan 1 dye - which just happened to be illegal and a carcinogen, albeit a weak one - be taken off the shelves. This resulted in the largest product recall in British history, and the food industry made its displeasure clear to the FSA’s political masters.
So what would count as reacting proportionately to the news that these additives damage children? First the FSA turned to its independent scientific panel for a judgment. The committee on the toxicity of chemicals in food (CoT) is chaired by Professor Ieuan Hughes, a distinguished paediatrician who declares among his interests research funds from drug companies and Novo Nordisk, the leading maker of industrial enzymes for the food industry. Other members include Dr Philip Carthew, whose salary is paid by Unilever; Professor Ian Rowland, consultant to Unilever and recipient of research funds from other food manufacturers; Dr Lesley Stanley, who declares contracts with Procter & Gamble and Nestlé, and research collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline and Novo Nordisk …
And so it goes on. Half the scientists on the committee have links to agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry. None of this is to impugn their individual integrity, for that’s the way science is these days: in the absence of public funding, researchers must bring in the money where they can. So it is industry that often frames the questions science asks, and there is a danger that industry influences the mindset with which results are approached. This does little to reassure the public that consumer interests will come before commercial ones.
The CoT decided it could not draw conclusions on the implications of the additives study for the population as a whole, which appears to contradict the published science. The committee also firmly said it was not possible to extrapolate from the additives used in this particular research to others; in fact, several other additives in common use have similar chemical structures to those used in the study. Regulators have applied the opposite assumption when approving them for use - if tests showed that one additive was safe, they happily extrapolated to additives with a similar structure.
From a consumer view, taking a precautionary approach and getting rid of them all now is a no-brainer. That is a policy decision for the FSA board rather than its scientists, but the FSA seems to be hiding behind the conservative view of its scientific panel.
The agency turned next to its lawyers. It fears that it could be clobbered by the food industry if it oversteps a strict legal case. The lawyers’ advice was that the FSA did not have enough evidence to impose a unilateral ban on the additives. They may make ordinary children behave badly, but they do not meet the requirement of EU law that an additive “endangers health” before a government can take action. If only those pesky children would drop dead holding the wrapping, it would be so much easier to know what to do.
The additives in question are used to make junk palatable. They should be banned. Let any food manufacturer who wishes to defend its right to use such pernicious ingredients go to court and advertise the fact. If the FSA board wants to salvage its reputation as protector of the public, it needs to show some political nerve tomorrow.
felicity (dot) lawrence (at) guardian.co.uk
If you want to see how food additives are just a trrifling and annoying PR exercise for big food retailers, see how Tesco reacts here.
You can also go to 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.
UK Government To Attempt New GM Crop Con
Posted on September 17, 2007
Filed Under Business, Politics, News | Leave a Comment
The UK government is going to try to deceive the public over GM crops again, this time by pretending that they will help combat climate change and help feed the poor.
Of course, none of this will have anything to do with sticky fingers in corporate tills or money finding its way into government officials’ back pockets or jobs for the boys as they whizz through the famous revolving door.
The government knows that public sentiment has not changed with regard to genetically modified food, but is hoping that people will be shamed into allowing GM crops to be grown in order to help save the world.
The Guardian has this:
In 2004, the government announced that no GM crops would be grown in the country for the “foreseeable future”, prompting Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association to declare: “This is the end of GM in Britain.”
Recent polls also revealed that about 70% of the European public remained opposed to GM foods.
However, ministers are confident that the technology’s virtues will be more apparent this time because of increased public awareness of pressing environmental concerns.
“The ability to have drought-resistant crops is important not only for the UK but for other parts of the world,” said the source. “And the fact that some GM crops can produce higher yields in more difficult climactic [sic - although perhaps an indication of the thoughts of profits working some people into a frenzy] conditions is going to be important if we’re going to feed the growing world population.”
Ministers are reluctant to publicly back the effort at this stage, admitting that a previous attempt to introduce GM crops to the UK in 2004 fell victim to poor public relations. “We had a bad consultation on GM and it set research back in the UK a very long way indeed,” the source added.
In that year, scientists published the results of several field scale trials of GM crops, which assessed their impact on the environment. Although the technology was subsequently cleared by the government, biotech companies in the UK decided to lie low after backlashes from the media, NGOs and consumers.
[…]
“We have absolutely every confidence that GM will be used in the UK,” said Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which represents several major biotechnology companies that produce GM crops.
[…]
“There is no question in our minds that we’ll win,” said Mr Little. “This is a safe, high-quality technology that’s been proven to work.”
It’s nice to know that the main concern seems to be whether the PR war is being won, rather than if the technology is in principle safe.
Expect to see government ministers and bosses of big business fluorescing neon green as they publicly eat GM foods to prove they are safe, just like John Selwyn Gummer force-feeding his small daughter BSE infected burgers, when the cows were mad, but politicians were still idiots.
You can also go to 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.
 |
 |
-
-
Search
-
Mail
-
About
Are you mad? Or perhaps delighted or just intrigued? Can you write? If you see something in the news or read about something which makes you want to share your opinions, you don't have to stay silent. Use the contact form and send in your contribution. We might publish it and, since it will be subject to a Creative Commons licence - see below - so might other people. You could be famous! The best bit is, we won't even pay you!
You can copy the content, subject to this Creative Commons licence:-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not cover quoted or otherwise used external sources, but does cover comments, so do not post if you do not want your comment to be used and seen on other sites. -
Admin
- Login
- Wordpress
- XHTML
-
Tag Cloud
-
inertia asda joomla beta video wordpress web 2.0 social software blogging slavery journalism interesting food corruption george bush information social breakdown human rights arts money gordon brown failure war fiasco uk corporatism delusions freedom stupidity lies britain america deception tony blair hypocrisy free graphics health satire government fairness environment ideas product scares climate change celebrity cms fame world xoops feeds tesco showbiz children music security
-