3 replies to this topic

[GMO]

I was contemplating this while listening to a dietetics book.

 

You know the sort "all food industry people are evil" type. But for some reason, this book has got me thinking. While I think the premise they often claim are rubbish, I'm starting to wonder if they have a point, albeit they're putting it in a way to be incredibly off putting to people who work in the industry. 

 

So go with me on this, don't react yet.

 

The claim is often that food professionals have deliberately added or removed ingredients, or changed textures to make food hyper palatable and so easy to overeat. This causes multitude of health impacts including obesity, heart disease, cancers etc.

 

But the reality as I see it is that really tasty food comes out of our processes and those of commercial teams, i.e. you will make food according to the laws of the country you are in or exporting to, and within those boundaries you will make it as tasty as you can. Why wouldn't you? Tasty food will be preferred over the competitor. The aim is not to be overeaten per se, at least not from what I've seen.

 

So mind is pinging around thinking... 

 

Then I realise something. Nobody is standing up for the health of the consumer for chronic health conditions caused by poor nutrition. We leave the overall diet decisions to the consumer while knowing full well they will do f. all.

 

We have HACCP that looks at acute health conditions but also chronic ones where it's caused by a contaminant or even with, say, infant formula or pet food, chronic conditions which are caused by an absence of an ingredient.

 

BUT nobody is in a food business standing up for the health of a consumer from overeating sugar, salt and fat in any systematic way.

 

In the UK we use the nutrient profiling model which has gradually drifted into the roles of people who have "responsible business" or sustainability in their portfolios but when you're looking at a new product, are we really looking at the potential health risks of overconsumption? 

 

I remember a talk years ago by an industry leader saying that the only change to consumers health had been via stealth. The food industry is really good at this. Taking a bit of legislation, e.g. UK HFSS and reformulating to meet that legislation. But if we're honest with ourselves, none of that has worked. Or GLP-1s wouldn't be a thing.

 

A lot of this is new areas so I can understand why it's not a routine part of our day to day jobs, and, let's face it, there is so much BS being talked about UPFs right now. But in, say 10, 15, 20 years time, I can imagine the food industry and food safety looking very different and food safety potentially encompassing health beyond what we include now.

 

There was a comment in this book though asking you to look at your typical supermarket and what products are there. So I did. After you get past the homeware stuff, we have a decent fruit and veg section in the UK. Three aisles typically. Then one aisle of meat and fish. Although processed options are creeping in there at the edges. The premarinaded, coated, cured etc. Then one aisle of dairy, probably half processed and half not. The remaining aisles, perhaps 10 of them are mostly really processed foods. Not all terrible for you. Canned pulses are great. Dried grains and nuts, fine. But most of those 10 aisles are foods that if you completely cut them out of your diet, you'd not just fail to suffer ill effects but probably thrive.

 

Then, I always think this is another interesting thought experiment, if you took all of the brightly coloured packaging off those 10 aisles and didn't allow manufacturers to cheat with food colourings, what would these 10 aisles look like if all shown in clear, colourless packaging? It would be a sea of brown wouldn't it? Boring, unappetising and not as delicious looking as the oranges and apples in aisle 3.

 

Isn't this all bizarre? 

 

I do wonder if we're going to be vilified as the tobacco companies of old at some point (but at least on my part with little conscious drive to avoid honesty as they did). But we do have to admit that whether we've been part of it or not, our leaders, our industry representatives have been lobbying governments for years and that lobbying has influenced legislation.

 

This is all drifting far too far into conspiracy theory for my liking, I'll admit. But I'd welcome your thoughts.

[jcieslowski]

Not to pile on the conspiracy bandwagon too much, but I think what you're really saying (maybe not, or maybe you don't even know you're saying it?   ) is that a capitalistic based system of food manufacturing, distribution, and selling is NOT in the best interest of the consumer, and thus the health of the world, or at least the affected country. 

 

At the production side, we emphasize large yields, caloric density, shelf stability / longevity, and profitable returns.  It's not a flaw, it's a feature.  The system is designed to make money so it will prefer, over time, money making products and methods.   This results in less bio-diverse diets and outcomes already.

In transport we prefer time and temperature stable products.  We don't want to pay to freeze or refrigerate during shipping if we can help it, and being able to warehouse product for a long while before it goes bad is preferable.  (Note: this is one area of, I guess, optimism, in my opinion.  Warehouse operations have gotten so much better from a tech. standpoint that inventory turns and holding times are way down over the years, meaning less emphasis on longevity is needed, which allows for less processed and more natural food choices, overall).

 

At the supermarket, companies pay to have their products displayed.  Local, fresh grown or processed foods are less likely to be able to afford placement in these areas.  The farmer's market has fresh corn for $1an ear and the Kroger supermarket has fresh-ish corn for $0.75 an ear.  That farmer's market seller can't afford the $10,000 for a foot of space in that Kroger.  This also pushes availability of products from large entities who can afford and spread the costs over a diversified product line.   This also means that a company will consider carefully which products to put into the supermarket  They're not going to put minimally profitable product offerings when they can put high profit items instead.  These high profit items are often times sugar loaded, or ultra processed items that are less good for the consumer in health consequences but more profitable for the mega-corp. who own the brand being sold.

 

In terms of advertising, I think you've already articulated the CURRENT view of early ads for things like cereals.  They are NOT very different than those early ads for tobacco products and I think that many people already view them in the same light.  Marketeers, again, were tasked with 'making product more attractive' not with 'promoting health or well-being of consumers'.  

 

I think even now, the push toward 'healthier' and more 'conscious' (health, environment, sustainability, labor conditions, etc.) food supply chains and messaging from a company is PROFIT driven, not 'human' driven.  I think mega-corp one would be happy to continue to exploit what amounts to slave labor in harvesting coffee except that mega-corp 2 has launched an advertising campaign that says they're ethically sourced and mega-corp one doesn't want to lose a competitive advantage in their marketing campaigns.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's going to be any change until the system at the root of it is addressed.   In the United States most places fluorinate their public drinking water.  This is a COST incurred by government to raise the health and well being of their locality.  (I know there are anti-fluoride people out there but let's set that aside for a minute as it's off topic and just assume with me that fluorinated drinking water is 'good'.    There are very few programs like this where the public, and legislature, accepts a cost for health.  In my town there was a big to-do last year about older folks complaining that their property taxes go to fund the local school.   "Why should I pay when I don't have kids in the school" they'd argue.   Another town over they complained about school children getting FREE LUNCH, as an overstep of the government into trying to dictate / control people's lives.   "It's up to the parents to make their lunch and if they can't, let 'em starve, I guess" (ok, that's not close to a real quote).   Anyway, my point is, the FEW SYSTEMS we have that aren't for profit now are already being diminished and under attack, at least in America.  I don't see ANY appetite (pun fully intended) in American legislative systems (which, don't forget, are all lobbied by those same mega-corps to the tune of billion of dollars) to reform our entire food system into a not-for-profit food system (assuming that such a system could even be designed!).

[Scampi]

Can you say LOBBYIST

 

I saw a post yesterday that said, that's the food I grew up on (normal every house has them foods) and then showed the ingredient list between then (70s/80s) and today.   It is staggering the amount of chemicals that have been created, and now added to food

 

Looking at something like aspartame, our bodies don't actually know the difference between it and sugar, but yet, it's still used, people still think they're making a better choice

 

As long as capitalism is the king, regulations will always struggle to keep up

 

Canada has introduced SPY GLASS images on packaging for foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt            but nothing regarding "fake food" our bodies don't know what to do with, nor receive any nutrition from

 

An interesting study would be to see exactly what food professionals eat relative to the national averages...................I don't buy organic, but I do cook from scratch 95% of the time...........my kiddo complains often that there"s "nothing to eat" as we are an ingredient house, and not a grab n go house hold

[MDaleDDF]

 

Looking at something like aspartame, our bodies don't actually know the difference between it and sugar, but yet, it's still used, people still think they're making a better choice

 

This is an interesting point, because how much of this stuff is kind of consumer driven?    Like margarine.   My lab tech was raised in the era where butter was evil and still buys all the fake butter crap for our lab.   I hate that stuff, give me good ol butter any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  But she'll go to the grave swearing margarine is healthy.   It's like the 'only fat people drink diet coke' thing.

 

The old saying is 'the customer is always right', but in my experience, the customer is actually usually wrong, and ill informed to make a correct decision.  I've seen that in every industry I've worked in.   If someone sees 'sugar free' on a package, they think that's a good thing, not knowing that the other options used to sweeten things are worse than sugar.  But the average consumer doesn't know any better.

 

Like the Matrix, lol:

Edited by MDaleDDF, 13 minutes ago.