Last week, while reading an analysis of the causes of the credit crunch, I was sharply reminded of the biggest single issue behind the healthy eating debate and the incredible effort being expended in this and related areas.Starting from the premise that personal irresponsibility was the root cause, the author ranked blaming the bank - 'You shouldn't have lent me the money' - alongside such excuses as: 'You shouldn't have served me alcohol' or: 'You shouldn't have sold me the gun.'
The parallel with Big Brother's demands, purportedly on behalf of consumers that 'Industry should not sell me anything with too much salt/fat/sugar/calories [and heaven knows what else - the list seems ever-growing] or in portion sizes that are too big' struck me immediately. But then, any personal problem is always someone else's fault, isn't it?
How about a New Year's Resolution to re-establish personal responsibility?
A disturbing intrusion of Big Brother into personal and professional freedom appeared on November 11, of all days. Roadside cafes in Guildford, UK, will be closed if they fail to offer 'healthier' alternatives. They must now offer soup, salads or low fat yoghurts alongside their traditional menus - and limit servings of mayonnaise. According to the council, traders 'must move away from high calorie, high-fat food'; to stay in business. 'It remains for the trader to design his menu around the principles of healthier catering, offer consumers a wider choice and move away from the sole provision of high calorie, high fat, fast foods.'
The thought of builders snacking on salads and lapping up low fat yoghurts before returning to their harsh world of real, manual work beggars belief! Environmental Health Officers will inspect menus during routine hygiene checks. Can we expect them to offer compensation or even sympathy for the café owner when he throws away unwanted, unused and legally "unfit" food at the end of each week?
As for the campaign against so-called 'nasties' in the form of artificial colours, readers will recall the Food Standards Agency's (FSA's) strident calls to ban the six 'Southampton' colours, despite numerous scientific opinions highlighting deficiencies in the research protocol and, most significantly, limitations on conclusions to be drawn from it.
Ministers have now agreed with the FSA calls for 'voluntary' removal by UK manufacturers of the colours by the end of 2009, notwithstanding that revised EU rules from mid-2010 will require foods containing them to be labelled "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children" - itself, the kiss of commercial death for most applications.
Ministers expect the FSA to take a 'proportionate and targeted approach', but have requested them to "work with" manufacturers who cannot meet the deadline. The FSA is also considering how to make "further information" available to consumers regarding products that still contain the colours. Ongoing references by the FSA to campaign groups active in this area indicate a clear intention to follow the "name and shame" route.
It is unclear precisely how the FSA plans to work with industry to implement this 'voluntary' ban, but any public criticism would contradict basic EU legal principles, which clearly permit ongoing use of these colours, subject to labelling requirements.
The extent to which compulsion is being imposed by threat exposes clearly the sham of this so-called "voluntary" initiative and fuels further suspicion of the silent transformation of FSA from an "independent" body basing decisions on sound science into a thinly-veiled consumerist champion.
Neville Craddock is a food law and safety consultant with extensive experience in the development and application of food law. nevillecraddock@tunhouse28.fsnet.co.uk