This is worth watching if you have a television licence:
The programme shows how things like strawberry ice cream and orange-flavoured fizzy drinks can be and are produced without going near either of the named ingredients or anything else you might expect. This is the reality of ultra-processed food, despite the claims made by its exponents.
There is a weakness in the programme, though. It is the last thirty seconds, where no answers are provided. What was required was a discussion of the political economy of food, and that did not happen.
So, it's good and welcome, and the endorsement shows that the threat is being taken seriously. But it has to take on the economic power behind this crisis as well, or nothing will change.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] the NHS crisis will continue, aided and abetted by the simultaneous crisis created by ultra-processed food, which is creating much of the demand for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, metabolic disease […]
Chris van Tulleken has a better documentary broadcast at the beginning of December:
Irresistible: Why We Can’t Stop Eating
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0025gqs
He also has a book:
Ultra-Processed People:
Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?
https://amzn.eu/d/9sE8bFv
Agreed
I finished reading his excellent book Ultra Processed People only yesterday. It does go on to follow the money, and proposes policy options to address the Ultra Processed Food (UPF) crisis.
The key to it is more regulation by government, informed and advised by scientists with with zero conflicts of interest. The parallels with how the tobacco industry resisted public action in the face of overwhelming evidence of the harm and suffering they caused are striking but unsurprising.
What did surprise me was how far UK lags behind much of the rest of the world in guidance and labelling, which for complex reasons are more effective than outright bans. In much of South America for example, cans of Coke (and other UPF) come with black warning octagons, and that’s enough to put many adults and children off.
Much to agree with
Indeed Philip C and Ian T, the House of Lords Food, Diet, and Obesity Committee has called for more effective and transparent strategies to address the UK’s rising obesity crisis. One key solution would be implementing a traffic light labelling system for ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which would allow consumers to understand food profiles holistically without adding to the complexity of food labelling. Currently, UK food labelling is not even addressing the issue of UPF. I suspect if such a system were proposed, the food industry itself would need to openly admit the issue and begin innovating responses to it. Consumers need to be able to make ‘informed’ choices, so all power to Chris van Tulleken and his educational initiatives.
Consumption of ultra processed food is inversely correlated with income, which largely explains why obesity levels are much higher among less well off adults and children. And of course the reason is that it is both cheaper and easier to prepare (pizza, saussages, burgers, ready meals) than fresh food which is more expensive and requires time and effort to prepare.
Simple labelling would be a start, but why is this stuff allowed to be advertised? We banned tobacco from being advertised decades ago, and we now know just how bad UPF is for our health. But TV is saturated with adverts for the food that we know is driving the obesity epidemic.
There is no such correlation.
The consumption is broadly equal across all income groups.
UPF includes high fructose drinks which are much more consumed by the less well off than the comfortably off. I notice this in supermarket trollies all the time.
I think you need a bigger sample base than that
“What was required was a discussion of the political economy of food, and that did not happen.”
Of course not. That’s the BBC – bought and paid for. Their job isn’t to challenge the English establishment, itself completely captured by the corporations.
It has been completely toothless since Hutton, at the very latest. Imagine the BBC showing the recent C4 expose of King C3’s taxing-charities-and-poor-people scandal. Quite unthinkable.
Wasn’t Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement (she was a chemist), developing an industrialised extrusion process for ice cream? Only someone with no taste or sensibility could reduce a confection so artfully produced by small Italian artisan shops, wish to work for such a uselessly prosaic end. It is an encapsulation of neoliberalism. The point of the operation becomes solely the cost effectiveness and process efficiency of the mass manufacture; the outcome – the local craft and the product, are merely incidental.
I am nearly as old as Richard therefore can remember when cigarettes were “healthy”, I today that idea sounds absurd. It took decades for people to discover that tobacco companies were not the best source of information on how healthy tobacco was. I think it will take many years for the average person in the UK to realise that more than half the products on sale in a typical supermarket are actually harmful to your health.
I have stopped eating mayonnaise, coleslaw. I have reduced my intake of sweet fruits, the sweetness is sugar. If you have friends coming round offer them olives not crisps to go with your drinks. I know alcohol is not great for your health but there has to be some limits on being healthy. Unless the UK starts to take nutrition and being over weight more seriously the NHS will literally sink under the weight of its patients. The food industry is one campaign where people could make a difference, in a matter of months if more people had the knowledge of what is and is not healthy.
Whilst I can follow the logic of the programme I think this approach is too subtle for many people in the UK. I would like to see the presenter Dr Chris Van Tulleken walk round a supermarket and pick up products and say how often he would be comfortable with someone eating that food each month. Broccoli – almost everyday. Cheap ice cream once per month. People need simpler guidelines. The more complex the argument the less likely people are to take the intended course of action.
Pizza – show how to make your own pizza and explain why it is better than the one in the supermarket available for £1.40.
I was at my sisters at Christmas and she served “fresh orange” from a carton for breakfast. It is nice but I know this is very unhealthy and she is very well off. Eating and drinking the “wrong” types of food and drink applies to many income groups.
German TV has been showing a man re-creating many of the products made by the industrial “food” companies. It’s enlightening to see the tricks – all with the goal of reducing the cost of these “products” and increasing profit. I don’t recall seeing anything like it on UK TV. Just another subject which is hardly covered by the UK media. How can people be informed when the media isn’t doing it’s job, especially when so much is spent on “marketing”?
Charles, good news, it is possible to find certain key products that have not been contaminated with sugar junk if you relentlessly search for them. I like mayonaise occasionally and it is not so easy to make. However, I found a company called Hunter & Gather that produces: “UK’s first 100% Avocado Oil Mayonnaise – A sugar free mayonnaise made with only Avocado Oil”, just four natural ingredients!
https://hunterandgatherfoods.com/products/classic-avocado-oil-mayonnaise-keto-friendly
They make a number of different types of Mayo that are all sugar free, including my personal favorite “Chipotle & Lime Avocado Mayo”.
I am not a fan of Ketchup or Barbecue Sauce, but if you need to wean the kids of the really bad stuff, Hunter & Gather make an “Unsweetened Classic Tomato Ketchup in a squeezy bottle” and also an “Unsweetened Smokey Barbecue Sauce”, as well as a Hot Sauce and a variety of Salad Dressings. The ‘Sugar Free’ label touted by some companies doesn’t necessarily rule out the addition of several other sweeteners, so this is where the Hunter & Gather products are so different. I used to order my supplies online, but some stores are now carrying their products.
Unadulterated Mustard can be equally difficult to find, but ‘Grey Poupon’ Mustard, made with white wine, is junk free, as long as you don’t consider cooking wine ‘junk’. Waitrose stocks both their wholegrain seeded and their regular mustard, which I often add to soups and stews. I used to buy ‘Colmans Fresh Garden Mint Sauce’, but now this sugar free version is only available in a catering size 2.25 litre jar. Their only alternative would ruin a meal and I don’t eat lamb often enough to warrant a jar that size in my fridge. I called Unilever to voice my concern, citing the urgent need for us all to reduce sugar in our diet. Sadly, it will take hundreds of similar calls before they take note. We need more people to put in calls to these companies urging change.
It is useless for the Government to simply urge people to cut down on sugar while food producers are ladeling the junk into every product available on the supermarket shelves. The most concerning problem is created when too much salt hides too much sugar and we consume a toxic amount of both. There is no valid reason to add a savory and a sweetener to the same product. That is why I think a tax should target the combination of Salt and Sweeteners in the same product. This would still allow those on low incomes to afford sweets or biscuits, cakes etc in moderation. It would thereby remove any opponents blaming the government for punishing the poor. Such a tax would force food producers to reformulate their products to avoid the tax, which would then offer genuine choice to the general public.
Richard, have you had the opportunity to read the information I sent you on the eat@treat program? Although it was designed to combat malnutrition in the elderly, it could make a huge difference in offering choice to consumers. For a company to display the logo they must comply with strict nutritional guidelines reducing salt, sugar and sweeteners too in all except deserts. Restaurants and eateries wanting to participate in the program would be bound by the exact same rules. By offering a smaller portion, that would suit children as well as the elderly, it would encourage venues to ditch the standard junk laden ‘kids menu’. I can resend this file if you are interested in reading about the program.
Kim
Sorry, but I haven’t.
I will try, but I make no promises. There is still a mighty lot of work to do as yet, plus time off is required.
Richard