Soft drinks - The Food Commission

The Food Magazine is virtually fat free – so it’s good for your heart as well as your brain!TheFOOD MAGAZINECampaigning for safer, healthier food for allPublished by The Food CommissionIssue 64 ◆ January/March 2004 ◆ £4.95Soft drinks – orliquid candy?AFood Magazine survey has revealedthat a single drink of Ribena orLucozade could give you as muchsugar as several packets of sweets.Either drink would exceed a child’srecommended maximum sugar intake for thewhole day – by 30% in the case of Ribena.With increasing attention being paid to therole of soft drinks in the obesity epidemic,especially among children, the Food Magazinetakes a look at how much sugar you canexpect to find in some of the nation’s favouritesoft drinks.For the full report, see page 21.A whopping 70g of sugar in this 500ml bottleof Ribena is equal to the sugar in more thanthree and half packets of Chewits, or sevenlollipops. That’s more than a child’srecommended maximum sugar intake fora whole day.2003: Ten campaign successes!Ten attempts by the food industry to marketunhealthy foods to children flopped last year,thanks to the tireless campaigning of theFood Commission and the Parents Jury.1) Sunset for Sunny DelightSunny Delight is up for sale following flaggingsales and continued bad publicity. It wasgiven the ‘Additive Nightmare’ award in 2002by the Food Commission’s Parents Jury andwas criticised on a BBC TV ‘s MoneyProgramme in December 2003. The trademagazine The Grocer reports that ‘the brandhas suffered a 28.6% nosedive at the till in thelast year’. News of this massive drop in salescame in the middle of a six-month advertisingcampaign costing £7.5m, selling SunnyDelight as a ‘good compromise’ and ‘a step inthe right direction’ for children’s health. Butparents were clearly not fooled, and thebrand is now up for sale. No buyer has yetbeen found. Can anyone spare a tenner?2) ASDA checkoutschuck out (some) snacksASDA has announced that it plans to displayfruit at some checkouts in an attempt to staveoff criticisms from the Food Commission andParents Jury about unhealthy snacksdisplayed where customers have to queue.ASDA, Britain’s second largestsupermarket, was identified as the ‘worstoffender’ in a Food Magazine surveypublished in October 2003, for selling highcaloriesnacks, confectionery and soft drinksat supermarket checkouts – all within easyreach of children. ASDA was confronted byMPs at the parliamentary Health Committeeinquiry into obesity with evidence from theFood Magazine survey and quicklyannounced that it would try displaying fruit atA £7.5m advertising campaign in 2003up to a quarter of its checkouts.featuring the geeky Max Wilde has failedto save Sunny Delight from falling sales. Thebrand is now up for sale ■ For more campaign successes, see page 3Get the facts with the Food Magazine

editorialcontentsThe Food Magazine is published quarterlyby The Food Commission, a nationalnon-profit organisation campaigning forthe right to safe, wholesome food. Werely entirely on our supporters, allowing usto be completely independent, taking nosubsidy from the government, the foodindustry or advertising. 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 LobsteinPolicy Officer: Kath DalmenyCampaigns & Research Officers:Annie Seeley, Merav ShubOffice & Subscriptions Manager:Ian TokeloveAdministrative Officer: Graham HoodInformation Officer: Mary WhitingAssistant Research Officers:Marjon Willers, Kate Millington,Marion O’Brien, Helen SandwellCartoons: Ben Nash and Joe ShortTrustees and Advisors:Joanna Blythman, Dr Eric BrunnerTracey Clunies-Ross, Peta Cottee, ProfMichael Crawford, Derek Cooper, Sue Dibb,Alan Gear, Vicki Hird, Dr Mike Joffe, RobinJenkins, Prof Tim Lang, Iona Lidington, DrAlan Long, Jeanette Longfield, DianeMcCrae, Dr Erik Millstone, Dr MelanieMiller, Charlotte Mitchell, Dr Mike Nelson,Dr Mike Rayner, Prof Aubrey Sheiham,Colin Tudge, Hugh Warwick, Simon Wright.■ Issue 64 of the Food MagazineJanuary - March 2004. ISSN 0953-5047.■ Typesetting and design by Ian Tokeloveof the Food Commission.■ Printed on recycled paper by Rap/SpiderWeb, Oldham OL9 7LY.■ Retail distribution by Central Books, 99Wallis Road, London E9 5LN.■ Unless otherwise indicated all itemsare copyright © The Food Commission(UK) Ltd 2003 and are not to bereproduced without written permission. ■The views expressed in this magazine arenot necessarily those of The FoodCommission.The Food Commission (UK) Ltd94 White Lion StreetLondon N1 9PFTelephone: 020 7837 2250Fax: 020 7837 1141email: enquiries@foodcomm.org.ukwebsites: www.foodcomm.org.ukwww.parentsjury.org.ukA happy new year for us all!The Food Standards Agency got off to a bad start in 2004when it responded to the farmed salmon scare byrepeating almost word for word the statement from thesalmon farm owners: don’t worry, salmon is good for you, thelevels of toxins are below safety limits, etc, etc.A pity. The Agency could so easily have said they wereconcerned about the problem, would deal with it, but wouldencourage people to continue eating oily fish of one sort anotherwhile the problem was cleared up.The Department of Health fared little better when it held astakeholder forum in January to discuss its Food and HealthAction Plan. Their draft document reiterated the need to cut backon salt, fat and sugar (messages the Department has beenrepeating for over a quarter of a century) but said nothing on whataction was needed.The Department could start by launching a food policy forum toreplace the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA)– a gap that remains unfilled for over five years.Meanwhile a deathly hush can be heard from the EuropeanFood Standards Agency. It has said very little on safety andvirtually nothing on diet and health throughout 2003.But something stirs at the World Health Organization, due topublish its long-awaited analysis of European food policy thisspring, and to ratify a global strategy for preventing noncommunicablediseases in May.However, not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is trying toblock criticism of the food industry, using the same tactics it didover global warming: discredit the evidence, bully colleagues andwalk out of the hall.Parents Jury wins campaign awardOne of the legacies of the campaigning nutritionist CarolineWalker is an annual lecture and prize-giving event. Awards aregiven to individuals, researchers and campaigners who during thepreceding year have contributed to improving nutrition.In 2003, the Food Commission accepted a Caroline Walker Trustaward on behalf of the 1,700 members of the Parents Jury. TheCaroline Walker Trust praised theParents Jury for helping to keepchildren’s nutrition on the nationalagenda at a crucial time. Thisaward is special because it comesfrom fellow nutritionists andcampaigners.So a big thank you, once again,to you – our readers andsupporters – without whom noneof our campaign work would bepossible.■ For Caroline Walker Trustpublications, lectures andawards, see: www.cwt.org.ukAdvertising 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 ian@foodcomm.org.ukNewsDrinks are liquid candy 1, 21Ten campaign successes 1, 3Chemical giant found guilty 5Farmed salmon 6Organochlorines and obesity 6HealthBoots: flavoured water for babies 4Toddler top puts teeth at risk 4Krispy Kreme targets charities 5Parent power curbs pester power 8BBC promotes biscuits 8Health Select Committee inquiryinto obesity: special report 11-13Fight fat the fiscal way! 15US doctors say: ‘ban soft drinks!’ 21GMGM labels exclude meat and milk 7ClaimsDubious science, but who cares? 9Is Milky Way healthy? 9US government sued 9AdvertisingToy adverts promote inactivity 5Latest rulings from the ASA 10Calling in the spin doctors 14EnvironmentFood miles: a ‘soft’ disaster 16-17MarketplaceBooks, posters, subscriptions 18ScienceWhat the doctor reads 19BooksReviews of books and reports 20FeedbackA dip into our mailbag 22-23BackbitesOn the lighter side… 24Badvertisements!This magazine takes noadvertising for food products.We believe that foodcompanies already promotetheir products too much.But we do like to exposefood companies’ deceptivedescriptions, silly statementsand loopy labels.So watch out for our ANTI-ADVERTISEMENTS scatteredthrough this magazine!Food Magazine 64 2 Jan/Mar 2004

..continued from page 1newsSuccess! Companiesbacktrack on unhealthypromotions3) Cadbury drops sporttokens from chocolate barsFollowing widespread criticism of its ‘tokensfor school sports equipment’ scheme,Cadbury has announced that it will changethe way the promotion works. Sponsorshipof school sport is likely to continue, butCadbury will no longer require children andtheir families to buy large amounts ofchocolate in order to take part. FoodCommission calculations (published inFM61, April 2003) showed that if a ten-yearoldwanted to earn a ‘free’ basketball, theywould need toplay the gamefor 90 hours toburn off the38,463 kcaloriesfrom eating thechocolate.4) Coca-Cola loses BBC dealIn January, the BBC announced that bySeptember it will drop the mention of Coca-Colafrom Top of the Pops and the Radio 1 chartshow. This promotion was due to Coca-Cola’srecent sponsorship of the UK Singles Charts.The public service broadcaster (which receivedno payment for the mention of Coca-Cola) hadbeen criticised for promoting sugary drinks tochildren and teenagers – the mainaudience for Top of the Pops. TheBBC said that by dropping theCoca-Cola logo, it wasresponding to ‘internal disquiet’,and pressure from licence payersand the media. When news of thesponsorship deal first emerged, the FoodCommission took part in many radio andnewspaper interviews slamming the scheme.5) Heinz reduces salt andstops marketing in schoolsFollowing widespread media coverage of FoodCommission criticisms of high levels of salt inHeinz foods targeted at children, Heinz hascommitted to reducing salt in its processedfood. In a year in which the subject ofadvertising to children was hardly ever out ofthe papers, Heinz has also published acommunications policy acknowledging thatmarketing in schools can promote unhealthydiets. The new policy states: ‘Any in-schoolprograms should be strictly educational, notcommercial, and only of a public service nature.They should reinforce healthy lifestyles andhealthy dietary behaviours, encourageknowledge of nutrition and cooking, and shouldcomplement the school curriculum.’ Heinz goeson to say, ‘Exclusive vending machine contractswith schools that require the promotion of Heinzbrands or products should be avoided.’ Heinz isalso one of the first mainstream food companiesto state that it will stop advertising to pre-schoolchildren. See: www.heinz.com/jsp/communications_guidelines.jsp6) Minister acknowledgesinadequacy of advert rulesAfter lobbying from parents and healthgroups, including the Parents Jury and FoodCommission, the minister for Culture, Mediaand Sport has finally acknowledged that foodadvertising may contribute to children’sunhealthy diets.Minister Tessa Jowell, who is responsiblefor the regulation of TV advertising, is reportedto have received several hundred letters fromconcerned parents and health professionals.Although she has previously said that the ruleson advertising are adequate, she has nowwritten to the advertising regulatory bodyOFCOM saying, "I believe the current code ofconduct governing the advertising of food anddrink products to children may be inadequateand is in need of review."■ For details of the OFCOM consultation onadvertising to children, contact: RozlineGrazette at OFCOM. Tel: 020 7981 3640; email:rosline.grazette@ofcom.org.ukCampaignsuccesses7, 8 and 9In response to badpublicity from the Food Magazine and ParentsJury: 7) Kellogg’s has reduced the fat andsaturated fat content of its Coco Pops andFrosties cereal bars; 8) Kraft Dairylea hasreduced the salt in its Lunchables range, and 9)Golden Vale has announced that it will reducethe salt in its Cheestrings snacks. These aresmall changes, but successes nonetheless, andbrought about by the hard work of parents, FoodMagazine readers and Food Commissioncampaigners.■ The Food Commissionwill be developingcampaign work in thecoming months tochallenge more foodmanufacturers mprovetheir products. If yousee products ormarketing that you would like to seechallenged,please send us asample of thepackagingtelling us yourconcerns andsaying whereand when youbought it.And number 10...BBC Worldwide, the marketing arm of theBBC, has told the Food Commission it isworking on its ‘food review’ and that it ‘willbe in touch shortly’. The BBC wasembarrassed by the Food Commission’scampaign highlighting the use of BBCcharacters the Teletubbies, Tweenies andFimbles on unhealthy foods.The US campaign group CommercialAlert has issued a challenge to the USpublic service broadcaster PBS (the USequivalent of the BBC) to drop a sponsorshipdeal between McDonald’s and its preschoolprogramme Sesame Street. See:www.commercialalert.orgFood Magazine 64 3 Jan/Mar 2004

abiesBoots serves upflavoured water fornewbornsThe World Health Organization recommendsthat babies should drink breastmilkexclusively for the first six months of life, aprinciple adopted by the UK’s Department ofHealth. Breastfeeding is protective against ahost of ailments and diseases, ranging fromallergies and digestive disorders to diabetesand heart disease.Dietitians generally stick to the ‘sixmonths breastfeeding’ advice, with somesaying that water can be introduced into thebaby’s diet at around four months,especially in hot weather. But for youngerand newborn infants, nutritious breastmilkshould be their sole source of fluid.However, contrary to such sound advice,the pharmaceutical retailer Boots haslaunched a new product range offlavoured water designed forbabies ‘from four weeks’. Theingredients are water, flavouringand citric acid.Not only is this a veryexpensive way of buying water(over £5 per litre); but do babiesBoots is not the only companygiving product advice that isunlikely to match up withguidance from dietitians.Meridian Apple JuiceConcentrate (left) is describedas a ‘baby juice’. The companydoes give advice on diluting thehighly concentrated product, butBadvertisementHow old is an infant?Because of their small size, babies andinfants are especially vulnerable tocontaminants and additives in their food.That’s why the food regulations banartificial sweeteners from foods and drinksfor babies and young children. Yet manyproducts designed for very young childrendo contain artificial sweeteners, such as thiscarton of Thomas & Friends Apple &Blackcurrant juice drink.Toddlers are the main audience forThomas the Tank Engine, yet this productcontains only 15% juice, with artificialreally need their first contact with water tobe adulterated with peach, blackcurrant,strawberry or apple flavourings?says that up to five drinks a day would besuitable for a four-month-old baby.No advice is given on the bottle relatingto dental health care despite the fact thateven after dilution this is a very sugarydrink. Five times a day is a high level ofexposure to sugar for newly developingteeth, especially if the baby is alsoconsuming sugars in other foods.sweetenersAspartame andAcesulfame K.How shouldparents judgewhat age theirchild must be inorder for artificialsweeteners to be‘safe’? Theregulations do notsay, and neither does thiscarton.Toddlertop putsteethat riskHow can one tiny piece ofplastic pose a serious threatto toddlers’ teeth?This new screw-on top,available in Tesco and sent tous by a concerned dentalspecialist, is called anAnywayup Toddler Top and fitsonto plastic bottles. The designof the screw-on top means thatwhichever way up the bottle isheld, fluid cannot leak out. Thismight seem handy for mums, but itis not so handy for teeth.We have found that the AnywayupToddler Top is a perfect fit for products such asCoca-Cola, 7-Up, Irn Bru and Panda Pops – allhighly sugary products. It also fits onto severalpopular varieties of sweetened squashes andflavoured fruit drinks, but not onto milk bottles.One of the main threats to newly formedtoddler teeth is frequent exposure to sugaryfoods and drinks. Yet this is just the sort ofexposure encouraged by a top that allowssugary drinks to be sipped frequentlythroughout the day. This drip-feeds sugar into atoddler’s mouth, creating a perfect environmentfor tooth-rotting bacteria to thrive.The British Dental Association says thataround a third of children will have one or moreof their teeth extracted before the age of five.The majority of these extractions could beprevented by better dental care and healthiereating and drinking habits.We have raised our concerns about theAnywayup Toddler Top with the company thatproduces them, and with Tesco, the FoodStandards Agency and the local tradingstandards officer responsible for Anywayupproducts. On grounds of safety and health, wethink this top should be withdrawn from sale.Mandy Haberman,the inventor ofAnywayup ToddlerTops andAnywayup Cupsthat have also beencriticised bydentists forencouragingchildren to sip onsugary drinksthroughout the day.Food Magazine 64 4 Jan/Mar 2004

healthToy adverts promotephysical inactivityPromotion of food accounts for almost half ofall advertising broadcast during children’s TVviewing times, representing by far the largestcategory of advertisements shown. Themajority of the foods and drinks promoted tochildren in this way are high in fat, sugarand/or salt, fueling calls for a restriction onfood advertising to children. The advertiseddiet is grossly unbalanced, doing little tosupport healthy food choices.In the lead-up to Christmas, toys tend totake over from food as the largest category ofadvertisements shown on children’s TV. Sincean increase in physicalactivity could help childrentowards using up some oftheir extra calories fromthe snacks and drinksusually promoted, wewondered: could toyshelp to promote amore activelifestyle?We kept a note of products promotedduring Saturday morning children’s televisionon a weekend just before Christmas.Amongst children’s programmessponsored by Ribena and Walkers Squarescrisps, and interspersed with ads forMcDonald’s, Burger King and Frosties cereal,we found that almost all of the Christmas toysand games were for products to be playedsitting on the floor or at the table, or forchildren’s movies.Only two out of 25 toy and game advertsinvolved some physical activity – the partygame Twister, and a Junior Ready SteadyCook Popcorn Maker, in which children mightwalk around the kitchen to gather ingredients,shortly before making a snack.Some organisations are now recognisingthat a balanced approach to tackling obesityinvolves healthy eating and active play.The National Association of Toy Librariesand the British Toy and Hobby Association(BTHA), representing several toymanufacturers, are working to promote activeand physical play. Guidance has been issuedto toy libraries about healthy eating duringplay sessions and avoiding sponsorship bycompanies marketing unhealthy messages tochildren. The annual Good Toy Guide includesan award for outdoor toys and BTHA isexamining how to develop materials for indooractive play.Perhaps the food industry could take a leafout of the toymakers’ book and develophealthier products and healthier promotions.Even old-fashioned toys like tricycles nowhave added motors so that children do nothave to pedal as they playKrispy Kreme targetsdisability charityWe hoped it wouldn’t happen in the UK, but howwrong we were. The US doughnut companyKrispy Kreme (see FM63: Krispy Kremes ‘donought’ for health) has started to market itshigh-sugar, high-fat products to UK nurseryschools and, worse still, to a disability charity.Krispy Kreme opened its first UK store inHarrods in autumn 2003. At the launch, one‘lucky’ customer won 24 free doughnuts aweek for a year, equivalent to an extra half kiloof sugar and 400g of fat every week. KrispyKreme has been dubbed by the UK media ‘theheart attack with a hole’.At a time when the UK government isconsidering restricting marketing of unhealthyfood to children (see page 24), Krispy Kreme’sPR company sent letters to nursery schools inLondon, encouraging them to raise money byselling doughnuts, by the dozen, to raise extracash. The more they sold, the nursery schoolswere advised, the more money the schoolswould make.And while parliament’s Health Committeemet to examine the causes of obesity, KrispyKreme’s PR company was writing to acommunity disability charity in West Londonencouraging it to raise funds by marketing andselling Krispy Kreme doughnuts – offering halfthe purchase price to the charity.A recent study of 145,000 adults inMassachusetts found that 25% of people withdisabilities were obese compared to 15% ofpeople without disabilities. People with physicaldisabilities may be unable to be as physicallyactive as those without, so it seems highlyinappropriate for a company to promotecalorie-dense foods through a disability charityin this way. To add insult to injury we are toldthat the PR company invited the disabilitycharity to attend a breakfast briefing at a hotelin London which had no disability access!Irradiation company goes bustA leading maker of food irradiation equipment,SureBeam Corporation, filed for bankruptcy inJanuary. During 2002, the American companyhad invested in new facilities, anticipating achange in US law to allow irradiation of readyto-eatfoods such as hot dogs anddelicatessen meats. Heavy borrowing andupbeat press releases from SureBeam didlittle to assuage investors, and the companyhas been sued by several shareholders. Newsof SureBeam’s imminent bankruptcy has beenhailed as a success by US anti-irradiationhealth campaigners.■ For information about food irradiation, see:www.foodcomm.org.uk/food_irradiation.htmChemical giant found guilty of causing birth defectsParents who blamed a pesticide for their babybeing born without eyes have won a ten-yearlegal battle and $7m (£3.9m) compensation. Itis the first time a chemical company has beenfound guilty of causing birth defects.In December, the Supreme Court in Floridaruled that the fungicide Benlate, made by theUS chemical giant DuPont, was responsiblefor causing the birth defect.American judges concluded that the baby’scondition was caused when his mother,Donna, was sprayed with Benlate when shewas seven weeks pregnant as she walkedpast a fruit farm in Florida. Benlate was usedfor years on farms and in gardens in Britain tocontrol fungal infections until DuPont took itoff the UK and international markets two yearsago because of mounting litigation costs (anestimated $1.3 billion to date).Thirty British families who claim that theirown children were born with birth defectscaused by Benlate are now preparing to bringfurther legal cases.As early as 1972, the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency, advised DuPont to put awarning on Benlate that it could ‘cause birthdefects ... and exposure during pregnancyshould be avoided’. DuPont argued that thisinformation was misleading and unnecessary,and refused to print the warning.■ Source: The ObserverFood Magazine 64 5 Jan/Mar 2004

newsFarmed salmon: time toclean up the industryThe US Environmental Protection Agencyreported this January that farmed UK salmonhave higher levels of contamination fromtoxic organochlorines – including dioxins,DDT and PCBs – than any other salmon inthe world.Both the industry and the UK FoodStandards Agency were quick to reassureconsumers that the levels were perfectlysafe and that salmon was a valuable part ofa healthy diet.But the US report came just days aftera street demonstration in Edinburgh by theSalmon Farm Protest Group (SFPG)drawing attention to the industry’s ‘filthy’production methods.SFPG supporters dressed as Santa Claus tohand out cans of wild Alaskan salmon toChristmas shoppers, and called for aconsumer boycott of farmed fish.‘Fish farm sea lice are killing wild salmon,’said SFPG chair Bruce Sandison. ‘The fishcontain artificial colourings, they may carrylisteria and may be contaminated with PCBs,dioxin, chlordane and DDT.’Salmon farms are also accused ofdischarging waste materials directly intocleanmarine waters. In addition,mass escapes of farmed fish may lead to theextinction of wild salmon.Far from being a sustainable form of fishproduction, it takes four tonnes of wild fishmeal to produce one tonne of farmed salmon.Fish farming also depends on a range of toxicchemicals to control diseases and parasites.■ Details on the SFPG campaign fromwww.salmonfarmmonitor.orgTake heart with other fishIf you despair of farmed salmon, take heart! Canned salmon comes from wild, unfarmed seastocks. And other heart-healthy oily fish are in good supply: mackerel (including smokedmackerel), herring, sardines, whitebait and pilchards are all rich in valuable long-chainomega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs). The COMA report on cardiovasculardisease (HMSO 1994) recommended that we double our national average consumption ofaround 0.1g of LC-PUFAs per day per person, to 0.2g per day or 1.5g per week.Are you getting your 1.5g/week? Try these:LC-PUFAs per100g serving*Smoked mackerel 4.3gCanned pilchard 2.8gFresh mackerel 2.5gKipper 2.2gFresh herring 1.6gCanned pink salmon 1.4gFresh sprats 1.3gPickled herring 1.2gLC-PUFAs per100g serving*Fresh wild salmon 1.2gCanned sardine 1.2gCanned mackerel 1.0gRainbow trout 0.8gEel 0.8gFresh halibut 0.6gPrawns 0.5gCrab 0.5g* Long-chain polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids: average values, based on PurdueUniversity, NAMI-SCC and McCance & Widdowson Composition of Foods tables.■ Vegetarians should ensure they get plenty of shorter chain Omega-3s from oils such aslinseed and rapeseed (canola). Other sources are walnuts, tofu and green leafy veg.Organochlorinesand obesityResearchers are increasingly concerned thatenvironmental contaminants that affecthormone function in humans, including theoestrogen-like activity shown byorganochlorines such as DDT, may beincreasing our risk of excess body weight. Acall for research proposals on links betweenendocrine-disruptors and obesity has beenissued by the US National Institutes of Health.The possible links have been recognisedfor several years, with research in the 1980sshowing that one of the more widely usedorganocholorine pesticides, lindane, caused asignificant increase in food intake and weightgain when administered to experimentalanimals. In humans, the levels oforganochlorines in blood plasma are generallyhigher in people with higher body mass.A possible explanation for a role in obesityis that the contaminants – soluble in fat andresistant to degradation – are dealt with in thebody by storing them in fatty tissue, with extrafatty tissue created to reduce theconcentration of the chemicals. In this sense,obesity may thus be a physiological adaptationto increasing exposure to toxic chemicals.The result would be high levelsorganochlorines stored in body fat. It has beenobserved that when obese people are put on aweight reduction diets their circulating levels oforganochlorines rise rapidly, as fatty cellsshrink and release the chemicals, thus raisingthe risk of thyroid and autoimmune dysfunctionand cancer.In the call for further research, the NationalInstitutes for Health is looking at early (in uteroand neonatal) implications, the role ofcontaminants in influencing the function of fatcells, the interaction with geneticsusceptibility to environmental agents as wellas wider aspects of obesity in society.■ For details see: www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/programs/special/obesity.htmStudy finds banned pesticides infatty tissues in every personA study of 155 people from 13 different areasof Britain undertaken for the WorldWide Fundfor Nature has shown that every person testedhad chemicals in their bodies that have beenbanned from use since the 1970s.The chemicals found included organochlorinepesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs). A DDT metabolite was found in all butone of those tested.■ For details see: www.labnews.co.ukFood Magazine 64 6 Jan/Mar 2004

GMNew GM labelsexclude meat and milkThe hard-won tighter labelling requirementsfor GM foods and animal feeds, scheduled forintroduction this April, will leave one glaringloophole: there will be no requirement to labelfood such as meat, milk and eggs producedfrom animals fed with GM animal feed.Consumers wishing to discourage farmersfrom using GM animal feed will not be allowedto know which products come from GM-fedanimals and which do not. The only assurancewill be for organically-certified foods.The European Commission is expectedgradually to lift its moratorium on new GMapprovals. This follows scientific approval of aMonsanto animal feed maize in December andan unresolved scientific decision on aSyngenta sweetcorn for import in canned formdirect to supermarket shelves. The EuropeanCommissioner for consumer protection andhealth, David Byrne, has indicated that it istime ‘to move on’ over the GM issue, implyingthat he sees the scientific argument as unableto hold back pressure from the US to allow anopen market in Europe.Supermarkets are being urged by the FoodCommission voluntarily to label productssourced from farms using GM animal feed, orGM declarations on food and feed labelsto declare a policy that the supermarket willnot sell food from such farms. Other majorfood manufacturers, importers and masscaterers such as school meals providers, willalso be pressed to declare their policies.Now In April 2004GM plants (e.g. GM chicory) Yes YesGM seeds (e.g. GM maize seed) Yes YesGM food (e.g. GM tomatoes) Yes YesGM food ingredients with detectable DNA(e.g. GM tomato purée, GM corn flour) Yes YesDerivatives from GM crops without detectable DNA(e.g. oil from GM cottonseed or rape seed) No YesStarches and syrups from GM crops(e.g. glucose syrup from GM maize starch) No YesFood additives made from GMOs (e.g. lecithin from GM soya) No YesFood produced with GM enzymes (e.g. bread made with GM amylase) No NoFood from animals fed on GM feed(eggs, milk, meat from animals fed with GM crops) No NoGM animal feed (e.g. GM maize for chicken feed) Yes YesGM derivatives in animal feed (e.g. gluten from GM maize) No YesAdditives in animal feed produced from GMOs (e.g. GM vitamin B2) No YesSource: European Commission Memo/03/221, 7 Nov 2003.GM companies may be heldliable for contaminationA campaign has been launched by a coalitionof environmental organisations, including theFive Year Freeze, in support of a parliamentaryGM contamination and liability bill.If passed into law it would holdcompanies liable for any economic orenvironmental harm resulting from theuse of GM products. If you would like tohelp, write to your MP asking them tosupport the Genetically ModifiedOrganisms Bill. MPs can be contacted atthe House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA.■ To join the GM Bill email list, send anemail to majordomo@foe.co.uk with‘subscribe gm-bill’ in the body of the email.Contact the Five Year Freeze on 020 7837 0642;or see: www.fiveyearfreeze.org.ukInadvertent contamination of up to 0.9% will be allowed under the European rules. Campaignorganisations argue that a much lower level of 0.1% is feasible, and some supermarketsalready set a maximum of 0.1% contamination in specifications to their suppliers.GM safety margins could putan end to GM crop productionIf a requirement were introduced to surroundall genetically modified (GM) crops with aspecified non-GM safety margin to preventbees carrying GM pollen to non-GM crops,this would effectively prohibit GM crops beengrown in the UK and much of Europe,according to Food Commission calculations.Bees have been known to travel as far as13.5km in the US western deserts. UK studiesshow that over 10% of bees commonly fly over9km from the hive several times a day if theirfavoured crop is in flower.A minimum distance across the non-GMsafety margin should therefore be at least9km. A radius of 9km around a GM croprequires a total area for thenon-GM safetySafety marginGMcropSafety marginmargin of some25,000 hectaresGM (see tablefree below). Thesafety marginwill have to be abee-free zone aswell, so that bees donot carry the pollen towardsthe edge of the zone, to be picked up by beescoming in from outside the zone. If bees are tobe allowed to live within the non-GM safetymargin, then a much larger zone will have tobe set to prevent pollen being transferredrelay-style to crops outside the zone.In the UK fewer than 14% of farms arelarger than 100 hectares. Farms above 1,000hectares are very unusual.In the European Union as a whole, only 9%of farms are larger than 50 hectares.Minimum distance Safety margin area5 km (~3 miles) 7,850 h (~30 sq miles)7 km (~4.5 miles) 15,400 h (~60 sq miles)9 km (~5.5 miles) 25,450 h (~100 sq miles)11 km (~7 miles) 38,000 h (~150 sq miles)“Did you hear? Defra will track each of uson a Global Positioning Satellite system!”Food Magazine 64 7 Jan/Mar 2004

campaign updateParent power urges retailersto curb pester powerThe Parents Jury campaign ChuckSnacks off the Checkout! was launchedin 2003 to highlight how retail displaysaffect what people buy and eat.Parents report that snacks bought onimpulse at the checkout add extra calories toa shopping basket, and can also causeconflict when children pester for productstheir parents would rather they did not eat.The campaign has rapidly gainedmomentum, and is now supported by 12 publichealth organisations, including the BritishDental Hygienists Association and theNational Oral Health Promotion Group.Parents have submitted statements ofconcern about fatty, sugary and salty snacksdisplayed at supermarket checkouts – see ourwebsite for examples.A sample of 100 of these statements hasbeen sent to supermarket bosses, tochallenge them to say what they intend to do.Over 100 checkout surveys have also beencarried out by supporters up and down thecountry. The findings show that ASDA has themost displays of unhealthy foods at checkouts,with an average 1.4 displays ofproducts per checkout. So despite itsplans to display fruit at some of itscheckouts (see page 1), ASDA still hasa very long way to go!Safeway was also found to haveconfectionary displays at 88% of itscheckouts, mostly within children’sreach. Let’s hope Safeway takesaction to remove these unhealthytemptations, especially in light of itsown survey, published in January,that announced: ‘Pester power is rife!59% of parents are pestered for treatswhen out shopping with their childrenwith chocolate and sweets gettingthe most requests (63%).’The surveys also revealed thatconfectionery at the checkout iscommon in unexpected places, suchas in pharmacies and in Mothercare.Boots was also highlighted by surveyors, withan average of 1.2 displays of products per till.Waitrose has retained its title as ‘top of theleague’. Surveyors found only one store inKate Millington, nutritionist and volunteer for theChuck Snacks off the Checkout campaign, prepares tosend statements from parents to major supermarketswhich confectionery was displayed at the endof the aisle near the tills. But in general,Waitrose continues to live up to its statedpolicy of protecting parents from pester power.BBC sheds the pounds…and then puts them on again!Research shows that the morepeople watch television, the fatterthey are. This is likely to bebecause people who watch a lotof television do not moveabout much.They may alsoeat a lot ofcalorificsnacks, bemore likely toorder take-awayfood, and may seeand respond tomore adverts for high-fat andhigh-sugar foods.The BBC acknowledgedthese relationships in an adcampaign for this year’sChildren in Need appeal. Aroadside billboard (above,right) says ‘Shed a fewpounds watching telly’.The campaign wentfurther than a jokeyreference to sedentarybehaviour. As withfund-raising for other good causes,BBC’s Children in Need has moved intolicensing deals with food companies,such as Fox’s, whose Pudsey Bearchocolate-covered biscuits nowcarry the Children in Need logo.Studies show that overweightchildren are more likely to bebullied, to have symptoms ofdepression and to have suicidalthoughts. Surely Children inNeed does not have to attachits logos to fattening foods thatwill only add to these children’sSupporters of the ChuckSnacks campaign The Allergy Alliance Healthy Eating on a Low Income Forum Bolton Primary Care Trust British Dental Hygienists Association British Association for the Study ofCommunity Dentistry Camden Primary Care Trust Consensus Action on Salt and Health Health Education Trust Hyperactive Children’s Support Group National Oral Health Promotion Group Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust UK Public Health Association■ If your organisation would like to supportthe campaign, contact us at the addressbelow and we can send more information.Tell retailers what you thinkThe more people who support thecampaign, the more likely we are topersuade supermarkets to change theirpolicies! Forms for submitting statements ofconcern are at: www.parentsjury.org.ukor write to: Chuck Snacks off the Checkout,c/o The Food Commission, 94 White LionStreet, London N1 9PF.Food Magazine 64 8 Jan/Mar 2004

claimsDubious science –but who cares?In autumn 2003, Nestlé produced cereal boxesfor its Cheerios and Shreddies brands with anunusual format. Prominent panels featured thefindings of a research study on differentbreakfasts and their effect on children’sattention span later in the morning.The packs even showed a graph indicatingthe superiority of Cheerios and Shreddiescereals over other types of breakfast.This was an unusual place to publishacademic research findings, so we followedthe website link to theoriginal research paper.The authors were KeithWesnes and colleague, ofa company calledCognitive DrugResearch, plus DavidRichardson, an ex-Nestlé senior advisor,along with Gareth Helm,a Nestlé employee, andone Simon Hails from aprivate food laboratory,Reading ScientificServices.The paper was published in ajournal called Appetite (41: 329-331,2003) – which presumably is not peerreviewed as the paper wasapparently accepted for publicationwithin 48 hours of submission. Had thepaper been properly peer reviewed itsurely would have been rejected.The four breakfasts examined in the trialwere (a) a bowl of Cheerios and milk, (b) abowl of Shreddies and milk, (c) a glass ofglucose drink with a similar amount ofcarbohydrate, and (d) no breakfast.The Cheerios and Shreddies eatersshowed better attention performance aftersome three hours compared with the glucosedrinkers and the no-breakfast children. Fine,except how do we know it was the cereal thatdelivered the results? Any rigorous studywould ask more questions.Could it have been the milk – which onlythose eating cereals received?Could it have been the protein or the fat inthe cereal and milk breakfasts, rather thancomplex carbohydrates which the authors andthe company claim?Or could it simply have been the additionalenergy provided in the cereal-plus-milkbreakfast? We estimate the cereal eatersreceived between 170 and 220 kcal,compared with the 145 kcal in the glucosedrink and nothing for the last group. Thedifferences between groups were notapparent after two hours, but only emergedby the third.We will never know.By the time we had drafted a complaint,Nestlé had changed its cereal box designsagain.And even if, as a result of our complaint,Nestlé had got a ticking off for makingunsubstantiated claims, would it care? Afterall, the message had already appeared onseveral million breakfast tables.Cereal breakfasts may be good forchildren, but poorly executed research willMilky Way pretends to be healthyThis Milky Way chocolate spread claims thatit is ‘rich in calcium, magnesium and vitamins’,making it sound as if the product could make avaluable contribution to our diet.But can adding minerals andvitamins magically transform afatty, sugary food into ahealthy food? This is more thana philosophical question.The debate lies at the heartof European negotiationsregarding new rules for thefortification of foods anddrinks.Fortification is theaddition of vitamins,minerals and otherbeneficial substances forthe purpose of improvingnutrition. Under UK rules,white bread and margarine areautomatically fortified to ensure thatpeople who eat these products do not sufferfrom particular nutritional deficiencies.However, companies can also addfortifying ingredients to foods of morequestionable nutritional quality, to give theimpression that such products have healthgivingproperties. In 1999, when the FoodCommission conducted a survey of 260fortified food products, we foundthat nearly three-quarters werehigh in fat, sugar or salt.The Food Commissionbelieves that the addition ofvitamins and minerals tofoods should not be used forthe purposes of ‘enrichment’of foods that also containhigh levels of fat, salt and/orsugar. This is a viewsupported by manyconsumer groups throughoutEurope, and upheld in Danishlaw which bans fortificationto prevent misleadingmarketing. But the industry ispushing hard to have its way.■ The Food Commission position paperFortified Junk is available in pdf format onthe website: www.foodcomm.org.ukUS government sued forreneging on claims lawThe US Center for Science in the PublicInterest (a consumer group affiliated to theFood Commission) and the US campaign groupPublic Citizen have filed a lawsuit against theUS government’s Food and Drug Administration(FDA) to challenge the FDA’s scheme topermit food companies to make health claimsbased on weak or inconclusive evidence.Formerly, the 1990 Nutrition Labeling andEducation Act allowed the FDA to approvehealth claims if they were supported by‘significant scientific agreement’.In 2003, the FDA announced it would allowfood companies to make health claims evenwhen evidence is too weak or inconclusive tomeet the statutory standard. Claims would evenbe permitted where the weight of the evidencesuggests that the claim is likely to be false, aslong as a disclaimer accompanies the claim.The consumer-interest lawsuit has beenfiled on the accusation that the FDA is violatingfood law requirements and is failing to protectconsumers from misleading claims.■ The complaint is available at:www.citizen.org/documents/compl-3.8xx.pdfFood Magazine 64 9 Jan/Mar 2004

advertisingLegal, decent,honest and true?The activities of the advertising industry raise many importantquestions for nutrition and health. Here we report on complaintsagainst food and drink companies adjudicated by the AdvertisingStandards Authority (ASA) in recent months.✗McDonald’s fries:Not so pureThe ASA upheld a complaint from theFood Commission against an advertisementfor McDonald’s fries. The advert claimed totell ‘The story of ourfries. (End of story)’.‘First,’ saidMcDonald’s, ‘we takethe potatoes. We peelthem, slice them, frythem and that’s it.’We knew this was notthe whole truth andsubmitted our complaint.The ASA’s investigationsconfirmed that fries forMcDonald’s go throughseveral more processes. For a start, thepotatoes are also par-fried, frozen and stored.Dextrose is added to make the fries yellow,and salt is added before serving to thecustomer. Because the story told in the advertclearly WASN’T ‘it’, McDonald’s was told by theASA not to repeat this marketing approach.This is an interesting case, since the advertwas part of a 2003 McDonald’s campaigntargeted at middle-class mums through glossymagazines and newspaper supplements. Thecampaign was designed to associateMcDonald’s products with purity and health.Perhaps a better approach for McDonald’swould be to make the food pure and healthy.✗Smoothie ads:Too fruitySeveral complaints against an advertfor fruit smoothies produced by‘thejuicecompany’ were upheld by the ASA ongrounds of ‘taste and decency’. The postercampaign showed a man in drag wearingblack lingerie, a necklace and a blonde wigwith the line: ‘New fruit on the block’. Thecomplainants pointed out that ‘fruit’ was aderogatory term for homosexual men, and saidthat the advertisement was offensive andhomophobic. The ASA acknowledged that theposter could be seen as offensive and askedthe advertisers not to use this theme in future.✗Arthritis pills:Creaky claimsA direct mailing for an anti-arthritissupplement was criticised by the ASA forclaiming that the product, called SAMe, ‘iscapable of improving the structure andfunction of joint cartilage... SAMe not onlyhelps arthritis - it also makes you happy!’The advertisers – Elixir of Life also statedthat SAMe had been shown to be useful inthe treatment or prevention of depression,fibromyalgia, liver cirrhosis, Alzheimer’sdisease and aging. The advertisers failedto respond to the ASA’s enquiries.Complaints were also upheld against anewspaper advertisement for an antiageingand anti-arthritis capsule from acompany called MicroTech. The companysaid that it did not know it had to holdevidence to prove the product’s efficacy, andsent the ASA the results of a trial with 60patients, in which only four patients’ appearedto have been cured.The ASA said that this did not support theadvertised claim: ‘Up to 100% pain relief inmost cases’, and told MicroTech not to makesuch statements again.Wyeth convicted of illegal formula ads✗The ASA is not the only body thatcan challenge misleading or illegaladvertising. In a case brought by anarea trading standards department, Wyeth,the parent company of SMA Nutrition, hasbeen found guilty of illegal advertising offormula milk. The adverts appeared inmagazines targeted at young mothers, suchas Prima Baby (an extract is shown below).Announcing the verdict, the district judgeat Birmingham Magistrates Court said: “Thedefendants have deliberately crossed theline‚ in an effort to advertise direct to avulnerable section of society. This is acynical and deliberate breach of theregulations.”SMA Nutrition is the second largest babymilk manufacturer in the world.Nothingadded –except glucose andfructose syrup, anthocyanins, guar gum, betacarotene,modified maize starch, pectin,flavouring, potassium citrate, citric acid,calcium citrate, sodium citrate and sugar.✗Danone yogurt:Full of additivesMuller Dairy and several members ofthe public objected to a magazineadvertisement for yogurt headlined: ‘NewDanone Shape. Now with added nothing’‚The text continued, ‘Simply a virtually fat freeyogurt packed with real fruit. And becausethere are no artificial sweeteners,preservatives or colourants, the deliciousnatural fruit flavours can really comethrough’.As well as yogurt and fruit, the productscontained added ingredients such as glucoseand fructose syrup, anthocyanins, guar gum,beta-carotene, modified maize starch, pectin,flavouring, potassium citrate, citric acid,calcium citrate, sodium citrate and sugar.The ASA said that ‘with added nothing’was therefore misleading. The claim ‘virtuallyfat free’ was also criticised by the ASA,because the yogurt contained 0.9% fat.Danone stated that, because no legaldefinition of ‘virtually fat free’ existed, theyhad developed their own definition. The ASAconsidered that because the Food StandardsAgency states that ‘fat free’ claims can bemade only for products containing 0.15% fator less, the claimwas misleading.The Judgefined Wyeth/SMA £4,000 foreach of fouradvertisements,and £5,000 eachfor two furtheradvertisementswhich couldhave beenwithdrawn after a warning from LACOTs, thenational trading standards body.■ Source: Baby Milk ActionIf you see food and drink advertisementsthat you think are misleading orcontentious, send us a copy. If we think it isa good case, we will be pleased to submita complaint on your behalf.Food Magazine 64 10 Jan/Mar 2004

INQUIRYCause obesity? ‘Not us’food companies tell MPsJanuary saw the last session of parliament’s Health SelectCommittee inquiry into obesity. The committee’s report togovernment is due in April. Over the next three pages wereview some of the statements made by the food industry --and contrast their words with their deeds.The Health Select Committee inquiry intoobesity was set up by government togather evidence from individuals andorganisations whose work affects what weeat and how much exercise we take. Thecommittee, representing a cross-section ofMPs and political parties, heard evidencefrom food manufacturers, advertisers, foodand physical exercise specialists, consumergroups and academics. It has been a landmarkinvestigation into the cultural causes ofdisease.Among those submitting written evidencewas the Food Commission, drawing on ourinvestigations into food, food labelling andfood marketing conducted over the past 15years. We were also called to give oralevidence to the committee and were able topresent the concerns not only of our ownsupporters, nutritionists and campaigners, butalso of the hundreds of members of theParents Jury who want to see children’s foodimprove. We emphasised the need fornutritional standards for children’s foods,decent resources for promoting healthierdiets, and better food labelling. We also saidASDA ‘wants to help parents’During the obesity inquiry, ASDA was confronted by MPs withevidence from a Food Commission survey showing the retailer tobe the worst offender in terms of high-calorie snacks and softdrinks displayed at supermarket checkouts – all of them withinchildren’s reach. ASDA admitted to the MPs it hada responsibility to promote healthy food andquickly announced that, for a trial period, itwould display fruit at four or five in every 20of its checkouts.What ASDA did not reveal to the HealthSelect Committee was that just twoweeks earlier it had allowed McDonald’sto open a restaurant in an ASDA store inScotland for the first time. Scotland’ssecond ASDA McDonald’s opened 11days later in Kirkcaldy – at almostexactly the same time as ASDA wasmaking its ‘healthy checkouts’commitment to MPs.that government should tackle the unhealthyimbalance in food marketing to children.Also giving evidence were representativesfrom supermarkets, the food and drinkindustries and the food advertisers. Put underthe spotlight, many of these representativestried to steer the committee towardsuncontroversial options such as improvedfood labelling and better food education inschools, and away from restrictions onunhealthy food advertising or nutritionalstandards for processed children’s food.On the following pages, we report on whatthe food and advertising industries told theMPs … and what they didn’t.Pepsi claims its ‘labelling isfantastic!’From January, for the first time, Pepsi labelswill reveal to customers that Pepsi is around11% sugar. Information, the food companiesall agreed, was essential in order forcustomers to be ‘free to make their ownchoice’. Two points of interest arise here.First, that the UnitedStates has hadmandatory nutritionlabelling since 1994,and obesity rates inthe US are stillrocketing. Clearly,information isn’teverything. Andsecond, suchinformation can bepresented in allsorts of ways. Atthe obesity inquirynew labelling forWalkers crisps wasproudly exhibited byPepsico UK, thecompany whichowns both Pepsiand Walkers. Thisinformation panelwill appear on 240million Walkerscrisp packets anddescribes what thecompany wants usto believe is ahealthy, balanceddiet. ‘It is importantto have a variety offood for lunch’, says the panel, ‘including ‘alittle treat’ – a daily bag of high-fat, high-saltWalkers crisps.Pepsico have yet tointroduce the informationpanel shown above, butin the meantime theyseem to be doing theirbest to expand thewaistlines of the nation.Bags of Walkers Crispsnow contain 50% morecrisps, boosting thetotal fat content toover 18g per pack."Sorry, kid, no snacks onthis checkout!"ASDA told MPs they would tryselling fruit at some checkouts,but that failed to mention that theyhave incorporated Mcdonald’srestaurants into stores across the UK.Food Magazine 64 11 Jan/Mar 2004

INQUIRYFood companies plead ‘of promoting obesityWalkers ‘don’t advertise inschools’Marketing in schools is a very sensitive issue atthe moment. Food manufacturers Kraft andHeinz have recently committed to a policy ofavoiding marketing in schools. That’s why themarvellously named ‘Cilla Snowball’ of Abbot-Mead Vickers, the advertising agency forWalkers crisps, was quick to to point out: ‘Wedo not do any advertising in schools.’ Errr...what about Walkers ‘Free Books for Schools’scheme in 26,000 UK schools? Or sponsoredexercise books, given out ‘free’ to secondaryschools by the company JazzyMedia, featuring adverts for Walkers Cheetocrisps? Clearly, Ms Snowball thinks neither ofthese activities on the part of its client areadvertising. But we do.Kellogg’s and the advertisers: ‘Wenever encourage pester power’‘Pester power’ is another sensitive issue ‘It’sagainst the advertising code of practice,’ saidthe advertisers, ‘We would never encouragepester power’. Kellogg’s confirmed that they‘are not allowed to’ use pester power.However, a job ad for a Kellogg’s SeniorResearcher for Kids’ Brands reveals the truestate of affairs. The first paragraph of theadvert reads, ‘Coco-Pops, Fruit Winders,Cereal Milk Bars and Frosties are some of thebrands you need to get under your skin in thisrole. You will spend your time understandingkids, finding out what interests them andWalkers claim not to advertise in schools. So howcome this sponsored exercise book contains adouble page plug for Walkers Cheetos snack?establishing which other brands theyassociate with, and appreciating the realm ofpester power.’The advertising agency for Walkers wasalso shown to be being economical with thetruth regarding pester power. In a sample ofone its own media strategy briefs, the desiredresponse from children was described as‘Wotsits are for me. I am going to buy themwhen I get the chance and pester Mum forthem when she next goes shopping.’ MsSnowball from Abbott-Mead Vickers admittedthat ‘The wording was unfortunate and wewon't do it again.’ As current Wotsits packetssay, Wot a Laugh!Pepsi claims that ‘Sugary drinksdon’t make you fat’During the inquiry, Pepsi asserted that sugarydrinks do not contribute to obesity – which willcome as a surprise to the experts at the WorldHealth Organization who have stated that softdrinks are indeed likely to contribute to obesity.An average 500ml bottle of cola containsMcDonald’s‘It’s all up to the parents’McDonald’s told the Health Select Committeethat, ‘The majority of Happy Meal advertisingis aimed purely at the parents.’ In fact,McDonald’s has been found to be the mostprolific advertiser during children’s televisionviewing times in many European countriesincluding the UK.And what about this promotion sent inrecently by reader Tracy Hayden, from theSouth Woodham & Maldon News?It advertises a ‘bonny baby’ photocompetition, to take place in the Maldonbranch of McDonald’s. Prizes include a year’ssupply of Happy Meals for children aged sixmonths to five years.At a parliamentary meeting in autumn2003, the Food Commission showed thisadvert as an illustration of how fast-foodcompanies try to become a regular part offamily life. Little did we know that the head ofMcDonald’s public affairs was in theaudience. They were so embarrassed to hearthe scheme criticised in front of MPs, theycontacted the local branch to get the schemestopped. It just goes to show that exposingfast-food marketing tactics can make thingschange!‘Sports sponsorship isaltruistic’McDonald’s told MPs that itssponsorship of community footballhas nothing to do with marketingthe brand and is purely altruistic.Oh yes? So why do participatingchildren have to wear McDonald’s brandedshirts?And why do they appear in the local pressin publicity shots that feature the goldenarches? Is this altruism or marketing?‘We don’t encourage people toeat larger portions’Food companies often argue that‘supersizing’ of portions does not encourageovereating and is simply to offer more choice.However, under questioning from MPs,McDonald’s admitted that it trains its staff toencourage customers to choose a largermeal. The bigger the meal, the more money inthe tills.Food Magazine 64 12 Jan/Mar 2004

INQUIRY‘innocent’According to the advertisers, sportsstars can’t make crisps or soft drinksattractive to youngsters – but canincrease sales of bananas!around 11 teaspoons ofsugar, adding over 200kcalories to your diet. Itseems that the only timesoft drinks manufacturersadmit that you canconsume excess calories inthe form of sugary drinks iswhen they want to sell ‘diet’products to people worriedabout their weight. Thisadvert for Sugar-Free RedBull reveals thecontradiction. Does sugar addto your waistline or not?Food companies and advertisers(in chorus): ‘It isn’t us!’The message from the evidence submitted tothe obesity inquiry by food companies andfood advertisers came across loud and clear:Don’t blame us! It’s all down to the parents!■ Transcripts of the Health Select Committeehearings are available through the SelectCommittees link at: www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm/cmhome.htmThe advertisers‘We can promote healthyfood too!’During the Health Select Committeehearings, food companies and advertisersfrequently stated that advertising does notencourage children to eat an unhealthy diet.But when offered the opportunity of a fatfee to promote fruit and vegetables,advertisers were all too eager to contradictthis view and say that advertising would be ahighly effective in encouraging children toeat a healthy diet.Hmmm... So can advertising affectchildren’s diets or not?‘Marketing only encouragesbrand-switching’When the director of the industry’sAdvertising Association, Andrew Brown,stated that, ‘Advertising does not have aneffect on increasing market size.’ MPspointed out that fast food is a recentphenomenon in the UK, and presumablyachieved its huge popularity throughpromotions, creating amarket that had notexisted before.Faced with theprospect of a ban on theadvertising of high-sugar food to children,Kellogg’s pronounced that without advertisingof cereals, children would stop eatingbreakfast. Once again, the food companiesadmit that advertising does indeed have aneffect on children’s diets.‘Young people aren’t attracted tobrands promoted by sports stars’Gary Lineker and David Beckham got severalmentions at the committee hearings forpromoting Walkers crisps and Pepsi.The advertisers maintained that thesefootballing heroes do not encourage youngpeople to find such foods attractive. AndrewBrown of the Advertising Associationadmitted that when tennis stars where seeneating bananas at Wimbledon, banana salesincreased. What a strange anomaly. So usingsports stars to promote foods only workswhen it’s for healthy food?We don’t believe it.‘Children don’t collectcollectible toys’We’re not sure what planet Julian Hilton-Johnston lives on, but as Vice President ofMcDonald’s UK he told MPs that in hisexperience, children don’t collect sets ofcollectible toys.MPs reminded Mr Hilton-Johnston of a 2003McDonald’s Microstarspromotion offeringcollectible toys in the shapeof famous footballers – 20toys available over a fiveweekperiod. A child wouldneed to have eaten atMcDonald’s four times a weekto get the whole set.Mr Hilton-Johnstonexplained ‘the objective of ourpromotion is not principally todrive people to come in moreoften, it is largely designed toget different people to comeinto our restaurants.’ The MPs alsohighlighted a recent promotion linked toDisney’s children’s film Treasure Planet. A‘Ben the Robot’ toy had to be collected infour separate components given away withMcDonald’s Happy Meals. If a child did notvisit McDonald’s repeatedly to collect all ofthe components in the set, they would havebeen left with an incomplete, useless toy.Challenged on this point, andprobably recognising thatthis promotionreveals the flaw inhis defence, MrHilton-Johnston said,‘We will not berepeating it.’This is the body sectionof a ‘Ben the Robot’ toygiven away withMcDonald’s HappyMeals last year.Children needed tocollect four separatecomponents to assemble afull toy, which meantpurchasing four Happy Meals.A child would need to have eaten atMcDonald’s four times a week, over afive-week period, to get a whole set ofMicrostars footballer toys.Food Magazine 64 13 Jan/Mar 2004

INQUIRYIndustry calls inthe spin doctorsAs food companies come under fire forthe nutritional quality of products, andas food advertisers are warned to backoff from marketing unhealthy food to children,there is only one group of people who seem tobenefit from the intensifying debate. Notconsumers or parents, but the PR companies,who are currently picking up fat contracts togive a positive spin to the food and advertisingindustries.Fuel (or to use its own description – fu¯’el:power; passion; energy) is one such company,which is making its mark in the food debate. Itsleaflet advises that ‘We know what we need –more education from opinion-formers andorganisations who work to ensure we onlyreceive quality information.’And who are these eminent opinion-formerson whom we should rely for our qualityinformation? One of Fuel’s clients is the FoodAdvertising Unit (an offshoot of the industry’sAdvertising Association), which defends foodadvertising interests and which has never beenin more need of positive spin.One of Fuel’s first efforts on behalf of theFood Advertising Unit was to conduct anopinion poll of 1,500 parents. Its resulting pressrelease emphasised that parents accept thatadvertising is part of modern life, and that theymake all the decisions when shopping. But oncloser examination of the poll, the followinginteresting statistic emerged: ‘SixtyGetting in a food spinThe food advertising industry has found a new ally informer spin doctor Alistair Campbell. In his first publicspeech since quitting Downing Street, he addressed theannual conference of the Marketing Society.At a time when food producers and advertisers arecriticised for the quality of their products and for targetingchildren with unhealthy food, he advised marketingprofessionals, ‘You have to make your argument on yourown terms. If you get your message strategy right, youare in a good position should a crisis come.’We can look forward to the advertising industrytrying to set the media agenda, influence ministers andshift the blame away from themselves (organised byspin doctors for a fat fee), if Mr Campbell’s past‘message strategies’ are anything to go by.three per cent [of parents] citedadvertising as aninfluence on whatthe child asked for.’Fuel spent therest of the paragraphreminding readersthat parents may feelthis to be the case butthat they are in factwrong: ‘The actualimpact of advertisingon children's foodchoices and attitudesis not generallyconsidered to besignificant.’ Aconvenient conclusion,considering that Fuel’s poll and the academicresearch on which this banal and unhelpfulstatement was based were both sponsored bythe advertising industry.International PR company WeberShandwick is also seeking to establish itself asan advocate for the food industry. At aconference in 2003, it presented the results of asurvey on ‘globesity’ to an audience packedwith senior representatives from companiesspecialising in fatty and sugary foods, such asCoca-Cola and McDonald’s. One of WeberShandwick’s latest clients is the Brazilian sugarindustry association.The fruit images in this leaflet from the PRcompany Fuel are somewhat ironic. One of itsclients is the industry’s Food Advertising Unit,whose members hardly ever promote freshfruit or vegetables to children.Here are some independent polls that revealwhat parents really think about advertising.● A Mori poll (November 2003) carried out forthe National Family & Parenting Institutefound that 84% of parents thought that companiestargeted their children too much.● A Guardian newspaper/ICM opinion poll(October 2003) showed that ‘66% of those insocial classes D and E supported a ban onadvertising aimed at children,’ with strongsupport across all social groups for restrictionson soft drinks and fatty snacks inschool vending machines.● Mori (1994) found 64% of parents would liketougher restrictions on the advertising offoods and drinks to children, and that mostparents believed advertising has a detrimentaleffect on children’s diets.● Cooperative Wholesale Society (2000): 80%of parents wanted tighter controls on advertisingto children, and 77% wanted to see aban on the advertising of food to children.● Welsh Consumer Council (2003): ‘Many parentsfelt under pressure from their children’sdemands as a result of the attractiveand powerful advertising they saw on TVduring children’s programmes.’● Chartered Institute of Marketing (2002): 75%of parents said that children see too muchadvertising.Food Magazine 64 14 Jan/Mar 2004

food taxesFight fat the fiscal way!Improving public health takes action from all government departments:health, education, transport, environment, media, sport,planning, trade, agriculture – and the Treasury. Tim Lobsteinlooks at some fiscal measures that could help shape our diets.From setting income support levels to theprices of imported goods, the Treasuryplays a role in shaping our access tofood, and hence our diet. And just as parentsattempt to control the diets their childrenconsume through controls over their pocketmoney, so the government can do much moreto link consumer spending to public health.The idea is hardly new – tobacco has beenseverely taxed for many years, to discouragesmoking and recoup some of the costs oftobacco-related disease. With the WHO nowshowing that diets are responsible for asmuch disease as tobacco, the prospect offiscal intervention in our food supply mustsurely tempt the Treasury. Here are someideas on how it could happen:1. Value added tax (VAT)Most food in the UK is VAT-free, with somenotable exceptions and peculiar distinctions.The exceptions were originally part of a vaguenotion that snacks should be taxed while mealitems should not, but the difference was neverclear and the subsequent rulings have madethe definitions ever more complex.Table 1 shows a few of the anomalies. It isclearly time for a review of the foods that arestandard-rated. This review should beundertaken in the light of modern dietarypatterns and the government’s Chief MedicalOfficer’s advice on healthy eating.Care should be taken so that the extra VATdoes not further disadvantage poorerhouseholds, where food is a major part of theweekly budget. A rise in the price of somefoods may need to be offset by a fall in theprice of others.2. Snack taxesSome countries apply sales taxes to foods: inFrance, for example, VAT of 20.6% is added tosweets, chocolates, margarine and vegetablefat, while other foods are rated at 5.5%.In Canada, sales taxes are charged on softdrinks, sweets and snack foods. Similar snacktaxes have been levied in several US states:Jacobson and Brownell* list 19 states in theyear 2000 with snack taxes, and a further 12where snack taxes had been introduced butlater abolished – largely, they suggest, due toindustry pressure. The tax levied wasgenerally low, typically 3%-7% of sales price,but it raised tens of millions of dollars for therelevant state authority annually.In 1988 Californians supported a 25 cent taxon cigarette packs, raising $90m annually fortobacco control and health promotion. Thisring-fencing or hypothecation of a sales tax, toensure it goes to promoting health, increasedits popularity among the public. Similar movescould be undertaken with food.3. CAP recovery leviesThe Common Agricultural Policy is costing theEuropean Union’s tax payers some 40bn Eurosannually. Both the sugar and dairy sectorshave been described by the European Court ofAuditors as chronically overproducing – withsome of the surplus exported to cause ill-healthelsewhere, while much of it goes into our foodsupply in hidden and subsidised forms. Muchcould be done to improve this situation.Butter is a particular problem, with nearly athird of EU butter production bought up by theEuropean Commission and sold cheaply (i.e.with public subsidy) to food manufacturers tomake products such as pastries and icecream. Fruit and vegetable payments in theCAP help producers destroy crops in order to‘protect’ the market, i.e. keep prices high – aclear opportunity to intervene for better health.A subsidy-recovery levy, in which GordonBrown takes back money paid to the sugar,butter, meat and oil producers, would lead toprice rises for these commodities, as theymove from producers into food manufacturing.Manufacturers might think again about theirrecipes, cutting their use of fats and sugars.4. Marketing taxAn advertising tax is likely to be fiercelyresisted by broadcasters and the advertisingindustry. However, a levy in which everyadvert for junk food had to cover the cost ofan advert for healthy food might appeal topoliticians who are resisting pressure for anoutright ban. It might also please advertisingagencies and the media. A ratio of, say, sevenhealthy food adverts for every unhealthy one,to encourage a balance in line with healthyeating guidelines, might be even better!■ M Jacobson, K Brownell, Am J Pub Health(2000) www.cspinet.org/reports/jacobson.pdf.Standard-rated and zero-rated VAT on food in the UKStandard-ratedconfectionerybiscuits with chocolate coveringsice cream, gateau, frozen cakesmarshmallowssweetened cereal bars, muesli barscrisps, puffed snacks, roasted nutsice cream, water ices, sorbetsfruit drinks, juices and concentratesmonosodium glutamatehot take-away foodbread in take-away, e.g. burger and pitta;bread with restaurant mealssesame barschocolate raisins, sugar almondsMarron glacémineral waterFrom HM Customs and Excise Notice 701/14Zero-ratedchocolate spread, cake decorationsother biscuits including iced, caramelcoatedand choc-chip cookiescakes, jaffa cakes, baked Alaskamarshmallow teacakesoat biscuits, flapjackstortilla chips, roasted nuts in shellsfrozen yogurt if thawed before eating,ice cream sauces and toppingsmilkshakessalt, additives, flavourings, sweetenerssandwichesbread, rolls, pitta and other bread productshalvatoffee applesglacé cherriescocoa, drinking chocolateFood Magazine 64 15 Jan/Mar 2004

environmentRising food miles will cause a ‘soft’Some disasters take many years todevelop. They do not arrivesuddenly in our awareness butaccumulate slowly, year-on-year. Because itdevelops incrementally, climate change issometimes dubbed a ‘soft disaster’*, a titlethat belies its potentially harsh outcomes.With soft disasters like climate change,policy-makers find it hard to apportionresponsibility, or to find the political will totackle the many small causes that add up tothe larger effect. Each individual vehiclecannot be held responsible for climatechange, just as each individual food portioncannot be held responsible for obesity. Buttaken in aggregate they lead to outcomesthat affect our health.New research from the transport andenvironment campaign group Transport 2000paints an alarming picture of how themodern food system is making an increasingcontribution to global climate change. Itsreport, entitled Wise Moves: Exploring therelationship between food, transport andcarbon dioxide, also highlights a multitude ofinadequacies in a regulatory system thatfails to tackle greenhouse gas emissionshead on.The food chain is estimated to beresponsible for over a fifth (22%) of UKgreenhouse gas emissions. Yet this islikely to be a gross underestimation ofthe UK’s true contribution to climatechange, since the UK is responsible formany more food journeys than take place onits own roads.Transport 2000 points out that foodjourneys taking place outside the UK are notincluded in UK Government transportstatistics, nor are the emissions theygenerate included in the UK’s greenhousegas total. Indeed, those produced by aircraftand ships are attributed to nobody, becausethey take place in international air spaceand on international waters.CO 2 targets fail to considerfood miles travelled by airMost food entering and leaving the UKtravels by ship. However, the Wise Movesreport from Transport 2000 highlights a rapidgrowth in air freight of food — the method oftransport that generates the most carbondioxide of all.The trend, says Transport 2000, is aidedby untaxed aviation fuel, lower manufacturingcosts overseas, and sophisticatedcommunication including the growth in e-commerce. The increase in demand for highvaluefoods also makes air-freight a costeffectiveoption for exporters and importers.Although globally 50% of air-freightedgoods are carried in the hold of passengerplanes that would be flying anyway, moreweight means greater fuel use. In addition,the growth in use of dedicated freighters hasbeen significantly higher than the growth inthe transport of freight in passenger planes.Transport 2000 points out that dedicatedfreight planes are often old, decommissionedpassenger planes and therefore very unlikelyto be fuel efficient.Several anomalies in the regulatory systemsuggest little will be done to curb this trend.For a start, carbon dioxide emissions fromship and air transport are not attributed tothe tally of any country’s carbon dioxideemissions. This is because such journeystake place in international waters andinternational air space. By signing the KyotoProtocol, most countries have committed toreducing their carbon dioxide emissions(with the notable exception of the US, whichhas refused to sign the protocol). Butbecause nobody is held responsible for airand ship emissions, there is no incentivefor anyone to tackle the contribution shipsand planes make to climate change.A commonly held view is that harmfulemissions can be mitigated by improving theenergy efficiency of transport, packagingand refrigeration. Supermarkets have, forinstance, applied computer technology toensuring that fuel is rarely wasted in movingempty trucks around the country. Regionalstock depots for major stores and load optimisationincreases efficiency in food delivery.However, even in the best case scenarioof maximum efficiencies gained by suchtechnological approaches, Transport 2000states that ‘whatever the gains in efficiency,more goods are being transported furtherand more frequently than ever before,leading to an absolute increase in tonnekilometres.Despite the efficienciesachieved, existing technology still fallssignificantly short of mitigating this growth.’Organic: Good for the environment?Although organic production has clearbenefits for the environment, air freightundermines these advantages. Recognisingthis, Swiss organic certification rules meanthat food cannot be labelled as organic if ithas been imported by air.The Food Commission is lobbying theUK’s leading organic certification body, theSoil Association, to implement similar rulesfor organic food sold in the UK.There are few examples of effectiveaction to reduce air miles. Currently, unlessyou buy your food from a farmers’ market orlocal box scheme that guarantees food isproduced within a given locality, there is noway to find out how far your food hastravelled or if it arrived by air. We believeconsumers should be able to see how muchdamage their food causes: an air-freightsymbol combined with the country-of-origindeclaration could help. We also think thatbecause of their ‘good for the environment’claims, organic certification bodies shouldtake a lead in reducing the damage causedby air freight (see box below).Soil Association-certified watercress fromthe USA, beans from the Gambia and cornfrom Thailand – probably all air-freighted tothe UK.Food Magazine 64 16 Jan/Mar 2004

environmentdisasterEmissions generated by road vehiclesoverseas carrying food destined for Britishstomachs count towards the host country’sannual greenhouse gas bill, not to the UK’s.Whilst emissions produced trucking Britishproducts across the UK before they areexported will be included in the UK’s balance,we import much more food than we export sothe greenhouse-gas imports/exports equationdoes not balance out. We are driving our foodon other nations’ roads more than on our own,and more than ever before. As a result, theUK’s food system is generating rising amountsof transport-related CO 2 emissions. But, as faras the UK balance sheet is concerned, theseare hidden, so there is little incentive foranyone to reduce them.So what can be done? Transport 2000stresses that apparently straightforwardsolutions are not always the best choices.The total contribution of a food product tocarbon dioxide emissions is more thansimply the distance travelled. A product thathas travelled the shortest distance may havecaused atmospheric pollution in other ways,during agriculture, manufacturing or coldstorage. During the spring, imported fieldgrownSpanish vegetables that are theproduct of ‘free’ sunlight may be responsiblefor less CO 2 emissions than UK hot-houseequivalents that rely on electric lights andheating, even when the longer distance istaken into account. Both food miles andseasonality are crucial factors in a trulysustainable food system.Transport 2000 assesses the relativecontribution of improving technologies,efficiencies in truck use, shortening supplychains, and centralised distribution, andlooks at the prospects for more ethicallybased consumer demand.But the conclusion is clear. If we want tomitigate the effects of our food system onthe global climate, we can no longer expectour food to be transported from ever greaterdistances, and to require so many varietiesof food to be available outside of theirnatural season.■ Wise Moves: Exploring the relationshipbetween food, transport and CO 2 (2003), byTara Garnett, is published by Transport 2000Trust; £15. Tel: 020 7613 0743. A summary isavailable at: www.transport2000.org.ukLondon’s hospitals aimfor sustainabilityIn the UK, over 1.5 billion meals are served upin the public sector – in schools, prisons, armycanteens, government offices and hospitals. Itis widely recognised that public sectorcaterers could therefore make a hugecontribution to reducing carbon dioxideemissions by using local and seasonalproduce. With this in mind, the networkorganisation London Food Link is to launch atwo-year programme to increase the amount ofsustainable food in four NHS London hospitals.■ For details, see www.londonfoodlink.org;tel: 020 7837 1228; email: fiona@sustainweb.orgHelp sought for canteensurvey of local foodAs part of an ongoing campaign to reducefood miles, Sustain is asking for help toconduct a survey of canteens. If you use acanteen at school or work and could ask thecatering manager a few questions about foodpurchasing, contact Vicki Hird on 020 78371228; or download a survey sheet at:www.sustainweb.org/chain_survey.aspLike many supermarkets, Marks & Spenceris proud of its environmental credentials. ItsCorporate Social Responsibility Report for2003 says that the retailer takes a threeprongedapproach: Support the best; Avoidthe worst; Improve the rest.M&S acknowledges its contribution to ‘foodmiles’ – the distance travelled by food fromproducer to processor to shop. Increasedfood miles means increased emissions of thegreenhouse gas carbon dioxide.M&S states in its report that ‘food milesdecisions also include elements of locality,freshness, use of preservatives, packaging,choice, support for UK farmers and quality’.BadvertisementSupermarkets fail to cooperate ongreen assessment projectA three-year government-funded researchprogramme designed to compare the social,health, ethical and environmental track recordsof supermarkets has been scuppered byleading supermarkets failing to cooperate.Iceland, M&S and Sainsbury’s took part in aconfidential pilot of the Race to the Top (RTTT)programme in 2002, but declined to submit datain 2003. Supermarkets ASDA, Tesco, Waitroseand Morrisons chose not to participate at all.Three retailers (the Co-op Group, Safeway andSomerfield) completed the 2003 programme,with the Co-op judged the winner for itssustainable business practices.However, surveyors examining the amountof local food available in all retailers found thatwhilst many retailers had ‘admirable policiesand publicity on how they supported smallproducers and local and regional foods’, inreality ‘few had any figures on stocking levelsand only a tiny number of stores showed anyevidence of local food promotion’.Under the Race to the Top programme,supermarkets were to be compared on a rangeof sustainability issues, to provide an incentivefor improving working practices.■ Contact RTTT on: 020 7388 2117; email:bill.vorley@iied.org; web: www.iied.orgFood miles the jet-set wayWe doubt that these considerations havebeen communicated to the M&S marketingdepartment, however. This advert appearedin The Metro newspaper in November.Because of the huge amounts of carbondioxide generated by aircraft, air-freightedfood have been identified as the mostenvironmentally damaging food miles of all.Yet M&S boasts that its Freshly SqueezedPineapple Juice takes ‘just 48 hours from thepineapple plantation in Ghana to thepineapple juice in Marks & Spencer’, andfreely admits that this is‘Jet Set Juice’. This is hardly a goodadvertisement for M&S’s commitment tothe future of the planet!■ See also: Eating Oil: Food supply in achanging climate (2001), published bySustain; £30 (£12 conc). Tel: 020 7837 1228. Asummary is at: www.sustainweb.orgFood Magazine 64 17 Jan/Mar 2004

Kids’ Food for Fitness You don’t have to be the parentof an aspiring athlete to benefit from Anita Bean’s excellentbook. It’s full of great everyday advice, including: The latestnutritional guidelines for active children aged 5–16; Clear practicaladvice on nutrition and exercise; Tips on eating and drinking for sporty kids;Smart advice for overweight children; Healthy menu plans, tastyrecipes and snack ideas. Special offer – £12.99Dump the Junk!Containing over 300 expert tips for how to encourage yourchildren to eat healthy food and dump the junk, and withlots of tasty recipes, this is an essential guide for parents.Illustrated with entertaining cartoons by the FoodMagazine’s Ben Nash. £7.99The Food Our Children Eat – 2nd editionHow can you bring up children to chomp on clementines rather than colachews? Award-winning author Joanna Blythman’s book is an inspiringguide for parents. From weaning a baby to influencing a teenager, sheexplains how to bring children up to share the same healthy and wideranging food tastes as you. No more tantrums, fights and refusals: herstrategies are relaxed, low-effort – and they work. £8.99Fast Food Nation – now in paperbackEric Schlosser’s bestseller lifts the lid on thefast food industry. He explores how fakesmells and tastes are created, talks toworkers at abattoirs and explainshow the fast food industry is transforming not onlyour diet but our landscape, economy, workforceand culture. Essential reading. £7.99order formBack issues of the Food MagazineBack issues usually cost £3.50 each but we’reselling a full set of available issues (approx.eighteen issues from 1996 to 2003) for £30.00. Sendfor index of major news stories and features in pastissues. Stocks are limited and manyissues are already out-of-stock.publications all prices include postage & packingKids’ Food for Fitness £12.99 ❍Dump the Junk! £7.99 ❍The Food Our Children Eat – 2nd edition £8.99 ❍Fast Food Nation £7.99 ❍Full set of available back issuesof the Food Magazine £30.00 ❍The Chips are Down £15.00 ❍The NEW Shopper’s Guide to Organic Food £9.99 ❍Children’s Nutrition Action Plan £10.00 ❍Broadcasting Bad Health £10.00 ❍Poster – Genetically Modified Foods £2.50 ❍Poster – Children’s Food £2.50 ❍Poster – Food Labelling £2.50 ❍Poster – Food Additives £2.50 ❍List of available back issues free ❍subscriptionsIndividuals, schools, public libraries £22.50 ❍OVERSEAS individuals, schools, libraries £30.00 ❍Organisations, companies £46.00 ❍OVERSEAS organisations, companies £54.00 ❍The Food Magazine is published four times a year.Your subscription will start with our next published issue.marketplaceThe Chips are DownThis is an excellent guide to the planning and promotion ofhealthy eating in schools, full of nitty-gritty guidance, suchas how to gain support from teachers, parents, healthworkers and, most importantly, pupils. £15.00The NEW Shopper’s Guide toOrganic FoodIs organic food worth the extra expense? How does itcompare with non-organic? Is it all it’s cracked up tobe? Lynda Brown tackles these questions and more in her NEWShopper’s Guide to Organic Foods. Food writer Nigel Slaterdescribes it as ‘Essential reading for anyone who cares aboutwhat they put in their and their children’s mouths.’ £9.99Children’s Nutrition Action PlanThe Food Commission’s action plan details what UK childrenare eating and health problems likely to arise as a result. Theaction plan maps measures advocated by governmental andnon-governmental organisations to bring about change, andhighlights key policies that could make a difference to children’s health. £10.00Broadcasting Bad HealthPacked with illustrations, case studies and statistics on trends in health and foodadvertising around the world, this report sets out the case for why food marketing tochildren needs to be controlled. Available free of charge in pdf format on the website(see below) or in print for £10.00Posters: GM Foods; Food Additives,Children’s Food; Food LabellingPacked with essential information to help you andyour family eat healthy, safe food these postersexplain problems with GM technology; give usefultips on getting children to eat a healthy diet;explain how to understand nutrition labelling; helpyou see through deceptive packaging and marketingclaims and examine the contentious issue of foodadditives. Each poster is A2 in size and costs £2.50payments / donationsPlease tick items required and send payment by cheque, postal order or credit card.Overseas purchasers should send payment in £ sterling, and add £1.50 per book for airmail delivery.Name:PaymentDonationTotalI have enclosed a cheque or postal order made payable to The Food CommissionPlease debit my Visa or MastercardMy credit card number is:Card expiry date:Signature:Address:Postcode:Date:Send your order to: Publications Department, The Food Commission, 94 WhiteLion Street, London N1 9PF. Tel: 020 7837 2250. Fax: 020 7837 1141.Email: sales@foodcomm.org.ukDelivery will usually take place within 14 days.www.foodcomm.org.ukVisit our website for a full list of ourpublications, posters and reportsFood Magazine 64 18 Jan/Mar 2004

scienceWhat the doctor readsThe latest research from the medical journalsExercise does notprevent obesityTwo papers from the Danish EpidemiologyScience Centre have examined the gradualonset of obesity in adults and found noevidence that physical activity patterns couldpredict who would gain weight, althoughobese people did take less exercise.Researchers monitored 6,000 adults acrossa 15-year period and also 2,000 men over a 40-year period. If anything, physical activitylevels were higher among those that laterdeveloped obesity.The researchers suggest that obesitydevelops from factors other than physicalinactivity or lack of exercise, but that onceestablished obesity leads to a reducedwillingness to take exercise – possibly due tothe discomfort of sweating andbreathlessness. Social factors – e.g. showingoneself in public changing rooms and gyms –may also be involved.■ H Bak et al, Int J Ob, 2003; L Petersen et al, Int JOb, 2004.25% cut in salt undetectedAn experiment in which the salt level inbread was cut by 5% every week for fiveweeks found that the reduced salt could notbe detected. Ratings of the saltiness and theflavour of the bread were no different tothose made by a control group whose breadwas not altered. The authors recommendthe bread industry to make small, repeatedadjustments to lower the overall salt burdenon the population, in order to reduce the riskof hypertension and stroke.■ S Girgis et al, Eur J Clin Nutr, 2003.Self-reported dietsunderestimate caloriesA comparison between the amounts of foodwomen said they were consuming and theamounts they would need according to theirweight, height and metabolic levels showedthat self-reported diets were typically morethan 400kcal per day below the expectedlevels.Over a quarter of women under-reportedby more than 800kcal per day. In the study (ofover 160,000 US women) those with higherBMIs tended to underreport more: at BMI 35underreporting was about 330 kcalories perday greater than at BMI 20.■ JR Hebert et al, Annal Epidem, 2003.Fast food is linked topoor dietA study of over 6,000 children showed thatthe diets of those eating fast foods is pooreroverall than the diets of those not eatingfast food, and that children have better dietson days that they do not eat fast food.On days when fast food was consumed,the survey of a nationally representativesample of US children found:higher energy intake (up 126 kcal/day)higher energy density (up 0.3 kcal/gram)more fat (up 7g/day)more saturated fat (up 3g/day)more added sugars (up 21g/day)more soft drinks (up 189g/day)smaller amounts of fruit and vegetables(down 47g/day).Typically, nearly a third of children reportedeating fast food on any given day.■ SA Bowman et al, Pediatrics, 2004.Organic plants containmore salicylic acidA comparison of commercial soups madeusing organic and non-organic vegetablesfound the former to have significantly higherlevels of naturally-occurring salicylic acid, theactive ingredient found in aspirin.Although levels were lower than would befound in pharmaceutical doses, if the overalldiet contains substantial amounts of organicproduce then the total effect may becomparable.Levels of salicylic acid in the blood of somevegetarians is as high as it is in some patientson regular low-dose aspirin prescribed forheart disease prevention.■ GJ Baxter et al, EFRC Bulletin, Dec 2003.Guidance sought oncalorie countingSeveral journalists and other individualshave contacted us over the past fewmonths asking how to calculate the amountof activity needed to burn off calories. Thefollowing chart shows approximate calorieexpenditure for a range of activities:Activity Kcalories used in 20minutes of activityAerobic dancing – lowintensity, equivalent to walking 80Aerobic dancing – mediumintensity, equivalent to jogging 130Aerobic dancing – high intensity,equivalent to running 170Bed making 100Cleaning windows 60Cleaning stairs 65Climbing stairs (72 steps per minute) 95Climbing stairs (92 steps per minute) 130Cycling on flat ground (‘own speed’) 125Dancing (waltz) 130Dusting 70Gardening 110Golf 100Knitting 25Office work (general) 25Operating electric sewing machine 25Playing cricket 160Playing pool 65Playing squash 200Playing tennis 140Playing football 140Playing table tennis 90Playing cards 40Running (speed unspecified) 190Sitting typing 30Walking on the level (1-2 km per hour) 45Walking on the level (4-5 km per hour) 85Watching football 40■ Source: Human Energy Requirements: Amanual for planners and nutritionists, byWPT James and EC Schofield, published bythe Oxford University Press (1990).Food Magazine 64 19 Jan/Mar 2004

ooksAdolescent HealthBritish Medical Association Board of Scienceand Education (2003, 66pp). Tel: 020 7383 6164.Also available in pdf format at:www.bma.org.ukThis authoritative report from the BritishMedical Association (BMA), the voice of themedical profession, sets out the healthproblems facing UK teenagers, the causes ofill health and likely means to improve thesituation. It considers such weightymatters as drugs, smoking, sexualhealth, mental health and theincreasing rate of obesity.The report states that excess bodyweight ‘is now the most commonchildhood disorder in Europe’, thatadolescents consume too much saltand soft drinks, and that nutrition notonly has an immediate impact on healthbut that there is increasing evidencethat adult susceptibility to disease isSo Shall We ReapColin Tudge, Allen Lane (published by thePenguin Group), 2003, ISBN 0-713-99640-4,£20 hardback.This book’s subtitle runs as follows: ‘Howeveryone who is liable to be born in the next10,000 years could eat very well indeed; andwhy, in practice, our immediate descendantsare likely to be in serious trouble.’Thus the book’s scope is epic, its toneboth erudite and accessible, and it iswonderfully irreverent in parts. Tudge’senthusiasm for his subjects – food,agriculture, the environment, gastronomy,life, the universe and everything – is evidenton every page.His analysis of why agriculture has gonewrong and what can be done about it is quiteclear. As a society we have played fast andloose with biological laws, and allowed ourelected representatives, our scientists andour commercial bodies to pretend that thisdoesn’t matter. It does.Examining thousands of years of humanhistory, Tudge explains that systems haveevolved to ensure that good farmingpractices lead to good nutrition which, inturn, forms the basis of the world’s greatcuisines. In short, people have historicallythrived, and could continue so to do, on ajudicious mixture of cereals and legumes,together with fruits, vegetables and herbsand small amounts of animal products: “Theassociated with nutrition in childhood andadolescence.Of special interest is that the BMArecognises that whilst individuals bear someresponsibility for their own health, ‘It is clear,however, that health is subject to social andeconomic circumstances that are oftenbeyond individual control,’ and that ‘Thesocial environment plays an especiallyimportant role in nutrition,’ making healthychoices more difficult.It also points out that school education hasbeen effective in helping adolescentsunderstand what constitutes a healthy diet,but not in helping them to put that knowledgeinto practice. The reportsuggests that an approachaddressing the structural andenvironmental causes of poornutrition, inactivity and obesityare likely to be necessary, toenhance opportunities forphysical activity, increaseaccess to healthy foods andlimit exposure to unhealthyfood and unhealthy foodmarketing.mixed farm is the keyto the future of allhumanity,” he says.But mixed farmsare rapidlydisappearing, to bereplaced by largerand largerspecialised units inthe name of‘efficiency’. Although Tudge is far from beingan advocate of vegetarianism, he is clearthat ‘…over-emphasis on meat…has beenthe most pernicious of all trends inagriculture’. By 2050, if current trendscontinue, the world’s population of livestockwill eat more food than was eaten by thehuman population – 4 billion of us – asrecently as 1970.Similarly, although he is a trenchant criticof our current industrialised agriculturalsystem, he is not convinced that organicfarming can necessarily solve all theproblems he has identified. Perhaps hisdeliberate association of organic farming withan anti-science approach has colouredTudge’s analysis. But this is a minor criticism.For although he is a passionate advocate ofthe value of science, Tudge is no apologist forthe misuse of science in the service of badhusbandry.He is equally passionate about the needfor change: ‘We are not angry enough,’ hesays. ‘Not by far.’ We can’t help but agree.Smoke: Thekiller in thekitchenHugh Warwick andAlison Doig, ITDGPublishing, 2003, ISBN 1-85339-588-9, £7.95.Also available in pdf format at: www.itdg.orgFor millions of people around the world, wood,crop residues, charcoal and dung are themain sources of fuel for cooking, and asignificant cause of respiratory diseases andpremature death. This hard-hitting report fromthe Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup (ITDG) states ‘the smoke from burningthese fuels turns kitchens in the world’spoorest countries into death traps’. ITDGcalculates that indoor air pollution from theburning of solid fuels kills over 1.6 millionpeople each year, predominately women andchildren – a death toll almost as great as thatcaused by unsafe water and sanitation, andgreater than that caused by malaria. And whatmakes these figures all the more alarming isthat the people worst affected are those fromthe poorest communities – often in rural areasof India, China and Africa who can least affordto lose working days to ill health. ITDG callsfor a Global Action Plan, coordinated by theUN, ‘to address this neglected killer’.Future Foods for WellbeingInstitute of GroceryDistribution (2003,43pp). Tel: 01923 857141; email:igd@igd.com. Alsoavailable in pdf formatat: www.igd.comThis new report fromthe industry body,the Institute ofGrocery Distribution,coins the phrase ‘wellbeingfoods’ to describe food products with addedingredients to offer particular nutritionalbenefits – sometimes referred to as ‘functionalfoods’ or ‘nutraceuticals’.The report is the result of discussions byan expert panel of scientists and nutritionexperts to discuss ‘health enhancement andmaintenance’ over the next 25 years.The panel projects that policy will shiftfrom the treatment of chronic degenerativedisease to the avoidance of risk factorsthrough improved diet. Technologists, theysay, will identify ‘active compounds’ that canbe added to food to help them enhance health.The report also assesses how legislationand education can help or hinder publicacceptance of ‘functional foods’.Food Magazine 64 20 Jan/Mar 2004

sugarSweets in a bottleExactly how much sugar are childrenunwittingly drinking when they swallow abottle of Coke or a can of Fanta?With bottled water costing as much ormore than a soft drink, and with the demise ofthe freely-available drinking fountain in parksand school playgrounds, children inevitablyturn to the colourful, flavour-boosted, fruitylookingproducts as a widely-availablequencher of thirst.But soft drinks do morethan quench thirst. Theyadd hugely to a child’sdaily sugar intake.As our survey shows,typical drinks provide theequivalent to severallollipops or a pack or twoof sweets, in everyportionsold.Enough is enough...The World Health Organization and the UKGovernment recommend no more than anaverage of 10-11% of daily calories from nonmilkextrinsic (e.g. not in the cells of fruit)sugars in adult diets. No specific guidance ispublished for children, but there is littleevidence that they havegreater requirements for sugar.In terms of grams a day for atypical child this equates toCoca-Cola: A 330ml bottlecontains 35g sugar,equivalent to one-and-aquarterpacks ofRowntrees Fruit Gumsthe figures in the table below. Remember,these are the top amounts consistent withhealth – lower levels are preferable.Sugar limits per dayage 5 age 10 age 15Boys 50g 60g 80gGirls 45g 50g 65gVimto: A 250ml carton contains22g sugar and the artificialsweetener saccharine. The sugarcontent is equivalent to awhole pack of Fruit Gums.This 380mlbottle ofLucozadeEnergypacks a realpunch with 64g of sugar,equivalent to two packs ofBassetts Jelly BabiesFanta Orange: This 330ml can contains34g sugar as well as two artificialsweeteners, aspartame and saccharine. The sugaris equivalent to one-and-three-quarters packs of ChewitsDoctors want soft drinks banned from US schoolsPediatricians have urged US schoolauthorities to take their child protection dutiesseriously by restricting children’s access tosoft drinks in vending machines and schoolcanteens.In a strongly worded statement from theAmerican Pediatric Academy, doctors areurged to contact superintendents and schoolboard members and ‘emphasise the notionthat every school in every district shares aresponsibility for the nutritional health of itsstudents’.The statement goes on to say that‘advertising of sweetened soft drinks withinthe classroom should be eliminated’.Currently, Channel One, an in-schoolmarketing programme, regularly advertisessugar-sweetened drinks to its captiveaudience of 8 million children in 12,000schools across the US.Sweetened soft drinks sold in schools arean increasingly popular target forinterventions aimed at reducing childhoodobesity. In October, the Australian governmentannounced that sugary soft drinks would beexcluded from regular sale in canteens instate schools, although the schools will beable to sell them up to twice per term.In Canada, the soft drinks industry hasagreed to remove carbonated drinks fromschool vending machines and replace themwith fruit drinks and sports drinks. Whetherthis will reduce sugar intake remains to beseen, as many such products have just asmuch added sugar as other drinks marketed tochildren.■ For more on the sugar content of softdrinks, see our Liquid Candy story on page 1and above.A statement from American paediatriciansurges schools to act responsibly on nutritionFood Magazine 64 21 Jan/Mar 2004

feedbackletters from our readersWe 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 toletters@foodcomm.org.ukAntibiotics resistedAlthough it has been said that antibioticresistance is caused by and spread throughhospital environments, antibiotics are alsoused in food production. Here in Japan, wecould find little public data on how muchantibiotics are actually used. The JapanOffspring Fund (a consumer group affiliated tothe Food Commission) repeatedly asked theJapanese government to reveal thisinformation. Now we have the data and wecan see that food production is likely to be aserious cause of antibiotic resistance. Thelevel of antibiotic use in Japan is as follows:● Hospital: 100 tonnes/year● Home (patients take antibiotics at home):400 tonnes/year● Animal production (chickens, pigs, cattle):900 tonnes/year● Fish farming: 200 tonnes/year● Vegetable, fruit and rice production:100 tonnes/yearIn Japan, antibiotic use is permitted in theproduction of many fruits and vegetables:peaches, plums, lemons, apples, grapes,pears, strawberries, melon, watermelon, kiwifruit, Chinese cabbage, cabbage, lettuce,tomatoes, cucumber, carrots, green pepper,aubergine, daikon, onion, butterbur, leeks,garlic, ginger, potatoes and rice.There is also extensive use of antibiotics asa growth promoter in chicken production. Ourinvestigations show antibiotic-resistant bacteriain poultry droppings and on egg shells.More investigations should be undertakenworldwide, urgently. We need to find ways towork together internationally to tackle thisimportant issue and prevent bacteria frombecoming resistant to the drugs that protecthuman beings from disease.Natsuko KumasawaJapan Offspring Fund, Tokyowww.mmjp.or.jp/JOF/Eds: We agree that this is an important issueto investigate. Do any readers have access todata or evidence relating to antibiotic use infruit and vegetable production in the UK orEurope? Please get in contact.Trade: what next?I read the article in the previous edition of theFood Magazine, by Vicki Hird of Sustain (Tradetalks: All heat and no light, Issue 63), andfound it most enlightening. I’m sure mostpeople have no idea about this totally unfairsituation regarding the trade system fordeveloping countries, and even fewer ideasabout what we can do about it. What happensnext? I'd like to know what we, as FoodCommission subscribers, can do.Pauline Fielding, by emailVicki Hird, Policy Director, Sustain: I suggestthat you get in touch with the publicorganisations who are campaigning loudly onthis. The websites would be a good start andeach has ideas for taking action, which rangefrom writing to government ministers, gettinginvolved in fair-trade initiatives to joiningprotest demonstrations.● Oxfam: www.oxfam.org.uk● ActionAid: www.actionaid.org/ourpriorities/foodrights/foodrights.shtml● Christian Aid: www.christianaid.org.uk/campaign/● Friends of the Earth: www.foe.co.ukDo X-rays harm food?I work with staff at Heathrow Airport and anyfood to be consumed is X-rayed. Although Iknow the doses are small, could there be along-term effect from eating this food?Don Illingworth, Health Safety &Environment, Emcor UKEds: We have not come across evidence ofany significant chemical change in foods froma radiation dose at the level of an X-ray.Industrial irradiation, used increasingly in theUS to treat beef, and in Australia and SouthAmerica to treat tropical fruits, is undertakenat a dose equivalent to several million chest X-rays. At this level, chemical changes do occur– especially in foods containing fats. Newchemicals are formed called cyclobutanones,which have been shown to be carcinogenic inlaboratory tests.Testing for food irradiationOn a related point, we have also receivedrequests from regional trading standardsofficers for details of laboratories that arecapable of undertaking tests for irradiation, inthe UK and other European countries. A list isavailable from the Food Irradiation Campaign.Tel: 020 7837 2250; email:irradiation@foodcomm.org.uk.Better food, please!As subscribers to the Food Magazine, webecome more and more annoyed at what goesinto food.Our son is six years old, autistic and on agluten free diet, also has poor speech so findsit hard to communicate. We have found thathe is allergic to aspartame, colourings, andMSG.Shopping is a nightmare as we constantlyread labels and won’t buy anything for any ofus with the rubbish in it the manufacturersseem to think we want to eat.Holidays are also a nightmare. We have totake more food away than we did when hewas a baby. We had two days away last weekin a hotel and he got hold of a sugar packet offour tea tray in our room and ate a little of it.Guess what? It was that dreadful sweetenerstuff, so we suffered for two days with hisbehaviour.What can we do to get food better?!! Help!Helen and James Irvine, by emailSandwiches should bemore transparent!I was pretty sure that I eat the right amount ofsalt, but when I started to add up the amountsusing the information in your magazine, I wasshocked to find that I’m probably one of thepeople eating about twice as much salt as Ishould! I have an office job, and I’m finding itreally hard to get information about thesandwiches I have every day.Most sandwiches have no salt informationon them, and even when they do, it’s given assodium, or gives details only for the filling, orper 100g and not per pack. Funnily enough, I’mnot in the habit of taking weighing scales anda calculator with me when I pop out for lunch!I enclose a wrapper from one of my regularsandwiches – the ingredients have salt listedthree times, for the bread, the falafel and thehoumus. If anyone can work out how muchsalt is in what I actually eat, do let me know!Emily Morris, LondonI have been finding out more about what’s inmy sandwiches, and just had a salad wrapfrom Pret a Manger (relatively healthy, Ithought). From the Pret website, I found it had46g of fat and 600 kcalories. My wife, who’s anutritionist, says this is about half myrecommended fat intake for the day. Why isn’tthis information on the packet?Andy Oram, KnightsbridgeFood Magazine 64 22 Jan/Mar 2004

feedbackletters from our readersLow fat bagels withhigh fat fillingsFood shops on train stations have started tooffer healthier options, but do you know whatdefinitions they use? I asked an Upper Crustmanager recently what they mean by the word‘healthy’ (which is used on signs to promoteseveral of their sandwiches), and he had noidea. He said that it was probably the low-fatmayonnaise! And here’s a photo of the BagelFactory at Paddington station (above). Theyadvertise ‘low in fat’ and ‘low salt’. I gotsuspicious because some of the bagels havehigh-fat fillings like full-fat cream cheese andbacon. When I asked the staff, they said theythought the claims were only relating to thebagels and not to the fillings. I don’t thinkthat’s very helpful.Kathleen Short, ChesterfieldEds: Your experiences show that labellingschemes must be based on universally agreeddefinitions for what counts as ‘high’ and ‘low’fat, sugar and salt, presented in a standardformat and referring to the whole product, notjust components of it. Left to individual foodcompanies and sandwich outlets, we will endup with with partial, confusing or misleadinginformation. The Food Standards Agencyshould take a strong lead on this.Schools could do betterI have read the Food Magazine article aboutthe Cadbury’s Get Active scheme and have asuggestion. Instead of bringing in thewrappers, perhaps children should beencouraged to have a chocolate-free dayevery week and donate their 42p, or whatever,to the school sports equipment fund.The schools would benefit and get the £5netball a whole lot quicker and the childrencould be encouraged to feel virtuous in nothaving the chocolate. It is the sort of thing thatwould work well in primary schools withpositive encouragement from parents. Anationwide campaign would be wonderful.Sarah Harris, by emailEds: Cadbury has now announced that it is toscrap the token-collecting part of its sportsequipment promotion (see page 3). Perhapsschools will take the opportunity to adopt yourhealthier fundraising ideas!Yogurt fit for babiesYou often feature unhealthy products, but Iwanted to say well done to a company that ismaking healthier products for babies. Mums4yogurts are the first ‘baby food’ I have boughtmy breastfed 16-month-old, because theothers are full of rubbish! These are sweetenedwith fruit. I also like the labelling, whichsays ‘suitable from 6 months’. It annoys methat other baby food companies say 4 monthswhen it is recommended that solids should beintroduced at 6 months at the earliest.Tracy Hayden, South Woodham FerrersCelebrity marketing isdishonestI think sports people are dishonest when theypromote products like fizzy pop and crisps.They wouldn’t eat this stuff! But can’t weextend that ethic? Shouldn’t food tie-ins withfilms have something to do with the film?I enclose the most ridiculous example of aLord of the Rings tie-in. Can anybodyremember where in the book Aragorn eatsmargarine, because I certainly don’t!Rosie Halliday, West LondonEds: Aragorn didn’t consume Pringles crisps,Cheerios, KFC children’s meals or Panda Pops,but these have Lord of the Rings branding too!However, you will be pleased to see that, atlast, a popular footballer has come cleanabout good diet and sporting success. In aninterview with The Grocer trade magazineabout his link-up with Sainsbury’s, ex-Englandand Manchester United footballer TeddySheringham said: ‘To be an athlete you needto be responsible about your diet. It’s likeputting petrol in a car. When you eat morehealthily you have more chance in a game.’He encouraged children to eat more fruitand vegetables, cut back on fatty foods and,before playing sport, to consume cereals,bread and pasta. He also suggested thatmanufacturers could help by reducing theamount of sugar, fat and salt in food.Let’s hope that Teddy Sheringham will takea truly principled approach, and stopappearing inMcDonald’sadverts, as hedid in 2002!‘I can’t believeTolkien intendedhobbits and elves tosell margarine!’Will FSA test organicsproperly?The government’s Food Standards Agency iscommissioning research to compare thenutrient value and pesticide residues inorganically grown and conventionally grownfoods. I am worried that the criteria for whatthey call ‘organic’ may not be adequate toshow the difference.When I worked on Lady Eve Balfour’spioneering farm in the 1940s there was aminimum of 5 years’ conversion before cropscould be considered organically grown. Thestandards today allow crops to be calledorganic after just 3 or even 2 years’conversion. If anything, an even longer periodthan 5 years should be required today, toensure the soil has fully recovered its vitalityafter conventional use.A true comparison of the nutrient levelsfrom organic farming needs to take account ofthis. I urge everyone to write to AndrewStephenson at the FSA (125 Kingsway, LondonWC2B 6NH) to make this point loud and clear.Lizzie Walker, BrightonDeconstructing sacredscriptsI am increasingly of the opinion that when thefood industry says it wants to provideconsumers with ‘greater choice’ it actuallymeans that it wants more opportunities forselling goods of lower standard.Whereas before we had, say, beef, we nowhave beef, cheap beef, imported cheap beef,GM-fed beef, beef from older animals, beeffrom BSE-riddled animals, and mechanicallyrecovered beef slurry. Some choice!Keep up the excellent work.Tom Coleman, emailEds: We always welcome new insights into oldclichés. Keep them coming!ClarificationsBounty Packs: Bounty, the providers ofsamples and vouchers to new mums, saythat their packs have contained no samplesor vouchers for infant formula since 1996(see our survey in Food Magazine 62).Nestlé Cheerios: Nestlé tell us that thehydrogenated fat levels in their Cheerios is1%, and not the estimated 3% as publishedin Food Magazine 63.Food Magazine 64 23 Jan/Mar 2004

ackbitesWhat priceindependence?On its website, the government’sFood Standards Agency (FSA)provides an opportunity for peopleto have their say about children’sfood and food marketing. Of the80 or so contributions, themajority express concern aboutthe types of food marketed tochildren and support a range ofoptions to improve the situation,from controlling the contents ofschool vending machines to an outright banon unhealthy food advertising.Most contributors give themselves a titlesuch as ‘parent’, ‘health promotion worker’,‘dietitian’, ‘food manufacturer’ or ‘advertiser’.This helps readers to judge the motivationbehind the comments.Two dissenting voices stand out: AngieJefferson, ‘freelance dietitian’, and GaryStephenson, ‘nutritionist and parent’.On the FSA website, Angie Jeffersonstates: ‘At the moment the debate is beingled by lobby groups and is not focused onachieving the most effective outcome for theconsumer and their health. This needs to beaddressed. It should be independent experts,not lobbyists, leading any changes.’Another website where you will findAngie Jefferson’s ‘independent’ views is at:http://getactive.cadbury.co.uk/21010.asp. Insupport of the Cadbury Get Active ‘tokens forNew Year gongs forservices to...The New Year’s Honours included:An MBE for Dr Roger Cook, the animal drugindustry’s front man for 16 years. A highlight ofhis career was his passionate defence of thegenetically engineered hormone BST used forartificially boosting milk production in thedairy industry. He was a strong campaignerfor the continued use of organophosphatesheep dips and often criticised the SoilAssociation for its reports on animal welfare.Jim Scudamore, the government’s chiefvet, becomes a Companion of the Order ofBath. His were the guiding hands during thefoot-and-mouth epidemic inBritain which saw thedestruction of over 4 millioncattle and sheep for want of avaccination policy. Thegovernment wasted hundredsof millions of pounds of publicmoney in poorly-scrutinisedcontracts, and theoutbreak cost theeconomy over £8 billion.Jim Scudamore: agong for carcassesrendered.school sportsequipment’scheme, AngieJefferson states:‘Rather thancutting back onwhat children areeating, the mainfocus should be ongetting them to burnoff more energy,allowing them to eata wide range offoods every day aspart of a healthybalanced diet.’And Dr Gary Stephenson? On the FSAwebsite, he states: ‘More guidance forschools (on food promotions) is nannying.Schools can decide for themselves.’ DrStephenson is described as a ‘nutritionistand parent’. Could that be the same Dr GaryStephenson who is senior nutritionist forSunny Delight and Pringles crisps, and alsorepresents the Snack ManufacturersAssociation?Gary’s photograph appears in a currentadvertising campaign, persuading mums ofthe nutritional benefits of Sunny Delight(above).What price independence?■ To take part in the FSA debate on foodmarketing, visit: www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/promotion/haveyoursay/Starbucks : the truemeaning of Christmas❄To be sung to the tune of O, Little Town ofBethlehemO, coffee chain of StarbucksHow easily you lieImpoverished farmers get scant rewardFor coffee they supplySo, prompted by a boycottThat showed that you were badYou grudgingly said, one day per weekFair-trade blends could be had.But at Christmas time, when youshould thinkOf fairness and goodwill❄You dropped Fair-trade for a‘Christmas blend’Your bank account to fill!❄❄❄❄❄❄❄Tricks of the trade,number 38If you operate a company in both Britainand Portugal, for example, where do youthink you should have to pay tax?Where the company has itsheadquarters? Where the taxabletransaction took place?Neither, say the companies, who claimthey have the right to pay tax wherever theyoperate, i.e. in the country with the lowestcorporation tax levels. And a round of GroupLitigation Orders – court orders on behalf ofseveral litigants at once – are currentlybefore the courts. If the companies win thenthe Inland Revenue, and hence the publicpurse, could be poorer by billions of pounds.Among the corporations trying to avoidUK taxes are our old friends Cadbury andSainsbury’s.Would that be the same Cadbury whoseChairman, Roger Carr, was appointed by theDepartment of Trade and Industry (DTI) tothe Industrial Development Advisory Board– a statutory body charged with givingadvice to government?And would that be the same Sainsbury’swhose chief executive, Sir Peter Davis,chairs the DTI-supported Business in theCommunity – an organisation proud of itspromotion of corporate socialresponsibility?A question of densityAn amusing comment from the Institute ofFood Research (IFR) set us thinking. In astatement supporting industry measures tocombat obesity, the IFR, which providesscientific consultancy services to the foodindustry, commented: ‘The industrialisedworld is facing a huge nutrient densitychallenge’.Does this mean that the challenge is tofind any nutrients whilst wading through allthe dense processed foods? Or that thefood industry is too dense to put nutrients inthe processed foods in the first place?Answers on a postcard…What price free fruit?At a January meeting hosted by theDepartment of Food and Rural Affairs,delegates had lunch in the canteen at ErgonHouse in Westminster. Among the usualsnacks and sandwiches, some Fair-trade andorganic food was available. And diners wereoffered free fruit. How nice for the governmentto help policy-makers eat more healthily. Butno, the fruit was available ‘free’ only if youalso had a sandwich and a bottle of Lucozade!Food Magazine 64 24 Jan/Mar 2004