"This" © The Observer 2003 is what I found recently about the "obesity problem". It certainly makes for interesting reading.
It sort of brings into context my earlier post about energy density of food, but it also brings into focus the limited campaign to ban advertising "AT" children. Like in parts of Scandanavia. Something that I'm in full agreement for.
It might actually reduce that modern phenomena of "Pester Power", in a world where rightly or wrongly, parents have lost the ability to use the word "No".
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
So, I haven't really had time to post anything else for a couple of months, mainly because my work for one of the UK's "Milk nazi's" has changed from being a so called "day shift" (that started at about 1.30 in the morning - so much for the phrase "day shift") to a night shift that starts at 8pm, also because of where I am actually delivering the milk, I've had to do some major "route learning" connected to "London's over night lorry ban" (which is another of my "soap box" subjects).
Now as it happens, previously during my working hours, I used to listen to virgin radio, but because I am working during a show called "Virgin Confessions", I have had to start searching round the airwaves for something else. The confessions show is about various "people problems", and while some may enjoy listening to other peoples problems, sexual foibles, hang up's, etc etc, I feel that I have enough of my own problems too worry/think about, hence I found, that the other day there was a programme on BBC's radio 4 about food, and the latest "thinking" as to why we, both as a nation, and internationally, are becoming the planet's "fat fuckers".
This applies mainly to the UK and US (though also the majority of western Europe as well).
It was about "energy density" of food. The person doing the explaining, was some apparently well qualified dietician, and she explained that as a species, the human being is quite well suited to surviving on small quantities of meat, with vegetables and unrefined carbohydrate.
The principal (if I understood it correctly) being that we all have a natural, in built, idea of what our individual portion size should be. Which, when considering that if we are eating the types of food that the human species is adapted to, should be enough for healthy living. I.E. low to medium calorie stuff, that if we are still hungry after eating a "normal" portion, you could in fact, eat some more, without affecting you from a health point of view. In other words, food with low energy density.
Whereas, with fast food products, the manufacturers have used lots of shit, which more often than not, is cheap to use (for example, fat and sugar), and either add's bulk, and sometimes flavour (which might be considered by some to be a fair comment), but in fact has a high energy density. So that correlates that if you have a "normal" portion of fast food, with that high energy density, and then for whatever reason, you still feel hungry, then when you have some more to make up for the hunger, you are actually eating a considerable amount more "energy".
We are all aware that this extra energy, if not burned up by the body, is laid down as fat. The manufacturers go out of their way, to improve/increase the ways in which they can sell us "food" that is cheap for them to make, but has the highest possible "mark up".
In the radio programme, the dietician woman, used the analogy of people having access to a very large pan of "stew". They eat their normal portion, then if they are still hungry, they will automatically serve themselves another portion of the same size.
Because of this in built idea that we have of a "normal" portion, then in fact we should be varying the portion size, i.e. low energy dense foods, then eat what you want, whereas if the food has high energy density, then only eat a small portion, as a larger portion includes so much more energy, then the body has to work considerably harder to burn off the additional energy that has been consumed (and given today's sedantry lifestyles, doesn't happen).
Someone said to me the other day, that as a trolley of milk weighs just under a quarter of a tonne, then I wouldn't have to go to the gym so often. All I could think of at the time was that if the stupid cunt was a member of the real world, he might just end up working like me, in the region of 50 to 55 hours a week (that's without the fact that I am always working unsocial hours) - it would be nice to have the time (not to mention the money) to attend a gym once a fucking week.
OK, that's it for now. Hopefully I have managed to explain the concept of "energy density" in food so as to make it understandable. I'll review it later, if it's OK, I'll leave it, otherwise I'll re-edit for your enjoyment/derision/whatever.
Now as it happens, previously during my working hours, I used to listen to virgin radio, but because I am working during a show called "Virgin Confessions", I have had to start searching round the airwaves for something else. The confessions show is about various "people problems", and while some may enjoy listening to other peoples problems, sexual foibles, hang up's, etc etc, I feel that I have enough of my own problems too worry/think about, hence I found, that the other day there was a programme on BBC's radio 4 about food, and the latest "thinking" as to why we, both as a nation, and internationally, are becoming the planet's "fat fuckers".
This applies mainly to the UK and US (though also the majority of western Europe as well).
It was about "energy density" of food. The person doing the explaining, was some apparently well qualified dietician, and she explained that as a species, the human being is quite well suited to surviving on small quantities of meat, with vegetables and unrefined carbohydrate.
The principal (if I understood it correctly) being that we all have a natural, in built, idea of what our individual portion size should be. Which, when considering that if we are eating the types of food that the human species is adapted to, should be enough for healthy living. I.E. low to medium calorie stuff, that if we are still hungry after eating a "normal" portion, you could in fact, eat some more, without affecting you from a health point of view. In other words, food with low energy density.
Whereas, with fast food products, the manufacturers have used lots of shit, which more often than not, is cheap to use (for example, fat and sugar), and either add's bulk, and sometimes flavour (which might be considered by some to be a fair comment), but in fact has a high energy density. So that correlates that if you have a "normal" portion of fast food, with that high energy density, and then for whatever reason, you still feel hungry, then when you have some more to make up for the hunger, you are actually eating a considerable amount more "energy".
We are all aware that this extra energy, if not burned up by the body, is laid down as fat. The manufacturers go out of their way, to improve/increase the ways in which they can sell us "food" that is cheap for them to make, but has the highest possible "mark up".
In the radio programme, the dietician woman, used the analogy of people having access to a very large pan of "stew". They eat their normal portion, then if they are still hungry, they will automatically serve themselves another portion of the same size.
Because of this in built idea that we have of a "normal" portion, then in fact we should be varying the portion size, i.e. low energy dense foods, then eat what you want, whereas if the food has high energy density, then only eat a small portion, as a larger portion includes so much more energy, then the body has to work considerably harder to burn off the additional energy that has been consumed (and given today's sedantry lifestyles, doesn't happen).
Someone said to me the other day, that as a trolley of milk weighs just under a quarter of a tonne, then I wouldn't have to go to the gym so often. All I could think of at the time was that if the stupid cunt was a member of the real world, he might just end up working like me, in the region of 50 to 55 hours a week (that's without the fact that I am always working unsocial hours) - it would be nice to have the time (not to mention the money) to attend a gym once a fucking week.
OK, that's it for now. Hopefully I have managed to explain the concept of "energy density" in food so as to make it understandable. I'll review it later, if it's OK, I'll leave it, otherwise I'll re-edit for your enjoyment/derision/whatever.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
No, sorry, I haven't quite finished for today.
The other morning, I was listening to the radio while driving, when the news came on and one of the story's was about how scientist's, nutritionist's and dieticians can't make up their minds as to whether the "atkins diet" is healthy or not.
Having read some of the atkins books, while I realise that it's rather different view's could create controversy about dietary techniques, they still give you "food for thought".
As a species of "hunter gatherers", we have only been eating refined carbohydrates i.e. rice, potatoes, flour, etc etc for a couple of thousand years. Since the human race discovered farming. We have only been eating refined sugar for a couple of hundred years. This can really be traced back to the "industrial revolution" (yes, yes, I know that sugar was established before that, but only since industrialisation has it been cheaply available to the worlds general populace).
Now, as pointed out by Dr Atkins, that even though his diet is "low carbohydrate", most of the health problems associated with the "developed world" seem to have come about since the introduction of sugar into our diet. You would have to read some of his, or other dietary writings, to fully appreciate the difference between carbohydrate energy and sugar energy. As well as why it seems that our various governments don't do anything about reducing the amounts of such products that are consumed.
As far as I can see, it comes down to 3 words.
Vested interests.
Profit.
I'll see if I can dig up a little more about this later
regards
John
The other morning, I was listening to the radio while driving, when the news came on and one of the story's was about how scientist's, nutritionist's and dieticians can't make up their minds as to whether the "atkins diet" is healthy or not.
Having read some of the atkins books, while I realise that it's rather different view's could create controversy about dietary techniques, they still give you "food for thought".
As a species of "hunter gatherers", we have only been eating refined carbohydrates i.e. rice, potatoes, flour, etc etc for a couple of thousand years. Since the human race discovered farming. We have only been eating refined sugar for a couple of hundred years. This can really be traced back to the "industrial revolution" (yes, yes, I know that sugar was established before that, but only since industrialisation has it been cheaply available to the worlds general populace).
Now, as pointed out by Dr Atkins, that even though his diet is "low carbohydrate", most of the health problems associated with the "developed world" seem to have come about since the introduction of sugar into our diet. You would have to read some of his, or other dietary writings, to fully appreciate the difference between carbohydrate energy and sugar energy. As well as why it seems that our various governments don't do anything about reducing the amounts of such products that are consumed.
As far as I can see, it comes down to 3 words.
Vested interests.
Profit.
I'll see if I can dig up a little more about this later
regards
John
Well, I have managed to have a good think today, while doing a minor modification to our domestic heating system, I came round to thinking that this shouldn't be just my words linking, what I think are excellent and informative articles in the guardian and observer, but also some other stuff that I consider relevant, in the larger picture of life.
So, what am I on about ? Well, Thursday is shopping day. And yes, Clare usually goes to the local branch of Tesco's.
Nothing odd in that ! But, when it comes to the shopping, I'm not very good at it. If I do the weekly shop, I usually manage to spend too much. If Clare does the shop, then she feels it's a personal mission to spend as little as possible.
Now, this is what makes changing our shopping habits very difficult - well, not so difficult but it is not always easy to remember what should and should not really be bought at the supermarket.
Meat and veg are often the hardest habits too change. Especially as a lot of us under 50, don't remember a time without the convenience of the supermarket.
This means, that it takes an occassional visit to the local high street to remind us of "oh, so and so the bakers used to be there". Or "where's the fishmonger that used to be there?". These are the small shops, that sometimes didn't have or had run out of whatever it was that you where after. Those same small shops who wrapped things for us, with the individual service.
For fuck sake, even sainsbury's are advertising that they put the first few items purchased into a carrier bag for us.
Well, Whoopdey fucking doo! That's what I call service - NOT!
Ask any shop assistant in any given flavour of supermarket a very slightly obscure question about any given food product, and they will either read the label, and try and bullshit you or just give you the "sorry, I don't really know. That isn't my section" excuse while wearing an obvious "how the fuck should I know" expression. This is not a critiscm of shop assistant's. It's just the way that major retail employers only want staff who blindly stack the shelves, making sure any brand label is facing forward, so you make the mental link with that brands latest advertising campaign, and yes, you've guessed it, buy more shopping.
I find it rather a shame, that people of today are either too stupid or too complacent, to be able to see through the "way of life" that advertisers what us too have.
I mean, if a woman buys whatever make of sanitary product then she will end up with the life style of a TV model, and be able too prance about on a beach of white "caster sugar" sand? Get real. Better still, wake up and get a life.
If the woman who buys the whatever make of sanitary product, is 20 stone (280 pounds for the US or 128 kilo's for Europe) with a face like a Bulldog licking piss off of a stinging nettle, then she will still weigh 20 stones and be ugly as fuck. She might feel more comfortable at certain times of the year, but that's all.
Kids advertising. I think that parts of Scandanavia have got the right idea. Apparently, they have banned it completely. Lets allow our children to grow up without having macdonalds, BK, pizzahut, etc etc forces down their throats. Then maybe, as parents, who afterall, only want the best for their children, we can encourage our children to eat a little more of what is good for them i.e. food that is unpolluted with christ knows what sweetners, flavourings and preservatives. And not to end up with the "it doesn't taste like that at ????"
Also, there's the point that some of these "manufactured products" do taste "Sooooooooo Nice!" VVV hard to resist. I mean, lets face it, kid's aren't the only ones who are driven by the primeval flavour mentality. i.e. bitter and sour might mean that that food is rotten or toxic and sweet and creamy flavours must by their very nature be safe and edible.
With that, I'll leave you for today.
regards
John
So, what am I on about ? Well, Thursday is shopping day. And yes, Clare usually goes to the local branch of Tesco's.
Nothing odd in that ! But, when it comes to the shopping, I'm not very good at it. If I do the weekly shop, I usually manage to spend too much. If Clare does the shop, then she feels it's a personal mission to spend as little as possible.
Now, this is what makes changing our shopping habits very difficult - well, not so difficult but it is not always easy to remember what should and should not really be bought at the supermarket.
Meat and veg are often the hardest habits too change. Especially as a lot of us under 50, don't remember a time without the convenience of the supermarket.
This means, that it takes an occassional visit to the local high street to remind us of "oh, so and so the bakers used to be there". Or "where's the fishmonger that used to be there?". These are the small shops, that sometimes didn't have or had run out of whatever it was that you where after. Those same small shops who wrapped things for us, with the individual service.
For fuck sake, even sainsbury's are advertising that they put the first few items purchased into a carrier bag for us.
Well, Whoopdey fucking doo! That's what I call service - NOT!
Ask any shop assistant in any given flavour of supermarket a very slightly obscure question about any given food product, and they will either read the label, and try and bullshit you or just give you the "sorry, I don't really know. That isn't my section" excuse while wearing an obvious "how the fuck should I know" expression. This is not a critiscm of shop assistant's. It's just the way that major retail employers only want staff who blindly stack the shelves, making sure any brand label is facing forward, so you make the mental link with that brands latest advertising campaign, and yes, you've guessed it, buy more shopping.
I find it rather a shame, that people of today are either too stupid or too complacent, to be able to see through the "way of life" that advertisers what us too have.
I mean, if a woman buys whatever make of sanitary product then she will end up with the life style of a TV model, and be able too prance about on a beach of white "caster sugar" sand? Get real. Better still, wake up and get a life.
If the woman who buys the whatever make of sanitary product, is 20 stone (280 pounds for the US or 128 kilo's for Europe) with a face like a Bulldog licking piss off of a stinging nettle, then she will still weigh 20 stones and be ugly as fuck. She might feel more comfortable at certain times of the year, but that's all.
Kids advertising. I think that parts of Scandanavia have got the right idea. Apparently, they have banned it completely. Lets allow our children to grow up without having macdonalds, BK, pizzahut, etc etc forces down their throats. Then maybe, as parents, who afterall, only want the best for their children, we can encourage our children to eat a little more of what is good for them i.e. food that is unpolluted with christ knows what sweetners, flavourings and preservatives. And not to end up with the "it doesn't taste like that at ????"
Also, there's the point that some of these "manufactured products" do taste "Sooooooooo Nice!" VVV hard to resist. I mean, lets face it, kid's aren't the only ones who are driven by the primeval flavour mentality. i.e. bitter and sour might mean that that food is rotten or toxic and sweet and creamy flavours must by their very nature be safe and edible.
With that, I'll leave you for today.
regards
John
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Well, I know that I haven't really had time to do anything with this blog for a couple of months, but I have been rolling a couple of thoughts through my mind.
I have (for some strange, inexplicable reason) been pondering chicken and bacon. Well, more to the fact that I saw a programme on the TV about bacon sold online.
One of the main points being that the vast majority of bacon sold in UK supermarkets, has had water added. Now when "they" do this, some of the original flavour is lost, and monosodium glutomate is added (for that genuine meaty bacon flavour?). In my digging around, I find that chicken is also subjected to this process - though not usually with the MSG.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall something in my secondary school history lesson about millers adding chalk and other cheaper white powders to flour. This process was outlawed, and one of the results was the starting of "Weights and Measures" in the UK (I believe this is now one of the functions of the County Councils - again, I may be wrong).
So, if your chicken breast portion, shrinks dramatically during cooking or your rashers of bacon reduce to less than half (but leaving a meaty tasting, if slightly bitter residue) in the grill pan, you will know that "you've been had".
A crime, a crime, I hear you say. Well, no. These are "approved" techniques. Approved by who ? not fucking me. Either UK or EU government - most definitely. But also, approved of by the very bastards who produce the meat products - why, because it puts less meat on your plate and more money in their bank balances.
Purely by chance, last weekend, I was waiting to deliver to one of the stores that I "do" (milk, though that's if you can call, "standardised, pasturised, homogenised whole milk" milk!) and I came across "this" © The Observer 2003.
Once again, I was lost for words. It is beyond belief that both the producer (farmer) and manufacturer (parasite, bastard, etc etc) have been allowed to get away with things like this.
I am fully aware, that the outbreaks of "e-coli (154, I think)" that have actually killed some old people and possibly children is supposed to be because of "CONTAMINATION". But contaminated with what?
I'll tell you what, "faecal matter". Translated into english, to you and me, thats
SHIT !
'Cos that's exactly where the e-coli 154 bacteria comes from!
Right, I'll get back to you later, because just writing this is making me very very angry!
regards
John
I have (for some strange, inexplicable reason) been pondering chicken and bacon. Well, more to the fact that I saw a programme on the TV about bacon sold online.
One of the main points being that the vast majority of bacon sold in UK supermarkets, has had water added. Now when "they" do this, some of the original flavour is lost, and monosodium glutomate is added (for that genuine meaty bacon flavour?). In my digging around, I find that chicken is also subjected to this process - though not usually with the MSG.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall something in my secondary school history lesson about millers adding chalk and other cheaper white powders to flour. This process was outlawed, and one of the results was the starting of "Weights and Measures" in the UK (I believe this is now one of the functions of the County Councils - again, I may be wrong).
So, if your chicken breast portion, shrinks dramatically during cooking or your rashers of bacon reduce to less than half (but leaving a meaty tasting, if slightly bitter residue) in the grill pan, you will know that "you've been had".
A crime, a crime, I hear you say. Well, no. These are "approved" techniques. Approved by who ? not fucking me. Either UK or EU government - most definitely. But also, approved of by the very bastards who produce the meat products - why, because it puts less meat on your plate and more money in their bank balances.
Purely by chance, last weekend, I was waiting to deliver to one of the stores that I "do" (milk, though that's if you can call, "standardised, pasturised, homogenised whole milk" milk!) and I came across "this" © The Observer 2003.
Once again, I was lost for words. It is beyond belief that both the producer (farmer) and manufacturer (parasite, bastard, etc etc) have been allowed to get away with things like this.
I am fully aware, that the outbreaks of "e-coli (154, I think)" that have actually killed some old people and possibly children is supposed to be because of "CONTAMINATION". But contaminated with what?
I'll tell you what, "faecal matter". Translated into english, to you and me, thats
SHIT !
'Cos that's exactly where the e-coli 154 bacteria comes from!
Right, I'll get back to you later, because just writing this is making me very very angry!
regards
John
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
"This part" © The Guardian 2003 and "this part" © The Guardian 2003 have been linked for your delectation and enjoyment. The first link is a small critique of "factory fishing" and the second, is a precis of what some of the bastards will get upto, when they can't or won't pay a reasonable living wage. Admittedly, the reasons behind this may be more to do with those scumbags who own and run the major food retail chain's, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.
The main thrust of this particular post is to link "this" © The Guardian 2003.
It's quite a long article, but I think it's worth the read. It certainly gave me some idea of who is "skimming" what, from "who".
The main thrust of this particular post is to link "this" © The Guardian 2003.
It's quite a long article, but I think it's worth the read. It certainly gave me some idea of who is "skimming" what, from "who".
"This part" © The Guardian 2003 of my critiscm is a bit of "told you so". Now that's not to say that I have told YOU, but in my head, when I read this.
To be truthful, when I left school I was living in Wales, and went off to attend The Agricultural Department of the Tech & Agri' College in Carmarthen. I was to learn the basic's of milk, lamb, beef and pork production. I must say, I did enjoy my time there. It was a residential course and the other students on the course where a good bunch. From mixed backgrounds, i.e. some like me, involved in agriculture from an employment point of view (I worked part time on a "hill farm") to the sons and daughters of relatively major farming businesses.
I was eager, keen and conscientious (sorry if I've spelled it incorrectly). I was thirsting for information. As it turned out, after christmas of 1981, my grandmother died, leaving my parents her house in Hove. So when the course came to an end, we moved back to England. By the time we got "back", the season was coming to an end, so I had no choice but to register as unemployed. Though, I was already starting to doubt that my future was in the agricultural world.
Now, I will also admit, that as I get older, I find my personal and political views becoming more and more "left wing". This isn't for the politics "per se" and I certainly wouldn't consider myself any type of "communist", but this has more to do with the fact that my parents brought up the four of us, to have an honest and fair minded view of life. This results in a full and frank understanding that if the richest people in the world, had just a little "less", then the greater majority of poorer peoples would really have so much more!
I am lucky in many ways, that I never did return to the world of farming, mainly because it soon became apparent that the only ones who can make money from farming are the actual land owners (and in some cases, even they are struggling in the current "world climate"). So I would, in all truth, have ended up "on the dole", with "the square root of fuck all".
In my current capacity as a professional driver, I am a little disappointed that I have ended up working for a company, whose chairman is one of Britain's foodnazis, but that's mainly because openings for drivers in my area are limited. And however good my intentions may be, I have to earn a wage somewhere. "They can take your life, but they can't take your brains or your principals".
One of the reasons that I decided to compile this blog is because after reading the Guardian articles, I remembered my immediate, post school background, and the articles highlighted, for me at least the iniquitous nature of the "top management strata" with in the food industry.
I mean, it wouldn't seem so bad, if it wasn't for the apparent increase in certain "maladies" that I see around me. The eczema and so called "food allergies" that children seem to suffer from in increasing numbers, the cancers and heart disease. I am beginning to wonder how many more of these apparently "natural causes" of ill health could be laid at the door of the greedy bastards who run our food industries, through poor quality, high sugar, high fat and low fibre "cheap" foods, that they are convincing us to eat in larger and larger quantities.
Even, by reading every link that I have posted and will post, anyone can see that much much more needs to be done, so our "beloved leaders" of whichever "party" who happen to be in power, can see what is going on. They might even try to do something about it.
Proper funding for the UK food standard agency and appropriate information sharing between government departments would be an excellent start.
To be truthful, when I left school I was living in Wales, and went off to attend The Agricultural Department of the Tech & Agri' College in Carmarthen. I was to learn the basic's of milk, lamb, beef and pork production. I must say, I did enjoy my time there. It was a residential course and the other students on the course where a good bunch. From mixed backgrounds, i.e. some like me, involved in agriculture from an employment point of view (I worked part time on a "hill farm") to the sons and daughters of relatively major farming businesses.
I was eager, keen and conscientious (sorry if I've spelled it incorrectly). I was thirsting for information. As it turned out, after christmas of 1981, my grandmother died, leaving my parents her house in Hove. So when the course came to an end, we moved back to England. By the time we got "back", the season was coming to an end, so I had no choice but to register as unemployed. Though, I was already starting to doubt that my future was in the agricultural world.
Now, I will also admit, that as I get older, I find my personal and political views becoming more and more "left wing". This isn't for the politics "per se" and I certainly wouldn't consider myself any type of "communist", but this has more to do with the fact that my parents brought up the four of us, to have an honest and fair minded view of life. This results in a full and frank understanding that if the richest people in the world, had just a little "less", then the greater majority of poorer peoples would really have so much more!
I am lucky in many ways, that I never did return to the world of farming, mainly because it soon became apparent that the only ones who can make money from farming are the actual land owners (and in some cases, even they are struggling in the current "world climate"). So I would, in all truth, have ended up "on the dole", with "the square root of fuck all".
In my current capacity as a professional driver, I am a little disappointed that I have ended up working for a company, whose chairman is one of Britain's foodnazis, but that's mainly because openings for drivers in my area are limited. And however good my intentions may be, I have to earn a wage somewhere. "They can take your life, but they can't take your brains or your principals".
One of the reasons that I decided to compile this blog is because after reading the Guardian articles, I remembered my immediate, post school background, and the articles highlighted, for me at least the iniquitous nature of the "top management strata" with in the food industry.
I mean, it wouldn't seem so bad, if it wasn't for the apparent increase in certain "maladies" that I see around me. The eczema and so called "food allergies" that children seem to suffer from in increasing numbers, the cancers and heart disease. I am beginning to wonder how many more of these apparently "natural causes" of ill health could be laid at the door of the greedy bastards who run our food industries, through poor quality, high sugar, high fat and low fibre "cheap" foods, that they are convincing us to eat in larger and larger quantities.
Even, by reading every link that I have posted and will post, anyone can see that much much more needs to be done, so our "beloved leaders" of whichever "party" who happen to be in power, can see what is going on. They might even try to do something about it.
Proper funding for the UK food standard agency and appropriate information sharing between government departments would be an excellent start.
Thursday, June 05, 2003
So, who exactly are these "foodnazis" that I have titled this blog after?
Well, "This" © The Guardian 2003 names names of the "top ten".
But, for your delectation, I shall include the names and what their share of the market is. there are actually 2 lists. Firstly, the retailers
1. Wal-Mart (US) = 199bn
2. Carrefour (Europe) = 86bn
3. Ahold (Europe) = 53bn
4. Kroger (US) = 51bn
5. Metro (Europe) = 47bn
6. Albertson's (US) = 39bn
7. Kmart (US) = 39bn
8. Rewe (Europe) = 36bn
9. Tesco (Europe) = 34bn
10. Aldi (Europe) = 33bn
Source: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young
Then there's the Manufacturers
1. Nestle = 46.6bn
2. Philip Morris(Kraft) = 38.1bn
3. ConAgra = 27.6bn
4. UniLever = 26.7bn
5. PepsiCo = 25.1bn
6. ADM (corn milling) = 23.5bn
7. Tyson (meat processing) = 23.4bn
8. Cargill = 21.5bn
9. Coca-Cola = 20.1bn
10. Mars = 15.3bn
Source: Global Food Markets
Leatherhead Food International
I am making the presumption that these figures are in US dollars. Though that is largely irrelevant. Which ever way you look at them, it's "one fuck of a lot of money"!
Now as far as I'm concerned, those of you from nations with "constitutions" (as in similar to the US constitution) have quite a leg up over us in the UK, because if you could prove that some sort of ingredient/additive/process has caused you harm/illness/whatever, then that should give you legal rights to challenge/sue. Not that I am under any illusions that this would be an easy course to take, the manufacturers and retailers would probably resort to the kind of bollocks that has been "stock in trade" for legal entities that have defended "Big Tobacco" for decades.
Well, "This" © The Guardian 2003 names names of the "top ten".
But, for your delectation, I shall include the names and what their share of the market is. there are actually 2 lists. Firstly, the retailers
1. Wal-Mart (US) = 199bn
2. Carrefour (Europe) = 86bn
3. Ahold (Europe) = 53bn
4. Kroger (US) = 51bn
5. Metro (Europe) = 47bn
6. Albertson's (US) = 39bn
7. Kmart (US) = 39bn
8. Rewe (Europe) = 36bn
9. Tesco (Europe) = 34bn
10. Aldi (Europe) = 33bn
Source: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young
Then there's the Manufacturers
1. Nestle = 46.6bn
2. Philip Morris(Kraft) = 38.1bn
3. ConAgra = 27.6bn
4. UniLever = 26.7bn
5. PepsiCo = 25.1bn
6. ADM (corn milling) = 23.5bn
7. Tyson (meat processing) = 23.4bn
8. Cargill = 21.5bn
9. Coca-Cola = 20.1bn
10. Mars = 15.3bn
Source: Global Food Markets
Leatherhead Food International
I am making the presumption that these figures are in US dollars. Though that is largely irrelevant. Which ever way you look at them, it's "one fuck of a lot of money"!
Now as far as I'm concerned, those of you from nations with "constitutions" (as in similar to the US constitution) have quite a leg up over us in the UK, because if you could prove that some sort of ingredient/additive/process has caused you harm/illness/whatever, then that should give you legal rights to challenge/sue. Not that I am under any illusions that this would be an easy course to take, the manufacturers and retailers would probably resort to the kind of bollocks that has been "stock in trade" for legal entities that have defended "Big Tobacco" for decades.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
"This" © The Guardian 2003 article, is about food standards.
What I would have liked to have done is include the photographs from the article that might actually be on the guardian site, but I couldn't find them and I don't have the facility to post "scan's" of them at the time of writing this, so I will describe them:-
The "strawberry flavoured yoghurt", a nice, enticing view of a "tub" of the yoghurt. Underneath, the caption reads :- Yoghurt with added indredients: strawberry, oligofructose, gelling agents: pectin, locust bean gum; flavouring, thickner: modified starch; citric acid, artificial sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame K.
Yum fucking yum. Doesn't that sound, "just absolutely scrummy" eh!
Next is the "ready meal" of chicken casserole with dumplings. The caption reads :- Ingredients: water, chicken(20%), wheat flour, onion(8%), potato(7%), vegetable suet (hydrogenated palm oil, wheat flour) carrot(4%), swede(4%), leek(2%), chicken stock (chicken fat, duck fat, concentrated chicken broth, salt, flavouring, yeast extract, dextrin, lactose, vegetable concentrate, milk protein, glucose syrup), margarine, modified maize starch, roat chicken stock (concentrated chicken broth, salt, lactose, flavouring, duck fat, chicken fat, dextrin, glucose syrup, yeast extract, concentrated duck broth, milk protein, sunflower oil), salt, raining agent: baking powder; rapeseed oil, beef gelatin, dextrose, tomato puree, roasted barley, malt extract, milk protein, stabiliser; sodium phosphate; black pepper
Now ain't that just "lip smacking good" - NOT!
Finally, is the beautiful view of a "Melton Mowbray pork pie" - the caption reads:- Ingredients: pork(35%), wheat flour, water, modified maize starch, egg, salt, rusk, wheat gluten, gelling agent: pork gelatine; pepper, yeast extract, sugar, soya flour, mace, ginger.
At least I understand what about half of the "ingredients" of the pork pie actually are! whereas I haven't got a clue in the case of the other two products (oh how I wish I could show you the pictures - the products look sooooooo nice and edible!).
Though when you read the "ingredient" lists, of these "average" products, then multiply it by the number of products in you trolley basket/shopping cart every week, it's hardly suprising that the rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, various food allergies, etc etc etc, are on a steady increase.
Not only do we in "the west" seem to be poisoning ourselves, but our children as well. And to make it worse, we are allowing the fuckers who own the supermarkets who stock such products and the food "manufacturers" who produce these products, poison us, and in most cases, they don't have to tell what the "strangest" of ingredients are actually there for! The linked article gives you some idea.
Now, obviously, I can't say about other countries, but in the UK, it seems that most people "eat with their eyes"!
What a stupid statement, you might say. Well, to put it another way, it appears that if we see something that we think "looks" nice, then we correlate that with it tasting nice.
We don't seem to be eating with the two senses given to us by nature - taste and smell. After all those beautiful looking "golden delicious" apples on the fruit and veg counter look so marvellous don't they? It's true, they "look excellent", shame then, that they have little or no fucking taste. More bland "pap" churned out by Europe's apple farmers at the behest of the EU, but desired by the supermarkets and advertising agencies.
Maybe now you can see why I am starting to understand the point of view, as voiced by the "anti-capitalist" lobby, well certainly, from the food "angle" anyway!
TTFN, more later
What I would have liked to have done is include the photographs from the article that might actually be on the guardian site, but I couldn't find them and I don't have the facility to post "scan's" of them at the time of writing this, so I will describe them:-
The "strawberry flavoured yoghurt", a nice, enticing view of a "tub" of the yoghurt. Underneath, the caption reads :- Yoghurt with added indredients: strawberry, oligofructose, gelling agents: pectin, locust bean gum; flavouring, thickner: modified starch; citric acid, artificial sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame K.
Yum fucking yum. Doesn't that sound, "just absolutely scrummy" eh!
Next is the "ready meal" of chicken casserole with dumplings. The caption reads :- Ingredients: water, chicken(20%), wheat flour, onion(8%), potato(7%), vegetable suet (hydrogenated palm oil, wheat flour) carrot(4%), swede(4%), leek(2%), chicken stock (chicken fat, duck fat, concentrated chicken broth, salt, flavouring, yeast extract, dextrin, lactose, vegetable concentrate, milk protein, glucose syrup), margarine, modified maize starch, roat chicken stock (concentrated chicken broth, salt, lactose, flavouring, duck fat, chicken fat, dextrin, glucose syrup, yeast extract, concentrated duck broth, milk protein, sunflower oil), salt, raining agent: baking powder; rapeseed oil, beef gelatin, dextrose, tomato puree, roasted barley, malt extract, milk protein, stabiliser; sodium phosphate; black pepper
Now ain't that just "lip smacking good" - NOT!
Finally, is the beautiful view of a "Melton Mowbray pork pie" - the caption reads:- Ingredients: pork(35%), wheat flour, water, modified maize starch, egg, salt, rusk, wheat gluten, gelling agent: pork gelatine; pepper, yeast extract, sugar, soya flour, mace, ginger.
At least I understand what about half of the "ingredients" of the pork pie actually are! whereas I haven't got a clue in the case of the other two products (oh how I wish I could show you the pictures - the products look sooooooo nice and edible!).
Though when you read the "ingredient" lists, of these "average" products, then multiply it by the number of products in you trolley basket/shopping cart every week, it's hardly suprising that the rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, various food allergies, etc etc etc, are on a steady increase.
Not only do we in "the west" seem to be poisoning ourselves, but our children as well. And to make it worse, we are allowing the fuckers who own the supermarkets who stock such products and the food "manufacturers" who produce these products, poison us, and in most cases, they don't have to tell what the "strangest" of ingredients are actually there for! The linked article gives you some idea.
Now, obviously, I can't say about other countries, but in the UK, it seems that most people "eat with their eyes"!
What a stupid statement, you might say. Well, to put it another way, it appears that if we see something that we think "looks" nice, then we correlate that with it tasting nice.
We don't seem to be eating with the two senses given to us by nature - taste and smell. After all those beautiful looking "golden delicious" apples on the fruit and veg counter look so marvellous don't they? It's true, they "look excellent", shame then, that they have little or no fucking taste. More bland "pap" churned out by Europe's apple farmers at the behest of the EU, but desired by the supermarkets and advertising agencies.
Maybe now you can see why I am starting to understand the point of view, as voiced by the "anti-capitalist" lobby, well certainly, from the food "angle" anyway!
TTFN, more later
"This" © The Guardian 2003 article explains just a little of "the number's" of British supermarketing. I would imagine that it could be easily transposed to any of the main european nations or in an even more aggresively marketed terms, the United States (after all, the US is arguably the most aggressive trading market in the world). Personally, I find some of the figures quite alarming. For example, the 46 million doughnuts sold by Adsa each year. That might only seem to equate to 3 doughnuts to every 4 people in the UK, but when you think that quite a lot of people won't eat doughnuts (for various reasons), that's enough doughnuts to entomb most small towns in the UK.
Then the article also makes reference to the environmental aspect "It is estimated that a kilogramme of blueberries imported by plane from New Zealand produces the same quantity of carbon dioxide emissions as boiling a kettle 268 times". Now I find that little nugget alarming.
There are those around the world who go so far as to deny that there is an environmental problem (President Bush Jr and cohorts), and while not wanting to give their points of view credence, it is concieveable that the "greenhouse gases" problem, is, in fact, a natural cycle of mammoth proportions - that will correct it's self in it's own time.
Too that, I say that as we can't, conclusively tell, then why should we carry on as we are? why not try and reduce emissions of "greenhouse gases" so we don't make the situation any worse, at least we would be slowing down the "natural cycle" and not filling the pockets of the already "ultra rich"! (whereas in truth, we would be developing new markets for "them" to manage, control and profit from!). - sounds just a little "catch 22" doesn't it.
Then the article also makes reference to the environmental aspect "It is estimated that a kilogramme of blueberries imported by plane from New Zealand produces the same quantity of carbon dioxide emissions as boiling a kettle 268 times". Now I find that little nugget alarming.
There are those around the world who go so far as to deny that there is an environmental problem (President Bush Jr and cohorts), and while not wanting to give their points of view credence, it is concieveable that the "greenhouse gases" problem, is, in fact, a natural cycle of mammoth proportions - that will correct it's self in it's own time.
Too that, I say that as we can't, conclusively tell, then why should we carry on as we are? why not try and reduce emissions of "greenhouse gases" so we don't make the situation any worse, at least we would be slowing down the "natural cycle" and not filling the pockets of the already "ultra rich"! (whereas in truth, we would be developing new markets for "them" to manage, control and profit from!). - sounds just a little "catch 22" doesn't it.
The scene. Me (6'4", balding, late thirties, dressed slightly scruffily having just finished work) standing in a pulpit with a monitor as a lectern.
[sermon]
I still find it weird, I have always been a middle of the road sort of person, but when I stop to look at one of the links in my blog, strange thoughts, alien too me, start popping into my head.
Instead of looking at the news, every 1st May and thinking "scruffy lay about bastards, haven't you got anything better too do" with the scene's of vandalism, general unrest and sometimes violence. I now seem to feel that I am starting to understand why these "people" organise and execute such large scale "anti-capitalism" demonstrations, aimed at large industrial concerns, or maybe macdonalds, or the world bank and world trade organisation.
I can't work out whether I sympathise with them, I can't condone them (but that could be because I don't know enough about their "cause"), but now I can't find it in me to condemn them!
[/sermon]
(sorry, it just amused me to put this post in the form of some type of priest, sermonising bastardised HTML or VB)!!!
[sermon]
I still find it weird, I have always been a middle of the road sort of person, but when I stop to look at one of the links in my blog, strange thoughts, alien too me, start popping into my head.
Instead of looking at the news, every 1st May and thinking "scruffy lay about bastards, haven't you got anything better too do" with the scene's of vandalism, general unrest and sometimes violence. I now seem to feel that I am starting to understand why these "people" organise and execute such large scale "anti-capitalism" demonstrations, aimed at large industrial concerns, or maybe macdonalds, or the world bank and world trade organisation.
I can't work out whether I sympathise with them, I can't condone them (but that could be because I don't know enough about their "cause"), but now I can't find it in me to condemn them!
[/sermon]
(sorry, it just amused me to put this post in the form of some type of priest, sermonising bastardised HTML or VB)!!!
Monday, May 26, 2003
"This"© The Guardian 2003 is a classic example of the food industry's manipulation of the "third world" aka "developing country's/economies".
It seems to me that one of the main reasons the peoples of the "third world" are so easily exploited, is the lack of education amongst the general population of these countries, be they African, Central/South American or Asian/Oriental in origin. The western nations that actually own the companies doing the "exploiting", are the prime example of "if the rich were just a little bit less greedy, then those at the bottom of the social scale would have a lot more".
The only reason that large companies donate to charities, is that it is often "tax deductable" and makes "good PR", enhancing their image as "caring, sharing" companies.
As far as I am concerned, that's just a load of marketing bollocks!
Greed is one of the worst "human afflictions" and one of the most difficult to do anything about - almost as if it's human nature, to be greedy. It doesn't matter how you dress the word up, greed, usury, extortion, etc etc. it's still greed. We, in the "west" seem to have forgotten what it is, to have "enough".
The greed, when transferred into "power" is what the most "avaricious" want more of, than anything else. They don't actually care who they are exploiting and harming - it's so "cold blooded".
I can't remember who actually said, "that those who actively seek power the most, are actually those least suited to have the power they seek!". But, it certainly "strikes a cord" with me.
As I read more about these matters, I am fully aware that it is difficult to change things for the better, but where I can, I'll certainly have a go!
It seems to me that one of the main reasons the peoples of the "third world" are so easily exploited, is the lack of education amongst the general population of these countries, be they African, Central/South American or Asian/Oriental in origin. The western nations that actually own the companies doing the "exploiting", are the prime example of "if the rich were just a little bit less greedy, then those at the bottom of the social scale would have a lot more".
The only reason that large companies donate to charities, is that it is often "tax deductable" and makes "good PR", enhancing their image as "caring, sharing" companies.
As far as I am concerned, that's just a load of marketing bollocks!
Greed is one of the worst "human afflictions" and one of the most difficult to do anything about - almost as if it's human nature, to be greedy. It doesn't matter how you dress the word up, greed, usury, extortion, etc etc. it's still greed. We, in the "west" seem to have forgotten what it is, to have "enough".
The greed, when transferred into "power" is what the most "avaricious" want more of, than anything else. They don't actually care who they are exploiting and harming - it's so "cold blooded".
I can't remember who actually said, "that those who actively seek power the most, are actually those least suited to have the power they seek!". But, it certainly "strikes a cord" with me.
As I read more about these matters, I am fully aware that it is difficult to change things for the better, but where I can, I'll certainly have a go!
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Anyway, back to the food.
The campaign group "sustain" are "here" and it seems to be quite an informative site.
Lets face it, even though I am just coming to the end of my "precis" of the first of the guardians food supplements, I am no raving "food evanglist or environmentalist", just an ordinary person who has read something that has made me think about what, exactly, I am putting in my mouth (no pun intended!). I also believe that it is the responsible approach, and hope to be able to put at least some of the suggestions from the links to practical use - it will not be easy, I have no illusions about that!
As far at my blog is concerned, if I have got one more person to think about this, then it's been worth the effort and I shall try to keep it up? we'll see eh?
and so to the next bit!
The campaign group "sustain" are "here" and it seems to be quite an informative site.
Lets face it, even though I am just coming to the end of my "precis" of the first of the guardians food supplements, I am no raving "food evanglist or environmentalist", just an ordinary person who has read something that has made me think about what, exactly, I am putting in my mouth (no pun intended!). I also believe that it is the responsible approach, and hope to be able to put at least some of the suggestions from the links to practical use - it will not be easy, I have no illusions about that!
As far at my blog is concerned, if I have got one more person to think about this, then it's been worth the effort and I shall try to keep it up? we'll see eh?
and so to the next bit!
If you have a look "here" © The Guardian 2003 then you will see the text from the back page of the first supplement of the three.
It has some very pertinent suggestions as to what YOU can do about this. Now it maybe, that you don't really care, of think that it doesn't affect you? Well, if you have read the linked articles you should have worked out that it does.
Lets face it, most of us shop at the supermarkets, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that the greatest responsibility lies with them.
Ha, I was just having a cigarette while I pondered what I should put next, when I recalled something I read about "tobacco products and additives" so I have kindly found "this" © ASH (presumably). It's a bit of a "mammoth read" and I don't claim to be able to follow it completely, but the salient bits stick out like a sore thumb, 600 different additives? it makes the mind boggle. Surely, if you are a smoker, then you should be able to buy a "tobacco product" that contains just that - Tobacco, and not god knows what shit that the tobacco companies decide would be appropriate to sell you more cigarettes etc. Another good example of how the "Bastard" fuck things up eh!
It has some very pertinent suggestions as to what YOU can do about this. Now it maybe, that you don't really care, of think that it doesn't affect you? Well, if you have read the linked articles you should have worked out that it does.
Lets face it, most of us shop at the supermarkets, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that the greatest responsibility lies with them.
Ha, I was just having a cigarette while I pondered what I should put next, when I recalled something I read about "tobacco products and additives" so I have kindly found "this" © ASH (presumably). It's a bit of a "mammoth read" and I don't claim to be able to follow it completely, but the salient bits stick out like a sore thumb, 600 different additives? it makes the mind boggle. Surely, if you are a smoker, then you should be able to buy a "tobacco product" that contains just that - Tobacco, and not god knows what shit that the tobacco companies decide would be appropriate to sell you more cigarettes etc. Another good example of how the "Bastard" fuck things up eh!
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Ok, so for those of you with concerns about what your kids are eating or pressuring you to buy, here's your "bit" © The Guardian 2003 with the main focus being on the "avertisers", who I consider are almost as guilty as the piss poor producers of such "nutritious, delicious" so called foods.
To make things worse, I spotted my own food for thought, when this morning I drove past the glaxosmithkline buildings on the A4 Great West road in west London. They have proudly paid a "sign writer" probably a lot of money so their brand names are on the building on the west bound carriageway, in lights! Some of the brands are mentally linked with foods, and you forget that they are actually produced by one of the world's "chemical stormtroopers". I won't bother to name the brands, but all you have to do is look at the label and you will probably find the tell tale "gsk" trademark/logo somewhere on it.
Also, how about this little nugget © The Observer 2003. Personally i'm printing it off to read, even as I type this post. There is also this© The Guardian 2003 on the same subject.
I often think that there's nothing like a nice piece of fish. But after reading The Observers' offering, I am seriously starting to wonder if there is anything that the "bastards" won't try and fuck up.
You know what they say, "eat shit, after all 100 billion fly's can't be wrong!"
To make things worse, I spotted my own food for thought, when this morning I drove past the glaxosmithkline buildings on the A4 Great West road in west London. They have proudly paid a "sign writer" probably a lot of money so their brand names are on the building on the west bound carriageway, in lights! Some of the brands are mentally linked with foods, and you forget that they are actually produced by one of the world's "chemical stormtroopers". I won't bother to name the brands, but all you have to do is look at the label and you will probably find the tell tale "gsk" trademark/logo somewhere on it.
Also, how about this little nugget © The Observer 2003. Personally i'm printing it off to read, even as I type this post. There is also this© The Guardian 2003 on the same subject.
I often think that there's nothing like a nice piece of fish. But after reading The Observers' offering, I am seriously starting to wonder if there is anything that the "bastards" won't try and fuck up.
You know what they say, "eat shit, after all 100 billion fly's can't be wrong!"
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
The Bite the dust © The Guardian 2003 article is where the relevance of the link in the previous post is bourne out.
This is because there seems to be no cohesive policy from either the EU or US about pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. In a lot of cases, it appears that if one country/continent bans a substance, for whatever reason, then the manufacturers just sell it somewhere else that doesn't have the same strict controls that we enjoy in the developed world.
The best example of this is "DDT". It's use has been banned here for at least 20 years (probably more), but is still used in parts of Africa.
Though I should also remind you of my comment about lacking cohesive policies. A fine example of this is the use of hormone growth implants in the US (and other places). I understand that there use is banned in Europe, hence the limited/non-existant market for US beef imports to the EU (notwithstanding that europe probably has enough of it's own beef already!)
But, read the article and then try to understand why I have titled this blog in such a way!
This is because there seems to be no cohesive policy from either the EU or US about pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. In a lot of cases, it appears that if one country/continent bans a substance, for whatever reason, then the manufacturers just sell it somewhere else that doesn't have the same strict controls that we enjoy in the developed world.
The best example of this is "DDT". It's use has been banned here for at least 20 years (probably more), but is still used in parts of Africa.
Though I should also remind you of my comment about lacking cohesive policies. A fine example of this is the use of hormone growth implants in the US (and other places). I understand that there use is banned in Europe, hence the limited/non-existant market for US beef imports to the EU (notwithstanding that europe probably has enough of it's own beef already!)
But, read the article and then try to understand why I have titled this blog in such a way!
Ok, so if anyone has actually read my blog so far, I thought i'd include this © The Guardian 2003 because while it may not seem immediately relevant, I will explain why in further posts.
Now, while i,m not an obsessive environmentalist, (difficult seeing that I drive a truck for a living) I would be more than happy too see our governments underpin the cost (as it would probably be a "loss leader") of processing waste into fuel. And maybe use it to heat public buildings (that's if the UK has any public buildings left and that they haven't all been sold off to property companies based in Bermuda - see private eye issue number 1080 dated 16th May 2003 for their special report about the scandal of the sale of inland revenue and customs & excise buildings) or hospitals etc.
In otherwords, use the "calorific value" for heating, and don't try and feed it too us!
There is also the knock on of reducing greenhouse gases produced by the additional aircraft required to freight the products mentioned in the link article - though it's not conclusive that greenhouse gases actually exist, is it President Bush!, just ask residents of Los Angeles about levels of pollution
Now, while i,m not an obsessive environmentalist, (difficult seeing that I drive a truck for a living) I would be more than happy too see our governments underpin the cost (as it would probably be a "loss leader") of processing waste into fuel. And maybe use it to heat public buildings (that's if the UK has any public buildings left and that they haven't all been sold off to property companies based in Bermuda - see private eye issue number 1080 dated 16th May 2003 for their special report about the scandal of the sale of inland revenue and customs & excise buildings) or hospitals etc.
In otherwords, use the "calorific value" for heating, and don't try and feed it too us!
There is also the knock on of reducing greenhouse gases produced by the additional aircraft required to freight the products mentioned in the link article - though it's not conclusive that greenhouse gases actually exist, is it President Bush!, just ask residents of Los Angeles about levels of pollution
Monday, May 19, 2003
Well, if you've read the linked article for "the sausage factory", then that gives you an idea why I find it necessary to use expletives like "fucking angry" in my posts. I will not apologise for this, it's about the only way I can convey my strength of feeling in respect of this.
So, when you have had time to mull this over, why don't you try having a look at this © The Guardian 2003. Some of the issues mentioned in the link are also to be found in Dr Atkins diet books. Particulaly the stuff about vitamins and sugar. It's quite strange to see sugar being linked to cancer (though the links to type 2 diabetes are really new), but the comments made by the Atkins book, certainly seem to "ring true". Why hasn't any of this type of information had "proper" exposure in the press? or has any study been carried out into the possible health risks of excessive consumption of sugar? Well, I don't have the background in research to find out, but it wouldn't suprise me to find that "Big Sugar?" has used it's vested interests to stiffle any critiscm (though I'm sometimes suprised at my cynical views!).
So, when you have had time to mull this over, why don't you try having a look at this © The Guardian 2003. Some of the issues mentioned in the link are also to be found in Dr Atkins diet books. Particulaly the stuff about vitamins and sugar. It's quite strange to see sugar being linked to cancer (though the links to type 2 diabetes are really new), but the comments made by the Atkins book, certainly seem to "ring true". Why hasn't any of this type of information had "proper" exposure in the press? or has any study been carried out into the possible health risks of excessive consumption of sugar? Well, I don't have the background in research to find out, but it wouldn't suprise me to find that "Big Sugar?" has used it's vested interests to stiffle any critiscm (though I'm sometimes suprised at my cynical views!).
The Sausage Factory © The Guardian 2003 is a good place to start. It points out about the use of sausage in the British national diet, but as some of you may recall from your school history "we Brits" are a national of historical mongrels. In fact, it could (argueably) be said that the only nation on the planet with a more diverse make up, would be the Americans. But to continue the "sausage theme" of this post, most of the suppliers of the British genetic make up are also "sausage eaters", even though this is often considered a childish anti German remark, especially used during times of conflict.
But it's true to say, that us, the Germans, French, Spanish, Americans, amongst others, are sausage eaters. It's also true to say that "British Sausages" are made to EU regulations.
So, as mentioned in the article, the sausage was originally produced to enable butchers to use and sell the poorer quality cuts of meat. But as the link article points out, these days the manufacturers and their lobbyist's have pushed the phrases"poorer quality cuts of meat" and "offcuts" about as far as is possible.
This is all done in the name of "Profit". That seems bad enough, but then check out the other so called "ingredients" of the "School Sausage" 50% "meat", of which 30% is pork fat with a bit of jowl, and 20% mechanically recovered chicken meat, 17% water, 30% rusk and soya, soya concentrate, hyrolysed protein, modified flour, dried onion, sugar, dextrose, phosphates, preservative E221 sodium sulphite, flavour enhancer, spices, garlic flavouring, antioxidant E300 (ascorbic acid), colouring E128 (red 2G). Casings: made from collagen from cow hide © The Guardian 2003.
Maybe it's "the power of the press", but when I read things like that, it makes me VERY FUCKING ANGRY. Most of us Brits, will have eaten something similar in our time.
Who is the bigger criminal? The person who burgles you home? or maybe the person who owns the factory that makes product's like the one mentioned above i.e. Covertly tries to make you eat rubbish?
But it's true to say, that us, the Germans, French, Spanish, Americans, amongst others, are sausage eaters. It's also true to say that "British Sausages" are made to EU regulations.
So, as mentioned in the article, the sausage was originally produced to enable butchers to use and sell the poorer quality cuts of meat. But as the link article points out, these days the manufacturers and their lobbyist's have pushed the phrases"poorer quality cuts of meat" and "offcuts" about as far as is possible.
This is all done in the name of "Profit". That seems bad enough, but then check out the other so called "ingredients" of the "School Sausage" 50% "meat", of which 30% is pork fat with a bit of jowl, and 20% mechanically recovered chicken meat, 17% water, 30% rusk and soya, soya concentrate, hyrolysed protein, modified flour, dried onion, sugar, dextrose, phosphates, preservative E221 sodium sulphite, flavour enhancer, spices, garlic flavouring, antioxidant E300 (ascorbic acid), colouring E128 (red 2G). Casings: made from collagen from cow hide © The Guardian 2003.
Maybe it's "the power of the press", but when I read things like that, it makes me VERY FUCKING ANGRY. Most of us Brits, will have eaten something similar in our time.
Who is the bigger criminal? The person who burgles you home? or maybe the person who owns the factory that makes product's like the one mentioned above i.e. Covertly tries to make you eat rubbish?
Sunday, May 18, 2003
So, back to this "stuff" that I've been reading recently. The suppliments mentioned in the earlier post have/are being produced over 3 weekends.
So far, it's made for quite interesting reading. The first "sup" is about "the way we eat now". It's produced from a "Uk" point of view - obviously, it's produced by a UK broadsheet newspaper.
over the course of the next few days, I will highlight some of the points they have raised.
But to start with, what is my direct interest? Well, for the last 3 or so weeks, I have been following the Atkins diet. Somewhat losely, I might add.
This is because my partner, Clare, has for the last 12 months or so, been "doing" the Rosemary Connelly diet. She has had a reasonable amount of success and has managed to loose about 2 stones (about 28 pounds in the states and 13.5 kilo's in Europe). But, she has "plateau'd" and has hovered at + or - 1 pound a week for the last month. She hasn't been following the diet plan as strictly as she could have, but she isn't a diet addict, and if she "sin's", she is quite happy to forget it and carry on.
So, also recently, we have been "treated" to a series of tv programmes from the BBC called "diet trials", whereby they have followed 4 groups of people, who have, in turn, followed the 4 most popular diet schemes in the UK. The Rosemay Connelly diet plan, Weight Watchers, The Atkins diet and Slimfast.
Personally, apart my current efforts to "do" the Atkins diet, the only one that I had previously tried was Slimfast. And I agreed with the majority of those who had to try it on the TV series, it works if you can stick with it, but I haven't got a clue what they put in the various meal product's, and they tasted absolutely FUCKING foul.
The Atkins plan is quite different. It's low carbohydrate, high protein and can also be quite high fat. I get the impression that Dr Atkins didn't always agree with conventional dietary ideals that seem to have the view that " all calories are equal". The Atkins diet is quite involved, he recommends that you have various test's for blood sugar and cholesterol amongst others. I might have considered these if I was mega serious about weight loss, but it's a case of giving it a try and seeing what happens.
The idea of the diet appeals to me, because I figure that any diet where "proper" meat, virtually all cheese, cream, butter and seafood are OK, then it's alright by me.
Salad veg is unlimited, though non-salad veggies have to be worked out as most of them have an inherent carbohydrate content, that needs to be taken into account for the diet. He also points out that when reading the label on food packages, if they contain much in the way of sugars or just strange sounding ingredients that end in "OSE" then it's probably worth avoiding then - "OSE" materials are usually some form of sugar.
So far, it's made for quite interesting reading. The first "sup" is about "the way we eat now". It's produced from a "Uk" point of view - obviously, it's produced by a UK broadsheet newspaper.
over the course of the next few days, I will highlight some of the points they have raised.
But to start with, what is my direct interest? Well, for the last 3 or so weeks, I have been following the Atkins diet. Somewhat losely, I might add.
This is because my partner, Clare, has for the last 12 months or so, been "doing" the Rosemary Connelly diet. She has had a reasonable amount of success and has managed to loose about 2 stones (about 28 pounds in the states and 13.5 kilo's in Europe). But, she has "plateau'd" and has hovered at + or - 1 pound a week for the last month. She hasn't been following the diet plan as strictly as she could have, but she isn't a diet addict, and if she "sin's", she is quite happy to forget it and carry on.
So, also recently, we have been "treated" to a series of tv programmes from the BBC called "diet trials", whereby they have followed 4 groups of people, who have, in turn, followed the 4 most popular diet schemes in the UK. The Rosemay Connelly diet plan, Weight Watchers, The Atkins diet and Slimfast.
Personally, apart my current efforts to "do" the Atkins diet, the only one that I had previously tried was Slimfast. And I agreed with the majority of those who had to try it on the TV series, it works if you can stick with it, but I haven't got a clue what they put in the various meal product's, and they tasted absolutely FUCKING foul.
The Atkins plan is quite different. It's low carbohydrate, high protein and can also be quite high fat. I get the impression that Dr Atkins didn't always agree with conventional dietary ideals that seem to have the view that " all calories are equal". The Atkins diet is quite involved, he recommends that you have various test's for blood sugar and cholesterol amongst others. I might have considered these if I was mega serious about weight loss, but it's a case of giving it a try and seeing what happens.
The idea of the diet appeals to me, because I figure that any diet where "proper" meat, virtually all cheese, cream, butter and seafood are OK, then it's alright by me.
Salad veg is unlimited, though non-salad veggies have to be worked out as most of them have an inherent carbohydrate content, that needs to be taken into account for the diet. He also points out that when reading the label on food packages, if they contain much in the way of sugars or just strange sounding ingredients that end in "OSE" then it's probably worth avoiding then - "OSE" materials are usually some form of sugar.
Over the last two weekends, I have been reading a suppliment that has been published in "The Guardian" about the food industry. This has encouraged me to produce this blog, and though I have mercilessly linked the various articles from The Guardian (and hopefully haven't missed attributing anything of theirs with copyright notification), I feel that it is necessary to disseminate this type of knowledge as far and as wide as possible.
I can't honestly say that I know a huge amount about the food industry (even though I work in the "transport" side of it). Well, apart from the fact that I like to eat some of the products of this very industry.
I am a pretty "middle of the road" sort of person, but at 37 years old, I have become aware that my personal views are becoming more "left wing" the older I get. Why this should be, I'm not entirely sure, but I suppose the older you get the more "inequalities", unfairness and general lack of consideration for others you see around you.
That may sound really pompous, but it's just observation of the world around me.
I can't honestly say that I know a huge amount about the food industry (even though I work in the "transport" side of it). Well, apart from the fact that I like to eat some of the products of this very industry.
I am a pretty "middle of the road" sort of person, but at 37 years old, I have become aware that my personal views are becoming more "left wing" the older I get. Why this should be, I'm not entirely sure, but I suppose the older you get the more "inequalities", unfairness and general lack of consideration for others you see around you.
That may sound really pompous, but it's just observation of the world around me.
So why did I feel it necessary to put the little disclaimer as the first post, well, the main direction of this blog is critical.
Critical of those who in the name of profit, are changing the way the global food industry is being managed.
I am convinced that if they could, they would re-process and re-package Shit, then pay an advertising agency lots of money to market it as some new and wonderful environmentally friendly, nutritious food!.
Critical of those who in the name of profit, are changing the way the global food industry is being managed.
I am convinced that if they could, they would re-process and re-package Shit, then pay an advertising agency lots of money to market it as some new and wonderful environmentally friendly, nutritious food!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)