fm66 mh.qxd 11/11/08 10:38 page 1 fortified with l.casei … · food magazinefood magazinefortified...

Campaigning for safer, healthier food for allPublished by The Food Commission

The

Issue 66 u July/September 2004 u £4.95

Fortified with L.Casei RipUoffitass to help support your body’s natural defences

FOOD MAGAZINEFOOD MAGAZINEGovernmentsubsidisessnack promotion

Governmentsubsidisessnack promotion

Get the facts with the Food Magazine

T ax-payers are subsidising snack foodsto the tune of over £5 million per yearthrough a government scheme support-

ing British food factories and food exports.The money is paid to Food from Britain, an

organisation set up in 1983 under a special actof parliament. The act guarantees a subsidy ofaround £5 million every year, which is used torun training courses, host conferences andpromote market development for foodcompanies that are based in the UK.

As a recipient of public money, Food fromBritain’s work might be expected to tally withgovernment policy on diet and health. But arecent advertising campaign reveals that Foodfrom Britain is using its public subsidy topromote processed fatty and sugary foods andsoft drinks. A press release even boasts of theUK’s position as ‘kings of convenience’, with‘added-value’ products accounting for 64% offood exports.

As well as producersof mango chutney, jellybeans, chocolates andwhisky, Food fromBritain has assisted thecompany Dairy Crestto promote its fruitflavour Frijjmilkshakes thatcontain added sugarbut no fruit. AndWeetabix hasreceived support for itsAlpen Strawberry withYogurt cereal bars,which are 10% fat, havesugar as the secondingredient and containlittle more than 1% strawberryand 2.5% yogurt powder.

Food from Britain boasts in its annualreport that it has helped such productsbecome established in overseas markets. Onecase study shows that with Food fromBritain’s help, the Frijj milkshake is now listedin 500 retail outlets in Holland. Another casestudy shows that Britvic has received adviceand support from Food from Britain for anextensive marketing campaign in theNetherlands that included ‘public relations,online media communications, in-storedemonstrations, sampling and nationaltelevision advertising’. The campaignpromoted Robinson’s Fruit Shoots juice drinkswhich contain as little as 10% real fruit juice.

Such projects, funded from the publicpurse, show that not only is Food from Britainpaying little attention to the nation’s health, itis also helping to export unhealthy dietary

patterns to our overseas neighbours.

Children’s menusflunk nutritionstandardsLast summer, the Food Commission’sParents Jury expressed theirdissatisfaction with children’s menus onoffer in cafés, restaurants, shops andservice stations. They gave awards to outlets such as Garfunkels for its ‘NastyNosh’; Wacky Warehouse for its‘Hopeless Holiday Food’; and Allders foran ‘Unhealthy Shopping Break’.

Parents reported that it is verydifficult to find healthy food for childrenwhen they are out shopping or taking aday trip – the usual fare is chickennuggets with chips and beans.

Now a nutritional analysis ofchildren’s menus in cafés, restaurantsand visitor attractions has confirmedparents’ suspicions. Of 141 children’smeals analysed and compared to theCaroline Walker Trust’s NutritionalGuidelines for School Meals, not asingle meal managed to meet therecommended quality.

n For more details of this story, see page 8

Tax-payers areunknowingly helping to promote fruit-free,sweetened drinks and fatty snack bars.

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

Food Magazine 66 2 Jul / Sep 2004

The Food Magazine is publishedquarterly by The Food Commission, anational non-profit organisationcampaigning for the right to safe,wholesome food. We rely entirely on oursupporters, allowing us to be completelyindependent, taking no subsidy from thegovernment, the food industry oradvertising. We aim to provideindependently researched information onthe food we eat to ensure good qualityfood for all.

The Food Commission Research Charityaims to relieve ill health and advancepublic education through research,education and the promotion of betterquality food.

Director: Tim Lobstein Policy Officer: Kath DalmenyNutritionist and Campaigns Officer:

Annie SeeleyOffice & Subscriptions Manager:

Ian TokeloveAdministrative Officer: Graham HoodAssistant Research Officers:

Kate Millington, Marion O’Brien,Helen Sandwell, Mary Whiting,Marjon Willers

Cartoons: Ben Nash

Trustees and Advisors: Joanna Blythman, Dr Eric Brunner, PetaCottee, Prof Michael Crawford, Sue Dibb,Alan Gear, Vicki Hird, Dr Mike Joffe, RobinJenkins, Jane Landon, Prof Tim Lang,Iona Lidington, Dr Alan Long, JeanetteLongfield, Diane McCrae, Dr ErikMillstone, Dr Mike Nelson, Dr MikeRayner, Prof Aubrey Sheiham, Sue Todd,Colin Tudge, Hugh Warwick, Simon Wright.

n Issue 66 of the Food Magazine July /September 2004. ISSN 0953-5047. n Typesetting and design by Ian Tokeloveof the Food Commission. n Printed on recycled paper by RapSpiderweb, Oldham OL9 7LY.n Retail distribution (sale or return) byCentral Books, 99 Wallis Road, London E95LN. 0845 458 9911. n Unless otherwise indicated all itemsare copyright © The Food Commission(UK) Ltd 2004 and are not to bereproduced without written permission. nThe views expressed in this magazine arenot necessarily those of The FoodCommission.

The Food Commission (UK) Ltd94 White Lion Street

London N1 9PFTelephone: 020 7837 2250

Fax: 020 7837 1141 email: [email protected]: www.foodcomm.org.uk

www.parentsjury.org.uk

Adver tising Policy. The Food Magazine does not acceptcommercial advertising. Loose inserts are accepted subject toapproval – please contact Ian Tokelove at The Food Commission fordetails. Call 020 7837 2250 or email [email protected]

Schools: a bad report

Just as schools closed for the summer break, two reports werepublished that gave school meals services a definite thumbsdown. A study by school inspectors Ofsted and the Food

Standards Agency found that primary schools did well in teaching thetheory of healthy eating but let children down when it came tolunches and snacks sold by the school. In secondary schools, areport from the DfES found that nutritional advice is failing to alterchildren’s eating habits, while 20% of schools failed to meet nutritionalstandards and 10% failed to provide vegetables or fruit on most days.

These reports came days after the government promised to haltthe growth in child obesity by 2010 by ensuring that ‘every schoolshould be a healthy school’.

Indeed it should. But the philosophy sits uneasily next to anothergovernment initiative – the ‘Business in the Community’ policy whichencourages greater participation by business in local institutions,such as schools. This leads to such anti-health measures as softdrinks in vending machines being sold to pay for school equipment,crisps packets being collected to help buy school books, andMcDonald’s vouchers being given as rewards for school attendance.

We need more than vague targets set for a date that’s at least twogeneral elections away. We need real targets now: Actual sales offruit and vegetables in schools, actual removal of inducements topurchase unhealthy foods, and nutritional targets to be met by allschool caterers in terms of actual products sold, not just madeavailable to children. And we need a budget to back up the targets,so that schools no longer have to rely on selling unhealthy foods topay for good equipment. And we need a monitoring body that checksthese targets are being met, with powers to promote good practice tothe benefit of all children.

* * *The Food Commission was well-rewarded for itsefforts providing evidence to the ParliamentarySelect Committee on Health. The Committee’sreport on obesity, published at the end of May,quoted the Food Commission and our work tentimes and parts of the report looked like extractsfrom the Food Magazine!

The government must now make a formalresponse to the report, after which Parliament

decides what further measures it should take. Watch this space.

editorial contents

Badvertisements!This magazine takes no

commercial advertising butwe do like to expose food

companies’ deceptivedescriptions, silly statements

and loopy labels.

So watch out for our ANTI-ADVERTISEMENTS scattered

through this magazine!

News Government promotes snacks 1Additives problems – the proof 3Baby milk rules broken 3Ofcom prepares to act 4McDonalds evicted from ward 5Nestlé sells ‘fuel’ 5KFC and Kraft withdraw claims 5Bob the better builder? 6Guide for kids’ food 6

FarmingChickens – gone to fat 7

Eating outKids’ menus get low rating 8-9Poor meal deals 12-13

AdvertisingTrust me, I’m a doctor 10

SocietyPoverty and diet survey 11Do good adverts work? 18-19

Health and labellingWant to eat like a king? 14Traffic lights for Tesco 16-17

Inside storyCompanies in love with salt 15Cornflakes on the wards 15

ReviewsReviews of books and films 20

ScienceWhat the doctor reads 21

MarketplaceBooks, posters, subscriptions 22

FeedbackA dip into our mailbag 23

BackbitesOn the lighter side… 24

Can the Food Commission help you?l Are you planning research that deals with food or nutrition?l Do you have a campaign that needs expert input on food and

health matters?l Do you need nutritional survey work to be undertaken?l Do you need editorial support for a publication dealing with food,

health and nutrition issues?

Contact Kath, Annie or Ian on 020 7837 2250 for more information oremail: [email protected]

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

news

Food Magazine 65 3 Jul/Sep 2004

Additives rot teethThe tooth-rotting properties of soft drinks maybe caused by additives, according to a studyfrom the American Academy of GeneralDentistry.

Researchers exposed tooth samples todrinks such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, DrPepper, Sprite, Canada Dry ginger ale, cannedice tea, black coffee and black tea, with tapwater as a control. The study recorded loss ofenamel when the teeth were soaked in thesedrinks over a period of 14 days.

Tap water, root beer, black tea and blackcoffee all showed minimal effects on enamelerosion, unlike the soft drinks. Diet and regularnon-cola drinks and canned iced tea erodedenamel at a rate 30 times greater than blacktea or black coffee.

The researchers suggested that flavouringadditives ‘such as malic, tartaric and otherorganic acids, which are more aggressive ateroding teeth’ could contribute to theadditional tooth-rotting effect.

n Dissolution of dental enamel in soft drinks,General Dentistry, published by the Academyof General Dentistry, July/August 2004

Drinks link to obesityNew evidence also links soft drink consumptionto obesity in children. Researchers workingwith 644 children in six primary schools inDorset gave half of the children extra adviceon cutting back on soft drinks. By the end of the year-long study, overweightand obesity had increased by just 0.2 per centin the group that received the advice. In thegroup that did not receive the advice,overweight and obesity had risen by nearly 8per cent.

n Preventing childhood obesity by reducingconsumption of carbonated drinks, publishedin the BMJ, 23 April 2004

New child obesity figuresThe UK government has released new data onchild health, showing nearly 27% of children tobe overweight or obese, as measured byinternationally-defined criteria.

Based on the latest figures, calculations bythe International Obesity TaskForce show that,of the 9.9m school children (age 5-17) in theUK, some 2.5m of children are overweight,including 0.6m obese. Looking at the trendsfrom 1994 to 2002, the numbers are rising everyyear by an additional 178,000 overweightchildren, including 43,000 obese children.

n See www.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/doh/survey02/hcyp/hcyp31.htm

Research showing that food additives cancause toddlers to have temper tantrums hasfinally been vindicated, over a year after itwas brought to light by a Food Magazineinvestigation.

In October 2002 we reported on agovernment-funded study of the effects ofadditives, conducted by the UK’s Asthma &Allergy Research Centre and the University ofSouthampton, involving 277 three-year-oldsfrom the Isle of Wight.

When the toddlers consumed additive-laced drinks, parents reported behaviour suchas ‘interrupting’, ‘fiddling with objects’,‘disturbing others’, ‘difficulty settling down tosleep’, ‘loss of concentration’ and ‘tempertantrums’. The researchers concluded that,"Significant changes in children’s hyperactivebehaviour could be produced by the removalof colourings and additives from their diet."

Southampton University paediatricianProfessor John Warner said, "You could halvethe number of kids suffering the worst behav-ioural problems by cutting out additives. Itwould be good if people could accept thatsweets and foods do not need to be brightlycoloured to be attractive and taste nice."

The study was commissioned by theMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodand inherited by the then newly-establishedFood Standards Agency. At the FSA, it had lainunpublished on a library shelf. When the FoodMagazine revealed the striking findings of thestudy, the FSA fended off criticism by sayingthat they could not consider the research untilit had been published in a scientific journal.

Over a year later, the study has appeared inthe Archives of Disease in Childhood, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The additives implicated in the study arechemicals widely used in children’s foodproducts – the colourings Tartrazine E102,Sunset Yellow E110, Carmoisine E122 andPonceau 4R E124; and the preservativeSodium Benzoate E211. The colourings arefrom the ‘azo dye’ group of chemicals derivedfrom fabric dyes and have long beensuspected of triggering behavioural problemsin children. The preservative is widely used insoft drinks consumed by children.

The Food Commission will be writing to theFood Standards Agency requesting it toreview its laissez-faire attitude to foodadditives, and to urge manufacturers toremove these non-essential chemicals fromchildren’s food.

Additives researchfindings vindicated

The latest report from baby milk campaignersat the International Baby Food ActionNetwork (IBFAN) highlights the companiesthat continue to break the formula milkmarketing codes across the world, includingin the UK.

Despite assurances from formulamanufacturers that they abide by the rules,IBFAN shows that Wyeth (SMA), Farleys andNumico (Milupa and Cow & Gate) have allbeen promoting their products using code-busting techniques, while retailers –including ASDA, Sainsbury’s and Boots –have been supporting the baby-foodcompanies with rule-breaking promotionswithin the shops.

Wyeth has been prosecuted for its‘cynical and deliberate breach of theregulations’. The company distributespamphlets to mothers in clinics promoting aWyeth helpline. This is despite the fact thatthe marketing code explicitly outlaws thepractice of seeking direct contact withpregnant women and mothers.

However, prosecutions continue to berare. IBFAN’s report shows that othercompanies have flouted the rules withapparent immunity.

Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules,available from the IBFAN website[www.ibfan.org/english/pdfs/btr04.pdf].

UK companies ignore formula marketing codes

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

news

Calls for controls on advertising aimed atchildren have been deflected by theDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS) onto the newly-formed advertisingregulator Ofcom, which has been asked toexamine whether a strengthening of theexisting advertising codes should beconsidered.

In July 2002, DCMS Secretary of StateTessa Jowell told MP Debra Shipley that ‘Theestablishment of Ofcom … will require awholesale review of the Codes governingadvertising standards and practice.’ LastDecember Jowell formalised this with a letterto Ofcom asking for a review of currentcodes.

The omens looked bad when the issue wascompletely excluded from Ofcom’s AnnualPlan for April 2004-March 2005, publishedearlier this year. Things also appeared badwhen a spokesperson said that the issue hadbeen handed to an academic, Professor SoniaLivingstone, to look into. Was this anotherdelaying tactic? Was she going to be a ‘safepair of hands’ hired to come back with theright answers?

In 2001 Sonia Livingstone reviewed thedangers to children of online internet surfingand concluded that three measures wereneeded: more parental awareness andinvolvement in the issue; more joined upthinking between government, schools andhome; and awards to children for SurfingProficiency to show their internet literacy.

If Sonia Livingstone applies such ideas toTV advertising it would play directly intoindustry hands (blame the parents, stall, andlet children vet their own TV).

Let us hope they come up with somethingbetter. Ofcom’s consumer panel may want toplay a role here – but again the omens arebad (see box below). Ofcom has promisedthat a draft document for consultation will beout before the summer break – i.e. by the timeyou read this Food Magazine. We will reporton developments in future issues.

n Ofcom is currently consulting on itsstrategy and priorities for the promotion ofmedia literacy. See details on the Ofcomwebsite: www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/current/strategymedialit/

Waiting for Ofcom

Under Section 16 of the CommunicationsAct 2003, Ofcom is required to consult withconsumers, and it has duly set up aConsumer Panel. This is charged withfurthering consumer interests.

But just who do they mean byconsumers? Judging by the constitution ofthe Panel, the word ‘consumer’ means thesections of the industry that buy and sellcommunications – hardware, software,services, facilities, content and advertising.Ordinary folk hardly get a look-in.

The Consumer Panel

Azeem Azhar is a journalist and manager ofseveral internet companies withexperience running technical andcommunications companies.

Nainish Bapna is the head of a satellite TVchannel (Pharmacy Channel) and waspreviously a director at technologycompany NCorp.

Colette Bowe (Panel Chair) is a fundmanagement executive, sits on theboard of several finance houses, and isDeputy Chair of Thames Water.

Fiona Ballantyne is director of a marketingagency and a member of the ScottishCommittee of the Institute of Directors.

Roger Darlington is part-time strategy adviserto the Communication Workers Union.

Ruth Evans, the nearest to a real consumerrepresentative, is ex-Director of theNational Consumer Council, agovernment-funded independentagency.

Simon Gibson is Chief Executive oftechnology and hotels group WesleyClover. He founded and ran a softwarecompany and was Vice President ofMarketing and Communications attechnology group Newbridge Networks.

Graham Mather is a solicitor and one-timeTory MEP. He has been the head of theInstitute of Economic Affairs and head ofthe Policy Unit of the Institute ofDirectors.

Kevin McLaughlin works with theMagherafelt Disability Forum and is aCommissioner on the Northern IrelandHuman Rights Commission.

Kate O’Rourke is a solicitor specialising inintellectual property law and was amember of the Radio Authority (theformer regulator of radio advertising)until December 2003.

Bob Twitchin is a consultant telecom-munications scientist, after two decadeswith BT.

Campaigners call for supportfor the Children’s Food Bill

Sustain: The alliance for better food and farminghas recently launched its Children's Food Billcampaign in Parliament. The Bill challengesgovernment to introduce regulations which willhave a positive effect on children's diets,including measures to improve food quality, thecomposition of school meals, food education andcookery skills.

If the bill becomes law, it will also require theFood Standards Agency to specify criteria forunhealthy and healthy food, taking into accountnutritional content and the presence of additivesand contaminants. Using these definitions,companies would be prohibited from marketingunhealthy food to children.The Bill covers TVadvertising as well as other forms of marketing,such as school vending machines. Thegovernment will be required to publish an annualplan to promote healthy foods to children.

The Food Commission was pleased to beinvited to speak at the launch of the Children’sFood Bill, alongside Debra Shipley, the MP who ischampioning the Bill and who has also supportedthe Parents Jury. The Food Commission is one ofthe 116 campaign supporters, which include theBritish Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, theAssociation for the Study of Obesity and theWorld Cancer Research Fund.

A statement of support for the Children’s FoodBill has been published in Parliament, known as‘Early Day Motion 1256’. To date, 159 MPs havesigned up but more signatures are needed. Tofind out how you can help visit:www.childrensfoodbill.org.uk or call CharliePowell on 020 7837 1228.

US breastmilk adverts withdrawnAn advertising campaign sponsored by the USgovernment to promote breast feeding has beenshelved following complaints by infant formulacompanies.

Commercials showed pregnant womenundertaking dangerous and violent sports, with amessage: ‘You wouldn’t risk your baby’s healthbefore it’s born. Why start after?’ and finish witha list of diseases more common among bottlefedbabies. The ads were scheduled for release atthe beginning of this year but have been shelvedindefinitely after infant formula companiescomplained that the ads were inaccurate and toonegative in tone.

But as a member of the American Academy ofPediatrics board on breasfeeding said, ‘Whenyou say "not breastfeeding is risky" you aresaying that "using infant formula is risky," and thatis true and they know it.’

n See pages 18 & 19 for a commentary on socialmarketing campaigns.

Ofcom’s consumer reps


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

news

Kraft reneges on portionpromises...Kraft Foods gained a healthy dose of positivepublicity last summer when it launched ananti-obesity initiative and pledged to changeproduct recipes, reduce portions in single-serve packages, quit marketing its snacks viagive-aways at school, and encouragehealthier lifestyles.

However, Kraft gave much less publicitythis June to its abandonment of its plans toreduce portion sizes, citing research ‘thatshows shoppers prefer to have the choice ofwhether to go with smaller packages’. A Kraftspokeswoman said ‘Different people havedifferent body sizes and activity levels, and itmade more sense to provide different portionchoices’. The company also said it hadchanged the formulation of about 5% of itsproducts, which it said was ‘just a beginning’.

... but bows to salt pressureIt has taken two years, but Kraft Foods havefinally succumbed to the pressure firstgenerated by The Food Commission’s ParentsJury and will be reducing the salt content of itsDairylea Lunchables by 40% in October.

Kraft has also committed to an average saltreduction of 33% across the entire Dairylearange.

It remains to be seen whether Kraft willalso cut back on the saturated fats and thecocktail of additives contained in DairyleaLunchables, which also prompted the ParentsJury to give Kraft the 2002 Not In My Lunchboxaward for being the worst food targeted atchildren’s lunchboxes.

Complaints from parents have forced ahospital to ban McDonald’s staff from visitinga children’s ward and handing out vouchersfor burgers and fries.

The fast food chain had previously beenencouraged by the managers of Norfolk andNorwich University Hospital to make weeklyvisits to give out food coupons, balloons, toysand advertising leaflets. A hospitalspokesperson said the managers felt the visits‘made life for those sick children stuck inhospital a little more bearable’ and that thepractice ‘provided sufficient calories neededto aid recovery’. It was up to parents whether

they accepted the food coupons after theywere handed out, he said.

The hospital said it was now stopping thepractice after complaints from the relatives ofsick children. One grandmother said ‘Junkfood is one of the main sources of obesityamong children and to have it promoted in achildren’s ward is dreadful.’

A dietitian added: ‘Any messageassociating fast food with health and recoveryis not helpful’.

The Department of Health said it had noplans to ban the practice.

KFC backs down on chickenhealth claims

The fried chicken restaurant KFC has beenforced by the US government’s Federal TradeCommission to admit that its products are nothealthy.

The Washington-based Center for Sciencein the Public Interest, a sister organisation tothe Food Commission, complained about twoKFC advertisements. The first stated thatchicken could benefit dieters due to its low-carbohydrate, high-protein content. Thesecond promoted KFC as a suitable choice forthose seeking to eat healthily.

The Federal Trade Commission forced themultinational company Yum! Brands, whichowns the KFC chain (as well as Pizza Hut andTaco Bell), to agreed that it would not makeany more misleading claims about its chickenproducts.

KFC settled out of court, for an undisclosedsum.

n Source: USA Today

Parents kick McDonald’s out of thechildren’s ward

Food manufacturers are well aware thatthere’s money to be made in our nationalinstitutions, where ‘choice’ is the currentbuzzword. Using hospitals and schools asoutlets, they offer a choice of brands, butrarely a choice of eating healthily.

In a recent Times Educational Supplement,a Nestlé full-page ad described how thecompany is ‘helping education caterersencourage pupils to have a balanced lifestyle’– through the provision in schools of‘Refuel:Pods’ otherwise known as vendingmachines. The Pod’s message is‘Energy in – energy out’, afavourite mantra of the foodindustry to defend theirswamping of the market withhigh-energy snacks.

Joe Walsh, Nestlé’smarketing director of foodservices claims, ‘Refuel:Podcan play an important role,explaining the importance of abalanced diet.’ But the list ofproducts to be available in thePod doesn’t make for healthyreading. Every single savouryproduct is high in salt (greatfor inducing thirst andbringing kids back to the Podto spend more money on adrink) including over 6% saltin their Oriental BarbecueSpudz.

Other products availablein the Pods are high insugar, with many productsalso being high in fat,

including Aero chunky, Nestlé Double Cream,Polos, Kit Kat Chunky and Toffee Crisp. Eventheir breakfast bars are high in added sugar.

Of the 46 listed products to be available inthe Pods, no more than seven could bedeemed to be relatively healthy (dried fruits,fruit juices and sugar-free Polos). Nestlé claimto offer, ‘products with varying energy contentto suit the needs of different children’, butfaced with a vending machine full of crispsand sweets, are kids really going to seek outthe handful of healthier snacks on offer?

Nestlé gives children little choicein fuel


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

news


Agencies that license cartoon characters toappear on children’s food have agreed thereis a need for government guidelines on foodssuitable for promotion to children.

In June, the Food Commission convened ameeting of organisations such as HITEntertainment (which owns the rights to Bobthe Builder), Warner Brothers (Harry Potter),Granada Media (Thunderbirds), EntertainmentRights (Barbie), 20th Century Fox (The Simpsons)and The Licensing Company (Star Wars).

Delegates heard a presentation from BBCWorldwide, the commercial wing of the BBC,which sells the rights for BBC characters suchas the Teletubbies and Tweenies to appear onchildren’s food, toys and other products. InMarch 2004, BBC Worldwide announced anutrition policy which prevents its children’scharacters appearing on fast food andeveryday confectionery. BBC Worldwide isalso committed to promoting food thatcomplies with government guidelines forlevels of fat, salt and sugar appropriate to thetarget age group (i.e. toddlers).

The meeting also featured a presentationfrom the government’s Food StandardsAgency (FSA), outlining its concerns about thepromotion of food to children and the effectson children’s diets. The FSA has welcomedBBC Worldwide’s nutrition policy, with FSAboard members calling on all licensors ofchildren’s characters to adopt a similarprogressive approach.

The outcome of the meeting was extremelypositive. Character-licensing organisationswere sympathetic to moves to improvechildren’s food, and many said that theyalready felt cautious about their charactersappearing on certain categories of products.

However, most said that they now neededa clear lead from government. Some said thatthey lacked experience in judging the qualityof food products or claims made by foodcompanies, so would welcome nutritionalguidance from an independent body such asthe FSA – especially guidance on appropriatefat, salt and sugar levels for foods aimed atdifferent ages of children.

The FoodCommission isdelighted to havehad this opportunityto meet withorganisations whosecharacters are so influential in developingchildren’s tastes and eating habits, asmembers of the Parents Jury have so oftenhighlighted. We look forward to seeing morenutrition policies, which should also help toinfluence food manufacturers to improve thenutritional content of their children’s foods.

Stop press: BBC Worldwide has just signed amultimillion-pound marketing deal withKellogg’s to publicise the broadcaster’s DVDssuch as Jonathan Creek and The Office on11m packets of cornflakes. The dealoverlooks the fact that Kellogg’s Cornflakesare a high salt product, containing five timesthe amount of salt that one would find in anofficially ‘low-salt’ product.

Kids’ character agencieswant guidance on quality

Food companies seeking guidance onmaximum levels of fats and sugars acceptablein children’s diets will find few officialrecommendations. We summarise below aproposed set of Food Commission guidelinesconsistent with healthy eatingrecommendations, which could be used as aguide for good manufacturing practice.

An average meal should avoid going aboveabout one third of these amounts, and a singleportion of a food item should be well below athird of these amounts.

These recommendations assume that:l children aged over five years should

conform to adult healthy eating guidelines;l children aged one to three years should eat

a diet that is based on a transition from thecomposition of breast milk (50% caloriesfrom fat, of which half is from saturated fat,and 35% calories from lactose) to thehealthy eating recommendations (35%calories from fat, 11% calories fromsaturates, 11% calories from non-lactosesugars) estimated at 45% calories from fat,20% calories from saturated fat and 15%calories from sugars;

l infants below 12 months should have a dietmatching the composition of breastmilk.

The recommendations also take into accountthe target intake levels for salt issued recentlyby the Food Standards Agency, and the

recommended nutrient guidelines for Scottishschool meals (see: www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/niss-02.asp).

Fat, salt and sugar levels for children

Recommended daily consumption of fat, sugar and salt for childrenDaily maximum amounts

Fat (g) Saturated Sugar (g) Salt fat (g) (or as sodium) (g)

Adult man 99 31 75 7 (2.8)

Adult woman 75 24 57 5 (2.0)

Boys 15-18 yrs 107 34 81 7 (2.8)

Girls 15-18 yrs 82 26 62 5 (2.0)

Boys 11-14 yrs 86 27 65 6 (2.4)

Girls 11-14 yrs 72 23 54 6 (2.4)

Boys 7-10 yrs 78 24 58 5 (2.0)

Girls 7-10 yrs 70 21 51 5 (2.0)

Children 4-6 yrs 67 21 50 3 (1.2)

Children 1-3 yrs 62 19 50 2 (0.8)

Infants 6-12 mths 50 19 88 as lactose 1 (0.4)

Infants under 6 months – breastmilk recommended

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

As part of a series examiningthe impact of modern farmingwe look at chickens – andfind they have becomefattier, have lost valuablenutrients and are no longerthe supposed healthyalternative to red meat.

W hen the Royal College ofPhysicians published their reporton diet and heart disease in 1976

they made several recommendations. One ofthe most practical ones was to encouragepeople to eat less red meat – deemed to behigh in saturated fats – and to substitutechicken meat instead. Chicken, theysuggested, had less fat and less saturated fat,and was a better alternative.

A government advisory panel report in1984, the COMA report on diet andcardiovascular disease, gave much the sameadvice, telling readers that ‘meat and meatproducts are foods for which alternative formswith lower contents of saturated fatty acidsand fat are becoming more widely available…[such as] non-fatty fish (relative content of

saturated fatty acids about5%) or poultry e.g. chicken(relative saturated fatty acidsabout 30%)’.

And as a nation we have taken theadvice, at least in respect of chicken ifnot of fish. Household purchases ofchicken in the UK has nearly doubledin the period 1970-2000, while pork, lamb andbeef purchases have tumbled. Taking fastfood and other catering supplies into account,poultry meat supplies more than doubled from10.5 kg per person in 1970 to 28.3 kg perperson in 2000.

But has this been of any benefit? Is thischicken really so good?

To meet the rising demand, suppliers inEurope, Brazil and Thailand have increasinglyintensified production techniques – producingbroiler chickens in shorter time periods, inmore cramped conditions, using feedstuffsenriched with antibiotics and othercompounds to promote rapid growth. Theaverage broiler chicken now reachesslaughter weight in just six weeks, twice asfast as thirty years ago.

The result has been a startling change inthe nutritional profile of chicken meat. Once

viewed as a valuablesource of protein inthe diet, chicken isnow a rich source offat rather thanprotein, and thelevels of fat haverisen so much thateating a small portion(100g) of roastchicken today willgive you over 100more kilocaloriesthan you would haveobtained 30 yearsago. As a percentageof the carcass, fathas risen from under2% to over 22% – a1000% increase!

The quality of thefat in the chicken hasalso deteriorated.

The long-chain omega 3 fatty acid,docosahexaenoic acid, has declined whileomega 6 fatty acids, especially linoleic acid,have increased – largely because a free-roaming chicken’s diet of insects, seeds andplants has been replaced by commercialcereal and soya-based feeds.

Furthermore, the quality of the leg musclemeat has declined dramatically, with the dark,mitochondrial-rich meat being replaced bymeat more akin to the mitochondrial-poormeat found on the breast and wings. Thequality of leg muscle meat reflects the use ofthe chicken’s legs in active use: in its naturalconditions a chicken spends most of the daywalking and scratching at the ground. Themodern chicken can barely move, with itsheavy weight and under-developed bones.

The changes in the quality of chicken meathave transformed its nutritional value. Theheart-health benefits of eating chicken wereonce clear – with low levels of fat and plenty ofomega 3 fatty acids, valuable antioxidants andtrace minerals it was a clear winner.

But now? Sadly, like the tale of the goosethat laid golden eggs, mass production ofchickens has destroyed the very thing thatgave them their special value.

n Article based on data from YQ Wang, MCrawford et al, London MetropolitanUniversity [[email protected]]. Householdpurchase trends are available athttp://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/nfs/datasets/allfood.xls, and food supply datacan be found at http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/statistics_en.asp

farming


Chicken – goneto fat

Fat and protein in chickens 1896-2004Fat g/100g Protein Kcal of which Kcal

g/100g /100g from fat

1896 1.8 22.8 107 16

1940 10.3 26.2 198 93

1970 8.6 24.3 175 77

1991 17.7 17.6 230 159

2002 16.9 20.9 236 152

2004 22.8 16.5 271 205

Fatty acids in chicken meat 1980 and 2004Total fat Docosahexaenoic Linoleic acid

acid (Omega 3) (Omega 6)

1980 17.5 g/100g 180 mg/100g 2,400 mg/100g

2004 22.8 g/100g 25 mg/100g 6,290 mg/100g

In future issues: the farmed fish that havelost their PUFAs and the vegetables that area shadow of their former selves.

If we could just find the doorwe could go for a walk.

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

eating out

A meal outside the home was onceconsidered an occasional treat.However as a nation we are now

eating out more than ever. The calories andnutrients in these meals are likely to make asignificant contribution to children’s diets, andso it is all the more important that caterersensure their children’s meals are healthyones. But are they healthy? A new survey onchildren’s menus reveals a clear NO!

The survey was partly inspired by theParents Jury Children’s Menu Awards in 2003(see Food Magazine 62). In a follow-up study,Rachael Foulds, a post-graduate nutritionstudent at London Metropolitan University,questioned restaurant and café staffregarding portion sizes and the cookingmethods of a range of children’s meals, andcalculated the nutritional quality of eachportion served. Rachael’s work was initiatedand supervised by Dr Ruth Ash atMetropolitan University.

Soft drinks and puddings were excludedfrom the analysis unless they were included inthe meal price.

In all, 141 children’s meals were analysedand compared to the Caroline Walker Trust’s(CWT) Nutritional Guidelines for SchoolMeals.* Every single meal failed in one way oranother to meet these guidelines.

The survey found a woeful lack of fruit andvegetables in the menus. Only twoestablishments offered a selection of freshvegetables. Those that included pudding inthe meal package offered no fruit.

Calories and fatCalories: 57% of the meals exceeded the CWTguidelines for calories for 5-6 year olds and37% for 7-10 year olds. Comparing thedifferent outlets (see box, right), all children’smeals analysed in Harvester, AdventureKingdom and Ikea were too high in calories.

The Rib Ticklers Meal in Harvester providedthe most calories. At 1,270 kcals it was 2.6and 2.3 times the maximum recommendedenergy content for 5-6 year olds and 7-10 yearolds respectively.

Fat: 81% of the meals exceeded the guidelinesfor fat. All children’s meals in Natural HistoryMuseum, Adventure Kingdom, Tesco, Ikea,Fairlop Waters and Redbridge Sports Centreexceeded the total fat guidelines. Harvester’sRib Tickler meal again tipped the scales, with4 times the maximum recommended level.

Saturated fat: 54% of the meals exceeded thesaturated fat guidelines for 5-6 year olds,while 50% exceeded them for 7-10 year olds.All children’s meals in the Science Museumcontained too much saturated fat. 80% ofmeals from family run restaurants and caféshad levels of saturated fat that exceeded therecommended intake for both age groups.The highest level of saturated fat was found ina chicken nuggets meal from Garfunkels. Thismeal would provide a 5 year old with 5 timesand a 7 year old with 4.5 times theirrecommended saturated fat intake for onemeal.

Carbohydrates and fibre

Complex carbohydrates: The majority of themeals failed to meet the guidelinerecommended minimum amount of complexcarbohydrates. None of the children’s mealsin Tesco, John Lewis, Ikea, London Zoo,Natural History Museum, as well as otheroutlets, contained the minimum guidelineamount of carbohydrates.

Dietary fibre: Almost two thirds (65%) of themeals failed to meet the minimumrecommended fibre content for 7-10 year olds.Almost half (48%) failed to meet the minimumrecommended fibre content for 5-6 year olds.

All children’s meals provided by the ScienceMuseum, Adventure Kingdom and FairlopWaters were too low in fibre.

Micronutrients

A number of the meals analysed provided fewessential vitamins and minerals such as:folate, vitamin A and vitamin C.

Iron: 60% of the meals were too low in ironfor 5-6 year olds and 82% were too low in ironfor 7-10 year olds. None of the children’smeals provided by Ikea and Fairlop Waterscontained enough iron.

Calcium: 70% and 79% of children’s mealsfailed to meet the minimum guideline calcium

Restaurants, cafés and outletsincluded in the survey:

Family establishments: Garfunkel’s,Beefeater, Harvester Visitor attractions: London Zoo, NaturalHistory Museum, Science MuseumSoft play: Adventure Kingdom, Play Town,Wacky WarehouseRetail outlets: John Lewis, Tesco, IkeaLeisure Centres: David Lloyd, FairlopWaters, Redbridge Sports Centre.

Soft drinks and puddings were excludedfrom the analysis unless they were includedin the meal price. The two establishmentswhere they were included (Garfunkels andScience Museum) exceeded maximumrecommended levels for added sugar in halfof their meals.


A new report on children’smeals served in restaurants,cafés and leisure centreshas uncovered a nutritionalnightmare. Annie Seeleyreports.

Children’s menus flunk nutritionstandards

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

eating out

levels for 5-6 year olds and 7-10 yearolds respectively. All children’s mealsin John Lewis, London Zoo, Fairlopwaters, Ikea, and Redbridge SportsCentre failed to meet the minimumguideline levels for calcium.

Vitamin A: 67% of the children’s weretoo low in Vitamin A. None of thechildren’s mealsprovided by Adventure Kingdom, Tesco,Ikea, David Lloyd and Fairlop Waters metthe Caroline Walker Trust nutritionalguidelines.

Folate: 37% and 66% of meals failed to meetthe minimum guideline levels for 5-6 year oldsand 7-10 year olds, respectively.

Vitamin C: 45% of the meals did not meet theguideline level for Vitamin C.

Zinc: 78% of the meals analysed did not meetthe zinc guidelines. All children’s mealsprovided by retail outlets and visitorattractions failed to meet the guidelinerecommendations for both age groups.

Sodium: Assuming that salt was not addedduring cooking or at the table, 37% of mealsexceeded the guideline set for sodium in the5-6 year age group and 8% for the 7-10 yearolds. The highest levels of sodium were foundin Beefeater, Harvester and WackyWarehouse meals.

From the 141 menus analysed it wasimpossible in many cases to make a healthychoice. Indeed some outlets, such as WackyWarehouse described a chicken nugget mealas ‘healthy’ despite exceeding recommendedlevels for fat and saturated fat.

Missing choices

These findings clearly show an urgent need toimprove the nutritional quality of children’smenus across the UK. This research has beensubmitted to the FSA in response to theirChildren’s Food Promotion consultation and tothe Department of Health for their ChoosingHealth consultation. The FSA is working on anutrition criteria for all foods promoted to

children (due to be published in March 2005).In the meantime such outlets would do well toreduce the fat, sugar and salt content andincrease the fruit, vegetable and complexcarbohydrate content of their children’smeals.

* The Caroline Walker Trust Guidelines forschool meals state that the meal shouldprovide not more than a third of a child’srecommended intake of calories, fat,saturated fat, carbohydrates or added sugar.The meal should provide not less than 30% ofa child’s recommended daily intake of protein,fibre and Vitamin A. Not less than 35% of

Yummy! Toxic waste!It’s rare, but some products are remarkably honest about theiringredients. These sweets are called Toxic Waste and advise children thatthe longer they suck on the sweets the more toxic their tongue willbecome. One minute will give you ‘Full Toxie Head!’, portrayed by acartoon mushroom cloud exploding.

After dismantling the packaging, which partially obscured the ingredientslist, we found that the sweets are coloured with Yellow 5, Yellow 6 andBlue 1, the American names for Tartrazine (E102); Sunset Yellow (E110)and Brilliant Blue (E133) – allartificial azo dyes, developedfor fabric dyes, and derivedfrom coal tar.

The Hyperactive Children'sSupport Group recommendsthat parents exclude these additivesfrom the diets of hyperactive children.

A final note on the label seems especiallyappropriate: ‘Warning: Choking Hazard’.

Badvertisement


Garfunkel’s won a NastyNosh Award from the ParentsJury a year ago for itschildren’s menus. Garfunkelswas criticised by parents foroffering ‘The usual kids’ menu– heavily processed… withlittle nutritional value.’ Therewere no fruit or vegetables(only baked beans on thebreakfast menu) and most of thefoods provided a ‘mainly friedand unimaginative choice’.

us flunk nutrition

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

advertising

C laiming that food products can reducethe risk of disease or positivelycontribute to health is a risky area for

advertisers. Unsubstantiated claims can resultin censure from trading standards officials,adverse media coverage and, perhaps mostdamaging of all, increased scepticism amongtheir customers.

What better way to convince us of thevalidity of health claims than to use anindependent and trusted organisation orindividual to give their endorsement to theproduct?

Two extraordinary publications, destined forcirculation to millions of people in the UK usethis technique to exploit the trustworthiness oftwo of the most well-known health advocatesin the UK – GMTV’s Dr. Hilary Jones and theNational Health Service.

The publications interweave health adviceand advertising, usually for pharmaceuticalsand food products. Some of this marketing is inthe form of ‘advertorial’ - features designed tolook like an independent and unbiasedassessment of a product, yet written byindustry representatives aiming to portray theproduct in the best possible light.

nhs Family Choice is a newdirectory of medical treatmentproviders, due to be published thissummer and distributed by the NHSvia doctors’ surgeries, midwivesand community nurses to over 2million families. It will be publishedin response to Health SecretaryJohn Reid’s call for patients to have morechoice in their medical care.

Despite its name, the magazine is notpublished by the NHS and is a commercialventure that mingles information provision withadvertising and advertorial.

A marketing brochure circulated bymanufacturer Hall & Woodhouse, makers ofPanda Pops, reveals the type of advertisingmaterial nhs Family Choice will contain. Theadvertorial portrays Panda Pops as low insugar and low in additives, and therefore ahealthier choice for children. Some PandaPops products are indeed low in sugar, butothers are not – and some contain the veryadditives identified by a recent governmentstudy as triggering behavioural problems intoddlers, including sodium benzoate and thered food colouring carmoisine (see page 3).

Hall & Woodhouse goes further, implyingthat ‘senior NHS staff’ approved the advertorial.This is especially worrying since the advertorialcontains a table showing Panda Pops as ahealthier choice than fruit juice. At a time whenan NHS priority is to promote the consumptionof fruit and vegetables through the five-a-dayprogramme, this is a highly unlikely messagefor the NHS to endorse.

When we spoke to the publisher of nhsFamily Choice, Cyworks plc, they admitted thatthe NHS is not involved with the publication ofthe magazine, and gave the following feebledefence: that the 2 million families to whom thispublication will be circulated would not thinkthat the health messages came from the realNHS because the real NHS logo uses upper-case letters.

The Food Commission has duly submitted acomplaint to the Advertising StandardsAuthority against both Hall & Woodhouse andthe publishers of nhs Family Choice.

Family Healthcare magazine ‘with Dr. HilaryJones’ is another magazine that demonstrates

how a trustedhealthadvocate canbe used toconvincereaders of thebenefits ofproducts. FamilyHealthcare is

distributed through high-street newsagents and bookshops, costing£3.50. Over one third of the magazine (117 of the290 pages) is advertising, with several featuresthat also appear to be advertising material,although they are not declared as such.

In the introduction, Dr. Hilary Jones statesthat ‘the prognosis for the NHS is bleak andconsequently it will become ever more vital forus all to take more responsibility for our ownhealth. Ultimately, each one of us will in a wayneed to become amateur doctors in our ownright.’ The perfect cue for features andadvertising encouraging self-diagnosis andself-medication by means of pharmaceuticals,herbal remedies, vitamin pills and functionalfoods. At least 25 advertising pages aredevoted to self-medication by means of foodproducts, including: Warburton’s bread withadded omega 3 fat to ‘aid brain development inunborn children’; Scottish Salmon to help with‘reducing the chances of developing coronaryheart disease’; Columbus Eggs, to ‘keep jointssupple and prevent injury’; Müller Probioticyogurt ‘helping to balance your entire digestivesystem’; and the Tea Council stating thatconsuming tea ‘may have a role in protectingagainst certain diseases such as cancer,stroke and heart disease’.

One particular feature caught our eye:‘Smiles to be proud of’, written by Dr. SamanthaStear and investigating dental health. Thearticle contains many familiar industrydefences for sugar consumption, and focuseson personal responsibility in dental care ratherthan dietary changes to combat dental decay.Who would advocate such an approach? Oursuspicions were triggered by an advert for theindustry’s Sugar Bureau, conveniently placedin the midst of the article, promoting the healthbenefits of sugar. So who is this author? Who isthe seemingly independent Dr. SamanthaStear? None other than Science Director forthe Sugar Bureau. A fact that the article fails tomention.

Apparent endorsement by healthadvocates such as Dr Hilary Jonesand the NHS are being used topersuade the public to believe thehealth claims made byadvertisers, writes Kath Dalmeny.

Not the real NHS, but pretending to be – and 2 millioncopies will be given out in GP surgeries and by midwives.

Trust me, I’m a doctor


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

Food Commission researchershave found that almost halfof all parents (46%) on alow income have gonewithout food so that anotherfamily member can eat.Annie Seeley reports

R esearch by the Food Commission forthe children’s charity NCH: Action forChildren has revealed high levels of

food poverty among families living on lowincomes.

The study follows on from a similar surveypublished in 1991, and shows that over theintervening twelve years the diets of childrenand parents have not shown substantialimprovements – and in some ways haveworsened.

Fruit, veg and meatComparing 1991 to 2003, low income familiesare eating less fruit and vegetables, and thechildren are eating more processed meats:l The number of children eating fruit, greenvegetables or salad on most days decreasedfrom 76% in 1991 to 69% in 2003;l The number of parents eating fruit, greenvegetables or salad on most days decreasedfrom 68% to 63%;l Since 1991 the number of children eatingprocessed meat four or more times a weekhas increased from 42% to 54%.

The 2003 survey also found that 28% ofchildren and 25% of parents never eat greenvegetables or salad. This is in stark contrastto the 90% of children who eat sweets andchocolate most days, including the 20% whoeat them every day.

Marketing pressureIt is no secret that food advertisers targetchildren with persuasive marketing ofunhealthy foods. 80% of the parentsquestioned said their children pestered themfor certain foods promoted through televisionadvertising, packaging and free toys. 80% ofthe products that children asked for werehigh in fat, saturated fat, sugar and or/salt.

Money and debtFor families on low incomes, food is the mostflexible part of their budget. When cash isscarce and bills need paying, many familiescut back on food expenditure.

Our research found that the longer peoplewere on income support, the more likely theywere to be in debt:l 40% of parents were either behind in billpayments or in debt;l One in five parents said that they do nothave enough money for food;l The average amount spent on food perperson was £16.07 per week, or just £2.29 perday.

Healthier food costs moreThe research also included an assessment ofthe cost of healthy and less healthy foodproducts in the shops close to where thesurvey participants live.

This revealed that over the last 15 yearsthe average cost of a healthy shopping baskethas increased by 50%.

The cost of an unhealthy basket has alsoincreased, but by only 33%, so that the gapbetween the costs of eating healthily and lesshealthily has widened.

Access and pricesThe research also showed that theconcentration of retail sales into a few largesupermarkets, and the closure of local shops,has affected many families: l In urban areas more than one in threeparents (35%) have to travel more than twomiles to get to the nearest supermarket. Inrural areas this figure rose to 66%;l The average cost of travelling to and fromthe shops was £3.71 – an extra 23% on top ofthe average food bill;l The high cost of travelling to thesupermarket meant that most rural families(57%) only went shopping once a week orless, which reduces the amount ofperishable fruit and vegetables which can bebought;l ‘Five-a-day’ fruit and vegetable productswere typically 38% more expensive in ruralareas compared to urban. A healthy shoppingbasket was also 34% more expensive in ruralareas compared to urban.

n This research has been submitted to theFood Standards Agency and the Departmentof Health in response to their consultationpapers on diet and health and on children’sfood promotions. The full report can bedownloaded from: http://www.nch.org.uk/goinghungry/

Parents go hungryto feed their children

society

‘The shop where I do my main shopping is 10miles away. That’s the nearest bigsupermarket. It’s too far to go more than oncea week. My local shop doesn’t have manydifferent fruit and vegetables; what it does sellisn’t very nice and is too expensive and notfresh enough.’


‘It was very hard living in thecountryside because as well ashaving to buy the shopping Iwould have to pay for a busride there and a taxi back. Ihad to get the taxi backbecause the buses don’t runthat often. This would be anextra £6 onto the shopping andmeant I went less often andhad £6 less to spend on food.’

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

O ver the past few years, ‘meal deals’have proliferated – the chance tobuy a sandwich with a drink and

snack – all for a bargain price. But how manypeople consider just how much fat and howmany calories they add to their meal byaccepting these extra products? And howmany people question the fact that mealdeals almost always offer the same range ofchoices, and hardly ever any healthieroptions such as fruit juice, salad or freshfruit?

It’s no coincidence that almost all of themeal deals we looked at contained the samefamiliar brands. Meal deals are seen by thesnacks industry – mainly multinationalcompanies such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi(which also sells Walkers crisps) – as a wayof increasing sales and ensuring that peopleconsume their products on an everydaybasis. The marketing press often boasts ofincreased confectionery sales that can begained through deals with sandwich outlets.These are multi-million pound opportunities,especially when offered through a retailnetwork with national reach, such as petrolstations or onboard buffets in mainline trains.

By linking soft drinks and crisps to thesebargain offers, the snack companies havegradually changed our expectation of whatconstitutes a meal. An additional 500ml bottleof coke and a bag of crisps are now standard

fare, with some food outlets even adding achocolate bar, piling on extra sugar, fat andcalories.

We took a look at some of the meal dealson offer to travellers looking for a rapid snackin petrol stations, railway station food outlets,and on-train buffets. Knowing that customersare likely to be spending a lot of their daysitting down, either behind the steering wheelor on a train, you might expect these outletsto consider the healthiness and caloriecontent of the foods they offer. Whilst manydo now offer some choice, with bottles ofwater as an option to replace the standard500ml bottle of coke, the sector is dominatedby ‘Big Eat’ packets of Walkers crisps (55g –the standard sized bags are 34.5g) and 500mlbottles of sugary drinks that contain theequivalent of around 10 or 11 teaspoons ofsugar.

survey


The hidden cost ofbargain meal deals

The bargains get bigger and bigger

In a highly competitive market, outlets offering meal dealshave to make them seem like the best possible deal.

One way to do this is to keep on adding products. In thismeal deal, available on GNER trains, customers are offeredtwo filled rolls accompanied by a bag of crisps and a can ofCoca-Cola or Sprite. In this case, it is a regular-sized bag ofcrisps (34.5g) and a regular-sized Coca-Cola or Sprite (330ml),but how long before the deal gets ‘better’ and the snacks getlarger?

A healthier option?The majority of the meal deals contained no fruit orvegetables, except for a little salad in some of thesandwiches or a few teaspoons of fruit juice in some ofthe juice drinks. Very few offered any genuinely healthyoptions, and the only outlet offering a meal deal flaggedas ‘healthier’ was Texaco, with a reduced fat ham andcheese sandwich (with no salad), water and a ‘virtuallyfat free’ Müller strawberry yogurt.

Sadly, when our researcher asked how she could eatthe yogurt, no spoons were available. Not much good for health-conscious travellers!

O ver the past few years, ‘meal deals’have proliferated – the chance tobuy a sandwich with a drink and

snack – all for a bargain price. But how manypeople consider just how much fat and howmany calories they add to their meal byaccepting these extra products? And howmany people question the fact that mealdeals almost always offer the same range ofchoices, and hardly ever any healthieroptions such as fruit juice, salad or freshfruit?

It’s no coincidence that almost all of themeal deals we looked at contained the samefamiliar brands. Meal deals are seen by thesnacks industry – mainly multinationalcompanies such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi

(which also sells Walkers crisps) – as a wayof increasing sales and ensuring that peopleconsume their products on an everydaybasis. The marketing press often boasts ofincreased confectionery sales that can begained through deals with sandwich outlets.These are multi-million pound opportunities,especially when offered through a retailnetwork with national reach, such as petrolstations or onboard buffets in mainlinetrains.

By linking soft drinks and crisps to thesebargain offers, the snack companies havegradually changed our expectation of whatconstitutes a meal. An additional 500mlbottle of coke and a bag of crisps are nowstandard fare, with some food outlets even

They are convenient,filling and cheap, but –asks Kath Dalmeny – arebargain ‘meal deals’ asgood as they seem?

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

survey


cost ofeal deals

The least healthy meal deal

Of all the meal deals surveyed, the railway station outlet Whistlestopoffered the least healthy choice. The deal consisted of three extraproducts to accompany a sandwich. The sandwiches containedbetween 10g and 30g of fat. Choosing the fattiest and sugariest of theadditional snacks and drinks on offer would add:l An extra 80g sugar (16 teaspoons) – more sugar than an adult’s

recommended daily intake (see page 6)l An extra 32.6g of fat – around half of an adult’s daily intakel An extra 790 kcalories – around a third of an adult’s recommended

daily intakel And salt? Sorry, we are unable to estimate the additional salt, as this

information was not declared on some of the products.Note: These figures do not include the fat and calorie content of the

sandwich in the meal deal.

One lonely salad

Only one meal deal, from atrain-station branch of Boots,included a salad option. Thiswas available with a range ofchocolate or crisps, and 500mlbottles of cola, water or a low-calorie ‘Shapers’ drink.

A note with the offer statedthat freshly squeezed Shapersorange juice could not beincluded in the meal deal. Afterall, you wouldn’t want it to be too healthy, would you?!

Hoping to encourage extraspending in the lunchtimemarket, Shell promotes largepackets of Walkers crisps andbottles of Coca-Cola with itsmeal deals.

But if you don’t want lunch, Shelloffers another way to pile on thecalories, with a ‘snack deal’ of aMars bar (65g), large Walkerscrisps (55g) and a 500ml bottle ofcoke – all for £1.49.

adding a chocolate bar, piling onextra sugar, fat and calories.

We took a look at some of themeal deals on offer to travellerslooking for a rapid snack inpetrol stations, railway stationfood outlets, and on-trainbuffets. Knowing that customersare likely to be spending a lot oftheir day sitting down, eitherbehind the steering wheel or ona train, you might expect theseoutlets to consider thehealthiness and calorie content

of the foods they offer. Whilstmany do now offer some choice,with bottles of water as anoption to replace the standard500ml bottle of coke, the sectoris dominated by ‘Big Eat’ packetsof Walkers crisps (55g – thestandard sized bags are 34.5g)and 500ml bottles of sugarydrinks that contain theequivalent of around 10 or 11teaspoons of sugar.

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

health

M ost of the cost of processed foodlies in packaging, distribution andadvertising, while the cost of the

ingredients is usually a very small part of thetotal. Not surprisingly, companies are thuskeen to increase brand sales by offeringlarger portions for a bargain price.

There is a limit to how much food we canbe expected to eat, which might put a naturalceiling on the commercial marketplace. Butappetites are fickle things, and an individualcan easily succumb to temptation and eat alarger portion as if it were a regular size. Thesellers of snacks, sweets, fast food and even

alcoholic drinks are aware ofour poor dietary control, andhave been raising portionsizes year by year.

Here we offer a quick guideto the difference between theregular and the extra-sizedproduct, and show just howmuch you will be adding toyour waistline if you letbargains rule your belly.

Eat like a king? No thanks!

Bigger isn’t always betterFood Size Weight Kcalories % Kcal

increase

Yorkie Regular 68g 367 --King Size 85g 445 21%

Twix Regular 58g 287 --King Size 85g 421 47%

Kit Kat 2 fingers 21g 106 --4 fingers 48g 243 129%

Kit Kat Chunky 55g 290 --Chunky King Size 77g 403 39%

Maltesers Regular 37g 179 --King Size Bag 58.5g 283 58%

Mars Bar Regular 62.5g 281 --'Big One' 85g 382 36%

Snickers Regular 64.5g 323 --'The Big One' 100g 501 55%

Walkers Regular 34.5g 183 --Crisps 'Big Eat' 55g 290 58%

Ribena drink Carton 288ml 164 --Bottle 500ml 285 74%

Burger King Hamburger -- 296 --burgers Cheeseburger -- 337 14%

XL Whopper (with cheese) -- 922 211%

McDonald’s Regular Fries 78 206 --fries Medium Fries 110 293 42%

Large Fries 155 412 100%Super Size Fries 183 486 135%

McDonald’s Regular Cola 250ml 108 --Cola Medium Cola 400ml 172 60%

Large Cola 525ml 226 110%Super Size Cola 750ml 323 200%

Red Wine Standard 125ml glass 116 (1.6 units) --13% alcohol Large 175ml glass 162 (2.3 units) 40%

Extra large 250ml glass 232 (3.2 units) 100%

From company product information and the Newark and Sherwood DC websitewww.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/environmentalservices/healthyeating/

Bigger portions for biggerpeople? The aptly-named ‘BigOne’ from Snickers provides awhopping 501 kcal – that’sover a quarter of an adultwoman’s recommended dailyenergy intake for a single day!An average British woman needsabout 2000 kcal a day. An average man needsabout 2500 kcal.

The biggest sandwich inBritain?Sandwiches are now getting the super-sizetreatment, and we are launching acompetition to find the store selling thelargest sandwich (calorie-wise).

Currently number one contender mustbe Tesco. At 1,043 kcals (over half therecommended daily calories for a woman),Tesco’s Chicken Stuffing Bap isn’t just big;it’s enormous!

Described as ‘Chicken Stuffing’, Tescohas somehow managed to stuff in 58.8g fatand 4.7g salt (that’s virtually a whole day’srecommended salt intake) all in onesandwich.

But you may be able to find bigger. Wewould like to find the highest caloriesandwich in Britain being sold by a highstreet store. If you see one that beatsTesco, send us thewrapper (but notthe sandwich!)and we will nameand shame themanufacturer whois doing theirworst to supersizethe nation.


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

In June,public

"Which came first, the chickenor the salt?"

Why do foodcompanies love salt?

The FoodCommission hasalways argued thatvitamins are addedto products formarketing purposesrather than to meetgenuine nutritionalneed.

Witness the plethoraof ‘vitamin enriched’salty, sugary and fatty children’s foods.The product packaging is designed toappeal to children. The added vitaminshelp to persuade mum that such foodsand drinks are a good compromise.

If any further proof were needed thatadding vitamins is merely a marketing

ploy, Andrexhas launchedtoilet paperenriched withvitamin E.

Can vitamin-enriched toiletpaper reallyoffer any healthbenefits?Andrex’s

typically vague justification is that theVitamin E is added ‘to give you and yourfamily an extra level of care’.

Like most fortified food, the best thingto do with this Andrex product is toflush it down the loo.

Badvertisement

The useless use of vitamins

Just what thedoctor ordered?For food manufacturers, a crucial way toaccrue long-term profits is to securecontracts with large-scale food providers.

That is why Kellogg’s is so keen to trumpetits contribution tothe government’s‘Better HospitalFood Initiative’ inthis advert fromthe journal of theHospital CaterersAssociation. Over300 million mealsare servedannually by theNHS, in around1,200 hospitals,with a budget of£500 million.

Kellogg’sportrays itscornflakes as being drip-fed to patients – analarming image, considering that Kellogg’sCornflakes are one of the saltiest breakfastcereals on the market.

An estimated 40% of adults and 15% ofchildren are malnourished on admission tohospital. And according to the MalnutritionAdvisory Group, around two-thirds ofhospital patients are malnourished. TheBetter Hospital Food Initiative has a very longway to go.

inside story


In June, public health minister MelanieJohnson accused the food industry of failingto cut the salt in processed foods and gavecompanies three months – until September –to come up with concrete proposals.

That she made her criticisms public –leaked to The Times and followed by a liveappearance on Newsnight. This implied ahigh degree of government frustration withfood companies not seen since Edwina Curryattacked the egg industry in 1988.

A food industry spokesmanMartin Patterson responded byclaiming that Johnson was‘pushing at an open door’ butthat ‘there was no point in afood company making foodthat stayed on the shelf’ –presumably meaning thatreduced-salt food wouldnot be popular withshoppers. Such anargument clearlyindicates that voluntarysalt reductions areunlikely to happen, asmanufacturers will not risklosing sales to competitors who do notreduce salt levels. Legislation may thus benecessary to force food manufacturers to act.

But how did the industry fall into this loveaffair with salt? In a letter published by TheTimes (22.06.04), a certain Malcolm Kaneasked the same question: Why had saltreduction become necessary? What had ledto its widespread use? Kane was no ordinarynewspaper reader. He had spent nearly 20years at Sainsbury’s as Chief FoodTechnologist until 1999, and he knew theanswers to his questions.

Today’s food industry, he said, ‘inheritedthe legacy of decades of crude,unprofessional, cost-reduction-focusedproduct development involving "extending"foods with water, fats, cheap carbohydratesand far too many additives’.

He continued ‘The necessary adjunct tothis has been the boosting of flavour which,in the case of savoury foods, involves theaddition of excessive salt and monosodiumglutamate, both of which contribute to dietarysodium levels.’

He said that the industry ‘needs to admitthat generations of consumers have beenweaned on to high salt-boosted’ foods. Andhe added a final sting: ‘The food industryrequires a cultural change to reintroduce

professional standards of consumer-focusedproduct development and a rejection ofadditive-led development.’

We couldn’t put it better ourselves.

n Contact Malcolm Kane at:[email protected] In the next issue of the Food Magazine:The inside story on Italian olive oil.

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

labelling

F rom this September, Tesco should bedisplaying products with a new nutritionlabelling scheme that gives a ‘traffic

light’ coding with red warnings on food high infat, saturated fat, sugar or salt, and greensignals for low levels of these ingredients.

To quote the company’s publicitystatement: ‘The traffic light initiative is thelatest move by Tesco in its quest to providecustomers with information that will help themmake an informed choice when shopping.Since the launch of its Healthy Eating rangealmost 20 years ago Tesco has led the way inproviding customers with the choice andinformation they need to follow a healthierlifestyle.’

So we took a look at Tesco’s productspromoted in its healthy eating range – now re-branded as Tesco Healthy Living – to checktheir ‘traffic light’ credentials. Green all round,

surely? But no: surprisingly, and sadly, thelights went amber and red again and again.

Using the Food Standards Agency criteria(see box) we rated a sample of the company’sproducts, including dairy, meat, cereal anddessert products. Many of them would have tobe coloured with amber warnings, and morethan a few would have to carry a red dangersignal – somewhat undermining the label’sclaim to be healthy.

For example, the so-called ‘light’ creamcheese in the Healthy Living range has nearlytwice the levels of saturated fat that lead to ared signal.

Tesco’s Healthy Living bran flakes (andalso its sultana bran) will get a red signal forsalt and a second red signal for sugar. And itsHealthy Living sunflower spread gets threered signals: for fat, saturated fat and salt.

What was Tesco thinking of? Is thecompany planning to use a different set ofnutritional criteria than the one recommendedby the Food Standards Agency – which wouldbe highly misleading to consumers and a slapin the face for the Agency’s guidance.

Or did the company make itsannouncement without thinking through theconsequences. It says it has come up with itstraffic light scheme following ‘18 months ofresearch and development with customers’.Hmmm.

Perhaps Tesco is planning to change theformulation of its products? If the companyreformulates a broad range of products toensure they do not get red warnings, thengood for Tesco. The traffic light scheme canbe deemed a success.

Let’s see what happens in September…

P.S. Tesco is not alone in having high levels ofsalt, fat etc in its ‘Healthy’ range. The othersupermarkets can also be held up to criticismin this regard – but they have not had thecourage to propose traffic lights on the frontof their packs.

Tesco has promised a‘traffic light’ labellingscheme to indicate thelevels of fats, sugar andsalt in its products. Butshoppers should preparefor shelves full of redwarnings, as we foundthat even the Tesco‘Healthy Living’ rangeincludes some nastysurprises.

Tesco: where red means‘proceed’?

Colour coding: the numbersTo help shoppers interpret nutritional information on food labels, the Food Standards Agencyissued advice in 2002 defining what the Agency considered to be ‘a lot’ and ‘a little’ in respectof fats, sugar and salt. These can be used to identify red and green traffic lights – withintermediate quantities earning an amber light.

Amount per 100g of the product

Red lights Green lights

Sugar 10g or more 2g or less

Total fat 20g or more 3g or less

Saturated fat 5g or more 1g or less

Sodium 0.5g or more 0.1g or less

How should a mixture of colours be interpreted? We suggest:

Green for go All green lights – consume without worry, choose in preference to amber or red.

Amber warnings Some amber lights – eat in moderation, choose in preference to red.

Red hazards One or two red lights – leave these products on the shelf if you can.


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

labelling

re red means

It is little wonder that when itcomes to food, teenagers demandspeed and convenience above allthings. The perceived need to eatas quickly as possible is cultivatedby fast food restaurants, foodpackaging that helps teenagers eaton the hoof, and microwave snacksthat are ready in seconds.

What hope for the survival ofcooking skills and the joy oflingering over a shared meal

prepared from delicious freshingredients?

Feasters ‘Eatwell’ microwaveChicken Ciabatta panders to thespeed-food culture by promising ameal in 80 seconds. Just ‘Click’ toopen the microwave door, ‘Tick’ toset the microwave clock, ‘Pop’ tohear the plastic bag burst (thesignal that your food is ready),and ‘Ping’ to hear the end of themicrowave cooking.

What better summary of theteenage food culture?


Badvertisement

Fruit Swirls: Green for fatand saturated fat and forsalt, but a definite red forsugar, at 28g per 100g.

Tesco’s Healthy Living rangeHow would the Tesco Healthy Living rangeshape up to a traffic light scheme using theFood Standards Agency’s definitions for ‘a lot’and ‘a little’ of fat, saturated fat, salt andsugar?

Bran flakes: At least the fat andsaturated fat earn green lights, butthen this is a breakfast cereal, sothey should. What a shame that boththe sugar (at 32g per 100g) and saltget a definite red light.

Cream cheese: claimed to be ‘Light’ but amberfor fat, salt and sugar and red for saturated fat.

Sunflower spread:not surprisingly agreen light forsugar, but sadlythree red lightsearned for total fat,saturated fat andsalt.

Sausages: these getan amber light for fatand for saturated fat,green for sugar, butred for salt.

Liver paté:unfortunately this getsan amber light for fat,amber for sugar, redfor saturated fat andred for salt.

Pork mince: amberlights for fat andsaturated fat, and greenfor sugar and salt.

Click... Tick... Pop... Ping

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

H ow do you get people to change theirbehaviour without lecturing to them,bribing them or punishing them?

A government unwilling to regulate, fearfulof being called a nanny and reluctant toimpose taxation to influence consumer choicehas hit on the answer – you advertise. This iswhat commerce does to influence behaviour,so this is what government can do, too.

No interference with the ideology of a freemarket. No complex and messy legislation.Just borrow the tricks of the trade from theadvertising and marketing boys, and put themto good use, promoting desirable behaviour.

And, given that a ban on advertising tochildren would have lost thousands of jobs inthe advertising industry, the idea that thegovernment could become a major client willbe welcome news there.

But will it cost too much? The food anddrink industry currently spends nearly £1bnevery year in the UK on TV advertising andsimilar amounts on print media, radio, internetand point-of-sale promotion strategies. Justbeing a sponsor of a major event can cost asmall fortune: the eight official sponsors ofEuro 2004 reportedly spent £300m to buy thelogo and market the games on their products.Sponsors of the England team spent a further£300m.

Buying a popular star isn’t cheap either.Miss Dynamite was reportedly paid a £1m feeto help promote Pepsi. Justin Timberlakereportedly earned £4m to feature inMcDonald’s ‘I’m Lovin’ It’ campaign, but thecurrent record goes to David Beckham,expecting to be paid £40m to be the(unshaven?) face of Gillette, on top of anannual £8m for his endorsement of variousproducts, including the ubiquitous Pepsi.

The UK government can match thesefigures, of course, if it really wanted to. But

even if the treasury were persuaded to spend£1bn, would it work? The sorts of foods anddrinks being promoted at present are nearlyall foods which are high in fats and sugars.These sorts of foods should form only a smallpart of the daily diet – at most no more than10-12% and preferably less. Fruit, vegetablesand foods rich in complex carbohydratesshould constitute about 60-70% of the diet –and it could be argued that these sorts offoods should therefore be advertised at muchhigher levels to overcome the competition. Abudget of £10bn to promote healthy foodscould be needed – and that is £10bn everyyear, not just once!

But this is fantasy. The government will notspend anything like that sort of money. What itmight do instead is introduce a levy on currentadvertisements to pay for healthier ones. Thefood industry will find itself taxed foradvertising their products, and paying for thepromotion of products it does not make muchprofit on.

Taxation for health has been tried inCalifornia where voters passed Proposition 99in 1988 that levied a 25c tax on every cigarettepack to help pay for anti-smoking campaigns.The anti-smoking advertising rose to some$25m annually, which was still smallcompared with the $500m spent by thetobacco companies. An evaluation over thefirst two years of the measure suggested thatthe advertising reduced cigarette purchasesby 232m packs, while the extra tax of 25c perpack reduced cigarette purchases by over800m packs. Awareness of the dangers ofsmoking rose significantly.

And this is one of the dangers with socialmarketing, or indeed with any form of healtheducation campaign: it may raise awarenesssignificantly but may not have a significanteffect on actual behaviour, or to have a lesser

effect than other measures (such as taxationor regulation) would have.

There has been a long history ofgovernments placing their faith in healthpromotion campaigns to deliver their publichealth policies. Leaflets, posters, videos, evenTV adverts have been the stock-in-trade ofhealth educationalists for decades, coveringsmoking, diet, sexually transmitted diseases,car seat belts and recently food hygiene.

These health promotion campaigns needproper evaluation which considers not onlyawareness-raising among the target groupsbut also measures real change in long-termhealth benefits. And they need to be properlycompared with other policy options.Otherwise social marketing will be seen asjust another version of health education – indanger of reproducing all the top-downattitudes and victim-blaming effects of healtheducation at its worst.

The fault that lies at the heart of the healtheducation strategy is its ‘downstream’approach to disease prevention. In terms ofthe food chain, health education attempts tochange food intake by influencing the very lastlinks in the chain – the point where individualconsumers are making their choices.

This approach passes all responsibility tothe individual (‘you should do this’) andremoves it from the government (‘we told younot to do that’) and it takes attention awayfrom the influences further up the food chainthat have helped to create the final choice:the supply of different foods, their pricing,their availability and ease of access, theirconvenience and their social desirability, letalone the effect of years of commercialmarketing. It deflects attention from thechoices being made further up the food chain,by the supermarkets’ chief buyers, by themanufacturers’ recipe formulators, by the fastfood catering buyers, by the farming supportpolicy-makers and the global trade regulators.

Social marketing offers nothing new toresolve the structural problems in foodsupplies that shape the food chain. Socialmarketing is not the solution here: the problemneeds cross-governmental, multi-policy

society

Can good ads beatbad ones?Social marketing – using advertising techniques topromote health – appeals to a nanny-phobicgovernment. But, asks Tim Lobstein, will it haveany impact?


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

society

support, and it needs regulatory change aswell as marketing skills.

There is no reason to fear regulation.Indeed, it is time that the concept of regulationwas re-branded and re-launched assomething beneficial for society as a whole.After all, putting controls on commercialbehaviour helps to level a playing field that issteeply inclined to the benefit of producersand marketers and against consumers.

Public goods are things which benefit alland which do not diminish by being used, suchas reference libraries and national parks.Regulations are a perfect example of publicgoods, and should be seen as benefiting thecommunity at large. De-regulation is done inthe name of the market and to the benefit ofthe producer over the consumer.

So let us start by changing attitudes ingovernment. A marketing campaign, if one isneeded, should be directed at the legislatorsand regulators in government to get them todo what the public wants them to do.

ds beat

A kid’s healthy eating book should be good …But wait, what are the correct answers tothese questions:

Every day you eat (a) 2 slices of bread (b) nobread (c) lots of bread if you are hungry?No surprises here – ‘c’ gets 3 points, ‘a’ gets 2points, ‘b’ gets zero points.

After school your favourite snack is (a) fruit(b) bread or toast (c) chocolate biscuits?‘a’ gets 3 points, but oddly both ‘b’ and ‘c’ get 2points.

How often do you use sugar in drinks andcereals? (a) once a day (b) never (c)frequently throughout the day?‘a’ gets 3 points, while ‘b’ gets only 2 points,and ‘c’ gets 1 point, surely not right?

You eat crisps, chocolate and snacks(a) never (b) occasionally (c) every day?Incredibly, ‘a’ gets only 1 point, while ‘b’ gets 3points and ‘c’ gets 2 points.

Who produced this stuff? The booklet is co-produced by the

European Federation of the Associations ofDietitians, who really should know better, andthe European Food Information Council, whoknow exactlywhat they aredoing, beingfunded by thelikes of Coca-Cola, Danone,Mars,McDonald'sand Nestlé.

Ten healthy eating tips to avoid Marketing controls?Research commissioned by the WHO analysesfood marketing controls across the globe,including regulation of TV advertising, in-school marketing, sponsorship, productplacement, internet marketing and salespromotions.

The report highlights ‘significant regulatorygaps’ and concludes that ‘existing regulationsdo not recognise food as a category in need ofspecial consideration from a public healthstandpoint’ It adds: ‘Much less effort is beingdirected at developing a comprehensive,across-the-board approach to the regulationof marketing techniques and a strongerregulatory environment in countries that haverelatively low but rapidly rising rates of diet-related non-communicable diseases.’

n Marketing Food to Children: The GlobalRegulatory Environment, by Dr CorinnaHawkes. See http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf

Can characters such as the Food Dudes –perhaps the most successful attempt so far to‘market’ good health to children – competewith the likes of a gladiatorial DavidBeckham? Yes – but only for £10bn a year!

n For more information seewww.fooddudes.co.uk and The FoodCommission’s report Broadcasting Bad Healthat www.foodcomm.org.uk/press_junk_marketing_03.htm


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

reviews

Not on the Label: What reallygoes into the food on yourplate

Felicity Lawrence. Penguin, 2004. ISBN 0 14101566 7. £7.99 (www.penguin.com)

Shopped: The shockingpower of Britishsupermarkets

Joanna Blythman. 4th Estate, 2004. ISBN 0 00715803 3. £12.99. (www.4thestate.com)

Joanna Blythman and Felicity Lawrence aretwo of the UK’s leading investigative foodjournalists. In two new books they each take along, hard look at the UK’s food supply andboth reach a similar conclusion – that theoverwhelming domination of our food supplyby our favourite supermarkets threatens notjust British agriculture, but also the choiceand availability of almost every foodstuff wemight wish to place upon our plates.

Felicity Lawrence’s Not on the Label: Whatreally goes into the foodon your plate is perhapsthe most accessible ofthe two books. Lawrencetravels to farms, factories,packhouses and lorrydepots around the world,revealing the hiddenorigins of supermarketstaples such as chicken,salad, beans, bread andready meals.

She talks to the destitute migrants whoprovide the muscle for Spain’s production ofagrochemical salad crops, to prawn farmersin Vietnam and to Ugandan coffee farmerswho are paid a pittance for their valuablecoffee crop.

By talking to real people Lawrence opensour eyes to the true human and environmentalcosts of modern food production, allowing usa bitter, but welcome, taste of reality.

Not on the Label also explains howsupermarkets have effectively anddeliberately deskilled their customers, so thatmany of us can no longer make a simple mealor bake a loaf of bread. Why go to all thetrouble of home cooking when your friendlylocal supermarket can provide a brightlypackaged replica, designed by food scientistsfrom those cheapest of ingredients – starch,fat and sugar – all whipped into shape by acocktail of additives?

Continuing thetheme, Shopped: Theshocking power ofBritish supermarketsis Joanna Blythman’smeticulouslyresearched exposé ofour favourite retailers.

Blythman chartsthe rise of the

supermarkets, and the downfall of the highstreet butcher, baker and grocer where localpeople once met and purchased fresh, locallysourced produce. Like Lawrence she talks toreal people, but focuses her attention on ourown island, visiting the ‘trolley’ towns where ittakes a car or taxi ride to bring home theweekly shop, and the industrial agriculturallandscapes of Lincolnshire where vastquantities of foodstuffs are prepared by anarmy of casual, low paid workers.

At almost twice the size of Not on theLabel, Shopped is a meatier, highly detailedexploration of the power of the supermarkets.Blythman backs up her research with hard-hitting facts, figures and quotes fromproducers and industry insiders.

These are both books that will make youangry at just how far the supermarkets havemisled us, seducing us with apparentconvenience, choice and value whilstdestroying our farming heritage and foodculture.

n Both Not on the Label and Shopped arenow available from The Food Commission,see Marketplace on page 22.

Hungry CorporationsHelena Paul and Ricarda Steinbrecher. ZedBooks, 2003. ISBN 1 84277 3010 1. £15.95.(www.zedbooks.co.uk)

Hungry Corporations from authors HelenaPaul and Ricarda Steinbrecher, focuses onbiotech companies but provides an excellentcritique of the nature and operation ofcorporations in general – from their (illegal)beginnings in the East India Company to theirownership of patents on living creatures andtheir control over the agencies designed to

regulate them. The book is an

invaluable record of thedomination of humanrights by the rights ofthese artificial legalentities that now shapeour future.

Supersize me!

film review

Morgan Spurlock hatched his idea for the‘Supersize Me’ documentary on Thanksgiving2002 (according to Spurlock, the mostgluttonous day of the year). A lawsuit filedagainst McDonald’s by two teenagers whoclaimed that the fast-food company wasresponsible for their obesity and poor healthprompted Spurlock to wonder what wouldhappen to his health if he ate nothing butMcDonald’s food every day for a month.

After receiving a clean bill from a GP, acardiologist and a gastroenterologist,Spurlock set out on a McFest of the States,abiding by some arduous self-inflicted rules:

l everything eaten and drunk to bepurchased at McDonald’s, even water;

l every menu item to be eaten at least threetimes over the month;

l three meals to be eaten (completely) daily;l supersizing his meal only if the staff

suggested it;l taking no extra exercise, but walking the

US average of 5000 steps a day.

As it turned out, he was asked nine times if hewanted to supersize, five of those being inTexas. The first time resulted in his vomitingout of the car window.

Whilst not suggesting his behaviour is thenorm, Spurlock addresses some importantissues around fast-food culture; he gained25lbs, doubled his risk of heart failure, and hisfat-laden liver was ‘like paté’ – an outcomethe medics just had not foreseen. Some 20%of children in the States have diet-relatedabnormal liver function tests, and half of theseare at risk of early liver failure in adult life.

Throughout, Spurlock talks to health andeducation professionals and looks at seriousissues such as junk-food infiltration ofschools, and the hefty amounts of advertisingand other forms of marketing to children.

Following the film’s release, McDonald’swithdrew supersizing from its US restaurantsand, whilst supersizing is not a feature of itsUK outlets, the film will certainly stimulatediscussion on the continuing effects of thehigh salt, sugar and fat, nutrient-poor, fastfood and ready-meal diet so commonplacetoday.

n ‘Supersize Me’ is in UK-wide cinemas from10 September


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38


science

It is easy to overeat fastfoodGiven free access to large fast food meals,adolescents (age 13-17) typically consumedover 60% of their daily energy needs (over1600 kcal) in one sitting, a study in the US hasfound. Overweight adolescents ate more thannormal weight adolescents, both in absoluteterms (1860 kcal versus 1460 kcal) and relativeto their energy needs (67% versus 57% of dailyneeds).

In a second study, the researchers foundthat overweight participants ate more food ondays when fast food stores were visited thanon other days (total intake 409 kcal higher onfast food days), an effect that was notobserved among normal weight adolescents.

n CB Ebbeling et al, JAMA 291, 2004.

School choices reducediet qualityGiving children choices from a menuincreases the chances that they will eat apoor diet, researchers in the US have shown.The à la carte availability of school luncheswas associated with reduced fruit andvegetable consumption, and increased totalfat and saturated fat intake. The presence ofsnack vending machines in the school wasalso negatively linked to fruit consumption.

n MY Kubik et al, Am J Public Health 93, 2003

Why do people overeat? A review of research papers has concludedthat the energy density of foods is a keydeterminant of energy intake. The studiesshow that humans have a weak innate abilityto recognise foods with a high energy densityand to reduce the amount of food eaten inorder to maintain energy balance.

Most fast foods have an extremely highenergy density with the average energydensity of the entire menu approximately 260kcal/100g – 65% higher than the averageBritish diet (approx 160 kcal/100g) and morethan twice the energy density of recom-mended healthy diets (approx 125 kcal/100g).

It is far higher than traditional African diets(approx 110 kcal/100g) that probably representlevels against which human weight regulatorymechanisms evolved. The authors concludethat accidental consumption of excess energymay promote weight gain and obesity.

n AM Prentice and SA Jebb, Obes Rev 4, 2003.

Diabetes linked to sugarWith type 2 diabetes affecting an increasingproportion of the population, there has beengrowing concern that refined carbohydratesmay be to blame.

In a survey of dietary patterns in the USfrom 1909 to 1997, a significant correlationwas observed between diabetes incidenceand the intake of many food ingredients,including fat, carbohydrate, protein, fibre, cornsyrup and total energy.

If the rise in total food energy is removedfrom the equation, the only factors correlatedwith the rise in diabetes were corn syrup(positively linked) and dietary fibre (negativelylinked).The authors recommend more researchinto possible causative links between diabetesand diets high in sugars and low in fibre.

n LS Gross et al, Am J Clin Nutr 79, 2004.

Kids overeat watching TV Most reports of TV viewing and its links toobesity have not monitored what children eatwhile actually watching television. Now astudy from the US of 64 primary level schoolchildren has shown that a significant proportionof a child’s daily energy intake is consumedwhile watching TV, rising from around 17% oftotal daily intake during weekdays to 26% ofintake during weekends. There was no signifi-cant difference in the fat content or energydensity of foods eaten while viewing comparedwith foods eaten at other times, but theconsumption of vegetables was significantlylower while viewing, and the consumption ofsnack foods was significantly higher.

n DM Matheson et al, Am J Clin Nutr 79, 2004.

The latest research from the medical journals

What the doctor reads

Energy dense foods tendto be cheaperAs the Food Commission has suggested inprevious reports, comparisons of the pricesof commonly bought foods has shown thatfatty and sugary foods tend to be cheaperthan foods with lower energy density, suchas lean meats, wholegrain cereal foods,fruit and vegetables. A study of the diets ofover 800 French adults has confirmed thatthe energy content of foods purchased(energy per unit weight of the food) wasinversely related to the average price forthat food, with the cost of a low energy-dense diet being higher than the cost of ahigh energy-dense diet, regardless of theamount of food energy purchased.

n N Darmon et al, Public Health Nutr 7, 2004.

Low fat foods do nothelp reduce intakeA study in Denmark using weighed recordsof people’s diets found that people choosinglow-fat food (milk, sauces, cold meats) atesignificantly more food compared withcounterparts who chose foods with regularfat levels.

As a result almost the same amount ofenergy and fat were consumed in bothgroups.

n J Matthiessen et al, Public Health Nutr 6, 2003.

This tub of St Ivel Gold Low Fat Spread contains38% fat, almost double the Food StandardAgency’s definition of a high fat product as containing 20% fat or more. Amazingly, high fat

margarines and spreads like StIvel Gold are legally

allowed to claim to below fat, even whenthey contain up to

40% fat. Discover moreof these loopholes andlearn how to understand

and decipher food labelsby buying a copy of TheFood Commission’sbrand new PosterGuide to Reading FoodLabels. Fully updatedand now in colour, theposter costs only£2.50 (including p&p).For more details seeMarketplace onpage 22.

Gold: The high fat, low fat spread

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

Dump the Junk! Containing over 300 expert tips for how to encouragechildren to eat healthy food and dump the junk, and with lotsof tasty recipes, this is an essential guide for parents.Illustrated with entertaining cartoons by the FoodMagazine’s Ben Nash. £7.99

Fast Food NationThe bestseller that lifted the lid on the US fast food industry. Eric Schlosser exploreshow fake smells and tastes are created, talks to abattoirworkers and explains how the fast food industry istransforming not only our diet but our landscape,economy, workforce and culture. Essential reading. £7.99

Broadcasting Bad HealthThis Food Commission report sets out the case for why foodmarketing to children needs to be controlled, usingillustrations, case studies and statistics from around theworld. Available as free pdf file on website (see below) or inprint for £10.00

Back issues of the Food Magazine A full set of available back issues (numbers 50–65 and several older issues) isavailable for £30.00 (£40 overseas). Stocks are limited and some older issues canonly be supplied as photocopies. Individual back issues cost £3.50 each.

Posters: Food Additives, Children’s Food,Food LabellingPacked with essential information to help youand your family eat healthy, safe food theseposters give useful tips on getting children toeat a healthy diet; explain how to understandnutrition labelling; help you see throughdeceptive packaging and marketing claims,and examine the contentious issue of foodadditives. Each poster is A2 in size and costs £2.50

Not on the Label Felicity Lawrence examines what really goes into the food on our platesin a series of undercover investigations that track some of the mostpopular foods we eat today. She discovers why beef waste ends up inchicken, why a third of apples are thrown away, and why supermarketswon’t stock different varieties of wine unless they all taste the same.Investigative food writing at its best. £7.99

Shopped: The shocking power of British supermarkets Joanna Blythman investigates the handful of supermarkets thatnow supply 80% of our groceries. Meticulously researched, this isa book that will make you angry at just how far thesupermarkets have misled us, seducing us with apparentconvenience, choice and value whilst destroying our farming

heritage and food culture. £12.99

The Atlas of Food The subtitle of this book is ‘who eats what, where and why.’ Thisextremely useful, well illustrated and comprehensive publicationexamines the food trade, food politics and new technologies, andtheir effects on the environment and human health. An idealresource for secondary-school pupils, students, and anyone

seeking an overview of food production and its impacton our lives and livelihoods. £12.99

The Food Our Children Eat – 2nd editionJoanna Blythman’s book is an inspiring guide for parents. Fromweaning a baby to influencing a teenager, she explains how to

bring children up to enjoy a healthy wide-rangeof foods. No more tantrums, fights and refusals: her strategiesare relaxed, low-effort – and they work. £8.99

The Chips are DownThis is an excellent guide to the planning and promotion ofhealthy eating in schools, full of nitty-gritty guidance, such ashow to gain support from teachers, parents, health workers and,most importantly, pupils. £15.00

payments Please tick items required and send payment by cheque, credit or debit card.Overseas purchasers should send payment in £ sterling, and add £1.50 per book for airmail delivery.

Payment

Donation

Total

I have enclosed a cheque or postal order made payable to The Food Commission

publications all prices include postage & packing

Not on the Label £7.99 mShopped £12.99 mThe Atlas of Food £12.99 mThe Food Our Children Eat – 2nd edition £8.99 mThe Chips are Down £15.00 mDump the Junk! £7.99 mFast Food Nation £7.99 mBroadcasting Bad Health £10.00 mSet available back issues Food Magazine £30.00 mPoster – Children’s Food £2.50 mPoster – Food Labelling £2.50 mPoster – Food Additives £2.50 mList of available back issues free m

subscriptionsIndividuals, schools, public libraries £22.50 mOVERSEAS individuals, schools, libraries £30.00 mOrganisations, companies £46.00 mOVERSEAS organisations, companies £54.00 mThe Food Magazine is published four times a year. Your subscription will start with our next published issue.

Name:

Address:

Postcode: Date:

Please debit my Visa , Mastercard, Switch or Maestro card

Send your order to: Publications Department, The Food Commission, 94 WhiteLion Street, London N1 9PF. Tel: 020 7837 2250. Fax: 020 7837 1141.

Email: [email protected] Delivery will usually take place within 14 days.

order form

marketplace

www.foodcomm.org.ukVisit our website for a full list of our

publications, posters and reports

Card number:

Expiry date: Start date if shown: Issue No. if shown:

Signature:


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

feedbackletters from our readers

Extensive meat is OKYour magazine is full of lots of interesting anduseful information. But you do sometimes goover the top, and the piece against meateating is a case in point (FM issue 65).

The piece fails to distinguish betweenintensive meat production – often known asfactory farming – and humane rearing ofanimals by caring farmers under naturalconditions. In the British context there is ahigh proportion of land which is only suitablefor raising beef and sheep. What do yousuggest we do with it?

Yes, farmers feed a small amount ofimported concentrated food to produce moreand better meat. But this is forced on us by thecompetition from meat imported at low prices– from industrial production or third worldexploitation. Why don’t you campaign fortariffs on meat that is not produced to the highstandards enforced here?

Many farmers strive to retain the ‘good oldways’, while making a modest living from foodproduction. Economic necessity forces us tomodernise more than we might like.Otherwise we face bankruptcy and the end ofsmall-scale farming.

Pippa Woods, The Family Farmers’Association. [email protected]

Selenium shockI was reading with great interest, as usual,your latest magazine (issue 65) when I spottedwhat looks like a pretty serious typing error onpage 23. In the reply to the letter ‘Obesity?Look to the Soil’ there is a quote from TomStockdale that refers to taking a dailysupplement containing 200mg daily seleniumas selenite. I think this was probably intendedto be 200 micrograms.

The Expert Group on Vitamins and Mineralshas set the safe upper limit for total seleniumintake as 0.91mg per day, with up to 0.3mg perday from supplements. Selenium toxicity iscumulative and 200mg per day could result insymptoms of selenosis.

Carol StevensWorcestershire Scientific Services.

We welcome letters from all of our readersbut we do sometimes have to shorten themso that we can include as many as possible(our apologies to the authors). You canwrite to The Editor, The Food Magazine, 94White Lion Street, London N1 9PF or email [email protected]

Air-babiesI was interested to read your recent articleabout organic produce and food miles. Thismorning, I popped into my local Tesco andnoticed that their organic baby carrots andbaby corn are coming form Zambia andThailand. Other, non-organic corn in thesupermarket came from Europe and non-organic new season carrots were British.

I’m just off to my allotment to harvest myown chemical-free, pest-free baby carrots,which were grown with minimum effort – and Iam only a novice gardener!

I am shocked that the food industry has tocontribute to global warming by air-freightingin-season organic veg half-way around theglobe, when they surely could be grown muchcloser to home.

Helen Best, Newcastle

Eds: We agree. It wasn’t so long ago that thefirst crops of seasonal fruit and veg wereeagerly awaited – but supermarkets now giveus the ‘convenience’ ofseasonal crops all yearlong. UK grown Brusselssprouts won’t be in seasonuntil September, butSainsbury’s are happy touse non-renewable,polluting oil to importthis ‘seasonal’ crop10,000 miles fromAustralia. And at£1.49 for 17sprouts (8p persprout) thesevegetablesare only for thewealthy.

Baby feeds? Ask ASDAMy local ASDA has decided to put up labels onbaby milk shelves that suggest sources offeeding and weaning advice. It lists the babymilk companies and gives their ‘Careline’phone numbers.

I think it’s appalling that the supermarketshould be telling parents to contact formulacompanies for such information without evena mention of trying your health visitor. In myopinion it breaks milk promotion laws but Ithink trading standards won’t see it that way. Icomplained to ASDA but I just got a letterthanking me for contacting them.

Tracy Hayden, via email.

Eds: This looks like a clear breach of theformula marketing codes. Well done forspotting it. We will report the case to IBFAN,the organisation that monitors the promotionof breast milk substitutes.

New mums can contact the NationalChildbirth Trust (0870 444 8708) for breastfeeding advice. Non-commercial feeding andweaning advice can be obtained from mostcommunity dietitians, health visitors,midwives and GPs.

I was interested in your article regarding thecost of juice (FM65) and fully support yourefforts in highlighting the exorbitant priceseffectively charged by producers for manyjuice-based drinks.

However, I was concerned that in yourtable giving a comparison of the cost of purejuice blends you included Fruit Passion FairTrade Pure Breakfast Juice.

Fair Trade products include a premium intheir price to ensure that growers receive afair price for their products and can usesome of the money generated to invest inassets that they desperately need, from theinstallation of clean water supplies to theestablishment of schools.

Advising consumers to buy the cheapestavailable option does little to help Third

World growers and the immense socialproblems caused by the UK's ecologicalfootprint as described in your excellentarticle on the price of meat.

Nigel Keane, by email

Eds: Thank you for your reminding us neverto forget the importance of Fair Trade. Wehoped to show that pure juices such as theFruit Passion Fair Trade breakfast juice,millilitre for millilitre, offer considerablybetter value for their real fruit content thanalmost all so-called ‘juice drinks’, eventaking into account the Fair Trade premium.

We hope this point came across in ourarticle.

Don’t forget fair trade


FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

backbites

A friendly chat iscompulsoryIf you worked on low wages for asupermarket that cared little for its staff orsuppliers, and everything for its profitmargin, you might feel there was little tosmile about. Yet when staff greet you witha friendly chat and offer to pack your bags,they must feel happy with their lot, surely?

An insight into this cheeriness can befound in the following memo, receivedfrom a website that tracks snack trends.We’re told this notice was found (andphotographed) on a till in Sainsbury’s:

Staff smiles may be less to do withemployee satisfaction and more to do withthe threat of disciplinary action!

Source: Dave Green at www.snackspot.orgn Joanna Blythman went undercover inBritish supermarkets to research her newbook Shopped and found a similar harshattitude displayed to both staff andsuppliers. See book review on page 20.


MEMO TO ALL CASHIERS

We scored 75.6% for Period 1 on our

Mystery Shopper, which is below the

target of 77%. We got 50% for scan and

pack which meant not every colleague

was scanning and packing. This is

MANDATORY! We WILL scan and pack

the first 3 items for EVERY customer. We

scored 0% for interaction i.e. chatting to

the customer. We WILL speak to EVERY

customer that goes through our

checkouts. We scored 1.0 for queue

length against a target of 0.6. This score is

not acceptable!!! Any colleague not

complying to the above will face

disciplinary action.

Timebomb? What dothey mean?

Food marketeers have finally admitted theyhave a crisis on their hands. A symbolictimebomb appeared on the front cover of arecent edition of Marketing Week, surroundedby calorie-laden chocolate, crisps and cola.

Are the junk-food marketeers finally in tunewith the concerns of the health community?

Is this an acknowledgement of the rise inobesity, described by head of the FoodStandards Agency Sir John Krebs as the‘ticking timebomb’ of obesity?

Do they finally understand what ChiefMedical Officer Liam Donaldson meant whenhe talked about the ‘timebomb’ of publichealth?

Nope. The marketeers fear that the time-bomb of legislation is about to explode andwill finally force them to clean up their act.They fear government action will stop themadvertising unhealthy foods to children.

Company keepersCan we detect the way the world’s largestfood company is thinking?

If we were responsible for flooding theworld with confectionery, sweet breakfastcereals, salty processed foods and far toomuch baby formula milk, we might startthinking about the illness we cause, and theremedies needed – and appoint to ourboard a leading light in the pharmaceuticalbusiness.

Interesting then that Nestlé has justappointed Rolf Hanggi, vice-chairman of thedrug and food supplement company Rocheto its board.

And if we were concerned about anyliability for selling health-harming food, andwanted to cover our corporate backs, thenwho better to appoint than Kaspar Villiger,chairman of insurance group Swiss Re, alsonewly elected to Nestlé’s board?

Having ensured we can continue tomake squillions from our dubious productsand practices, we would need to put themoney somewhere safe. Who better toadvise us than the ex Bank of England chiefSir Eddie George, a third newcomer to theNestlé board?

A 50-page back-to-school catalogue fromWoolworths is largely devoted to clothes,shoes, satchels and bikes. But they couldn’tmiss out food, surely?

No, there it is on page 49, under Playtimesuggestions. And what do they want kids toeat? The entire list consists of Dorritos crisps,Pic ‘n’ Mix sweets, Chupa lollies, Smarties andRibena.

But wait – page 36 is also food-oriented.Here we find pencil cases emblazoned with

logos for Coke,Refreshers,Polos, MilkyWay andKitKat. Howmuch fatterdoesWoolieswant ourchildren tobecome?

Ryanair travellers will beamused by the readingmaterial available topassengers.

On the back of almostevery seat in the plane is aprominent advertisement forMars bars.

And if passengers look atthe ceiling there is a list ofthe snacks available from thestewards: Mars bars, Delight(made by Mars), Maltesers(made by Mars)…

Flight to Mars

"We're now cruising at 48,000 calories an hour!"

Back to school fatter with Woolworths

FM66_MH.qxd 11/11/08 10:38

fm66 mh.qxd 11/11/08 10:38 page 1 fortified with l.casei … · food magazinefood magazinefortified...

Documents